Matt,

Thanks for taking up the cause of rational thought, I stepped back from this thread for the most part because I just didn't think I could continue to be civil. The problem with this debate, and debate in general over the last 10-15 years is we have allowed the extremist to sit at the table as if they are equals.

In the movie Man of the Year Lou Black's character makes this point about a Holocost Survivor and a person who claims the Holocost never happened, sitting side by side as equals.

This example while extreme points out the fundemantal problem with News and information over the last 10-15 years. News has become entertainment, and intergrity has been cast aside for ratings. Fox is a station which has openly used propaganda as news. The rstings war has cause CNN to sink into entertainment news style. Leaving the public with no clear source of reporting and thus allowing all the extremist a seat at the news table.

I said this many pages ago, but I will say it again. There is no debate about Global Warming, has not been one for quite some time. It's not like Cal Tech says yes and MIT says no. All you have are a small group of people with clearly political motives trying to shout down what every serious person qualifed to have an opinion has agreed upon.

These are the facts, and they are undisputed.

MattJ

In my utterly cynical world view---pretty much EVERYONE is suspect....not just Fox News.

Take Gore---is there any reason for him to take a given positon?
Sure, its brought him international fame, a Nobel prize and secured his legacy as someone that deeply "cares."
But we are expected to belive that NONE of that could possibly be effecting his judegment on the matter.

Guy does not live HIS life as if he really belived that global warming was going to be the death of us all----and he is a major player in the movement.

Gore did not start buying "carbon credits" until very recently----even if one accepts they they "work"---and that is a questionable assumption given that a good portion of the compaines claiming to do that have less than steller record in terms of performance----the man still lives a vastly "dirty" lifestyle in terms of consumption---well beyond that of the people that he is telling essentially to "cut back."

In my view its like a guy telling people to stop smokeing, trying to pass anti-smokeing legislation being a 2 pack a day smoker.

If you follow the money I think you will find that pretty much EVERYONE is effectively getting "paid" in one form or another for their research, position, ect on this issue.

I can almost assure you that were I to ask for grant money to "prove" that global warming is causeing mass harm I would have no problems getting the cash.
BUT if I were ask for grants/funding to challange the orthodoxy there would few monies available....and that is just the tip of the iceberg---so to speak.

Companies like "Exxon" fund a lot of research----including some that they really don't like to have made public---just because a someone is getting funding does not make them wrong.......the more so since it cuts BOTH ways.

I firmly belive that we need to grip on the enviromental challanges facing us, we need to pollute FAR less and conserve FAR more, we need to take steps based upon LONG TERM thinking...something that few nations seem willing to do.

Quote:

---

pretty much EVERYONE is suspect....not just Fox News.

---

I think thanks to the sucess of Fox News, this statement has become quite true.

Quote:

---

Take Gore---is there any reason for him to take a given positon?

---

Gore is a politician, part of the problem with this debate is Gore's political leanings get brought up, which really has nothing to do with the science of the issue.

The politics of any issue is you often need to overplay your hand or you don't get any attention.

Basically if you need 10, you scream your head off for 50, and hopefully they give you the 10 you truly need.

Say what you will about Gore but he has done a great job of getting focus on Global warming, that waas/is his job.

So you post links to two rabid environmental groups who's cranial function is probably more defind by the permanent THC load in the purkinje cells and suggest that I do better. I'll tell you this, Faux news is vastly more credible than those two sources. The fact that Greenpeace types don't like Seitz and offer vitriolic hyperbole to discredit him is the approach they take to anybody who doesn't buy their tripe. As is typical for their ilk, everything out of their mouth is hyperbole and casuistic!

I am not arguing that their is not an anthropgenic component to climate trends. I am not arguing that those scientist who find this component to be substantial aren't credible. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take steps to continue to reduce the environmental damage done by man.

I am arguing that there is nothing close to a consensus and skeptisism is growing. I am arguing that researches whose data doesn't "fit" what is wanted have lost funding. I am arguing that great caution should be used when deciding policy that is based on the foil hat histrionics surrounding weak data and not on said data.

Now I know what will happen here, someone will use that last line to claim that I advocate doing nothing and ignore everything to the contrary that I've said.

There is plenty of science available that disputes the theory of "human induced global warming".

It's just that the extremists on the left choose to ignore that science.

float

The problem I have is that there is NOTHING wrong with taking pro-active steps to reduce pollution and increase conservation.

These are GOOD things....depending of course on how we chose to go about it.

I worry that people might throw the baby out with the bathwater on this issue.

FFS -

Quote:

---

The fact that Greenpeace types don't like Seitz and offer vitriolic hyperbole to discredit him is the approach they take to anybody who doesn't buy their tripe.

---

Pot calling kettle, sir. So you are saying that the facts that Seitz:

* worked for a tobacco company
* had research funded by an oil company
* was shunned by the very scientific organization he led, after his "research" began showing obvious bias to the industries he was paid from

Those are inaccurate? Those are facts, not hyperbole.

Quote:

---

I am not arguing that their is not an anthropgenic component to climate trends. I am not arguing that those scientist who find this component to be substantial aren't credible. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take steps to continue to reduce the environmental damage done by man.

---

Then we agree about a few things, LOL.

Quote:

---

I am arguing that there is nothing close to a consensus and skeptisism is growing. I am arguing that researches whose data doesn't "fit" what is wanted have lost funding.

---

Like Seitz's funding? "Best research money can buy".

Quote:

---

I am arguing that great caution should be used when deciding policy that is based on the foil hat histrionics surrounding weak data and not on said data.

---

Foil hats? The IPCC report utilized 1000 scientists from 100 different countries over 20 years. That is a hell of a lot of foil, sir.

Difficult to imagine 100 countries agreeing to have the same "histrionics".

JAMJTX -

Quote:

---

There is plenty of science available that disputes the theory of "human induced global warming".

---

Yes, I've seen some of that re$$$$earch. Funny how it seems to be mainly the oil companies and their associates that dispute it.

Quote:

---

It's just that the extremists on the left choose to ignore that science.

---

That's odd......wasn't somebody just talking about hyperbole and histrionics? You guys must be TERRIFIED of all the leftists out there, the way you scream and cry about them.

First, he was neither shunned nor discredit by the Academy. Yes he worked for R. J. Reynolds and has consulted for the oil industry. But if you are going to repunge him for that than every scientist who works for or supports an environmental cause must be treated the same - fair is fair.
The problem is, the links you posted so grossly overstated things that they went into the realm of being, frankly, liars. The Academy actually still honors Seitz's many accomplishments.

As to the funding issue, many scientists at NOAA, NCAR and other facilities have had funding pulled when their research results didn't support Gore apocolypse. And they have testified to such before the Senate. And they did not get their funding from the demon of "big oil". I know several of them. Additionally, the majority of the skeptics do not work with, or for, that demon. They are in academia, nationl laboritories such as NREL, NCAR, Los Alamos, Livermore, Berkley and INEL just to name a few.