The Climate Change Hoax

Also, Im not argueing for nor against Global warming. Im simply stateing that the method of funding for science in the US and much of the world "encourages the continued study of global warming" When the NSF ONR and NOAA stop funding global warming studies and start funding global starvation studies you will start hearing about global starvation ( this is of course an example )

K9

 

Kay9 a good case well put

 

I think you'll have to back that statement up a little better before I'll accept it; I truly doubt that 'almost all of the truly great finds in science have been done on almost no funding.'

Your fingers are getting a little tangled in misspellings today, aren't they? I've had days like that...

Which will most certainly not mean that global warming has been proven to be the last great hoax, or that global starvation will be the next.

The fact that certain subjects get studied more or less, depending on the interest and funding available, doesn't mean the results are necessarily inevitably slanted towards some predetermined goal.

I don't believe the interest in climate change is artificially driven by available funding; I believe the interest is there, and the funding made available, because there are some dramatic changes going on in the world around us at the moment.

This thread started with a claim that climate change is an actual hoax, not simply that the interest in it is driven by a desire for scientific funding. I don't buy it.

 

I find it puzzling that some of us simply cannot grasp the fact that this planet is a Biosphere .

A biosphere has physical dimensions. It follows , by logic , that it therefore occupies a finite area , volume , and , capacity.
The introduction of pollutants upon a closed system with finite capacity must therefore have effect.

The river below is a simple (if graphic) example of an environment of finite capacity ,
that has suffered from the introduction of pollutants and its effect..


Why it so difficult to understand that our planet also has finite capacity ,
and therefore is also subjected to effect ?

 

Troy2000: I think that your statement that if the claims by global warming were a hoax, then there would be no integrity or real scientist, therefore it can't be, rather weak on logic. There have been very few true scientists in history. The large majority are technicians that follow current trends, fads and political agendas.

 

That's another grand, sweeping generalization that's easy to say but impossible to back up, except by providing your own narrow definition of a 'true scientist' and dismissing all the rest as mere technicians.

Those technicians are the backbone of science. Don't dismiss them so lightly. Without the endless hours they put in, the occasional flash of scientific genius or insight would be mostly useless.

The idea that thousands of scientists worldwide in different countries and different fields are all working together to foist a hoax off on the world is preposterous on the face of it. In the first place, a conspiracy on that scale, involving so many disparate fields and nationalities, would be almost impossible to organize and keep moving, much less keep under wraps.

I'm amazed that I should even need to say such a thing once, much less repeat myself. Getting back to one of my earlier posts, some people posting on this subject do honestly remind me of Creationists who are convinced the theory of evolution is merely a Godless conspiracy. While they're passionately marshalling their arguments and agreeing with one another, the scientific community merely goes about its business....because evolution became an integral part of the warp and woof of science a long time ago.

I think climate change is going to turn out the same way. The people who passionately disbelieve it aren't going to change their minds, but the general scientific community will eventually just pass them by.

 

Go back and read history.

Scientists .....technicians .....meaningless semantics.

Who cares who " discovered " something of substance ?
....
It may as well have been a rank amateur , accidentally stumbling upon something.

The discovery and knowledge gained is what counts .

 

lets face it 6 billion plus people on earth carving it up and burning fossile fuels and discarding toxic waste has no affect what soever on the ecology and weather

dam tree huggers

 

...and yet another example of fascist arm-twisting.

 

Here's an interesting review of a book written by someone who was there at the beginning of the man-made climate change debate, and has been involved in it ever since. Stephen Schneider was the mathematician who helped produce a paper comparing the effects of aerosols v. the effects of greenhouse gases, back in the '60's. Since the primitive mathematical model used didn't include reactions in the stratosphere, the paper concluded the net effect of human activity would be a cooling of the climate, and might even result in a new ice age. According to Schneider it therefore underestimated the results of the greenhouses gases by 50%. People have been claiming ever since that the one paper is somehow proof of a scientific consensus in those days for global cooling that was equal to the thousands of papers available today showing the opposite.

No, Schneider doesn't break down and admit climate change is a hoax (although as a consolation prize, he apparently beats up on environmental groups a bit in the book). He also discusses the sort of bare knuckle give-and-take that has now been highlighted by the leaked emails we're talking about. It's an interesting review, for anyone who has an open mind and isn't just looking for more ammunition to sling. And it makes the book sound like a good read.

The title is Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/225205/page/1

 

troy

listen to what kay9 wrote about the funding of researches and studies in the US... he is spot on there and it is exactly the way scientific work is done and funded in - at least - your country...

i know that from a good old friend of mine who is working now for more than 10 years in the US at different universitys...
it is the way kay9 explained and you said yourself that there is no real science then... very true!

if the funding for scientific work is dependent on their findings than it is really hard to get any new findings... but it is the case...

 

Troy, you are arguing against a straw man. No one (well, almost no one) is claiming the existence of a global conspiracy (for that matter, most creationists don't believe in a real conspiracy either). What people are arguing for is normal human vanity, greed and error combined with a set of circumstances that combines with said human attributes to lead in the wrong direction. You keep trying to turn this into a claim of mysterious cabals in order to discredit people without having to actually debate the facts.

I expect that practically all scientists who are global-warming alarmists really, truly believe in global warming. Just like those poor saps who killed themselves over a comet a few years ago really believed that the comet was a space ship come to take their souls home. And they really don't think they are doing anything wrong, when they fudge a little here or there to save the planet and help ensure continuation of their grant. A lot of it is judgment anyway. Don't you believe a Scientist can have his opinion swayed by self interest or prior intellectual commitments like a mere mortal?

Let me ask you a hypothetical: Dr. Brainy the Scientist hires you for the day. You put on a belt that he gives you and he leads you over to the edge of the roof. You are on a twenty-story building. He tells you to jump off to test his anti-gravity belt. You ask him what sort of tests he has done before on this remarkable belt and he tells you he has only used it a microscopic scale before, but according to his theories, it should work. In fact he has published his theories and the broad consensus of scientists is that they are correct. Are you going to jump or are you going to insist on a test with a crash dummy first?

Here's a clue: scientists have almost never been right the first time when they predict how a completely unknown thing is going to turn out. It's always a process of trial and error. Too many people forget that error part.

Climate models have failed to predict what is going to happen even a few years in advance. None of them predicted the cooling trend that we have experienced over the last 11 years. Hell, weather prediction is not very good even a few days in advance. But we are supposed to have complete confidence in them when they tell us that they know what will happen in fifty years? Really?

No, really?

 

When people call global warning a "hoax,' rather than a mistake, they're claiming that scientists are deliberately working together to lie to us. That fits the definition of a conspiracy very nicely, I'd say.

Yes, I'm quite aware that scientists are human. They can make mistakes; they can fudge data for reasons of vanity or just to bolster what they believe; some of them do engage in actual fraud. But they aren't quite the pack of lemmings they're being portrayed as, nor as a group are they as lacking in ethics or as stupid as some folks want us to believe.

Short-range weather prediction has nothing to do with tracing and predicting overall climate trends, any more than not being able to predict the next coin flip invalidates probability theory. I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh on the radio one day a few years ago, carrying on because there was six inches of snow on the ground somewhere after an early storm, and treehuggers were still claiming global warming was real.

As a matter of fact, Rush is a classic example of the way some people have politicized climate change. Liberals and elites believe it, so it's wrong and has to be torn down and destroyed.

I listened to him last week as he claimed the emails are final proof that government, science, academia and the media are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to push global warming, as a mechanism to destroy our freedom and take control of our lives. He has somewhere between 12 and 14 million listeners a week, depending on which figures you want to believe, and a scary number of them think his word is Holy Writ.

 

Troy:
I will agree on some points you have made here. No there isnt a "conspiracy". Yes there are some people such as Rush Limbaugh that have some very strange ideas.

However.
I think its arrogant of us to believe that we could have any real impact on our Biosphere ( as one poster put it ). Lets stop and think about this for a second. There are at present over 100 active volcanos in the world today. (source http://www.vulkaner.no/v/volcan/nvolalfa.html)
These volcanos put more CO2 into our atmosphere every year then all of mankinds CO2 production in the past 10 years.

There is even some doubt now that the Impact in Mexico that caused the KT boundry was big enough to have depositied a layer of dirt 2" thick world wide.

That gives you pause. A mountain 5 times the size of Mt. Everest crashes to earth, and makes a crater 150 miles large. Moves the water of the Gulf of Mexico into the Midwest of the US and its still not enough to cause a 1-2" dust trail world wide? ..Wow.

Please dont get me wrong. I love science. I work with the guys and gals that do this work and I know for a Fact that they care very much about thier work and this planet. But its science, science dose not mean absolute truth.
It means the continued search for the truth. And wile I will admit that there is some evidence pointing to global warming, I will also admit that there is a lot of unknowns and a lot of contrairy evidence as well.

Most of us here are not scientist. Most of us ( myself included ) are engineers in one since or another. As such most of us are wired to believe in hard facts, and I think we often forget that scientist dont work that way. Science is and allways has been based on assumptions ( the Hypothisis ) and the search for proof to your assumptions. Albert Einstine said " Just because there is no proof that dosnt mean your wrong."

K9

 

A very small input can make a very big difference sometimes; it can shove things past a tipping point. For example, changing the temperature of a jug of water one degree doesn't really change much--unless that one degree lowers it to the freezing point, or raises it above. In which case it makes a dramatic difference.

I don't quite see the relevance of the asteroid strike. It's like saying, "hey. this guy got whacked on the head with a rock, and it didn't kill him. So how could a virus hurt him any?"

You're right; nothing ever reaches the point of 100% certainty in science. The only place you'll find that is in Holy Scripture. Instead of proving a hypothesis is true, the best science can generally do is say, "to this point, it has not been disproven." But there comes a time when conclusions are firm enough to be acted on. That's what the current debate is about: have we reached a point where there's enough evidence to act?

If the scientists are wrong and we act to reduce climate change anyway, what's the long-range damage to the world and to society? Now look at the other side of the coin: what happens if they're right, we could have made a difference, and we didn't?

I'm not a scientist, and I don't have any definitive proof of anything one way or another. But I think a belief that scientists in league with various villains of one type or another are deliberately deceiving us is dangerous. That's far beyond healthy skepticism.