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

JunkScience.com, eh?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

JunkScience.com, eh?

Do you have a problem with what he says? If so, what?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
JunkScience.com, eh?

Do you have a problem with what he says? If so, what?

Not a problem, just a question: How does he come up with the cost of the Kyoto Treaty?

0 Replies

No clue. Do you have any data on that? Or do you know him to be prone to misrepresenting figures like that? I honestly have not seen any figures on this.

0 Replies

Foxy, if he doesn't have any data and I don't have any data, that obviously doesn't mean I can't critizise him for not having any data to back up his claims. Right?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxy, if he doesn't have any data and I don't have any data, that obviously doesn't mean I can't critizise him for not having any data to back up his claims. Right?

All he did was say that his group came up with the calculations. He didn't elaborate on how that was done but he was writing a short piece too. But without having our own data all we can do is say that we have not verified his. Unless we know him to be an untruthful person, I have no reason to think he doesn't have some basis for the number, but that number was just one of many points he made in the piece. Based on other information, some of which has been discussed in this thread, I have to believe he knows more about the details than I do.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

All he did was say that his group came up with the calculations. He didn't elaborate on how that was done but he was writing a short piece too. But without having our own data all we can do is say that we have not verified his. Unless we know him to be an untruthful person, I have no reason to think he doesn't have some basis for the number, but that number was just one of many points he made in the piece. Based on other information, some of which has been discussed in this thread, I have to believe he knows more about the details than I do.

His group? Did you check the website? It's just one guy, as far as I can tell, who is mightily annoyed by the Kyoto treaty.

That doesn't mean he has to be an untruthful person. Maybe that's his very honest, but very unscientific guess. He's free to do so. See, I could, uh, guess that the benefits of the Kyoto Treaty for the member nations (due to technology advantage in renewable resources, in research, in savings due to energy-efficiency standards and so on) are, let's say, $200 billion a year. Yep. Sounds good....

Now, let me set up a website.....

0 Replies

Yeah, check him out. His name is Stephen Milloy. He got his start as a paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry. He has founded several "institutes" to promote what he calls "sound science", saying tobacco doesn't cause cancer and second hand smoke is harmless. Which were bankrolled by the tobacco companies. He's since branched out into agitation against clean air laws, environmental cleanup, and climate change. And his backing is, guess what, chemical and energy companies, including ExxonMobil. He infuriates climate scientists because he twists data, omits figures, and flings invective. Basically he's a shill. He's the junk (non)scientist, not the people he rails against.

0 Replies

Old Europe: The most frequently cited peer-reviewed study on the Kyoto Protocol's costs and benefits has been Steven Nordhaus and Boyer: Requiem for Kyoto -- an Economic analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. Energy Journal (2000) (PDF here) The study uses a model that considers multiple possible global warming outcomes, calculates the present discounted value of their costs and benefits, and calculates a probability-weighted average. This model, called the RICE model, has also been published in the peer-reviewed literature. (Nordhaus, Yang: RICE: A Regional Dynamic General Equilibrium Model of Optimal Climate-Change Policy. American Economic Review (1996)) The model has since become the standard in environmental economics publications.

William Nordhaus of Yale University is one of the most respected economists in America and the opposite of a Bush shill. Nevertheless, he and Boyer find that Kyoto is more trouble than it's worth.

That said, I agree that citations to a random website don't prove anything. After all, we can all "make calculations" and publish them our websites.

0 Replies

Interestingly, temperatures are already reaching heights not modelled.

Some of my state's (wine a HUGE industry here) premium wine growing areas, the Barossa, and Clare Valley, are, if conditions progress as they have been the last few years, going to become too hot for vines..perhaps within a decade.

Actually, my state may simply become unviable.

0 Replies

Thomas writes

Quote:

That said, I agree that citations to a random website don't prove anything. After all, we can all "make calculations" and publish them our websites.

Nor did I presume to suggest that his calculations are correct or that his statements are verifiable. I just found them interesting. (The piece was posted somewhere other than his website.) It is also telling that much of the immediate reaction was to attack the writer (or the messenger) rather than comment on the data/statements etc.

IMO the source is always a consideration in whether it should be considered trustworthy at face value, and these days there are precious few, if any, purely objective sources with no dog in the fight. But if we refuse to even look at information that opposes what we want to be the right stuff, I think junk science is going to be the norm rather than the exception.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
JunkScience.com, eh?

Do you have a problem with what he says? If so, what?

Well, first, let's get clear on "who" he is...

Quote:

Milloy the lobbyist
Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=56)) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

Much more Steve Milloy fun here.. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

0 Replies

foxfyre wrote

Quote:

It is also telling that much of the immediate reaction was to attack the writer (or the messenger) rather than comment on the data/statements etc.

There's a reason for that. When a person makes his living lobbying for energy and tobacco companies, that person falls outside of the set "people who can be trusted to forward unbiased or truthful information on smoking or global warming".

0 Replies

And from Blatham's oh so much more objective source we find publications they've published which include:

Publications including articles and the following books by CMD staff:

Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry

Mad Cow USA, which documents the PR coverup of human and animal health risks from mad cow disease

Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future

Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq

Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America Into a One-Party State
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Actually, my state may simply become unviable.

About two years ago, the New York Times reported that as a result of several unusually warm summers, German vinters have been having a series of exceptionally good years. So, don't worry about your wine, Deb, we'll just send you ours. (Personally, I never cared much for Australian wine to begin with. Let's fire up our SUVs and put an end to it already. Razz

)

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

foxfyre wrote
Quote:
It is also telling that much of the immediate reaction was to attack the writer (or the messenger) rather than comment on the data/statements etc.

There's a reason for that. When a person makes his living lobbying for energy and tobacco companies, that person falls outside of the set "people who can be trusted to forward unbiased or truthful information on smoking or global warming".

Then the same can be said for people who work for anti smoking advocacy groups and those associated with environmental activism with respect to global warming.

0 Replies

Except for the fact that the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly on their side (and, yes, the scientific consensus IS for global warming, and it ain't even a close call).

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
foxfyre wrote
Quote:
It is also telling that much of the immediate reaction was to attack the writer (or the messenger) rather than comment on the data/statements etc.

There's a reason for that. When a person makes his living lobbying for energy and tobacco companies, that person falls outside of the set "people who can be trusted to forward unbiased or truthful information on smoking or global warming".

Then the same can be said for people who work for anti smoking advocacy groups and those associated with environmental activism with respect to global warming.

No, george, the same can't be said.

For example, the entire medical profession stands to "gain" economically from the health-destructive effects of smoking but they don't fall out on the side of the tobacco corporations - they place themselves in clear and loud opposition and form the core of anti-smoking activism. If they did fund pro-smoking lobbies, in order to forward some notion of their short term economic benefit, then we'd have something comparable to the moral standing (and trustworthiness) of the fellow above.

There is no comparison between the funding and organization put in place by both tobacco and energy and those who stand in opposition. There is no moral equivalence either. Nor is their a motivational equivalence. All those differences are key.

Your formulation allows only for motivation and morality of the shortsighted and completely selfish sort. That's not only a morally impoverished idea, it's flatly false.

0 Replies

Hear, hear.

0 Replies

It could easily be said that most or all of the 'scientists' supporting the people-causd global warming theory receive their funding depending on how much evidence exists for such. If the 'consensus' was that there is no scientific basis for global warming caused by human activity, there would be no need for further study and the funding goes away.

So far, it seems that it is mostly those scientists whose funding/income is not dependent on a human caused global warming crisis are not finding much to support that theory, and by no means are all dependent on the energy industries for their funding though they may be used as 'expert witnesses'.

There are all kinds of reasons for furthering a particular point of view if one needs a particular outcome.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know