|
Author
|
Topic: Scientists Who Deny Global Warming In Majority!
|
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2011 04:36 PM
  
I keep hearing this funding argument. I put myself in their shoes, and I contemplate whether I'd manufacture something to fit some pre-conceived notion of what will be funded. I wouldn't. I don't think the market for global warming is that lucrative versus the market for regular climate research. Who are these people looking for only climate research that confirms manmade global warming? Why do MIT and the National Academy of Sciences employ Lindzen if they're looking for a pure perspective on manmade global warming? NAS's position is different than his. Why did NASA employ a skeptic in Roy Spencer?What about the opposite case? What about Fred Singer, Lindzen, and Balling working for Western Fuels Association and other fuel constituencies? Which is the more likely conspiracy? Who has more to gain by promoting one side? Does OPEC have deep pockets? On a gut level, do people typically like the status quo or do they enjoy adapting? Which would they rather spend money on? It's cheaper to keep going the way we're going with no changes, right? The best scientific entities do support the theory. We've not established that most scientists in the field don't buy it. This thread was supposed to be an attempt at showing my close-mindedness on the issue, but the evidence shows that both sides are equally closed. I'm only close-minded in that I defer to the people who should know. The expert agencies around the world concur with the theory of manmade global warming. Isn't it amazing that with this enormity of scientists that are supposed to be against the idea of manmade global warming, virtually none of the highest level scientific entities have hedged their bets on manmade global warming? It's not logical if such overwhelming good evidence existed to counter it. Additionally, I find it fascinating that this is generally considered a political issue, and yet when a Republican was in the White House the concensus was the same. You would think that public grants would support the ideology of the day, that climate scientists would have wanted to please the more skeptical party if funding is their motivation. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2011 04:44 PM
We used to think the CO2 hypothesis was valid, and entities sprung up to save the earth--creating a self-sustaining money machine that became threatened when the CO2 models didn't withstand scrutiny. Given the possibility of losing one's job can make one well-guarded concerning sustaining the status quo as it were.------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2011 05:05 PM
It wouldn't be sufficient motivation for me. If I've got a doctorate in my field of study, and someone wants me to subvert my findings in order to obtain funding I'd walk. I could be a professor at a University anywhere. What's my motivation to stay put, and subject myself to being untrue to the science I've discovered?IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2011 05:47 PM
People have bills to pay and families to feed. They may look at it as more honorable to put those things first. What you said, AG, reminds me of Dr. Duesberg. He is the world's most eminent (or was) virologist who was offered a huge grant to show the mechanics of how HIV causes AIDS. He said "It doesn't." Needless to say, he lost the grant. He still has his job, but he lost a lot of credibility by declaring that the science proves no link. Now, whether HIV does play a role in AIDS or not is a moot point; my point is that he kept to what he believed were scientific standards and ethics.
------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca ClarkIP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2011 06:07 PM
Also, it's not really about subverting findings for someone. It's much more subtle than that. The man-made hypothesis gets the funding, so if you apply for funding, you don't rock the boat, so to speak. ------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2011 06:18 PM
I guess I should find a scientist, and ask them what they believe their options are.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2011 07:34 PM
Talk to science professors--biology, physics, meteorology, geology, and such. The textbooks still cling to the man-made model. So my biology professor would tell both sides and explain that the text is biased. Tenured professors have no reason not to be impartial. I do believe in the greenhouse effect, but human-contributed greenhouse gases are nominal. The greenhouse effect is good thing. It keeps the earth tolerable for our (and other) species. It doesn't mean temps will rise uncontrollably and kill us all. But I consider us very lucky to have the vegetation and forestation that we have. CO2 means healthy plant life, which in turn means oxygen for mammals and other animals...and more plankton and healthy oceans. Everything is all connected, and whatever it is that is causing CO2, we should be thankful for.  The real environmental problems are localized air pollution and the real atrocity of poisoning our oceans. These are man-made effects that can truly be devastating. Mother nature is very powerful, though--like the bacteria in the gulf that ate the oil spill. And I am all for protecting endangered species. While true that millions of species have died out before man existed, since we have the knowledge and capabilities to help, I feel we have a responsibility to do so. Diversity of life is precious and should be treasured. ------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 12:55 PM
In deeming the text biased a position seems to have been taken on the issue. In apparently hearing both sides, you came away with the denialist view. Did your professor lead you down that road, or is it politics, or both? If he was telling both sides it seems like you'd come away understanding the strengths of manmade global warming side, and wouldn't be so insistent it's the Sun, which the data doesn't support.If I were to go to Berkeley or Stanford where I live, do you think the professors would talk me in to the denier's view? In this context, the politics of the region of the school may have some influence over what kind of professor you might find. These schools around me are quite well respected for their academics.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/11/16/globalwarming_messaging/ This Berkeley professor is seeking to present ALL the available data on climate change on a website without spin of any kind. He acknowledges the filters the data is sometimes put through, and is seeking to rectify that as part of this project. No coddling of either side. Funding has even come from the Koch brothers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war Stanford Prof Calls New Anti-Global Warming Film “Dishonest Filmmaking” Food crisis is global warming's biggest threat, say UW, Stanford scientists (2010)
Stanford University recently conducted a study that shows a minimal number of scientists who do not accept that human beings have contributed to the Earth's climate change have "far less expertise and prominence in climate research" than scientists who do believe climate change has been affected by humans.
Stanford Study: Few Experts Support Global Warming Skepticism IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 01:04 PM
His view is that because of failure to revise data, man-made global warming is junk science. He lambastes the textbook. Once again, it's not the warmth of the sun--it's the solar bursts and tilt of the eath and its orbital pattern.------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 8350
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 01:11 PM
oh so the sky IS falling after all? we're just quibbling over the reason?!?IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 01:24 PM
No, I think you are having a reading comprehension moment, chicken little. The sky is fully intact.------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 02:05 PM
Revise data in what way? Keep it unfiltered? Does he keep up with the debate and the science? It's weird that he'd use the catch phrase Conservatives use for it (junk science).Scientists in the manmade global warming camp are saying that they overestimated the Sun's effect in their models. Sun's Impact on Climate Change Overestimated? Sun's role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds These articles are from October 2010. The science marches on. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 02:13 PM
Junk science is not a conservative label; it's skeptics' verbiage used among scientists.------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 03:25 PM
I haven't seen where the pro-manmade global warming scientists have called skeptic's science, "junk science," whilst disproving it. It seems rather like a phrase used only by a certain subset of people as a marketing tool to build skepticism.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 06:21 PM
Why would they use the term that they know describes themselves?  Have you ever read the Skeptical Inquirer? Great stuff! They really blasted astrology, though.IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 08:30 PM
I haven't yet, no.I think that if scientists were found to be inferior to other scientists they might try to label the superior science as "junk science." That's really how this debate frames up for me. In all places you have various intellects at play. Usually inferior ones are jealous of superior ones, because the ideas of the inferior ones keep getting burned. This issue seems to be no different. The skeptics seem to rely on old work that hasn't passed muster, while scientists in the field continue to expand and refine their understanding. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2011 08:48 PM
Well, the earth is going to continue doing what it's doing irrespective of what any of us say or do. To me, it's much ado 'bout nothin'. No reason to be alarmed.IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 03, 2011 02:24 AM
I agree with the first sentence.  I'm not personally going to be alarmed either, but if people want to try to do something about it, I'm not going to begrudge them for doing so.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 03, 2011 09:21 AM
The problem with doing something about it is that it involves political agendas that abridge the rights of others. Whether man-made global warming is true or not, it is being used to control and manipulate industry, which is evidenced in Gore's company which sells carbon credits allowing certain businesses to pollute at will if they can afford to pay for it. The leaders of the movement have even been quoted as saying that even if they are wrong, the good they do to society is still worth it. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 03, 2011 11:40 AM
I'm gonna go a little off topic here:A good deal of regulation can be said to be an imposition on certain parties. In the end, the law typically endeavors to protect citizens against dangers. I have this conversation from time to time with another friend of mine who is of the opinion, for instance, that smokers should not be restricted in where they can legally smoke. He feels as if their rights are being snubbed. However, the argument can be made that the rights of the people that have to encounter smokers are also being infringed. The cases where one freedom is brought against another, the freedom to health is usually the one that's ensured, while the one that would impede health is regulated. For this reason I don't mind if the freedoms of car manufacturers, for instance, are infringed upon in seeking more fuel efficiency. If a little efficiency standard raising results in innovation I'm all for it. Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, is a global warming skeptic, but as a matter of business practicality advocates that businesses go green, because that's what the public wants. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 03, 2011 12:33 PM
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real." former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits) in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth "In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming." Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) "Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata." Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999 "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia) commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting. (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs, he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift" "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999 ------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 03, 2011 12:54 PM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that certain people who drive the global warming movement are in it for the money and to exert control. They are power hungry. And they do it under the guise of "saving the earth." They don't care about the earth. Gore's mansion is as far removed from "green" as possible. But on a more humorous note, perhaps Lindaland should "go green" and get rid of some of this purple.  ------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 03, 2011 01:03 PM
LOLWell, I can see why you believe that. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 27, 2011 11:10 PM
Great info.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 5375
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 28, 2011 08:32 AM
There's enough information and peer reviewed papers on this thread alone to bury the man made global warming religionists.Way to go Randall  There's nothing anyone can do for people like these. The best we can do is protect ourselves from their stupidity by making sure they never get anywhere near the levers of power. I've maintained for years that saving the planet from rising temperatures has nothing to do with the agenda of the religionist crazies of the man made global warming set. "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs, he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift" "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999" IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
