Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever" - Page 12
Page 12 of 88 FirstFirst ... 256789101112131415161718192262 ... LastLast
Results 144 to 156 of 1137
  1. #144
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta 'Burbs
    Posts
    10,993

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by uafan4life View Post
    So, then, still unable to stand on its own merit.
    I guess just like fossil fuels? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5572346.html


    Over the past five years, the Obama administration has repeatedly called for cutting fossil fuel subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other incentives. But the amount of money the federal government forfeits through subsidies has increased steadily over that time period, reaching $18.5 billion last year, according to a new report from the environmental group Oil Change International.

    That total is up from $12.7 billion in 2009, largely because oil and gas production has increased in the United States. Next year, domestic oil production is expected to reach the highest level since 1972. The Obama administration regularly touts its "all of the above" energy strategy, which includes increased oil and gas production.

    The Oil Change report includes a variety of subsidies in its accounting, including tax breaks, incentives for production on federal lands (such as royalty fees that haven't been adjusted in 25 years) and tax deductions for clean-up costs. And if state subsidies for oil, gas and coal production are also included, the total value climbs to $21.6 billion for 2013. Here's how that breaks down:
    "There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist." - Terry Pratchett

  2. #145
    Super Moderator NationalTitles17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mountainous Northern California
    Posts
    13,188

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tide1986 View Post
    I read the following somewhere recently, which might be helpful in contextualizing the above-quoted post:
    Can we officially call this irony?
    Roll Tide Roll!!!

    The TideFan formerly known as NationalTitles16, NationalTitles15, NationalTitles14, NationalTitles13, and NationalTitles12.

  3. #146
    Super Moderator NationalTitles17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mountainous Northern California
    Posts
    13,188

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by AUDub View Post
    I don't care if you're impressed with my sources or not. There is factual information there that you elected to dismiss out of hand because the source failed your ideological purity test. i.e. genetic fallacy.



    If you did know, then you would realize that this is not an example of an argumentum ad hominem. Here it is in it's most basic form:

    A makes claim X
    There is something objectionable about A
    Therefore X is false

    This:

    "The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem."

    is blunt statement of fact.

    Do you know the definition of denialism?



    In this case, the graph is present the instrumental temperature record. That's why the x-axis only goes as far back as 1850.

    Of course, you can go back further using proxy reconstructions, but these will be less precise by nature:


    Just look at the range of uncertainty the further back you go!



    Ridiculous.



    Name examples. Let's see those models.



    Duly noted. Go look up the definition of denialist. Hopefully your sophistry will become obvious to you.
    I can tell you went to Auburn.
    Roll Tide Roll!!!

    The TideFan formerly known as NationalTitles16, NationalTitles15, NationalTitles14, NationalTitles13, and NationalTitles12.

  4. #147
    BamaNation Hall of Fame uafan4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Florence, AL
    Posts
    9,817

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
    Touche.


    I guess that's just what happens when you allow an ever-growing precedent of Federal Government influence over free-market dynamics.

    Ideally, all of the power for the rise and fall a particular product/service/industry would lie completely with the suppliers (companies creating and/or selling) and demanders (consumers). Unfortunately, far, far too much of that power lies in the pockets of politicians. Once that paradigm is in place, then suppliers become less and less answerable to the demanders. Rather than having to work hard to please the consumers, all they really have to do is please a few politicians.
    I have yet to figure out why common sense and common courtesy are called common.
    - Unknown

    Tradition is always under construction.
    - Nick Saban

  5. #148
    BamaNation Hall of Fame AUDub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
    Posts
    10,433

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by NationalTitles15 View Post
    Can we officially call this irony?
    If there had been an actual argumentum ad hominem, sure.
    Just a barner.

    There goes Davis!

  6. #149
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    15,670

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by uafan4life View Post
    Touche.


    I guess that's just what happens when you allow an ever-growing precedent of Federal Government influence over free-market dynamics.

    Ideally, all of the power for the rise and fall a particular product/service/industry would lie completely with the suppliers (companies creating and/or selling) and demanders (consumers). Unfortunately, far, far too much of that power lies in the pockets of politicians. Once that paradigm is in place, then suppliers become less and less answerable to the demanders. Rather than having to work hard to please the consumers, all they really have to do is please a few politicians.
    Two comments on this topic:

    (1) Our economy is largely driven by fossil fuels. A $20B investment in driving a $17T economy seems like a decent investment.
    (2) Without debating what is and isn't a subsidy, it's interesting to look at energy subsidies on a per unit basis. Here is one link with a chart. There are others readily available out there, and they all show the subsidies for "clean energy" being astronomically higher on a per unit basis.

    http://instituteforenergyresearch.or...e-186-percent/

  7. #150
    Super Moderator NationalTitles17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mountainous Northern California
    Posts
    13,188

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by AUDub View Post
    If there had been an actual argumentum ad hominem, sure.
    So then you have to make a direct argument to be a fallacy and implying something without actually saying it is not really an ad hominem.

    Like this:

    x does not endorse our point of view

    x takes money from y

    x is a denier (as in denying reality as proven by easily verifiable facts, which suggests that anyone who views the same data and comes to a different conclusion even when well-reasoned in not acting rationally - or maybe they are on the take!)

    There is no direct accusation, sure. However, what do you think when you hear someone took oil and gas or coal industry money? That perhaps they might be a shill? That's fine if you can also show the science is wrong, but simply pointing out the ties does nothing in regards to the science.

    Certainly, not disclosing potential conflicts of interest is an entirely different matter. But for someone who follows the generally accepted rules in revealing funding that is not an issue.

    But OK, I get it. You are well entrenched and no amount of scientific argument or reasoning or questioning the data and models is going to get you to be skeptical. You are a true blue believer. For you the debate is over. Your mind is closed. Good for you.
    Last edited by NationalTitles17; July 14th, 2015 at 02:16 PM.
    Roll Tide Roll!!!

    The TideFan formerly known as NationalTitles16, NationalTitles15, NationalTitles14, NationalTitles13, and NationalTitles12.

  8. #151
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    15,670

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    One question on subsidies for fossil fuels: How much of the subsidy for exploration should be attributed to our collective interest in national defense?

  9. #152
    BamaNation Hall of Fame seebell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gurley, Al
    Posts
    9,220

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tide1986 View Post
    One question on subsidies for fossil fuels: How much of the subsidy for renewables should be attributed to our collective interest in national defense?
    How much is it worth to wean ourselves from foreign sources of oil?

  10. #153
    Super Moderator NationalTitles17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mountainous Northern California
    Posts
    13,188

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by seebell View Post
    How much is it worth to wean ourselves from foreign sources of oil?
    Good question. Is it worth investing in extracting our own resources of oil?
    Roll Tide Roll!!!

    The TideFan formerly known as NationalTitles16, NationalTitles15, NationalTitles14, NationalTitles13, and NationalTitles12.

  11. #154
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Tidewater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Hooterville, Vir.
    Posts
    16,215

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
    I think this is the part where I suggest nobody should get any subsidies from the Federal or state governments. I am not at all opposed to solar, wind, fission, fusion (if somebody can do it) or carbon-based. I just do not want any government subsidizing any industry, generally. I'm an advocate of economic Darwinism. "Root, hog or die," as Honest Abe used to say.

    When I restarted this discussion, my post was about the sun cooling off (relatively) in the next decade and a half, so in 2030, if the astrophysicists are correct, we might wish we had burnt more carbon-based energy sources. The last Little Ice Age was not much fun for folks in the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere.

  12. #155
    BamaNation Hall of Fame AUDub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
    Posts
    10,433

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by NationalTitles15 View Post
    So then you have to make a direct argument to be a fallacy and implying something without actually saying it is not really an ad hominem.
    A logical fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by NationalTitles15 View Post
    Like this:

    x does not endorse our point of view

    x takes money from y

    x is a denier (as in denying reality as proven by easily verifiable facts, which suggests that anyone who views the same data is comes to a different conclusion even when well-reasoned in not acting rationally)
    Denialism is the refusal to accept well-established theory, law, fact or evidence. Pretty cut and dry.

    Quote Originally Posted by NationalTitles15 View Post
    There is no direct accusation, sure. However, what do you think when you hear someone took oil and gas or coal industry money? That perhaps they might be a shill? That's fine if you can also show the science is wrong, but simply pointing out the ties does nothing in regards to the science.

    Certainly, not disclosing potential conflicts of interest is an entirely different matter. But for someone who follows the generally accepted rules in revealing funding that is not an issue.
    I agree. Allow me to quote myself:

    "I didn't say anything about whether he was correct or not. That is rightfully evaluated by other scientists who are experts in that area of research. He did call his papers "deliverables,"though. That should raise some red flags.

    But, that Soon took funding from fossil fuel interests and failed to disclose these funds to the journals that published his research, a big no-no in academia, is a fact. This is an absolute pertaining to professional ethics in the world of research."

    Quote Originally Posted by NationalTitles15 View Post
    But OK, I get it. You are well entrenched and no amount of scientific argument or reasoning or questioning the data and models is going to get you to be skeptical. You are a true blue believer. For you the debate is over. Your mind is closed. Good for you.
    LOL
    Just a barner.

    There goes Davis!

  13. #156
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta 'Burbs
    Posts
    10,993

    Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tidewater View Post
    I think this is the part where I suggest nobody should get any subsidies from the Federal or state governments. I am not at all opposed to solar, wind, fission, fusion (if somebody can do it) or carbon-based. I just do not want any government subsidizing any industry, generally. I'm an advocate of economic Darwinism. "Root, hog or die," as Honest Abe used to say.
    Amen, though I do feel that some strategic investments from the Government can be appropriate. NASA for instance has far delivered far more than we've put it. These subsidies however feel like they are just lining pockets of billionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Tidewater View Post
    When I restarted this discussion, my post was about the sun cooling off (relatively) in the next decade and a half, so in 2030, if the astrophysicists are correct, we might wish we had burnt more carbon-based energy sources. The last Little Ice Age was not much fun for folks in the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere.
    I haven't looked into this claim though I've seen quite a few headlines debunking it I'll admit I haven't really dove in yet
    "There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist." - Terry Pratchett

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TideFansStore.com Bama Gear