The Global warming blow-hards...

[j2k4]

j2, do you believe the oil companies are funding and disseminating sometimes dubious research (i.e. muddying the water) about global warming to protect their vested interests, and do you see any parallels with the actions of the cigarette companies trying to counter lung cancer claims back in the day?

Ian, do you believe that, if oil companies published any data which mitigates or counters "popular opinion" with regard to global warming, it will not be read with a jaundiced eye?

They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, and I don't have to side with them to see that this is the case.

What people overlook is that the global warming lobby has a similar motivation, as many scientists and environmental organizations' livelihoods depend on the fear-mongerers as well.

It literally is the case that many people would lose their jobs if the global warming balloon is even partially deflated; so we have a mass of potential "victims" there, you see?

I will say that as the "jobs" issue goes, people who work for the big oil companies are more productive than those in the fear-monger's guild.

Y'know, there are no end to the people who say, "read this link"...I'd recommend those same people read a book by Michael Crichton, called State of Fear.

I doubt they will, but hey, I'm doing my part, right?

[Ava Estelle]

Y'know, there are no end to the people who say, "read this link"...

Kettle - black!

Show me where, in THIS link of your, that it says, or intimates, this ... "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."

The truth is, you didn't read it, you just guessed what it would have to say.

[j2k4]

Y'know, there are no end to the people who say, "read this link"...

Kettle - black!

Show me where, in THIS link of your, that it says, or intimates, this ... "Eat beef at every meal in the hope we will make cows extinct."

The truth is, you didn't read it, you just guessed what it would have to say.

Any thinking person could make the leap properly, Ava.

I didn't attribute that sentiment directly to the article, but I'll explain to you how it works, in light of your thickness.

1. Man pollutes, therefore man must pay the price for global warming.

2. Cows pollute, too, and since they exist in excessive numbers owing to man's taste for their flesh, they must pay a price as well.

That man would be deprived of beef, leather, and other cow-by-products is but a bonus.

[Ava Estelle]

Any thinking person could make the leap properly, Ava.

I didn't attribute that sentiment directly to the article, but I'll explain to you how it works, in light of your thickness.

1. Man pollutes, therefore man must pay the price for global warming.

2. Cows pollute, too, and since they exist in excessive numbers owing to man's taste for their flesh, they must pay a price as well.

That man would be deprived of beef, leather, and other cow-by-products is but a bonus.

That has nothing to do with the article in question, nothing at all. If you had bothered to read it, not just the summary you linked to, but also the 4.8MB, 408 page PDF that it summarised, you would have seen that it addresses the problems caused by livestock, and offers ways to counter the problems. There is no suggestion whatsoever to stop production of livestock at all.

But as I said, you wouldn't know that because you haven't read either the summary or the full article.

[j2k4]

Any thinking person could make the leap properly, Ava.

I didn't attribute that sentiment directly to the article, but I'll explain to you how it works, in light of your thickness.

1. Man pollutes, therefore man must pay the price for global warming.

2. Cows pollute, too, and since they exist in excessive numbers owing to man's taste for their flesh, they must pay a price as well.

That man would be deprived of beef, leather, and other cow-by-products is but a bonus.

That has nothing to do with the article in question, nothing at all. If you had bothered to read it, not just the summary you linked to, but also the 4.8MB, 408 page PDF that it summarised, you would have seen that it addresses the problems caused by livestock, and offers ways to counter the problems. There is no suggestion whatsoever to stop production of livestock at all.

But as I said, you wouldn't know that because you haven't read either the summary or the full article.

Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:

Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.

[Ava Estelle]

Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:

Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.

Wrong ... I don't believe you read anything, or you wouldn't have posted that conclusion. As to me, I'm a prolific reader, I read not only the summary but all 408 pages of the PDF file too, and not just to counter you, that's a given, but because I have a genuine interest.

[j2k4]

Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:

Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.

Wrong ... I don't believe you read anything, or you wouldn't have posted that conclusion. As to me, I'm a prolific reader, I read not only the summary but all 408 pages of the PDF file too, and not just to counter you, that's a given, but because I have a genuine interest.

Do you have a fan club that I can join at all (at all).

I am a prolific reader as well; I am positively addicted to useful knowledge.

[ilw]

j2, do you believe the oil companies are funding and disseminating sometimes dubious research (i.e. muddying the water) about global warming to protect their vested interests, and do you see any parallels with the actions of the cigarette companies trying to counter lung cancer claims back in the day?

Ian, do you believe that, if oil companies published any data which mitigates or counters "popular opinion" with regard to global warming, it will not be read with a jaundiced eye?

didn't quite get answer my question, but nm. In answer to your question, undoubtedly yes. There has long been pressure on scientists to declare funding sources because it is known that funding has a way of affecting results. Which is why the oil & cigarette companies tend to fund research by proxy, ie setting up/financing organisations to fund research. Again there is pressure for all this to be declared when papers are published, but it doesn't always happen.
As to the rest of your post (i.e. 'jobs for the boys') again what you said is partially true, although i think you maybe overestimate the extent to which research scientists' jobs depend on perpetuating global warming scares (although jobs downstream of the research would no doubt be in jeopardy). Personally i think research in this field suffers exactly the same problems as other fields, i.e. firstly researchers want to make a name for themselves by getting into the big journals and so they sex up their results, or secondly theres the related problem of publication bias (where studies showing negative/inconclusive results don't get submitted or selected for publication because negative results aren't as interesting). I think that those 2 problems are a bigger factor at the research end than job security.

I'm kinda interested in this global cooling thing btw, i've read a little bit about it and it doesn't sound like it was anywhere near the scale of the current global warming hoopla. Was there really any scientific consensus (i know how much you hate that...) about it back then? Care to share any memories of it, j2?

[kazaaman]

I guess if would be just as effective to remind you that while I was not present for the last Ice Age, I was around the last time an Ice Age was imminent.

I haven't forgotten the tone of the rhetoric, after all.

What?

I only wanted to ask what about the iceage part not about the above as you deceivingly posted.

The USA does as much and more than any other country on earth to manage both production of pollutants and mitigate their effect.

Europe tries to hew to a high standard as well, but is not by any stretch of the imagination "way ahead of us in the USA".

What, then, about China?

India?

Wow, are you cooped in your house ignoring the world around you? The U.S. doing more than any other country in the world?This is total malarkey as seen from the link below. We have retards in our country like Joe Barton, who would do everything to stop the fight against global warming.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/05/...lobal-warming/

China and India also need to take action that will cap emissions from their country accordingly. China is actually making roof gardens I think. They put plants on the roofs (the roofs are flat btw) to make the skyline cleaner and healthier. India also has better fuel efficient buses in New Delhi as featured in TIME magazine. (I have it around here somewhere...)

Actually, I did, but you've put your finger directly on the problem:

Nobody else would have, especially the hard-core enviros, and certainly not you, had you not been so keen to try to counter me.

Wrong ... I don't believe you read anything, or you wouldn't have posted that conclusion. As to me, I'm a prolific reader, I read not only the summary but all 408 pages of the PDF file too, and not just to counter you, that's a given, but because I have a genuine interest.

PWNAGE!

Damn, j2k4, you need to be more open-minded. Have you honestly thought about everything and still come to the conclusion you have presently? I stress again, watch "An Inconvenient Truth" plz.

[vidcc]

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed...ow20050128.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/