Cause and Effect and Global Warming

[JohnStOnge]

Every single scientific society states AGW is a fact. Every single National Academy of Science states the same. Every single major university likewise. Irregardless of the nation or political form of government, there is an internationaly overwhelming consensus among scientists that AGW is a fact.

I think it's reasonable to say that the idea that there has been a warming trend recently has been established as a fact. But the issue I addressed in starting this thread is that of cause and effect.

Whoever authored Chapter 9 of the IPCC Physical Science Basis conceded that unequivocal attribution would require experiments that are impossible to conduct. I think it's pretty darned reasonable to say that's conceding that a cause and effect relationship between a warming trend and human activity has not been established as fact. I think that if something is established as fact, it can be stated unequivocally.

Not that I'd agree with them if they did say the cause and effect relationship had been unequivocably demonstrated. But I'm grateful that whoever authored that chapter had enough integrity to state that it hasn't been.

 

[elvis]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

By the way, no demonization needed. You people are just freakin' stupid. You constantly try to back statements with, "well, I heard this at some time or another, some famous scientist said it, I know it is so, so just accept it". This is a discussion of a scientific subject. You are expected to back your statements with sources and verification. Thus far, you have shown yourself to be incapable of doing so.

Hey fuckhead, just because people don't go along with your views or do not post links from sites you agree with does not mean they are stupid. There are many scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by Man, but rather that it is part of a natural cycle. These scientists are not quacks. They are experts in their field, unlike you. No one here but you thinks (s)he holds a monopoly on the truth. So take your condescending tone and shove it up your ass... k?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

By the way, no demonization needed. You people are just freakin' stupid. You constantly try to back statements with, "well, I heard this at some time or another, some famous scientist said it, I know it is so, so just accept it". This is a discussion of a scientific subject. You are expected to back your statements with sources and verification. Thus far, you have shown yourself to be incapable of doing so.

Hey fuckhead, just because people don't go along with your views or do not post links from sites you agree with does not mean they are stupid. There are many scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by Man, but rather that it is part of a natural cycle. These scientists are not quacks. They are experts in their field, unlike you. No one here but you thinks (s)he holds a monopoly on the truth. So take your condescending tone and shove it up your ass... k?

Really? OK, post some of these respected scientists peer review published articles falsifying AGW. Natural cycle? Name the cycle and causes.

You are correct. I am just an onlooker that has taken the time to research what real scientists are publishing in journals in this field. So name your experts, and where the articles they have published in peer reviewed journals so that I may also read those.

How can I be other that condescending to those that post unsupported opinions on a scientific subject. That is not how science is done or argued. If I thought that I held a monopoly on truth, do you think I would be taking the time to do the research? It is people like yourself that make unsupported opinions their stock in trade.

Besides, there is a point that you people are competely missing. I would dearly love to be wrong about what I see in the near future. Make me feel better, show me, with good science, where I am wrong. Show me that I do not have to fear for may children and grandchildren. I would feel much more optimistic concerning the future if you could do that.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Ye Gods and little fishes, I give you articles from the National Academy of Sciences, and you give me complete flakes.

Maybe their reputation itself denies them the scrutiny they need to produce accurate scientific results.

 

[elvis]

By the way, no demonization needed. You people are just freakin' stupid. You constantly try to back statements with, "well, I heard this at some time or another, some famous scientist said it, I know it is so, so just accept it". This is a discussion of a scientific subject. You are expected to back your statements with sources and verification. Thus far, you have shown yourself to be incapable of doing so.

Hey fuckhead, just because people don't go along with your views or do not post links from sites you agree with does not mean they are stupid. There are many scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by Man, but rather that it is part of a natural cycle. These scientists are not quacks. They are experts in their field, unlike you. No one here but you thinks (s)he holds a monopoly on the truth. So take your condescending tone and shove it up your ass... k?

Really? OK, post some of these respected scientists peer review published articles falsifying AGW. Natural cycle? Name the cycle and causes.

You are correct. I am just an onlooker that has taken the time to research what real scientists are publishing in journals in this field. So name your experts, and where the articles they have published in peer reviewed journals so that I may also read those.

How can I be other that condescending to those that post unsupported opinions on a scientific subject. That is not how science is done or argued. If I thought that I held a monopoly on truth, do you think I would be taking the time to do the research? It is people like yourself that make unsupported opinions their stock in trade.

Besides, there is a point that you people are competely missing. I would dearly love to be wrong about what I see in the near future. Make me feel better, show me, with good science, where I am wrong. Show me that I do not have to fear for may children and grandchildren. I would feel much more optimistic concerning the future if you could do that.

I have posted these articles in other threads.

 

[Chris]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

Not really. Singer and his buddies are paid guns. They will say anything. The problem is that the Petroleum Institute pulled all their funding a few years ago, when even they began to realize that man made global warming was real.

The level of denial about this issue is amazing. It's not a political issue, it is a scientific one, and the evidence is solid.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

Not really. Singer and his buddies are paid guns. They will say anything. The problem is that the Petroleum Institute pulled all their funding a few years ago, when even they began to realize that man made global warming was real.

The level of denial about this issue is amazing. It's not a political issue, it is a scientific one, and the evidence is solid.

Is your side impervious to the influence of the yen?

 

[Chris]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

Not really. Singer and his buddies are paid guns. They will say anything. The problem is that the Petroleum Institute pulled all their funding a few years ago, when even they began to realize that man made global warming was real.

The level of denial about this issue is amazing. It's not a political issue, it is a scientific one, and the evidence is solid.

Is your side impervious to the influence of the yen?

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. No question. No argument.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Not really. Singer and his buddies are paid guns. They will say anything. The problem is that the Petroleum Institute pulled all their funding a few years ago, when even they began to realize that man made global warming was real.

The level of denial about this issue is amazing. It's not a political issue, it is a scientific one, and the evidence is solid.

Is your side impervious to the influence of the yen?

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. No question. No argument.

I hurt you bad. You know I am right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fisty uses S. Fred Singer as a source? This S. Fred Singer;

Profiles
Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.

In the early 1990s, Singer's wife, Candace Carolyn Crandall, was Executive Vice President of SEPP and is currently a Research Associate of SEPP. [1]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute lists Singer as "expert" on their website. [2]

[edit]Affiliations
1989- Director and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, a foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization.
1993- Member of the board of the International Center for a Scientific Ecology.
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom
2006- Member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
It should be noted that, according to Environmental Defense, October 26, 2005: [3]

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
[edit]Climate Change "Expert"
The National Center for Public Policy Research [4] lists Singer as someone that journalists can interview on climate change policy.[5]

[edit]Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey fuckhead, just because people don't go along with your views or do not post links from sites you agree with does not mean they are stupid. There are many scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by Man, but rather that it is part of a natural cycle. These scientists are not quacks. They are experts in their field, unlike you. No one here but you thinks (s)he holds a monopoly on the truth. So take your condescending tone and shove it up your ass... k?

Really? OK, post some of these respected scientists peer review published articles falsifying AGW. Natural cycle? Name the cycle and causes.

You are correct. I am just an onlooker that has taken the time to research what real scientists are publishing in journals in this field. So name your experts, and where the articles they have published in peer reviewed journals so that I may also read those.

How can I be other that condescending to those that post unsupported opinions on a scientific subject. That is not how science is done or argued. If I thought that I held a monopoly on truth, do you think I would be taking the time to do the research? It is people like yourself that make unsupported opinions their stock in trade.

Besides, there is a point that you people are competely missing. I would dearly love to be wrong about what I see in the near future. Make me feel better, show me, with good science, where I am wrong. Show me that I do not have to fear for may children and grandchildren. I would feel much more optimistic concerning the future if you could do that.

I have posted these articles in other threads.

In other words, you do not have anything to post.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Fisty uses S. Fred Singer as a source? This S. Fred Singer;

Profiles
Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.

In the early 1990s, Singer's wife, Candace Carolyn Crandall, was Executive Vice President of SEPP and is currently a Research Associate of SEPP. [1]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute lists Singer as "expert" on their website. [2]

[edit]Affiliations
1989- Director and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, a foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization.
1993- Member of the board of the International Center for a Scientific Ecology.
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom
2006- Member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
It should be noted that, according to Environmental Defense, October 26, 2005: [3]

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
[edit]Climate Change "Expert"
The National Center for Public Policy Research [4] lists Singer as someone that journalists can interview on climate change policy.[5]

[edit]Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch

**** you. No I don't. I don't even know who he is. I don't care about any of the people on either side.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Really? OK, post some of these respected scientists peer review published articles falsifying AGW. Natural cycle? Name the cycle and causes.

You are correct. I am just an onlooker that has taken the time to research what real scientists are publishing in journals in this field. So name your experts, and where the articles they have published in peer reviewed journals so that I may also read those.

How can I be other that condescending to those that post unsupported opinions on a scientific subject. That is not how science is done or argued. If I thought that I held a monopoly on truth, do you think I would be taking the time to do the research? It is people like yourself that make unsupported opinions their stock in trade.

Besides, there is a point that you people are competely missing. I would dearly love to be wrong about what I see in the near future. Make me feel better, show me, with good science, where I am wrong. Show me that I do not have to fear for may children and grandchildren. I would feel much more optimistic concerning the future if you could do that.

I have posted these articles in other threads.

In other words, you do not have anything to post.

No. You just wore him down. Which socially means you win, and because you are a liberal, social acceptance instead of actual truth is what you care about.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have posted these articles in other threads.

In other words, you do not have anything to post.

No. You just wore him down. Which socially means you win, and because you are a liberal, social acceptance instead of actual truth is what you care about.

What twaddle. I have posted citations from scientists that actually work in the fields in question. Scientists with articles in peer reviewed journals. I requested similiar articles supporting his point of view with real evidence from scientists in these fields. He seems to be incapable of supplying any. Further more, what the hell does the effect of GHGs in the atmosphere have to do with being liberal or conservative. It is quite independent of politics.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Uh...guys...the point of the post that started this thread is the fact that the IPCC itself ... or at least the group that wrote Chapter 9 of its latest Physical Science Basis report...concedes that unequivocal declaration of a cause and effect relationship between human activity and observed changes in the climate would require controlled experiments that are not possible.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

In other words, you do not have anything to post.

No. You just wore him down. Which socially means you win, and because you are a liberal, social acceptance instead of actual truth is what you care about.

What twaddle. I have posted citations from scientists that actually work in the fields in question. Scientists with articles in peer reviewed journals. I requested similiar articles supporting his point of view with real evidence from scientists in these fields. He seems to be incapable of supplying any. Further more, what the hell does the effect of GHGs in the atmosphere have to do with being liberal or conservative. It is quite independent of politics.

I will explain this to you, but the emotion involved in explaining it is very heavy and will need some time to develop the necessary restraint.

 

[elvis]

Really? OK, post some of these respected scientists peer review published articles falsifying AGW. Natural cycle? Name the cycle and causes.

You are correct. I am just an onlooker that has taken the time to research what real scientists are publishing in journals in this field. So name your experts, and where the articles they have published in peer reviewed journals so that I may also read those.

How can I be other that condescending to those that post unsupported opinions on a scientific subject. That is not how science is done or argued. If I thought that I held a monopoly on truth, do you think I would be taking the time to do the research? It is people like yourself that make unsupported opinions their stock in trade.

Besides, there is a point that you people are competely missing. I would dearly love to be wrong about what I see in the near future. Make me feel better, show me, with good science, where I am wrong. Show me that I do not have to fear for may children and grandchildren. I would feel much more optimistic concerning the future if you could do that.

I have posted these articles in other threads.

In other words, you do not have anything to post.

I posted it in a thread that YOU were participating in actively. Not my fault you can't remember.

 

[elvis]

Uh...guys...the point of the post that started this thread is the fact that the IPCC itself ... or at least the group that wrote Chapter 9 of its latest Physical Science Basis report...concedes that unequivocal declaration of a cause and effect relationship between human activity and observed changes in the climate would require controlled experiments that are not possible.

Exactly. I didn't think of that and should have, since I just took a statistics class. In statistics, in order to show cause and effect, the experimenter must be able to control the subjects. Obviously, one cannot do that with this issue. I have stated numerous times, that I don't know what is causing the warming. Then this guy comes along and acts like he knows it all.

 

[del]

Uh...guys...the point of the post that started this thread is the fact that the IPCC itself ... or at least the group that wrote Chapter 9 of its latest Physical Science Basis report...concedes that unequivocal declaration of a cause and effect relationship between human activity and observed changes in the climate would require controlled experiments that are not possible.

old rocks is too busy being impressed with himself to actually read what other people post.

 

[Chris]

So what?

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we are pumping 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the air every year.

Therefore, we are warming the earth.