The thing(s) with climate change

[Trident_H]

There are many many outrageous claims on youtube. I can’t take the time to listen to all of them.

What’s missing from the government money vs. fossil fuel money question is the issue of motive. In the case of the fossil fuel industries there is a clear and obvious motive for using their advertising and lobbying dollars to promote skepticism of climate change. But in the case of the government, although there is a lot of money in government, almost all of it is already spoken for, which leaves very little left over for discretionary things like influencing the climate change debate. And unlike the fossil fuel industry, there is no clear and obvious motive for the government to use what little they have left over for this nefarious purpose. I have heard it claimed that they want to do this so they can grow the size of government through regulation. But isn’t pushing climate change about the most ineffective way to grow government, if growing government was your goal? I would think offering more services that people already see as a potential benefit would be a much easier way to “grow government” than to offer a service (fighting climate change) that you have to work really hard to convince people is a benefit to them. (I can offer you free daycare or a reduction in CO2. Which do you prefer?)

Ah motive’s there. It’s something like this. Green interests start the fight. Just like they’ve started so many before (from being anti-nuclear power to being anti-LCDs). They need a cause. Or their funding dies out.

Next come the media. They get more attention the worse the news. So they run with the worst case scenarios. Exaggerate a bit here and there. But get excited and make some money at it.

Then the populace gets alarmed. They see the media reports. They want action.

Some clever power types smell money in this. They start whispering about cap and trade rules.

The politicians hold out. For a long time. Waiting. Hoping.

But then some of them start sensing pressure from the electorate. It’s sink or swim. So they put on their ‘climate change’ face. And blow with the wind.

The government money needs to follow the political will. So research for how to tackle GW get priority. They get the first line hand-outs.

So pragmatic scientists know where the trade winds are blowing. And start to tweak their daily routines to capture those kind of grants.

The dissenters are shunted as fringe elements for political expediency. To avoid embarrassment. Because this is not about truth. It’s about power. And staying in power.

Oil companies know their money’s tainted. So research firms hired by them to counter the panic don’t get any play. To absolutely no one’s surprise.

Then the UN sees a way to grow it’s unelected influence. It sees a way to get on the siphoning end of what could be billions in carbon tax transfers. Just thinking what they could do with the money makes them willing do anything. Even if it’s corrupt. Like writing outlines to scientific papers and pressuring for certain pointed interpretations of ideas that haven’t even gotten to a provable point. Instead of allowing scientists to make unbiased views.

Then the whole machine’s in play. And reputations are on the line. And no one with a pay check in this can afford to back down. So the cycle continues. In a bit of a spiral. Sort of like a dog chasing its own tail. Until it’s hit with complete exhaustion.

Or something.

Peace Leaf.

-Trident

 

[hu324b]

Lets get down to what the real problem is here and that is if we agree just how much is it going to cost us to fix - if it was cheap we would all be on the band wagon - but its going to be expensive and hurt our wallets in the future.

So some ppl want solid proof before forking over the money. Which is reasonable with how much Goverments lie to the ppl.

We have to be careful here - if its real then there will be huge consiquences - we can’t just write it off as garbage - we need a true and honest study which i don’t think is possible at this time because there will be huge amounts of money involved and where there is money there is coruption - so i don’t think we can get to the truth at this time.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

There are many many outrageous claims on youtube. I can’t take the time to listen to all of them.

But it might be edifying to check out at least one of them. Someone in your position has to ask why an eminent and well-respected atmospheric physicist such as Richard Lindzen would make such an “outrageous claim.” Doesn’t it warrant at least a little investigation?

Or see what Freeman Dyson has to say about all this. He saw trouble coming back when climate modelling became popular. He thought resources should be applied to measuring and observation. IOW, let’s find out what is really happening. Otherwise we run the great risk of scaring ourselves with computer generated virtual “realities.”

What’s missing from the government money vs. fossil fuel money question is the issue of motive. …

I couldn’t disagree more. Money is money. Both Lindzen and Michaels give a very clear insider’s explanation of how the billions of dollars of government funding over the last decades have been a huge incentive for researchers to support the climate science establishment. The overwhelming testimony of skeptics is that there is no profit in doing research which contradicts the conventional wisdom. IOW, you better be near retirement or at least have tenure before you come out as a skeptic. Don’t you agree that this is pathetic state for a scientific discipline to be in?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But it might be edifying to check out at least one of them. Someone in your position has to ask why an eminent and well-respected atmospheric physicist such as Richard Lindzen would make such an “outrageous claim.” Doesn’t it warrant at least a little investigation?

If I investigate his claim and find it lacking, will you have yet another person or youtube video I should check out, or will you admit there is nothing to this?

I couldn’t disagree more. Money is money. Both Lindzen and Michaels give a very clear insider’s explanation of how the billions of dollars of government funding over the last decades have been a huge incentive for researchers to support the climate science establishment.

Since you have obviously listened to them and are fully acquainted with their arguments, can you give me the gist of which specific billions of dollars in government funding you are talking about? I have seen statistics like this before, and the way they come up with such a big sum is to count all government expenditures that are even tangentially related to energy. Renaming them all as “global warming research dollars” is like bait and switch.

The overwhelming testimony of skeptics is that there is no profit in doing research which contradicts the conventional wisdom.

History has shown that scientists, even when they receive no pay at all and are working totally on their own time, are motivated by the desire for fame and reputation more than money. It would take a** lot of money** to make an entire field of scientists abandon this motive for the mere promise of continued employment. Scientists get fame and reputation by proving the conventional wisdom wrong. This is proved out in the history or science time and time again. There is no reason to think this has suddenly changed.

 

[Trident_H]

History has shown that scientists, even when they receive no pay at all and are working totally on their own time, are motivated by the desire for fame and reputation more than money. It would take a** lot of money** to make an entire field of scientists abandon this motive for the mere promise of continued employment. Scientists get fame and reputation by proving the conventional wisdom wrong. This is proved out in the history or science time and time again. There is no reason to think this has suddenly changed.

I’m not so sure that it’d take a lot of money. I think all it would take is some media or peer pressure. Like for instance if every scientist who went against the flow got outed in public and made fun of.

Just like what’s happening now actually. Because a good reputation’s one of the things scientists sort of crave. And really this is pretty normal in the scientific world for everyone to follow in a circle. With only a few radicals off to the side.

It happens in physics. And astronomy. And biology. And climatology. And it’s happened more than once that the outside guy ends up with the right angle on things and has to work backwards to convince the herd. Sometimes it takes so long to get the others to play fair that the acknowledgement only comes after death too.

For a fun example you can think of the fellow who noticed that washing hands reduced mortality among new births. He was laughed out of the medical profession. It took like 70 + years for his pals to finally admit they were wrong.

Or the guy who noticed that ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured by antibiotics. He finally had to use his own body as a test subject to get any of his fellows to take him seriously. Because the science had long ago been settled that ulcers were caused by stress. So no takers. He was a looney right up until he was branded a genius.

Just like today there are scientists who are pointing out that hydro dams create more greenhouse gasses than gas power plants. They’re not atmospheric scientists. They’re good old fashioned biologists. But because they wear the wrong hat they get no play in this.

So money’s one thing. But the lemming maneuver’s quite another. So that’s why I sort of sit on the fence and try to figure this out from up here. I just want to get this all to make some sort of sense.

Because in the end I also think Bradski’s right. That going after energy from the sun is helpful too. I just hate getting swept up in the rantings of activists and power brokers. And I don’t trust the media to be straight with us. They’re more like an out of control parrot. Screeching at us all of the worst obscenities they’ve heard just to get noticed. Especially when grandma’s over.

I want Walter Cronkite back.

Or something.

Peace Leaf.

-Trident

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not so sure that it’d take a lot of money. I think all it would take is some media or peer pressure. Like for instance if every scientist who went against the flow got outed in public and made fun of.

Just like what’s happening now actually. Because a good reputation’s one of the things scientists sort of crave. And really this is pretty normal in the scientific world for everyone to follow in a circle. With only a few radicals off to the side.

It happens in physics. And astronomy. And biology. And climatology. And it’s happened more than once that the outside guy ends up with the right angle on things and has to work backwards to convince the herd. Sometimes it takes so long to get the others to play fair that the acknowledgement only comes after death too.

For a fun example you can think of the fellow who noticed that washing hands reduced mortality among new births. He was laughed out of the medical profession. It took like 70 + years for his pals to finally admit they were wrong.

Or the guy who noticed that ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured by antibiotics. He finally had to use his own body as a test subject to get any of his fellows to take him seriously. Because the science had long ago been settled that ulcers were caused by stress. So no takers. He was a looney right up until he was branded a genius.

Just like today there are scientists who are pointing out that hydro dams create more greenhouse gasses than gas power plants. They’re not atmospheric scientists. They’re good old fashioned biologists. But because they wear the wrong hat they get no play in this.

So money’s one thing. But the lemming maneuver’s quite another. So that’s why I sort of sit on the fence and try to figure this out from up here. I just want to get this all to make some sort of sense.

Because in the end I also think Bradski’s right. That going after energy from the sun is helpful too. I just hate getting swept up in the rantings of activists and power brokers. And I don’t trust the media to be straight with us. They’re more like an out of control parrot. Screeching at us all of the worst obscenities they’ve heard just to get noticed. Especially when grandma’s over.

I want Walter Cronkite back.

Or something.

Peace Leaf.

-Trident

I thought you were going to give examples where scientists caved in to peer pressure and went along with the conventional wisdom. Instead you offer several examples of where scientists were ridiculed by their peers, cast out from other scientists, and still maintained their view. They did not recant! That seems to be more support for my point that scientists are not that easily corrupted by the desire for acceptance by those supporting the conventional wisdom.

If you are a scientist, you can’t get a paper published that just says “Yup! Everybody else is right!”. But if you have a paper that says “Wait a minute! We found something new!”, that paper is more likely to get published.

 

[Trident_H]

I thought you were going to give examples where scientists caved in to peer pressure and went along with the conventional wisdom.
Instead you offer several examples of where scientists were ridiculed by their peers, cast out from other scientists, and still maintained their view. They did not recant!

No I showed what I wanted to show. That scientists are human. That it’s easier to agree with the group where it’s safe than to stick your neck out. I mean that’s sort of why I admire you in a way. You’re sticking your neck out here. Trying to get some of us to turn your way in this. So I guess you sort of know what it’s like already. I don’t have to go too deep to explain this.

That seems to be more support for my point that scientists are not that easily corrupted by the desire for acceptance by those supporting the conventional wisdom.

If you are a scientist, you can’t get a paper published that just says “Yup! Everybody else is right!”. But if you have a paper that says “Wait a minute! We found something new!”, that paper is more likely to get published.

That guy with the proof that ulcers were caused by bacteria? He couldn’t get his paper published to save his life. It took him 10 years. 10 years of being humiliated and ignored. So no. I don’t think you’ve got the right end of the stick on this. Not at all.

But I don’t think you’ve got an agenda either. I think you’re sincere. And that sincerity reaches me. It does. I just don’t believe that money doesn’t touch all parts of this. I don’t believe that somehow one handful of scientists are absolute peaches on one side of this. And criminals on the other. I think scientists are smart people in general. But that even smart people make compromises. For expediency. Of for personal gain. Or for other reasons.

I mean give a go at this article. Is it wrong? Is it accurate? Who knows. And that’s the bottom line here. That’s where I’m having difficulty. Because we have outrageous claims on one hand. And no real discussion to show that we’ve clearly worked through and rejected the alternatives. I mean we haven’t even gotten so far as to calmly sit down and show a pros and cons list of GW. Something I would assume would make a lot of sense to do before we run out and ‘fix’ the problem right?

I don’t know. I’m just tired of hysterics. And lies. And propaganda. And a short-sighted media. And a branding system for critical questioning. It reminds me of how we always crush dissent. Like once the media embraces a certain politically correct narrative the rest of us just have to fall into line. Or risk getting branded a looney. Just because we didn’t jump up and down about the killer bees. When they wanted us to.

Or something.

Peace Leaf. Keep at it. I’m sure we can figure out what each other are saying eventually.

-Trident

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No I showed what I wanted to show. That scientists are human. That it’s easier to agree with the group where it’s safe than to stick your neck out. I mean that’s sort of why I admire you in a way. You’re sticking your neck out here. Trying to get some of us to turn your way in this. So I guess you sort of know what it’s like already. I don’t have to go too deep to explain this.

That guy with the proof that ulcers were caused by bacteria? He couldn’t get his paper published to save his life. It took him 10 years. 10 years of being humiliated and ignored. So no. I don’t think you’ve got the right end of the stick on this. Not at all.

Despite all the trouble this guy had for those 10 years, he did not give up, did he? That is why I have a hard time believing that all the dissenting scientists today have been silently bought off. And today there are so many alternate channels of getting information out to the public. Everyone and his brother has a YouTube channel, a blog, or a twitter feed. If there was a huge mass of suppressed scientists, where are their videos? Their blogs? Their tweets? I know there are some. But shouldn’t there be a lot more?

I don’t believe that somehow one handful of scientists are absolute peaches on one side of this.

Of course not. Their motives are highly selfish. They are ruthless in pursuit of their goals. But those goals happen to be fame and a place in the science textbooks of the future. And the ruthless pursuit of those goals is what would inspire a dissenting scientist to refuse to conform. No altruism is necessary to explain this behavior. Just pure self interest - the desire for personal gain, which cannot be satisfied with mere dollars.

I mean give a go at this article. Is it wrong? Is it accurate?

Maybe. I don’t know. I did bother me that the article you cited had no links to other sources. So I did my own search and found one with more links. There may be sunspot aspects to the original claim that are true. But then the projection to its effect on the climate here on earth is less certain. Still, it is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Who knows. And that’s the bottom line here. That’s where I’m having difficulty. Because we have outrageous claims on one hand. And no real discussion to show that we’ve clearly worked through and rejected the alternatives. I mean we haven’t even gotten so far as to calmly sit down and show a pros and cons list of GW. Something I would assume would make a lot of sense to do before we run out and ‘fix’ the problem right?

I don’t know. I’m just tired of hysterics. And lies. And propaganda. And a short-sighted media.

OK, imagine yourself as an oil executive discussing public relations strategy with your advisers. One of your advisers says “You know what we can do? We can spread stories in the news that casts doubt on climate change. We can get scientists with credentials to go public and offer confusing alternatives to the conventional wisdom. This will make the public sick and tired of the conflicting stories and so they will just reject all of them, which means life will continue for us unchanged.” If you are a smart exec you say “Sounds great. How much do you need to get started?” This is just what happened a few decades ago when the big tobacco companies wanted to suppress the developing consensus that smoking causes cancer and heart disease. And for quite a long time they succeeded. Well, the amount of money in big oil is much more than the amount of money that was in big tobacco at that time. And and motive is still there. So there is every reason to believe that they could be repeating history. So if you get tired of all the bickering, remember the “smoking is OK” campaign, and how that made a lot of people feel tired of the confusing claims and counterclaims. But the pursuit of truth is often messy. Confusion is to be expected.

 

[Trident_H]

Despite all the trouble this guy had for those 10 years, he did not give up, did he? That is why I have a hard time believing that all the dissenting scientists today have been silently bought off.

What do you mean bought off? By who?

Oh. You mean looking out after their best interests? I guess that’s more like what I was assuming. I don’t know. But yeah. You’re right. Those dissenting scientists are still fighting. From what I can see anyway.

And today there are so many alternate channels of getting information out to the public. Everyone and his brother has a YouTube channel, a blog, or a twitter feed. If there was a huge mass of suppressed scientists, where are their videos? Their blogs? Their tweets? I know there are some. But shouldn’t there be a lot more?

Aren’t there more than enough? I mean I’ve read so many. Seen so many. They’re not really that hard to find.

technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/

Over 31,000 American Scientists Sign Petition In Dispute of Global Warming

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
"Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
*
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous."*

dailycaller.com/2015/06/08/retired-nasa-scientists-warn-pope-against-global-warming-alarmism/
"A group of retired NASA scientists and engineers has written a letter to Pope Francis urging him to be skeptical of global warming claims coming from Vatican advisers.*
Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/06/08/retired-nasa-scientists-warn-pope-against-global-warming-alarmism/#ixzz3uH3XzqjP*"

nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

OK, imagine yourself as an oil executive discussing public relations strategy with your advisers. One of your advisers says “You know what we can do? We can spread stories in the news that casts doubt on climate change. We can get scientists with credentials to go public and offer confusing alternatives to the conventional wisdom. This will make the public sick and tired of the conflicting stories and so they will just reject all of them, which means life will continue for us unchanged.” If you are a smart exec you say “Sounds great. How much do you need to get started?” This is just what happened a few decades ago when the big tobacco companies wanted to suppress the developing consensus that smoking causes cancer and heart disease. And for quite a long time they succeeded. Well, the amount of money in big oil is much more than the amount of money that was in big tobacco at that time. And and motive is still there. So there is every reason to believe that they could be repeating history. So if you get tired of all the bickering, remember the “smoking is OK” campaign, and how that made a lot of people feel tired of the confusing claims and counterclaims. But the pursuit of truth is often messy. Confusion is to be expected.

Yeah. I’ve thought about that. That’s why I’m frustrated that a media group hasn’t paced us through this properly. Because we don’t know who to believe really. I mean at best we’ve just got a gut feeling on who seems most reliable. Based probably on who gets the most airtime. So I think it’d be really nice to see this laid out without the alarm bells and catch phrases. For example, I read one site that talks about proofs for AGW. Which is fine. But then it talks about scientists who are not in agreement with their report as being “Global Warming Deniers”. Now whenever I see labels handed out in a stigmatizing way I get a bit nervous. I mean why label your opponent like that even in a joking way? Why not let the science speak for itself? Because do you know where I usually see people get labeled like that? Usually on the winding end of a failing argument. That’s usually when the insults come out. It’s like a last ditch effort.

But I don’t think that makes sense. Because there’s a lot of weight behind both sides of this argument. It really hasn’t swung one way or another for me yet. I’m still on the sidelines looking in.

I don’t know Leaf. Sometimes I envy your conviction on this.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

If I investigate his claim and find it lacking, will you have yet another person or youtube video I should check out, or will you admit there is nothing to this?

Since you have obviously listened to them and are fully acquainted with their arguments, can you give me the gist of which specific billions of dollars in government funding you are talking about? I have seen statistics like this before, and the way they come up with such a big sum is to count all government expenditures that are even tangentially related to energy. Renaming them all as “global warming research dollars” is like bait and switch.

Here is an example which addresses the money in climate science: [Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica]](Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica]) I offer it not because it supports my contentions (rather the opposite, actually), but because it proves the basic fact that since the late 80’s funding of climate science took a dramatic jump to over $2 billion per year. Starting with the creation of the IPCC in 1988, climate science has become a booming field. There shouldn’t be any argument about that.

History has shown that scientists, even when they receive no pay at all and are working totally on their own time, are motivated by the desire for fame and reputation more than money. It would take a** lot of money** to make an entire field of scientists abandon this motive for the mere promise of continued employment. Scientists get fame and reputation by proving the conventional wisdom wrong. This is proved out in the history or science time and time again. There is no reason to think this has suddenly changed.

You are right in saying that scientists are motivated by things other than money. But right now the best way for a climate scientist to advance and get fame, reputation, etc. is to become part of the climate science establishment. James Hansen is a good example. His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the guy loves the limelight. And he loves getting arrested for acts of civil disobedience with “blond bimbos” like starlet Darryl Hannah. But even if folks like Hansen aren’t in it primarily for the money, they still make an awful lot off this gig with their awards and book deals, if nothing else. [My reference to blond bimbos comes from Jackie Kennedy who characterized Hannah thusly when she was hanging with her boy and distracting him from his bar exam studies.]

But back to the issue at hand: Has this boom in climate science funding distorted the science? [back later, gotta get to work]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is an example which addresses the money in climate science: [Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica]](Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica]) I offer it not because it supports my contentions (rather the opposite, actually), but because it proves the basic fact that since the late 80’s funding of climate science took a dramatic jump to over $2 billion per year. Starting with the creation of the IPCC in 1988, climate science has become a booming field. There shouldn’t be any argument about that.

Please check your link, because it does not go to an article with the title in the URL.

You are right in saying that scientists are motivated by things other than money. But right now the best way for a climate scientist to advance and get fame, reputation, etc. is to become part of the climate science establishment.

Who says it is the best way? I am quite certain that a well-supported article proving that AGW is false would get the author a good deal of fame and reputation. “Well-supported” is the key thing.

James Hansen is a good example. His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the guy loves the limelight.

No doubt about it. And when he first published his findings, they were not mainstream. So he is not an example of someone who has “caved in” to pressure to publish only what AGW proponent say.

But back to the issue at hand: Has this boom in climate science funding distorted the science? [back later, gotta get to work]

There is no doubt there has been a boom since 1980 when climate research was virtually nil. But having lots of funding is essential for things like putting up satellites to measure the temperatures from space. And it is noteworthy that one of the chief beneficiaries of the satellite funding is Roy Spencer, who is definitely not aligned with the AGW crowd. So that kind of shoots a hole in the theory that funding only favors those who agree with AGW.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Technocracy News & Trends

Accumulating news and articles on Technocracy, Transhumanism and Scientism from around the world with emphasis on the bio-security state and scientific dictatorship.

www.technocracy.news

Over 31,000 American Scientists Sign Petition In Dispute of Global Warming

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
"Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
*
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous."*

dailycaller.com/2015/06/08/retired-nasa-scientists-warn-pope-against-global-warming-alarmism/
"A group of retired NASA scientists and engineers has written a letter to Pope Francis urging him to be skeptical of global warming claims coming from Vatican advisers.*
Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/06/08/retired-nasa-scientists-warn-pope-against-global-warming-alarmism/#ixzz3uH3XzqjP*"

nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

To paraphrase Obiwan Kenobi, these aren’t the studies you are looking for.
But seriously, this is not really what I meant. Scientific truth is not established by taking a poll of what people think. It is established by presenting experimental evidence that other scientists can duplicate (or not). Thus it becomes not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Therefore the opinion of a former president of Greenpeace, who has never done a bit of climate research in his life, does not count. A voluntary poll where 31,000 people said they disagreed with AGW does not count - even if many of those who submitted entries were in fact climate scientists. I don’t even have to mention that people could join in that survey without having there credentials verified. Various lists of scientists who said yes or no to a question does not count.

What I mean to count is when a climate scientist discovers data that clearly contradicts the AGW hypothesis, and wants to publish a paper presenting his evidence and how it contradicts AGW, and none of the mainstream scientific journals will publish it, for whatever reason (maybe there were all bought off by Solyndra - I don’t know). So, having met with frustration, he turns to social media to publish his original research. He publishes on-line in a blog or some other media that is not controlled by the “vested establishment”. Those are the papers I would like to see. If such scientists and such data exist, there should be lots of these alternate publications that would normally be found in a technical journal. Where are those papers? If the science is being unnaturally hobbled by this supposed biased funding, these alternate papers ought to be there - somewhere.

But then it talks about scientists who are not in agreement with their report as being “Global Warming Deniers”. Now whenever I see labels handed out in a stigmatizing way I get a bit nervous.

I am in no way supporting name-calling responses, and I am just as disgusted by it as you are.

I don’t know Leaf. Sometimes I envy your conviction on this.

Then I have given the wrong impression. The fact is I have no conviction on this. I would dearly love to see AGW proven wrong. I am open to seeing scientific evidence on either side of this question, and if the evidence is scientifically supported, I will embrace the anti-AGW view with no regrets and with a sense of relief.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi Leaf,

try this: arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi Leaf,

try this: arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

Ah, much better. And you are right. The article is mostly against your over-all point. But I will focus only on the part of the article you wanted me to focus on - the fact that about 2 billion dollars per year is being spent directly on climate-related research, excluding things like wind and solar power research, which does not directly impact the science on AGW, even though is for something that depends heavily on AGW for its legitimacy.

So let’s accept the 2 billion dollar figure. The article goes on to ask where that money goes. They point out that much of it goes to basic research that does not try to answer the AGW question. But even if you assumed that all 2 billion dollars went only for biased research, one wonders if 2 billion is really that much money. Consider that the amount spent on pet food every year is the US is over 60 billion. So 1/30 of the pet food market does not seem like that much to spend on research on what will happen to the earth in the coming decades.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hello again, I know this topic’s been a horse beaten to death but there’s two things I wanted to address two things.

One, can we simply just trust what the scientists say and recognize their premise and hypothesis? Rather than debating about background information, let’s discuss about the solutions. Talking about ideas seems more constructive (as well as more fun).

Two, to be honest, perhaps maybe accepting their solutions and recommendations might not be so bad for us I mean, relative to the ramifications and consequences for the poor under worse case scenarios…

I think my situation is I was a Girl Scout in the 50s & 60s, as well as reared a good Christian, and took more after my very frugal grandmother (born 1887) than my mother, who couldn’t keep money in her hands.

So I’ve always followed the “Be Prepared” and “Hope for the best, but expect the worst” and “be prudent” and “be mindful of the needs of future generations” and “Thou shalt not kill” paths – which means I’ve had no problem greatly reducing our fossil fuel (non-renewable resource) use over the past 46 years of our marriage – by living close to work and many other things – and in mitigating AGW in my personal life for the past 25 years, after realizing that by emitting GHGs at a high level I may be contributing to enhancing the droughts, famines, and deaths in Africa, and may other climate change enhanced calamities.

We’ve just retired now, and due to all the money we’ve been saving from doing the EC (environmentally correct) things over the past 46 years we are in fairly good shape financially.

I’ve never really understood how people who consider themselves good Christians and good Catholics could ignore and even reject scientific findings about environmental problems and risk not only their own well-being, but that of others around the world, especially the poor, and the future generations, including their own progeny.

Something is just plain wrong with that picture.

 

[Trident_H]

To paraphrase Obiwan Kenobi, these aren’t the studies you are looking for.
But seriously, this is not really what I meant. Scientific truth is not established by taking a poll of what people think. It is established by presenting experimental evidence that other scientists can duplicate (or not). Thus it becomes not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Therefore the opinion of a former president of Greenpeace, who has never done a bit of climate research in his life, does not count. A voluntary poll where 31,000 people said they disagreed with AGW does not count - even if many of those who submitted entries were in fact climate scientists. I don’t even have to mention that people could join in that survey without having there credentials verified. Various lists of scientists who said yes or no to a question does not count.

What I mean to count is when a climate scientist discovers data that clearly contradicts the AGW hypothesis, and wants to publish a paper presenting his evidence and how it contradicts AGW, and none of the mainstream scientific journals will publish it, for whatever reason (maybe there were all bought off by Solyndra - I don’t know). So, having met with frustration, he turns to social media to publish his original research. He publishes on-line in a blog or some other media that is not controlled by the “vested establishment”. Those are the papers I would like to see. If such scientists and such data exist, there should be lots of these alternate publications that would normally be found in a technical journal. Where are those papers? If the science is being unnaturally hobbled by this supposed biased funding, these alternate papers ought to be there - somewhere.

Thanks for taking the time to go through all those links. What a lot of work. Even just to have read the whole article by the former Greenpeace president. That alone was like 10 pages I think.

Ok. So there are studies that argue against the main. I found a bunch online. But I don’t know who paid for them. I don’t know how they’re doing in the peer-review cycle either. So I’m not sure if they mean anything or not in this.

I am in no way supporting name-calling responses, and I am just as disgusted by it as you are.

Then I have given the wrong impression. The fact is I have no conviction on this. I would dearly love to see AGW proven wrong. I am open to seeing scientific evidence on either side of this question, and if the evidence is scientifically supported, I will embrace the anti-AGW view with no regrets and with a sense of relief.

Well I guess we’re more alike than I realized. I mean I don’t even have a car. So I’m as green as green can be. I just still don’t like being led places. I like to go there on my own. Maybe I’m just a bit of an *** that way.

Thanks again Leaf. I think this is about as much as we can expect from each other at this point. It was a pleasure wrestling with you for a bit.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Ah, much better. And you are right. The article is mostly against your over-all point. But I will focus only on the part of the article you wanted me to focus on - the fact that about 2 billion dollars per year is being spent directly on climate-related research, excluding things like wind and solar power research, which does not directly impact the science on AGW, even though is for something that depends heavily on AGW for its legitimacy.

So let’s accept the 2 billion dollar figure. The article goes on to ask where that money goes. They point out that much of it goes to basic research that does not try to answer the AGW question. But even if you assumed that all 2 billion dollars went only for biased research, one wonders if 2 billion is really that much money. Consider that the amount spent on pet food every year is the US is over 60 billion. So 1/30 of the pet food market does not seem like that much to spend on research on what will happen to the earth in the coming decades.

Ok, so we agree that government funding of basic climate science took a big jump starting in the late 80’s. It is currently running over 2 billion per year (at least since 2009). But should we lay folk be suspicious of climate science just because of this fact? Obviously not. The pertinent questions are whether the funding agencies doling out the money are biased and causing the research they fund to be biased. These are questions worth asking, and Wojick and Michaels from Cato have proposed a framework for investigating this. See judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/ . But don’t hold your breath waiting for the NSF to fund that study.

For me, that mainstream climate science is corrupt and not to be trusted is a foregone conclusion based on history. The conduct of the scientists and organizations comprising the climate science establishment have proven their bias and ruined their reputations as truth tellers by their actions and words.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ok, so we agree that government funding of basic climate science took a big jump starting in the late 80’s. It is currently running over 2 billion per year (at least since 2009). But should we lay folk be suspicious of climate science just because of this fact? Obviously not. The pertinent questions are whether the funding agencies doling out the money are biased and causing the research they fund to be biased. These are questions worth asking, and Wojick and Michaels from Cato have proposed a framework for investigating this. See judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/ . But don’t hold your breath waiting for the NSF to fund that study.

For me, that mainstream climate science is corrupt and not to be trusted is a foregone conclusion based on history. The conduct of the scientists and organizations comprising the climate science establishment have proven their bias and ruined their reputations as truth tellers by their actions and words.

If the AGW results are due to corruption from biased funding from the Federal government, how do you account for the fact that independent climate researchers in other nations (there are other nations doing research, you know) do not contradict the AGW findings, but support them? Is every funding agency in the world corrupt in the same way? And if the oil companies are not funding their own research, I declare their leadership incompetent! They ought to be funding research that is at least neutral, if not biased in the opposite direction. Why are they sitting this one out?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

If the AGW results are due to corruption from biased funding from the Federal government, how do you account for the fact that independent climate researchers in other nations (there are other nations doing research, you know) do not contradict the AGW findings, but support them? Is every funding agency in the world corrupt in the same way? And if the oil companies are not funding their own research, I declare their leadership incompetent! They ought to be funding research that is at least neutral, if not biased in the opposite direction. Why are they sitting this one out?

Funding agency bias in the US surely has played a role in skewing global warming research. Across nations I am sure it exists to varying degrees, but it is a fair assumption that it is most prominent in developed nations, especially in Europe where the Greens seem to manage their country’s environmental portfolio. So, yeah, I think they are all pretty much corrupt in the same way, and government funding world-wide dwarfs whatever the fossil fuel industry is doing.

The reality is that global warming has become a large-scale, world-wide social movement. It serves many special interests: population control, environmentalism, communism, world governance, crony capitalists, etc. It is supported by a growing climate industrial complex.

Its center is the UN’s IPCC. The history of modern climate science cannot be understood without reference to the IPCC which was organized in 1988. It’s founder, Maurice Strong, a Canadian energy tycoon who served at the UN. He was self-described as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” He recently died in China where he was holed up after he engaged in shady dealings at the UN.

The IPCC exists to serve a UN treaty which seeks drastic reductions in CO2 emissions world-wide. In other words, bias was built in to the IPCC’s charter from the get-go.

So if you want to understand the current miserable state of climate science, you start with the IPCC. As they say in Rome, “The fish rots from the head.”

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

fer yer eddificayshun:

youtube.com/watch?v=K3HIuw3bj4U