Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by chris95040

I'm curious what climate-change-deniers (those of you who are so angry at the tree-huggers and scientists who dare to make the claim that man-made climate change is probably happening and probably very dangerous) think the MOTIVATION is for the majority of the scientific community to participate in this "hoodwink".

When I see the majority of climate scientists agreeing that it's happening and it's dangerous, when I see the entirety of scientific publications on the topic generally falling in the same distribution (huge majority in support of the idea that it's happening and it's dangerous) and then see that most studies funded by the fossil fuel industry deciding "its not happening and it's not dangerous" I draw a simple conclusion, one that may be wrong, but is certainly rationale: The fossil fuel industry has a lot to lose if the world reaches agreement that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous changes to climate, so they fudge their data. Its big money protecting their own asses.

Concluding that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (a community whose participants have largely chosen a life of prediction based on _observation_, a community that throws away old theories as soon as a better, more successfully predictive one comes along) is just "out to make trouble for us entrepreneurs" is, in my opinion, a bizarre choice.

Help me understand you better, climate-change-denier. Because it feels like the typical, knee-jerk, fear-of-change reaction that has been holding back progress since "science" (observation-based theory + prediction) began.

Try and get one dollar of research funding to show that climate change is not happening. Try and get one paper published (in a reputable journal) that shows climatic change is not happening even if your data/model proves your hypothesis. Try and imagine attaining tenure if you are not getting research funding and publishing papers. Pretty simple math here!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

our friend Lake is calling expressing disapproval of tens of millions of deaths at the hands of the Communists as "Irrational".

"Communism" didn't kill tens of millions of people; despots did... as despots do, regardless of whether they claim to be socialists, communists, fascists, or just plain ole dictators.

(If your point is actually that by the book communism hasn't proven to be a superior form of governing principle or economic framework, we're in agreement)

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Try and get one dollar of research funding to show that climate change is not happening. Try and get one paper published (in a reputable journal) that shows climatic change is not happening even if your data/model proves your hypothesis. Try and imagine attaining tenure if you are not getting research funding and publishing papers. Pretty simple math here!

Sorry to hear about your experiences. Note that scientific research is generally undertaken to investigate something, not to try to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Can you list the journals that refused your papers, or the institutions that have turned you away? I'd be interested in reading your research.

I hear the fossil fuel lobby has been been fairly generous with research funding. Wouldn't hurt to contact them.

[tcpip95]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"
Sorry to hear about your experiences. Can you list the journals that refused your papers, or the institutions that have turned you away? I'd be interested in reading your research.

I didn't read where he/she said this was "their" experience. They were trying to explain how the "academia" has to tow the line of the left or they will not get funding from them.

That's why I am so skeptical of the "research" - especially since there have been multiple cases where it has been publicly exposed that the data was compromised to fit an agenda.

And that's what I call An Inconvenient Truth.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Try and get one dollar of research funding to show that climate change is not happening. ................Pretty simple math here!

Simple indeed..

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry | Environment | The Guardian

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Try and get one dollar of research funding to show that climate change is not happening. Try and get one paper published (in a reputable journal) that shows climatic change is not happening even if your data/model proves your hypothesis. Try and imagine attaining tenure if you are not getting research funding and publishing papers. Pretty simple math here!

OK - I asked the question, and I got my answer.

Climate change deniers best guess is that the whole of the scientific community is involved in a top-down conspiracy of forging results and cherry picking projects + resultant data all in order to support their radical pinko socialist agenda. The scientific community's motivation isn't enhancing our predictive ability based on experiment and observation, they just want to destroy the very economy that they live + thrive in because they're pinko scum.

That seems much more plausible than a fossil fuel industry that wants to protect it's business model from fallout from it's measurable unintended consequences.



-Chris

[jamestholtzinge]

Man made Global Warming my butt. We all agree it is a fraction of a per cent where the temperature is rising. I am so old I remember when we were talking about global cooling. If the sun belches we get hotter. Increased man made carbon from man's favorite cars has not been linked to higher temperatures scientifically yet. I remember when this all started it was political and still is. Vice President Gore came up with this when he was in office. He has made millions selling this bunk even writing a book that has been proven he used false data, to the point that data from scientist were falsified to prove his point. So we had some scientist not paid by the Gov./Gore and they said Wait a minute this doesn't add up the last 15 years haven't significantly gone up to cause global warming. This was the Dem. ploy to implement Cap and Trade where you could buy carbon credits on a stock exchange (British) to get lower taxes and a better deal from the Gov. and a chunk of change went into Gore's pocket along with several other noted politicians just to get richer on us. I think the plan was initialed from our federal Gov. using Fanny Mae and Freddy Mack to handle the paper work. That was when Barney Franks and Todd were handling those agencies. Todd got prosecuted for something but everyone else walked. There still trying to get Cap and Trade taxes even as we speak. Just to set the record straight. You don't get to keep your Doctor or your policy if you like them.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Please consider that the earth condensed from star dust about 4 billion years ago. .

I read where God made it in six days!

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by chris95040

OK - I asked the question, and I got my answer.

Climate change deniers best guess is that the whole of the scientific community is involved in a top-down conspiracy of forging results and cherry picking projects + resultant data all in order to support their radical pinko socialist agenda. The scientific community's motivation isn't enhancing our predictive ability based on experiment and observation, they just want to destroy the very economy that they live + thrive in because they're pinko scum.

-Chris

Chris, go and read up on the cold fusion mess. It will open your eyes. Major laboratories reported duplicating Pons et al results within months. These labs are required to be on the cutting edge. No cold fusion occurred.

Too much at stake wrt to the funding.

Science is not as black and white as you might imagine.

IMHO, much of the climate change findings are not a conspiracy but rather a kind of momentum derived from a snowball effect beginning with a few people.

[Reefmagnet]

What the "Alarmists" push:



What the "Deniers" push:



Again, the cherry picking is what annoys me. A couple of times in this thread it has been implied that the climate has been changing at an unprecedented or extreme rate. Umm, no it hasn't. Earth's history has seen the climate vary from "Snowball Earth" where ice sheets extended to the equatorial regions for many millions of years all the way to the other end of the spectrum, again measured in millions of years, in which the polar regions were ice free.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's generally accepted that we sit at the tail end of an interglacial period i.e. the warm gap between ice ages. In another couple of thousand years our descendants just may be wishing like heck that we burnt a lot more fossil fuels prior to the invention of Mr Fusion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Try and get one dollar of research funding to show that climate change is not happening. Try and get one paper published (in a reputable journal) that shows climatic change is not happening even if your data/model proves your hypothesis. Try and imagine attaining tenure if you are not getting research funding and publishing papers. Pretty simple math here!

Roy Spencer's research is funded by NASA, NOAA, and the DOE.

Richard Lindzen was awarded over $3,000,000 in NSF funding furing his career.

Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr., David Legates, etc. continue to to get NSF funding and continue to be published.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jamestholtzinge

I am so old I remember when we were talking about global cooling. If the sun belches we get hotter.

On cooling

A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

On the sun

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Chris, go and read up on the cold fusion mess. It will open your eyes. Major laboratories reported duplicating Pons et al results within months.

I can do wikipedia too, and your above characterization is BS. Nobody fully duplicated the reported cold fusion results. Moreover, the very few labs that initially announced any small result that plausibly supported a part of the proposed theory (eg was there more radiation? ) either quickly retracted on their own or were quickly, within days, proven wrong by other research. The scientific process worked.

An attractive theory was developed, published prematurely, subjected to minute scrutiny, and fairly quickly (for science) shown to be seriously in error. The supermarket tabloids may have all climbed aboard cold fusion; science did not.

To those who genuinely doubt that human activity is and will materially affect the Earth's climate... hey, that's ok. There happen to be a thousand other good reasons why we should consume resources more carefully, make less of a mess, and maybe plan for the future. Pick any reason you like for doing the right thing. Virtue is it's own reward?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Try and get one dollar of research funding to show that climate change is not happening. Try and get one paper published (in a reputable journal) that shows climatic change is not happening even if your data/model proves your hypothesis. Try and imagine attaining tenure if you are not getting research funding and publishing papers. Pretty simple math here!

But that's not really the way it works. A "null result" on any of the research that's already been done on climate change would prove it wrong. So, unless you're arguing a massive, globally interconnected conspiracy among people who are trained by their profession (science) to hue rigorously to the data and to strive for statistically significant results, your math is 2+2=5.

And, as a matter of fact, there is money out there -- plenty of it (the petroleum industry, Heartland Institute, etc.) to support climate-denying research.

See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/

[jamestholtzinge]

Follow the money. Period

You answered the question yourself. MONEY

You can't get any money for your research if you don't find it in their favor. The EPA, Commies, Democrats want it to be man made so they can sell their Cap and Trade and those funny looking electric cars that takes electric and where do they get the electric. Who gets the royalties from the Cap and Trade and who gets the tax money from it? Funny, how easy that was!

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

On cooling

A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

On the sun

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

Yep. The "global cooling" thing is a canard -- and that's long been known by anyone who really cared to know it. More important than just being wrong, though, is the tenacity with which it continues to be brandished. It's the sort argument one pulls out of one's backside when a real argument can't be found.