Humanity is causing Global Warming, for sure.

That was fun. :) Hadn't watched it before.
 
CavLancer said:
We'll see what the future holds is an MO? Okay...:)
Click to expand...
Your opinions haven't changed since last year. How long does it have to keep warming before you'll accept that the next ice age isn't right around the corner?
 
brennan said:
Your opinions haven't changed since last year. How long does it have to keep warming before you'll accept that the next ice age isn't right around the corner?
Click to expand...

:p It isn't warming. Just a small point to make here, we are in an ice age. All of the Holocene has occurred in one. The return from the interglacial to the next period of glaciation is seemingly inevitable, but what I'm concerned about is a much more common solar minimum. If solar cycle 25 is as low as anticipated then we will reasonably see one or the other.

These things happen once in a while even without humanity doing much, or even existing. If we don't exist its not our fault, right? :D
 
Its been crazy talk so long that I can't even remember when it began.
 
1998

That's when the American Petroleum Institute hired a PR firm...
...to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a $5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"
Click to expand...

Skepticism is healthy. But this isn't skepticism. It's obfuscation.

If you buy into the whole "the science isn't settled", then you're a victim of that initial $5M investment.
 
I also seem to remember a Petroleum industry report on the likely effects of global warming (notably the NW passage) and how to profit by it.
 
You guys know what the G stands for in IPCC of course. :D Intergovernmental. You want corruption of science don't forget the scientists being hired to prove the case, and think of the b i l l i o n s involved. If man is absolved of anything but a minor fluctuations in naturally occurring climate change, what happens to the jobs of all those scientists? What happens to their kids going to Harvard? Their fancy new mortgage? The sporty BMWs they are toolin around in?

Little wonder that in a ten year slight cooling period they find warming. Little wonder the haphazard and bizarre claims of doom meant to scare the masses into paying, paying, and keep paying. Look to Russian scientists who aren't getting paid, see what they say.

Corruption abounds, certainly. Look to the folks who aren't getting paid for their results on either side and pretty soon you'll be calling deniers the folks that deny the reality of what's actually happening.

However that's really hard to do. They make mocking videos about you, though funny. ;) Insults go both ways certainly, but mostly to the folks who believe as I do...and now threats of course. Its a lot easier just to go along to get along...but nah. :)

Science is the victim in all this. I just hope that no serious increase in volcanic activity gives them something to point at and say, "We were right, but now we have volcanic cooling, so keep paying because that will wash out and then it will be really hot!" But, I expect with the changes in solar magnetism that increased volcanism is just what we're going to get.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7skdzlH2bk&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ
 
CavLancer said:
Look to the folks who aren't getting paid for their results on either side and pretty soon you'll be calling deniers the folks that deny the reality of what's actually happening.
Click to expand...

Challenge: demonstrate that most climate change deniers aren't funded by industries that stand to lose money if carbon emissions become a liability.

I know there are a couple reputable scientists (part of the 3%), but that's the point. When the oil industry is funding just about every contrarian voice, you have to ask why?

So please do some research and complete this challenge. Show us that there are a majority of denialist researchers who DO NOT recieve money from the industry. That would give this movement some validity.
 
I'm a busy guy Peter. Why don't you demonstrate that many IPCC scientists haven't fallen to the fear of job loss? Not easy to do is it?

Just consider what happens to scientists who change their view based on their actual findings. :dunno: Logic...
 
CavLancer said:
I'm a busy guy Peter. Why don't you demonstrate that many IPCC scientists haven't fallen to the fear of job loss? Not easy to do is it?
Click to expand...

good point, it would be about as easy as basing an argument on the fact that they have fallen to the fear of lossing their jobs :mischief:
 
Think about the scientists that change their positions, they are canned. They are called deniers, ridiculed. Why would they do that? Integrity. :dunno: Logic.
 
CavLancer said:
Think about the scientists that change their positions, they are canned. They are called deniers, ridiculed. Why would they do that? Integrity. :dunno: Logic.
Click to expand...

dunno... maybe you could give us an example and we could then look at it
 
peter grimes said:
Challenge: demonstrate that most climate change deniers aren't funded by industries that stand to lose money if carbon emissions become a liability.

I know there are a couple reputable scientists (part of the 3%), but that's the point. When the oil industry is funding just about every contrarian voice, you have to ask why?

So please do some research and complete this challenge. Show us that there are a majority of denialist researchers who DO NOT recieve money from the industry. That would give this movement some validity.
Click to expand...

This.

The hypocrisy is disgusting.

Government grants are highly competitive and there's way way more money to be had in the private sector - coal, oil and gas in particular. I should know, I'm consciously sabotaging my own career prospects by refusing to consider working in oil and gas. If science could be bought the proportion of contrarians would be way more than 3%.

The consensus in favour of AGW, which is something that 97% of people don't want to hear because it means actually doing stuff to fix things, in the face of entrenched opposition from the actual rulers of the world - the energy industries - shows to me that the system works.

For people who call themselves skeptics they're sure mightily selective about what they're skeptical about. Not skeptical about the claims of fellow skeptics. Not skeptical about their agendas.

And that NASA letter? None of the signatories have anything to do with climate science.
 
It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.
Click to expand...

I myself always wonder about whom to blame for that other "smaller half" of the warming.


http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
Click to expand...

Do the climate models explain these odd spikes and plunges in temperature?
These threads on CFC tend to have so much information I can't find an answer when I get a question.
 
CavLancer said:
http://www.theclimategatebook.com/scientist-fired-for-becoming-climate-change-skeptic/
Click to expand...
I'll get back to him as he is mentioned in your last link
These from NASA spoke up once they were no longer employed there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
Click to expand...
a very impressive and long list of former employees not one of which is a climate scientist and not one of which was canned for changing their views...
Silencing the Global Warming Skeptics


http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html

CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM CLAIMS YET ANOTHER VICTIM-cut and paste, sorry about caps
Click to expand...

again a beautiful list and very long, eventually I did find a climate scientist,(not a politician or economist) Dr David Evans was not canned but has changed his mind, he now wants to be a rocket scientist? but he also gets paid big bucks from a think tank and lectures for more bucks on the evils of AGW,also he is proficient ''on science, climate, and money and gold" know your audience...
http://sciencespeak.com/ so it really is off the point of scientists being canned or bribed or pressured to tow the AGW line, but if I missed the example you alluded to please enlighten me.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/13/Climate-McCarthyism-claims-yet-another-victim
Click to expand...

finally an example of a climate scientist getting canned, except that he was canned for disagreeing with an agenda bais think tank, after 23 years of taking their money, it is shocking if true, what sort of person would expect to be paid for working for an agenda bais think tank and not uphold their views, I think that we should both disreguard think tanks as scientificly unbias from now on...

and then their is Professor Lennart Bengtsson, from your first link
His sacking follows the persecution last month of Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish meteorologist and climatologist who decided to resign his position at the Global Warming Policy Foundation after being harassed by climate alarmists for his "incorrect" views on man-made climate change.
Click to expand...

another example of some one who works for a think tank and was harassed, googling reveals that harassment to be climate scientists, backing out of joint research or joint authorship after he joined said think tank not after he changed his views, which he says he has held for a long time, so someone not wanting to be linked to a bias agenda think tank is not really harrassing him, common sense says you should not expect other to want their work linked to such think tanks though....

I'd be quite happy to examine an example, maybe you are right,and I'm missing something, but please just limit it to one example of a climate scientist getting canned for changing his/her views
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Samson
  • Poll Poll
Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?
18 19 20
Replies
389
Views
24K
amadeus
amadeus
T
How To Fix Civ 7
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Krikkit1
K
F
The Eternal Peace
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Fins
F
E
[BTS] Cradles of Civilizations: 232x112 Equal-Area Accurate Map Earth Equatorial Islands Scenario
Replies
0
Views
562
Expansist
E
UncivilizedGuy
Historical Timeline Project
Replies
11
Views
4K
UncivilizedGuy
UncivilizedGuy
Back
Top Bottom