Exploding the myths of climate scepticism

[initforme]

Nobody really knows if we are affecting the climate. Thats the thing. We are currently conducting an experiment and whether or not it is happening really has NO financial nor environmental affect on humans at this time. That being said humans on this planet are way too stupid look beyond themselves as far as resources. They somehow have this feeling as though the earth is theirs, strictly for them. How bizarre is that?

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody really knows if we are affecting the climate. Thats the thing. We are currently conducting an experiment and whether or not it is happening really has NO financial nor environmental affect on humans at this time. That being said humans on this planet are way too stupid look beyond themselves as far as resources. They somehow have this feeling as though the earth is theirs, strictly for them. How bizarre is that?

Exactomundo........which is why nobody cares about the science.

This weekend in New York, we all froze our balls off. Might not matter to the AGW true believers but it does to tens of millions of people who couldnt give a flying fuck. They are cold.......and even if they say they believe in global warming a huge majority say scratch your ass when it comes to opening their wallets to back the economy busting/high priced solutions supported by the radicals. THAT is not even debatable.

 

[Saigon]

which is why nobody cares about the science.

Deniers don't care about the science, because denialism isn't a scientific idea. It's a political idea.

Don't mistake this to mean that nobody cares about science, because most people do. Most people want to understand what is happening to the earth, and they want the truth. Most people can also understand enough science to get the point.

 

[SSDD]

which is why nobody cares about the science.

Deniers don't care about the science, because denialism isn't a scientific idea. It's a political idea.

Don't mistake this to mean that nobody cares about science, because most people do. Most people want to understand what is happening to the earth, and they want the truth. Most people can also understand enough science to get the point.

Typical gobbelsesque propaganda.....accuse your opponent of what you are doing people actually start to beleive you.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Just read through the argument presented and try to understand it. You are the most poster who seems to most often fall into this trap of thinking each project has to seek funding.

Hopefully it will save you from presenting the same poorly thought out myths again next week.

 

[skookerasbil]

which is why nobody cares about the science.

Deniers don't care about the science, because denialism isn't a scientific idea. It's a political idea.

Don't mistake this to mean that nobody cares about science, because most people do. Most people want to understand what is happening to the earth, and they want the truth. Most people can also understand enough science to get the point.

OK s0n.......well, your theory will be put to the test later this year when climate change legislation comes up for a vote in the US congress. When it goes down in flames ( 100% certainty), it proves you to be a total bullshitter.( another 100% certainty)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It seems that the most popular myth used on this board is the one that scientists are only in it for the money, and that their research produces whatever results their government or sources of funding ask for.

This makes no logical sense whatsoever, and hopefully we can now put it to rest forever.

1) Most climate change science is conducted by universities. Universities in Europe and much of the developed world are bulk funded. Meaning that the government gives University X a certain amount of money each year. From that budget come salaries, rents, equipment...everything. Each faculty is given funding from that total amount, and the heads of each department plan their research accordingly. Most universities have particular areas they focus on - for instance my local Aalto University Dept of Physics works with CERN in Switzerland, and contributes to work on cloud formation and activity.

The key point: there is no connection between funding and the results of research. The system is set up in such way to ENSURE that no political interference is possible, and to ensure the independence of areas such as Political Sciences and History.

2) Universities have at times produced research which their own governments (and thus sources of funding) found embarassing. In the US, Australia and New Zealand universities produced research backing human involvement in climate change during times when their own conservative goverments denied human involvement. If scientists were protecting their jobs, throwing your own government under a bus seems like a strange move.

3) All developed countries monitor their own climate. Finland records temperatures, humidity and rainfall, and has done for a century. Using only Finnish data, we can thus build up a pattern of Finnish weather patterns. This means that no global conspiracy is possible, because obviously if Austria maniuplated their data and Switzerland did not - the results would be completely incompatible with each other. The difference would be immediately evident and suspicious.

4) Not all scientists are liberal. Most I have met have shown very little interest in party politics, and are much more concerned with producing and publishing excellent research. Given it takes 15 years or so to become a Professor of Chemistry, it is not surprising that most of these people are less interested in politics than chemistry. Most are deeply devoted to their work, and would regard any shortcuts, falsification of data or lying as being completely unacceptable. Anyone suspected of, say, plagiarism would be outed, and we know this because it has happened once or twice around the world.

5) The idea of an international conspiracy amongst scientists simply is not possible. There are too many people in too many countries, working in too many places. Any attempt to suggest that particular scientists should suppress this document or falsify this data would leave a paper trial miles long. It would only need one person to print one email and any such paper trail would be in the newspapers the next day - as we saw with the U. Anglia debacle. Hence - no conspiracy would be possiible.

My hope is that we can get beyond the endless conspiracy theories after this, and at least stick to theories and ideas which are possible and which make sense.

btw, some of us have posted similar before. the response from the other side is usually

 

[SSDD]

I totally agree that the predictions have evolved significantly over time, and may now be virtually unrecognisable from what they were 20 years ago - and yet the same basic principles and conclusions have been proven true to the satisfaction or virtually everyone. Almost every question has been answered, and today's models are far better than those of a generation earlier. I don't think scientists need to apologise for learning as they go.

The problem is that the underlying physics which were wrong in the beginning and which led to false predictions are still being used...the models are just continuously tweaked to reflect something close to present temperatures. The models can only produce output based on the physics they are programmed to model and those physics are wrong.

There is a model out there using real world physics as opposed to the fantasy land physics of cliamte science that not only accurately predicts the temperature of earth, but accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere. It doesn't get any serious attention from climate science because it doen't acknowledge that CO2 can control the climate. In fact this model doesn't calculate a greenhouse effect at all...it is based on an atmospheric thermal effect which is, in reality much larger than the so called greenhouse effect but is based on the ideal gas laws as opposed to a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzman equations as is the case with the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry but if the earth is a few degrees warmer, we all aren't going to die some horrible death.

Probably not, no.

But the impact on agriculture may be severe and that needs to be planned - certainly it is already having a major impact on the economy and food supply in Australia, Peru, Chile etc.

The effect on agriculture has shown to be beneficial...not doom and gloom.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds climate change benefits Chinese agriculture

A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change predicts climate change will result in a significant increase of productivity for Chinese agriculture. According to the authors, "the annual impact of temperature on net crop revenue per hectare was positive," and "climate change may create a potential advantage for the development of Chinese agriculture, rather than a risk." The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that warming increases agricultural productivity.

ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The impacts of Climate change on crops in China: A Ricardian analysis

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds warmer temperatures increase crop yields and lead to lower prices

A paper published today in The Holocene finds that higher temperatures during the 19th century were associated with higher crop yields and lower prices. The paper also finds The Little Ice Age increased climatic risks to agriculture and that with increasing globalization, there has been "a weakening influence of prevailing weather on crop prices."

Climatic signatures in crops and grain prices in 19th-century Sweden

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds increased CO2 and global warming will increase grain production

A paper published today in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology finds that "fertilization effects" on grain yields due to "elevated CO2 concentration generally compensates for the negative effects of warming temperatures on production. Moreover, positive effects of elevated CO2 concentration on grain yield increase with warming temperatures."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Just read through the argument presented and try to understand it. You are the most poster who seems to most often fall into this trap of thinking each project has to seek funding.

Hopefully it will save you from presenting the same poorly thought out myths again next week.

A system in which each project doesn't need approval for funding is orders of magnitude worse. Where is the oversight if each project doesn't need to justify itself?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

The point here is that you actually learn something.

You've repeated the same mistake several times on this board, and hopefully now you understand quite why it is a mistake.

If you have any questions, by all means ask, but if you want to consider yourself an honest poster, repeating what you know to be nonsense won't help you very much. It's about trying to raise the level of debate here a notch by cutting out some of the most absurd theories - many of which have been yours.

btw. I thnk you will find 'peer review' IS oversight.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

The point here is that you actually learn something.

What I am learning is that there are warmist wackos out there that are even more dishonest than rocks. Compared to you, he is as honest as an alterbody.

You've repeated the same mistake several times on this board, and hopefully now you understand quite why it is a mistake.

I have made no mistake and you have failed to prove otherwise.

If you have any questions, by all means ask, but if you want to consider yourself an honest poster, repeating what you know to be nonsense won't help you very much. It's about trying to raise the level of debate here a notch by cutting out some of the most absurd theories - many of which have been yours.

That is your purview....repeating for example that the temperature record is accurate when both Ian and I have shown you inarguable evidence to the contrary.

btw. I thnk you will find 'peer review' IS oversight.

Again, you have been shown evidence that the peer review system is terribly flawed and still you claim it should be a trusted watchdog for the hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into the agw hoax.

If a paper fails peer review, exactly what does that do towards overseeing the spending of money. If no oversight happens till after the money has been squandered, where is the oversight? Where is the mechanism that catches funding bias? Where is the mechanism that catches misuse of funds? You really aren't able to think beyond the most shallow levels of this debate are you? Peer review is oversight for the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars? What a laugh and demonstration of abject ignorance.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Don't worry - I hadn't thought for a second that you would admit error or learn from the experience, even though you have been proven wrong about funding, and presumably now understnd why and how you were wrong.

Only honest posters admit error, and only smart ones learn.

 

[texasbadger]

which is why nobody cares about the science.

Deniers don't care about the science, because denialism isn't a scientific idea. It's a political idea.

Don't mistake this to mean that nobody cares about science, because most people do. Most people want to understand what is happening to the earth, and they want the truth. Most people can also understand enough science to get the point.

The science is being de-emphasized by those pushing the GW/Climate Change concept because the actual science, the actual numbers, the actual measurements simply do not support their ideas.

Saigon, I did not mean to imply "scientists from the Soviet Union" in my previous post. Rather, I meant the goal of worldwide Communism - which, of course, were dealt a severe blow with the fall of the Soviet Union - mainly to bring down Free Enterprise Capitalism and the prosperous western countries practicing it are IMO also the goal of most pushing GW/Climate Change. Sure, there are a few naive true believers, but most in that movement are zealots who want to harm the economy and standard of living of America and other free/advanced/western-style countries.

 

[Saigon]

Texas Badger -

While I agree that Communism around the world is in decline - I can't imagine what that has to do with climate change. Glaciers do not melt or not melt depending on somones political views.

It's worth keeping in mind that, aside from the GOP, ever major conservative political party on earth is up to speed with climate change, as are all major automotive and oil companies. Add to that list every major scientific body - the science really is that overwhelming.

Unless you think oil companies have fallen prey to some socialist conspiracy, I can't see any logic in your theory.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Don't worry - I hadn't thought for a second that you would admit error or learn from the experience, even though you have been proven wrong about funding, and presumably now understnd why and how you were wrong.

I have been proven wrong on nothing and your simple declaration of victory rather than some actual evidence to prove me wrong is as stark an admission of defeat on your part as anything I could ask for.

Only honest posters admit error, and only smart ones learn

You are neither.

 

[Saigon]

I have been proven wrong on nothing

So your repeated claims that climate change scientific projects establish their results based on who is paying for the research are correct are they?

Even though almost no university research done outside the US is funded on a 'per project' basis.

Because I can produce a half dozen links to you saying just that, you know.

Seriously man - when you are wrong, you are wrong. You don't look cool pretending it never happened.

 

[SSDD]

I have been proven wrong on nothing

So your repeated claims that climate change scientific projects establish their results based on who is paying for the research are correct are they?

Even though almost no university research done outside the US is funded on a 'per project' basis.

Because I can produce a half dozen links to you saying just that, you know.

Seriously man - when you are wrong, you are wrong. You don't look cool pretending it never happened.

All you are telling me is that outside the US there is no oversight as to how money is spent in climate research....Those who hold the checkbooks can dole out money as they please with no accountablity. The worst system possible, in other words.

If you weren't so stupid, you would understand that you are making my argument for me when I say that the system is corrupt. Spending with no accountability is a surefire recipe for abuse and corruption.

Among actual scientists grant proposals are writtent stating what is expected to be found and what methodologies will be used to find it.....at the end then it is possible to determine whether the money was well spent, whether it found what was expected or not and if it didn't, then furthe research is justified to find out why. Your description of climate "science" funding is exactly what is wrong with climate science today. A research team finds what they want to find and massage, or cherry pick data if necessary to get it....no accountability for the money spent and no definite statement of what the team expected to find prior to the research.

 

[Saigon]

All you are telling me is that outside the US there is no oversight as to how money is spent in climate research

Who said there was no oversight?

 

[SSDD]

All you are telling me is that outside the US there is no oversight as to how money is spent in climate research

Who said there was no oversight?

You claimed that peer review was oversight. Oversight after the money is spent is worse than pointless.