Now that winter is drawing near (northern hemisphere), I see the global warming chatter has died down (right on cue).

Reasonable to me wrote:

I think this post is pretty fair/ reasonable

Don't think so. First of all it is self-graded. There is no possible way that this can be done in an unbiased manner. Second of all you are calling it 'pretty'. Shouldn't we be getting beyond judgement along such superficial lines as physical beauty? Finally, your claim that it is 'fair' shows your racist inclinations. Fairness is no way way superior to dark skinned - only different.

Raaaa wrote:

I think "climate change" isn't scary enough. Perhaps it's time to develop a new term to incite more fear?

THE WAR AGAINST THE EARTH

I like that!

One thing clear from this thread is that there is NO scientific consensus for AGW. Furthermore, if you do a google search for the various reporting agencies and "conflict of interest," you will quickly discover that each climate body reports the results expected by its funders. thank you and have a good day.

jopblo wrote:

(1) One thing clear from this thread is that there is NO scientific consensus for AGW.

(2) Furthermore, if you do a google search for the various reporting agencies and "conflict of interest," you will quickly discover that each climate body reports the results expected by its funders. thank you and have a good day.

A little bit new to this world are we?

(1) One cannot deduce that there is or is not a scientific consensus by reading through a thread of anonymous Internet posters, 99% of whom are completely ignorant of the topic at hand.

(2) If you do a google search for ANY RESEARCH TOPIC and "conflict of interest," you will quickly discover that EVERY RESEARCH INSTITUTE reports the results expected by its funders.

Thanks for your insightful input, though. I guess we should make that 99.1%.

If Al Gore said Sandy was because of climate change, I have to believe it.

jopblo wrote:One thing clear from this thread is that there is NO scientific consensus for AGW.

I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion from a running message board discussion?

A few people have asserted that 2012 is on track to be the hottest year on record. Can anyone link me to some meaningful data that shows that?

Thanks

People talk as if global warming is a bad thing.

Which is why we don't use running message boards to measure consensus.Instead look at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htmor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeFor those reading this that think there is actually some scientific controversy, there isn't. Please recognize that it was learned with the tobacco industry in the 60s that disinformation campaigns that simply stay on message that that there is a real scientific controversy over the science work amazingly effectively. I am actually stunned at the number of biology students that think the evidence of evolution (common ancestry etc.) is equivocal.

jopblo wrote:

One thing clear from this thread is that there is NO scientific consensus for AGW. Furthermore, if you do a google search for the various reporting agencies and "conflict of interest," you will quickly discover that each climate body reports the results expected by its funders. thank you and have a good day.

Well gee, thanks for alerting us to your profound intellect, however you are wrong. First of all, there have been several postings on this thread which clearly show different scientific evaluations and outcomes, thus, by simply reading this running board thread I CAN deduce there is no consensus. Secondly, if it is so obvious to you that you can find a conflict of interest at the heart of all research then none of it should be believed. But again, thanks for pointing out how intelligent you are.

For those silly people who believe that AGW denial is funded by the oil industry, please explain why 350.org is funded by Rockefeller money. thank you in advance for capitulating.

Also, for those who think there is some conspiracy, recognize that any scientist who could convince the field of an alternative to AGW would become world famous, win lots of prizes, be given endowed chairs at major universities. Examples within science generally, include people like Stanley Prusiner who went against one hundred years of evidence that at least some infectious diseases are not caused by microbes/viruses and Barry Marshall, who went against 100 years of evidence that the stomach harbors microbes that cause infectious disease. But they did this by working hard and doing the experiments and collecting the evidence. Not by lobbying schools, or congressmen, or blogging, or arguing on running message boards. Both Prusiner and Marshall won Nobel prizes for their work. Go read their biographies. They are really inspiring and educational about how real science is done.

jopblo wrote:

One thing clear from this thread is that there is NO scientific consensus for AGW. Furthermore, if you do a google search for the various reporting agencies and "conflict of interest," you will quickly discover that each climate body reports the results expected by its funders. thank you and have a good day.

Pediatric gynecologist wrote:

...- BRM actually refuted himself. He also completely ignored what I said about the planet warming whether humans are contributing or not. And evidently I am both angry and a liberal for understanding, and giving credit to, basic facts and figures.

Also, BRM doesn't seem to understand that what happened before humans and their pollution was around bears no relationship at all to whether we can and do affect climate. He seems think think that climate scientists are unaware of natural cycles.

Bravo!

Bump for a boisterous BRM rebuttal.

(1) Truly brilliant! Because a few ignorant posters can find a few articles from a few scientists there must be no scientific consensus. It must be fascinating to live in such a brilliant mind! With a mind like that I imagine that you CAN deduce nearly anything that you find comforting.

(2) The point is that your statement that the research organizations report findings in line with the expectations of the funders is vacuous. This is always true. Did it never occur to your brilliant mind that organizations will tend to fund research into topics that are of interest to them in order to more fully understand them and to help get the word out? The fact that you find some grand conspiracy theory lurking in this is hilarious and, if applied consistently, would indeed lead to the preposterous notion that, as you put it, "(no research) should be believed".

Please sit down before you hurt yourself. You probably need a cigarette break by now anyway. A few puffs never hurt anyone, did they? After all, there's reams of research that shows cigarette smoking is good for you. And certainly there is no scientific consensus that it is harmful.

You know, in reality, this is not a fair fight or a genuine debate. It is a vicious beat-down of people who are completely ignorant of the relevant science by those who are not, with those on one side offering a steady stream of objective information and those on the other breathless comments about Al Gore and the supposed vacuity of the term "climate change" while they giggle over believing to have scored points against the evil liberal-science orthodoxy cabal.

But on the Internet, things are different, and idiots can easily convince themselves that they are making sense, because if you want to find a link to "info" that supports an idea, however idiotic, then you can do so with ease.

In other words, this discussion is a micro version of the greater AGW "debate," with the deniers firing off barely readable one- or two-liners while bitching about those who come across as arrogant and the realists patiently ripping their silliness to shreads.

Thank you, middle professor and Smarter Than You Is Easy. It can be frustrating to deal with hordes of loud, willfully stupid people, but in the end if it becomes raw entertainment, then so be it.

2) The point is that your statement that the research organizations report findings in line with the expectations of the funders is vacuous. This is always true.

Research organizations certainly do not always report results inline with funding. A relevant example is

Of the hundreds of millions of public money (billions?) that has been spent on so-called complimentary and alternative medicine research, there have been effectively no studies that have show the efficacy of these methods above placebo. This is probably an area where government funders did have an interest in finding positive results (since positive results would bring in more funding from congress). Certainly the part of congress that effectively created this funding had an interest. But the research published is not in their favor.

Thanks for contributing that huge ad-hominen attack--you who support the party of facts!!!

jopblo wrote:

For those silly people who believe that AGW denial is funded by the oil industry, please explain why 350.org is funded by Rockefeller money. thank you in advance for capitulating.

It's well documented that Exxon actively funded efforts to challenge the validity of climate science starting around the time of the Kyoto Accords (~1997) with the goal of creating the appearance of controversy within the climate science community disproportionate to anything that existed in fact. Around 2006 they started to disengage from this approach, presumably out of fear that it might eventually put them in a "tobacco settlement" situation. By 2009 Exxon came out in support of a carbon tax, which would probably be more favorable to their interests than the cap and trade alternative, thus implicitly accepting the general validity of AGW science

So to answer your question the reason energy interests are beginning to get behind "clean energy" concerns is because they recognize where the science is leading and it is in their best interests to position themselves for that inevitability.

You guys are really taking the fun out of my trolling efforts.