Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by molson

But by your standard of proof, the case can NEVER be made. Because there's always politics, and distrust of government, and motives for research. Which makes me as skeptical of the general cynicism as you are of the research. You have your own bias, like everyone does, about anything.

And then we're at an impasse.

I mentioned previously (it may even be in this thread) my concern for the integrity of scientists. When scientists begin to engage in political debate, it weakens their argument. We should not have to ask these questions, but based upon the way they are funded, they need to.

I don't think that many people realize that if these guys do not do global warming research, they don't have a lot of other avenues to make money. Its not like they can suddenly start researching space thruster technology.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

who ate all the cereal?

dad.

is he gonna get more?

there will NEVER be more

edit: i'm on team people. i could give a fuck about the economy

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

So polar ice isn't melting and glaciers aren't retreating? It is definitely happening in some areas.

You don't see anyone talking about the record ice extent of the Antarctic ice sheet do you?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Ooh I know.. We might run out.? Just a guess.

Can't the free market sort that out? If the oil's gone in 20 years, the oil companies that sell the next energy source, renewable or otherwise, should do all right financially.

Or do the global warming skeptics also think the government needs to regulate that part of the economy and legislate the oil companies into preparing for their own future?

Edit: Also, isn't the research about how much oil is left politically motivated is well? So why should we believe that? Maybe there's enough oil for the next 10,000 years.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You don't see anyone talking about the record ice extent of the Antarctic ice sheet do you?

The ice extent is growing but the ice mass is shrinking. So while it is covering a larger area, there is less overall ice.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And then we're at an impasse.

I mentioned previously (it may even be in this thread) my concern for the integrity of scientists. When scientists begin to engage in political debate, it weakens their argument. We should not have to ask these questions, but based upon the way they are funded, they need to.

I don't think that many people realize that if these guys do not do global warming research, they don't have a lot of other avenues to make money. Its not like they can suddenly start researching space thruster technology.

Do you have any plan for getting politics out of the global warming debate? I think that's going to be tricky. So we'll be at an impasse no matter what. Even if they're right about this.

[JediKooter]

What if it's proven that the majority of these 'questionable' scientists are not getting funding from the green energy industry or clean energy industry? Are their claims still dubious? Are the goal posts going to get moved to continue to try and support the denialist agenda? Is it semantics that are tripping up the denialists? Is it misinterpreting the data by denialists that makes them think they have a point? Are these denialists nothing more than armchair quarterbacks? It's easy to dismiss the scientists claims by saying they are on the dole or have an agenda, but, if you take them out of the equation and the data still points to the same conclusion, what is going to be the boogyman of choice then?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Before "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, the ONLY international scientific academy or society to publish a dissenting opinion regarding the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

There was a ton of skepticism of the Mann documents going back before 2002/3.

The problem with a lot of this is that you need different scientists looking at this. Climatologists are concerned about the climate. That is a relatively young science. You also need geologists to look at it as well, to cover the long time frames were looking at. You need solar scientists to look at the sun and how it interacts with all of this.

You need multiple backgrounds to collaborate on the paper to cover all the angles.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

if you take them out of the equation and the data still points to the same conclusion, what is going to be the boogyman of choice then?

I was planning on blaming you. Edit: Or Scientologists.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I was planning on blaming you.

About time I get some recognition!

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

The ice extent is growing but the ice mass is shrinking. So while it is covering a larger area, there is less overall ice.

You need to have a baseline to start.

I think we are moving from a very stable temperate time on the earth back to our standard erratic climatological patterns.

Do I think we need to use different forms of energy? Sure, the problem is the easiest method to switch to in the quantity we need and given our current technology is nuclear, and most people don't want that.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe there's enough oil for the next 10,000 years.

judging by our systematic invasion of opec countries i'm guessing not

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

judging by our systematic invasion of opec countries i'm guessing not

We're not supposed to trust the government and its motives for things, remember?

[CraigSca]

We're not running out of energy - we're finding new ways to get at the energy that's already there (you've heard about the huge controversy about fracking, right?). Man will continue to find a way when it comes to energy.

Btw, I can distinctly remember being told in 8th grade (28 years ago) that Manhattan would be underwater in 20 years - this was from my science teacher who was telling us about the ice caps melting. I can remember telling my parents that night and wondering why no one is doing anything. I guess they were too wrapped up working on acid rain and the hole in the ozone.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

What if it's proven that the majority of these 'questionable' scientists are not getting funding from the green energy industry or clean energy industry? Are their claims still dubious? Are the goal posts going to get moved to continue to try and support the denialist agenda? Is it semantics that are tripping up the denialists? Is it misinterpreting the data by denialists that makes them think they have a point? Are these denialists nothing more than armchair quarterbacks? It's easy to dismiss the scientists claims by saying they are on the dole or have an agenda, but, if you take them out of the equation and the data still points to the same conclusion, what is going to be the boogyman of choice then?

Our temperature data is "homogenized". Rather than go out and read the thermometer, the reading is run through a series of equations to come up with a "homogenized" reading.

Why? Why does this need to occur? This data is what is used in all the climate models.

The problem is there is an amount of error associated with this. This is then propagated into the models.

There have also been efforts to use the models developed to predict past temperature events and they don't.

Also, how often do the models need to be tweaked? Go back and look at the models from the late 90s. How many of those models are we tracking as predicted? There is always hysteria surrounding the announcements. There has never been a, let's wait 5 years and see if our models are correct. It's always, "We're at a tipping point, in 20 years we're all going to melt!" (yes, I realize this is extreme). Not to mention, even if there is significant warming, how much do we contribute (I once read somewhere that we contribute ~20% to the total amount)?

Those are my issues with the AGW hysteria.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

We're not supposed to trust the government and its motives for things, remember?

officially we're fighting terrorism. so i'm not sure what you're point is

[sabotai]

Richard Muller was an outspoken skeptic of AGW until he started the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project. (Home|Berkeley Earth)

Here's an op-ed he wrote last month on his conversion from skeptic to proponent and what his team found out about the temperature record.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - NYTimes.com

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I haven't done any serious research or anything on global warning or any of the studies, so this is from an uneducated perspective, but it just seems there's a special level of cynicism here that you don't see with other types of research.

I think you see it elsewhere. Vaccines have been a rather large point of debate for people in this country. And we still have parts of the country trying to keep teachings of evolution out of schools (or adding creationist teaching to schools). Heck, we even have huge debates in the abortion debate regarding some basics of how the human body works.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I mentioned previously (it may even be in this thread) my concern for the integrity of scientists. When scientists begin to engage in political debate, it weakens their argument. We should not have to ask these questions, but based upon the way they are funded, they need to.

I don't think that many people realize that if these guys do not do global warming research, they don't have a lot of other avenues to make money. Its not like they can suddenly start researching space thruster technology.

This is such a stupid fucking reason for not believing them. Almost every single person involved in any type of science has some financial incentive to continue on.

Do you go to a doctor when sick? It's in their financial interest for you to not get fully better and in fact might be better to make you slightly worse. Curing you right away means they aren't making anymore money from you. So can we assume you question their integrity? Of course not. Because that's something that can personally hurt you and you're not that stupid to stand your ground at that stage (just like every creationist who isn't passing up on drugs made using evolutionary scientific principles).

It's just funny that out of all the scientific fields, all the ways scientists make money, this is one of the few that we've declared everyone is out for money on. Not cancer researchers, not geologists, just this one specialty that just so happens to play a role in the profits of some of the largest corporations in the world that demand undying love from a political party (in return for political donations of course) that their sycophants regurgitate talking points from.

If you don't trust science that has financial incentives, stick to your principles and stop trusting it everywhere. Stop being a hypocrite.

[JPhillips]

The biggest damage done to our society over the past thirty years is the spread of the cult of equivalence. Every opinion is equal and thus there are no objective facts.

Ironically a lot of this is the fault of people who claim to fight postmodern ideas of truth.

[Autumn]

The fact of the matter is that not a single person posting on this board is qualified to have a real opinion on this matter. Whether we want to trust them or not, there are some thousands of people in the world who spend the amount of time becoming able to understand the scientific issues involved and come to useful conclusions. The rest of us can't come to useful conclusions because we just don't know enough to know which data makes sense, which questions have already been dealt with in the analysis of the data, what the statistical analysis even means.

So we can choose to trust the scientists or not, but we can't really choose to have an opinion outside of theirs, not really. I'm sure we've all experienced this in our own fields of expertise, hell even here on FOFC when some noob shows up saying how they think Front Office Football works, and sounding like an idiot. Chances are pretty good that any question we can think of about the data (hey, what about solar cycles, or does this take into effect one hot week out of a year) has been considered by people who literally spend their lives thinking about this.

And so it comes to trust. Obviously a climate scientist has thought about every single question posted on this thread, and thought about it for a zillion times longer than we have. So we can choose to trust their answers to those questions or not. The real deal is that there's a large culture of mistrust of intellectuals in America these days. And while it's always good to be realistic about the human nature of scientists and intellectuals, it's kind of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Human scientists are a rotten way to learn about the universe, but it's the best way we've got, to paraphrase Churchill. A small dose of skepticism is important, but I feel like our culture is overdosing on it at the moment. and what do they have to replace the scientific process? Gut instinct, folk wisdom and more of the status quo it seems.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's just funny that out of all the scientific fields, all the ways scientists make money, this is one of the few that we've declared everyone is out for money on. Not cancer researchers, not geologists, just this one specialty that just so happens to play a role in the profits of some of the largest corporations in the world that demand undying love from a political party (in return for political donations of course) that their sycophants regurgitate talking points from.

Yes, thank you, very well put. I don't get how climate scientists, of all people, have become the bogeymen. Those dastardly fiends! One billion percent of research is essentially done on grant money, so it's all suspect for the same reasons. But nobody's beating down the doors of the cancer lab accusing them of being in it for the money. Yet I'm sure just as many of them are. We still need their work. That's why we use peer review. Somebody else can make their money and fame pointing out how the frauds were wrong.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's just funny that out of all the scientific fields, all the ways scientists make money, this is one of the few that we've declared everyone is out for money on. Not cancer researchers, not geologists, just this one specialty that just so happens to play a role in the profits of some of the largest corporations in the world that demand undying love from a political party (in return for political donations of course) that their sycophants regurgitate talking points from.

If you don't trust science that has financial incentives, stick to your principles and stop trusting it everywhere. Stop being a hypocrite.

Not being a hypocrite.

I am sick. I go to the doctor, and say "Hey doc, I've got a cough, can you check it out?"

The doctor says, "Here's a prescription for Amoxicilin. Take two a day for two weeks and come back and see me and let's make sure we get this cleared up."

I'm good here. I have a problem, I go see the doctor, he gives me the remedy.

That's not what is happening here.

Here climate change is occurring. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to develop technologies to do "x".

That's the problem. We are assuming things that are not proven. But, in an SBIR contract, there are stages. You have to show a certain amount of progress before the approval for the next stage (and additional money) kicks in (I'm fine with this in theory). This is the problem. You are incentivized to show bad data if it means you get the next batch of funding. You have to assume or attempt to prove "x" to get "y".

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That's not what is happening here.

Here climate change is occurring. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to develop technologies to do "x".

That's the problem. We are assuming things that are not proven. But, in an SBIR contract, there are stages. You have to show a certain amount of progress before the approval for the next stage (and additional money) kicks in (I'm fine with this in theory). This is the problem. You are incentivized to show bad data if it means you get the next batch of funding. You have to assume or attempt to prove "x" to get "y".

So, if I'm reading you right, those in the climatologist community are also now engineers developing technologies?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, if I'm reading you right, those in the climatologist community are also now engineers developing technologies?

Yes, go look up climate SBIRs. Part of the process in stage 1 of the process is to show the need for "x". You have to define what you are developing for.

*EDIT* Not 100% across the board, some are for tech, others are not.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yes, thank you, very well put. I don't get how climate scientists, of all people, have become the bogeymen. Those dastardly fiends! One billion percent of research is essentially done on grant money, so it's all suspect for the same reasons. But nobody's beating down the doors of the cancer lab accusing them of being in it for the money. Yet I'm sure just as many of them are. We still need their work. That's why we use peer review. Somebody else can make their money and fame pointing out how the frauds were wrong.

Wait, what? You haven't heard about the backlash against the big pharma companies and their "research"? And, I also mentioned earlier in the thread, what about the backlash against engineered foods?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Yes, go look up climate SBIRs. Part of the process in stage 1 of the process is to show the need for "x". You have to define what you are developing for.

*EDIT* Not 100% across the board, some are for tech, others are not.

You are seriously making a stretch with that assumption, that the driving purpose of climatologists is to get Small Business Innovation Research funds for R&D.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Not being a hypocrite.

I am sick. I go to the doctor, and say "Hey doc, I've got a cough, can you check it out?"

The doctor says, "Here's a prescription for Amoxicilin. Take two a day for two weeks and come back and see me and let's make sure we get this cleared up."

I'm good here. I have a problem, I go see the doctor, he gives me the remedy.

That's not what is happening here.

Here climate change is occurring. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to develop technologies to do "x".

That's the problem. We are assuming things that are not proven. But, in an SBIR contract, there are stages. You have to show a certain amount of progress before the approval for the next stage (and additional money) kicks in (I'm fine with this in theory). This is the problem. You are incentivized to show bad data if it means you get the next batch of funding. You have to assume or attempt to prove "x" to get "y".

It's precisely what is happening. You are going to a professional who has studied in a science for his adult life to give you an educated analysis of your health. He has every financial incentive to not completely cure you. He has every financial incentive to keep having you come back to him. To string you along, to make sure that cough doesn't quite go away. Or to simply lie and tell you that something is wrong with you that isn't. So why are you not questioning their integrity? They have a financial incentive to not heal you and in fact make up stuff.

And this is the same for the medical field as a whole. Curing cancer would certainly cost people money from funding their research. Should we not be questioning all cancer researcher's integrity and not taking their scientific analysis at face value? Why is there not uproar over findings by doctors in that field who have even more incentive since the funding is much larger?

So if the basis for your argument is that scientists can't be trusted if there is a financial incentive, it should stand true for all scientific fields. But of course it's not, which is why you're a hypocrite.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yes, thank you, very well put. I don't get how climate scientists, of all people, have become the bogeymen. Those dastardly fiends! One billion percent of research is essentially done on grant money, so it's all suspect for the same reasons. But nobody's beating down the doors of the cancer lab accusing them of being in it for the money. Yet I'm sure just as many of them are. We still need their work. That's why we use peer review. Somebody else can make their money and fame pointing out how the frauds were wrong.

I don't have a problem with people trying to make money.

If we are developing a thruster to go to Mars, we put out a contract to develop the thruster. You get multiple designs over time, and then choose the best one. Eventually, in this case, you are going to get the theories and design reduced to practice and then you pick one.

A cancer cure you have the same thing. You find something, and then you develop a method to attack that weakness in the cancer. You do studies, it gets reduced to practice and we advance.

That doesn't happen here.

In this case, we have models. When have we gone back and evaluated these models? If they are wrong, they get tweaked. Then tweaked again. And again (check out the various IPCCs going back to the late 90s/early 00s). At what point do we say, "your models are flat wrong." The whole premise is based upon speculation.

If AGW theory is correct, there are going to be massive changes to the way each of us live. It could be used for any number of reasons from dictating the number of kids we have, to limiting the development of 3rd world countries, to euthanasia (why spend resources on the old?), to rationing of food and energy, etc. I do not want to proceed down that slope unless I am 100% sure that we are causing things. Even if we're talking about 80% of the drivers being natural and 20% manmade, I don't think we should do much. If we are causing things (say 10% natural and 90% manmade) we can certainly talk.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

And, I also mentioned earlier in the thread, what about the backlash against engineered foods?

When there is scientific proof that engineered foods are causing problems, that backlash will be warranted. When scientists run experiments and show data that demonstrates negative effects of engineered food, we can make those changes. But right now most of those complains are on unrelated anecdotal evidence.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A cancer cure you have the same thing. You find something, and then you develop a method to attack that weakness in the cancer. You do studies, it gets reduced to practice and we advance.

Who is to say cancer is even real? It's a big business and research and treatment of it is huge money for scientists. Why can't that be a scam too? Maybe it's a perfectly easily curable problem that scientists are all lying about to get more money.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's precisely what is happening. You are going to a professional who has studied in a science for his adult life to give you an educated analysis of your health. He has every financial incentive to not completely cure you. He has every financial incentive to keep having you come back to him. To string you along, to make sure that cough doesn't quite go away. Or to simply lie and tell you that something is wrong with you that isn't. So why are you not questioning their integrity? They have a financial incentive to not heal you and in fact make up stuff.

And this is the same for the medical field as a whole. Curing cancer would certainly cost people money from funding their research. Should we not be questioning all cancer researcher's integrity and not taking their scientific analysis at face value? Why is there not uproar over findings by doctors in that field who have even more incentive since the funding is much larger?

So if the basis for your argument is that scientists can't be trusted if there is a financial incentive, it should stand true for all scientific fields. But of course it's not, which is why you're a hypocrite.

Nice strawman there...

If the doctor doesn't get stuff done, I go to a new doctor. I've changed doctors in the past due to this.

Also, I never said they shouldn't be trusted if there is a financial incentive. The other areas have products that are eventually reduced to practice. Again, space thrusters for space exploration. Cancer doctors have every reason to cure cancer. You're not going to a doctor that loses 99% of his patients are you? I know my parents did a lot of research when each of my parents were diagnosed with cancer (father colon cancer in 93, mother with breast about 3 years ago). Also, cancer is not going away, you are almost always going to have to treat it which means drugs and treatments.

Most other grants and research is for a specific item. You have cancer studies for breast cancer treatments for triple negative cancer using multiple treatments.

Here you have study the effects of AGW on plants. So anyone studying this is of course going to say we have AGW, because if he doesn't he has nothing to research!

If I am developing a thruster that will produce an acceleration of 4.5kps using an ionic thruster design, it will either work or it doesn't.

In rattling this off, there is an end point with many other contracts. You don't see that with the AGW crowd. There is no way to "prove" it. There's just a bunch of anecdotes to justify more funding.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When there is scientific proof that engineered foods are causing problems, that backlash will be warranted. When scientists run experiments and show data that demonstrates negative effects of engineered food, we can make those changes. But right now most of those complains are on unrelated anecdotal evidence.

Exactly - so tell that to California.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who is to say cancer is even real? It's a big business and research and treatment of it is huge money for scientists. Why can't that be a scam too? Maybe it's a perfectly easily curable problem that scientists are all lying about to get more money.

Not a problem, I'll talk to my mom and the effects her's has had on her.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Exactly - so tell that to California.

I guess we need to cut out corn and apples then too.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Not a problem, I'll talk to my mom and the effects her's has had on her.

It's the exact same argument you're making about climate change. That most of the scientists have conspired to fabricate something in exchange for a ton of funding. As you have said throughout the thread, there is financial incentive and we do have to question their integrity in that regard. Their science can't be trusted.

[BrianD]

I'm trying to look up numbers to support my crappy memory, but I seem to recall that the global warming debate was not even close to even in terms of scientists on each side and supporting studies. Those denying human caused global warming were in the vast minority. There may be political/financial motivations on both sides, but I don't recall numbers being even enough to really call it a debate.

Can I lay down a challenge to test the Google-fu of the board members and see if we can find what kind of "consensus" there is in the scientific community?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's the exact same argument you're making about climate change. That most of the scientists have conspired to fabricate something in exchange for a ton of funding. As you have said throughout the thread, there is financial incentive and we do have to question their integrity in that regard. Their science can't be trusted.

If you're not willing to read, not sure why I should post....

Originally Posted by Warhammer

In rattling this off, there is an end point with many other contracts. You don't see that with the AGW crowd. There is no way to "prove" it. There's just a bunch of anecdotes to justify more funding.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm trying to look up numbers to support my crappy memory, but I seem to recall that the global warming debate was not even close to even in terms of scientists on each side and supporting studies. Those denying human caused global warming were in the vast minority. There may be political/financial motivations on both sides, but I don't recall numbers being even enough to really call it a debate.

Can I lay down a challenge to test the Google-fu of the board members and see if we can find what kind of "consensus" there is in the scientific community?

I posted that a bit earlier that the only international scientific academy or society to publish a dissenting opinion regarding the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All of the other dissenters that are in the news are not scientific groups, rather individuals or non-recognized groups that were created just to oppose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Cancer doctors have every reason to cure cancer.

No they don't. Giving a pill and sending someone on their way is not going to make nearly as much for them as years of doctor visits and expensive tests.

As for researchers which this is mostly about, they have almost no incentive to cure cancer. They have countless streams of funding coming in from both public and private groups. It's a non-stop parade of funding as long as cancer is still a threat. They have as much incentive to lie about their research as a climatologist.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Here you have study the effects of AGW on plants. So anyone studying this is of course going to say we have AGW, because if he doesn't he has nothing to research!

Yes, because we have solved all the questions of the planet regarding our climate. There is simply nothing left to research for them if they don't have this. Absolutely no need for their skills moving forward.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm trying to look up numbers to support my crappy memory, but I seem to recall that the global warming debate was not even close to even in terms of scientists on each side and supporting studies. Those denying human caused global warming were in the vast minority. There may be political/financial motivations on both sides, but I don't recall numbers being even enough to really call it a debate.

Can I lay down a challenge to test the Google-fu of the board members and see if we can find what kind of "consensus" there is in the scientific community?

I posted it earlier.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html

97% feel it's warming. 84% feel it's man-made.

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Exactly - so tell that to California.

I'm on your side with that. We just had a gluten-free bakery open down the street. People just like making up their own science.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can I lay down a challenge to test the Google-fu of the board members and see if we can find what kind of "consensus" there is in the scientific community?

Here's a survey done a few years ago.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[gstelmack]

Since I don't want to rehash, I'll just go back to the beginning of this thread, since I don't think I've changed that much, and haven't seen many responses since that really address much of this:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Why I am a skeptic:

- Ice core data clearly shows the earth goes through regular warming / cooling cycles, and that we are currently in the middle of one of the warming cycles. This is the same ice core data used to show the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures. This makes a lot of sense to me.
- The scare here is that CO2 is rising faster and farther than ever before. However it looks like all guesses that this won't correct itself, and/or hit saturation point where it stops affecting temperatures. And climatologists do not have an exactly stellar record of prediction in either the short or the long-term.
- There is some dispute as to whether or not its ever been this high before. There is agreement its come close, but smoothing in the old data means we don't know for sure if we've hit short-term peaks.
- Circular arguments. We have a short-term (in geological terms) spike in CO2, but when folks point out we've been temperature flat recently we are told "that's too small a sample size". When ice sheets shrink, it's because temperatures are up. When ice sheets expand, it's because the increased temperatures mean more rain. It's like El Nino, where even contradictory trends are easily explained, which just makes me wonder why the opposite isn't just as true.
- Suspect data. Nearly all of this data is guesses based on implied correlations. We only have real, observed data for a very small period of time (see sample size above). We have lots of data that is assumed to be temperature that may also be precipitation (tree-rings, some of the ice core data). Heck, it took them several YEARS to replace an obviously broken thermometer at our local NWS station at RDU (anecdotal, small sample size, I know).
- Politics heavily involved. Lots of folks that would love nothing better than to see the US continue its downward spiral are all for draconian measures that would cost us an arm and a leg. It's on both sides as I realise big energy is not exactly neutral either. But it's hard to cut through all of this down to the actual science, and it means that whenever some possible data is found it's trumpeted all over (from both sides) before it gets accurately peer reviewed. And then the peer reviews themselves are often suspect. Not to mention the hypocrisy of all the folks trumpeting all of these changes barely trying themselves. Carbon offsets has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard for saving the planet. But I will say thanks to the realclimate link, that's been a good read for getting some actual science.
- Every time a trend looks wrong, the models get changed and data re-corrected.

So while I see plenty of research and statistics that guess that we are in deep trouble, the conclusions reached just don't seem proven yet. It all sure LOOKS good, and the underlying DATA is sound, but the correlations between all the data are far from a sure thing, and the cause/effect simply is not proven right now. Especially when solutions for this (beyond the simple "drive less and try to use a bit less energy") aren't necessarily going to help. Burning wood in fireplaces is a bad thing now even.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yes, thank you, very well put. I don't get how climate scientists, of all people, have become the bogeymen. Those dastardly fiends! One billion percent of research is essentially done on grant money, so it's all suspect for the same reasons. But nobody's beating down the doors of the cancer lab accusing them of being in it for the money. Yet I'm sure just as many of them are. We still need their work. That's why we use peer review. Somebody else can make their money and fame pointing out how the frauds were wrong.

But as we've seen, they've rigged the peer review process.

Rather than money itself, they're in this for the right reasons. The problem is that they've made their conclusions first and they are so determined to be saviors of the world that they ignore anything that contradicts those conclusions.

In that sense, AGW has become a religion. Which is why it's ironic when it's pointed out that 15% of scientists working in climate change aren't convinced AGW is real. Isn't that about the same percentage of people who don't have faith in a supreme being? Sometimes the overwhelming majority (flat-earthers at one point) is wrong. If we don't follow their religion, we're called "denierists", or some similar pejorative. That's not helpful - they're the ones who want trillions of dollars of our money.

At this point, we don't know. Conservation is a positive, but not if costs trillions of dollars and might not do much good. We depend heavily on tree-ring studies, but the people doing the tree-ring studies decided to ignore a lot of trees that didn't fit their model. It's not an exact science and it's hard to repeat these experiments.

They promise us it's getting warmer, and it is, a little. But it was getting colder 30 years ago, and nothing bad happened. It's not getting warmer at any rate that would alarm people. So they make up claims like Massachusetts today is what North Carolina was 30 years ago. Absolutely ludicrous, and easily proven false. That tells me they're nowhere near a level of certainty about AGW that should change our energy policies.

Let's say we do spend the trillions. China won't. India won't. The emerging powers in southeast Asia won't. Russia won't. Most of South America won't. Africa won't. In fact, our energy is already generally cleaner than theirs - we just use a lot of it. All that will happen is that America will be less of a superpower and our standard of living will decline and, at best, we would only slow AGW by a tiny amount - if, indeed, we can at all.

We need to research renewable energy, and do so aggressively. We need to keep studying global warming, but we need to restore an honest peer review process and encourage scientists to practice science, not religion (making the evidence fit the conclusion rather than letting the evidence lead you to a new conclusion).

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But as we've seen

+1

i agree with the motives (i think) but it's the method that infuriates me. there's such contempt for the average citizen every conversation becomes parent-child

we have to do this

why?

because if we don't the boogie man will get you.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm trying to look up numbers to support my crappy memory, but I seem to recall that the global warming debate was not even close to even in terms of scientists on each side and supporting studies. Those denying human caused global warming were in the vast minority. There may be political/financial motivations on both sides, but I don't recall numbers being even enough to really call it a debate.

Can I lay down a challenge to test the Google-fu of the board members and see if we can find what kind of "consensus" there is in the scientific community?

Why bother? Those who are against it have already made up their minds. It's a vast global conspiracy for research money. Everyone is in it together and therefore no amount of peer review, independent study or factual data matters. The standard isn't possible to meet. I couldn't prove the earth isn't flat under such a burden because they've constructed the argument in such a way that facts don't matter. Everything is suspect, despite the evidence that it's not.

Here's the unadulterated fact - the only "scientists" who don't believe in climate change and the fact that at least some of the climate change is due to human activities are those who are funded by the same groups that funded the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" research. In some instances, it's the very same people. If you look at the funding of those guys, they're the ones getting huge (and very suspect) grants from oil companies and other groups that would benefit from denying the science. That's where the big money is. But that doesn't matter to the conspiracy theorist crowd.

As such, there's no debate on whether global warming/climate change is happening, much like there's no debate on evolution or the moon landing. There's just those who refuse to accept the evidence. Most of those who don't believe have ill intentions, much like those who believed smoking didn't cause cancer didn't have bad intentions. It's just their blind spot - everyone has 'em, but it's not worth the time to try to convince those who won't be convinced.

The only debate left if the degree of influence by man on climate change. Only 5% of scientists (or 3%, depending on the poll you use) disagree with the statement that "human activity is a significant source of climate change". That's considered a scientific consensus. If someone wants to try to argue that 95% of the scientists are manipulating the research to (somehow) improve their wallets (when the ones who deny it routinely make more money), then so be it.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Why bother? Those who are against it have already made up their minds. It's a vast global conspiracy for research money. Everyone is in it together and therefore no amount of peer review, independent study or factual data matters. The standard isn't possible to meet. I couldn't prove the earth isn't flat under such a burden because they've constructed the argument in such a way that facts don't matter. Everything is suspect, despite the evidence that it's not.

Easy. I heard equal amounts of "noise" and concluded that the science wasn't settled. Then I realized that the AGW side was making a lot of scientific noise and the denier side was making a lot of junk-science noise, and I changed my mind. While there are a lot of very vocal people who will never change their minds, there are a lot of silent lurkers that might.

[RendeR]

Are we causing global warming? I have no idea, however, we know that CO2 is a bad thing is hugemungous amounts. So cutting back on it in teh extreme is probably a damned good thing for us long term.

Are they just in it for the money? Of course the money is a big driving factor. You can't maintain a research lab, take hundreds of trips around the world to "research" and pay yourself a living salary without it.

This is why Cancer will never truly be cured. This is why Diabetes will never truly be cured. This is why *enter debilitating long term illness here* will never truly be cured. Do I believe a cure for Cancer exists? Yes. Do I believe its being withheld until the Big-Pharma companies find a new cash cow? Absolutely. Same thing with Diabetes. The money is simply too huge to allow for another common sense answer.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and in general I think those folks are wack jobs, but being a diabetes victim, I can see just how much they make on me alone. its an insane amount of money. Multiply that by the hundreds of millions who suffer it along with me and you start to see just how much money we're talking about (for the record my drugs if purchased retail at full price would cost me nearly 800.00 a month)

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But as we've seen, they've rigged the peer review process.

From the Muir Russel Review, page 13

1.3.3 Peer Review and Editorial Policy

25. On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned(see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.

Muir Russell Final

The full review of that claim starts on page 64.

[molson]

I think maybe we need to look skeptically at the benefits of stem cell treatment as well:

Former Harvard stem cell researcher falsely represented results, US government finds - Boston Medical News - White Coat Notes - Boston.com