nvm

[luiz]

So you're implying that industrial conglomerates have smaller vested interests than climatologists, to whom the benefits of 'winning' are far less tangible?

It's much easier to continue with old established ways than come up with and adapt to new ones. So maybe the fact that industrial conglomerates don't really try to counter these scientists is because what the latter say is, by and large, true, and not because they are winning in some sort of a deceitful political game? I just don't see how and why the industrial conglomerates would surrender if this is merely a battle of propaganda.

The industrial conglomerates "surrendered" because they realized they can continue to pump as much CO2 as they want as long as they pay lip service to "Green" causes and preferably donate some millions to GW research.

The oil companies are a good example, as ainwood mentioned. Instead of trying to fund skeptics, as they did in the past, they now pretend to be devoted to fighting GW and even donate to warming alarmists. But have they fundamentally changed their ways? Of course not. It makes for great TV adds, though, and if they can score some publicity points and avoid a bitter fight with the environmentalist lobby all by "admitting that there is a problem" and donating a few millions of bucks every year, why not?

Again, I am not saying there is a GW conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies that big. I do believe in personal interest, though, and it is obvious that nowadays many of the leading climatologists make a living, and guarantee their research funds, with highly alarmist literature aimed at shocking the public and government (and thus making them more likely to open their pockets). They do have an interest of keeping the skeptics away from the "mainstream", as widespread skepticism could compromise their funding and even their careers.

I also do believe that AGW is real, we do have evidence to reasonably assume so. But can we effectively measure how significant it will be over the next decades? NO!. Can we decently estimate the economic impact of the warming, and whether the net result will be positive or negative? NO!. The IPCC should admit at least as much if it wants credibility.

 

[aelf]

The industrial conglomerates "surrendered" because they realized they can continue to pump as much CO2 as they want as long as they pay lip service to "Green" causes and preferably donate some millions to GW research.

The oil companies are a good example, as ainwood mentioned. Instead of trying to fund skeptics, as they did in the past, they now pretend to be devoted to fighting GW and even donate to warming alarmists. But have they fundamentally changed their ways? Of course not. It makes for great TV adds, though, and if they can score some publicity points and avoid a bitter fight with the environmentalist lobby all by "admitting that there is a problem" and donating a few millions of bucks every year, why not?

But if it's plain that the climatologists are alarmist hacks, why bother to change tack like that, even if it's ultimately an empty gesture?

I imagine that funding skeptics would be far less expensive than putting money into new more 'environmentally-friendly' initiatives. How much can a bunch of scientists working in your camp cost v.s. researching and developing some massively expensive new technologies?

If it's true that some people on the internet can, as they think, successfully debunk the climatologists' claim, then surely this would be a trivial matter for conglomerates that are so wealthy and that would profit much more from the status quo?

Again, I am not saying there is a GW conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies that big. I do believe in personal interest, though, and it is obvious that nowadays many of the leading climatologists make a living, and guarantee their research funds, with highly alarmist literature aimed at shocking the public and government (and thus making them more likely to open their pockets). They do have an interest of keeping the skeptics away from the "mainstream", as widespread skepticism could compromise their funding and even their careers.

I also do believe that AGW is real, we do have evidence to reasonably assume so. But can we effectively measure how significant it will be over the next decades? NO!. Can we decently estimate the economic impact of the warming, and whether the net result will be positive or negative? NO!. The IPCC should admit at least as much if it wants credibility.

Even so, shouldn't compelling possibilities be enough to make us reconsider our ways? We're so used to basing our future actions on economic predictions that have repeatedly let us down. Surely the suggestion that we listen to people with a significant amount of scientific evidence, even if they cannot predict the future with certainty, shouldn't be that shocking.

 

[Mise]

They do have an interest of keeping the skeptics away from the "mainstream", as widespread skepticism could compromise their funding and even their careers.

Except there are already far, far more "sceptics" in the general public than in scientists... The scientific consensus is absolute on the issue of AGW. The general public mistakenly believe that there is some kind of "debate" around whether humans caused temp. rises among climate scientists -- that simply isn't true, because only a tiny, tiny minority of scientists disagree! Keeping sceptics out of the mainstream media simply reflects the fact that in scientific circles, there's virtually no-one who disagrees with AGW. There is no reason to give marginal, fringe views a disproportionate share of media attention. 3 minutes a year might be about right.

 

[Angst]

The motive is very simple guys. Scientists benefit the government by creating "scientific" proof of whatever problem and government uses it as an excuse for more taxes and regulations. Its not that it is some secret conspiracy, just the intellectuals dont have much job oppurtunities other than government jobs so they naturally speak their tongue.

Ok, so this basically boils down to you not trusting government/governmental science and believing all government is a basis of corruption. I DID SO NOT SEE THAT COMING

Same thing as how priests were used to justify divine right of rulers.

No. Priests believed in whatever they believed in throughout most of history and acted on that. Your interpretation of previous Christian politics is based upon the (horrifyingly inaccurate) idea that the priests were at heart doing it because they wanted to stay in power and Christianity wasn't that important as a religion rather than a political means. But people actually believed back then - the priests didn't work against science because they would lose power, but rather that it ruined the idea of their divinity; aka science had to be Da Devil.

Religion differs from science because scientists need empirical proof to determine their own world view while a religion's world view usually is preset; you transfer the world view of priests (Preset, static, with the detail of attempts to hide information that would prove that world view wrong) onto the world view of the scientists (Everchanging dependant on the information they get). The so-called "motive" of the scientists is ridiculous to boot - The government where I live has high taxes already. Green taxes haven't been introduced in about ten years at minimum. Why the heck would they invest more money into a secluded conspiracy with the intention of eventually raising taxes a bit? Problems with that idea remain:

- If the opposing parties find out (And as governmental science is owned by government; ie not only one political party), the party's political stance goes down the sink.
- The money has to come from somewhere. Taking the money from schools would cause parents not to vote for them, from public transportation results in the lower class voting for somebody else, and the public health care would have everybody snap. Also, I know that one of Denmark's most important income sources are scientific discoveries (They tell us that at least), so even cutting down on public science budget to have an excuse for tax increase - won't go there. Your whole point is nonsense and easily read in your basic distrust towards public organizations.

This is especially apparent with mainstream economics, but exists elsewhere too.

Corruption? Yes, that exists in Western society. But not in the state. You might think about wherever that might happen.

EDIT: Also, this post was a genius:

There is no direct incentive to do so. And what you're suggesting is that there is a some kind of a conspiracy that includes all major scientific establishments, including most private ones, to simply provide excuses for "taxes and regulations".

Most governments do not pursue taxes and regulations simply for the sake of taxes and regulations as the idiotic, absurd libertarians insist. Government are not entities with inherent purposes or values, but they're defined by the politicians and populations that control them. And as such, most governments would have no incentive whatsoever to increase climate regulations or carbon taxes if they could go on polluting forever.

But, seriously, libertarians cannot really be debated with. Their view of politics are so deeply misguided.



But you just insisted, without any evidence -- certainly with none derived from these emails -- that there was a conspiracy.



That's a pretty dim view of intellectuals. There are plenty of jobs for biologists, climatoligists and so forth, for example in private agriculture or research and development.



No its not. These are scientists not priests.

Thankyou Princeps.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I also do believe that AGW is real, we do have evidence to reasonably assume so. But can we effectively measure how significant it will be over the next decades? NO!. Can we decently estimate the economic impact of the warming, and whether the net result will be positive or negative? NO!. The IPCC should admit at least as much if it wants credibility.

Actually, they already said as much (source: wiki), albeit in more technical language:

Impacts of climate change are very likely [greater than 90% probability] to impose net annual costs, which will increase over time as global temperatures increase. Peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost of carbon [Net economic costs of damages from climate change aggregated across the globe and discounted to the specified year] in 2005 average US$12 per tonne of CO2, but the range from 100 estimates is large (-$3 to $95/tCO2). This is due in large part to differences in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, economic and non-economic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses and discount rates. Aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions and populations and very likely underestimate damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.

Luckily, we don't need to know all the economic details to assess the morality of changing the globe's climate. It's not right to take a crap on someone else's lawn. If you've done so, you need to compensate them for their trouble. If the proper amount of compensation is unclear, come to a reasonable agreement or just stop causing the problem.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The scientific consensus is absolute on the issue of AGW.

Which, in and of itself, means absolutely nothing. Twenty years ago, almost everybody thought just the opposite. And the handful of scientists who claimed that anthro CO2 was a serious problem were considered to be the 'fanatics'.

Keeping sceptics out of the mainstream media simply reflects the fact that in scientific circles, there's virtually no-one who disagrees with AGW.

No, encouraging everybody who is in the least bit skeptical about the existing models and theories to do further research to help prove/disproof them is merely sound scientific practice. I doubt you can find any reputable scientist who would disagree.

There is no reason to give marginal, fringe views a disproportionate share of media attention. 3 minutes a year might be about right.

Because you must be right and they must be wrong. Because it has all been decided, and all the research that can possibly be done has already occurred. Because it is all now indisuptable fact, just like it was 15 years ago when the opposite was 'true'.

The mere fact that you and so many others are apparently so paranoid of any sort of skepticism about this issue speaks volumes. If you ask a lot of the current researchers about what they personally think, many will admit they have doubts about the current models, and the enormous number of uncorroborated premises and incomplete data which are now being used. That is how good scientists act. They are all skeptics, at least to some degree. When they stop being so, they stop being objective and are no longer willing to question anything, including their own beliefs.

To me, the answer is quite simple. We should be spending an enormous amount of money on basic research right now, far more than we are now doing. But that money should go to the skeptics as well as the 'believers' as it has in the past. Virtually everybody should be included in the peer review process as they once were. Scientific integrity demands it.

I know this will confuse the "sheeple" out there who don't understand the scientific method. The ones who need convincing that their preconceived notions may very well be all wrong. But if history is any guide, all that takes are a couple of really hot summers in Europe to convince most of them they are likely going to die in a few years if something isn't done right away.

 

[Mise]

You're raving about conspiracy theories with ridiculous aims and I'm the paranoid one

As a "government scientist", you should know the difference between questioning the intricate details of a complex model and questioning the broad and true statement, "global warming over the last 50 years has been caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels". There is overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming over the last 50 years has been caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels. Scientific research is constantly refining models; these research and refinements consistently support the above conclusion, that AGW is true.

It's remarkable, but hardly surprising, that the people in this thread who know very little about AGW don't believe that it's true.

 

[Leonel]

If it turns out that man made global warming was a conspiracy perpetrated by biased scientists for some unknown reason, we ought not to just give up on being environmentally conscious. I mean you wouldn't want your kid drinking a mercury petrochemical mixture in his/her water, right? I certainly don't want to be drinking mercury or breathing in chlorine gas.

 

[Princeps]

The individiuals that compose the government certainly have incentives to do so.

How would it affect them personally?

More taxes mean more money for their departments,

But that's not a personal incentive.

and more opportunities to launder money with private contractoring.

That's true. But that is largely a problem stemming from the private sector, not inherent to the government. private companies are allowed too much influence in government, often because of policies supported by libertarians. This is why big business supports small government libertarians and conservatives rather than "big government" politicians.

More regulations mean opportunities to create barriers of entry for industries in return for money from the industry leaders.

But this is obviously wrong. In the case of global warming and climate change, politicians would be much more inclined to support established industries, which are awash with cash, instead of any industries that would profit from policies to curb pollution, such as renewable energy companies and experimental technologies and manifactures, which are still pretty small infant industries. This is because major industries can and do handsomely reward dissent from the scintfic consensus. Yet, social scientists went against people in government, especially during the Bush days.

And those individuals exchange deals and cooperate with social sciences to ensure decent PR and so the objective is fulfilled.

I am still inclined to think that the idea that mainstream intellectuals and academia is a "statist lapdog" single minded propaganda machine or even generally inclined to support government policies. Most of the academia isn't libertarian, but that's not suprising: most of the world isn't either.

I dunno much about the global warming and issues involved thing at all to be honest

So, why did you make this thread and the claims you wrote?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You're raving about conspiracy theories with ridiculous aims and I'm the paranoid one

Exactly what "conspiracy theory" would that be? That more basic research is needed before making huge economic sacrifices which may do nothing to actually fix any real problem?

:As a "government scientist", you should know the difference between questioning the intricate details of a complex model and questioning the broad and true statement, "global warming over the last 50 years has been caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels". There is overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming over the last 50 years has been caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.Scientific research is constantly refining models; these research and refinements consistently support the above conclusion, that AGW is true,

I personally think that is the case. But there are a number of notable experts in the field who would disagree. You know, the people you want to slience except for 3 minutes per year.

:It's remarkable, but hardly surprising, that the people in this thread who know very little about AGW don't believe that it's true.

"It's remarkable, but hardly surprising, that people in this thread" erect strawmen such as this instead of addressing the real issues.

You apparenlty have no problems that objective scientific integrity has been compromised in an effort to 'sell' this to the public as a problem of overwhelming proportions which we must react to immediately, if not sooner. We simply don't know enough yet about many basic scientific questions to promote knee-jerk reactions which may emperil the global economy for the next few centuries without doing much more objective basic research in the matter before doing so. You apparently disagree.

If it turns out that man made global warming was a conspiracy perpetrated by biased scientists for some unknown reason, we ought not to just give up on being environmentally conscious. I mean you wouldn't want your kid drinking a mercury petrochemical mixture in his/her water, right? I certainly don't want to be drinking mercury or breathing in chlorine gas.

Tell me about it. I'm living downwind from a coal-fired power plant like millions of other people. I don't want them to be able to buy carbon offsets while continuing to ignore the well-known problem. I want them to stop polluting! Then we can discuss whether CO2 can really be classified to be a pollutant, and how big of a future threat it really is to the planet.

 

[Mise]

The vast, vast majority of scientists agree on AGW; "sceptics" represent a tiny minority. Yet this tiny minority (the size of minority that votes for the National Front or believes that the moon is made of cheese) generate a HUGE amount of publicity in the media! They aren't being "kept out" of the media -- quite the opposite! They're being propelled directly into the limelight on a scale that's so utterly disproportionate to the academic weight of their opinions. The consensus in the scientific community is clear and indisputable. Yet most people still think that there is some doubt about AGW. The reason is because those tiny minority of sceptics get a ridiculous amount of airtime and newspaper space.

The people doing the selling over the past decade were the right wing of Western politics, who don't want their extravagant lifestyles disrupted by pesky things like flooding and destruction of arable land in the third world. It's the right wing of Western politics that lacks the intellectual integrity to make an objective assessment of scientific fact.

 

[El_Machinae]

20 years ago, there was consensus of warming risk. It is why we had Kyoto

 

[JerichoHill]

This isn't evidence of a conspiracy. It is evidence of authors attempting to sex up their paper so its more likely to be published. Unethical, yes, but hardly evidence of a worldwide conspiracy.

I had never ever heard of this university until this occurred.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ah, you take exception to the decades-old far-right propaganda campaign to discredit the notion it may even be a problem. People who take these experts largely out of context to promote their own agenda. Well, who wouldn't?

Yes, there is obviously consensus in the scientific community that AGW is a problem worth researching.

Once again, my problem is with politicizing it all, at least at this stage. One of these experts who are now being excluded may very well be key. We don't need to be excluding anybody from the process who used to part of it - just the opposite. We need to be hiring anybody who is in the least bit competent to do research in this field, regardless of what their own personal views may be or who once interviewed them.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend to think that anthropomorphic global warming is probably real, but often blown out of proportion. It would probably be wiser to adapt than try to stop/reverse it, not that we shouldn't try not to make it worse. It is probably better to focus on other environmental issues though.

In my Environmental Engineering class Tuesday the professor said that one significant cause of global warming in our lifetimes has been a reduction in pollution, specifically a reduction in ash and particulates that had been causing global dimming in the middle of the 20th century. Environmentalism made global warming worse, although the overall effect was positive.


Cap-and-trade and carbon offsets do not seem like a good way to go. I don't like the idea of a supernational body regulating such things, or of governments setting hard caps at all. I'd prefer ecotaxes which could be levied on CO2 emissions but should be much higher for other pollutants. Eco-tariffs would be essential, and other nations would be encouraged to levy retaliatory eco-tariffs of their own.

(CO2 equivalencies don't make a whole lot of sense to me, as different greenhouse gasses absorb different wavelengths. Although methane is considered a very strong greenhouse gas, it only absorbs a small amount of radiation in a narrow wavelength that it just so happens nothing else absorbs.)

 

[innonimatu]

The entire decade was above average in temperature!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

That particular dataset also shows no real year-on-year increase in temperature after 2001, only very small variations around the same value, except for a bigger dip in 2008. No noticeable trend for warming. Which was my point. And which contradicts the public discourse, and the IPCC models, about continued global warming.

We know the temp is above average, because all around the globe, ice continues to retreat.

The surface water reached a peak high.

Granted, this does support the theory of an ongoing global warming, but the sea level has been increasing at the same rate since records have been kept, from about 1870. That's not supportive of the theory of an accelerating, man-caused global warming. And I wouldn't discount the possibility of other causes for these changes of sea level.

The Sun is at one of its lower levels of heat output.

Too bad we don't have any good data on past (before the mid-20th century) sun activity to compare against the present values. Another unknown variable...

I'm with Seon. It doesn't make sense for scientists to be hiding information like that - their whole job is to find out what's happening, and besides with the number of scientists working on it that information would have come out fast.

Yeah, right, and politician's jobs is to serve the citizens. Meaning that the theory is often very different from the reality, and one such case is the behavior of researchers. Once they invest significantly on the "children", their papers and theories, most will do anything to defend them again any challenges, from simple dirty office politics to forging, or just hiding, data. There are no lack of examples of that, one recent notorious one being that south korean guy who had gotten himself into a position where he could control all research on his field going on inside Korea. His fraud was unmasked by people outside his reach who tested his methods and found that what he had published was false. And that only many years after the fraud.

In this "Global Warming" case outside verification has been made impossible by the refusal, by the authors of the climate models, to publish their raw data. The most damning of the leaked mails were those about intentional deletion of data in order to evade requirements for disclosure of that data. And also those where they talk about taking over the editorial board of journals and blocking critics from publishing.

@Mise: several of the scientists involved have already acknowledged the authenticity of the emails, going as far as discussing the context for the exchanges. By now it seems that the whole collection of files is genuine.

This isn't evidence of a conspiracy. It is evidence of authors attempting to sex up their paper so its more likely to be published. Unethical, yes, but hardly evidence of a worldwide conspiracy.

I had never ever heard of this university until this occurred.

Which just shows how a relatively small group of people can control the "Global Warming" agenda, with the world at large taking no notice of the fact. The people involved in this are the most influential "climatologists", who have pretty much dictated the official IPCC reports and influenced government responses. They're also the gatekeepers into the community of "respected climatologists": young researchers will either present papers agreeing with their agenda, or not get published at all in the "reference journals" of the field, I suspect.

Do keep in mind, also, that this university has collected and afterward controlled the release of much data used by other researchers. Whose research will be only as good as the data they've been trusting...

 

[Mise]

Ah, you take exception to the decades-old far-right propaganda campaign to discredit the notion it may even be a problem. People who take these experts largely out of context to promote their own agenda. Well, who wouldn't?

Yes, there is obviously consensus in the scientific community that AGW is a problem worth researching.

Once again, my problem is with politicizing it all, at least at this stage. One of these experts who are now being excluded may very well be key. We don't need to be excluding anybody from the process who used to part of it - just the opposite. We need to be hiring anybody who is in the least bit competent to do research in this field, regardless of what their own personal views may be or who once interviewed them.

Sorry, I think I leapt to conclusions about your actual position! You're right, politicising issues is a bad thing. In this case, though, I think the problem is that it's been pounced on by the right in the same way evolution has - ignoring scientific evidence in order to protect their personal beliefs and way of life. Polarising the issue in this way will of course lead scientists to "defend" their findings in a way that seems as though it shuts out other views -- when in fact, scientists are constantly refining models based on new evidence. By forcing scientists to "defend" their research, it pits scientists against the linguistic gymnastics of politicians; most scientists are nowhere near as naturally persuasive or charismatic as politicians, who define their entire careers on being able to persuade the public to vote for them. It is a sad fact of life that the most persuasive and convincing people are often the most sleazy and backstabbing people too - not just politicians, but estate agents, used car dealers, and con-men. Scientists, OTOH, spend their entire careers pursuing the truth. And, very often, the truth isn't particularly appealing. "What? We used to be monkeys?!?! Pff, what a ridiculous notion!" "Wait, you mean I can't drive my 6.0L V10 anymore, or else third world farmers will suffer droughts and starvation? Hah! What nonsense! Must be part of some big conspiracy of some sort...."

In an ideal world, people would just believe the truth. But this isn't an ideal world. This is a world where politicians have been bought by oil companies and industry, who will do everything to prevent their way of life being jeopardised and their profit margins being eroded. And in that world, politicians who haven't had been seduced by blissful ignorance and mega bucks have a duty to convey to the public the academic consensus on AGW. This means that they pick the most persuasive and most convincing -- i.e. the most politician-like -- scientists to interact with the press, write article in newspapers, and represent scientists in conferences with politicians. And, sad fact of life, these people often have a nasty backstabbing streak -- hence these emails.

It's unfortunate that the world works this way, but given that it does, it's hardly surprising to find emails like that floating around. The best we can do is understand that AGW is real, that there is a global academic consensus on that fact, and that it is too devastating to ignore. It won't go away just because of some hacked emails.

 

[innonimatu]

In an ideal world, people would just believe the truth. But this isn't an ideal world. This is a world where politicians have been bought by oil companies and industry, who will do everything to prevent their way of life being jeopardised and their profit margins being eroded.

That's funny, because I'm seeing many industrial companies going down recently. Financial companies, however, seem to be doing wonderfully, states are willing to go bankrupt before they allow banks to go down.

And the whole "global Warming" issue is one where (most of) the industry's interest and the financier's interests collide. The first will be asked to pay a tax on a virtual "product" (CO2 licences), the second stand to make hundreds of billions of euros arranging the trading of that utterly useless virtual product. So you're basically calling for a "conspiracy" against AGW by "the industry", and ignoring that politicians are currently owned more by bankers that by industrialists. Ignoring that a huge fraud, another bubble built on worthless assets, is being prepared. But I've long noticed that you always defend and promote the "financial industry".

 

[Mountain-God]

And it still seems to defy some.

If we radically change over 70% of the Earth's surface/ landmass...

If we vastly reduce forestation, and increase production of carbon dioxide and methane...

But let's not even argue about 'global warming'.

It's all going to have some affect right?

Isn't it the prudent thing to do, the intelligent thing, to actually reduce the impact we're having?

 

[Mountain-God]

That's funny, because I'm seeing many industrial companies going down recently. Financial companies, however, seem to be doing wonderfully, states are willing to go bankrupt before they allow banks to go down.

And the whole "global Warming" issue is one where (most of) the industry's interest and the financier's interests collide. The first will be asked to pay a tax on a virtual "product" (CO2 licences), the second stand to make hundreds of billions of euros arranging the trading of that utterly useless virtual product. So you're basically calling for a "conspiracy" against AGW by "the industry", and ignoring that politicians are currently owned more by bankers that by industrialists. Ignoring that a huge fraud, another bubble built on worthless assets, is being prepared. But I've long noticed that you always defend and promote the "financial industry".

It's the same thing though.

Profits are corporatised - expenses are socialised.

There are a lot of people doing business now they way they have been for a hundred years or more.

Making a lot of money, but not actually paying the full cost of their activity.

Did anyone see a Jack Black movie where he invents 'Vapoorise'?

'It's magic! Where's the 'poo' go?! Who cares!'