Why is climate science political?

[freedombecki]

If I see anyone come up with a really strong argument as to why 50+ of the most respected scientific bodies in the world should be ignored, I will respond to it.

That said, do you believe in plate techtonics? You may want to look at how long it took that theory to take hold AND who laughed it out of the auditorium before the science was no longer able to be ignored.

Exactly my point - new science (and climate change dates back to only 1860) takes a long time to win over the establishment. It's only natural that there is cynicism, but eventually some kind of near-consensus is reached.

And looking at that list of bodies, that time is very much upon us.

Because they need a good, sound kick in the balls, that's why, so they will never consider omitting data to get money, that's why.

 

[Big Fitz]

If I see anyone come up with a really strong argument as to why 50+ of the most respected scientific bodies in the world should be ignored, I will respond to it.

That said, do you believe in plate techtonics? You may want to look at how long it took that theory to take hold AND who laughed it out of the auditorium before the science was no longer able to be ignored.

Exactly my point - new science (and climate change dates back to only 1860) takes a long time to win over the establishment. It's only natural that there is cynicism, but eventually some kind of near-consensus is reached.

And looking at that list of bodies, that time is very much upon us.

Yes, but Plate Techtonics did not use fraud to further it's cause. Nor was it backed by political groups and advocacy parties looking to gain from the findings of science.

The same way anti-smoking lobbies profited (particularly trial lawyers) from science that backed their claims, so does AGW. There was no effort to 'enhance the spread' or 'increase the altitude'. It was straight up non-political science.

You fool no one.

 

[Saigon]

Big Fitz -

Of course there are lobbies involved - backing solar, wind, tidal power projects. No question there.

There are also lobbies involved backing coal, nuclear and oil.

I'd imagine the second category have deeper pockets.

But interestingly enough, most research I see isn't funded by those groups.

VTT (Finland's tech research unit) has mixed funding from a CONSERVATIVE government, and some funding from the private sector for product development. Given there is no solar and very little wind energy here, not much of that comes from renewables. And yet they research a lot to do with the impact of rising sea levels - which are clearly apparent here.

 

[Saigon]

You fool no one.

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

I don't see sny scientific bodies at all in your corner.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You fool no one.

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

I don't see sny scientific bodies at all in your corner.

And can any of those societies point to a single experiment that show us how a 20PPM (.002% of atmosphere) increase in CO2 melts the glaciers?

 

[Saigon]

Crusader Frank -

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader Frank -

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

Who couldn't what?

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

My wife is a PhD researcher.

By which I mean that she is writing her PhD (or her dissertation, if you prefer), and has funding for this year to conduct research as part of that process. Two weeks back she presented part of her dissertation at the Sorbonne. When she completes her PhD, she'll likely continue to do paid research if funding is available.

You can apologise for the inexplicable accusations if you like, or you can believe that this is all some dark and evil conspiracy to make my wife look smart if you prefer. If you want to believe my wife is really a programmer at Nokia like everyone else in Finland - believe that.

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

 

[westwall]

The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.

Possibly - but doing nothing while oceans rise to threaten the likes of London, LA and New York doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.

Every major business has a contingency plan for terror, sire, earthquake and flood.

Good governance in relation to climate change would surely be to follow suit.

Oftimes doing nothing is the best option. Look at Californias experience with MTBE as an example. MTBE was added to the gasoline to reduce air pollution. The problem was the MTBE got into the water table and polluted thousands of water wells throughout the state and the western US.

Those wells are poisoned now for the next 1000 years at minimum. The "cure" was far worse than the illness. Good science is based on observations and experience. Environmentalists have a very poor track record of following that mantra. Instead they are practitioners of "ready, fire, aim!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader Frank -

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

I believe it's a physical impossibility that a .002% change in total atmospheric composition by adding CO2 will cause temperature increase, extreme weather events including glacier melt and ocean acidification.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.

Possibly - but doing nothing while oceans rise to threaten the likes of London, LA and New York doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.

Every major business has a contingency plan for terror, sire, earthquake and flood.

Good governance in relation to climate change would surely be to follow suit.

Stop wasting electron telling us about AGW, that's' the best solution

 

[westwall]

Um....what ARE you talking about? What "fib" did I tell? What "untrue" statement do you see?

Seriously - I have absolutely no idea what you are ranting about here.

btw. Not all grad students receive funding or grants (at least not here). It's a very competitive field, and funding is often only for one year when it does come. There are not so many paid research positions here, but my wife is lucky to have one.

Your post number 10 in this very thread. You see, when you fib a lot you lose track of what lie you said, and to whom you said it.

"(My wife is a PhD researcher)"

That statement means (at least on the planet I live on) that your wife has a PhD in some science. And that she is working as a researcher for some company or institution of higher learning (you see dear boy I've done both, as has my wife) I then asked you to tell us what specific scientific field she is studying.

You then altered your original statement (after some prodding from me) to state that your wife was "writing" her PhD, (whatever the hell that means) and then expected an apology.

Here, on my planet that is called an untruth. You acted like all the AGW supporters and tried to bluff your way out of it and STILL havn't answered my original question which was what SPECIFIC scientific field is your wife studying. Just like the AGW "scientists" when asked to provide their raw data and original code so that other scientists can check their work.....which is an ESSENTIAL component of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

I suggest you look that up too. It seems you have a great deal to learn before you rejoin the conversation, so get to work.

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.

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.

 

[Big Fitz]

Big Fitz -

Of course there are lobbies involved - backing solar, wind, tidal power projects. No question there.

There are also lobbies involved backing coal, nuclear and oil.

I'd imagine the second category have deeper pockets.

But interestingly enough, most research I see isn't funded by those groups.

VTT (Finland's tech research unit) has mixed funding from a CONSERVATIVE government, and some funding from the private sector for product development. Given there is no solar and very little wind energy here, not much of that comes from renewables. And yet they research a lot to do with the impact of rising sea levels - which are clearly apparent here.

You are as naive as you are dishonest.

There are lobbies for EVERY industry. It is nice that you note the lobbies that will gain both power and money if AGW is made law despite what the weather REALLY does. It's also good to note you admit that Solar, Wind and Biomass will not cut it for Finland's energy needs. A land that DESPERATELY needs reliable cheap energy to survive winters in any modern form.

I'll leave it to you and your 'Fudd' researcher wife to explain to me this.

The atmospheric composition of the planet contains 0.04% CO2. Of this, throughout our entire history, mankind has produced 0.006% of this content.

How is it that an increase of a MINOR greenhouse gas as compared to the 4-8% total composition found in Water Vapor that does not even get outside of the margin of error for any method of sampling control the climate so completely? Also, how come we ignore the 99.994% of the rest of the CO2's impact on this?

Please, explain how this is so using uncorrupted sources (no NASA, No Michael Mann, No Hadley CRU, UN or EAU data)?

 

[Big Fitz]

Westwall -

My wife is a PhD researcher.

By which I mean that she is writing her PhD (or her dissertation, if you prefer), and has funding for this year to conduct research as part of that process. Two weeks back she presented part of her dissertation at the Sorbonne. When she completes her PhD, she'll likely continue to do paid research if funding is available.

You can apologise for the inexplicable accusations if you like, or you can believe that this is all some dark and evil conspiracy to make my wife look smart if you prefer. If you want to believe my wife is really a programmer at Nokia like everyone else in Finland - believe that.

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

He's trying to look up a career that'd be credible for his fake wife.

 

[westwall]

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 occured to me afterwards that Westwall might not have realised 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 specialised 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.

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.

 

[Saigon]

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.

 

[westwall]

Artevelde -

All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.

This, I think we can assume they looked at the evidence before they made their statements.

If climate change is a "fad" - why would 50 such august bodies throw their weight behind it?

Look up uniformitarianism. It is a fundamental axiom of geology and has been adopted by all other physical sciences. Now look up all those scientific bodies and look up where they get theri funding from.

Do you see a connection?

Back to uniformitarianism...the claim is that man has had a measurable impact on the climate of the world. Show us the measurement. Show us how anything we are seeing now hasn't occured before (here's a helpful hint, you will find nothing extreaordinary about this time as compared to any other) and you would have a point. The problem is you can't.

Everything that is happening today has happened in the past (and in many cases far, far worse) so the only "evidence" that the AGW supporters have is correlation. And as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Saigon]

You are as naive as you are dishonest.

There are lobbies for EVERY industry. It is nice that you note the lobbies that will gain both power and money if AGW is made law despite what the weather REALLY does. It's also good to note you admit that Solar, Wind and Biomass will not cut it for Finland's energy needs. A land that DESPERATELY needs reliable cheap energy to survive winters in any modern form.

Who said otherwise?

Of course there are lobbies for every industry...in the US and in Europe.

And which industry would you say spent more on lobbying last year - wind, solar, cola, oil or nuclear?

And how might that effect the science conducted?

 

[Big Fitz]

I said it in my only other post in this thread. Editec said it again most recently about 4 posts ago. It's about money. Yes, it's a simple answer, and one that you appear to have heard and dismissed. Why?

Because I don't see how the UK Conservative Party is making money out of climate change. I would have thought it would have been potentially costing them money as they piss off the coal industry with their new policies.

How do thre Conservative Party make money out of this?

Really? Look at how Obama planned to make money for his supporters here through the creation of the Carbon Credit Exchange (now thanfully failed)

The software for trading credits was owned by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (The Goverment Sponsored Agency for mortgages) and Franklin Raines (the former head of Freddie and Fannie) bought with US taxpayers money. Raines stood to make billions personally from this move. But why did a mortgage company hold these patents? It makes no sense and is a blatant abuse of government power to even allow this.

Al Gore and George Soros both personally lost on the collapsed when trillions of dollars were potentially able to be made if Cap and Trade had been passed in the US. These two are just a couple of dozens of big lib millionaire/billionaires looking for corporatist handouts and control.

THOUSANDS of green start up companies, all very big green/leftwing supporters stood to make Millions to billions each by the CCX making it. That money would have quickly found itself into the pockets of politicians pledging to keep the money flowing through law as long as they were elected and kept in power.

THIS is why AGW is kept around. The power, money, corruption and outright human evil stands to gain so much and slide us into global ecofascism.

A plethora of small 'conspiracies' of unenlightened self interest, or uncaring self interest as long as THEY are made into the new rulers and plutocrats.

Are you getting it now?

 

[Saigon]

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.