AmericanPapist Comments
Money can manufacture scientific dissent very quickly. It's all bought and paid for. I can find 500 experts who say the Catholic church teaches salvation by works and denies salvation by grace. That does not make it so. It just means people have a reason for believing it. Truth is only one reason why people believe things. There are many others.
But in this case the money is on the other side of the debate. Further, these reports are scientifically valid and do not violate the principles of their discipline the way dissenting from the Magisterium violates the rules of theology in the light of revelation. Make sense? Furthermore, environmentalists will claim that the scientific stance on this issue is unanimous - or that there is at least a consensus. That simply isn't the case. I'd even argue that the predominant objective evaluation of the question is against the mainstream orthodoxy.
Hello Mr Papist,
Where are the environmentalists getting all this money from?
R.
I'm not your research assistant, go look yourself. Suffice it to say that there are many sources of money being offered to any research that contributes to the hypothesis that global warming is a man-made fact and is caused by human intervention.
And there are many sources of money being offered to any research that casts doubt on human exacerbated global warming. If you're going to fulminate about the money-research nexus, at least be catholic (small c sense) about it and apply it to both sides rather than just one. As a start, you might want to take a look at who promulgated the message you are breathlessly trumpeting here. Tell me if they strike you as poor and without connections.
I realise you divide the world into some sort polemic battlefield with shadowy forces trying to subvert the bidable, but really, get serious and grow up. Elaborate on the plot, please. Without descending into paranoid fantasies.
Bit of a cop-out, Mr Papist.
The financial interests on the 'climate change denial' side of the debate are clear ... oil interests, aviation, industry, and so on.
I'm not saying you are wrong about the environmentalists getting dodgy funding, I'm just asking where that funding is coming from. I can't see who has a financial interest in lying about climate change. Sorry if you thought i was treating you like a research assistant. I thought i was inviting you to elaborate on your arguments.
Algore
Is that sarcasm? I find it hard to tell when dealing with plain text.
R
I think that to ignore the preponderance of government, political and media support for the pro-manmade-global-warming advocates is to be in a state of a) complete ignorance or b) denial. If I am so breathlessly incorrect, please do some research and come up with some evidence yourself.
p.s. as much as the money issue is an important component of the debate (and, I would, argue, the abuse of environmentalists), I'd love to see some comments about the substance of the post, i.e., the 6 points circulated by these folks re: the actual state of current research.
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.
Good. That's the way science works: it constantly updates itself and adjusts to recent findings.
1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age
Who is denying that the world goes through natural cycles? Anyone? The question is whether or not humans are having a forcing effect.
2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
Do you honestly think that people who spend their working life devoted to climatology haven't factored THE SUN into the equation? Refer to "the question is whether...."
3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly
I realise you put the catch-all clause "temporally-distant" in, but a large part of the debate is about prophylactic aims. The point about sea level rises is that they would be the ensuing result, not an early symptom.
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
The Hudson Institute is about as "right wing think tank" as they come. Go do some research on them.
As for Dennis Avery, he is notorious for doing EXACTLY what you are whining about: pushing positions with vested interests behind them. That doesn't automatically mean he can't be actually right, but it does make what he says needing of close scrutiny.
4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings
I'd like to see the data referenced.
5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat
This one sounds absurd. Reduced from what, exactly? Define "cold". Define "heat". This sentence proves nothing other than that the author wanted six points rather than five.
6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate
At what expense? No one is arguing that some species won't do better with a changing environment, but it's axiomatic that others who depend on the (relative) status quo will obviously not. Of course AS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED there is a natural underlying cycle, but once again the question is about human exacerbation of it.
But of course, you have made up your mind and will get as giddy as a schoolgirl over suspect propaganda from very dubious sources (exactly what you seem to be accusing "the other side" of doing). That is because you put politics first. Quite hilariously, given that you are thundering "cui bono" and casting ever wider circles of conspiracy (the usual suspects: gub'ment, the meed-jar, pinko education), but seemingly ignoring the dubiousness of professional noise machines like The Hudson Institute.
As I said: grow up. Examine with
It cut me off:-
Examine with a close eye the ensuing scientific debate. Consider the sources, motivations and psychology, but do it for everyone. And if you're going to march up and down declaring things "grossly negligent", you'll need a bit more to hang your hat on than this piece and "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
"And it's significant to point out that many of these "dissenters" claim that global warming, if it were to happen, would be beneficial to humanity. Why again, are we so worried?"
One reason.
Tipping point.
It's important to point out that climate change, not global warming, is the reason for concern. If it were a matter of things getting warmer, you'd just see Republicans buying up beachfront property in Alaska and trading their Vail condos for Banff.
Avery discredits himself by focusing on temperature. Clearly, he doesn't get the difference between weather and climate. Back to school, Dennis.
For an excellent review of the problems with the approaches and data presented by those who believe in a significant anthropogenic global warming component, see the many postings at Climate Audit, which addresses the points brought up in previous comments.
Commenting by HaloScan
