Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B'

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by eeyore

so scientists who work for the govt or ippc cant be believed because they have sold their souls for 30 pieces of silver - while those who work for shell, BP, the heartland institute are of course paragons of virtue and their finding are totally uninfluenced by their employers agenda ? Hmmm

Yep, that’s right, except that Heartland gets less than 5% of their donations from oil companies. They are also not plagued with people like Dr. Pachauri who writes pornographic books, those who hide data (and declines), multiple ‘enviro-gates’ and a steadfast refusal to openly debate.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Yep, that’s right, except that Heartland gets less than 5% of their donations from oil companies. They are also not plagued with people like Dr. Pachauri who writes pornographic books, those who hide data (and declines), multiple ‘enviro-gates’ and a steadfast refusal to openly debate.

where does the other 95% come from ?

[Dorts]

Thanks for those answers. Here are my follow-ups.

Originally Posted by eeyore

I dont agree that those figures are accurate - not least because the nortwest passage is currently open - sea the US navy link that dave posted earlier

I think you may find with a little research that the North-west Passage has been open more than once in the last hundred years, so this is not unprecedented.
The reason certain areas are now ice-free is that the epicentre of the Arctic ice has shifted, not that there is less of it.

Originally Posted by eeyore

where do you think the american "anti warmist" websites get their money - most of them are funded by donation , and when you take a look at their donor lists there is a preponderance of oil buisness man and far right groups - its a comon claim because it true

I, like very many people interested in this subject, have no hessitation to the visiting of certain websites, a wonderfull resource. It doesn't take long to find those that have something relevent to say on either side of the argument. Of the sites I visit most regularly, none recieve any funding at all.

Originally Posted by eeyore

the catastrophe of rising sea levels, inundadtion of arable land, wide spread flooding in places like bangladesh, increased energetic atmospherics leading to storms, and a run away feedback loop caused by the release of methane from permafrost - I cant show you evidence that it will happen, but their is ample evidence that it could happen if the planet warms (much of which is common sense - when it warms ice melts, sealevels rise etc)

According to the 2007 IPCC report (AR4) which you no doubt agree with, the global average atmospheric temperatures have risen 0.8C and the global average sea levels have risen 0.2 m (about 8 inches) since the late 19th century. It turns out that during the Holocene, the 12,000 year-old geological epoch in which Civilization has been existing, there have been several periods with temperatures and sea levels higher than the present ones. For instance, in the Middle Holocene, around 5,000-6,000 years ago, the sea levels were up to 3 meters higher and the average atmospheric temperatures were 2-4C higher than the current ones.
I don't see any evidence of your 'catastrophe' on the horizon based on those figures.
Dorts.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by eeyore

where does the other 95% come from ?

Be my guest to research the other donations if you like. I am sure you have the link as you seem to refer to them so vehemently. They may have some environmental references there but they mainly deal with science and economy issues.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by eeyore

.. they (and others) have chipped through the frustration of trying to debate with someone who has already made their mind up and answers every point by repeating the same tired argumement however many times it has already been rebutted

Yes, after enduring a few posts debating with you, I can see their point. I think I will follow their lead.
Good luck

[pressld2]

Just de-cloaking quickly to correct something Pete said...

Originally Posted by eeyore

while dave has at least a Bsc (i'm not conversant with his full quaslifications)

Sorry Pete but I left school at 16 with three 'O' levels. The reasons for this are personal and I won't go into them here, but I hope I can say without coming across as big-headed or egotistical that they had nothing at all to do with my intellect or academic abilities.

So in this debate I'm an interested and reasonably well-read (in all the sciences and several other areas too) layman. I've never made any claim to be more than that.

Dave P.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Be my guest to research the other donations if you like. I am sure you have the link as you seem to refer to them so vehemently. They may have some environmental references there but they mainly deal with science and economy issues.

or you could answer the question ?

and while you at it answer the question about your "credentials"

ironic that you are quick to criticise dave and matt for not being willing to display their credentials while being so reticent about your own but then you do seem to be much better at asking questions than you are at answering them

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Just de-cloaking quickly to correct something Pete said...



Sorry Pete but I left school at 16 with three 'O' levels. The reasons for this are personal and I won't go into them here, but I hope I can say without coming across as big-headed or egotistical that they had nothing at all to do with my intellect or academic abilities.

So in this debate I'm an interested and reasonably well-read (in all the sciences and several other areas too) layman. I've never made any claim to be more than that.

Dave P.

My apologies dave - I assumed that you were some kind of academic based on the learnedness of your posting on the subject (considerably more so than my own).

For the record I dont believe that having a BSC/MSc make me any better or more expert in this subject than you, dorts, or anyone else - I only mentioned my qualifications in the light of what was being said about the petition and the 31 thousand "scientists" who have BScs

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Dorts

According to the 2007 IPCC report (AR4) which you no doubt agree with, the global average atmospheric temperatures have risen 0.8C and the global average sea levels have risen 0.2 m (about 8 inches) since the late 19th century. .

Its not what has happened so far, but what might happen in the future whhich is the concern - I have no doubt that the "planet" will survive whatever happens, but as there werent 7 billion plus people alive in the time period to which you refer I am less optimistic about the impact on humanity.

that IPCC report also makes future predictions based on a range of models - does it not ?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Be my guest to research the other donations if you like. I am sure you have the link as you seem to refer to them so vehemently. They may have some environmental references there but they mainly deal with science and economy issues.

okay so according to source watch heartland made the folowing state ment about its funders

it stated that "in 2007 it received 71 percent of its income from foundations, 16 percent from corporations, and 11 percent from individuals

however this is not as clear cut as it may seem as many of the foundations are themselves funded from the oil industry or those with far right agendas

they include (amongst others):

THe Koch Family Foundation - whose money comes from Koch Industries Inc - the US s largest privately held energy company

The John Molin Foundation , which source watch says is dedicated to funding right wing causes

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation who are by their own admission dedicated to returning the USA to a deregulated state

and the Scaife Foundation , who's money reportedly comes from the Mellon Industrial Group who have interests including Oil and banking.

Plus between 1997 and 2006 Heartland reportedly recieved $676,500 from Exxon mobil

(a full list can be found here Heartland Institute - SourceWatch)

so no bias toward the oil industry and deregulation there then