There’s more:
Makes a good argument.
For a price.
2 Likes
“Follow the money.”
(Deep Throat, All the President’s Men)
1 Like
Back to not knowing who to trust!
On the other thread some posts were flagged… we generally agreed that that was a bad idea. However, the community guidelines specifically say to not make “Ad hominem attacks”, which is what your post does. So I am tempted to flag it, but I will not.
If what the two honorable individuals are saying is not telling the truth please enlighten all of us of the detail errors or lies. That would be a much more worthwhile endeavor than casting doubt on their motives, after all I am quite sure that the people on the other side of the argument also are paid for their work, and they are paid by like-minded people and organzations, does that mean their work should be ignored?
An odd post. First, the The Guardian article contains several links that provide further information on this specific case as well as the larger issue of “science for hire” in climate change, especially by oil and gas. As well, the ad hominem logical fallacy is specifically a way to distract from an issue, though it is often used more generally to cast a negative light or attack character. Considering the article I linked provides additional information, it doesn’t really fit this category since it is not dismissive, especially considering the discussion above of trustworthy science.
The rest, eh, I’ll let the good folks here judge for themselves what is honorable and what isn’t. And if you want to flag, I’ll let the folks and mods here judge that, too.
1 Like
The article you linked to is just a fuller version of the character attack. It does not have scientific information that refutes the claim in the article posted by @Jyak that increases in CO2 have increased food production by 20% and that additional increases in CO2 levels do not significantly impact global warming because what they call “saturation”. I would think that this information could be easily refuted, if it is untrue. Instead, the people presenting this information are attacked because they were solicitated to express their views for money.
I personally have a difficult time believing they are correct, but the argument should be based on the scientific method. BTW, I called them “honorable” to restore to them the honor ALL people deserve, regardless of which side of this argument they are on. Will it make you feel better if I call Greenpeace and The Guardian honorable as well?
If the allegations in the article aren’t true, then I’m sure The Guardian will be taken to court and the scientists remunerated to restore their reputations, but as it stands, the article is pretty clear.
In Happer’s case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.
If you’d like refutations of the science behind their assertions, the article does make mention of those, though it’s clear that’s not the purpose of the article. I’m sure those would be pretty easy to find.
Lol. My feelings are fine but not germane.
1 Like
Two comments:
- It seems to me that the Guardian is not making false allegations itself (which could create legal exposure) but is instead reporting what others are saying/doing.
- People are paid for their expertise all the time. Plumbers, accountants, doctors, lawyers, and yes, even professors. The important thing in my mind is disclosure so we can judge trustworthiness for ourselves.
1 Like
Generally, I agree here, especially about disclosure, but I think it’s also important not to over-simplify industry-funded science to just “paying for expertise.” If I have a leak under my kitchen sink, I’m not going to pay a plumber to tell me there’s no leak. In fact, that analogy doesn’t even work because there’s no profit and no harm to other kitchens. It would be better to say that expertise here is rented on the basis of a pre-determined conclusion.
Judging trustworthiness is hard, and it’s another reason we need a well-educated populace.
1 Like
Bold, underscore, exclamation point
Discussing the actual claims made in the article posted by Jyak. Starting at the top.
This is true. Here is one source:
Unsettled? What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters
by Koonin, Steven E.
ISBN 9781950665792
Citation of original source.
Next claim:
This is potentially true. Crop yields have increased, but untangling how much of the increase is due to what is, shall we say, difficult.
Source ibid.
Citations of original sources:
If I have time, I will come back and address some of the other claims.
1 Like
The Green Party is in power in Germany and they couldn’t even get A Speed Limit 
This really makes no sense but keep in mind only the wealthy can drive. It’s 3-4k to get a drivers license and gas is 8-9 dollars a gallon.
The most interesting part to me is (we live in a neighborhood full of German car company engineers) and three years ago they were enthusiastic about EVs but now they will all tell you it’s not the answer.
Most will say maybe not even a bridge. Europe is burning coal again (and some LG from us) and the energy crisis over here is just beginning. India is buying up the cheap a Russian gas that used to come to Europe.
The deindustrialization of Europe’s economic engine
(Germany) will be a real problem because Germany pays for a lot to support the euro. The aging population with fat pensions further stresses the system.
The electric grid over here can’t even support AC so I’m not sure why they think they can all charge cars.
We have had massive fires with electric buses exploding. The infrastructure is really old.
1 Like
I will again suggest starting with the IPCC report, to understand what we are discussing. If you do not at least start there, all you are doing is finding contrary reports on the internet, without the context to understand why it may or may not contradict what the consensus of the vast majority of scientists studying climate change have found. The vast majority of scientists studying climate change are in agreement. Some are not, for various reasons.
Here is a page from the IPCC report that pertains to what you just posted. I find it interesting, and troubling, that what you posted stops its data set at 1950. That suggests some cherry picking potentially.
Reference: IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf
Yes, more CO2 helps plants grow, given their physiology. There will, of course, be things that benefit from a warming climate. Some critters and plants will do better than others. Some will; do better in the short term, worse in the long term, and visa versa. The real question is not will some particular group do better or not, but how will we do (our population and quality of life) as our environment becomes very different from what we have known in our modern era? That is a lot more complex than simply looking at the CO2 level and saying that plants will grow better.
We in the wildlife biology and habitat restoration “business” are basically having to come up with new and uncertain approaches, as the change is creating novel situations for us to deal with. We used to determine how to do a wetland restoration project by simply looking at what would have been there in the past. Re-create that, done.
Not anymore. Now we look at the site and try to predict what it will be like in the future. Does it even make sense to restore it, if it will be inundated in the near future due to sea level rise? Instead of restoring, maybe we should buy land adjacent in the uplands, with the expectation that it will convert to wetlands over time? These are questions we never needed to wrestle with in the past.
1 Like
That is worth two likes. Delaware Museaum of Natural History had a display about the larges snake on record. Big around as a 55 gallon drum. To make a long story longer, PBS or some science show researched it. For a reptile to get that large, they estimated the average temperature had to be around 95° Fahrenheit (35°C). Archeological exploration found lots and.lots and lots of these critters in PA. They died because it got cold.
I’ve never felt a connection with anyone who tells me that biodiversity is greater at the Poles than it is at the Equator.
Am I missing something? We plant in the spring and harvest in the fall. It appears that the leading global warming pushers have large real estate investments on the water. Am I missing something? I’d be inclined to buy mountain property, based on established science!
Al Gore was on the side of tobacco farmers before he was against them. He was madly in love with his wife until he wasn’t. He took a break after saying his election was stolen. Had his mental health evaluated, then became a climate activist (rumor is that his science grades were not good. Now he flies around in private jets selling carbon credits (not sure I can back any of that, but its what I read).
Greta TinTin Eleanora Emma Thunburg has anger management issues and thinks adults are ignorant, except for the ones that have nominated her for every prestigious award you can shake a stick at. And she got most before she finished high school (she has finished by now, hasn’t she). Most kids think adults are dolts until they grow up and become adults. Is she really that brilliant? I see the graphs. I don’t doubt trends, but I really don’t trust the leaders of that pack. It smacks of somebody selling us out. I’m waiting for more credible advocates. Greta and Al don’t get it for me, and neither does the terror tactics of Greenpeace.
3 Likes
In this case it looks like the IPCC is cherry picking the data since their dataset starts in 1850, whereas the one I posted starts 550 million years before 1950!
It all depends on the question being ask. The IPCC charts do a great job of answering the question of how much CO2 concentrations have increased in the industrialization period of humans. But, that was not the claim I was trying to proof or disproof. The claim was:
What I posted shows that exactly. The current CO2 level, while not included on the graph, is referenced in the text below the graph… I guess you missed it 
In the scale that the graph is in it would be at level 1.3 and if added would be slightly above and to the right of the 1950 mark.
I really don’t think there is any controversy on this claim, I only posted it to give a more complete picture.
Though you don’t say this directly, I assume your next 3 paragraphs are related to the second claim I wrote about. Specifically, that post-industrialization CO2 increases have caused crop yields to increase by 20%. Not sure where those paragraphs come from since you did not include a citation, but those paragraphs do not disprove the claim, they are more forward looking whereas the claim was looking at the past.
Maybe I will get to the third claim later today, or not, since I had to answer you. I think it is the most important claim made in the original article and deserves some attention. It has several sub-parts which I will try to tease apart to see if any of it makes sense.
Smile, your right, I am focused on our potential future condition in this thread. And the recent past, especially the rapid warming we are seeing, is what I was commenting on. But I missed that you were simply pointing to the time periods so far in the past. I have no argument with that, if that is all you were trying to say. My bad.
The rest was not at all a rebuttal, I was trying to agree with what you posted, and simply pointing out that it is only one small piece of the larger picture. sorry if I did not make that clear.
Germany was warned in 2018 at the UN and the German delegates were laughing at the messenger. I wonder if they have changed their minds now.
1 Like
Lol I’ve seen that and it’s been tempting to show my German friends that always think they are the smartest guys in the room (sometimes they are.)
Have you seen how much the right wing party has grown since their energy crisis?
Sweden has swung right, Italy, it’s trending over here over energy and immigration. They don’t have the birth rate so they might want to rethink that, they need young workers.
1 Like
Here is a good TED Talk you may have seen. He talks some comparing the German model to what the French have done.
1 Like