The Great Global Warming Swindle

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth
Either situation is just plain the wrong way to go about the problem. I don't buy that the scientists involved are being that dishonest. Their professional reputations, after all, are on the line, and dishonesty is the surest way to ensure professional failure as a scientist.

They're people after all. They have families to feed. What good job can find a climatologist outside his speciality? Some of them may have other reasons, for example the possibility to play with one of the world fastest supercomputers.

Please dont tell me you accept the "world's population of scientists are dishonest" thing. It is one of the oldest conspiracy theorist and denialist tatics and is sure to lose you much credibility.

 

[Chalnoth]

Because of the huge positive feedback they put into the model.

Why did they put the positive feedback in the first place, do you think? Where do you think the positive feedback comes from?

They're people after all. They have families to feed. What good job can find a climatologist outside his speciality? Some of them may have other reasons, for example the possibility to play with one of the world fastest supercomputers.

And if they are discovering fudging the data, they are fired and can never find a job in science again. So why in the hell would they?

 

[FishFace]

And if they are discovering fudging the data, they are fired and can never find a job in science again. So why in the hell would they?

And at the same time, if they produce data legitimately that contradicts the consensus, they won't be fired, as long as their methods were sound.

What would ensue would not be starving little scientist-babies, but a scientific debate about what the facts show.

 

[KCDAD]

Please dont tell me you accept the "world's population of scientists are dishonest" thing. It is one of the oldest conspiracy theorist and denialist tatics and is sure to lose you much credibility.

Second only to scientists are, as a group, totally ethical and pure... science is "true knowledge"

 

[Belfry]

And at the same time, if they produce data legitimately that contradicts the consensus, they won't be fired, as long as their methods were sound.

What would ensue would not be starving little scientist-babies, but a scientific debate about what the facts show.

Really, in many cases scientists love nothing more than to get good, convincing evidence that falsifies an accepted theory. It can make one's career.

 

[Chalnoth]

Second only to scientists are, as a group, totally ethical and pure... science is "true knowledge"

Yeah, no. It's merely the best we have. But it is the best we have because we explicitly don't believe it is "true knowledge".

 

[Upisoft]

Please dont tell me you accept the "world's population of scientists are dishonest" thing. It is one of the oldest conspiracy theorist and denialist tatics and is sure to lose you much credibility.

Who is talking about the world's population of scientists?

 

[Upisoft]

Why did they put the positive feedback in the first place, do you think? Where do you think the positive feedback comes from?

More CO[sub]2[/sub] ->
higher global temperature ->
higher temperature of the oceans ->
less solubility of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the ocean water ->
more CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere ->
go back to the beginning ---^

And if they are discovering fudging the data, they are fired and can never find a job in science again. So why in the hell would they?

Are you the guy who is paying them? If you're not, then you can't know what will happen with them.

 

[Upisoft]

And at the same time, if they produce data legitimately that contradicts the consensus, they won't be fired, as long as their methods were sound.

What would ensue would not be starving little scientist-babies, but a scientific debate about what the facts show.

So, what you need is to "convince" their boss that the methods were not sound... You have a plenty of options here. Non of them scientific.

And if their boss disagrees another former professor will appear in the world. No one will listen to him, of course, because he isn't one of the "scientific" consensus.

 

[mpok1519]

mother nature will always find ways of balancing out. But before long, mother nature will notice that theres only one thing screwing with the planet (us), and eventually, the planet will get rid of us if the planet sees us as enough of a threat.

I do believe the earth is alive, and I believe it will do the same things WE do once we find parasites living on our skin; we get rid of them. We don't live in harmony with them, but rather we kill them. I bet the earth has already 'thought' about this option and is coming close to considering the option.

 

[FishFace]

So, what you need is to "convince" their boss that the methods were not sound... You have a plenty of options here. Non of them scientific.

And if their boss disagrees another former professor will appear in the world. No one will listen to him, of course, because he isn't one of the "scientific" consensus.

Not being a scientist, I am interested to know who the "boss" is of someone writing a research paper. In reality, I suppose, scientists don't get fired, since they write a paper and submit it to journals. If it's rubbish, it doesn't get published, but I'm not aware that they have a "boss" to answer to.

 

[FishFace]

mother nature will always find ways of balancing out. But before long, mother nature will notice that theres only one thing screwing with the planet (us), and eventually, the planet will get rid of us if the planet sees us as enough of a threat.

I do believe the earth is alive, and I believe it will do the same things WE do once we find parasites living on our skin; we get rid of them. We don't live in harmony with them, but rather we kill them. I bet the earth has already 'thought' about this option and is coming close to considering the option.

Since this is a science forum, I'm afraid no-one really cares whether or not you "believe" the earth is alive, unless you have some evidence or data to back it up. Do you?

 

[Chalnoth]

More CO[sub]2[/sub] ->
higher global temperature ->
higher temperature of the oceans ->
less solubility of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the ocean water ->
more CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere ->
go back to the beginning ---^

And do you somehow think that's incorrect? But, perhaps more importantly, what makes you think scientists might not, you know, underestimate this effect?

Are you the guy who is paying them? If you're not, then you can't know what will happen with them.

Of course, but I work with scientists every day. I understand what drives a scientist, and what the professional pressures are. Lying is one of the absolute worst things a scientist can ever do in his research.

 

[Chalnoth]

mother nature will always find ways of balancing out. But before long, mother nature will notice that theres only one thing screwing with the planet (us), and eventually, the planet will get rid of us if the planet sees us as enough of a threat.

I do believe the earth is alive, and I believe it will do the same things WE do once we find parasites living on our skin; we get rid of them. We don't live in harmony with them, but rather we kill them. I bet the earth has already 'thought' about this option and is coming close to considering the option.

Wow. Yeah, this isn't going to happen. Our planet is in no way, shape, or form aware. But we do live here, so it is to our own benefit to keep our habitat clean and livable.

 

[KCDAD]

Not being a scientist, I am interested to know who the "boss" is of someone writing a research paper. In reality, I suppose, scientists don't get fired, since they write a paper and submit it to journals. If it's rubbish, it doesn't get published, but I'm not aware that they have a "boss" to answer to.

Who is the boss? The one funding him thru grants and or contracts... do you think they write this stuff and do the research on spec?

 

[Upisoft]

Not being a scientist, I am interested to know who the "boss" is of someone writing a research paper. In reality, I suppose, scientists don't get fired, since they write a paper and submit it to journals. If it's rubbish, it doesn't get published, but I'm not aware that they have a "boss" to answer to.

Scientist don't live via photosynthesis. It's obvious they also have been payed. Also the amount of money for any given scientific area is limited. There are some private business that sponsors some of the research (I mean generally), but most of the money come from the governments. Now it will be stupid to think that the number of scientists will not be limited by the amount of money available. Also, it will be stupid to think that a single scientist could get all the money and work alone in a single area. Therefore there must exist some kind of bureaucracy that is responsible to control the number of scientist and how money are distributed. I doubt that tis controlling organ is self appointed. It looks more reasonable that who pays the bill appointed them. That is the "boss" structure.

I doubt if any scientific journal will publish any paper of an independent scientist, especially in an area where vast amount of money is spent for super computers. If the guy present really nice climate model, but the calculations are made with some kind of PC, they will most probably laugh and return the paper to the sender.

 

[Upisoft]

And do you somehow think that's incorrect? But, perhaps more importantly, what makes you think scientists might not, you know, underestimate this effect?

Simple... The CO[sub]2[/sub] continue to solve in the ocean water.

Also, the "higher global temperature -> higher ocean temperature" step requires vast amounts of time.

Also, the "higher ocean temperature -> less solubility of CO[sub]2[/sub]" step is also doubtful. No one can predict the solubility by a single number. If the oceans become somehow considerably warmer, then the area that effectively absorbs CO[sub]2[/sub] will move to north (or south in southern hemisphere). That area may also become larger or smaller and that is more significant factor than some abstract mean ocean temperature parameter.

Of course, but I work with scientists every day. I understand what drives a scientist, and what the professional pressures are. Lying is one of the absolute worst things a scientist can ever do in his research.

Working as a fast food clerk is worse. I mean if you have spend all that time in college/university to study.

 

[Chalnoth]

Simple... The CO[sub]2[/sub] continue to solve in the ocean water.

Also, the "higher global temperature -> higher ocean temperature" step requires vast amounts of time.

Also, the "higher ocean temperature -> less solubility of CO[sub]2[/sub]" step is also doubtful. No one can predict the solubility by a single number. If the oceans become somehow considerably warmer, then the area that effectively absorbs CO[sub]2[/sub] will move to north (or south in southern hemisphere). That area may also become larger or smaller and that is more significant factor than some abstract mean ocean temperature parameter.

And why, pray tell, should we think that you know better than people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate? The best you've come up with so far is you think there's some monstrous global conspiracy, being perpetrated independently by every government who is funding research on global warming, and every group studying global warming. Why does this seem likely to you?

 

[KCDAD]

And why, pray tell, should we think that you know better than people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate? The best you've come up with so far is you think there's some monstrous global conspiracy, being perpetrated independently by every government who is funding research on global warming, and every group studying global warming. Why does this seem likely to you?

Dedicated their lives to studying the environment???? You make it sound like the quest for the Holy Grail. They took a job in research (probably because they couldn't hack medical school or they don't work well with others) and their boss wanted them to study climate.. it is a job like cooking french fries or selling shoes or teaching in a university. Do you think we actually teach what we want to teach when we get a job at a college? It takes years before you get the academic freedom to create your own courses... your boss determines what you teach. I am constantly getting curricular updates, certification requirement changes and new regulations about the amount of homework, tests or whatever... sure there is some leeway for academic freedom, but I still have to cover the chapters in the approved text.

 

[FishFace]

Scientist don't live via photosynthesis. It's obvious they also have been payed. Also the amount of money for any given scientific area is limited. There are some private business that sponsors some of the research (I mean generally), but most of the money come from the governments. Now it will be stupid to think that the number of scientists will not be limited by the amount of money available. Also, it will be stupid to think that a single scientist could get all the money and work alone in a single area. Therefore there must exist some kind of bureaucracy that is responsible to control the number of scientist and how money are distributed. I doubt that tis controlling organ is self appointed. It looks more reasonable that who pays the bill appointed them. That is the "boss" structure.

As far as I am aware, a researcher asks a body to fund his new project into X. They give him some money, he carries out the project, and sends his conclusions of for peer review. You are now suggesting, am I correct, that if he finds "no Global Warming," then unless he lies and says, "Global Warming," he will not get funding next time? I would like to see some evidence if that is truly what you are suggesting.

I doubt [...] probably

I'm afraid those were the bits that stood out.