Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYour source has been shown to be produced by a biased organization by an author with little scientific credibility. What's more, it hasn't even been published yet (1 Oct 2006) - why can't you provide a source that people on RHP can actual read?
Once more into the breach...
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734
I've put across a source from climate scientists that provides a thorough and rigorous statistical analysis of the data, explaining why a previous statistical analysis (one that has far more credibility than the one you've quoted) is misleading, and showing that the temperatures of the latter half of the 20th century are anomalous in the context of the last millenium (the so called 'hockey stick' description of temperatures).
As far as I can tell you have made a very poor argument for your thesis so far, and would be very surprised if you'd convinced anyone from your posts and references.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeesomehow that seems a bit under $360M.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
KOCH OIL Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $517,000
http://www.mediatransparency.org/kochaggregate.php
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $2,010,000
http://w ...[text shortened]... licy Analysis = $1,069,000
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=7
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterditto:
Once more into the breach...
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734
The July report of the National Academy of Sciences is available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html#toc
Transcripts from the July 20 Congressional hearings will be available online at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/hearing.htm#Transcript
1 edit
Originally posted by ElleEffSeee$360M looks like big business to me! so why are you complaining an institute that gets money from oil companies?
You've lost me. What does the fact that Greenpeace get 360m dollars have to do with this?
did you notice re my previous post that the domain name for www.exxonsecrets.org is registered to Greenpeace UK?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhy have you ignored my offer of a debate on the subject. I am more than qualified to debate with authority on the subject. I lecture on it at university level. You apparently have ignored my rebuttal to your initial post.
Once more into the breach...
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotAnd the ice cores section clearly shows a major upturn in global temperature over the last 200 years. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, in fact!
ditto:
The July report of the National Academy of Sciences is available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html#toc
Transcripts from the July 20 Congressional hearings will be available online at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/hearing.htm#Transcript
Indeed, it actually notes that the last 100 years is anomolous with regards to temperature when compared with the previous 1900.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe complaint is that the orgnization receives substantial funding from oil companies who clearly do not want the organization to publish work that discredits their business. They cannot therefore be relied upon to produce objective scientific work.
$360M looks like big business to me! so why are you complaining an institute that gets money from oil companies?
did you notice re my previous post that the domain name for www.exxonsecrets.org is registered to Greenpeace UK?
I did indeed notice who the exxonsecrets.org website is registered to: are you saying that the figure is therefore a lie? Do you have proof it is a lie? What about the other (larger) figures by other oil companies given by mediatransparency.org?
I still don't see any relevance quoting Greenpeace's funding has to this argument. Are you implying that because they get so much money there is an increase in the likelihood of them lying about providing information regarding how much the NCPA get from Exxon?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeno one said they are lying about the FUNDING ... the point in question is the disparity of the funding, and the assumption that funding means an argument is bad ...
The complaint is that the orgnization receives substantial funding from oil companies who clearly do not want the organization to publish work that discredits their business. They cannot therefore be relied upon to produce objective scientific work.
I did indeed notice who the exxonsecrets.org website is registered to: are you saying that the figure i ...[text shortened]... kelihood of them lying about providing information regarding how much the NCPA get from Exxon?
you guys have spent a good part of the thread poking at the funding for the OP's article ...
and lalala, turns out your own source is owned by a anti-enviro-business.
the point in question is the disparity of the funding,
The difference in funding between the NCPA and Greenpeace? Again, what is the relevence?
and the assumption that funding means an argument is bad ... you guys have spent a good part of the thread poking at the funding for the OP's article ...
(OP - original piece?)
It is not 'the assumption that funding means an argument is bad', it is the fact that the published work is produced by an organization that are funded by oil companies, and therefore cannot be relied upon to be scientifically objective or impartial (as has been stated).
and lalala, turns out your own source is owned by a anti-enviro-business.
Please be clearer with your posts - are you saying Greenpeace is anti-enviro?!?!?
I see you are trying to turn the tables and discredit my references that discredit the initial one (the NCPA's book). There is a distinct difference: my references discredit the scientific objectivity of the NCPA's book, yours say that the website exxonsecrets.org is owned by Greenpeace (you've not yet tried to discredit mediatransparency.org). However both exxonsecrets.org and mediatransparency.org show that the NCPA get money from oil companies. The only way I can see for you to discredit these websites claims is to provide proof that they are lying.
Or am I totally not understanding you here?
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeOP = original poster ... and i misspoke on the "anti-" ...
[b][i] ...
it's not a book, it's an article. and i don't see why you should have a problem with who's funding the article, if you don't have a problem with posting links from Greenpeace, a quite large enviro-advocacy business.
AND the article is describing congressional testimony from the NAS. which has dropped off the thread.