Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Yes they do.
The claim is that the science is not contested, the debate is over etc but that's totally unscientific so not how any independently non-AGW grant-funded scientist would behave.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...
First of all, I completely agree that there are no absolutes in science. Especially in such a young science.The claim is that the science is not contested, the debate is over etc but that's totally unscientific so not how any independently non-AGW grant-funded scientist would behave.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...
However, this is the internet, a territory I understand very well. You can link to all the disparate groups of people claiming x and y you like but I've seen so much nonsense written online (on pretty much every topic) that I need something more credible.
For example, here is a website that has almost 2,400 architects and engineers that have signed a petition to demand and investigation into whether the WTC towers were brought down by explosives:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Do you consider that as proof of a 9/11 conspiracy? If not, what's the difference between that and your link?
If there were scientific institutions challenging the science or if there was a raging debate in science magazines, then I'd be on the fence. As it is, it just seems to be disparate individuals.
Some of them or just one of them may well be right of course, and as soon as they're accepted in mainstream science I'll change my mind.
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted, and the majority of the public still think it's BS. A declaration that climate change is a problem caused by man that needs urgent action, would lose a referendum hands down.
That's probably a fair summary. But think about it for a moment.What you're saying is the people who study and research it and the vast majority of other scientists including all the scientific institutions around the world (afaik), the politicians, policy makers, the economists, the media etc. who all have access to the best information on the matter do not contest the science.
The public - who get their information from the mainstream media, blog posts and car forums - are still arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.
But seriously, take a step back and consider if you were a jury presented with information from both sides, which would you trust more?
XJ40 said:
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted, and the majority of the public still think it's BS. A declaration that climate change is a problem caused by man that needs urgent action, would lose a referendum hands down.
That's probably a fair summary. But think about it for a moment.What you're saying is the people who study and research it and the vast majority of other scientists including all the scientific institutions around the world (afaik), the politicians, policy makers, the economists, the media etc. who all have access to the best information on the matter do not contest the science.
The public - who get their information from the mainstream media, blog posts and car forums - are still arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.
But seriously, take a step back and consider if you were a jury presented with information from both sides, which would you trust more?
There's no conspiracy. That strawman is raised over and over, yet only those saying that a conspiracy is a crazy thought are mentioning it!
It doesn't matter how many people get something wrong, it's still wrong.
There is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data; reality has dropped out of climate model predictions; there's more than one acknowledgement that this is now a political process including one from the IPCC.
At least you're off the fence now, no more buttock indentations
XJ40 said:
It's good to see it's not just me that feels that way about it. I've a real problem in believing that there's such a widespread conspiracy to deliberately misrepresent the science. I don't really believe in other conspiracies like 9/11, faked moon landings, etc. either. Maybe I'm naive and too trusting?
There's a difference between conspiracy and groupthink. There is no organised conspiracy here and few think there is.Here's a thought that puzzles me: if the science is all decided, cut and dried, 97% concensus, debate over yada yada, then WTF are all these (exponentially increasing in number) tens of thousands of climate "scientists" actually doing? 
Just how much mileage can still be left in the climate change 'industry' when the existing data has already spent the last 20 years being tortured within an Ångström of its life, and new 'clean' data accrues at an agonisingly slow rate?
Shirley the 'old' data can't be nudged downwards any further (can it?), and won't any new data accumulating need to be adjusted/corrected/averaged/normalised/standardised with increasing desperation?
Just how much mileage can still be left in the climate change 'industry' when the existing data has already spent the last 20 years being tortured within an Ångström of its life, and new 'clean' data accrues at an agonisingly slow rate?
Shirley the 'old' data can't be nudged downwards any further (can it?), and won't any new data accumulating need to be adjusted/corrected/averaged/normalised/standardised with increasing desperation?
XJ40 said:
It's good to see it's not just me that feels that way about it. I've a real problem in believing that there's such a widespread conspiracy to deliberately misrepresent the science. I don't really believe in other conspiracies like 9/11, faked moon landings, etc. either. Maybe I'm naive and too trusting?
Who said that there is a conspiracy?There is a large body of so called scientists who's funding would dissappear if the problem goes away. They are very motivated to tell us that there is a problem. In fact, if the problem is bigger than previously thought, then even more funding is required.
Follow the money.
don4l said:
XJ40 said:
It's good to see it's not just me that feels that way about it. I've a real problem in believing that there's such a widespread conspiracy to deliberately misrepresent the science. I don't really believe in other conspiracies like 9/11, faked moon landings, etc. either. Maybe I'm naive and too trusting?
Who said that there is a conspiracy?There is a large body of so called scientists who's funding would dissappear if the problem goes away. They are very motivated to tell us that there is a problem. In fact, if the problem is bigger than previously thought, then even more funding is required.
Follow the money.
Makes little sense to me, unless they are already on the tax payer suckling gravy train - then, of course, it makes perfect sense.
Vizsla said:
Here's a thought that puzzles me: if the science is all decided, cut and dried, 97% concensus, debate over yada yada, then WTF are all these (exponentially increasing in number) tens of thousands of climate "scientists" actually doing?
Just how much mileage can still be left in the climate change 'industry' when the existing data has already spent the last 20 years being tortured within an Ångström of its life, and new 'clean' data accrues at an agonisingly slow rate?
Shirley the 'old' data can't be nudged downwards any further (can it?), and won't any new data accumulating need to be adjusted/corrected/averaged/normalised/standardised with increasing desperation?
Yes good points but the politicians have put a cap on it, saving the worst of the embarrassment all round. Just how much mileage can still be left in the climate change 'industry' when the existing data has already spent the last 20 years being tortured within an Ångström of its life, and new 'clean' data accrues at an agonisingly slow rate?
Shirley the 'old' data can't be nudged downwards any further (can it?), and won't any new data accumulating need to be adjusted/corrected/averaged/normalised/standardised with increasing desperation?
The 'scientists' have been doing their bit and as the desperation increased (temperatures not increasing, or rather only increasing with ever more fanciful fiddles) it has now been confirmed politically that only a total adjusted fiddlefactored fudged rise of something just below 2 deg C is needed. Nearly there
rovermorris999 said:
XJ40 said:
It's good to see it's not just me that feels that way about it. I've a real problem in believing that there's such a widespread conspiracy to deliberately misrepresent the science. I don't really believe in other conspiracies like 9/11, faked moon landings, etc. either. Maybe I'm naive and too trusting?
There's a difference between conspiracy and groupthink. There is no organised conspiracy here and few think there is.XJ40 said:
I agree there is a difference. But let's be clear, what's being said here is that the data clearly shows no significant warming that can be construed as man made. Therefore any scientist with access to that data who is saying otherwise is wilfully misrepresenting the facts and complicit in an agenda to do so.
Correct.The amazing thing is that some people believe them without looking at the data for themselves.
don4l said:
XJ40 said:
It's good to see it's not just me that feels that way about it. I've a real problem in believing that there's such a widespread conspiracy to deliberately misrepresent the science. I don't really believe in other conspiracies like 9/11, faked moon landings, etc. either. Maybe I'm naive and too trusting?
Who said that there is a conspiracy?There is a large body of so called scientists who's funding would dissappear if the problem goes away. They are very motivated to tell us that there is a problem. In fact, if the problem is bigger than previously thought, then even more funding is required.
Follow the money.
don4l said:
XJ40 said:
I agree there is a difference. But let's be clear, what's being said here is that the data clearly shows no significant warming that can be construed as man made. Therefore any scientist with access to that data who is saying otherwise is wilfully misrepresenting the facts and complicit in an agenda to do so.
Correct.The amazing thing is that some people believe them without looking at the data for themselves.
don4l said:
Who said that there is a conspiracy?
Some posts from the last couple of days:turbobloke said:
Institution backing comes from a few activists who push themselves on committees, they don't speak for the membership in terms of opinion.
Mr GrimNasty said:
They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted...
LongQ said:
It seems that the world leaders, as you have spotted, have decided that they would like to have ever more control and influence. They can in the modern era. For practical purposes we have technologies in place that provide that control pretty much individual by individual. Some of the idea the leaders and their underling politicians most favour are not at all designed to conserve resources of any sort but to consume more. They may not know this of course and the real motivations may be hidden from their consciousness. But then democratic politics is always likely to produce uncontrolled results and autocratic politics will produce the results that the autocrat desires.
Honestly, doesn't any of that sound like a conspiracy theory to you?don4l said:
There is a large body of so called scientists who's funding would dissappear if the problem goes away. They are very motivated to tell us that there is a problem. In fact, if the problem is bigger than previously thought, then even more funding is required.
If I accept that, I have to believe it's true of all science because if it were so easy to subvert the scientific method in this way, shouldn't we assume we're being lied to by all scientists?Science is unique in its intolerance of bulls
t (excluding perhaps law, but that runs to similar principles). Of course people are fallible - but the whole point of science is to counteract human fallibility.don4l said:
Follow the money.
There's no money in fossil fuels?turbobloke said:
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted, and the majority of the public still think it's BS. A declaration that climate change is a problem caused by man that needs urgent action, would lose a referendum hands down.
That's probably a fair summary. But think about it for a moment.What you're saying is the people who study and research it and the vast majority of other scientists including all the scientific institutions around the world (afaik), the politicians, policy makers, the economists, the media etc. who all have access to the best information on the matter do not contest the science.
The claim is that the science is not contested, the debate is over etc but that's totally unscientific so not how any independently non-AGW grant-funded scientist would behave.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...
XJ40 said:
turbobloke said:
Jeez!
There's no conspiracy.
I don't know what's so Jeez about what I've said there. In my book a collective will to deliberately misrepresent the facts for finincial and polictical gain is a conspiracy, if that's indeed what is being claimed.There's no conspiracy.
A coincidence of vested interests exists, and is therefore claimed, with groupthink progressing well.
As an engineer you sideline what the data says because...
XJ40 said:
It's good to see it's not just me that feels that way about it. I've a real problem in believing that there's such a widespread conspiracy to deliberately misrepresent the science. I don't really believe in other conspiracies like 9/11, faked moon landings, etc. either. Maybe I'm naive and too trusting?
In my view it goes something like this. About 30 years ago it was observed that temperatures were going up. It was also observed that CO2 emissions were going up. We've known for well over a hundred years that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas so a hypothesis was formed that linked the two events.The problem is that nobody knew what the effect of this would be and unfortunately there is no experiment that can be performed that would give an answer. All that could be done is the data we had could be put into a computer model which would then give us an idea as to what the future might hold.
The scientists did this many times over and every time the results were the same. CO2 will raise temperatures until eventually it reaches a tipping point at which point CO2 becomes irrelevant as various positive feedback loops come into play which then drive and accelerate the warming. This is the catastrophic warming all those folks in Paris are trying to avoid.
The thing is computer models aren't really 'science' they are just a tool and the problem with climate science is there are no instant results, you create your model and then you need to sit back for a couple of decades and see if your model works. Unfortunately the models showed imminent danger, James Hansen told us in 1988 that by 2010 global temperatures would have increased by 5 degrees and a few years later the UN with access to the finest scientists in the world told us that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees in the world.
It was therefore clear that we couldn't wait to test the models against reality, we had to take action immediately or it would be too late. This was the settled science, the 97% concensus, the time for debate is over, etc.... To this end a whole army was created to push the message that we were in peril. The scientists convinced the activists who in turn convinced the politicians who now have to convince the people. Along the way a bit of a gravy train was created with scientists, institutions and NGO's chasing funding, businesses chasing subsidies and politicians able to show how much they care whilst also gaining the ability to tax the air that we breathe. This last bit is the most important after all where is all the funding for the above things going to come from?
We're now a couple of decades along and can finally check the models against reality and guess what? They're all wrong. The hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature appears to be null. Yes we could wait a few more years and see what happens and for all we know massive uncontrolled warming might be a fraction of a degree away or it might never happen. We just don't know but based on the accuracy of the existing models so far I'd be putting my money on it might never happen.
Meanwhile all the people who claimed the end is nigh are left looking a little silly. All the people who invested money are potentially looking at big losses and the scientists who told us the science is settled need to consider their credibility and potential future funding. This is why everyone apart from a few in the blogosphere are looking the other way because it's easier to keep this thing going then to admit that they've got it wrong.
Edited by jurbie on Friday 4th December 11:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff