Why is climate science political?

[westwall]

Crusader Frank -

Do you honestly - honestly - believe they couldn't?

They havn't yet. They have never been able to produce a lab controlled experiment that showed it occuring.

 

[Saigon]

That would be impossible. I can read quite clearly you are in Finland, My wife and I have attended Tommi Makinen's driving school in Puuppola and love the country.

I was trying to think of a polite explanation for what otherwise seems to be the most baffling display of paranoia since the McCarthy era.

 

[westwall]

I accuse her of nothing. I accuse you (and proved it) of lying. Now, for the fourth time, what is her field of study?

You proved that I was lying, did you?

I must have missed that!

You have to laugh, don't you?


My wife's PhD is in Philosophy by the way - nothing to do with sciences. She works mainly with Sartre, but also Judith Butler.

ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person! You really havn't a clue about academia do you?

 

[Flopper]

We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct? How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon? I'm not denying the existence of carbon emissions, and the harm that they cause, but seriously how do we know if the current climate pattern isn't just the naturally occurring climate change that the earth undergoes.

I'm not a scientist and don't understand most of the crap finding it's way to the Internet everyday. I see climate science as long range forecasting based on weather trends. There is no way to prove the prediction except to wait and see. We can't prove man is causing temperatures to rise; we have some evidence and theories. Since 2000, we had 9 of the warmest years on record. We have certainly seen rising levels of CO2. If the temperatures and CO2 levels continue to rise over the coming decades, then the probability that the predictions are correct will rise and more people will become more concerned.

However, assume all the predictions are wrong and over the next hundred years we find good alternatives to fossil fuels. We eliminate the major cause of air pollution. We reduce groundwater pollution. No more oil spills at sea. No more more wars over oil. Not a bad outcome. And if the climate scientist are right, we might just save the planet.

 

[westwall]

That would be impossible. I can read quite clearly you are in Finland, My wife and I have attended Tommi Makinen's driving school in Puuppola and love the country.

I was trying to think of a polite explanation for what otherwise seems to be the most baffling display of paranoia since the McCarthy era.

Paranoia? I read what you write. It is you who are having the problems not I. You made a false claim. I caught you making it. Case closed. No paranoia, just you writing a falsehood.

 

[Saigon]

Yes, I realise that...I am still attempting to get him to tell us what scientific field she studies in. However, his statement as it is read made the claim that she allready had her PhD. That was clearly an error and he needs to make that plain. She is a PhD CANDIDATE, just because she writes a dissertation doesn't gurantee a degree, she must defend it first.

She would also still have to have obtained a Masters first. And that would be in a specific field. That is what I am interested in. If he presents her as an expert I would like to know what she's an expert in.

1) I never said she studied a science - you assumed it for some reason.

2) Yes, of course she has a Masters - how would she be doing PhD without one?

3) She does not yet have her PhD - as I have said twice already.

As I think will have been obvious to most people, when I said she was writing her PhD dissertation - that means she has not yet finished it. The present continuous tense "is writing" usually suggests an incomplete action, no? Perhaps grammar is a problem for you?

 

[Big Fitz]

look up all those scientific bodies and look up where they get theri funding from.

Some from private sector - in the form of product development.

Some from public sector - largely from conservative governments, but also here from EU research grants.

And some from private donations and fund raising/marketing options.

And of couse this proves that an evil conspiracy is afoot.

Wow, you wouldn't see Mussolini coming, would you? Not inquisitive at all as to WHY these groups have money to pay for this 'science' and support them.

Corporatism is very seductive and stealthy.

 

[Liability]

I accuse her of nothing. I accuse you (and proved it) of lying. Now, for the fourth time, what is her field of study?

You proved that I was lying, did you?

I must have missed that!

You have to laugh, don't you?


My wife's PhD is in Philosophy by the way - nothing to do with sciences. She works mainly with Sartre, but also Judith Butler.

ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person! You really havn't a clue about academia do you?

True. But let's be a bit more fully accurate. (Odd that I now make reference to Wiki, but there ya go):

In the context of academic degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer solely to the field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom".

Doctor of Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[peach174]

Saigon lives in Europe. You may not realize that there are differences in higher education here. EU member countries are trying to harmonize the various systems through initiatives like the Bologna Accords but the differences between countries are still significant.

In the US PhD studies usually require passing classes covering broader subject areas before the student moves on to choose their research topic and their actual research. Some countries in Europe tend to be more focused on the research. Prior to even being admitted for PhD studies, a student will have gone through a lengthy process of vetting their research topic. Only when supervisors believe that there are sufficient grounds and the research is possible, is the student admitted for studies. There is no reason to believe that Saigon's claim regarding his wife is not legitimate.

Thanks, Decus.

It only occurred to me afterwords that Westwall might not have realized that I am not in the US - and no doubt the situation with funding is quite different. PhD studies here are free (all education is), but PhD students typically apply for various grants or research positions within the faculty to have some income.

As you say, PhD here is very specialized and focused, and is based almost entirely around the dissertation - hence my saying she is "writing her Phd". Other than attending some workshops and seminars, there is very little other work for her to do but write.

Nothing is Free.
Your Education is not free, it is funded by your people through taxes.
Your Science is funded by the Government. So is 36% in grants here in America.
When the question arises, that private funded science has come up with opposing views about climate change, it is immediately debunked and is not really seriously considered or discussed at all.

 

[Oddball]

That would be impossible. I can read quite clearly you are in Finland, My wife and I have attended Tommi Makinen's driving school in Puuppola and love the country.

I was trying to think of a polite explanation for what otherwise seems to be the most baffling display of paranoia since the McCarthy era.

Right...Paranoia....

Glacier Meltdown: Another Scientific Scandal Involving the IPCC Climate Research Group

The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers | Watts Up With That?

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

Mike Fox: The IPCC Scandal: Well Deserved Self-Destruction - Nuclear Power Industry News - Nuclear Power Industry News - Nuclear Street - Nuclear Power Portal

Rainforest story latest IPCC scandal | CFACT

Another IPCC Scandal - Sea levels NOT rising

Google is your friend.

 

[westwall]

We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct? How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon? I'm not denying the existence of carbon emissions, and the harm that they cause, but seriously how do we know if the current climate pattern isn't just the naturally occurring climate change that the earth undergoes.

I'm not a scientist and don't understand most of the crap finding it's way to the Internet everyday. I see climate science as long range forecasting based on weather trends. There is no way to prove the prediction except to wait and see. We can't prove man is causing temperatures to rise; we have some evidence and theories. Since 2000, we had 9 of the warmest years on record. We have certainly seen rising levels of CO2. If the temperatures and CO2 levels continue to rise over the coming decades, then the probability that the predictions are correct will rise and more people will become more concerned.

However, assume all the predictions are wrong and over the next hundred years we find good alternatives to fossil fuels. We eliminate the major cause of air pollution. We reduce groundwater pollution. No more oil spills at sea. No more more wars over oil. Not a bad outcome. And if the climate scientist are right, we might just save the planet.

Climatology is based on computer models. Computer models that are soo poor they can't recreate the weather we had yesterday. And this with PERFECT knowledge of all the variables involved. You also state that we can't make long term predictions and know the outcome till many, many years in the future, this too is in error. Joe Bastardi and Pires Corbyn have been making long term predictions for years and have a 80% success rate.

So far the AGW supporters are batting 00.00. They have NEVER had an accurate prediction.

I do agree with you that fossil fuels need to be replaced however. But, and it's a big but, they need to be replaced by systems that are more efficient and cheaper, that way the net result is positive. Currently all green techs actually produce more polution than the systems they are trying to replace. That is simply stupid.

 

[Saigon]

ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person! You really havn't a clue about academia do you?

Welll...degrees in Philosophy are still in Philosophy. It is actually a topic - though I realise one you may not have heard of.

I realise this is difficult if you have never heard of Sartre or Butler - but that is hardly my fault!!

 

[westwall]

Yes, I realise that...I am still attempting to get him to tell us what scientific field she studies in. However, his statement as it is read made the claim that she allready had her PhD. That was clearly an error and he needs to make that plain. She is a PhD CANDIDATE, just because she writes a dissertation doesn't gurantee a degree, she must defend it first.

She would also still have to have obtained a Masters first. And that would be in a specific field. That is what I am interested in. If he presents her as an expert I would like to know what she's an expert in.

1) I never said she studied a science - you assumed it for some reason.

2) Yes, of course she has a Masters - how would she be doing PhD without one?

3) She does not yet have her PhD - as I have said twice already.

As I think will have been obvious to most people, when I said she was writing her PhD dissertation - that means she has not yet finished it. The present continuous tense "is writing" usually suggests an incomplete action, no? Perhaps grammar is a problem for you?

I'm refering to your original post #10 where you claimed she was allready a PhD. What did she obtain her Masters in? Her Batchelors? Mine is easy, geology, environmental geology, philosophy.
My wifes is psychology, industrial organisational psychology, philosophy.

See how simple that is

 

[Saigon]

Wow, you wouldn't see Mussolini coming, would you? Not inquisitive at all as to WHY these groups have money to pay for this 'science' and support them.

Corporatism is very seductive and stealthy.

Agreed....it's not exactly difficult stuff this, is it?

I think we know why coal and oil pour so much money into climate change research.

I think we also know why wind and solar do.

I also know the first groups spend ten times what the second group do.

Which would seem to make scepticism a right wing conspiracy.

 

[westwall]

You proved that I was lying, did you?

I must have missed that!

You have to laugh, don't you?


My wife's PhD is in Philosophy by the way - nothing to do with sciences. She works mainly with Sartre, but also Judith Butler.

ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person! You really havn't a clue about academia do you?

True. But let's be a bit more fully accurate. (Odd that I now make reference to Wiki, but there ya go):

In the context of academic degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer solely to the field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom".

Doctor of Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been very generous with terms for our dear boy. I didn't feel the need to get that specific.

 

[Saigon]

I'm refering to your original post #10 where you claimed she was allready a PhD. What did she obtain her Masters in? Her Batchelors? Mine is easy, geology, environmental geology, philosophy.
My wifes is psychology, industrial organisational psychology, philosophy.

See how simple that is

No, I said she was a PhD researcher - by which I meant that she was doing research towards her PhD.

If that wasn't clear - you could have asked.

Her Master's was in Philosophy, too - which is still a topic.

btw. The word is 'Bachelors'...maybe you are lying about having one?

Come to think of it....it's also the first time I've heard of anyone switching from geology to philosophy to do a PhD....that wouldn't even be possible at most universities, where the PhD MUST be in a field in some way related to the Masters.

 

[westwall]

ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person! You really havn't a clue about academia do you?

Welll...degrees in Philosophy are still in Philosophy. It is actually a topic - though I realise one you may not have heard of.

I realise this is difficult if you have never heard of Sartre or Butler - but that is hardly my fault!!

I prefer Rawls, Hume, Rousseau, Russell, and Spinoza, but to each their own..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political.

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit.

In many cases, this means nuclear.

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?

Because liberals want to use "climate change" as an excuse to give the government even more power. And they don't care how much data they have to fake to do it.

 

[Saigon]

I've been very generous with terms for our dear boy. I didn't feel the need to get that specific.

Generous - and also very, very clearly wrong.

I really struggle to believe that anyone with a tertiary education wouldn't know Philosophy was a subject all of its own - especially when I gave you the names of the philosophers.

 

[westwall]

I'm refering to your original post #10 where you claimed she was allready a PhD. What did she obtain her Masters in? Her Batchelors? Mine is easy, geology, environmental geology, philosophy.
My wifes is psychology, industrial organisational psychology, philosophy.

See how simple that is

No, I said she was a PhD researcher - by which I meant that she was doing research towards her PhD.

If that wasn't clear - you could have asked.

Her Master's was in Philosophy, too - which is still a topic.

btw. The word is 'Bachelors'...maybe you are lying about having one?

Come to think of it....it's also the first time I've heard of anyone switching from geology to philosophy to do a PhD....that wouldn't even be possible at most universities, where the PhD MUST be in a field in some way related to the Masters.

Yes I was typing fast and make errors when i do so. The proper term for your wife would have been PhD candidate.