------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by The Bulvater

I find all these arguments interesting but there's plenty of p-reviewed 'flat earth papers' and some referenced in previous threads, this forum just goes round in circles on the whole debate.

'Flat earth papers?' Meaning ones that claim that the earth is flat, or ones that claim that global warming isn't occurring?

Originally Posted by The Bulvater

The global warming argument never really began unless of course you want to buy into the big long con . Global warming isnt the issue it is just a distraction from the real problems-we've been taken for a big ride.

It's irrelevant now anyway. And if you don't think it is now, it will be in the future.

Sorry, is your position that CO2 hasn't been increasing, that the greenhouse effect is not an actual effect or that the warming of the earth isn't causing any "real problems"?

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Right, I'm pretty much over you re-posting that rubbish. I have asked you ad-nauseum to get that from a scientific source, and I've posted all the global temperature reconstructions I can find, and they all show that you're wrong.

Have it your way: We can't even tell the temperature

I'm not going round and round with you anymore. Time is the only thing which can prove such a self-righteous, pig-headed, ignorant GW-die-hard-believer wrong... or right for that matter. With all due respect, I prefer time to your banter. Brrrr. it's chilly here... My gas bill is already climbing and it is what, September. Damn global warming... Brrrr... (excuse me while I grab my jacket). Damn it's cold. Brrrrr. Was that a snowflake?

I'm going to build a fire, goodnight.

Ps. Send some global warming my way if you get the chance.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

In order to obtain data (especially for something like this) you would need funding. Where does one seek funding for 'paradigm-shifting discoveries' which fly in the face of conventional beliefs...and scientific consensus? Exxon Mobil? That study would be embraced...

And yet you've managed to convince yourself of the reality of your somewhat eccentric beliefs without any funding.

Your claim that people are denied funding because of what they might discover is rubbish, and you know it.

People who have gone looking for evidence of this bias have found nothing. It doesn't exist.

And neither do all or even most researchers need to submit research plans before they get money. Most have a salary.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Here's a short list of 31,000

That was the story, here's the list

OMG! The Oregon petition again.

Do you think the false signatures have gone away since last time you posted that rubbish?

Do you think that the people looking for verification of these people will suddenly have found them? (SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS, Scientific American).

Are you literally illiterate, that you were unaware of these objections beforehand?

Are you aware of the fraud involved in the paper that was sent out with the petition, as if it had been peer reviewed?

Is this the best you can do? A made up list of fraudulent names collected by Exxon funded ex-tobacco scientists?

I find it really hard to believe that you'd be idiotic enough to post that again and think that it would be better received this time.

Surely a paper by one of your scientists would be better ... but I guess you know that there are none.

From wiki:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[19]
”

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[20] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[21] ”

I mean really, I see you have no scientific bent, but do you really have no dignity?

I was amazed that you posted this horseradish the first time, but this is a whole new kind of wilful blindness, right up there with Scientology membership, and belief in Iraq's WMDs.

Amazing. Utterly amazing. That's all I can say.

Incredible.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Have it your way: We can't even tell the temperature

If this link is supposed to be your scientific source that shows that the warming has stopped, I feel almost reluctant to point out a blog that says that there could be warming even since 1998, depending on how you look at the numbers doesn't really cut the mustard. And mustard's not that hard to cut. You can do it with a spoon.

Originally Posted by Paradox

I'm not going round and round with you anymore. Time is the only thing which can prove such a self-righteous, pig-headed, ignorant GW-die-hard-believer wrong... or right for that matter.

The other thing that would convince me that you haven't tried is science.

And I think you've got a nerve to call me ignorant when I'm taking time out of my day to explain some of the basic scientific knowledge that humanity has ... vis. the CO2 increase is due to human activity and is/will be responsible for a 1.3°C temperature rise when equilibrium is reached. Give or take 50%.

Pretty well established, well backed up by multiple lines of evidence, and you still can't grasp it. So you call me ignorant. [I'm censoring this bit, because it got a bit too uncivil. Suffice to say, I object to being classified as ignorant by you]

I'll accept the self-righteous and the pig-headed though. I can't believe that they're faults you abhor very much, or you would have eliminated them in yourself. And you won't even read posts or follow links that could cure you of your ignorance, so there we are. Everything's mutual except the ignorance.

Originally Posted by Paradox

With all due respect, I prefer time to your banter.

If you engaged intellectually, it would be informed discussion.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Ps. Send some global warming my way if you get the chance.

Alas, it's already in the post.

[Robert Northup]

Funding for Global Warming Skeptics

I’m a little confused if Paradox was saying that the data doesn’t yet exist to support the global cooling theory, and can’t be acquired because nobody would finance such research. I am perplexed that such definitive conclusions have already been drawn if the data hasn’t been collected yet. I’ve been there, knowing I was right about something, but I kept my mouth shut until I had some proof that others would agree is meaningful.

I don’t know how much funding would be required to acquire the data to verify whether or not we are plunging into a catastrophic cooling, but it seems pretty damn important, and if you have even just a little bit of good preliminary data, I know for a fact that funding would be available to you, or at least to one of the credentialed scientists who would want to work with you on something so important. Have you contacted any of those people, among the thousands of scientists who have jumped ship from global warming? There were many no-questions-asked offers in recent years to find scientists with reasonable credentials to provide some kind of evidence that global warming was not really occurring. That would seem to be consistent with the Paradox theory. Michael Savage offered cash straight up for any such scientists to come to San Francisco and make their wisdom heard. After a lot of bad publicity, a couple of major oil companies publicly renounced the efforts that they had financed to accomplish the same thing, and as I recall, they were offering a $10,000 bonus just to come in and show them the data.

I know from my own experience that getting funding for research can be a long, slow process. There is high risk that while a scientist patiently waits to solicit, get approval, and eventually receive grant money, someone else will go ahead and complete the work. As good as the ethical oversight is (and it is very good), there is risk that by writing the grant proposal they will provide other scientists (including grant reviewers) with the information that would enable them to get there first. Many scientists find that it is just TOO slow and too risky, so what they do is begin the preliminary research for the next promising project by redirecting a little bit of the funding already in the pipeline for work that has already been funded. That way, they have a good head start when the real money finally kicks in. NSF grants are very attractive, because they are well funded, but mainly because they carry a lot of prestige. There is fierce competition for these grants, and often heavy requirements for preliminary proof of concept. A common joke is that in order to get the NSF money to do the work, you have to have completed most of the work so that you can prove the work would be worthy of funding.

I think that I will bow out of this discussion, as I don’t see it going anywhere other than in circles. It has been fun interacting with you, Paradox! If all I knew about you was that you are a guy who is convinced that an important (unspecified) area of scientific research is being ignored, that it is of tremendous significance to humanity, and that you are intellectually convinced of the scientific plausibility, here is my advice. Establish communication with at least one credentialed scientist who you think could understand your theory (personally, I don’t pretend to), perhaps from your list of thousands, get some feedback, and find out how you can best contribute to acquiring and/or making available to the public the kind of data and conclusions that would help humanity address the problem, or at least prepare to deal with the consequences.

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Yawn.

Thanks for taking so much time over responding to my post, Instead of going through it point by point, someone already has, I just want to concentrate on this,

Beetles on all continents are being found where they shouldn't be. Data from temperature records and satellites can be manipulated but how do you fool beetles? Do you think that they are knitting jumpers to keep out the cold? And your reaction yawn. Your the one that says all data should be considered, including Mayan calenders, however this piece of data you want to ignore when it is quite obviously relevant to global temperatures, strange.

[Robert Northup]

I know that I said I was going away, but I hadn't noticed the source of your list of thousands of scientists until I saw Bored Wombat's post identifying it. I almost got tricked into signing the petition. It was very cleverly packaged and worded. There is no doubt in my mind that it was intended to make scientists believe they were endorsing something quite different than what it really was. I was in enough of a hurry that I almost went ahead and did the click and send thing, but then I noticed the fine print. WHAT A FREAKING SCAM! I was pissed off and, of course I didn't sign it.

By the way, Bored Wombat, congratulations for your diligence and insistence that objective reality remain in the discussion. However, try not to make it personal. Keep up the good work!

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

By the way, Bored Wombat, congratulations for your diligence and insistence that objective reality remain in the discussion. However, try not to make it personal. Keep up the good work!

I did rather do my 'nana a bit didn't I?

I guess I should delete that bit about toe-rag. On sober reflection, it's an overreaction.

[Paradox]

AFTER SOGGY SUMMER IT WILL BE WIPE-OUT WINTER

I don't have time today to address your posts. I thought those links would rile you guys up.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

I don't have time today to address your posts. I thought those links would rile you guys up.

And here perhaps is the difference between you and us.
We're trying to discuss climate from a scientific perspective.
You're getting your jollies by seeing if you can rile people up.

I never understood the motivation of internet trolls. I guess you must be very lonely.