Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Take the first fellow on your list. He has no science degrees and was previously a stockbroker and carpenter (that's all I could find so far).

He set up this group in 2003 with a $100,000 grant from Exxon who have made further yearly contributions.

And you might want to follow up on other groups to which he appears to be connected...eg Heartland Institute...heavily funded by the tobacco industry. Or Frontiers of Freedom, for another.

0 Replies

Doesn't change any of the errors in the Gore film. You can not like the group as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the errors exist.

Oh, I fixed the wiki page btw. It's not quite so biased now.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Doesn't change any of the errors in the Gore film. You can not like the group as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the errors exist.

If it's a fact. Which you have failed to establish yet.

0 Replies

Exxon lit those fires in Cali too. Evil Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Doesn't change any of the errors in the Gore film. You can not like the group as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the errors exist.

If it's a fact. Which you have failed to establish yet.

I failed to establish? I didn't do the work, I merely presented the link. It's up to you to read it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george

You have a strong science background and you ought to be more familiar with what's going on here. Global warming is only one of many issues effected. Papers and reports written by teams of research scientists working in government agencies are regularly censored, altered, redacted, or returned for rewrites because the political appointees in charge (usually untrained in the related sciences) find them politically unpalatable. The reports aren't "on message" and/or would be poorly received by particular interest groups upon which this administration depends for electoral and financial support. The issues are diverse and these are just a very few:

- reproductive technologies such as safety of the morning after pill, efficacy of condoms for prevention of pregnancy and transmission of HIV
- efficacy of educational programs like those promoting sexual abstinence as compared to those promoting sexual education
- relationship between abortion and cancer rates
- health risks related to mercury, tobacco, paints and many other compounds produced as byproducts of industry or as products for sale
- benefits of breast feeding
- saftey issues related to pharmaceuticals
- health and safety issues related to the foods we eat
- automobile safety
- science curricula related to the evolution of biological species

I just don't know enough of the particulars of these cases to comment intelligently. I certainly won't deny that editing has occurred. The degree to which it may well have been warranted and the degree to which it was not are far from clear. I do know from prior experience that government service often does bring out some rather strange behaviors in some folks who become obsessed with their moment of apparent power and misuse the situation to proselytize for their favorite idea however distantly it may be related to their assigned responsibility. Administrations of both parties, properly in my view, work to see to it that the actions of senior officials reflect the declared policies of the Administration. The chief difference is that, owing to their different views and constituencies, they tend merely to suppress different things. (I know it infuriates you when I assess things this way, but everything I have seen and done in my professional life reinforces this view.)

0 Replies

Look McG. I'm completely confident that regardless of any information I or others might send your way, you won't bother doing anything but shallow study of these matters and you will do them via a very narrow band of rightwing sources. You aren't going to be changing your mind on any of this stuff anytime soon. Because you don't want to.

But you aren't representative, for which I'm most happy. This is a battle your side has already lost and now it is merely a matter of wresting policy-making power away from, particularly, this administration and the Republican Party. And that's about to happen.

So then it becomes a matter of citizens getting increasingly active (which they will as the growing negative consqences increase further) and pushing the new administration to get their asses in gear. They too will be seriously lobbied and pressured by the energy (and related) vested interests. But as you may have noticed, the business community broadly is increasingly turning towards policy change as well because global warming is going to seriously hurt many of them, most notably insurance/banking industries.

So, go ahead and hold whatever ideas in your noggin which feel most delightful to you.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Thomas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Doesn't change any of the errors in the Gore film. You can not like the group as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the errors exist.

If it's a fact. Which you have failed to establish yet.

I failed to establish? I didn't do the work, I merely presented the link. It's up to you to read it.

When you cite a source for the truth of the facts it purports to be stating, then it is up to you to establish that the source is credible. There are many links on the internet that one might present. Few of them are credible sources of information.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Thomas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Doesn't change any of the errors in the Gore film. You can not like the group as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the errors exist.

If it's a fact. Which you have failed to establish yet.

I failed to establish? I didn't do the work, I merely presented the link. It's up to you to read it.

When you cite a source for the truth of the facts it purports to be stating, then it is up to you to establish that the source is credible. There are many links on the internet that one might present. Few of them are credible sources of information.

Like Wiki?

0 Replies

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Look McG. I'm completely confident that regardless of any information I or others might send your way, you won't bother doing anything but shallow study of these matters and you will do them via a very narrow band of rightwing sources. You aren't going to be changing your mind on any of this stuff anytime soon. Because you don't want to.

But you aren't representative, for which I'm most happy. This is a battle your side has already lost and now it is merely a matter of wresting policy-making power away from, particularly, this administration and the Republican Party. And that's about to happen.

So then it becomes a matter of citizens getting increasingly active (which they will as the growing negative consqences increase further) and pushing the new administration to get their asses in gear. They too will be seriously lobbied and pressured by the energy (and related) vested interests. But as you may have noticed, the business community broadly is increasingly turning towards policy change as well because global warming is going to seriously hurt many of them, most notably insurance/banking industries.

So, go ahead and hold whatever ideas in your noggin which feel most delightful to you.

So, now that you have stepped down from your soapbox, let me ask you a question.

Do you believe Al Gore's movie, which is being brandied about as the truth, is completely factually accurate?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
george

You have a strong science background and you ought to be more familiar with what's going on here. Global warming is only one of many issues effected. Papers and reports written by teams of research scientists working in government agencies are regularly censored, altered, redacted, or returned for rewrites because the political appointees in charge (usually untrained in the related sciences) find them politically unpalatable. The reports aren't "on message" and/or would be poorly received by particular interest groups upon which this administration depends for electoral and financial support. The issues are diverse and these are just a very few:

- reproductive technologies such as safety of the morning after pill, efficacy of condoms for prevention of pregnancy and transmission of HIV
- efficacy of educational programs like those promoting sexual abstinence as compared to those promoting sexual education
- relationship between abortion and cancer rates
- health risks related to mercury, tobacco, paints and many other compounds produced as byproducts of industry or as products for sale
- benefits of breast feeding
- saftey issues related to pharmaceuticals
- health and safety issues related to the foods we eat
- automobile safety
- science curricula related to the evolution of biological species

I just don't know enough of the particulars of these cases to comment intelligently. I certainly won't deny that editing has occurred. The degree to which it may well have been warranted and the degree to which it was not are far from clear. I do know from prior experience that government service often does bring out some rather strange behaviors in some folks who become obsessed with their moment of apparent power and misuse the situation to proselytize for their favorite idea however distantly it may be related to their assigned responsibility. Administrations of both parties, properly in my view, work to see to it that the actions of senior officials reflect the declared policies of the Administration. The chief difference is that, owing to their different views and constituencies, they tend merely to suppress different things. (I know it infuriates you when I assess things this way, but everything I have seen and done in my professional life reinforces this view.)

george
Everything about you, other than your personality, infuriates me.

I've followed this issue (editing of findings for political purposes) with some consistency. This administration is unique, at least in the pervasiveness and ubiquity of how it has operated in this area as it has been in others (eg politicization of justice, populating the green zone with untrained political loyalists, depriving funding to traditionally dem voting/supporting entities while increasing funding to, eg, church organizations, K street, etc). Rove and others truly did plan for a thirty year Republican dominance and the strategies included placing personnel (loyal Bushies) in as many critical decision-making points as possible, tightly managing information flows so that they stayed on message, and diverting wealth to facilitate organizational and electoral advantage.

I hope you understand that even attempting to achieve a thirty year dominance (some conservative voices have phrased it as 'permanent' dominance) is fundamentally in opposition to our traditional notions of how a democracy must function so as to remain a democracy.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

blatham wrote:
Look McG. I'm completely confident that regardless of any information I or others might send your way, you won't bother doing anything but shallow study of these matters and you will do them via a very narrow band of rightwing sources. You aren't going to be changing your mind on any of this stuff anytime soon. Because you don't want to.

But you aren't representative, for which I'm most happy. This is a battle your side has already lost and now it is merely a matter of wresting policy-making power away from, particularly, this administration and the Republican Party. And that's about to happen.

So then it becomes a matter of citizens getting increasingly active (which they will as the growing negative consqences increase further) and pushing the new administration to get their asses in gear. They too will be seriously lobbied and pressured by the energy (and related) vested interests. But as you may have noticed, the business community broadly is increasingly turning towards policy change as well because global warming is going to seriously hurt many of them, most notably insurance/banking industries.

So, go ahead and hold whatever ideas in your noggin which feel most delightful to you.

So, now that you have stepped down from your soapbox, let me ask you a question.

Do you believe Al Gore's movie, which is being brandied about as the truth, is completely factually accurate?

I doubt it. But it doesn't have to be 'completely factually accurate'. Einstein might have had the unified field theory wrong but most everything that floated about in his noggin was right. Nobody, other than some fruitcake literalist, is going to make a claim that all the truth has been captured.

I'm at a disadvantage in all of this because my science education includes a single course in geology. I won't be wading into the complex scientific discussions unless the Buddhists have it right and another lifetime is around the corner. On a2k, there is perhaps a mere handful of individuals who have the education and expertise to address the relevant sciences properly.

That puts me in the same boat as most everyone else here, along with the vast majority of citizens, and with yourself. But that doesn't mean we aren't unarmed to delve in and achieve some degree of understanding on the real states of affairs or the likely states of affairs. Here, as elsewhere in our lives, we understand that if someone has a personal or financial interest in some conclusion being reached, then that lack of objectivity cautions us to refuse to take their claims as truthful or accurate. Judges do this every day. Where people have been untruthful previously or inaccurate previously, we end up in the same place.

0 Replies

I read the piece linked by McG. It's a bullshit hack job full of assertions with almost no links to factual information to back them up. Many of the '35' errors are differences of opinion and nothing more. Most of the 'errors' pointed out are not in fact errors at all, but simply ways in which the author tries to disparage the message sent by Mr. Gore in the movie.

I have a pretty difficult time believing that the guy who wrote the piece knows one f*cking thing about what he's talking about. I challenge anyone who supports it to explain why a document such as this, lacking factual attribution for its' claims, should be considered proof of anything at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
Look McG. I'm completely confident that regardless of any information I or others might send your way, you won't bother doing anything but shallow study of these matters and you will do them via a very narrow band of rightwing sources. You aren't going to be changing your mind on any of this stuff anytime soon. Because you don't want to.

But you aren't representative, for which I'm most happy. This is a battle your side has already lost and now it is merely a matter of wresting policy-making power away from, particularly, this administration and the Republican Party. And that's about to happen.

So then it becomes a matter of citizens getting increasingly active (which they will as the growing negative consqences increase further) and pushing the new administration to get their asses in gear. They too will be seriously lobbied and pressured by the energy (and related) vested interests. But as you may have noticed, the business community broadly is increasingly turning towards policy change as well because global warming is going to seriously hurt many of them, most notably insurance/banking industries.

So, go ahead and hold whatever ideas in your noggin which feel most delightful to you.

So, now that you have stepped down from your soapbox, let me ask you a question.

Do you believe Al Gore's movie, which is being brandied about as the truth, is completely factually accurate?

I doubt it. But it doesn't have to be 'completely factually accurate'. Einstein might have had the unified field theory wrong but most everything that floated about in his noggin was right. Nobody, other than some fruitcake literalist, is going to make a claim that all the truth has been captured.

I'm at a disadvantage in all of this because my science education includes a single course in geology. I won't be wading into the complex scientific discussions unless the Buddhists have it right and another lifetime is around the corner. On a2k, there is perhaps a mere handful of individuals who have the education and expertise to address the relevant sciences properly.

That puts me in the same boat as most everyone else here, along with the vast majority of citizens, and with yourself. But that doesn't mean we aren't unarmed to delve in and achieve some degree of understanding on the real states of affairs or the likely states of affairs. Here, as elsewhere in our lives, we understand that if someone has a personal or financial interest in some conclusion being reached, then that lack of objectivity cautions us to refuse to take their claims as truthful or accurate. Judges do this every day. Where people have been untruthful previously or inaccurate previously, we end up in the same place.

Well, I do have a BS in Biology and did my senior thesis on the effects of elevated levels of co2 on the enviroment, so I do have a small amount of background and education on the subject, though I claim to be no expert by any means.

Al Gore's film is being taught as fact. there is no questioning that. It's being distributed to schools to be presented as such. I am actually surprised by the reaction merely posting a link that demonstrates some of the errors in the film has received.

You scoff at the people pointing out the errors as nothing more then a front for Exxon, yet seem unconcerned that basically, lies are being presented as fact.

But, it's good to see a small concession from you. "we understand that if someone has a personal or financial interest in some conclusion being reached, then that lack of objectivity cautions us to refuse to take their claims as truthful or accurate." That pretty much sums up the Gore movie.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I read the piece linked by McG. It's a bullshit hack job full of assertions with almost no links to factual information to back them up. Many of the '35' errors are differences of opinion and nothing more. Most of the 'errors' pointed out are not in fact errors at all, but simply ways in which the author tries to disparage the message sent by Mr. Gore in the movie.

I have a pretty difficult time believing that the guy who wrote the piece knows one f*cking thing about what he's talking about. I challenge anyone who supports it to explain why a document such as this, lacking factual attribution for its' claims, should be considered proof of anything at all.

Cycloptichorn

I doubt you read it then. Every point references what data was used to dispute the relevant point. Perhaps the reading level was too high for you to understand.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I read the piece linked by McG. It's a bullshit hack job full of assertions with almost no links to factual information to back them up. Many of the '35' errors are differences of opinion and nothing more. Most of the 'errors' pointed out are not in fact errors at all, but simply ways in which the author tries to disparage the message sent by Mr. Gore in the movie.

I have a pretty difficult time believing that the guy who wrote the piece knows one f*cking thing about what he's talking about. I challenge anyone who supports it to explain why a document such as this, lacking factual attribution for its' claims, should be considered proof of anything at all.

Cycloptichorn

I doubt you read it then. Every point references what data was used to dispute the relevant point. Perhaps the reading level was too high for you to understand.

You shoulda just kept your mouth shut, Mcg. Now I get to prove what a fool you are on this topic.

Point 2 - no links, attribution or references. Just opinion.

Point 3 - References 'a paper' published in 2003; no link or title of paper.

Point 4 - References 'scientific papers' but doesn't say which ones.

Point 5 - Assertion, no links or references.

Point 6 - Assertion, no links or references.

Point 7 - Political attack on Gore, no evidence presented. Two graphs, no attribution presented for either graph.

Point 8 - Uses different data then Gore did to draw different conclusions. No link to their data at all; assertions.

Point 9 - Assertions, no links or references.

Point 10 - Assertions. References to IPCC report but no links or specifics.

Point 11, 12, 13 - all Assertions with no references given. Claims that science has been 'discredited' but doesn't say by whom or link to that.

Point 14 - Graph with no attribution, Assertions.

Point 15, 16 - Assertions and Graphs with no links or attributions.

---

I could go on for the rest of them, but it's pretty clear that you didn't read the piece. At all. And if you did, you should be f*cking ashamed of yourself for posting it here as if it meant anything. Any nutjob with a website can write up something like this, but without links or attribution it's useless.

Think maybe in the future, you could stick to the topics in which you will embarrass yourself slightly less? Great.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Take the first fellow on your list. He has no science degrees and was previously a stockbroker and carpenter (that's all I could find so far).

He set up this group in 2003 with a $100,000 grant from Exxon who have made further yearly contributions.

And you might want to follow up on other groups to which he appears to be connected...eg Heartland Institute...heavily funded by the tobacco industry. Or Frontiers of Freedom, for another.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that since Exxon might have funded this group, that means that they are wrong.

I fail to see the logic there.
Both sides in the global warming debate are being funded by companies and groups that agree with the respective positions taken by whatever group they are funding.

Why is it wrong for Exxon or other energy groups to fund their "side" of the argumenyt yet its not wrong for the other side to get private funds?

Does it make their respective arguments or positions any less valid?
Should all research in this matter be privately funded?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Both sides in the global warming debate are being funded by companies and groups that agree with the respective positions taken by whatever group they are funding.

Why is it wrong for Exxon or other energy groups to fund their "side" of the argumenyt yet its not wrong for the other side to get private funds?

Yes, quite a lot of sunshine, tides, and wind producing companies fund the climate change groups ...

Private ... is Exxon state owned?

0 Replies

MM said

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that since Exxon might have funded this group, that means that they are wrong.

Not "might have". It plopped down $100,000 as seed money to establish the group.

No, it doesn't mean they are wrong. It means there's a bloody good chance they don't care in the slightest whether they are wrong or right so long as they achieve a PR objective.

Quote:

I fail to see the logic there.
Both sides in the global warming debate are being funded by companies and groups that agree with the respective positions taken by whatever group they are funding.

Oh for goodness sakes. What entity or entities do you see comparable to the oil and energy and related industries (plastics) on the 'other side'? MIT science faculty?

Quote:

Why is it wrong for Exxon or other energy groups to fund their "side" of the argumenyt yet its not wrong for the other side to get private funds?

Find, please, what funding you are assuming is there and who is doing it and compare/contrast numbers and then think about vested interests.

Quote:

Does it make their respective arguments or positions any less valid?
Should all research in this matter be privately funded?

Tell me about the arguments that the tobacco industry has forwarded over the last forty years, via front groups of 'contrarian scientific voices' which the tobacco industry funded. Begin now.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know