StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) ...and again, he was never a skeptic. Then why did Powerline and WUWT regard him as such and eagerly anticipate the BEST study validating their claims? edit: you know why they did the BEST study, right? It was specifically because he was skeptical of the claimed temperature record. Edited July 31, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:45 PM) He was touted as a skeptic by skeptics prior to the release of the BEST results, then he became another apostate. It's not "the media" that pushed that angle, it was blogs like Powerline and WUWT that promoted him and the BEST study until it came out with conclusions they didn't like. He was touted as a skeptic by nobody that I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:44 PM) ...and again, he was never a skeptic. Someone just go to his Wikipedia page and excerpt the part on the "hockey stick controversy" for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:46 PM) Then why did Powerline and WUWT regard him as such and eagerly anticipate the BEST study validating their claims? Because they're morons? How could they, or anyone with a brain consider someone a skeptic that was ringing the alarm bell about this for almost a decade before this BEST study you continue to reference? That's just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:47 PM) Because they're morons? How could they, or anyone with a brain consider someone a skeptic that was ringing the alarm bell about this for almost a decade before this BEST study you continue to reference? That's just stupid. For crying out loud, Koch industries in part funded the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:47 PM) Because they're morons? How could they, or anyone with a brain consider someone a skeptic that was ringing the alarm bell about this for almost a decade before this BEST study you continue to reference? That's just stupid. I dunno, but WUWT is probably the #1 skeptic blog on the internet. Does their intellectual honesty regarding him and the BEST study give you any pause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:47 PM) Someone just go to his Wikipedia page and excerpt the part on the "hockey stick controversy" for me. You mean the very controversy he himself dismissed? You don't have to bother. http://books.google.com/books?id=6DBnS2g-K...%22&f=false The best part is, he's basically is saying the same thing I said to you guys on here in his warning to politicians and future presidents. Edited July 31, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:49 PM) You mean the very controversy he himself dismissed? You don't have to bother. http://books.google.com/books?id=6DBnS2g-K...%22&f=false The best part is, he basically is saying the same thing I said to you guys on here in his warning to politicians and future presidents. And now he perfectly reproduced the graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:50 PM) And now he perfectly reproduced the graph. You guys would be doing yourselves and the community a service by not referencing alarmists on either side of the equation, those making up skeptics or otherwise. This simply tarnishes the conversation and introduces reason for doubt...you could just do what you were doing and let the science speak for itself...you had my attention while doing that. You started to lose it when you referenced posts about "converted skeptics" that weren't skeptics to begin with, but may have a had a thought or two in their past that was used as a warning to politicians as to why you shouldn't bandwagon hop pop-science until the scientists themselves understand it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Let's backtrack and begin before we referenced this guy colored as a skeptic (and I don't care by whom), who I've concluded was never a skeptic to begin with...by his own writings he even says he was never a skeptic. This makes me feel like you're trying to deceive me...even though I know that's not the case. That's not the mindset I'd like to be in when having this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) He started the BEST study specifically because of his skepticism regarding the temperature data. He was accepted as a skeptic by skeptics until the results came out. Does that say anything to you about the skeptics' integrity? edit: Muller's op-ed, which started this link, starts with him saying "Call me a converted skeptic." That, along with his previous acceptance among skeptic bloggers, is why he is referred to as a former skeptic. Edited July 31, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:21 PM) He started the BEST study specifically because of his skepticism regarding the temperature data. He was accepted as a skeptic by skeptics until the results came out. Does that say anything to you about the skeptics' integrity? I don't read random skeptic blogs, so I don't really care what the skeptics have to say. I only care what the science is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:23 PM) I don't read random skeptic blogs, so I don't really care what the skeptics have to say. I only care what the science is saying. Then you should be interested in the BEST study and its confirmation of a whole bunch of other studies that show human-emitted CO2 as essentially the only driver of current warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:49 PM) For crying out loud, Koch industries in part funded the study. I have no idea who Koch industries is. So how am I supposed to care about this? There is also this: "The research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate, as some have claimed" - Tonya Mullins, Director of Communications, Charles Koch Foundation Edited July 31, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:25 PM) Then you should be interested in the BEST study and its confirmation of a whole bunch of other studies that show human-emitted CO2 as essentially the only driver of current warming. The Koch Foundation claims the BEST study had nothing to do with cause of warming. This is the problem. You claim the BEST story confirms a bunch of other studies that show human emitted CO2 is the cause...and the director of communications from Koch claims the study did nothing of the sort. This was the foundations official statement on the matter, refuting your own: http://www.charleskochfoundationfacts.org/...rature-project/ This is why these conversations can be so infuriating to me...and why I have a hard time listening to people on the subject. Edited July 31, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch own Koch Industries. They are major political contributors to libertarian and conservative causes and founders of the CATO institute. They have actively funded and promoted skeptic studies for years (they have major investments that would be impacted by CO2 legislation). They're currently the liberal boogeyman, similar in nature to the way the rightwing reacts to Soros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:34 PM) The Koch Foundation claims the BEST study had nothing to do with cause of warming. This is the problem. You claim the BEST story confirms a bunch of other studies that show human emitted CO2 is the cause...and the director of communications from Koch claims the study did nothing of the sort. Why should we care what the director of communications (PR) of the Koch Industries says about scientific studies? I thought we were interested in the science? As part of the BEST study, they performed climate modeling. This modeling matches very well with other models (and actual data) and relies on CO2 being the dominant driver. The goal of their study was to validate or refute surface temperature data, but to do so they had to look at the cause of warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:39 PM) Why should we care what the director of communications (PR) of the Koch Industries says about scientific studies? I thought we were interested in the science? As part of the BEST study, they performed climate modeling. This modeling matches very well with other models (and actual data) and relies on CO2 being the dominant driver. The goal of their study was to validate or refute surface temperature data, but to do so they had to look at the cause of warming. Because YOU said their study showed they looked at the cause of warming, but the director of comms refutes what you say. And I'm to believe you over them? Why? Ah, I see, I should ignore an official statement from one of the main contributors to the study you cite, but I should just take your word for it. ...and you wonder why you lose people when you talk about this? Seriously? Edited July 31, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Why should we care what a very politically active corporation says about scientific studies? I thought we were interested in the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:41 PM) Because YOU said their study showed they looked at the cause of warming, but the director of comms refutes what you say. And I'm to believe you over them? Why? Don't. Go to the science and the scientists, not PR guys for corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:41 PM) Because YOU said their study showed they looked at the cause of warming, but the director of comms refutes what you say. And I'm to believe you over them? Why? Ah, I see, I should ignore an official statement from one of the main contributors to the study you cite, but I should just take your word for it. ...and you wonder why you lose people when you talk about this? Seriously? Funders, not contributors. Important distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:45 PM) Funders, not contributors. Important distinction. I get the distinction, I just think this entire thing is a flawed argument, and we should go back to before it was injected into the conversation, derailing everything because it's based off a fake skeptic's findings. Like I said, the findings may be 100% accurate, but it makes me feel like you're trying to deceive me...which forces doubt into the process. In short, don't cite fake skeptics, because some other skeptical 'blog' on the Internets claimed they were a skeptic...even though they weren't. All of that equates to one thing...FUD, and that injects doubt into the mix. Edited July 31, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Now, to get this conversation back on track...if there is definitive proof that man made CO2 is the cause, and there is NO doubt left because of the numerous studies you keep citing say so, which were obviously peer reviewed and published...then what are the solutions? Are there any actual viable solutions? Or will we just continue to go around and around here and accomplish nothing? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I've now bought into your arguments...we did it. Now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:50 PM) Now, to get this conversation back on track...if there is definitive proof that man made CO2 is the cause, and there is NO doubt left because of the numerous studies you keep citing say so, which were obviously peer reviewed and published...then what are the solutions? Are there any actual viable solutions? Or will we just continue to go around and around here and accomplish nothing? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I've now bought into your arguments...we did it. Now what? Carbon caps, for starters. Heavy investment in alternative energy. Probably need strong carbon taxes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) Carbon caps, for starters. Heavy investment in alternative energy. Probably need strong carbon taxes as well. Wouldn't these types of solutions hinder the economy at a time when that's the last thing we can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts