another disturbing impact

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by gt, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. I did take a look at that site. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is unclear who does support that site, if not 'big oil.' All I could glean from the site about who sponsors it is the following:

    "ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day."

    That's not exactly a transparent source of funding.

    On the home page, there are 17 stories. All of them present an angle that refutes global warming by anthropogenic means.

    I'm not sure I'd call it either objective or particularly science-based.

  2. Get this thread back on topic.
  3. It was meant merely as an example of the many scientists who opt for an open debate for lack of actual evidence. The man made global warming is a far more hotly debated topic than what some sources would lead us to believe.

    I find the actual homepage is not entirely helpful, but instead use it as a jumping point for looking into other information.
  4. Chadk, I'd think you could do better than posting from another rightwing site...

    Carl Sagan has long list of achievements, here's a list from Wikipedia

    Awards and honors

    NASA Distinguished Public Service MedalAnnual Award for Television Excellence - 1981 - Ohio State University - PBS series Cosmos
    Apollo Achievement Award - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (twice)
    Emmy - Outstanding Individual Achievement - 1981 - PBS series Cosmos
    Emmy - Outstanding Informational Series - 1981 - PBS series Cosmos
    Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Helen Caldicott Leadership Award - Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament
    Homer Award - 1997 - Contact
    Hugo Award - 1981 - Cosmos
    Humanist of the Year - 1981 - Awarded by the American Humanist Association
    In Praise of Reason Award - 1987 - Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
    Isaac Asimov Award - 1994 - Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
    John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award - American Astronautical Society
    John W. Campbell Memorial Award - 1974 - Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective
    Joseph Priestley Award - "For distinguished contributions to the welfare of mankind"
    Klumpke-Roberts Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific - 1974
    Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Medal - Awarded by the Soviet Cosmonauts Federation
    Locus Award 1986 - Contact
    Lowell Thomas Award - Explorers Club - 75th Anniversary
    Masursky Award - American Astronomical Society
    Oersted Medal - 1990 - American Association of Physics Teachers
    Peabody Award - 1980 - PBS series Cosmos
    Prix Galbert - The international prize of Astronautics
    Public Welfare Medal - 1994 - National Academy of Sciences
    Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction - 1978 - The Dragons of Eden
    SF Chronicle Award - 1998 - Contact
    Named the “99th Greatest American” on the June 5, 2005 Greatest American show on the Discovery Channel.

    And what have you contributed Chad?
  5. ???
    Wow Steve. That's a lot of pent up hatred. Yikes!
    (good call on the editing of your post - that was getting kinda freaky...)

    Also, I quoted from several sources. Just go to the wikipedia site or pick your own. There is nothing I posted that isn't commonly known...

    And I love science and enjoy learning more every chance I get. And in my pursuit of an electrical engineering degree in the early 1990s, I took classes in physics, biology, chemistry, etc and loved them.
  6. Here are a few...

    Look at the studies and reports on the right...
  7. I strongly suggest that all rational thinkers participating in this discussion refrain from legitimizing the views of the pseudo-science propounding religious idealogues who obviously have no grasp of scientific design, method or follow-through by not posting any further responses. This is the stance finally assumed by scientists in America in response to evolution nay-sayers and it is unfortunately the only effective tactic. Again, replying to outlandish claims only lends credibility to them. Sadly, this thread exemplifies why America is rapidly falling behind the rest of the thinking world in nearly every social and scientific category. Good luck...
  8. icecap is an interesting site. unfortunately, it's nothing but more opinions, no scientific evidence is presented, only discent and doubt by some folks funded by who knows who. you notice they don't let you in on their funding secret!

    now, were is your peer reviewed refutation of climate change and it's links to mankind, WPEB?????????????

    as i have stated, opinions really don't count in this debate, only science needs to be presented. if'yah'got'it, post it, or you might consider just how shallow and meaningless your ranting actually proves to be.
  9. I see why I stay out of the climate change thread debates. So many Americans don't understand science. I wonder what proportion of Americans are even taught the process of scientific reasoning or critical thinking skills. So many arguments from visceral knowledge and too few from rational thought.

    Good catch Steve on the relative contributions of religion and science to humanity, and an even better catch to edit your 12:21 post.

  10. WPEB,

    Only one of those appeared to have been published in a peer reviewed journal (Nature). Further, it was a comment about someone else's work, which was not peer reviewed, but editor reviewed. Do you undestand what peer review is?
  11. You don't like all the ones I just posted? here is some info on another one:

    info about some more
  12. ~Phil:

    Did you see Derek's post immediately above your last one?

    Do you understand what 'peer reviewed' means?

    Just because I put up a web site with content that I purport to be true and factual doesn't mean it really is. Just because Dr. Phil has a TV show doesn't really make him a real doctor or a real psychologist.

    You could post a hundred similar URLs with lists of 'dissenting' scientists, but that doesn't make them any more valid than Dr. Phil's 'doctorate' if those 'scientists' positions haven't been subjected to and vetted by the peer review process.

    If they haven't, then their opinions are no more valid than mine.

  13. WPEB


    That is the title of one paper published on the Canadian Free Press website.

  14. QHays

    That figure is '97 percent idiots'. 96 percent is the Canadian figure.
  15. Canadian free press isn't my choice for when looking for news, I was more interested in the study the article speaks of. Its the study written by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
    Published in the the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.
    The study was peer reviewed.

    You can find more information on this at the Royal Meteorological Society website.

    Thanks for asking Kent and Derek, but yes I do know what peer reviewed means... I'll admit it, it is difficult to find these things online, but not impossible.

    As for the other websites I gave, they were not meant as hard proof of anything, just that such studies and reports are out there.
  16. Hooked and lost one yesterday on the Skagit below the Baker.
  17. That site is register to Joe D'Aleo, a retired meteorologist. Not evil yet. He did some work in the early days of the Weather Network. Ok… Contributing Author for The Fraser Institute. Now we are getting somewhere.
    The Fraser Institute is a "free market" oriented Canadian think tank. Climate change is one of the primary focuses of its environment-related research.
    In 2003 and 2004 the Fraser Institute accepted $60,000 US (120k total) from Exxon. Always follow the money…

    Now just because you contribute to a site that take moneys from an oil company does not necessarily mean you are biased. It does wave a giant read flag however!
  18. Good sleuthing job dinomium!

    Why, one wonders, would Exxon Mobil spend $120K to fund a Canadian web site spouting AGW rhetoric and dedicated to sewing seeds of doubt among the weak-minded? ;)

  19. That seems like a stretch, Joe D'Aleo has contributed to the Fraser Institute.
    The Fraser institute has accepted 120k from exxon.
    To say that the money from exxon biases the entire institute, Joe D'Aleo, and therefore ICECAP and all its contributors is a ridiculous proposition.

    First off, the Fraser Institute is a independent non-profit organization who has received financial donations from thousands of contributors. Second, D'Aleo is not a regular with the Fraser Institute, but has contributed to the Independent summary for policymakers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment.

    You can find more of about that here: Summary5.pdf
    Interesting read for those of you so inclined. A peer reviewed assessment
  20. I was merely pointing out the links between the two and even stated a disclaimer. Hey, if The vice president can go hunting with a supreme court justice while the case involving him and influence pedaling is before the court, then 'appearance of impropriety' for excluding oneself is indeed a 'quaint' notion.
    :beathead: pollution is bad. If you really don't think humans are hurting the planet, go to the top of Crystal Mountain and look at the valley below. When I was a kid you could see downtown Seattle, now you just see a pink cloak...

Share This Page