Sourcewatch - CEI (new window)

Wikipedia - CEI (new window)

One needs to take their conclusions with a grain of salt.

The CEI is Exxon Mobil's "think tank". Only lacking the thought portion. So it's just in the tank.

St_Francis_P: Sourcewatch - CEI (new window)

Wikipedia - CEI (new window)

One needs to take their conclusions with a grain of salt.


Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

St_Francis_P

One needs to take their conclusions with a grain of salt.

FTFA: CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

Make that a metric shiatload of salt, please.

MuadDib: St_Francis_P: Sourcewatch - CEI (new window)

Wikipedia - CEI (new window)

One needs to take their conclusions with a grain of salt.


Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

Everybody can make their own conclusions. I was just pointing out that despite what they purport to be, they almost certainly have a strong bias.

St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

Everybody can make their own conclusions. I was just pointing out that despite what they purport to be, they almost certainly have a strong bias.


They purport to have the report, which is the only fact that's relevant here. Their bias toward markets in no way affects what's in it -- or the fact that the administration censored it.

If it were up to me, Mobil would be the only ones making policy decisions about the environment.

100% serious.

MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

Everybody can make their own conclusions. I was just pointing out that despite what they purport to be, they almost certainly have a strong bias.


They purport to have the report, which is the only fact that's relevant here. Their bias toward markets in no way affects what's in it -- or the fact that the administration censored it.

With these things being so complex and easily obfuscated, I personally wouldn't trust a report from a group with such a strong bias.

So you can say "read the report" all you want, but that doesn't mean the lay person will be able to spot the distortions and omissions.

Mordant: If it were up to me, Mobil would be the only ones making policy decisions about the environment.

100% serious.

Why?

EvilEgg: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P:

With these things being so complex and easily obfuscated, I personally wouldn't trust a report from a group with such a strong bias.

So you can say "read the report" all you want, but that doesn't mean the lay person will be able to spot the distortions and omissions.


Well, I can spot one person who didn't RTFA....

CEI didn't write the report, dude. An EPA official did. Then the EPA censored it. CEI is just hosting a copy. All of these attacks on CEI are just a lame attempt to divert attention from the administration censoring a scientist whose conclusions didn't match its policy preferences.

In short, business as usual...

Atillathepun: Mordant: If it were up to me, Mobil would be the only ones making policy decisions about the environment.

100% serious.

Why?

Because I like problems that solve themselves. We eventually won't have to hear about this crap anymore if the Oil companies are calling the shots about the environment.

Nice neat solution.

MuadDib: EvilEgg: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P:

With these things being so complex and easily obfuscated, I personally wouldn't trust a report from a group with such a strong bias.

So you can say "read the report" all you want, but that doesn't mean the lay person will be able to spot the distortions and omissions.


Well, I can spot one person who didn't RTFA....

CEI didn't write the report, dude. An EPA official did. Then the EPA censored it. CEI is just hosting a copy. All of these attacks on CEI are just a lame attempt to divert attention from the administration censoring a scientist whose conclusions didn't match its policy preferences.

In short, business as usual...

What they presented was certainly interesting, but you're assuming the guys who objected were entirely right, and the rest of the scientists at the EPA were wrong. That is a big assumption. I'd like to see more explanation from the EPA too, but for now I'm not going to leap to a conclusion. The man-made global warming subject is not simple, and there are credible scientists on both sides of the issue.

St_Francis_P: MuadDib: EvilEgg: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P:
What they presented was certainly interesting, but you're assuming the guys who objected were entirely right, and the rest of the scientists at the EPA were wrong. That is a big assumption. I'd like to see more explanation from the EPA too, but for now I'm not going to leap to a conclusion. The man-made global warming subject is not simple, and there are credible scientists on both sides of the issue.



No, you assume that I make that assumption. I have not actually said anything of the kind.

I said the EPA suppressed this report and that this report is at odds with the policy preference of the administration. The administration that promised to "restore" science to its rightful place ahead of ideology in policymaking. None of which is in dispute (^).

MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: EvilEgg: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P:
What they presented was certainly interesting, but you're assuming the guys who objected were entirely right, and the rest of the scientists at the EPA were wrong. That is a big assumption. I'd like to see more explanation from the EPA too, but for now I'm not going to leap to a conclusion. The man-made global warming subject is not simple, and there are credible scientists on both sides of the issue.



No, you assume that I make that assumption. I have not actually said anything of the kind.

I said the EPA suppressed this report and that this report is at odds with the policy preference of the administration. The administration that promised to "restore" science to its rightful place ahead of ideology in policymaking. None of which is in dispute (^).

They shouldn't have suppressed the report: true. Yes, the report is at odds with the administration's stance on global warming. Past there you are assuming that the EPA was simply bending to Obama's will, rather than coming to the best conclusion they could based on the opinions of the scientists that work there. I don't know whether or not that is true.

St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: EvilEgg: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: MuadDib: St_Francis_P:
What they presented was certainly interesting, but you're assuming the guys who objected were entirely right, and the rest of the scientists at the EPA were wrong. That is a big assumption. I'd like to see more explanation from the EPA too, but for now I'm not going to leap to a conclusion. The man-made global warming subject is not simple, and there are credible scientists on both sides of the issue.



No, you assume that I make that assumption. I have not actually said anything of the kind.

I said the EPA suppressed this report and that this report is at odds with the policy preference of the administration. The administration that promised to "restore" science to its rightful place ahead of ideology in policymaking. None of which is in dispute (^).

They shouldn't have suppressed the report: true. Yes, the report is at odds with the administration's stance on global warming. Past there you are assuming that the EPA was simply bending to Obama's will, rather than coming to the best conclusion they could based on the opinions of the scientists that work there. I don't know whether or not that is true.


I didn't say anything "past there." You are assuming what I assume. Please don't.

MuadDib: St_Francis_P: Sourcewatch - CEI (new window)

Wikipedia - CEI (new window)

One needs to take their conclusions with a grain of salt.


Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

Ad Hominem:

Bob is a meanie poo poo head who likes to beat his wife, therefore his opinion on climate change is invalid.

Not Ad Hominem:

Bob is being paid a ton of money by a company with an invested interest in denying climate change, therefore his opinion on climate change is suspect.

Good day.

Talon: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

Ad Hominem:
Bob is a meanie poo poo head who likes to beat his wife, therefore his opinion on climate change is invalid.

Not Ad Hominem:
Bob is being paid a ton of money by a company with an invested interest in denying climate change, therefore his opinion on climate change is suspect.

Good day.




"An ad hominem argument (^), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

IOW, your second example is, in fact, every bit as much an ad hominem as the first. And, as repeatedly pointed out already, both are equally irrelevant to the actual point: The contents of the report the EPA suppressed, a copy of which the target of the argumentum ad hominem is merely hosting so people can read it.

This whole report has been pretty well debunked -

Bubkes
Filed under: Greenhouse gases Climate Science- gavin @ 8:00 AM - ()

Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI ("CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life!"), are all a-twitter over an apparently "suppressed" document that supposedly undermines the EPA Endangerment finding about human emissions of carbon dioxide and a basket of other greenhouse gases. Well a draft of this "suppressed" document has been released and we can now all read this allegedly devastating critique of the EPA science. Let's take a look...


First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That's not necessarily a problem - perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? - but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don't know is a leading light of the Friends of Science - a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken's rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree..., e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this "evidence", they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Devastating eh?

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hilter and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports....

They don't even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can't have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC - which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground.

If I were the authors, I'd suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail.... RealClimate (new window)

Yes, it's all a leftist conspiracy. No legit science at all.

Dirty hippies:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-year-in-review/
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html
http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

Godless communists:
http://www.us-cap.org/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Libtards:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/

LIEberals:
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Bad teeth:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/index.htm
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_clima te_change/sternreview_index.cfm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jun/30/climatechange.climatechangeen v ironment1

<b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4476332&IDComment=52312001#c523 12001">MuadDib</a>:</b> <i>Talon: MuadDib: St_Francis_P: Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

Ad Hominem:
Bob is a meanie poo poo head who likes to beat his wife, therefore his opinion on climate change is invalid.

Not Ad Hominem:
Bob is being paid a ton of money by a company with an invested interest in denying climate change, therefore his opinion on climate change is suspect.

Good day.

"An ad hominem argument (^), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

IOW, your second example is, in fact, every bit as much an ad hominem as the first. And, as repeatedly pointed out already, both are equally irrelevant to the actual point: The contents of the report the EPA suppressed, a copy of which the target of the argumentum ad hominem is merely hosting so people can read it.</i>

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it"

This post intentionally left blank.

Bucky Katt: <b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4476332&IDComment=52312001#c523 12001">MuadDib</a>:</b> <i>Talon: MuadDib: St_Francis_P:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it"


And still irrelevant to the report. And not getting any more relevant to the EPA censoring research that doesn't fit the desired policy with each repetition, either.

MuadDib: And not getting any more relevant to the EPA censoring research that doesn't fit the desired policy with each repetition, either.

What about censoring research that has been debunked by myriad other reports? That's not a bad thing is it?

I know what all those words mean by themselves, but I don't understand the context here.

Report the EPA repressed that found the agency relied upon outdated research, ignored new developments, in deciding to regulate CO2, restore science to its rightful place in policymaking

I'd give my left nut if somebody could diagram this sentence for me. Is there a verb in this mess of words?

cameroncrazy1984: MuadDib: And not getting any more relevant to the EPA censoring research that doesn't fit the desired policy with each repetition, either.

What about censoring research that has been debunked by myriad other reports? That's not a bad thing is it?

I'd rather they publish it and explain their objections. These people do work for them, if they don't want their input they should get rid of them and save a few bucks.

Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures,

Paging Brockway, and thus Jon Snow....

a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense

To what degree of "consensus" and under what measure thereof?

and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.


DOI: reference form preferred, please.

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

[!]

MuadDib: Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself.

tl;dr

ecmoRandomNumbers: I'd give my left nut if somebody could diagram this sentence for me. Is there a verb in this mess of words?

It's not a complete sentence, it's a noun ("report") heavily modified (including with some clauses that have verbs). Sketching:

Report
..the EPA repressed
..that found
...the agency
....relied [upon outdated research]
....ignored [new developments]
.....in deciding to
......regulate [CO2]
......restore [science]
.......to its rightful place in policymaking

If you'd prefer a sentence, you could append "is being waved around by a pack of AstroTurfers."

I'd prefer the cashew over the macadamia, by the way.

MuadDib: Or one could just click through to the report and read it oneself. Your ad hominem directed at CEI is inapposite.

Fine, I'll read the Executive Summary.

* It claims that the temperature has exhibited a downward trend in the last 11 years. Data through 2006 indicates that this simply isn't true; 1998 was the hottest year on record to be sure, but global temperatures from 2001-2006 have been hotter than any year in the last 1.5 centuries other than 1998. People who say "global warming has stopped" are incorrect. There have been periods in which the temperature goes down (the 1940s, part of the 1960s, etc.) but the general trend has been upward.



* Hurricanes -- Immaterial to the overall topic of global warming.

* Greenland -- LOLWAT? Its ice sheet is continuing to melt at a disturbing pace.

* The current economic recession is a temporary slowdown.

* Water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas? WTF? Am I understanding them right?

* Of course the sun has an effect on global temperatures. There are many factors. The sun is one. Greenhouse gases are one.

Who the fark wrote this shiat?

* Alan Carlin -- An economist
* John Davidson -- A physicist

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said earlier this week that Carlin is not a scientist and was not part of the working group that dealt with the endangerment issue.

"Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding," she said. "Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar."

Derp derp derp

Try again plskthx

They also liberally quote Ken Gregory of Friends of Science a global-warming-denier organization.

If there's a 1% chance that a group of terrorists will set off a nuclear weapon in NYC, should we try to stop them?

If there's a 1% chance that pumping more and more CO₂ into the atmosphere will wreck coastal cities around the globe, should we try to stop it?

From Sourcewatch (new window):

In a 2006 profile of CEI and other global warming skeptics, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach noted that "the most generous sponsors" of CEI's 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal."

Certainly non-partisan.

MuadDib: I didn't say anything "past there." You are assuming what I assume. Please don't.

I humbly submit that you should consider the connotations of your phrasing and not just the denotation of your words.

Mordant: If it were up to me, Mobil would be the only ones making policy decisions about the environment.

100% serious.

Well, that's dumb.

elchip: If there's a 1% chance that a group of terrorists will set off a nuclear weapon in NYC, should we try to stop them?

If there's a 1% chance that pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere will wreck coastal cities around the globe, should we try to stop it?

But someone out there might make only 52-million in profit, as opposed to 57-million, had he been allowed to continue farking our environment. And wouldn't that be a damn dirty shame? It's totally unfair!

When Bush was deciding to send detainees to Guantanamo Bay, he sought opinions from Justice Department. Some of the opinions said it was OK and were released to the public. Some of the opinions said it was not OK and were suppressed.

Obama is just like George Bush in this regard. There's nothing to see here - the president has a policy direction and he suppresses dissent.

The emails that are listed as evidence of suppression are pretty funny. It sounds more like the guy's boss was saying stop goofing off and get back to work.

Bucky Katt: Yes, it's all a leftist conspiracy. No legit science at all.

Dirty hippies


Dirty hippies indeed.
Hippies are not that bad, until they want to put everyone in the poor house because of misinformed science.

Buck-KY: But someone out there might make only 52-million in profit, as opposed to 57-million, had he been allowed to continue farking our environment. And wouldn't that be a damn dirty shame? It's totally unfair!

Many will still make 57 million, they'll just charge you and I more ;(

ChickenTits: Mordant: If it were up to me, Mobil would be the only ones making policy decisions about the environment.

100% serious.

Well, that's dumb.

No, not really. People get fed up with all the wharrgarbl and choose to throw in the towel. The more a three-year-old whines, the more likely the parent will give in and hand him that piece of candy. People learn this shiat early in life.

Wow. Seems like someone benifits from Any report coming out or not coming out (of the closet). That doesn't give more or less credibility to it. The question is the scales and sources for info that were discussed in said report.
...and global warming is happening much slower than the poisening of people and places with waste from our ever increasing technological production and disposal. Nat Geo did a amazing piece on this in the mid nineties and here is frontline taking the issue to task.
Link (el popper)
global warming shmoble warming
spelling shmelling

Awesome. Fark's down to three hours to debunk the deniers so thoroughly that they run away while crying.

Wow another AGW thread in the same day.

Shouldn't the last one settled everything?

How many naysayers are left??

Talon: Not Ad Hominem:

Bob is being paid a ton of money by a company with an invested interest in denying climate change, therefore his opinion on climate change is suspect.

Yes that is an ad hominem. It's pretty much the definition of ad hominem. Most specifically, it is the "circumstantial ad hominem".

Here's what I don't understand: they're starting from a position that they were silenced specifically because the EPA wants to support the administration's goal of capping carbon emissions. Now, why come at it from the angle of a conspiracy? The EPA has only two reasons to do so. Reason 1: They genuinely believe there is a need to cap carbon emissions in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. Reason 2: There's money for them in supporting it, whether they believe it or not.

I don't see the line for Reason 2. How would you get there? I find it far more likely that the EPA simply disagrees with their report, and isn't interested in seeing it published because they believe it is bad science. The fact that it IS published now, on the internet, manifests the notion that it is unnecessary the EPA be involved for this information to go out. Perhaps they simply didn't want to legitimize what they believe to be incorrect.

I find this far more likely.

But I suppose it's good press to say your ideas are being kept down by the man, and then releasing them to get the word out. Makes for good fodder later, and gives you a study to refer to when you need to make some talking points and some argument. When people say that report isn't supported by the EPA, you can just say that of course they didn't want to support it, it disagrees with their official position, and just move on.

There's more money in avoiding carbon capping, so they're the ones I find more likely to engage in spurious behavior.

elchip: Buck-KY: But someone out there might make only 52-million in profit, as opposed to 57-million, had he been allowed to continue farking our environment. And wouldn't that be a damn dirty shame? It's totally unfair!

Many will still make 57 million, they'll just charge you and I more ;(

True.

What surprises me are all the millionaires who visit Fark and fight to keep their profits high over the health and welfare of us lowly peons.

Science does not censor dissenting opinions. It aims to disprove them. Politicians and their cronies censor dissenting opinions, and that is what you have here.

t3knomanser: Yes that is an ad hominem. It's pretty much the definition of ad hominem. Most specifically, it is the "circumstantial ad hominem".

And even more specifically, it's an appeal to motive.

Buck-KY: What surprises me are all the millionaires who visit Fark and fight to keep their profits high over the health and welfare of us lowly peons.

Well the world does need ditch diggers sys admins...

WTF is that headline claiming to say?