The ExxonMobil Agenda on Global Warming

It's pretty easy to spread your version of the truth when you have billions of dollars to throw around. It's not surprising then, that an ExxonMobil campaign to misinform the public would gain traction. The campaign in question? Convince the public that there is no global warming. To this end, they spend millions of dollars each year on misleading propaganda related to global warming. I will say that again: millions of dollars each year.

It's pretty obvious that a company who makes money through the consumption of fossil fuels would benefit by convincing people that there is absolutely no harm in continuing to do so at an ever-increasing pace. It's the same motive the tobacco companies had in lying to congress (and the world) about the harm in tobacco smoke.

The idea that global climate change is a myth or is nothing to worry about sure seems to carry some weight when you hear it said by organizations with names such as American Council on Science and Health, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Air Quality Standards Coalition, American Council on Science and Health, National Council for Environmental Balance, World Climate Report, and Science and Environmental Policy Project. But every one of these organizations are funded by ExxonMobil or have top executives with direct ties to ExxonMobil.

And that's just a few of the fronts put in place by this company. Want a more complete list? Try this: http://exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php . There's about 130 organizations on there that help ExxonMobil push their story. If you want to follow the money trail, just click on the name, and take a look. Example:

ExxonMobil Funding for American Council on Science and Health
2000 - $25,000
2001 - $25,000
2002 - $10,000
2003 - $25,000
2004 - $15,000
2005 - $25,000

ExxonMobil Funding for The Advancement of Sound Science Center
2000 - $10,000
2001 - $10,000
2002 - $10,000

These are the public numbers taken from both IRS reporting and ExxonMobil's own yearly Worldwide Giving Reports. If you haven't already guessed, these organizations all support big oil's agenda to some degree or another by casting doubt on climate change.

So you don't believe in climate change? You've heard science that has convinced you otherwise? I understand... but do yourself a favor and check the source of that information. Are your sources tied to one of these 130 organizations, or any of their execs? It's extremely likely that they are. And if you find them there, shouldn't you perhaps question the underlying motive of a scientist taking money from big oil when speaking on the effects of big oil consumption? Does the term "conflict of interest" mean anything at all to you?

All I'm asking is that you look at this yourself. Don't let billionaire oil execs form your opinion for you. As in every other matter, they are in it for themselves.

This whole global warming fiasco has become so politicized. I'd like to be able to wrap my head around it, but with both sides slinging so much mud at the other, it's hard to even know where to start. Certainly most us of don't have near enough training/knowledge in climate science to directly evaluate the scientific claims, so that resigns us to drawing second- or third-hand conclusions. And as you point out, the sources are always suspect. :whyme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

It's the same motive the tobacco companies had in lying to congress (and the world) about the harm in tobacco smoke.

---

So you think smoking should be illegal because it's dangerous? Let's ban alcohol, fast food, and contact sports while we're at it.

As for global warming, no one really doubts that there is a short term warming trend. But there is not a single shred of evidence positively and unambiguously supporting the hypotheses that the trend is long term and is being caused by humans. For example, the main bit of evidence being used by anthropogenic global warming proponents is that atmospheric CO2 levels and termperatures increase in lockstep. But this is not unambiguous, because increasing temperatures can cause increased CO2 through the same positive feedback processes of which Al Gore is so fond of reminding us (like forest fires, melting permafrost, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

So you think smoking should be illegal because it's dangerous? Let's ban alcohol, fast food, and contact sports while we're at it.

---

You missed the point, and no I don't think it should be illegal. But the cigarette companies telling people that it's not harmful most definitely should be illegal. You light up a cigarette and you harm yourself. You light up the world and you harm everyone.

Quote:

---

As for global warming, no one really doubts that there is a short term warming trend. But there is not a single shred of evidence positively and unambiguously supporting the hypotheses that the trend is long term and is being caused by humans. For example, the main bit of evidence being used by anthropogenic global warming proponents is that atmospheric CO2 levels and termperatures increase in lockstep. But this is not unambiguous, because increasing temperatures can cause increased CO2 through the same positive feedback processes of which Al Gore is so fond of reminding us (like forest fires, melting permafrost, etc.).

---

I tell you what, let's play a game, shall we? Take a look at this chart showing the temperature of planets in our solar system:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2004is4.gif
Now answer me this:

Which planet seems to be the odd one out? Why is Venus so darned hot?

Answer: It's the atmosphere. Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth's is 0.0384%. Mercury has almost no atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

Sure temperature contributes to C02 levels, that's certainly no reason to ignore the fact that the C02 levels also contribute to temperature. It does NOT naturally follow that increasing C02 levels will have no effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

You missed the point, and no I don't think it should be illegal. But the cigarette companies telling people that it's not harmful most definitely should be illegal. You light up a cigarette and you harm yourself. You light up the world and you harm everyone.

---

Cigarette companies never said that they weren't harmful. They just didn't say that they were harmful. Big difference. By your logic, fast food should have a warning label on the bag saying "Warning: Causes diabetes and heart disease". Incidentally, the death rates of cigarettes and fast food are about the same, so you really can't dismiss my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I tell you what, let's play a game, shall we? Take a look at this chart showing the temperature of planets in our solar system:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2004is4.gif
Now answer me this:

Which planet seems to be the odd one out? Why is Venus so darned hot?

Answer: It's the atmosphere. Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth's is 0.0384%. Mercury has almost no atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

Sure temperature contributes to C02 levels, that's certainly no reason to ignore the fact that the C02 levels also contribute to temperature. It does NOT naturally follow that increasing C02 levels will have no effect.

---

Thank you for proving my point. You have stupidly copy-pasted a bunch of crap about correlation between CO2 and temperature without providing one solid bit of evidence demonstrating that CO2 came first. Bravo, sheep.

Oh apparently, you didn't even understand my point. I agree that CO2 causes higher temperatures, at least if you exclude plant life from the equation. But that does not unambiguously prove that CO2 came first. You haven't proved that humans caused the recent slight temperature shift.

In fact, you've also demonstrated another fallacious meme among the non-scientific AGW crowd, which is the silly notion that Earth could turn into Venus if 'we're not careful'. Not even the so-called experts think this can happen. Venus is a dead planet. Earth has a robust ecosystem. Venus is 30% closer to the sun. Venus has no water. Venus has no magnetic field. Venus has no tectonics. Venus rotates less than one time per year, effectively preventing weather on the planet. Need I go on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Cigarette companies never said that they weren't harmful. They just didn't say that they were harmful. Big difference.

---

Holy cow, you couldn't be more wrong! I suppose you are too young to remember the congressional hearings where top execs swore up and down that they didn't know they were harmful. Later, internal memos proved they had done their own tests and suppressed the results. They knew 100% of the connection, yet waged a campaign of disinformation, creating in the process the term "junk science," which is what they called any study they didn't approve of.

Quote:

---

Thank you for proving my point. You have stupidly copy-pasted a bunch of crap about correlation between CO2 and temperature without providing one solid bit of evidence demonstrating that CO2 came first. Bravo, sheep.

---

Thank you for assuming my original text was copied and pasted. It wasn't. I borrowed a chart from an unrelated site simply to show you temperatures. If this is the sort of jumping to conclusions you are likely to do, then I'm not surprised at your position.

Quote:

---

In fact, you've also demonstrated another fallacious meme among the non-scientific AGW crowd, which is the silly notion that Earth could turn into Venus if 'we're not careful'. Not even the so-called experts think this can happen.

---

Another point lost on you, though I am less and less surprised. I never said anything about Earth becoming "another Venus."

But let me play along...

Quote:

---

Venus is a dead planet.

---

So is Mercury. Venus is hotter.

Quote:

---

Venus is 30% closer to the sun.

---

Mercury is closer still. Venus is hotter.

Quote:

---

Venus has no water.

---

It has more traces of water than Mercury. Venus is hotter.

Quote:

---

Venus has no magnetic field.

---

Mercury has very little field. Venus is hotter.

Quote:

---

Venus rotates less than one time per year, effectively preventing weather on the planet

---

You apparently do not know the definition of the word "weather."

I'm sorry that you have bought into ExxonMobil's message. It's clear that their money has been well spent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Cigarette companies never said that they weren't harmful. They just didn't say that they were harmful. Big difference. By your logic, fast food should have a warning label on the bag saying "Warning: Causes diabetes and heart disease". Incidentally, the death rates of cigarettes and fast food are about the same, so you really can't dismiss my point.

---

Wrong, Big Tobacco said right to congress that there was no evidence that smoking causes cancer.

Cigarettes should be illegal because they are so dangerous, comparing them to alcohol is laughable. There are maybe 1000 alcohol related deaths each year (drunk driving, liver failure...) and 50 times that many deaths due to cigarettes. Tobacco is also forcing our dependance on foreign oil, corn thrives in the same climate as tobacco, if the tobacco fields were replaced with corn we'd have plenty of ethanol.

Fast food doesn't kill people, their lifestyle does. Eating fast food and not exercising is their problem. I eat fast food when I'm on the road because it's convenient, I also run 3-18 miles every day.

It's a mute point anyway. People smoke because of their own disregard for their own health, no one forces them to. We don't have a choice but to live on Earth. If global warming continues we'll be in an ice age in a century.

The problem is that this has become a political debate. Science says that global climate change is man-made and fixable. Conservatives accuse the Progressives of having an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Holy cow, you couldn't be more wrong! I suppose you are too young to remember the congressional hearings where top execs swore up and down that they didn't know they were harmful. Later, internal memos proved they had done their own tests and suppressed the results. They knew 100% of the connection, yet waged a campaign of disinformation, creating in the process the term "junk science," which is what they called any study they didn't approve of.

---

One question: Did cigarette packages and/or advertisements say something like, "Cigarettes will never harm you"? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Thank you for assuming my original text was copied and pasted. It wasn't. I borrowed a chart from an unrelated site simply to show you temperatures. If this is the sort of jumping to conclusions you are likely to do, then I'm not surprised at your position.

---

Copy-pasted figuratively, idiot. No one would be dumb enough to think a scientist would have the prose of a 12 year old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Another point lost on you, though I am less and less surprised. I never said anything about Earth becoming "another Venus."

---

You certainly implied it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

But let me play along...

So is Mercury. Venus is hotter.

---

Yes, Venus has a CO2 atmosphere that produces a greenhouse effect. Mercury doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

It has more traces of water than Mercury. Venus is hotter.

---

False. Mercury has frozen ice near the poles, Venus has none to speak of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Mercury has very little field. Venus is hotter.

---

False. Mercury has an abnormally strong geomagnetic field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury..._magnetosphere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

You apparently do not know the definition of the word "weather."

---

Apparently you do not, as Venus has a nearly constant wind speed of about 3 m/s over the entire surface of the planet, day and night, with no variation, ever. You call that weather? Do you even understand why I brought weather up in the first place? Go ahead, tell me why I brought up Venus' lack of weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I'm sorry that you have bought into ExxonMobil's message. It's clear that their money has been well spent.

---

Yeah, I'm just a dirty capitalist. Hail Lenin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Wrong, Big Tobacco said right to congress that there was no evidence that smoking causes cancer.

---

Did the packages say "Cigarettes never cause harm"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Cigarettes should be illegal blah blah blah

---

Yeah, cuz protecting people from themselves is more important than personal liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Fast food doesn't kill people, their lifestyle does. Eating fast food and not exercising is their problem. I eat fast food when I'm on the road because it's convenient, I also run 3-18 miles every day.

---

I'm pretty sure exercise also helps prevent lung cancer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It's a mute point anyway. People smoke because of their own disregard for their own health, no one forces them to.

---

Moot point.

Right, no one forces people to smoke. It's a choice. There are warnings on the box. But that's not enough for you? Now you want them illegal? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

We don't have a choice but to live on Earth. If global warming continues we'll be in an ice age in a century.

---

I've seen The Day After Tomorrow too. Let's see the science backing your claim that there will be an ice age this century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The problem is that this has become a political debate.

---

You should have stopped there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Did the packages say "Cigarettes never cause harm"?

---

No, but the CEOs and their "scientists" did.

Quote:

---

Yeah, cuz protecting people from themselves is more important than personal liberty.

---

Cocaine is illegal.

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure exercise also helps prevent lung cancer.

---

Carcinogens cause lung cancer, not being out of shape. The only way to prevent it is to not ingest the carcinogens in the first place.

Quote:

---

Right, no one forces people to smoke. It's a choice. There are warnings on the box. But that's not enough for you? Now you want them illegal? What the fuck is wrong with you?

---

Personal liberties can be taken away for the better good of humanity. Are you suggesting that we unban trans-fats, cocaine, PCP...?

Quote:

---

I've seen The Day After Tomorrow too. Let's see the science backing your claim that there will be an ice age this century.

---

Ice Ages come in a heartbeat, the last one occurred in less than a few decades. The idea of a giant super-cyclone is stupid, but the science of the north atlantic current is reality. A disruption of it will cause Europe to go into an ice age in a decade, it's the major source of oceanic warmth. It happened during the last ice age as huge cold reservoir over Canada broke into the sea at the end of the last ice age, it re-ice aged Europe for a few extra centuries. There is also a massive cold reservoir in the ice of Greenland.

Quote:

---

You should have stopped there.

---

Are you saying that everything after it is untrue? Find a (independent) climatologist who's said in the last 5 years that global warming is not man made, or a conservative senator that said that it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

One question: Did cigarette packages and/or advertisements say something like, "Cigarettes will never harm you"? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on.

---

What a colossal non sequitur. You believe that somehow a lie printed on a cigarette package trumps actual human beings lying? Lying to congress? In trial?

Quote:

---

Copy-pasted figuratively, idiot. No one would be dumb enough to think a scientist would have the prose of a 12 year old.

---

Obvious bull. Please tell me how original text is copy and pasted "figuratively." And knock it off with the insults already. It doesn't help your point. It just makes it look like you've run out of arguments.

Quote:

---

Yes, Venus has a CO2 atmosphere that produces a greenhouse effect. Mercury doesn't.

---

Wow, I'm glad we agree. More greenhouse gasses make for a hotter planet temperature. What are we arguing about anyway? Do you think we're not actually producing greenhouse gasses?

Quote:

---

Apparently you do not, as Venus has a nearly constant wind speed of about 3 m/s over the entire surface of the planet, day and night, with no variation, ever. You call that weather?

---

Wow. So wind is weather, and nothing else is? I'd say the lightning storms observed by the Venus probe would qualify. Or the huge double atmospheric vortex at the south pole. Oh hold on a second... that is wind!

But all of this is just a way for you to avoid the actual topic of this thread. The topic is ExxonMobil, and the scientists on their bankroll. All I asked of readers is to consider the source of the information they get. Since you haven't actually posted any such source, I encourage you to do so now. In fact, I challenge you to find me a credible American scientist, organization, or peer-reviewed study that publicly denies global warming that I cannot directly tie to ExxonMobil.

Actually, the biggest problem will be methane, not CO2. The CO2 creates a very slow warming (which is why it's only gone up a degree in the past 100 years, but the oceans are starting to warm up and there are huge amounts of methane frozen down there, which are just starting to bubble up. Methane has 10x the greenhouse capacity of CO2.

There's also huge amounts of methane getting released in the melting permafrost of Canada, Alaska, and Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, but the CEOs and their "scientists" did.

---

Is there a label on the packages saying "Consult our scientists about the results of smoking tobacco"? I'm just going to keep asking until you get my point, which is that it's not the responsibility of the manufacturer to delineate every conceivable way that a person could die by using that product. Otherwise, we would need warning labels on TV remotes. After all, they are choking hazards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Cocaine is illegal.

---

I don't think it should be. Same reasoning. Were you trying to find some inconsistency in my world view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Carcinogens cause lung cancer, not being out of shape. The only way to prevent it is to not ingest the carcinogens in the first place.

---

Not true on both accounts. Cancer can both happen without known carcinogens via random, unpredictable mutations, and can be treated by exercise in some (read: not ALL) cases, because exercise strengthens the immune system and the immune system can help fight off SOME forms of cancer. I do not claim that exercise cures all forms of cancer. But it is true that a smoker who exercises, all else being equal, will live slightly longer than a smoker that doesn't, on the average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Personal liberties can be taken away for the better good of humanity. Are you suggesting that we unban trans-fats, cocaine, PCP...?

---

Again, you're poking around for inconsistencies. No, I do not agree that personal liberty, meaning the right to do with your own body as you wish can ever be sacrificed for a "greater good".

I wasn't aware that trans-fats were illegal. I know that if I churn myself some butter at a farm and eat it, I won't get arrested. But to answer the question in a more precise way than the question itself, YES we should legalize all drugs and YES the sale of all forms of unhealthy foods should be allowed so long as the manufacturers do not claim an unproven level of safety, as that would be a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Ice Ages come in a heartbeat, the last one occurred in less than a few decades.

---

I wasn't aware of this. Please show me where you read that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The idea of a giant super-cyclone is stupid, but the science of the north atlantic current is reality. A disruption of it will cause Europe to go into an ice age in a decade, it's the major source of oceanic warmth. It happened during the last ice age as huge cold reservoir over Canada broke into the sea at the end of the last ice age, it re-ice aged Europe for a few extra centuries. There is also a massive cold reservoir in the ice of Greenland.

---

I don't disagree with any of this. I only doubt that it can change so rapidly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Are you saying that everything after it is untrue? Find a (independent) climatologist who's said in the last 5 years that global warming is not man made, or a conservative senator that said that it is.

---

I can't be bothered. The onus is on you to prove "for all" statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Wow, I'm glad we agree. More greenhouse gasses make for a hotter planet temperature. What are we arguing about anyway? Do you think we're not actually producing greenhouse gasses?

---

I don't think our production of greenhouse gases more than makes up for the negative feedback loop of plant life absorbing them. CO2 levels are increasing, but I have not seen evidence proving that it's our doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Wow. So wind is weather, and nothing else is? I'd say the lightning storms observed by the Venus probe would qualify. Or the huge double atmospheric vortex at the south pole. Oh hold on a second... that is wind!

---

When it comes to global climate, only wind matters, because that's the engine of heat distribution. I am not aware of a vortex on Venus. Link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

But all of this is just a way for you to avoid the actual topic of this thread. The topic is ExxonMobil, and the scientists on their bankroll. All I asked of readers is to consider the source of the information they get. Since you haven't actually posted any such source, I encourage you to do so now. In fact, I challenge you to find me a credible American scientist, organization, or peer-reviewed study that publicly denies global warming that I cannot directly tie to ExxonMobil.

---

Quick google search:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Is there a label on the packages saying "Consult our scientists about the results of smoking tobacco"? I'm just going to keep asking until you get my point, which is that it's not the responsibility of the manufacturer to delineate every conceivable way that a person could die by using that product. Otherwise, we would need warning labels on TV remotes. After all, they are choking hazards.

---

They still lied to congress and the people. Omitting results is scientific fraud.

Quote:

---

Not true on both accounts. Cancer can both happen without known carcinogens via random, unpredictable mutations, and can be treated by exercise in some (read: not ALL) cases, because exercise strengthens the immune system and the immune system can help fight off SOME forms of cancer. I do not claim that exercise cures all forms of cancer. But it is true that a smoker who exercises, all else being equal, will live slightly longer than a smoker that doesn't, on the average.

---

Random cancer is not part of the argument against cancer. Of course it occurs randomly, but smoking increases those risks by huge amounts.

Quote:

---

Again, you're poking around for inconsistencies. No, I do not agree that personal liberty, meaning the right to do with your own body as you wish can ever be sacrificed for a "greater good".

I wasn't aware that trans-fats were illegal. I know that if I churn myself some butter at a farm and eat it, I won't get arrested. But to answer the question in a more precise way than the question itself, YES we should legalize all drugs and YES the sale of all forms of unhealthy foods should be allowed so long as the manufacturers do not claim an unproven level of safety, as that would be a lie.

---

Trans fats are illegal in public places, you can still cook with them in your own home, you just cant be served them. It's a good thing.

Quote:

---

I wasn't aware of this. Please show me where you read that.

---

Quote:

---

I don't disagree with any of this. I only doubt that it can change so rapidly.

---

A Discover Channel special called "A Global Warning" Temperature can be determined via ice cores and the years can be counted like rings on a tree. Ice ages occur in only a few decades after something catastrophic (like a disruption of oceanic currents) happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Quick google search:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

---

Sorry, but it's going to take a lot more than a "quick google search."

On the author of that press release, Hudson Institute

FUNDING
Hudson Institute has received (at least) $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 2000.

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2005
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

This is a matter of public record. Want to give it another go? Best two out of three?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

When it comes to global climate, only wind matters, because that's the engine of heat distribution. I am not aware of a vortex on Venus. Link?

---

While we're waiting, here's your link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7117303.stm

From that article:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC News, November 2007

Venus Express has also confirmed the presence of lightning on the planet. The idea of lightning on Venus was once considered controversial, but the magnetometer instrument on Venus Express has now put all doubts to one side.

Indeed, the data suggests that lightning is more common on Venus than it is on Earth.

Previous observations have revealed a vast rotating vortex of clouds with a "double-eye" feature at Venus' north pole. Researchers have now found evidence for similar features at the south pole, but these rotate slightly faster.

---

Still has little to do with the subject of this thread, but there you go, Venusian weather. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

They still lied to congress and the people. Omitting results is scientific fraud.

---

Be more precise. Are you claiming that omitting every single risk factor from packaging is in some way immoral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Random cancer is not part of the argument against cancer. Of course it occurs randomly, but smoking increases those risks by huge amounts.

---

So? Why should I not be allowed to choose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Trans fats are illegal in public places, you can still cook with them in your own home, you just cant be served them. It's a good thing.

---

Well, that's a matter of opinion. But if eating trans fats isn't a crime, why bring it up in a discussion about making inhaling tobacco smoke a crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

A Discover Channel special called "A Global Warning" Temperature can be determined via ice cores and the years can be counted like rings on a tree. Ice ages occur in only a few decades after something catastrophic (like a disruption of oceanic currents) happens.

---

Transcript would be nice. Or a link to a clip. Anything.

Actually...

I apologize, but I'm not done yet. That press release was not just from Hudson Institute, but was written by senior fellow Dennis Avery. As it turns out, Mr. Avery (not a scientist, by the way) has other credentials as well.

He is also an advisor at both CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($542,000 from ExxonMobil), and American Council on Science and Health ($125,000 from ExxonMobil).

Please let me know if you would like to see the supporting documentation for that funding as well. I would be pleased as punch to provide it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Sorry, but it's going to take a lot more than a "quick google search."

On the author of that press release, Hudson Institute

FUNDING
Hudson Institute has received (at least) $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 2000.

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2005
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

This is a matter of public record. Want to give it another go? Best two out of three?

---

I find those numbers dubious. But at any rate, I would think $25,000 is an incredibly tiny amount of money to be doing what you claim it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I find those numbers dubious. But at any rate, I would think $25,000 is an incredibly tiny amount of money to be doing what you claim it does.

---

Please read the follow-up. We're now up to $693,000.

And by "dubious" do you mean "I didn't bother clicking on the PDF file?"

FIA is a bitch, ain't it?

Ok, still not done.

The only scientist quoted in that press release is S. Fred Singer. Now Singer actually is a scientist, so now we're getting somewhere. PhD in Physics, Princeton. Former Director, US National Weather Satellite Center. Former Professor of Environmental Sciences, Univeristy of Virginia (1971-94). Former Deputy Administrator EPA (1970-71). Impressive scientific resume. No problem. But where are his allegeances?

Associations
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project. ($20,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. ($125,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. ($125,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. ($465,900 from Exxon since 1998)

Research Fellow, Independent Institute. ($70,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Expert, Heartland Institute. ($676,500 from Exxon since 1998)

Former Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. ($1,182,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. ($295,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. ($490,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Former Fellow, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. ($30,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Contributing Writer, Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Newsletter, Federalists Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. ($105,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Speaker, Centre for the New Europe ($170,000 from Exxon since 2003)

Do you see a connection? Apparently Singer didn't. He claimed he has had "no ties to oil for the past 20 years." This even though Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies.

My challenge stands.

Quote:

---

Answer: It's the atmosphere. Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth's is 0.0384%. Mercury has almost no atmosphere.

---

Conclusion from your own data: if the amount of CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is enough to cause its temperature to rise by, say, 200K (rough guess), a simple calculation shows us that the rise in temperature due the totalCO2 in Earth's atmosphere (not the change, which is even smaller) is reponsible for roughly a 0.1K temperature rise.

Holy shit, what are we going to do??

The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been hundreds of times higher in Earth's history. This illustrates how the claim that the Earth could develop a Venusian climate is complete and utter nonsense; because it hasn't.

The fact is, the study of the macroscopic climate is incredibly imprecise. There are all sorts of models out there, none of them confirmed.

But when you do get actual empirical evidence and not bullshit computer models, look what it tells you; multiple times in the past, when CO2 levels made ours look laughable, there was no superheating, and no farfetched scenarios involving bubbles of gas escaping or stuff like that.

Another fact - this time, one which has an comparatively huge amount of empirical verification; higher temperatures decrease CO2 solubility. So, as soon as the planet gets warmer, a whole 2/3 of its surface starts to churn out large quantities of CO2. Wanted an explanation for your graphs? There you have it. At the very least it's worthy of some serious study (if there has been any it has been ignored; the CO2 debate is not a scientific one at all, it's a complete joke).

And of course, what oil companies do with their money does not change the science. Neither does all the propaganda from green lunatics, or sleazy governments. As someone has said, in matters like this, people are throwing crap around all over the place. So what you've got to do if you want the truth is some actual science.

And incedentally, I don't work for Mobil either. In fact, I'll state, without hesitation, that we absolutely must reduce our dependence on oil. But it's not because of this CO2 rubbish; it's due to something one hell of a lot more serious; there's only about 50 years of oil left, and we've already passed peak production. If governments don't pull their fingers out of their arses before it starts to hurt (NB: governments never do this), there's going to be one hell of a social and political crisis coming up. Living standards will go to hell and there'll be wars all over the planet. Now that's scary.

Global Warming is a big sack of shit.

Totally bollocks.

I would sit around and bore you with all the nitpicking stuff, but MC has already done this for me:

http://michaelcrichton.com/speech-ou...talfuture.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Conclusion from your own data: if the amount of CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is enough to cause its temperature to rise by, say, 200K (rough guess), a simple calculation shows us that the rise in temperature due the totalCO2 in Earth's atmosphere (not the change, which is even smaller) is reponsible for roughly a 0.1K temperature rise.

---

DAMMIT Xei, thats what I wanted to point out =(

Nanah. :P

I think it's really quite shocking though... in a decade or so scientists will be looking back on this in shame...

That Crichton speech was excellent. Nothing else to say after reading that. 400% error... if I handed in coursework like that I'd be thrown out of lessons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been hundreds of times higher in Earth's history. This illustrates how the claim that the Earth could develop a Venusian climate is complete and utter nonsense; because it hasn't.

---

Way off, since the first life which brought the CO2 levels to current levels it has only gone to about 5x what it is right now, and that was due to huge amounts of volcanic activity. The temperature skyrocketed because of it and eventually caused an ice age.

In the past 450,000 the CO2 level hasn't even been close to what it is at right now.

Quote:

---

Another fact - this time, one which has an comparatively huge amount of empirical verification; higher temperatures decrease CO2 solubility. So, as soon as the planet gets warmer, a whole 2/3 of its surface starts to churn out large quantities of CO2. Wanted an explanation for your graphs? There you have it. At the very least it's worthy of some serious study (if there has been any it has been ignored; the CO2 debate is not a scientific one at all, it's a complete joke).

---

The temperatures in that study were very high (hundreds of degrees outside of Earthly temperatures.) It doesn't change the fact that CO2 has a serious greenhouse effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Conclusion from your own data: if the amount of CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is enough to cause its temperature to rise by, say, 200K (rough guess), a simple calculation shows us that the rise in temperature due the totalCO2 in Earth's atmosphere (not the change, which is even smaller) is reponsible for roughly a 0.1K temperature rise.

---

DAMMIT Xei, thats what I wanted to point out =(

---

Venu's atmosphere is 90 thicker than ours, it's core is unstable, and it has clouds of sulfuric acid which majority contribute to it's temperature. CO2 is the only reason that the earth's temperature is the way that it is. NO2 and O2 have almost no greenhouse effects, without the CO2 in the atmosphere the dark side of the earth would go to negative hundreds of degrees, which would cause daily storms with winds of hundreds of miles an hour. Saying that CO2 on earth contributes about .1K makes everyone know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Global Warming is a big sack of shit.

Totally bollocks.

I would sit around and bore you with all the nitpicking stuff, but MC has already done this for me:

http://michaelcrichton.com/speech-ou...talfuture.html

---

I don't agree with your conclusion, but I do thank you for actually posting something of interest to read, something the others here have not bothered doing.

Michael Crichton was an extremely bright and talented man, and I was sad to hear he passed recently. He is very well-educated, and what he has written is always worth a read, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. I gave this read my full attention.

He does a credible job of dissecting some of this information, and I would like to address this more closely soon, but I will make a couple of points on his speech.

First it is important to note that Crichton, while a smart man, was not a climate scientist. That certainly does not mean he was clueless, but it puts this in a little better perspective.

Next, I must mention that his speech is now almost 4 years old, and the data has been greatly updated in that short time. As we continue our understanding, the data continues to improve, and at this point, it even further supports the claim of global warming. A small but important point.

Last I will point out that he several times makes it clear that he does not know to what extent climate change might be happening, only that there is in his mind reason enough to doubt the data. He rightfully points out other huge problems we are facing that are not getting the same due attention, and I agree with this assessment. To his credit, he provides many caveats to his conclusions, such as:

"But the question is whether the sun accounts for a significant part of twentieth-century warming. Nobody is sure."

"And let me repeat: nobody knows how much is attributable to carbon dioxide right now."

"Finally, and most important—we can’t predict the future, but we can know the present."

But I also believe he is leading the audience somewhat here. Regard this statement:

"If the system is non-linear and chaotic—and it is—then it can’t be predicted, and if it can’t be predicted, what are we doing here?"

This is a surprising statement from such a studied person. Let me give you an example more or less taken directly from his own writing, Jurassic Park. From the movie version, recall the scene with Jeff Goldblum, where he makes a point about Chaos theory while on the plane to the park. He demonstrates that supposed initial conditions don't necessarily lead to a predictable conclusion by putting a drop of water on his hand, and showing that it may go in different directions each time from the same starting point. (A very poor demonstration to attempt on a moving plane, but I digress.)

If it is impossible to guess which route the water takes, it is still very easy to see the general trend: downward. To extrapolate the conclusion that not knowing the details of a chaotic system means that we cannot gauge trends in that system shows a lack of understanding in a subject in which he seems to have placed great value.

Points for the link; it's actually a very good read. There is very little science on the side of global warming denial, and Crichton did his best. I don't however believe that he is ultimately qualified to draw the conclusions he implies.

Quote:

---

First it is important to note that Crichton, while a smart man, is not a climate scientist. That certainly does not mean he is clueless, but it puts this in a little better perspective.

---

Agreed. Why are you guys listening to a writer as opposed something like.. oh I don't know... NASA?

Quote:

---

"But the question is whether the sun accounts for a significant part of twentieth-century warming. Nobody is sure."

---

The number of sunspots has been fairly constant that past century. Sunspots increase as the sun's temperature increases, constant sunspots means that the temperature has been constant.

Quote:

---

"And let me repeat: nobody knows how much is attributable to carbon dioxide right now."

---

We know how much the CO2 level is increasing every year and the heat capacitance of CO2. Computers can accurately predict the past, so it's a safe bet that it can predict the future and the present.

There are simulations that can accurately show almost every major fluctuation including the middle ages warming period and the little ice age of the mid 1800s.

Quote:

---

Way off, since the first life which brought the CO2 levels to current levels it has only gone to about 5x what it is right now, and that was due to huge amounts of volcanic activity. The temperature skyrocketed because of it and eventually caused an ice age.

In the past 450,000 the CO2 level hasn't even been close to what it is at right now.

---

Where do you get this information? Did you just guess it?

The first result for "history of Earth's CO2 levels" gave me this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

There's a good graph there. Note that

- You are completely wrong, and
- The temperature was unaffected

Quote:

---

The temperatures in that study were very high (hundreds of degrees outside of Earthly temperatures.) It doesn't change the fact that CO2 has a serious greenhouse effect.

---

Study?? What study?? This is basic chemistry here, you'll find it in any highschool textbook and you can do the experiment yourself. Hundreds of degrees?? Again, please reassure me that you don't simply make this up as you go along. First Google result:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...solubility.png

Quote:

---

Venu's atmosphere is 90 thicker than ours, it's core is unstable, and it has clouds of sulfuric acid which majority contribute to it's temperature. CO2 is the only reason that the earth's temperature is the way that it is. NO2 and O2 have almost no greenhouse effects, without the CO2 in the atmosphere the dark side of the earth would go to negative hundreds of degrees, which would cause daily storms with winds of hundreds of miles an hour. Saying that CO2 on earth contributes about .1K makes everyone know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

Again, completely and utterly objectively wrong. Water vapour contributes to between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. First Google result:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...ect_gases.html

Quote:

---

We know how much the CO2 level is increasing every year and the heat capacitance of CO2. Computers can accurately predict the past, so it's a safe bet that it can predict the future and the present.

There are simulations that can accurately show almost every major fluctuation including the middle ages warming period and the little ice age of the mid 1800s.

---

Completely wrong. The IPCC report itself states that this is utterly impossible, because the climate is a chaotic system. Did you read that speech? It listed many examples, such as the global cooling scare and population growth models which accurately modelled the past but were completely wrong when predicting the future. There's absolutely no way you can model something like that so precisely (they had 400% error margin, remember?). As the guy said, there's no way at all that it is scientifically acceptable to create a model designed to predict results that you already have for the past, and then ask it to predict the future. I could make such a model;

1400 - 2008: Copy data
2008 -: Last piece of data * e^(year-2008)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Where do you get this information? Did you just guess it?

The first result for "history of Earth's CO2 levels" gave me this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

There's a good graph there. Note that

- You are completely wrong, and
- The temperature was unaffected

---

Okay, the since life thing was wrong, but in the last 350 million years that graph shows that it has never been more than 5x what it is right now.

You do realize that plate tectonics also effect the earth's temperatures so that the CO2 vs temperature over long periods of times is stupid unless you take into consideration that. Second step in the scientific method: Identify the variables.

150 million years ago: Massive volcanism caused the CO2 levels to skyrocket, but the temperature didn't go up because the ash amount was so high that it blocked the sunlight and caused the temperatures to plummet. The plummeting temperatures caused huge ice shelves which reflected sunlight so it caused the temperature to stay low. I'm guessing, I could find out for sure with a little googling, but I guarantee there is a reason for temperatures going down and CO2 going up.

Try looking at the last 450,000 years where the plate tectonics and amount of volcanism has been constant.

http://blaskarm.files.wordpress.com/...ng?w=500&h=300

Quote:

---

Again, completely and utterly objectively wrong. Water vapour contributes to between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. First Google result:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...ect_gases.html

---

And CO2 and methane is the rest. CO2 amount is rising slowly, methane amounts have doubled in the past 100 years.

Quote:

---

Completely wrong. The IPCC report itself states that this is utterly impossible, because the climate is a chaotic system. Did you read that speech? It listed many examples, such as the global cooling scare and population growth models which accurately modelled the past but were completely wrong when predicting the future. There's absolutely no way you can model something like that so precisely (they had 400% error margin, remember?). As the guy said, there's no way at all that it is scientifically acceptable to create a model designed to predict results that you already have for the past, and then ask it to predict the future. I could make such a model;

---

If you take the lower end of the 400% error margin there is still an enormous warming.

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8yJhHEw_ys

Explains when and why the earth temperature and CO2 levels where the way that they were. Has testimonials by real climatologists, and cites all of it's sources. 9 parts.

Quote:

---

Okay, the since life thing was wrong, but in the last 350 million years that graph shows that it has never been more than 5x what it is right now.

---

Indeed, but that has not relevant to what I was saying. To remind you, I was saying that there is empirical evidence that uncontrollably spiralling temperatures when you (say) double CO2 concentration is pure propaganda.

Quote:

---

Try looking at the last 450,000 years where the plate tectonics and amount of volcanism has been constant.

---

Remember it is a fallacy to assert that correlation implies causation. Either one variable causes the other, vice versa, or a third variable causes both (basic statistics). Also recall why I mentioned CO2 solubility.

Quote:

---

And CO2 and methane is the rest. CO2 amount is rising slowly, methane amounts have doubled in the past 100 years.

---

Yes but the point was you said the Earth without CO2 would freeze and then said I had no idea what I was talking about... these things are equally wrong.

Quote:

---

If you take the lower end of the 400% error margin there is still an enormous warming.

---

These lower limits were all generated by a computer model based upon the same hypotheses. Just like the global population, even if the previous trend was a beautiful exponential curve, we are dealing with real systems here. And even then; a 1 degree rise isn't going to set anybody's hair on fire.

Quote:

---

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8yJhHEw_ys

Explains when and why the earth temperature and CO2 levels where the way that they were. Has testimonials by real climatologists, and cites all of it's sources. 9 parts.

---

I may watch it, but 1 1/2 hours is quite a lot considering it will have no implications for my lifestyle at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Indeed, but that has not relevant to what I was saying. To remind you, I was saying that there is empirical evidence that uncontrollably spiralling temperatures when you (say) double CO2 concentration is pure propaganda.

---

Not according to the historical data.

Quote:

---

Remember it is a fallacy to assert that correlation implies causation. Either one variable causes the other, vice versa, or a third variable causes both (basic statistics). Also recall why I mentioned CO2 solubility.

---

Identify the variable then. CO2 traps heat, you don't need to be a climatologist to know that, more CO2 means more heat.

Quote:

---

Yes but the point was you said the Earth without CO2 would freeze and then said I had no idea what I was talking about... these things are equally wrong.

---

That 35% of greenhouse gases would bring the global temperature way down, causing humidity to go down to near 0, which would mean that there would be no water vapor. The temperature would spiral down to nothing.


Just watch the show, then you can debate causality. It's also cool, the CG of the green and red oceans are cool :D

Quote:

---

Not according to the historical data.

---

Wait... there's historical data for the Earth spiralling into a Venusian climate?

Quote:

---

Identify the variable then.

---

...you're not getting this, are you?

Temperature. Temperature decreases CO2 solubility. Remember that bit?

Quote:

---

That 35% of greenhouse gases would bring the global temperature way down, causing humidity to go down to near 0, which would mean that there would be no water vapor. The temperature would spiral down to nothing.

---

Complete fantasy. Please stop making elaborate things up with no references or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Wait... there's historical data for the Earth spiralling into a Venusian climate?

---

I never said anything about venus. Venus's atmosphere is 90 times as thick as ours and full of sulfur. Even if your atmosphere was 100% CO2 it wouldn't reach venus, it would maybe get to 200 degrees, no more.

Quote:

---

Temperature. Temperature decreases CO2 solubility. Remember that bit?

---

I'm not saying that that isn't true, but the ocean is huge and it's temperature is very constant. Something has to trigger it to start releasing CO2. In ancient cases it was CO2 greenhouse effects of volcanism, but this time it was people.

You're saying that the temperature just randomly went up which caused the oceans to release CO2. There are only so many things that can change the global temperature. Solar temperatures (which haven't changed) and greenhouse gases (which are emitted by people.)

Quote:

---

Complete fantasy. Please stop making elaborate things up with no references or anything.

---

You think if the atmosphere lost 35% of it's greenhouse capabilities the humidity level wouldn't plummet? The ability of air to hold water vapor is proportional to the temperature. Low air temperature means little water vapor. Stop ignoring simple science.

Quote:

---

I never said anything about venus. Venus's atmosphere is 90 times as thick as ours and full of sulfur. Even if your atmosphere was 100% CO2 it wouldn't reach venus, it would maybe get to 200 degrees, no more.

---

Well then apparently you just lost track of the conversation I suppose (that bit started around post 27). It was about how CO2 can't cause a spiralling effect as is sometimes suggested.

Quote:

---

You're saying that the temperature just randomly went up which caused the oceans to release CO2. There are only so many things that can change the global temperature. Solar temperatures (which haven't changed) and greenhouse gases (which are emitted by people.)

---

Yes, I am saying that, or at least suggesting it. Please tell me how we know the solar teperatures thousands of years ago, and then post some data. 'Greenhouse gases are emitted by people'; this is a very silly statement. Yes they are... but not exclusively! Many organisms give off large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gases. In case you weren't aware (I'm not insinuating that you aren't), organisms have completely shaped the atmosphere of the Earth.

Quote:

---

You think if the atmosphere lost 35% of it's greenhouse capabilities the humidity level wouldn't plummet? The ability of air to hold water vapor is proportional to the temperature. Low air temperature means little water vapor. Stop ignoring simple science.

---

That's not science. Do some proper calculations or, considering they're probably very hard and obscure, find somebody who's done them for you. You continue to make things up without justification...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You're saying that the temperature just randomly went up which caused the oceans to release CO2. There are only so many things that can change the global temperature. Solar temperatures (which haven't changed) and greenhouse gases (which are emitted by people.)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You think if the atmosphere lost 35% of it's greenhouse capabilities the humidity level wouldn't plummet? The ability of air to hold water vapor is proportional to the temperature. Low air temperature means little water vapor. Stop ignoring simple science.

---

Did you know that water is an extremely potent greenhouse gas?

I have heard and seen so much contradicting information concerning both sides of global warming, my brain feels like exploding.

I think I'll buy a fuel efficient car and solar panels just to be safe.

Goddamnit Drew. I came in here to play devil's advocate for a minute only to realize you had sucked all the fun out of it by being a giant douchebag. Why do you always have to be as big an asshole as possible when disagreeing with someone, or even just posting in general? Stop being a douche already, it doesn't make you sound smart.

Life has existed on this planet for about 4.5 billion years. The industrial revolution started around 200 years ago. The predominant theory is that we reached peak oil production around 2000, which means about half of the earth's oil supply has already been used up. You would have to be a complete idiot to think that 2.5 billion years of carbon build up being released into the atmosphere in just over 200 years will have no effect on the global climate.

Quote:

---

I think I'll buy a fuel efficient car and solar panels just to be safe.

---

You'll save money and be less dependent on oil anyway. You don't need to give a shit about global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

---

I see a graph that shows an 11 year cycle that is not increasing. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with that link.

Quote:

---

Did you know that water is an extremely potent greenhouse gas?

---

Everyone knows that. I'm again not sure what you're getting at. The average humidity in the atmosphere is not increasing :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Well then apparently you just lost track of the conversation I suppose (that bit started around post 27). It was about how CO2 can't cause a spiralling effect as is sometimes suggested.

---

You're contradicting yourself. You keep saying that the solubility of CO2 decreasing is increasing global warming by released CO2 from the ocean (which is true) I'm confused how Venus got involved in this. Yes, CO2 is the major reason Venus' atmosphere is so hot, but it's got 90x as much atmosphere as Earth. Earth can never get like Venus even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2.[/quote]

Quote:

---

Yes, I am saying that, or at least suggesting it. Please tell me how we know the solar teperatures thousands of years ago, and then post some data.

---

Watch the damn Youtube. No one knows solar activity from 1000 years ago, but Galeglio started recording them in the 1600 and they've been watched constantly since the 1800s.

Quote:

---

'Greenhouse gases are emitted by people'; this is a very silly statement. Yes they are... but not exclusively! Many organisms give off large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gases. In case you weren't aware (I'm not insinuating that you aren't), organisms have completely shaped the atmosphere of the Earth.

---

All oxygen breathing life gives off CO2, but it wouldn't increase it dramatically like it's been doing. You know that graph of the CO2 levels over the last 50 years? Those cyclical ups and downs every year are because of animals.

Animals can only shape an atmosphere over very long periods of time. The only thing that can change it abruptly like we're seeing is the sun, volcanos, or man.

Quote:

---

That's not science. Do some proper calculations or, considering they're probably very hard and obscure, find somebody who's done them for you. You continue to make things up without justification...

---

It is science. Cold air doesn't hold water vapor as well. Fact. Less CO2 in the atmosphere means cooler temperatures. Fact. I can do calculations, they aren't hard. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to get, removing CO2 brings down temperature, which brings down humidity, which further decreases temperature.

100% (all greenhouse components) - 35% (CO2 + methane) = 65%
65% * 1 (constant heat from the sun) = .65 (amount of heat held by the atmosphere)

Graph of water capacity vs temperature
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1/Dewpoint.jpg

Take any point on the graph, take 65% of it and you get the drop in water vapor temperature. Now add the loss of water vapor to the CO2 + methane portion and repeat until the change is negligible.

You're constantly contradicting yourself. Yes animals give off CO2 and yes increasing temperature makes the ocean give off CO2. Both have problems. Refer to the graph in post 31.

in the last 100 years the graph shows a huge spike. 1.5x the levels in the last 450,000. Animals respiration can not produce that much CO2 that fast.

Your other argument is that CO2 is the effect, not the cause. If that were the case, the spike in temperature should occur first The ocean temperature has risen 1 degree globally (and is accelerating.) If your theory was right, then there should be a spike in ocean temperature a few decades before a spike in CO2. We don't see that, the CO2 has spiked and the temperature is following it. Temperature is not the independent variable, greenhouse gases are.

Here is the point that every single person here is missing.

None of us here are climate scientists. I doubt anyone here is a scientist of any type whatsoever. If you are, please let us know your credentials, otherwise we can all assume this is the case.

Every single one of us is relying on information supplied to us by somebody else. Every single one of us is ignoring or brushing aside information given to us by yet another party.

The question at this point should have nothing to do with C02, peak oil, sun spots, or ice cores. ALL of that information is coming to you third hand.

The question you should be asking yourselves at this moment is "who authored this information, and can they be trusted?"

I submit to you that any source that has direct money ties to ExxonMobil is automatically suspect. Note that I did not say "wrong," I said "suspect." It could not be any clearer that ExxonMobil would have a vested interest in supressing or distorting any data that suggested that burning fossil fuels can cause harm. If you can not see the logic in this statement, you have no business debating anything here whatsoever.

In light of this, it would behoove each and every one of you deniers to find a source of data you can trust. I will again explain my challenge to all of you.

Find ONE American scientist (preferably in the area of climate, earth sciences, or a related field) who denies global warming, and who has does not have direct ties to ExxonMobil. Or find ONE publication or organization that has publicly denied global warming that has no such ties. Just one. Post it here. Drewmandan showed that a "quick google search" fails miserably, so I implore you to put a little thought into it.

If you cannot find one, you really need to start rethinking your position. Of course ExxonMobil can put money wherever they want, and it's not illegal for them to support research of any kind. But if the fact that (as far as I can determine) EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE SCIENTISTS takes money from ExxonMobil should ring gigantic alarm bells for you. In absense of said ringing, you can only be regarded as beyond gullable.

If this challenge does not appeal to you, perhaps you can go the other route and show me an American scientist in an appropriate field who supports global warming, for whom you can demonstrate any questionable funding from anywhere at all. This is certainly more than fair: I promise to try to identify EVERYBODY on your side as taking questionable funding, and all I ask in return is that you identify ONE person on my side. And please don't waste everyone's time answering "Al Gore." He is not a scientist.

There's the challenge. If there is no global warming, this should be a walk in the park for you.

Found this on wiki:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I'll leave it to you guys to investigate the credibility of each person on the list. I'm not really partial in this debate but I thought this should be thrown out there.

:popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

Found this on wiki:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I'll leave it to you guys to investigate the credibility of each person on the list. I'm not really partial in this debate but I thought this should be thrown out there.

---

That's a good place for people to start. Anything from the category of "Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased," "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes," or "Believe global warming will benefit human society" would fit the bill, assuming their credentials are valid. Of course I caution the challengers to tread carefully here. I already see several people on the list who I recognize as having very well-known large ties to Exxon.

Good luck.

Addendum: Just to be clear, I am not at all certain that such a person can't be found. I'm kind of hoping you can find him. Then at least reading the particulars of what they say might have some merit to bring to your side of the argument. I do welcome debating the merits of the two sides of the argument, just not against the usual suspects with the usual motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Goddamnit Drew. I came in here to play devil's advocate for a minute only to realize you had sucked all the fun out of it by being a giant douchebag. Why do you always have to be as big an asshole as possible when disagreeing with someone, or even just posting in general? Stop being a douche already, it doesn't make you sound smart.

---

The only one making an ass of himself is you, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Life has existed on this planet for about 4.5 billion years. The industrial revolution started around 200 years ago. The predominant theory is that we reached peak oil production around 2000, which means about half of the earth's oil supply has already been used up. You would have to be a complete idiot to think that 2.5 billion years of carbon build up being released into the atmosphere in just over 200 years will have no effect on the global climate.

---

Life has existed for 3.5-4 billion years.

Burning of hydrocarbons has been going on for all of human history.

Yes, we have probably reached peak oil, and that's a problem if the economy runs on oil. Here's an interesting video about how fucked we are because of this (includes math for simpletons!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2...eature=channel

But here's the thing: Not all of the CO2 from burning lingers in the atmosphere, and the Earth has an extremely robust negative feedback mechanism for capturing CO2, called "plants". So frankly, I don't see a problem. I see some graphs without error bars because they would probably be bigger than the graphs. I see some naively calculated numbers showing that *gasp* the temperature has increased by less than a degree on average, ±10 degrees. I just don't see the need to add Reason #347 for why we shouldn't use oil. It just takes away the credibility of all the valid reasons.

A human breathes 0.5 tons of CO2 per year on average.
A Prius driven 20 miles to work 5 days a week for a year produces 2.3 tons of CO2

Yes, there are animals who produce more CO2 than humans, but most people don't have a brand new Prius and drive a hell of a lot more than that. Most of the claims against global warming aren't that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (which is Chem 101) it's that we don't put off that much CO2.

Until the industrial revolution that amount of CO2 absorbed by plants and emitted by animals was fairly equal. How opponents think that the millions of tons of CO2 produced by humans since the industrial revolution just disappears somehow boggles my mind. Cars emit CO2 is huge quantities, so do coal power stations. That's not debate, it's fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Until the industrial revolution that amount of CO2 absorbed by plants and emitted by animals was fairly equal.

---

Clear-cutting/deforestation doesn't help much either. If plants are what's saving us from too much C02, shouldn't we be worried that we're systematically eliminating a great deal of them?

By the way, still waiting on takers on the challenge.

Actually, the amount of O2 that the world's forests puts out is miniscule compared to the O2 output of the ocean's algae. Deforestation has other very bad consequences and needs to stop, but it won't effect the atmosphere very much.

The problem is that as sea temperatures increase due to global warming, algae dies.

Quote:

---

Find ONE American scientist (preferably in the area of climate, earth sciences, or a related field) who denies global warming, and who has does not have direct ties to ExxonMobil. Or find ONE publication or organization that has publicly denied global warming that has no such ties. Just one. Post it here. Drewmandan showed that a "quick google search" fails miserably, so I implore you to put a little thought into it.

---

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to your own thread if you think no such scientists has been mentioned.

Also, your repulsion of any skeptic of this hypothesis shows a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method. Politics should have no place at all in a scientific debate, and skepticism is the holy grail.

Quote:

---

You're contradicting yourself. You keep saying that the solubility of CO2 decreasing is increasing global warming by released CO2 from the ocean (which is true) I'm confused how Venus got involved in this. Yes, CO2 is the major reason Venus' atmosphere is so hot, but it's got 90x as much atmosphere as Earth. Earth can never get like Venus even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2.

---

Well apparently you've just completely lost the thread then. The thread was this; there will never be a scenario in which Earth's climate spirals uncontrollably due to our influence. A small CO2 increase will cause a small temperature increase; there's no exponential feedback at play here or anything like that.

And no, what I've been saying is that CO2 sol./temperature is an explanation of the correlation between the two, with temperature as the causal factor; except this explanation actually has empirical evidence and is proper science, quite unlike anthropic global warming.

Quote:

---

Watch the damn Youtube. No one knows solar activity from 1000 years ago, but Galeglio started recording them in the 1600 and they've been watched constantly since the 1800s.

---

So when you said that solar activity hasn't changed you were actually making stuff up. Again.

Quote:

---

All oxygen breathing life gives off CO2, but it wouldn't increase it dramatically like it's been doing. You know that graph of the CO2 levels over the last 50 years? Those cyclical ups and downs every year are because of animals.

Animals can only shape an atmosphere over very long periods of time. The only thing that can change it abruptly like we're seeing is the sun, volcanos, or man.

---

You realise that there wouldn't be any oxygen in the atmosphere if it werent for life?

But anyway, you've lost the thread again. I wasn't saying that animals are responsible for the recent rise in CO2, if I remember rightly that is down to our burning fossil fuels. We were talking about how, during the history of the Earth, other factors have affected the temperature, such as solar activity (which you said does not change, although you've now said you have no evidence at all for that), and biological processes.

Quote:

---

It is science. Cold air doesn't hold water vapor as well. Fact. Less CO2 in the atmosphere means cooler temperatures. Fact. I can do calculations, they aren't hard. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to get, removing CO2 brings down temperature, which brings down humidity, which further decreases temperature.

100% (all greenhouse components) - 35% (CO2 + methane) = 65%
65% * 1 (constant heat from the sun) = .65 (amount of heat held by the atmosphere)

Graph of water capacity vs temperature


Take any point on the graph, take 65% of it and you get the drop in water vapor temperature. Now add the loss of water vapor to the CO2 + methane portion and repeat until the change is negligible.

---

Well done, those two things are facts! However, your calculations show an incredible ignorance. Have you studied mathematics or any physical science to a high level?

1. Why did you remove the methane when we were talking about CO2?
2. You've made a massive assumption about a proportionality between temperature of the planet and the amount of greenhouse gas in its atmosphere. According to your logic a planet with no greenhouse gas would be absolute zero.
3. Why the hell would you take 65% of a temperature in Celsius? Do you have any basic understanding of thermodynamics or what temperature actually is??
4. You realise that if you actually apply your iterative process, the temperature will always fall to absolute zero?? You think that's correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to your own thread if you think no such scientists has been mentioned.

---

Gee really? Then how come you cannot come up with his name? What the hell is so hard about that?

So far in this thread exactly one climate scientist has been named: S. Fred Singer. I have fully covered his ties to ExxonMobil.

If you're seeing another name here, it can only be attributed to hallucination.

Quote:

---

Find ONE American scientist (preferably in the area of climate, earth sciences, or a related field) who denies global warming, and who has does not have direct ties to ExxonMobil.

---

Uhhhh Michael Crichton? There was also that list on Wikipedia. What exactly do you want?

By the way, what's with insisting that they're American??

Seriously, your attitude to scientific skepticism is ridiculous. Skepticism is at the heart of science, and as soon as you start shooting the skeptics, you're out of science and back into the dark ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Uhhhh Michael Crichton? There was also that list on Wikipedia. What exactly do you want?

---

I want a scientist, preferably in a related field. I said that several times. Crichton is not such a scientist.

The list on Wikipedia was suggested as a good place to pull such a name from, but you didn't attempt to do so. Do you actually want me to systematically discredit as many as I can one by one? Would you actually read each of these posts? If yes, I'll begin, but I was hoping you could save everyone the bother and just point to your favorites. Or perhaps that is difficult for you because you don't know who these people are?

Quote:

---

By the way, what's with insisting that they're American??

---

Nothing sinister in this. 1. ExxonMobil is an American company, their ties are more likely to be in America. And 2. though there are examples outside America, it is seriously harder to do the research on this end, FIA not extending to the scope of the entire world. My task requires enough work as it is, but if it's an issue, why don't we both agree that at least there are no American scientists that fit that criteria.

Quote:

---

Seriously, your attitude to scientific skepticism is ridiculous. Skepticism is at the heart of science, and as soon as you start shooting the skeptics, you're out of science and back into the dark ages.

---

Why don't you go back and read my response to Crichton's speech? I gave him a lot of credit for that, even though he is not a climate scientist. I consider this a much healthier form of skepticism than the form that completely shuts out the possibility of global warming while not even knowing the source and funding of your data.

Quote:

---

I want a scientist, preferably in a related field. I said that several times. Crichton is not such a scientist.

---

...perhaps look up the definition of preferably? But ok, let's not get hung up on arguing for the sake of it.

Quote:

---

The list on Wikipedia was suggested as a good place to pull such a name from, but you didn't attempt to do so. Do you actually want me to systematically discredit as many as I can one by one? Would you actually read each of these posts? If yes, I'll begin, but I was hoping you could save everyone the bother and just point to your favorites. Or perhaps that is difficult for you because you don't know who these people are?

---

Sure, discredit every one.

You've asked for climate scientists who are skeptical.

You've been given a whole list.

What more do you want?? You've been given precisely what you asked for. So now the only thing left for you to do is discredit them.

Although of course I can't give any evidence for this my old geography teacher has a PhD in geography and he said it was all scaremongering.

By the way, what's with quoting Drew in your signature? Do you think he's wrong or something?

It's a very lazy approach to the challenge. I wonder how many I will have to do before you see a pattern?

I do have a life, but I'll start thinning your pack a bit just for fun...

the list.

First up, Timothy Ball, PhD.
Former Senior Economic Advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin 2000-2005
Founding member, Economic Freedom Network, set up by the Canadian-based Fraser InstituteDirector, Institute of Economic Analysis, Moscow. 1994-2000

Expert, Heartland Institute ($676,500 From Exxon since 1998)
Associate, Tech Central Science Foundation ($95,000 in 2003)

Please let me know if you see any association or dollar amount you do not believe. I can post IRS documents and documents directly from Exxonmobil if you want, but it's going to seriously slow down the process.

Next up, Robert Carter

Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
Former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Stationfounding member, Australian Environment Foundation
Founding member scientist, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Speaker, Heartland Institute ($676,500 From Exxon since 1998)
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Science Foundation ($95,000 from Exxon in 2003)

Moving right along...

Vincent Gray (Not American, but covering anyway)

Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station
Founding member, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Author of "The Greenhouse Delusion".

Expert, Heartland Institute ($676,500 From Exxon since 1998)
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Science Foundation ($95,000 from Exxon in 2003)
CFACT delegation at UNFCCC '07, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($542,000 from Exxon since 1998)

I have now covered the part of the list labeled "Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased"

When you are ready to proceed, please say so. I'm running to grab a Pepsi.

PS - the signature is just a minor celebration that Drew and I found some common ground. Something we both believe.

skysaw, it doesn't matter where they get their funding. If they've published articles in peer-reviewed journals, then what they're saying has some credence.

I would also like to point out that your entire argument is self-defeating. I quote Al Gore: "You can’t make somebody understand something if their salary depends upon them not understanding it."

Well put, Gore. And who's salary depends more on alarmism and pseudoscience than a climatologist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

skysaw, it doesn't matter where they get their funding. If they've published articles in peer-reviewed journals, then what they're saying has some credence.

I would also like to point out that your entire argument is self-defeating. I quote Al Gore: "You can’t make somebody understand something if their salary depends upon them not understanding it."

Well put, Gore. And who's salary depends more on alarmism and pseudoscience than a climatologist?

---

Most climatologists are university professors or NASA engineers. Their interest is science, not displacing blame.

Indeed. You realise that every single person who specialises in anthropic global warming will have no source of income if anthropic global warming is discredited?

So you can add every global warming scientist ever to your list of people who are potentially being funded to lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

skysaw, it doesn't matter where they get their funding.

---

This thought might have some merit if it were not such a demonstratably blatent trend. Are you saying there is no merit in questioning the motives of a publication? It's unbelieveable to me that the pattern means nothing to you. It is more than statistically significant. Am I to believe that these scientists funded by Exxon all just coincidentally deny global warming, against the general trend? Bullploppy.

As to "salary depends upon them not understanding it" these people I am dissecting for you are the very epitome of that paradigm, and in fact that is the entire point of this thread.

Quote:

---

If they've published articles in peer-reviewed journals, then what they're saying has some credence.

---

Ok, I'll bite. Please cite the articles that appear in peer-reviewed journals. Only please refrain from posting examples where the journal itself does not have direct ties to ExxonMobil. Same problem.

What's with Drew's quote still? :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Indeed. You realise that every single person who specialises in anthropic global warming will have no source of income if anthropic global warming is discredited?

So you can add every global warming scientist ever to your list of people who are potentially being funded to lie.

---

I don't for one second believe that you think scientists only have jobs due to the global warming scare. I'm sure if we were to consider all of them, we might find a few who think they need to be on that side for their job, but if they thought about it, they'd realise that the real bucks would be in simply signing on at Heartland Institute, and getting in on some of that loose oil money.

Are you no longer interested in my dissecting the list? I wouldn't want to waste my time. Just say the word.

Quote:

---

What's with Drew's quote still?

---

Answered in post #60

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I don't for one second believe that you think scientists only have jobs due to the global warming scare. I'm sure if we were to consider all of them, we might find a few who think they need to be on that side for their job, but if they thought about it, they'd realise that the real bucks would be in simply signing on at Heartland Institute, and getting in on some of that loose oil money.

---

So what you're saying is, despite the fact that you do believe that scientists will endorse the unpopular notion of there being no AGW for money, they won't ever endorse the popular notion of AGW for money, despite the fact that doing so would necessarily give them more good feelings, fame, and money? And on top of this, you're saying that if anyone was found that disagreed with the consensus, then they must be working for Exxon, and that the burden of proof is on us to prove that they're not?

This is looking more and more like a cult movement to me.

Ok, I'm going to move onto the heading "Believe global warming will benefit human society," since this is probably the most irresponsible position, and I wouldn't want these lingering on anyone's "possible" list.

Craig D. Idso (B.S., M.S., Ph.D. - Geography/Agronomy)
Graduate Research Associate, office of Climatology, Arizona State University.
Former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO.
Co-produced the report, "The Greening of Planet Earth, Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," the Western Fuels Association (nice...).

Chairman of the Board, Founder and Former President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change ($100,000 from Exxon since 1998)
Expert, George C. Marshall Institute ($715,000 since 1999)
Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($542,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Quote:

---

I don't for one second believe that you think scientists only have jobs due to the global warming scare. I'm sure if we were to consider all of them, we might find a few who think they need to be on that side for their job, but if they thought about it, they'd realise that the real bucks would be in simply signing on at Heartland Institute, and getting in on some of that loose oil money.

Are you no longer interested in my dissecting the list? I wouldn't want to waste my time. Just say the word.

---

Of course there are. There's hundreds of people now getting PhDs in global warming.

Continue if you want, but like I said, it's pretty pointless. And as soon as politics starts to take the centerground in a scientific issue something's gone very wrong.

Quote:

---

Answered in post #60

---

Uhhhh okay. It's a fact, you see. People tend to agree on those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Ok, I'm going to move onto the heading "Believe global warming will benefit human society," since this is probably the most irresponsible position, and I wouldn't want these lingering on anyone's "possible" list.

---

No. Do the rest of the last list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

So what you're saying is, despite the fact that you do believe that scientists will endorse the unpopular notion of there being no AGW for money, they won't ever endorse the popular notion of AGW for money, despite the fact that doing so would necessarily give them more good feelings, fame, and money?

---

I believe I just said that that very scenario could happen. Want to do some research comparable to mine to look into it?

Quote:

---

And on top of this, you're saying that if anyone was found that disagreed with the consensus, then they must be working for Exxon, and that the burden of proof is on us to prove that they're not?

---

No, obviously the burdon has been put on ME, since you all are too lazy to put forth one name you believe to be clean. That is why I have been going through that wikipedia list. I've also already said that there could be some not working for Exxon. This process is to find those persons, if any, and look at their opinions. So far, you have not contributed to that end.

Quote:

---

This is looking more and more like a cult movement to me.

---

It could look like anything from your vantage point. You do not seem bother to do any of your own research.

Look, my point from the very outset of this thread was that Exxon is buying scientific opinion. I have provided (and continue to provide) MOUNDS of evidence to support that claim. So far, there has been no evidence from anyone to the contrary. If your response to Exxon funding is "so what?" then we're done, and I don't see why you're posting. But it does matter to many other folks, and they may be interested in seeing this information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

No. Do the rest of the last list.

---

That list was "Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased." I have already covered all three entries. Please pay attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Continue if you want, but like I said, it's pretty pointless. And as soon as politics starts to take the centerground in a scientific issue something's gone very wrong.

---

Well hey, if it's pointless I'm happy to spend my time on other things. However, this concedes the point for me, since nobody could complete the challenge.

It still blows my mind that it holds no significance for you, but what can I do. Your opinions are your own, and you're entitled to them.

??? You asked for climatologists who are skeptical but not being paid. You've been given a list. You've assumed everybody on the list is being paid. And this equals a point for Skysaw?

Great work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

??? You asked for climatologists who are skeptical but not being paid. You've been given a list. You've assumed everybody on the list is being paid. And this equals a point for Skysaw?

---

Of course it's a point for Skysaw. You said continuing on the list was pointless. You have now changed your mind?

The challenge was for YOU to find ONE name not taking money. You lazily pointed to a wikipedia list someone else compiled. I systematically start taking that list apart, and you tell me there's no point in doing so. Then you blame me for stopping?? Holy crap, make up your mind.

One last time. Do you or do you not want me to continue with the list? It is completely up to you.

I'm not responding to every quote, I'm gonna state the facts.

The earth's CO2 level is 150% what it has been in the last 450,000 years. Almost all of that increase outside of the normal variation has happened in the past 150 years. This is known because of ice core samples as well as in more recent times actual observance.
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/.../IceCores1.gif
http://maybeitsnotwarming.com/wp-con...-co2-graph.jpg

There are a few things that can produce that much CO2. [list=1][*]Volcanism, which has remained constant. (From here on out when I use the word constant I mean within a normal varience,)[*]Massive release from the ocean caused by solubility changes due to temperature, which would require the temperature increase to preceed the CO2 spike (when the opposite has happened)[*]Mass extinction of algae and mass surge in CO2 emitting animals, which hasn't happened.[*]And man driving cars and running coal factories. This is the only explaination and is fact that these give off huge amounts of CO2. That CO2 doesn't disappear, it stays in the atmosphere.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._by_Sector.png

CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. That is not up for debate.

As the extra CO2 produced by man increases in the atmosphere, the temperature rises. This is also not up for debate.

As the temperature rises the oceans release CO2 because it can't hold as much, which adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere, further increasing the amount.

As water and air temperature rises, there is more water vapor in the air, water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. The skeptics say that more water vapor will cool the planet because the clouds block the sun's rays. In fact, they absorb them. Just because they don't reach the surface doesn't mean that those rays don't warm the planet.

As the water temerature rises, it is most prominant at the poles. A 1 degree increase at the equator would be a 12 degree increase at the poles because of the oceanic currents. This melts ice, warm water melts ice. Not up for debate.

As ice melts it turns to water, which absorbs sunlight (as oppose to ice, which reflects it.) This further increases the temperature of the water and the temperature of the planet.

NASA can measure exactly how much ice is being lost by measureing variation in gravity from satelites. The amount lost each year is increasing.

Greenland ice melting
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming...tMassTrend.jpg

Arctic ice melting
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageS...extent5_sm.jpg

Cold water and fresh water sinks so when it is released into the ocean it goes right ot the bottom, altering the global-wide oceainic currents which give Spain (which is at the same latitute as New York) it's very warm climate. If that current were to be disrupted, Europe would be put into a major cold snap. It happened during the last ice age when a melting glacier from Canada got released into the ocean.

As the tempeature rises, permafrost in Alaska, Canada, and Russia melts.
http://www.greeninstitute.net/files/...st.preview.jpg

Inside the permafrost is dead planetlife from thousands of years. As it decomposes the bacteria release huge amounts of methane, which is a far more potant greenhouse gas that either CO2 or water vapor.

There is also vast quantites of frozen methane in the ocean (methane goes directly from gas to solid under pressure) and as the oceans temperature rise that frozen methane turns to a gas and leaks into the atmosphere.

Methane plume off of California
http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/b...ean-bubble.jpg

The biggest skeptical claim is that the only thing powerful enough to effect the glabal temperature of Earth is the Sun. Sunspots are the best indication of the temperature of the sun, more sunspots means a hotter sun. Sunspots have been tracked regularly since 1749.

The greenline is regular data, the red one is data collected at periodic times.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...umbers.svg.png

The 11 year cycle is natural and here is a close look at the last 30 years (which is when the majority of the temperature spike has occured.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cycle-data.png

Other than the natural 11 year cycle, the trend is constant. In fact, the tail end of the graph is decreasing, so the earth's temperature should be decreasing, but it's not.


There are the facts and some of the sources. The history channel youtube cites more sources, as does Al Gore. NASA doesn't get paid any more or less depending on their position on global warming, neither do the university professors, or UN scientists.

If you still think that the global temperature increase is due to the sun or that the unnaturally high amount of CO2 int eh atmosphere isn't man-made or that the CO2 won't cause a temperature spike... you're stupid. There's no nice way to put it.

Sherwood Idso (B.S., M.S., Ph.D. - Geography/Agronomy)
Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from the University of Minnesota.

President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change ($100,000 from Exxon since 1998)
Expert, George C. Marshall Institute ($715,000 since 1999)
Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($542,000 from Exxon since 1998)

So far we are 5 for 5. Are you sure there isn't some other list you want me to be doing?

Patrick Michaels (B.S., M.S., Ph.D. - Geography/Agronomy)
Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute.State Climatologist, Virginia.Advisor, American Legislative Exchange Council.

Holy cow have we hit the motherload on this guy!

Here are his associations with money ties to Exxon:

More than $500,000 since 1998:
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Heartland Institute
George C. Marshall Institute
Comittee for a Constructive Tomorrow
American Legislative Exchange Council

$100,000 - $500,000
Cato Institute
American Council on Science and Health
Weidenbaum Center
Heritage Foundation

Up to $100,000
American Spectator Foundation
Tech Central Science Foundation
Consumer Alert
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition

Of course it's a just coincidence that Mr. Michaels is the most widely-quoted scientist against global warming today.

And that wraps up "Believe global warming will benefit human society."

The ball is now in your court. Name a name, or admit that there is a telling trend.

Skysaw: Please go through the list entitled "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes". Thank you.

The following is what is known as "argument by intimidation", which is where someone supports a faulty claim with mounds of information that, even if they were flawed, would take ages to discredit. I will do a couple from the start and maybe Xei or someone will look at the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/.../IceCores1.gif

---

Notice that the spike at the end is so thin that it can't even be accurately shown on this graph, because the time scale is a massive 50,000 year increment. Also note that the intervals for data points in the preceding 400,000 years were probably taken from geologic records laid down hundreds of years apart. This means that if a spike ever did occur in the past, it would be invisible on the graph if it lasted less than a few hundred years. Finally, notice that any spike on this graph has obviously been magnified by taking out the bottom half of the vertical scale.

Also, on a more general note, "argument by graph" is not and has never been a valid scientific tool. Graphs are meant to inform the public, not rigorously support hypotheses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

http://maybeitsnotwarming.com/wp-con...-co2-graph.jpg

---

I will leave this to wikipedia, who have an article about the graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

I'm sure skysaw will point out all the obscure ways that Exxon is responsible for that article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There are a few things that can produce that much CO2. [list=1][*]Volcanism, which has remained constant. (From here on out when I use the word constant I mean within a normal varience,)

---

Not true. Over a period as short as a century, one will observe that random eruptions can cause very significant CO2 changes. For example, in recent history we have had the eruptions of Krakatoa, St. Helens, and Pinatubo, all of which could have had effects on the CO2 record that no one currently understands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

[*]Massive release from the ocean caused by solubility changes due to temperature, which would require the temperature increase to preceed the CO2 spike (when the opposite has happened)

---

You just tried to hide the entire crux of your argument in a foot note. Xei and I claim that it's possible that exactly that DID happen, so let's see your evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

[*]Mass extinction of algae and mass surge in CO2 emitting animals, which hasn't happened.

---

Agreed. I only quote this so you don't think I missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

[*]And man driving cars and running coal factories. This is the only explaination and is fact that these give off huge amounts of CO2. That CO2 doesn't disappear, it stays in the atmosphere.

---

Maybe someone has these stats, but I've read that the human CO2 emissions only amount to something like 3% of world total emissions. Furthermore, your assertion that CO2 lingers is pure fantasy. Plants, algae, and rocks all actively remove CO2 from the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._by_Sector.png

---

I don't see the relevance of this graph. It's comparing various human sources of CO2. I would like to see the pie chart of human sources versus non-human sources.

I'll leave the rest of your nonsense to others to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Skysaw: Please go through the list entitled "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes"

---

Drew,

Thank you for an actual honest request. If there is a non-Exxon funded scientist, he is likely to be in this section. I will do my best to find him. I will not be able to get very far at the moment, as I'm about to leave and won't be back until this evening. I'll see if I can get a couple in before that though.

But I do hope that if I find a preponderance of oil money on this list as well that you will concede that there is a significant pattern. For my part, I promise to regard any scientists who are not suspiciously funded with due respect. Fair enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Drew,

Thank you for an actual honest request. If there is a non-Exxon funded scientist, he is likely to be in this section. I will do my best to find him. I will not be able to get very far at the moment, as I'm about to leave and won't be back until this evening. I'll see if I can get a couple in before that though.

But I do hope that if I find a preponderance of oil money on this list as well that you will concede that there is a significant pattern. For my part, I promise to regard any scientists who are not suspiciously funded with due respect. Fair enough?

---

The oil money would have to be significant. It's possible to link any scientist in any field to any source of money if you're not strict with the amount of money and the degrees of separation between them and the money.

5 internet creds to the person who can draw the money link between al gore and exxon -_-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I will leave this to wikipedia, who have an article about the graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

---

Oooh! I love a challenge. Guantlet taken up!

From that article:

Quote:

---

This dispute centered on technical aspects of the methodology and data sets used in creating the MBH98 reconstruction. The issue was originally raised by former mining executive Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick. Their criticisms were that Mann et al.'s reconstructed millennial temperature graph (the hockey stick) was an artifact of flawed calculations and serious data defects; in turn, MBH replied that these criticisms were spurious.

---

Ok, so we have the names of two people involved in the controversy. Who are they?

Mining Executive Stephen McIntyre
Expert, George C. Marshall Institute ($715,000 from Exxon since 1999)

Economist Ross McKitrick
Expert, George C. Marshall Institute ($715,000 from Exxon since 1999)
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute ($120,000 from Exxon since 2003)
Expert, Heartland Institute ($676,500 from Exxon since 1999)

Is it walking like a duck yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

The oil money would have to be significant. It's possible to link any scientist in any field to any source of money if you're not strict with the amount of money and the degrees of separation between them and the money.

---

I agree to your point. So far, all links have been direct. If there are any you are curious about seeing more detail on, please let me know.

I'm off for a few hours. I will continue tonight when I'm back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Ok, so we have the names of two people involved in the controversy. Who are they?

Mining Executive Stephen McIntyre
Expert, George C. Marshall Institute ($715,000 from Exxon since 1999)

Economist Ross McKitrick
Expert, George C. Marshall Institute ($715,000 from Exxon since 1999)
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute ($120,000 from Exxon since 2003)
Expert, Heartland Institute ($676,500 from Exxon since 1999)

Is it walking like a duck yet?

---

Not until you show all the other sources of income for those institutes for context. And there are many other scientists mentioned.

My Findings

As you read this summary post, I would like you to consider what I write here in the spirit of my original post in this thread. In that post, I wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skysaw

So you don't believe in climate change? You've heard science that has convinced you otherwise? I understand... but do yourself a favor and check the source of that information...

...All I'm asking is that you look at this yourself. Don't let billionaire oil execs form your opinion for you.

---

The underlying point is "know your source." For anyone doing research or reporting, this is a significant basic ground rule. After all, what good is information if you don't know where it comes from? I sincerely hope that this significance is not lost on any of you. Offering this advice brought plenty of grief, accusations, and even some name-calling my way, but I'm willing to look past all that.

Victory?

At Drewmandan's request, I have looked at the section of the list that contained those who "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes." I have identified two individuals that fit my challenge criteria for whom I could find no link to ExxonMobil. I will say something momentarily on their identities and what it might mean to you.

I think we can all agree that the fact that these individuals don't seem to be tied to oil money is a good thing. But I feel I must express my disappointment that nobody here on the opposition bothered to find them. In essence, I pushed forward on the challenge because nobody else thought it was worth the effort. Or at least, it was not worth more effort than a "quick Google search" or a link to someone else's Wikipedia list -- a list which contained people whose affiliations were unknown to you. I have to wonder if this is the same level of effort people generally make when determining whether or not anthropogenic global warming is to be believed. For such people, that's a shame no matter which side of the argument they fall on.

The Scientists

Who are the two individuals I found on the list with no oil ties? I have decided not to reveal them. At first I was going to say "you don't deserve to know," but I realized that would be both spiteful and untrue. The truth is you do deserve to know. More, you should know. Nevertheless, I am withholding their names in order to make a point, and to give you an opportunity to ponder something else you are currently unable to know:

• What are their specific opinions on the subject?
• Have these scientists written anything on the subject?
• Have they written anything I have read?

I spent just a little time reading what I could on these scientists, so I can answer these questions for myself. In the process, I learned some new things. I did this because I care about sources. If this information matters to you, if it honestly would make a difference to you, please tell me so and I will post it. Better yet, you could find it yourselves and tell me. You would gain my utmost respect for doing so. If it doesn't matter to you, no harm/no foul; I have saved myself a lot of typing, and you a lot of reading.

Final Question

My final question is one I have been pursuing for the entire thread. It is not political, accusatory, nor an attack. Best of all, you don't have to give me the answer. I just want you to ask it of yourself:

When I formed a solid belief on the validity of AGW claims, on whose analysis did I base my decision? Based on those persons' identities, could this information contain misdirection?

And most importantly:

If I cannot answer that with confidence, do I have enough information to reach a conclusion?

Whatever you believe and whatever you celebrate this time of year, I hope you all have a happy and safe holiday.

Skysaw, riddle me this:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

got 1,560,000 from al gore 2007
probably more, only clicked first result on google

By your logic, that brings just about every climate scientist out of the game, right?

So skysaw was proven wrong and now he won't admit it or reveal the results of his witch hunt. Even more troubling, this whole exercise has probably made him even more convinced of his conspiracy, despite the fact that it was proven wrong. *sigh*

I was watching some videos on ted.com and I came across a video that pertained to global warming. Hopefully you can forgive me for digging up this thread, but I think it's something several people who were watching this thread would like to see.

Anyway, the actual talk is on science and the experimental process in general, but in the last 9 minutes he uses global warming as an example.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/k...ntists_do.html
I would personally recommend the entire video, but if you are only interested in the part that directly pertains to global warming, please skip to 20:44.

Yeah, I've seen that one (after I already made up my mind about AGW). I like how when he says global warming isn't real, someone in the audience stands up and threatens him. Interesting how AGW proponents are so defensive...

I think the person who stood up was telling him that he was far over his allotted time and that he needed to step down so that the next person could speak. Most speakers are allotted 15-20 minutes to speak, and Dr. Mullis ended up speaking for nearly 30. :whyme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

I think the person who stood up was telling him that he was far over his allotted time and that he needed to step down so that the next person could speak. Most speakers are allotted 15-20 minutes to speak, and Dr. Mullis ended up speaking for nearly 30. :whyme:

---

Well, we'll never know for sure, but why then did people laugh when he said "I'll stand up too"?