desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, I assume you offer the Koch brothers the same forbearance?
More climate change uncertainty. The models don't fit the actual observations
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Can't be done. There is no common ground between the Gore and Koch positions. They can't both be right. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
Not even a good try there Desert Dude, No one has a problem as far as I know with the Koch's making money or even how they do it so much as they have a problem with them subverting government processes and creating fake grass roots organizations to their own ends.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
But they can both be wrong.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, the shorter answer is, no.
Al Gore is a shining beacon of honesty and not a slimy carboncrat, while the Koch brothers are out to submerge New York city because that is good for their business?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
How? The dilemma is
1) the globe is set to warm. it will be bad. We must act.
2) Global warming is a hoax. Nothing bad will happen. Fossil fuels are prosperity now.
There is no middle ground of "global warming will likely happen but not be bad". For all the weakness of the models to predict what will come ... they are pretty unanimous on the story of what would happen if it comes. A degree of warming could cost our continent alone trillions in lost crops as the rain patterns rearrange away from combine country.
The only real question here is global warming, yes or no? A warming spike with absolutely no (retrospectively determined) anthropogenic component will be no worse and no nicer than one that we cheeringly rolled off the cliff. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Strawman.
Nobody except for yourself is saying Al Gore is a shining anything.
There is a general consensus that the Koch brothers are in fact funding pseudoscience and special interest groups disguised as grassroots political movements. You came in toting Koch pseudoscience and got called on it, then created a strawman you could attack by also citing Al Gore. Instead you could have simply argued against the agreement among most of us that the Koch brothers are funding pseudoscience. That would make for better debate.
NoDrama argued against citing the consensus of scientists in the position of man made global warming. However, citing a consensus of scientific authorities in a scientific debate is not fallacy but an argumentum ad verecundiam. As a statistical syllogism this was a quite cogent inductive argument.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I see you have up and moved those goalposts right across the field here. the Koch brothers have a habit of funding "think tanks" and astroturf organizations in order to subvert our natural governing process and inject their political aspirations into scientific debate with the goal of preserving their empire and their megalomania. Gore is on a mission, it may be misguided, it may even be self centered but surely he could have made more money in a different avenue, and what he has done is start a debate. that he makes or stands to make some money off of global warming is not germain to the fact or falacy of global warming itself.
It is very nice that the naysayers have managed to garner a global warming pin up boy but the reality is that Gore has no more to do with global warming than Carl Sagan did with galaxies.
canndo
Well-Known Member
One more thing - yes. The Koch brothers either actually don't believe in global warming and will keep their eyes closed to anything contrary to what they believe - or they do believe it in their heart of hearts and find that submerging every coastal area on the globe is good for business.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I moved the goal posts? I posted a link to a blog written by Nic Lewis who happens to have a track record of correcting mistakes in past IPCC reports. Nic says he has seen the next report that is to be issued and that it does not support the sort of global warming alarmism we have been fed. As far as I know, Nic is utterly unconnected to the Koch brothers, and I said absolutely nothing about the Koch brothers.
All I get in answer is you guys coughing up Kochs.
canndo
Well-Known Member
YOU brought up the Koches Desert Dude. "So, I assume you offer the Koch brothers the same forbearance? "
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Cheesedick posts:
"I wonder how much bang for the buck the Koch brothers get out of funding anti global warming propaganda "
In response to Cheesdick, Abandon chimes in:
"I wonder if anyone cites their studies during the course of a debate with a straight face. "
then Cannabineer:
"Any Koch pics? cn "
Then I responded:
"Not as much as ALGORE got for funding pro global warming propaganda. "
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Oh fer grief's sake. i was playing into UB's long-running gag about his huge black chicken. cn
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Excuse accepted.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Fine, if you didn't bring up the Koch bros, and they aren't in anyway connected to the source of your view in this thread, then it was a strawman on Chesus' part and I played into it.
If they are connected to it, Chesus Rice wasn't creating a straw man to attack but validly attacking your source.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
What this highlights to me is that the global warming panic is not about science but politics. Gore goes from $2M net worth to $100M net worth as a carboncrat and it's all shrugs and blessings from the left, who unfailingly insist humans are causing global warming. If the Kochs wade in to protect their own financial interests they are "science deniers".
Nic Lewis is unaffiliated with the Kochs. He offered a scientific critique of the statistics used by IPCC. What you "science acceptors" offer in response is Koch-calls. Is it any wonder that there are more than a few skeptics about AGW?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute - they ARE "science deniers", they are not interested in the truth, they are interest in purchasing opinions that bolster their arguments and their arguments are based upon their view of the status quo. Is Gore paying "researchers"?
Let's to this same excercise again - follow the money. You believe that global warming simply can't be real because Gore makes money on it, but when i point that out you say "well the Kochs make money as well" But there are differences, the Kochs take the money they make and pay for the injection of doubt into the public discourse. Now it would be one thing if they did their own research and published their own data but they don't do that. In fact few if any of the nay sayers place their own, independently aquired data into the public domain. Why is that? if global warming is so falacious then it should be easy to aquire one's own hard data disproving it but that isn't what they do. They poke holes in other people's interpretation.
Follow the money - the global warming have billions at interest, the status quo has trillions. If it is all about the money, the status quo wins hands down but you have a problem with Gore making 90 million?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Others poke holes in other people's published papers when those papers have mistakes in them. Nic Lewis is published in the "Journal of Climate".
Gore is a mediocre, bloated, hypocritical bureaucrat, hence I have a problem with Gore breathing. Like it or not, Gore is your side's poster boy.
"Biosketch. Nic Lewis’ academic background is mathematics, with a minor in physics, at Cambridge University (UK). His career has been outside academia. Two or three years ago, he returned to his original scientific and mathematical interests and, being interested in the controversy surrounding AGW, started to learn about climate science. He is co-author of the paper that rebutted Steig et al. Antarctic temperature reconstruction (Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, 2011, Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction, Journal of Climate"
canndo
Well-Known Member
By the way, your author only mentions a single feedback mechanism and presumes that if the feedback from water vapor is questionable that addresses all other mechanisms and that is false. He does not mention warming oceans being less able to absorb co2 (even if CO2 does not have the warming first speculated), it does not mention methane which is as much, if not more powerful a warming substance than c02 OR water vapor.
This "discovery" has a long way to go before it becomes the source of a collective sigh of relief
This "discovery" has a long way to go before it becomes the source of a collective sigh of relief