Say Anything Blog

BTW, 2---my whole point is that Mr. Knight lied through his fucking teeth, and then I proved it with verifiable evidence.

Perhaps Mr. Ingham was angry because Mr. Knight was lying to him. Of course, you’ve made it clear that you consider rudeness to be a thousand times worse than lying.

The NCPPR recieves significant funding from ExxonMobil ($225,000 since 1998) to promote its pro-business, anti-science agenda.

The NCPPR recieves significant funding from R.J. Reynolds, and it has lobbied in support of the tobacco industry.

The NCPPR recieves the majority of its funding from the usual gand of conservative foundations and corporations.

The NCPPR even helped launder Jack Abramoff’s bribes to Tom DeLay

Anything that isn’t a White House press release is “biased” to you, 2---including science, verifiable facts, and common sense. I think it’s best if we simply ignore your prattlings from now on.

As for exxonsecrets---how much money does it take to link to ExxonMobil’s grants list?

Once again you link WaPo, as if they are unbiased. As for sourcewatch and exxonsecrets, who funds them? Or do they just find magical bags of money on their doorsteps every morning? Go checkout some of Mr. Ingham’s work product, you will like it, don. As for everybody else, stay away!! You will have a ducttape moment, as Mr. Beck would say.

You can’t gore anything with the weak thinking and lack of reason that you are so famous for, 2

My, my. You get testy when your ox is gored. And yes, I know there is a joke lurking in that sentence. I don’t have the time, got to get back to work.

[...] Pajamas Media in Los Angeles Friday, December 9, 2005 The UN Conference on Climate Change wraps up today in Montreal with Reuters citing the United States as lone dissenter against an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.  Blogs have been weighing in from all sides with It’s Getting Hot in Here covering the conference extensively.  RW Research blames VP Dick Cheney for the US obstructionist position, but Boots & Sabers says it’s really Bill Clinton who has been sticking his nose where he shouldn’t.  Meanwhile, WILLisms tries to set the record straight and Say Anything meets the press.  Tummyrumble (who else?) has the Ben & Jerry’s connection [...]

It will be interesting to see if this whole story is corroborated, or turns out to be a work of fiction.

The statement was “individual donations make up the vast majority of our funding.” In spite of Don’s assertions to the otherwise, his links prove nothing.

In his links, I was able to find nothing that stated the total yearly funding of the NCPPR, the fraction that was small private donations versus corporate donations, just plenty of innuendo. 

The NCPPR is right about this one:  The Kyoto Protocol totally sucks.  It is enormously expensive and achieves something like a maximum 0.2 deg C change over a friggin’ century.  My wish is that only the US’s enemies and economic competitors will be foolish enough to implement it.

Don Myers: 

You can’t gore anything with the weak thinking and lack of reason that you are so famous for, 2

After regularly making such a complete idiot out of yourself with outlandish claims, you are hardly in a position to authoritively make this statement about anybody but yourself.

The statement was “individual donations make up the vast majority of our funding.” In spite of Don’s assertions to the otherwise, his links prove nothing.

You didn’t look very hard, which is hardly a surprise.

BTW, it seems that a healthy percentage of the individual donations they do get are the result of scamming senior citizens.

Since they are clearly lying about global warming*, why wouldn’t they lie about their funding as well. Calling themselves a think tank when they are lobbyists is a big fat lie as well. Why are you so quick to trust these snakes in the grass, carrick?

*That’s GLOBAL WARMING, not the Kyoto Protocols. they are not the same thing. They are two different issues (you’re woefully misinformed about the Kyoto protocols as well, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish).

NCPPR is an astroturf organization,
waddles like a duck.
Amy Moritz Ridenour Chairman/President

her biographical note she “served as Deputy Director of the College Republican National Committee; as Regional Coordinator for the Reagan/Bush 1980 campaign; as Chairman of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans and on Maryland Republican State Central Committee.”

They also take Coors money. Another reason not to drink lousy beer.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research#Funders

bob:

When you can’t figure out how to use the copious links and evidence I provide, look stupid!

donnie? Why are you crying so hard if all the facts are on your side? Take your propaganda and go back to DU. We ain’t buying any. As for this being a fictitious story, I would buy that. Sounds far to pat to be real.

Don: I thought the whole purpose of the Kyoto protocols was to reverse human-caused global warming.  Otherwise, what was the point? To cripple the US economy?  I wouldn’t say they were two different issues.  There is a direct relationship.

donnie? Explain how you are going to turn down the Sun, then we might take you seriously. Oh, and how many volcanoes are signatories of the Kyoto Protocols?

Don: When you don’t have any facts, attack!

bob and 2:

If you want a serious reply, you’re both gonna have to start making some sense.

If you’re just trying to prove that you’re both dumbasses---well, by all means, carry on.

Propagandi are not facts. And I don’t care what you think. You are a troll and a moonbat. Please regale us with more of your idiotic repartee. I need a good laugh.

Don: You are not replying to what I wrote. You asserted that the Kyoto Protocols and “Global Warming” are different, and I wrote that the Kyoto Protocols were specifically created to cure human-caused global warming.  I think they are about damaging the US, but they don’t admit that.  Please try to give me a factual reply about your version of the relationship(of lack thereof) between the Kyoto Protocols and global warming, if you can.

Don Myers drivels, Perhaps Mr. Ingham was angry because Mr. Knight was lying to him. Of course, you’ve made it clear that you consider rudeness to be a thousand times worse than lying.

Was he? Do you have the breakdown of donations?

The NCPPR recieves significant funding from ExxonMobil ($225,000 since 1998) to promote its pro-business, anti-science agenda.

Can you prove that they want to promote a “pro-business, anti-science agenda” or is this just another one of those unsubstantiated accusation you’re known for around these parts?

Anything that isn’t a White House press release is “biased” to you, 2—including science, verifiable facts, and common sense. I think it’s best if we simply ignore your prattlings from now on.

Do you think you could prove the above point without these kinds of bullshit remarks?

BTW, it seems that a healthy percentage of the individual donations they do get are the result of scamming senior citizens.

Well that is certainly not ethical, but it is not a scam.

Since they are clearly lying about global warming*, why wouldn’t they lie about their funding as well. Calling themselves a think tank when they are lobbyists is a big fat lie as well. Why are you so quick to trust these snakes in the grass, carrick?

Why don’t you prove your charges first? Why should we believe you?

They are two different issues (you’re woefully misinformed about the Kyoto protocols as well, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish).

I’d stack Carrick against you anyday. Carrick brings an argument while you only bring accusations and insults.

I said:

The statement was “individual donations make up the vast majority of our funding.” In spite of Don’s assertions to the otherwise, his links prove nothing.

Don Myers responds:

You didn’t look very hard, which is hardly a surprise.

Nice asshole comment, but I still don’t see the percentage of donations which were from private individuals.  This link just lists the total grants to the NCPPR since 1985.  It says nothing about donations from private individuals.

This link proves nothing.  Try again.

Since they are clearly lying about global warming*, why wouldn’t they lie about their funding as well.

And you wonder why I accuse you of having poor reader skills.  Here is the original quote

I began to explain to him that it is our view that mankind is not causing the planet to get appreciably warmer.

This is an accurate statement.  It’s well known in the scientific community that most of the global warming is from an increase in solar activity.

Don Myers:

you’re woefully misinformed about the Kyoto protocols as well,

Actually, not.  The Copenhagen Consensus, for example, rates the Kyoto Protocol as a “bad project”, and placed it the second worst (16th out of 17) of the second projects reviewed.  The fact is that it is a very poorly conceived idea, for reasons that I have discussed on this blog in the past.

Climatological models forecast an increase of 1.4 - 5.8 degrees no change in our behavior, and 1.34-5.55 degrees with the Kyoto Protocol implemented.  All it will do is tie up valuable resources and be enormously expensive (preventing those resources to be used more wisely solving our very real environmental problems), give the stick-in-the-muds an excuse not to do more ("we’ve done plenty") while having a negligible real impact.

I think you need to educate yourself, instead of assuming you are smarter and more knowledgable than everyone around you.

[...] Pajamas Media in Los Angeles Friday, December 9, 2005 The UN Conference on Climate Change wraps up today in Montreal with Reuters citing the United States as lone dissenter against an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.  Blogs have been weighing in from all sides with It’s Getting Hot in Here covering the conference extensively.  RW Research blames VP Dick Cheney for the US obstructionist position, but Boots & Sabers says it’s really Bill Clinton who has been sticking his nose where he shouldn’t.  Meanwhile, WILLisms tries to set the record straight and Say Anything meets the press.  Tummyrumble (who else?) has the Ben & Jerry’s connection [...]

WOOF:

NCPPR is an astroturf organization,
waddles like a duck. [etc]

Nice ad hominem, WOOF.  When you don’t have any facts, just do the old degrees-of-separation smear you lefties do so well.

My refutation of your carefully crafted arguments?  Your grandmother sucks eggs.  BOILED eggs.

Here’s from the sourcewatch description:

The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) began operations in 1982. It was created to present the conservative perspective on issues of significant public concern. As its first project, it exposed human rights abuses by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It then fought against a proposed “nuclear freeze” and began supporting the Reagan Administration’s policies regarding Central America. It now calls itself a “communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems.”

WHAT A BUNCH OF NAZIS!!!!!

Actually, I like the idea of free-market solutions over socialistic ones.  It’s a position that I have been advocating on this blog.  And I don’t even have funding from Exxon.  :-(

Carrick: Hey! I also like the idea of free-market solutions over socialist ones, and have also been advocating them on this and other blogs.  Maybe we should form and organization.  BTW, I don’t get any money from Exxon, either.  Small world, eh?

Hey, I don’t get any money from exxon either!  I think our rights are being violated. Sorry, looks like don dropped off, so I was just picking up his slack. In an aside, I have been tracing this Richard Ingham and it would appear his main concern is"why ain’t America giving MORE money for HIV/AIDS”. Guess he was sluming at the enviro conference.

In an aside, I have been tracing this Richard Ingham and it would appear his main concern is”why ain’t America giving MORE money for HIV/AIDS”.

LOL.

Ain’t that one hell of a joke at Don’s expense?

This entire thread can be summed up thusly:

Bjorn Lomborg, truth teller;
Media reporters like AFP’s Richar Ingham, liars.

IF you need to know more, consult the sources.

The whole environmental thing is just a cover for the same old quest for power that has been the staple of human existence since Cain slew Abel. These environmentalists might talk about “sacrifices” for the greater good but they’re only talking about your sacrifice and their greater good.

While you’re shivering in your hovel, they will be celebrating in their, energy efficient, mansions. They want the power to decide for everybody else how they should live, how they should work, whether they should work and what they should be allowed to do with their property. That is if they don’t outlaw property. (for everyone but themselves, of course)

They like to claim that there won’t be any economic damage. I think we should take them at their word. If there is any job losses because of their program, we need to make sure that it is their supporters that lose their jobs. If there is to be any suffering at all let it be by those who believe.

Who is going to run this thing? I bet they plan on manning the agencies that are going to direct this effort. How much should they be paid? Let me know. It seems with their belief in sacrifice to save the earth, they ought to be willing to work for no more than the average income. In fact, if they are really believers they ought to work for below average income. Sacrifices, you know.

If they are serious they ought to present a plan. One of the major criticisms of President Bush is that he invaded Iraq “without a plan”. They are talking about a much larger undertaking than that. Where’s their plan?

Let me know what is going to be done. Not vague terms like “reduce greenhouse gasses” real actions like “close factories that emit more than x amount of gasses”. Then we can figure out what factories those are and who will be affected.

Bush opponents like to talk about “timetables” well where’s their timetable. How long is this going to take? 10 years? 15 years? What are the objective mileposts along the way? How do we know that we are accomplishing something besides funding someone’s off-shore bank account?

Finally, and this should probably be first, what is our objective? Are we going to spend billions to achieve a minor change decrease in temperature in 50 years? Or are we going to completely end and reverse “Global Warming”? If not, why are we even discussing this?

I haven’t heard anything out of Montreal that even approaches anything like that. Just some vague intentions to discuss concrete provisions at a later date. Read what they decided. There’s no there there. It’s nothing but bureaucratic double talk in order to justify their expense accounts.

Great satire, John.

Satire? Not a chance. I’m as serious as a heart attack.

bob:

You are not replying to what I wrote. You asserted that the Kyoto Protocols and “Global Warming” are different, and I wrote that the Kyoto Protocols were specifically created to cure human-caused global warming.

I didn’t reply because your statement is so stupid!

Antibiotics specifically created to cure human infections. Are antibiotics and diseases the same things? No, they are not.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t dumb it down any farther than that.

I think they are about damaging the US, but they don’t admit that.

Paranoid bullshit. Obviously, what you think is whatever the bush regime tells you.

Sorry, looks like don dropped off, so I was just picking up his slack.

What more is there to say?

Obviously, I listen to what The National Science Teachers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, The National Center for Atmospheric research, The Journal of Climate, and the editors of this reference and this reference.

Y’all, on the other hand, read a press release from an ExxonMobil shill and believe every word.

You can believe whatever the hell you want---doesn’t make it true.

BTW, why do y’all hate science so much?

Ah, it’s a joke!  Good one!

By the way, Don, i compare this figure with CO2 emission levels from this figure. You will see that anthropogenic emissions were insignificant before 1950, yet there was as large a jump in the mean global temperature from about 1920 to 1940 as there was from 1980 to 2000.  Thus, human-generated emissions cannot be evoked as the sole explanation.

Actually, most of the rise can be attributed to solar activity.  See for example, this figure.

The Amman and Wahl article is interesting, but it is just a reconstruction of temperature.  If you were trying to argue that there is global warming, I don’t dispute that fact---it’s been going on for about 10,000 years or so…

The facts are that humans are nearing a threshold where they become a dominant contributor to global warming.  So far that does not appear to be the case.  We all and especially developing nations need to put a lid on the greenhouse gas emissions, or we are looking at a huge problem.  Maybe something far worse than just flooded seaboard cities.

One last time, don. Propagandi are not facts. Acquaint yourself with some facts, assimilate them into your worldveiw, then come talk to me. Goodbye.

Don:

BTW, why do y’all hate science so much?

Um.  I’’m a Ph.D. physicist and do science for a living.  What’s your background?

Science is about asking well-framed skeptical questions.  I never object to people being skeptical of any conclusion I’ve drawn from the science.  Why do you get so bent out of shape?

For your edification, I’ve written a post on global warming and Kyoto.  Since you think I’m so “misinformed’’, I invite you to read the article and make up your own mind.

My comments are based on the latest science, and come from such disparate sources as Oakridge National Laboratory and UC Berkeley.  I also pointed you towards the Copenhagen Consensus, which like most other objective reviews of the Kyoto Protocol, agree that it is a poorly conceived idea.

None of my sources are from ExxonMobil, and I don’t receive any pay from them or any other energy company.  Thus you can forgo your usual snarky comments about energy company funded studies, press releases and the like.

Even the wikipedia entry agrees that Kyoto does not solve the problem.  My biggest worry is that it is very expensive to implement and rather than being the “first step”, it will be the last step.  That would be a major disaster the problem of CO2 emission needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, but Kyoto solves nothing.

There is little or no problem with human-generated global warming at current emission levels.  To be fair to the writers of the original Kyoto Protocol, the global carbon cycle was not as well understood at that point.  As I understand the history, it wasn’t until the early 21st century that the role the ocean played in moderating the amount of emitted CO2 remaining in the atmosphere.

The real problem arises if we don’t curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.  The increase in CO2 emissions is mostly from developing nations (especially China), which are excluded from emissions controls.  While the US is a major polluter, it also produces 25% of the worlds goods and services.  Normalized by production, the “efficiency” of the US is much better than the developing and especially the former soviet bloc, and the US emissions efficiency will continue to get better regardless of Kyoto.

Unlike you, I am arguing from real data, and not from a partisan organization which happens to be comprised of scientists (we scientists can be political and biased too… all of us and not just those opposed to Kyoto), or from a group of school teachers.

Read my article & the comments, and if you disagree start by pointing out data that are contrary to my arguments, or object to my interpretation of the data, or even to my characterization of the Kyoto Protocol.  Don’t bother with cherry picking statements that support your prior-arrived at conclusions.  That isn’t science, that’s just rhetoric.

I had the wrong link for the normalized by production figure.  Here is the corrected text:

Normalized by production, the “efficiency” of the US is much better than the developing and especially the former soviet bloc, and the US emissions efficiency will continue to get better regardless of

Carrick:

As a Ph.D in physics who does science for a living, you’re aware that one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is that results must be repeatable and verifable. That’s why I linked to several sources to back up my statements about global warming.

If someone was to cite only one study, that would not be as reliable as citing several studies.

Of course, as a Ph.D in physics who does science for a living, you already know this.

The fact that research results are often biased in favor of the people who fund the study is well-known to Ph.Ds in physics who do science for a living such as yourself. That’s why studies funded by tobacco companies often find that cigarettes are not addictive and studies funded by oil companies often find that pollution from fossil fuels do not cause global warming.

This is old news to Ph.D in physics who do science for a living (such as you, for example). That’s one reason that the names of researchers are usually attached to a study. A Ph.D in physics who does science for a living would be skeptical of someone who makes scientific claims but isn’t willing to sign their real name to them. Ph.Ds in physics who do science for a living rarely work under an assumed name or ‘handle.’

Finally, a Ph.D in physics who does science for a living knows that no one “does science” because science is a noun, not a verb.

Don:

That’s why I linked to several sources to back up my statements about global warming. [...] If someone was to cite only one study, that would not be as reliable as citing several studies.

One cites the best science and the most representative science. I had four or five studies I looked at, before selected the three out that I actually used.  A Ph.D. physicist also cites data and not just rhetoric from partisan organizations.

The fact that research results are often biased in favor of the people who fund the study is well-known to Ph.Ds in physics who do science for a living such as yourself.

Which is why I cited peer-reviewed work and summaries of peer reviewed studies from major universities and research centers, in addition to the summary of data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

I’ll stack up UC Berkeley and Oak Ridge National Laboratory against your sources any day.  Not exactly “partisan hacks” working for tobacco company or an oil company.

That’s one reason that the names of researchers are usually attached to a study.

Such as in most of the references I cited:

Berkeley reference:

Inez Y. Fung, director of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center at UC Berkeley.

NCDC/NOAA reference:

Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Ed Gille, Jonathan Overpeck and Wendy Gross, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, CO
Malcolm K. Hughes, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Raymond S. Bradley, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA

The exception is the report from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that I found on Greenhouse gases, which is an agency wide report.  It’s common in these cases to give a contact person or email.  In this case it was .

Finally, a Ph.D in physics who does science for a living knows that no one “does science” because science is a noun, not a verb.

Nice example of a childish comment.

That was funny.

I especially like the pocka,pocka,pocka sound of don’s head being smacked into actual, verifiable scientific research. That IS funny, MI.