What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by TCO
I find a tendancy for the skeptics to overstate their cases. I think there is a role they can play. But it will be on the periphery and may in the end, just end up building a more scientific foundation for the "other" side. It is telling that they do not want this. Do not care about advancing science and truth per se. Rather, in promoting their "side".

TCO, I am confused here.

Are you saying the GW skeptics don't want to advance science and truth in favor of promoting their side

or are you saying

The AGW crowd prefers not to advance the science in favor of promoting thier side?

Or are you saying both sides are equally guilty?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Doddler
Is "sophist" something that UnRealclimate thought up..

sophist (plural sophists)

1. One of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy, and politics in ancient Greece; especially, one of those who, by their fallacious but plausible reasoning, puzzled inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people, and drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt.

2. Hence, an impostor in argument; a captious or fallacious reasoner.

[TCO]

Georgia man, I'm saying that they are not interested (and in some cases detract from) clarity of understanding. If clarity helps the skeptic side, fine. If not, then they obfuscate. I (personally) am in favor of clarity whomsoever it helps. Bet you are too.

Oh...and I had not mentioned the other side.

[Odin]

Sophistry indeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/ts_nm/environment_exxonmobil_dc

ExxonMobil cultivates global warming doubt: report

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment CorrespondentWed Jan 3, 3:32 PM ET

Energy giant ExxonMobil borrowed tactics from the tobacco industry to raise doubt about climate change, spending $16 million on groups that question global warming, a science watchdog group said on Wednesday.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said at a telephone news conference releasing the report.

An ExxonMobil spokesman did not respond immediately to calls for comment.

The union, a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said ExxonMobil, the world's biggest publicly traded corporation, had succeeded in parlaying a relatively modest investment into unwarranted public doubt on findings that have been overwhelmingly endorsed by mainstream science.

ExxonMobil did this by using the same methods used for decades by the U.S. tobacco industry, the report said, including:

-- raising doubts about even the most undisputed science;

-- funding a variety of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform;

-- recruiting a number of vocal climate change contrarians;

-- portraying its opposition to action as a quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest;

-- using its access to the Bush administration to shape federal communications and policies on global warming.

TOBACCO TACTICS

U.S. tobacco companies used these tactics for decades to hide the hazards of smoking, and were found liable in federal court last year for violating racketeering laws.

Global warming has been blamed for stronger hurricanes, more wildfires and worse droughts. While there have been cycles of warming and cooling throughout Earth's history, the last 30 years have seen a steep warming trend which most scientists say is due to emission of so-called greenhouse gases by the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, factories and power plants.

ExxonMobil has funded legitimate scientific studies on climate change, the watchdog report said, but noted it has also spent approximately $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on 43 organizations that have cast doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming.

The report said these have ranged from $30,000 for the group Africa Fighting Malaria, which argues on its Web site against urgent action on climate change, to $1.6 million to the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business think tank in Washington.

James McCarthy, professor of biological oceanography and director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, noted a 2005 statement issued by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 science academies from other countries, affirming that "climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

"This report reveals for the first time the degree to which efforts to exaggerate uncertainty in climate science produce non scientific reports designed to cast doubt on published scientific climate studies have been orchestrated by ExxonMobil," McCarthy said at the news conference.

More proof that these "sceptics" are nothing but a bunch of liars.

[TCO]

Odin: That's not proof that individual skeptics are liars. Just as Greenpeace funding is not proof of it for the other side.

[Odin]

Originally posted by TCO
Odin: That's not proof that individual skeptics are liars. Just as Greenpeace funding is not proof of it for the other side.

True, but it's a good reason to be suspicious.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Then why represent it as 'proof' when it in fact is anything but.

[TCO]

Why ask why?

[Saras]

Why ask "why ask why"?

[Caligastia]

Why ask......oh never mind.

[TCO]

because

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Because

Because

Because

Because

Because of the wonderful things he does.

[SpencerH]

I just saw this quote and had to post it here amongst the 'sky is falling' adherents

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute writes: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate "realistic" simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

Without knowing bugger-all about turbulence I can agree with the tenor of his sentiments.

The 'ice-age' fear mongering over CO2 emmisions didnt work but the 'global warming' proponents have found a gullible audience.

[Straybow]

The ice age fears didn't take because they couldn't point to an anthropogenic source. The ice-agers weren't the same as the AGWists at all. It wasn't about pointing fingers, it was a scholerly "what if" scenario with no political edge. It wasn't about CO2 back then, it was just the glaciation cycle data.

AGWists are essentially the same people who, back in the '70s, said that by this decade oil would run out and the global economy come to a screeching halt, population growth would outpace food production and everybody would starve, etc.

Originally posted by Odin
Sophistry indeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/ts_nm/environment_exxonmobil_dc

More proof that these "sceptics" are nothing but a bunch of liars.

I call BS. Are you saying ExMo should go around looking for anti-oil Malthusian Luddites to fund? The sceptics are honest scientists, they had to look to a private source for funding because the academic elite (including the federal funding sources) won't fund anything that contradicts their political agenda.

Notice how the Union of Concerned Scientists (a political hack group if ever there was one) can only argue that their opponents were funded by ExxonMobile, not that the work was in any way deficient.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Straybow
The ice age fears didn't take because they couldn't point to an anthropogenic source.

Perhaps you're refering to that we have better evidence today that links CO2 levels with temps?

The ice-agers weren't the same as the AGWists at all. It wasn't about pointing fingers, it was a scholerly "what if" scenario with no political edge. It wasn't about CO2 back then, it was just the glaciation cycle data.

I dont know about you, but I was in highschool during those years and the claim was that greenhouse gases from pollution were going to reflect the sunlight and cause the earth to cool. From my perspective, it certainly was as politically tinged as the current scenario.