What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

[SpencerH]

I find this to be a very interesting figure. Are the allarmists claiming that the remarkably cyclical peaks are due to human effects over the last 400K years?

[Dauphin]

When was CO2 over 380 ppm last?

[SpencerH]

I dunno, where's the evidence that glacial ice CO2 measurements are accurate measures of atmospheric CO2 (as opposed to correlates of atmospheric CO2 levels).

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I dont know about you, but I was in highschool during those years and the claim was that greenhouse gases from pollution were going to reflect the sunlight and cause the earth to cool. From my perspective, it certainly was as politically tinged as the current scenario.

No, it wasn't "greenhouse gasses" it was particulate pollution. They did point to the "nuclear winter" scenario as the ultimate anthropogenic climate change, but only speculated on whether normal industrial pollution could have any notable effect.

The idea that greenhouse gasses would have a larger effect came in the '80s. But again, that was a different crowd of scientists.

[Thorgal]

There is a thing i dont understand here: It is obvious for everybody the political and monetary motivations of global warming denialists. But what dark objective is pursuing the "politically motivated" mainstream science? Why would they want to decrease greenhouse gases emissions needlessly? I mean do they like "recessions", are they masochists or something?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its simpler than that. Provide a crisis worthy of investigation and grant monies become plentiful.

[Thorgal]

So, according to you sciencists have more money because global warming. Not very sure about that. OTOH and if people take seriously his machiavelical inventions making real efforts to cut emissions and there is a worlwide economical crisis as denialists say, wouldnt science be affected by lack of funds the same as everybody else or even more?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Perhaps you're refering to that we have better evidence today that links CO2 levels with temps?

While I don't believe that we have significant evidence (yet) that there is a direct relationship between MGT and CO2 levels (historically) there is at least a plausible mechanism...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I dunno, where's the evidence that glacial ice CO2 measurements are accurate measures of atmospheric CO2 (as opposed to correlates of atmospheric CO2 levels).

See, you're one of the people who really gives the skeptics' side a bad name.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Thorgal
So, according to you sciencists have more money because global warming. Not very sure about that. OTOH and if people take seriously his machiavelical inventions making real efforts to cut emissions and there is a worlwide economical crisis as denialists say, wouldnt science be affected by lack of funds the same as everybody else or even more?

Why? Academia is relatively recession proof as it is not directly tied to private business but moreso to Universities (largely gov funded) and likewise largely resultant Gov grants. Now unless you can make the case that Gov grants will dry up from a recession, I don't see how scientists funding fates are tied to health of the economy per se.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


See, you're one of the people who really gives the skeptics' side a bad name.

Just trying to maintain my existing reputation as something of a scientific **** disturber.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Thorgal
There is a thing i dont understand here: It is obvious for everybody the political and monetary motivations of global warming denialists. But what dark objective is pursuing the "politically motivated" mainstream science? Why would they want to decrease greenhouse gases emissions needlessly? I mean do they like "recessions", are they masochists or something?

No, that's wrong. I don't have a penny invested in big oil or any other CO2 generating energy business. I don't work for them, either.

So what is my monetary motivation? By their own projections, 100% Kyoto compliance would only reduce the 2106 temperatures to 2100 temperatures at 0% compliance. That's called a complete waste of effort. Projected costs to the USA were $350B/year for the whole 100 years (in constant dollars). That's like adding 20% to our Federal tax burden and getting nothing for it.

So what motivates the Chicken Littles of AGW? It makes them feel important, like they're saving the world. Without it they'd just be another bunch of boring eggheads. Ego is a bigger deal in science than out in the business world precisely because there is so little money in academia.

Making a scientific prediction that comes true is their holy grail. Getting a whole bunch of people to support their idea instead of a competing idea is even better. Convincing the whole world to buy into their prediction 100 years before it can be verified is like winning the trifecta.

Kinda like the reason we argue about it here, except for them it's all they've got. A bit pathetic, really.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Thorgal
So, according to you sciencists have more money because global warming. Not very sure about that. OTOH and if people take seriously his machiavelical inventions making real efforts to cut emissions and there is a worlwide economical crisis as denialists say, wouldnt science be affected by lack of funds the same as everybody else or even more?

Just try laying off a passle of them...and hear the screams....

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


While I don't believe that we have significant evidence (yet) that there is a direct relationship between MGT and CO2 levels (historically) there is at least a plausible mechanism...

Historically, I think, cylical temperature changes (caused by the sun and our orbit about it) caused the changes in CO2, not the other way around.

But now it is different, we are told.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Thorgal
There is a thing i dont understand here: It is obvious for everybody the political and monetary motivations of global warming denialists. But what dark objective is pursuing the "politically motivated" mainstream science? Why would they want to decrease greenhouse gases emissions needlessly? I mean do they like "recessions", are they masochists or something?

One of the things you are going to have to as of the GW-types is why Kyoto? Why a treaty protocol that allows everyone but the first world off the hook because it would ****** their economic growth? It seems clear that the agenda is to clamp the economic growth of the first world while allowing the economic growth of everyone else. Controlling green house gasses is secondary.

Kyoto and GW activism is politically motivated.