Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm educated as a linguist and a Decision Scientist. While my linguistics might not be relevant to Climatology (it does help in my communication skills), I think my studies and experience in statistics, system design, and software development are.
What is your opinion?
Good luck finding a climatologist that isn't on the bandwagon of AGW. That's part of the problem.
The fact that all climatologists agree on climate change is no more evidence of a conspiracy than the idea that all doctors agree Ebola comes from Africa. Quite the contrary.
I don't think a person on this site honestly believes people studying physics are all raging communists. I suspect more vote conservative than socialist.
At the point it became clear that almost everyone with a PhD in Physics agreed on climate change, most Sceptics SHOULD have started to question their own beliefs. Probably most did, but on this site there is a core of a half-dozen posters who lack that willingness.
They are only conservative compared to the very left of center nature of your political dynamic.
Not at all - Kokoomus are right wing by standard.
The fact that issues like public transport, abortion or healthcare aren't major political issues here does not change that. Conservatism retains its core principles anywhere on earth.
Most posters here would admire much of the Kokoomus manifesto - even if they might be surprised to find issues like climate change or abortion are not political issues here.
I think maybe the reason for your disconnect here is the actual disconnect you have from American politics.
The thing is, a LOT of research into climate is conducted in Europe, and I know how the system works here. My wife works for a University, so I know how that system works.
Research here really is left to experts -it is not the domain of politicians.
Of course I understand the US systems are different, but US posters need to accept that if University Helsinki Physics Dept researches cloud formation, it is because a Professor wanted to do it - not because he was told to prove cloud formation proves climate change is this or that.
Put it this way - I have never heard of a Sandinavian science study being accused of bias.
I'm educated as a linguist and a Decision Scientist. While my linguistics might not be relevant to Climatology (it does help in my communication skills), I think my studies and experience in statistics, system design, and software development are.
What is your opinion?
I think the job market is such these days that we are selling skills, more so than qualifications.
Things have become more and more specialised, but within that there are also more opportunities to take one skill set into an entirely new field.
Something like statistical analysis could take you into anything from marketing to software...it's an interesting time!
The government shut him down, what's to say governments are not shutting other "deniers" down now?
While I don't want to go too far into the weeds, the University of East Anglia leaks showed a deliberate manipulation of peer review, grant seeking, and stature-building.
So yes corruption is possible, even in Europe.
The government shut him down, what's to say governments are not shutting other "deniers" down now?
I think there is a genuine danger of that, and I am sure it happens.
The same accusation is made about things like Holocaust Denial, and I agree that many Professors would reject a thesis taking a deeply unpopular line for fear of bringing their department into disgrace.
But at the same time, some very unpopular articles come through the university system. (There was one recently on how the Finnish government assisted the Nazis...you can imagine how much Finns enjoyed reading that!)
If any student could write a well researched, well documented dissertation that PROVED that temperatures in Finland were falling, it would be published by every major newspaper in the country.
The issue is proof. The burden of proof is always higher when someone is questioning the accepted "facts".
While I don't want to go too far into the weeds, the University of East Anglia leaks showed a deliberate manipulation of peer review, grant seeking, and stature-building.
So yes corruption is possible, even in Europe.
It is possible, I agree.
But it's only ever going to involve a tiny minority of researchers or academics, because most scientists are motivated largely by science. Universities are not like Orwell's '1984' - they are dynamic communities based on dispute, argument and discussion.
In most faculties, questioning the norm is taught. It's encouraged.
Catastrophe scenarios draw attention. Govts and organizations tend to cover their asses in public, so they went the route of least chance of looking bad by deferring to 'authority'. Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status. Error cascade and groupthink have brought us to this point but hopefully fifteen years of contradictory data will help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on.
BTW- you would be hard pressed to name another profession that is more left wing and socialist than university staff.
The problem with this is that you can make exactly the same case as to why right-wing politicians would look to fund studies which denied climate change - at least through the next election.
What you say here certainly explains why climate is so studied and why the research is well-funded - it does not explain why conservative politicians or scientists would fradulently fake results.
I agree that many University staff are left wing....but Professors of Physics? Heads of Biology departments in a country with a right-wing government?
I think not, somehow.
When a Conservative Minister of the Enviroment chooses people he knows and trusts to serve as his advisors, he simply is not going to select a member of the Greens Party. In this country Directors General in a ministry are poltically appointed....so if the minister is a Conservative, so are his Directors General.
I'm from Canada,which you are calling a conservative Govt. Compared to what? Do you think we would be considered right wing on any reality based definition? A step towards the middle from far left is still left. But we like it the way it is.
While I don't want to go too far into the weeds, the University of East Anglia leaks showed a deliberate manipulation of peer review, grant seeking, and stature-building.
So yes corruption is possible, even in Europe.
It is possible, I agree.
But it's only ever going to involve a tiny minority of researchers or academics, because most scientists are motivated largely by science. Universities are not like Orwell's '1984' - they are dynamic communities based on dispute, argument and discussion.
In most faculties, questioning the norm is taught. It's encouraged.
BriPat -
As is so often the case, you have not understood the thread. The issue is not whether money is a motivation for scientists. Money is a motivation for anyone, obviously.
The issue is whether scientists are being ordered or bribed by CONSERVATIVE politicians to fake research.
Personally, I don't think many people would see producing faked research as being a good career move.
The whole idea of conservatives hiring left wing advisors, or bribing right wing scientists to produce left wing science sounds like something L Ron Hubbard might have come up with to me.
btw. I do not insist that Hitler was right wing - common sense does. Luckily, the dictionaries and experts all agree.
For many decades, rightwing retards have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to froth at the mouth over anything their puppet masters labeled "communism" or "socialism". Most of the rwr's have no real idea what these terms actually mean but they will obediently demonize and oppose anything Rush or Glenn label as "socialist".
That seems to be the case here.
On another thread we had a couple of posters get incredibly confused by terms like 'conservative', which is a bit baffling to me. It's hardly a disputed term.
Frank -
PLEASE stop spamming threads with off-topic gibberish. I've asked this several times now - please do not swamp threads with spam in order to stop the discussion.
BriPat -
As is so often the case, you have not understood the thread. The issue is not whether money is a motivation for scientists. Money is a motivation for anyone, obviously.
The issue is whether scientists are being ordered or bribed by CONSERVATIVE politicians to fake research.
Personally, I don't think many people would see producing faked research as being a good career move.
The whole idea of conservatives hiring left wing advisors, or bribing right wing scientists to produce left wing science sounds like something L Ron Hubbard might have come up with to me.
btw. I do not insist that Hitler was right wing - common sense does. Luckily, the dictionaries and experts all agree.
Good luck finding a climatologist that isn't on the bandwagon of AGW. That's part of the problem.
BriPat -
As is so often the case, you have not understood the thread. The issue is not whether money is a motivation for scientists. Money is a motivation for anyone, obviously.
The issue is whether scientists are being ordered or bribed by CONSERVATIVE politicians to fake research.
Personally, I don't think many people would see producing faked research as being a good career move.
The whole idea of conservatives hiring left wing advisors, or bribing right wing scientists to produce left wing science sounds like something L Ron Hubbard might have come up with to me.
btw. I do not insist that Hitler was right wing - common sense does. Luckily, the dictionaries and experts all agree.
Good luck finding a climatologist that isn't on the bandwagon of AGW. That's part of the problem.
LOLOLOLOL....classic....
Virtually all of the experts on Earth agree that AGW is real and a danger to our biosphere and our civilization. Yeah, I can see where that would be a problem for the brainwashed idiots like you who are desperately trying to deny reality.
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007[54], and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[61]
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]
(source: Scientific opinion on climate change)
