IOW if Obama says cutting your dick off will save the whales..

*snip*

Dear Leader

Originally posted by xxvicexx

IOW if Obama says cutting your dick off will save the whales..

 

*snip*

 

Dear Leader

Picture is stupid and the line included in it is moronic.

Obama tools...dumber then the dirt and not afraid to show it.

Originally posted by xxvicexx

Picture is stupid and the line included in it is moronic.

 

Obama tools...dumber then the dirt and not afraid to show it.

 

 

When calling people stupid it is best not to misspell words.

Fishermage, fine.  I'll dig up the best papers in the field if I have time tomorrow.  Will be a good refresher on the state of the science. also get you some info on scientists against govt intervention.  Don't have time for a full lit search tonight.

One thing I'm curious about.. if you say the government is influencing reasearch through funding, shouldn't most of the climate reasearch done in the US for the past 8 years sort of support the conservative position in this issue?

I'm out for the night.

There is a very simple experiment you can do at home for, say  $300.  Build 2 ,1' Plexi-glass  cubes, have a valve come out of each.  Rent a Oxygen tank and a CO2 tank (chem shops do this a decent prices).  Place a sensor end thermometer in each cube, seal cube (needs to be air tight).  Grab 2 equal wattage work lamps (same brand bulbs and all).  Hook both tanks to the corresponding boxes.  Fill each box to say 15 psi, turn lamp on, close valves.  Have each lamp on for a set time (say 30 min), turn lamps off.  Watch and record how fast each box cools.  Fairly easy, no?

Edit:  If you feel nervous of using O2, you can just use the CO2, and a standard air compresser, but results will not be as dramatic.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by xxvicexx

Picture is stupid and the line included in it is moronic.

 

Obama tools...dumber then the dirt and not afraid to show it.

 

 

 

When calling people stupid it is best not to misspell words.

Fishermage, fine.  I'll dig up the best papers in the field if I have time tomorrow.  Will be a good refresher on the state of the science. also get you some info on scientists against govt intervention.  Don't have time for a full lit search tonight.

One thing I'm curious about.. if you say the government is influencing reasearch through funding, shouldn't most of the climate reasearch done in the US for the past 8 years sort of support the conservative position in this issue?

I'm out for the night.

No, because regardless of the administration in power, government promotes itself. That is how government funding of the sciences has corrupted the whole business of science.

At any rate I look forward to real information.

EDIT: you conveniently forget however, that you were the one who started this nonsense about the corruption of the science through funding, by dicsounting what people said because they took monet from big oil. If big oil corrupts science, big government can corrupt science even more.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Munki

...

No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out. 
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.

You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.

You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...

Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.

Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?

You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?

 I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced.  Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.

Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.

I did not create a straw man out of your arguement. Distrusting any research that is funded by an industry or government is silly.
Scientists are notoriously relentless in their persuit of being right. Im simply calling it a conspiracy theory because I think its rediculous; you've been showing me absoluty no respect so I feel no obligation to be nice, respectful, or perfectly percise. If you feel like nit-picking my sentence structure and choice of words, go for it, but it contributes nothing to this thread.

Your very simply dismissing ideas, evidence and studies purely on the basis that their money came from people with an interest.
I don't know where your finding emotional arguments. Nor has anybody arguing with you been using any fallacies in their arguments. People may have attacked you on the side, but their argument never hinged on the statement that your being rediculous.
Neither oil companies nor governments have a sizeable influence on the people they fund. As I have said earlier, as a researcher you have "whistle blowing" mentioned constatly. Not to mention, as said earlier, if somebody was to find something actually solid and conclusive evidence for one side of the argument, it would get out. Its a HUGE thing... Their name would be in the histroy books.

If you want to nit-pick fallacies, your building straw man out of peoples arguments by ignoring most of the post and simply summing it up as an insult and a fallacy. Your throwing a red herring ad hominem attack when you claim were being emotional and that "real believers in science" would never say what we say.
Not to mention your poisoning the well when we discuss scientific papers by claiming the government funding corrupts the research. I'm hoping Enkindu finds some interesting papers, I've been interested for a while in digging through papers but being a Computer Science major and knowing mostly Mathmaticians and Biochemists/Biologists I really have nobody whos really up to date in the field.

But Im out for the night, I think its pointless untill Enkidu posts the papers, then we can see whats left after that.

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Munki

...

No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out. 
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.

You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.

You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...

Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.

Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?

You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?

 I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced.  Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.

Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.

I did not create a straw man out of your arguement. Distrusting any research that is funded by an industry or government is silly.
Scientists are notoriously relentless in their persuit of being right. Im simply calling it a conspiracy theory because I think its rediculous; you've been showing me absoluty no respect so I feel no obligation to be nice, respectful, or perfectly percise. If you feel like nit-picking my sentence structure and choice of words, go for it, but it contributes nothing to this thread.

Your very simply dismissing ideas, evidence and studies purely on the basis that their money came from people with an interest.
I don't know where your finding emotional arguments. Nor has anybody arguing with you been using any fallacies in their arguments. People may have attacked you on the side, but their argument never hinged on the statement that your being rediculous.
Neither oil companies nor governments have a sizeable influence on the people they fund. As I have said earlier, as a researcher you have "whistle blowing" mentioned constatly. Not to mention, as said earlier, if somebody was to find something actually solid and conclusive evidence for one side of the argument, it would get out. Its a HUGE thing... Their name would be in the histroy books.

If you want to nit-pick fallacies, your building straw man out of peoples arguments by ignoring most of the post and simply summing it up as an insult and a fallacy. Your throwing a red herring ad hominem attack when you claim were being emotional and that "real believers in science" would never say what we say.
Not to mention your poisoning the well when we discuss scientific papers by claiming the government funding corrupts the research. I'm hoping Enkindu finds some interesting papers, I've been interested for a while in digging through papers but being a Computer Science major and knowing mostly Mathmaticians and Biochemists/Biologists I really have nobody whos really up to date in the field.

But Im out for the night, I think its pointless untill Enkidu posts the papers, then we can see whats left after that.

 

I am only claiming that government corrupts research IN RESPONSE to Endiku implying that industry funding corrupts research. Why didn't you go after HIM when he did the first poisoning of the well, but instead went after my response to HIM doing it. I specifically said why I brought up government funding being as corrupting as business, not more.

I have looked at both sides myself, and find that I am on  the side that is skeptical of man-made global warming, skeptical that is is a problem, and skeptical that we should use government force to "do something" about it."

I will state it clearly for you: I do not know if the amount of Carbon Dioxide we release is a significant factor in the climate. I do not see enough evidence to prove that. I see the "evidence" on both sides tend to cancel each other out. The day someone convinces me with real evidence that I can see for myself is the day I change my mind -- same as every major change in my life. Evidence will convince me.

Also, the minute they can actually come up with a theory that has real predictive value, I will change.

Now, on to the rest of your charges of my supposed use of fallacies. I am not creating a straw man, I am not positing anything -- I am looking to be convinced by evidence which I have not seen. Instead of making a charge, please show where I did what you are saying.

I am claiming people are using emotionalism when they use an appeal to fear. That's not a red herring, it's stating what they are doing. It is not a substitution for the argument, it is in addition to the argument. real believers in science do not attack people. I have not attacked anyone, but Endiku came on saying "I am a real scientist!" and then started attacking people. I merely called him on that. Sabian said, "it is okay to lie about this," so I called him on that. None of that is part of my argument -- those were observations.

I did not discount the evidence people gave with attacks. I discounted evidence with evidence. In response, Endiku said "those guys are liars because they get money from big oil."

That BEGAN the discussion of funding, but you, for some reason, are ignoring that.

The moment someone presents evidence and deals with all criticism without launching the attack, "those guys are funded by big oil," I'll be very interested in what they have to say.

I'm still waiting. I can't wait to see what he's got.

Here's a nice article from John Stossel that sums up my feelings on this issue fairly well:

abcnews.go.com/2020/Story

Posting from work.  I'll still make good on my research, but a point comes to mind when reading about funding issues:

Industry has no other reason to fund science than to improve its own profitability, which makes me much more concerned about attempts to manipulate results.  There is NO reason for industry to fund unbiased science.

On the other hand, funding from organizations like NSF and NIH is overseen by academics who's reputations would be severely compromised by funding projects with biased outcomes.  When work is peer reviewed it generall becomes know quickly if results have been manufactured- repeatability is one of the hallmarks of good science.

I realize that you may not trust the government and blowhard politicians like Al Gore (I swear to god that guy did more to muck up this issue than to help the situation) but you shouldn't be so quick to assume that all academic researchers are bought and paid for.

Like I said before, if a scientist could provide solid data that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were NOT and important part of current climate issues I'm pretty sure they would be headed for a Nobel prize.  It has happened before- the guy that said Helicobacter pylori caused gastric ulcers was a laughingstock until his work was repeated and the data was found to be solid (yes he got the Nobel for this).

You call yourself a skeptic- and I consider myself a skeptic as well.  All ethical scientists are skeptics- the very method that they live by requires them to constantly question and reevaluate their own ideas. Of course there are "sellouts" that make their living telling people what they want to hear just like "expert witnesses" in the courtroom.  As much as you don't seem to like looking at the funding issue in this debate, I think looking at the motive of people providing money for research is important.

I stand by the assertion that academic research scientists have nothing to gain from finding anything other than the truth, while industry funded scientists have a very clear cut agenda.

Will try to get by the library later today, all i have is pubmed at work.

 Edit: spelling

Originally posted by Enkindu

Posting from work.  I'll still make good on my research, but a point comes to mind when reading about funding issues:

Industry has no other reason to fund science than to improve its own profitability, which makes me much more concerned about attempts to manipulate results.  There is NO reason for industry to fund unbiased science.

On the other hand, funding from organizations like NSF and NIH is overseen by academics who's reputations would be severely compromised by funding projects with biased outcomes.  When work is peer reviewed it generall becomes know quickly if results have been manufactured- repeatability is one of the hallmarks of good science.

I realize that you may not trust the government and blowhard politicians like Al Gore (I swear to god that guy did more to muck up this issue than to help the situation) but you shouldn't be so quick to assume that all academic researchers are bought and paid for.

Like I said before, if a scientist could provide solid data that anthropomorphic greenhouse emissions were NOT and important part of current climate issues I'm pretty sure they would be headed for a Nobel prize.  It has happened before- the guy that said Helicobacter pylori caused gastric ulcers was a laughingstock until his work was repeated and the data was found to be solid (yes he got the Nobel for this).

You call yourself a skeptic- and I consider myself a skeptic as well.  All ethical scientists are skeptics- the very method that they live by requires them to constantly question and reevaluate their own ideas. Of course there are "sellouts" that make their living telling people what they want to hear just like "expert witnesses" in the courtroom.  As much as you don't seem to like looking at the funding issue in this debate, I think looking at the motive of people providing money for research is important.

I stand by the assertion that academic research scientists have nothing to gain from finding anything other than the truth, while industry funded scientists have a very clear cut agenda.

Will try to get by the library later today, all i have is pubmed at work.

 

I see no difference between the corruption of government funding than industry funding. Government has a vested interest in making itself bigger, stronger and more powerful -- government tends to attract people who want more government. The dollars follow accordingly.

there is more money flowing from goverments (all with a vested interest in making their power grow) than from all the industries that would be harmed by proposed global warming policy. The amount of money isn't close.

History bears me out. The Soviets used to say the same exact thing taht you are -- that the profit motive is corrupting, and the motivs of government are not. was soviet science better than our science? Nope.

Either way, show me your evidence and then please deal with all counter evidence with better evidence that disproves the counter evidence. leave motives out if this, because all are equally suspect.

By the way I never responded to your request for information about scientists HATING government intervention.  Try looking at this page from the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Their last major petition to keep any political agenda out of research has 12,000 signatures last i checked.

Also, you never responded you my request about your research experience? I'm assuming because you have such a vocal position about this issue and because you seem to flatly reject the peer reviewed literature on the topic that you've worked in a lab with different findings?

What is your research background?

Edit: This one is even better.

Originally posted by Enkindu

By the way I never responded to your request for information about scientists HATING government intervention.  Try looking at this page from the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Their last major petition to keep any political agenda out of research has 12,000 signatures last i checked.

Also, you never responded you my request about your research experience? I'm assuming because you have such a vocal position about this issue and because you seem to flatly reject the peer reviewed literature on the topic that you've worked in a lab with different findings?

What is your research background?

nah, I'm just your average polymath. My training is in economics. I study everything. I merely don't accept peer reviewed "consensus" as reason to believe. I look at the actual evidence myself, and determine accordingly. I also never accept a theory as true until it makes accurate predictions, which this one hasn't.

So far, as far as I can see, carbon dioxide doesn't lead to global warming, global warming leads to an increase in carbon dioxide (through the ocean release increase during planetary warming periods). Those warming periods are generated by solar activity, which we can do nothing about. Ice core samples are what set this who debate in motion, and the ice core samples show the warming temperature occurs BEFORE the increase in carbon. This makes sense as well, since warming the ocean takes time, and the ocean is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide.

Going by the current theories, it seems that it has been cooling when it should be warming. That means the theory is flawed. However if we look at solar activity and climate change, we find that they track much better.

One need not be a researcher to be correct. Peer reviewed consensus has been wrong time and again. Science has always had a tendency -- I just feel the current politization of science has corrupted the whole process, and peer review is less trustworthy than ever.

Either way, make your case, whenever you can.

Now, as to that union of concerned scientists piece. That kinda proves my point. If science wasn't political, would there be a need for such a position?

What you have there however, is also knot precisely what i was looking for -- that's a list of scientists hating government intervention IN SCIENCE. I am talking about scientists that believe in a free market capitalist system and are against government approaches to solving problems in society that they have "discovered."

EDIT: also as a humorous aside: Vocal Position? You obviously don't know me very well. I have a vocal position on everything! Or rather, if I have a position on something, I tend to be vocal about it (turtles vs tortoises for example is something I have no position on, or pirates vs ninjas).

Compared with other issues, I am quite quiet about this one.

Interesting position, I'm willing to listen.. can you cite your sources?

I don't know  if you looked carefully enough at the union of concerned scientists site- That is a group that exists for no other reason than to fight ANY imposed bias on scientific research, government or otherwise.

Also, why would pure science ever be funded by industry? The risk that payoff from the research would be negligible or too remote to be profitable would be too great.

Market driven APPLIED science is fantastic. Just look at the evolution of computers.  But market driven pure science? Doesn't really exist.

By the way I gave a concrete example myself above of a consensus being wrong (just google Helicobacter pylori) but I'd want some kind of compelling evidence before I rejected a scientific consensus.

I'll wait to see your sources but are you suggesting that you are better qualified to interpret paleoclimatological data than the researchers in the 928 papers reviewed by the IPCC?

Edit- fixed a typo. Well, we may not agree on much but debating things with you is fun.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Interesting position, I'm willing to listen.. can you cite your sources?

I don't know  if you looked carefully enough at the union of concerned scientists site- That is a group that exists for no other reason than to fight ANY iposed bias on scientific research, government or otherwise.

Also, why would pure science ever be funded by industry? The risk that payoff from the research would be negligible or too remote to be profitable would be too great.

Market driven APPLIED science is fantastic. Just look at the evolution of computers.  But market driven pure science? Doesn't really exist.

By the way I gave a concrete example myself above of a consensus being wrong (just google Helicobacter pylori) but I'd want some kind of compelling evidence before I rejected a scientific consensus.

I'll wait to see your sources but are you suggesting that you are better qualified to interpret paleoclimatological data than the researchers in the 928 papers reviewed by the IPCC?

 

I began to cite sources and you called them industry tools

Bias doesn't have to be imposed, government funding of science will however invariably lead to a bias in favor of government.

There is no pure science. There is nothing pure in this world. Government poisons everything, so there is no way to get pure science out of government. Government is the product of politics. That makes it impossible for anything pure to come out of it.

THAT is where MY expertise lies.

With me, I want compelling evidence before I accept any "consensus." I also demand accurate predictions.

EDIT: I am not asserting I am better qualified to interpret any data than anyone else for anyone else. I am on;y the best qualified person for ME to decide MY opinions.

If you want to prove something to ME however, saying a billion people agree with me is not impressive in the least. Show me the data, show me contary evidence, show me that contrary evidence destroyed by better evidence. Then show me how what your position has in terms of predictive value, and I will change.

I am not trying to change YOU. YOU are trying to change ME. Do so.

Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling.

I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer.  But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect.

On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : )

If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed?

Edit: typo

There are so many logical fallacies in the arguments on both sides in this thread it is amazing.

That said, I am glad to see many of you also do not subscribe to one side or the other.

Originally posted by daeandor

There are so many logical fallacies in the arguments on both sides in this thread it is amazing.

 

That said, I am glad to see many of you also do not subscribe to one side or the other.

Thank you for this very useful and insightful post. It is a great contribution to the discussion. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling.

I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer.  But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect.

On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : )

If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed?

Edit: typo

I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.

We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.

In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.

I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.

Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Enkindu

Well I'll still get you the papers that represent the state of the science but I'm beginning to see that you are unlikely to accept any evidence as compelling.

I can't prove to you that cigarettes cause lung cancer.  But there is a lot of compelling data to that effect.

On an entirely different subject- so government poisons everything? What are you an anarchist? I'll warn you- I think Ayn Rand was quite possibly the most naive thinker of the 20th century : )

If neither industry NOR government can be counted on to support pure scientific research, is our option then just to sit around and hope that great thinkers attempting to get rich will accidentally stumble upon discoveries that benefit the entire species and magically embrace philanthropy over greed?

Edit: typo

 

I am a small "L" libertarian. I believe that government has no place in funding science. We are witnessing the results right here inthis discussion. Government funding leads to the politization of science, and that leads to bad science.

We'll have to agree to disagree over Rand as well (although I have disagreements with her), but I am beginning to see where you are coming from more and more, and why you subscribe to the positions you do. Interesting however is economics and specifically political economy IS my field of expertise, so I am in YOUR position here. I won't however attack your lack of qualifications as you did mine. I'll disagree and move on.

In terms of cigarettes, the compelling data is also predictive -- people who smoke DO get cancer more than people who do not. Not so with global warming.

I don't need you to "prove" anything. Go back and look at my words. I want to see your case. I do however want to see predictive value in your theory.

Again there is no pure science. That's just reality. To believe otherwise is naive, in my opinion.

Hmm.. I think we need more research.  After lunch I'll go out and look for an earth like planet with a preindustrial human population.  We can run some models then seed a few technological innovations and see how the climatological data matches the model as they start buring fossil fuel.
 

Better go on a beer run, this may take a while.

Seriously though, I see more where you are coming from as well.  The thing that worries me is the unpredictability of a multivariable system.  We know CO2 is a big player in planetary temperature, and we know human activities have dumped unprecedented (in recent geologic time ) amounts into the system.  There are undoubtedly checks and balances in the system that might prevent immediately visible changes.. so finding a reliable index is tough.  Point remains we are altering an important paramerter in our ecosystem, and like it or not we depend on the stability of that ecosystem for survival.

Seems to me like the conservative thing to do (even if there WERE no research on the subject) would be to try to mitigate any major ecosystem alterations until we have a much better understanding of what is going on.

I have found in the past that the phrase "things will probably be fine" can be the scariest in the english language.

Data will still be forthcoming.. even the pop culture links from google have got me to diagrams that seem pretty convincing but I understand you want to get into the methodology before you accept anything.