Ya, about those glaciers melting....

[Badger]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]

(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)

[EvilYeti]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]

(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)

A picture is worth a thousand words....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL

[Badger]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]

(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)

A picture is worth a thousand words....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL

Photos from 100 years ago?

Well, if there were photos from 20 000 years ago, the location of my house would show it to be under a mile of ice. Perhaps global warming started then, and isn't quite done yet.

Any article that states within its body "You don't need science to prove...." tends not to be something that I'd put a lot of stock in. Sorry.

[EvilYeti]

Photos from 100 years ago?

Well, if there were photos from 20 000 years ago, the location of my house would show it to be under a mile of ice. Perhaps global warming started then, and isn't quite done yet.

Any article that states within its body "You don't need science to prove...." tends not to be something that I'd put a lot of stock in. Sorry.

You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?

[Badger]

Photos from 100 years ago?

Well, if there were photos from 20 000 years ago, the location of my house would show it to be under a mile of ice. Perhaps global warming started then, and isn't quite done yet.

Any article that states within its body "You don't need science to prove...." tends not to be something that I'd put a lot of stock in. Sorry.

You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?

How fast did the glaciers retreat?

Based on 1000 miles (approx Banff Alberta ...the mountains.... to Brandon Manitoba....where some glaciers were) and 20 000 years, I get a retreat rate of 264 ft/yr. I know that's a VERY rough estimate. Correct it as you will.

What's the present rate of retreat? Say, for the 100 years that you identify.

[EvilYeti]

How fast did the glaciers retreat?

How long is a piece of string?

Depends on which time frame you are interested in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_retreat

Based on 1000 miles (approx Banff Alberta ...the mountains.... to Brandon Manitoba....where some glaciers were) and 20 000 years, I get a retreat rate of 264 ft/yr. I know that's a VERY rough estimate. Correct it as you will.

What's the present rate of retreat? Say, for the 100 years that you identify.

For which glacial mass? They aren't all the same, you know.

Start reading here and educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850

[robinson]

A picture is worth a thousand words....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL

Except when it leaves out the words about the picture.

"For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost. "

"Muir Glacier has undergone very rapid, well-documented retreat since its Little Ice Age maximum position at the mouth of Glacier Bay around 1780."

So before the 1941 photo, it had already retreated like over 15 miles. Showing only the retreat in the two photos from 1941 to 2004, with out mentioning that this was a constant retreat that had been going on, is deception.

Which is why pictures alone don't always tell the whole story.

[Badger]

How fast did the glaciers retreat?

How long is a piece of string?

Depends on which time frame you are interested in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_retreat

Based on 1000 miles (approx Banff Alberta ...the mountains.... to Brandon Manitoba....where some glaciers were) and 20 000 years, I get a retreat rate of 264 ft/yr. I know that's a VERY rough estimate. Correct it as you will.

What's the present rate of retreat? Say, for the 100 years that you identify.

For which glacial mass? They aren't all the same, you know.

Start reading here and educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850

Nice.

A few posts up, you asked "You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?"

So, I'll go with "No". Current rate looks about like what's been going on for the last 20 000 years, based on my back of envelope calculation.

Got anything that you think would convince me otherwise?

[EvilYeti]

Nice.

A few posts up, you asked "You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?"

So, I'll go with "No". Current rate looks about like what's been going on for the last 20 000 years, based on my back of envelope calculation.

Got anything that you think would convince me otherwise?

Read the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850

[Badger]

Nice.

A few posts up, you asked "You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?"

So, I'll go with "No". Current rate looks about like what's been going on for the last 20 000 years, based on my back of envelope calculation.

Got anything that you think would convince me otherwise?

Read the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850

I did.

If that's what you have that you think would convince me, you didn't manage to convince me. Retreats of 45ft - 500 ft/yr seem reasonable, based on my above mentioned back of the envelope calculations for the last 20 000 years.

I know you think I'm an idiot and such, but you're doing little to explain your position. Your dismissive "you deniers are tiresome" responses just don't help much.

[EvilYeti]

I did.

Summarize it in your own words please.

If that's what you have that you think would convince me, you didn't manage to convince me. Retreats of 45ft - 500 ft/yr seem reasonable, based on my above mentioned back of the envelope calculations for the last 20 000 years.

Your calculations are off by an order of magnitude in more ways than one. They aren't even of 'back of the envelope' status!

I know you think I'm an idiot and such, but you're doing little to explain your position. Your dismissive "you deniers are tiresome" responses just don't help much.

I don't think you are an idiot. Just incompetent, ignorant and ill-informed.

[Badger]

I did.

Summarize it in your own words please.

If that's what you have that you think would convince me, you didn't manage to convince me. Retreats of 45ft - 500 ft/yr seem reasonable, based on my above mentioned back of the envelope calculations for the last 20 000 years.

Your calculations are off by an order of magnitude in more ways than one. They aren't even of 'back of the envelope' status!

I know you think I'm an idiot and such, but you're doing little to explain your position. Your dismissive "you deniers are tiresome" responses just don't help much.

I don't think you are an idiot. Just incompetent, ignorant and ill-informed.

You apparently have reading and math comprehension issues.

In response to "summarize in your own words", you can look at what is in the quote box JUST BELOW THAT STATEMENT.

With regard to orders of magnitude, 1000 miles divided by 20 000 years is 264 ft/yr. so, your statement is wrong.

And you were invited to correct them, but didn't make the effort.

You have shown that you, too, are incompetent, and ill-informed, though not ignorant.

Whatever. Have a nice night.

[EvilYeti]

With regard to orders of magnitude, 1000 miles divided by 20 000 years is 264 ft/yr. so, your statement is wrong.

And you were invited to correct them, but didn't make the effort.

I have issue with your numbers, not the division. As well as the assertion that this is strictly a linear phenomenon.

[sparks]

YetiCunt has issues. Lot's of them, and they've been uncovered here before. :Yawn:

[Anaxagoras]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]

(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)

Well I'll be damned. :?

Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.

The lead role in that process was played by Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been unhappy with the IPCC's finding.

He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the New Scientist.

Cogley said: "The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”

Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy" and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.

So the glaciers are still disappearing, but not so fast that they will be gone in a quarter century. In geologic time scales however, it's still fast.

[Badger]

With regard to orders of magnitude, 1000 miles divided by 20 000 years is 264 ft/yr. so, your statement is wrong.

And you were invited to correct them, but didn't make the effort.

I have issue with your numbers, not the division. As well as the assertion that this is strictly a linear phenomenon.

Yet you fail to provide any enlightenment at all.

I'm frankly disappointed.

One other thing. I admit that I did kind of "lay it out there" to see if you would take the bait, which indeed you did. You characterize me as a "Denier" and "Them" as opposed to yourself which you referred to as "we". I want you to know that I understand that the earth has warmed since the last glaciation, and may indeed still be warming. Therefore, I am not a "global warming denier". I only have issue with the anthropogenic part of it. From what I can glean, the data supporting the A in AGW is less than totally convincing.

I am not one of "Them", whoever you may think "They" are. I am, however, a guy who is interested in this subject, and is looking for information.

Thanks for not very much.

[robinson]

The only way to fix Himalayan glacial retreat is to get China and India to cut emissions drastically

I just can't see that happening.

[manny]

The only way to fix Himalayan glacial retreat is to get China and India to cut emissions drastically

I just can't see that happening.

It certainly won't if the watermelons keep carping that everything is the US and Europe's fault and of course China and India should be exempted from whatever the rest of the world binds itself to.

[Rob Lister]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]

(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)

A picture is worth a thousand words....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL

You're an odd sort, Yeti. Even when the IPCC admits that their Himalayan glacial prophesy was based on nothing more than one guys speculation and an article in new scientist, you still cling to the theory that it must be true based on an article in SFGate and, of all things, Wiki!

Piece of work.

You must be very well vested in AGW.

[EvilYeti]

Yet you fail to provide any enlightenment at all.

I'm frankly disappointed.

You cannot be enlightened. It's impossible. If I had all the resources in the world to enlighten you I would still fail.

One other thing. I admit that I did kind of "lay it out there" to see if you would take the bait, which indeed you did. You characterize me as a "Denier" and "Them" as opposed to yourself which you referred to as "we". I want you to know that I understand that the earth has warmed since the last glaciation, and may indeed still be warming. Therefore, I am not a "global warming denier". I only have issue with the anthropogenic part of it. From what I can glean, the data supporting the A in AGW is less than totally convincing.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-inter ... echniques/

Winning by losing. Classy!

If you deny the dominant climate forcing over the last 150 years was anthropogenic then you are a denier. If that's not the case then you are basically arguing against your own position, which strikes me as rather odd.

I am not one of "Them", whoever you may think "They" are. I am, however, a guy who is interested in this subject, and is looking for information.

Thanks for not very much.

There is literally more easy to access information on this subject currently than ever before in human history. That you cannot comprehend it is not something I am able to fix. Sorry.

[EvilYeti]

You're an odd sort, Yeti. Even when the IPCC admits that their Himalayan glacial prophesy was based on nothing more than one guys speculation and an article in new scientist, you still cling to the theory that it must be true based on an article in SFGate and, of all things, Wiki!

Piece of work.

You must be very well vested in AGW.

My point is that glaciers have been in retreat the world over for the last 150 years (ergo they are not at equilibrium). Nothing in the IPCC revision changes that simple fact.

I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.

However, if you are a big polluter, I can see how denying it would make you the big bucks!

[Badger]

Yet you fail to provide any enlightenment at all.

I'm frankly disappointed.

You cannot be enlightened. It's impossible. If I had all the resources in the world to enlighten you I would still fail.

Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.

I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.

One other thing. I admit that I did kind of "lay it out there" to see if you would take the bait, which indeed you did. You characterize me as a "Denier" and "Them" as opposed to yourself which you referred to as "we". I want you to know that I understand that the earth has warmed since the last glaciation, and may indeed still be warming. Therefore, I am not a "global warming denier". I only have issue with the anthropogenic part of it. From what I can glean, the data supporting the A in AGW is less than totally convincing.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-inter ... echniques/

Winning by losing. Classy!

If you deny the dominant climate forcing over the last 150 years was anthropogenic then you are a denier. If that's not the case then you are basically arguing against your own position, which strikes me as rather odd.

To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.

I am not one of "Them", whoever you may think "They" are. I am, however, a guy who is interested in this subject, and is looking for information.

Thanks for not very much.

There is literally more easy to access information on this subject currently than ever before in human history. That you cannot comprehend it is not something I am able to fix. Sorry.

I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.

Once more, thanks for not very much.

[Bearguin]

you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.

Amazing how his posts look the same as Mambus's posts.



Hmmmm. Have we ever seen them together????

[xouper]

I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.

Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...

Another example: Al Gore also has a financial interest in pushing for carbon trading.

And then there are those who see AGW as a vehicle for increasing government domination over the citizens of the planet.

So there is clear evidence that many people do have a vested interest in AGW, an interest that is independent from the science involved.

[Mentat]

I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.

Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...

Another example: Al Gore also has a financial interest in pushing for carbon trading.

And then there are those who see AGW as a vehicle for increasing government domination over the citizens of the planet.

So there is clear evidence that many people do have a vested interest in AGW, an interest that is independent from the science involved.

OMG! Conspeericy!!!1!

[EvilYeti]

Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.

I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.

Uh, how about you have a history of maintaining untenable positions?

To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.

Then you are simply ignorant of what you are even ignorant of (a common condition). Allow our own Dr. Naomi Oreskes to enlighten you:

I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.

Once more, thanks for not very much.

Given you are reading denialist blogs filled with nonsense, you are doing nothing more than poisoning your own well.

[DrMatt]

We'll see.
When we do, it'll be too late.
It always is.

[EvilYeti]

I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.

Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...

...and the article is by Christopher Booker, whom is affiliated with the Heartland Institute. Which gets buckets of cash from the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... her_Booker

So I don't buy it.

Beyond that Dr Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist (the article even mentions this), the IPCC isn't a scientific organization and none of this changes the science.

Or the simple fact the IPCC's forecasts have all been woefully conservative, which makes it kind of hard to argue that the guy is profiteering.

Another example: Al Gore also has a financial interest in pushing for carbon trading.

Al Gore isn't a climate scientist.

And then there are those who see AGW as a vehicle for increasing government domination over the citizens of the planet.

I agree! Those are the lefties/commies and EarthFirst enviro-loons. They aren't climate scientsts either.

So there is clear evidence that many people do have a vested interest in AGW, an interest that is independent from the science involved.

None of these people are doing climate science research. The only vested interest scientists have is doing good science.

[EvilYeti]

We'll see.
When we do, it'll be too late.
It always is.

It's not going to be the end of the world (or humanity), its just going to suck for many of us. But we will adapt, if for no other reason than because we have to.

I'll even admit that my long-term forecast is for global cooling, as once nano-tech becomes viable carbon is going to become a very valuable commodity. Mining the troposphere for it may prove to be financially viable. The idealist in me thinks we'll have this stuff nailed out well enough in the future to effectively 'tune' the climate to something that is close to optimum for all of us.

[Mentat]

We'll see.
When we do, it'll be too late.
It always is.

It's not going to be the end of the world (or humanity), its just going to suck for many of us. But we will adapt, if for no other reason than because we have to.

I'll even admit that my long-term forecast is for global cooling, as once nano-tech becomes viable carbon is going to become a very valuable commodity. Mining the troposphere for it may prove to be financially viable. The idealist in me thinks we'll have this stuff nailed out well enough in the future to effectively 'tune' the climate to something that is close to optimum for all of us.

What's wrong with trees? They seem to be pretty good at getting carbon in bulk form. Sure, it may take a couple million years and a whole lotta pressure...

[EvilYeti]

What's wrong with trees? They seem to be pretty good at getting carbon in bulk form. Sure, it may take a couple million years and a whole lotta pressure...

Trees aren't a long-term carbon sink other than in very limited cases. New growth sucks up carbon, old growth decomposes and back it goes. Indeed, the trees wold have to be buried in some way that sequestrated their carbon.

[xouper]

I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.

Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...

...and the article is by Christopher Booker, whom is affiliated with the Heartland Institute. Which gets buckets of cash from the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... her_Booker

So I don't buy it.

Who cares that you don't buy it. It is an example of someone who has financial incentives to promote AGW.

Beyond that Dr Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist (the article even mentions this), the IPCC isn't a scientific organization and none of this changes the science.

Al Gore isn't a climate scientist.

Those are the lefties/commies and EarthFirst enviro-loons. They aren't climate scientsts either.

None of these people are doing climate science research. The only vested interest scientists have is doing good science.

I already said it doesn't change the science. My reply to you was not about the science. My reply was about your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave some examples of some who do. And there was no requirement implied by your claim that I limit my examples to climatologists.

If you now wish to revise your claim to say no scientist has a vested interest in AGW, then again, it is easy to show that scientists sometimes have a vested interest in what they are researching. Can you say "grants"? Climate scientists are no less vulnerable to being invested in getting grants than any other kind of researcher.

Face it Yeti, you erred by claiming no one has a vested interest in AGW. That was an ill-informed thing to say. Maybe you had something else in mind, in which case you might wish to clarify what you intended to say instead of what you actually posted.

[Badger]

Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.

I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.

Uh, how about you have a history of maintaining untenable positions?

To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.

Then you are simply ignorant of what you are even ignorant of (a common condition). Allow our own Dr. Naomi Oreskes to enlighten you:

I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.

Once more, thanks for not very much.

Given you are reading denialist blogs filled with nonsense, you are doing nothing more than poisoning your own well.

You assume much.

[Bearguin]

Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.

I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.

Uh, how about you have a history of maintaining untenable positions?

To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.

Then you are simply ignorant of what you are even ignorant of (a common condition). Allow our own Dr. Naomi Oreskes to enlighten you:

I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.

Once more, thanks for not very much.

Given you are reading denialist blogs filled with nonsense, you are doing nothing more than poisoning your own well.

You assume much.

God EY is a dick.

I often wonder why I have people on ignore. Then someone quotes this kind of shit and I remember why.

[DrMatt]

I thought local brown clouds caused cooling by deflecting the sun away from the ground.

[EvilYeti]

You assume much.

Dude you referenced the Watts Up blog. No wonder you are so confused.

Watch the video. It very clearly explains why there is a scientific consensus on AGW in the first part and in the second, why people like you deny the same.

[EvilYeti]

I thought local brown clouds caused cooling by deflecting the sun away from the ground.

All clouds do, the 'brown' ones are even better at it due to the various aerosols they contain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... s_and_soot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud#Impacts

Did someone say otherwise?

[EvilYeti]

Who cares that you don't buy it. It is an example of someone who has financial incentives to promote AGW.

Well, given his promotions/forecasts so far have been woefully conservative this is definitely a candidate for the worst conspiracy ever.

I already said it doesn't change the science. My reply to you was not about the science. My reply was about your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave some examples of some who do. And there was no requirement implied by your claim that I limit my examples to climatologists.

I don't care about political organizations. And I'm not sure how they stand to 'profit' either because they would still exist if the scientists forecast global cooling. They are irrelevant to the topic.

If you now wish to revise your claim to say no scientist has a vested interest in AGW, then again, it is easy to show that scientists sometimes have a vested interest in what they are researching. Can you say "grants"? Climate scientists are no less vulnerable to being invested in getting grants than any other kind of researcher.

Climate scientists get grants to study the climate regardless of what the short, medium and long term forecasts are. As long as they do good science, they keep getting money, regardless if their models say we are warming or cooling. If you had any experience with grants you would understand this.

If you bothered looking at the primary sources and citations you would see much of the research of the previous decades wasn't focused on AGW. They were researching something else (paleoclimatology for example) and the AGW signal simply turned up in what they found, which other researchers later cited. This is simply how science works.

In fact, AGW research is poison to many organizations (and I know this from first hand experience) as the fossil fuel companies donate lots of money towards geophysical research. Oil exploration and all that. However, they of course have a vested interest in minimizing any dangers of their products and won't sponsor any research towards that end. Taking a position on global warming this year can mean losing your money from ExxonMobil the next.

Face it Yeti, you erred by claiming no one has a vested interest in AGW. That was an ill-informed thing to say. Maybe you had something else in mind, in which case you might wish to clarify what you intended to say instead of what you actually posted.

I guess if you looked hard enough you could find someone with a vested interest in anything, but the reality is all the scientists get paid the same regardless of what the results are. As long as the research is solid, of course. I work with these people and I can assure you none of them is rich, except maybe for Walter Munk and he's simply old money from what I can tell.

You, on the other hand, fail to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry, which is many thousands of times bigger than the earth sciences industry (if you could even call it an industry)have the true vested interest in confusing the lay public re: global warming research.

[sparks]

Yeti: How are those thrust to horsepower calculations coming along there buddy?

Twat.

[xouper]

Who cares that you don't buy it. It is an example of someone who has financial incentives to promote AGW.

Well, given his promotions/forecasts so far have been woefully conservative this is definitely a candidate for the worst conspiracy ever.

Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? Not me. Why the sudden moving of the goalposts?

You claimed no one had a vested interest in AGW. That is the point I addressed. I made no claims about any conspiracy so your objection is simply stupid, irrelevant, and is not a rebuttal to the fact that I gave good examples of those who have a vested interest in AGW.

I already said it doesn't change the science. My reply to you was not about the science. My reply was about your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave some examples of some who do. And there was no requirement implied by your claim that I limit my examples to climatologists.

I don't care about political organizations. And I'm not sure how they stand to 'profit' either because they would still exist if the scientists forecast global cooling. They are irrelevant to the topic.

You claimed no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave examples that refute your claim.

If you now wish to revise your claim to say no scientist has a vested interest in AGW, then again, it is easy to show that scientists sometimes have a vested interest in what they are researching. Can you say "grants"? Climate scientists are no less vulnerable to being invested in getting grants than any other kind of researcher.

Climate scientists get grants to study the climate regardless of what the short, medium and long term forecasts are. As long as they do good science, they keep getting money, regardless if their models say we are warming or cooling. If you had any experience with grants you would understand this.

If you bothered looking at the primary sources and citations you would see much of the research of the previous decades wasn't focused on AGW. They were researching something else (paleoclimatology for example) and the AGW signal simply turned up in what they found, which other researchers later cited. This is simply how science works.

In fact, AGW research is poison to many organizations (and I know this from first hand experience) as the fossil fuel companies donate lots of money towards geophysical research. Oil exploration and all that. However, they of course have a vested interest in minimizing any dangers of their products and won't sponsor any research towards that end. Taking a position on global warming this year can mean losing your money from ExxonMobil the next.

OK, those in the peanut gallery, can you name the primary logical fallacy in Yeti's argument here?

Hint: Yeti claims no one has a vested interest in AGW and then argues that there exist scientists who do not have that vested interest.

Question: How does that prove Yeti's claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW? Answer: It doesn't. It is a flawed argument.

Face it Yeti, you erred by claiming no one has a vested interest in AGW. That was an ill-informed thing to say. Maybe you had something else in mind, in which case you might wish to clarify what you intended to say instead of what you actually posted.

I guess if you looked hard enough you could find someone with a vested interest in anything, but the reality is all the scientists get paid the same regardless of what the results are. As long as the research is solid, of course. I work with these people and I can assure you none of them is rich, except maybe for Walter Munk and he's simply old money from what I can tell.

So, are you conceding that you misspoke and that there are some people who have a vested interest in AGW?

You, on the other hand, fail to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry, which is many thousands of times bigger than the earth sciences industry (if you could even call it an industry)have the true vested interest in confusing the lay public re: global warming research.

Just because I have not addressed that point, that has no bearing on my argument against your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW.

If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.