Human-influenced Global Climate Change?

[futurebeachbum]

FBB,


Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

This is your most flawed position.

Why would anyone believe that scientists don't have a financial stake in the research that they do? It take money to finance research. Researchers need income to live as well.

For the most part, researchers follow the money, whether they are government, educational or private. There are huge amounts of government and private research dollars available for people who are working to prove the AGW position.

On what basis do you believe that the researchers accepting those funds are not motivated by money?

 

[futurebeachbum]

FBB,

Again, I think you're being unfair.
You've twisted my position & accused me of assuming the answer.

I never claimed to have ?the truth? re AWG, nor that the scientific community's consensus re AWG was ?the truth.?
I never claimed that ?anyone who disagrees [with the scientists' consensus] isn't a scientist...?.

I disagree.

You strongly imply that only 'scientists' are interested in the 'truth; and that 'scientists' have all agreed about AGW by your use of the widely abused term 'scientfic consensus'.

This is actually a meaningless term manufactured by the Pro AGW community. There are literally thousands of scientists in the US and abroad who strongly disagree (Global Warming Petition Project is just one example.) There are just as many highly credentialed and experienced researchers who disagree that there is a proven linkage between human activity and global climate change as purport to believe it.

By building this misleading concept into your basic assumptions, your implication is that if you don't agree with the so-called scientific consensus then you aren't a scientist, you are corporate.

I'm not twisting your position. I'm reading it.

I'm also not saying that there is or isn't AGW. I believe we ought to do real, unbiased, scientific research and work until we can absolutely proves it one way or the other before we set out to destroy economies and redistribute the world's wealth through carbon credits and carbon taxes, neither of which is a particularly scientific answer to a scientific problem.

 

[ugabuga]

This is your most flawed position.

Why would anyone believe that scientists don't have a financial stake in the research that they do? It take money to finance research. Researchers need income to live as well.

For the most part, researchers follow the money, whether they are government, educational or private. There are huge amounts of government and private research dollars available for people who are working to prove the AGW position.

On what basis do you believe that the researchers accepting those funds are not motivated by money?

OK, FBB, I see your point--& it's a good one:

If a scientist's research $ comes from a source with a stake in the outcome, we should be suspicious.

If the research $ for studying AGW comes from (e.g.) the oil, coal, or auto industries, or (e.g.) from Green Peace or the Sierra Club, we should be suspicious of the study results.

If we're trying to understand what to decide about AGW by looking at study/research results, our first question should be "where did the research $ come from?"

Only if the research $ does not seem to be from a source w/ a stake in the outcome, should we then look at & possibly accept the study results.

I have been under the impression that the overwhelming majority of climate studies so far have found AWG to be highly likely. I admit I have not looked at the sources of research $ for these studies or for those in the minority that find AWG to be unlikely.

Have you looked into this area enough to say that the minority position studies are less tainted (& therefore more objective) than the majority position studies?

 

[futurebeachbum]

OK, FBB, I see your point--& it's a good one:

If a scientist's research $ comes from a source with a stake in the outcome, we should be suspicious.

If the research $ for studying AGW comes from (e.g.) the oil, coal, or auto industries, or (e.g.) from Green Peace or the Sierra Club, we should be suspicious of the study results.

If we're trying to understand what to decide about AGW by looking at study/research results, our first question should be "where did the research $ come from?"

Only if the research $ does not seem to be from a source w/ a stake in the outcome, should we then look at & possibly accept the study results.

I have been under the impression that the overwhelming majority of climate studies so far have found AWG to be highly likely. I admit I have not looked at the sources of research $ for these studies or for those in the minority that find AWG to be unlikely.

Have you looked into this area enough to say that the minority position studies are less tainted (& therefore more objective) than the majority position studies?

I believe that there is a lot of taint on both sides. I also believe that there are serious scientists on both sides who are pursuing the science. John Christy (state climatologist of AL and professor) comes to mind.

Hence my concern that we really don't know what the real causes are.

You can be sure there is some funding coming from people who will be negatively impacted by findings. (Although I am not totally sure that includes the oil companies. We have a long term need for oil for plastics, resins, etc... I think in the future that our descendants will scratch their heads and say "Can you believe that they used something as valuable as oil or coal or NG as a fuel. They actually burned it?")

You can also be sure that there is serious funding coming from people who have positioned themselves to gain money and/or power from things like carbon taxes or credit exchanges. (Another aside: Energy taxes don't penalize businesses. They pass the costs along to their customers. Energy taxes ultimately turn out to be regressive taxes impacting lower income folks the worst.)

Another problem is that these are not studies that can be done solely by 'climatologists'. The statistics rebuttal of Mann that I posted earlier shows how badiy people who are not extensively trained in stats can mess up statistical analysis. Consider this. The data sources for temperature change vary wildly in accuracy, yet somehow these scientists can take data with precision variances measured in muiltiple degrees and make predictions from that are far more precise. It doesn't work that way.

The whole CC debate has become religious and monetary. There are plenty of cases of selective peer review (ie: don't let non-believers participate in the process.) That really isn't the scientific way.

Until the process becomes more openly scientific and less religious/political we aren't really going to know what's real and what's manufactured.

 

[ugabuga]

You strongly imply that only 'scientists' are interested in the 'truth; and that 'scientists' have all agreed about AGW by your use of the widely abused term 'scientfic consensus'.

By building this misleading concept [scientific consensus] into your basic assumptions, your implication is that if you don't agree with the so-called scientific consensus then you aren't a scientist, you are corporate.

FBB,

You say:

You strongly imply that only 'scientists' are interested in the 'truth

I did not strongly imply this?you just strongly (but incorrectly) inferred it.

What I did say was:
1) the scientific community (SC) is motivated primarily by finding truth, while?
(2) the corporate community (CC) is motivated primarily by profits
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community

The word ?primarily? should not be read to mean ?exclusively.?
The word "motivated" should not be read to mean "interested."

You say:

You strongly imply that...'scientists' have all agreed about AGW by your use of the widely abused term 'scientfic consensus'.

I did not strongly imply this?you just strongly (but incorrectly) inferred it.

?Consensus? means ?general agreement,? not unanimous agreement.

You say:

By building this misleading concept [scientific consensus] into your basic assumptions, your implication is that if you don't agree with the so-called scientific consensus then you aren't a scientist, you are corporate.

I didn't say that?you just incorrectly inferred it.

What I did say was
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community

 

[30ashopper]

FBB,

Again, I think you're being unfair.
You've twisted my position & accused me of assuming the answer.

I never claimed to have ?the truth? re AWG, nor that the scientific community's consensus re AWG was ?the truth.?
I never claimed that ?anyone who disagrees [with the scientists' consensus] isn't a scientist...?.

My premises are not ?carefully constructed, after the fact to support [my] conclusion.?
BUT, even if they were, if a set of undisputed premises leads logically to a conclusion, then the conclusion is valid.

The conclusion of my argument is not ?strong;? I readily admit that the scientific consensus could be wrong?I simply argue that it's unlikely to be wrong.

FBB, I'm not trying to beat you in an argument.
I'm simply trying to point out that
while a scientist shouldn't really care whether his research shows AGW or not,
that most of those who argue against AWG are not scientists AND have a financial stake in the answer.

Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

I would never generically disparage all federally funded research by claiming it's all biased. (My sister is a federally funded researcher who does basic science and I know she's not biased in any way shape or form, she simply seeks answers.) A lot of good, basic scientific building blocks comes out of basic research that would never come out of the private sector. But recent revelations about the scientific global warming community indicate there may be bias in their research oriented around promoting a certain political agenda, and worse, possibly trying to milk governments of funds to do research.

This is a contentious issue, we should take things slow and let the scientific community sort things all the way out. The world is not going to end tomorrow despite what some scientists would have you believe. We certainly shouldn't be doing anything rash in the middle of what appears to be the second great depression.