Your above reply has nothing to do with your statement that I rebutted.
Which statement is that? The one where I asked for one credentialed scientist they denies AGW and also has no ties to the oil or coal industry?
You responded with Roy Spencer as an example of a credentialed scientist that denies AGW and has no ties to the oil/coal industry. My response to your "rebuttal" acknowledged that although it's *possible* to find such a scientist, the mere existence of a few such isolated scientists does not disprove the rule. I also graciously stipulated to your submission of Dr. Spencer both to give you the benefit of the doubt but primarily because at the time I did not want to bother having to chase him down in order to expose his oil/coal industry connections.
However since you appear to think that this single example disproves the rule, you’ve made it worth my effort to “debunk” your “rebuttal."
So first from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist). The wiki article lists his credentials and experience in the field all of which seems to directly qualify him as a legitimate expert within the field of global warming. However there are a couple of “red flags” brought out in his wiki article.
For one he’s as much known as a proponent of intelligent design as he is as an AGW denier. I suppose how you take this will depend on your views on intelligent design but in my and many others opinion this alone would be sufficient to label him as a crackpot. However I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that this doesn’t necessarily damn his scientific opinion on global warming.
However two other points were brought out in the article; one, he’s a member of The Heartland Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute) and secondly, that he’s a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute).
The Heartland Institute connection is particularly damning. Not only has The Heartland Institute received significant funding from ExxonMobil, it’s also been significantly involved in “opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke.”
“Heartland has been criticized for employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department.” The wiki article also documents funding received from both ExxonMobil *and* Phillip Morris by the Heartland Institute.
In an earlier reply when I was comparing the tactics between them I had documented a couple of “conservative think tanks” that were strong supporters of both the anti-AGW crowd as well as tobacco. Here’s another one for the list.
Additional documentation of The Heartland Institute funding from Philipp Morris and ExxonMobil as well as documentation of board members with connections to both companies can be found at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute.
And if this is not enough let’s take a closer look at the George C. Marshall Institute which “has been described by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a clearinghouse for global warming contrarians, and by Newsweek as a central cog in the denial machine."
The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute) documents oil industry connections in both funding *and* in management. Also http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute corroborates these assertions.
Virtually every time I see some article denying AGW it's authored by someone with absolutely no credentials in the field with a demonstrable connection to some kind of "think tank" funded by Exxon Mobil and/or Koch Industries. Even in the off chance the denier in question does have some applicable credentials then there's still the connection to the same vested interests. And while you may actually be able to find a denier with both credentials in the field and no obvious financial connection to the oil industry they are as rare as hen's teeth and in all likelihood their financial connection to the oil industry simply hasn't been uncovered *yet*.
This is the original statement I made in reply #8 of this thread that you claim to have rebutted with the submission of Dr. Spencer. I submit that your rebuttal is thoroughly “debunked.”
In getting simplistic you miss the point. You are using high school level over simplification to rebut PhD level work. Were it the other way around then I would have to agree with you.
Actually it *is* PhD level work that has been simplified for high school level consumption.
Since it appears that you need additional documentation here’s another one that’s says your claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity is total bullshit. In this case this is from the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory which is a U.S. Geological Survey sponsored facility that is perched on the rim of Kilauea Caldera and so should have a good scientific basis for its opinion which states the following. From http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html.
“Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.”
Yet another one of your claims thoroughly debunked.
By the way I don’t recall that *you* ever provided any documentation whatsoever as to *your* claim that volcanoes made man’s CO2 output negligible.
According to the IPCC report, and if you take every thing they say as fact. Man does increase the warmth of this planet by an amazing 6 one hundredth of one degree over the next 100 years.
Above is my quote. You never bothered to acknowledge it. You have read all four IPCC reports and their subliments and summeries, haven't you? That is their conclusion on AWG that you believe in and support. If you have not read these reports then your arguments in this discussion are invalid because they are not based on the facts of the case.
I’m not sure, what are subliments and summeries? Perhaps you mean supplements and summaries?
As I said *I* make no claim to be an AGW or GW or CC expert. It is sufficient to me that this is the “overwhelming scientific consensus.” I have no desire to read “all four” IPCC reports since I am an electrical engineer *not* a climatologist.
The arguments I present are *not* invalid because they are not *my* arguments they are the arguments of true experts in the field backed up by documented links.
Yet again where is *your* documentation of your “6 one hundredth of one degree over the next 100 years” claim. Don’t bother, because for every one link you could provide I could provide 100 counter links. While I have thoroughly debunked each of your claims at every step of the way I am not such a glutton for punishment that I will actually chase down 100 links for you.
I am doing that, one ignorant person at a time
I will admit one thing, with the obvious bullshit you’ve been spouting the only person you could convince would have to be ignorant to the point of being retarded.