At risk of beating a point to death, climate reasearch before any concept of Global Warming became known to the public, was an obscure field of little significance to anyone, nobody cared what the temperatures were two hundred or a thousand years ago nor would any organizations or governments have any cause to finance research.
Research was funded. It was that research which led to initial concerns that significant climate change could occur as early as the mid-21stCE.
When it becomes Climate Change Research, the people who enter the field have personal motivation to do so because they already feel man is harming the planet.
That's a ridiculous statement. People enter the field for all kinds of motivations - one of which being that climate change is going to be big feature in the world throughout their careers. That should guarantee them work and finance their SUV's and rug-sized TV's. To pigeon-hole everybody who enters a field which overlaps with oceanography, glaciology, geology and planetary physics as some sort of greenie-hippie carrying a chip is frankly ludicrous.
They don't get steered into the major in college on a whim or because they needed to fill a class spot for credits. Said individuals often assume environmentalism with near religious passion and wouldn't think they were doing anything wrong at all by compromising research. They are on a noble cause.
What evidence do you have for these slurs?
You could argue that so are people who want to seek a cure for cancer, but here's the rub there. There is no disputing cancer exists.
There's no disputing the climate exists.
Curing one form of cancer leaves many more left to cure. Conversely some time ago there was considerable controversy about Global Warming. I find it highly unlikely that 15 years ago, anyone who did not believe man was harming the planet and warming the earth, would have entered the field of Climate Change Research. Why would anyone make their life's work something they don't believe in? Do atheists enter the seminary to become priests?
Why would anyone bent on a career in science have doubted fifteen years ago that AGW was going to emerge in the near future? The physics is conclusive. The "controversy" was ideologically driven, not scientific. Unlike your imaginary greenie-hippies with no integrity the likes of Singer, Lindzen, Spencer and Christy have made no bones about their ideological motivations. As Spencer said in Australia (where he was engaged in a political propaganda campaign against carbon-pricing), "As a scientist my job is to limit government". Christy doesn't believe his god would allow AGW, so it's his job to disprove all the proper science.
It surely hasn't missed your notice that AGW has happened. It's here, in the early 21stCE. Earlier than was regarded as "alarmist" fifteen years ago.
So this results in a situation today where everyone doing the research was already a believer before they even began the research. Why else would they be in the field? As opposed to people seeking a cure for cancer, that is an entirely different and objective field.
So your whole argument is that
everyone who got involved since Thatcher brought the AGW issue onto the world stage is ideologically motivated and is faking data. Meanwhile you argue that there's no conspiracy and yet all this faked data ends up matching. Weird, huh? Almost as if all the data was being read off the same reality.
Nobody in Climate Change Research got into the field to disprove a need for their own life's work.
Then you have the simple equation of money.
If the consensus on Climate Change reverses, the funding dries up, the field again becomes obscure and significant. Instead of having a voice which speaks and people listen, nobody pays attention to them.
If AGW reverses then we'll all breath a sigh of relief but physics dictates that it won't. Climate research is a job for life, just as IT was when I chose to study that in the 70's. Reality is not being made up. All the national science institutions in the world are not being led astray by a massive but unco-ordinated global fraud perpetrated by
junior scientists. Your world is a fantasy nightmare, nothing to do with the actual one.
ll of these fall into the most fundamental of human faults- the influence of power, fame, money upon people.
Yes, let's talk about Watts, McIntyre, Monckton, Curry, Lindzen, Muller, Bellamy and all the rest of the media-whores who constitute one side of the "controversy". On the side of science we have people like Mann who has been so hysterically promoted by the aforementioned media-whores to a state of unsought prominence. And court action. And threats of imprisonment, impeachment, stripping of his scientific licence and who knows what all else by people with as garbled a world-view as yours.
The ideologies of people-be it religion or a passion to reverse the damage they believe humans have done- causing them to compromise other principles because the ends justify the means.
What evidence do you have for these slurs?
And on that you have to understand that I am NOT a denier and the earth may be warming- but I think the larger problem here is all the people promoting the science have this "sit down and shut up, we know what we are doing" attitude but it's obvious from the current trends of global GGE that they don't.
You don't know what a trend is, clearly. Lots of people think they do, but lots of people think all kinds of nonsense. Nonody's being told to shut up (apart from Canadian scientists), and in fact anyone is welcome to produce valid climate science. They can put it on the internet themselves - there are plenty of well-funded blogs that will carry it.
There just isn't any. AGW is real and it is happening.
You'll defend the science as perfect but I don't think it is.
Don't try to predict what a normal mind will do. Of course the science isn't perfect but when it's being done by thousands of people all over the world it's not going to be fraudulent.
You'll insist the policy will work but so far it hasn't.
See above. No normal person thinks there even
is a "policy", let alone that it has worked in any way.
And in fact there is good rationale to correlate the policy to increased warming IF that's the case.
The actuality has been the continued use of fossil-fuels in amounts that make significant AGW absolutely certain. There never has been a policy, apart from the policy of commissioning reports at ever increasing intervals. There never could have been. China and India weren't going to surrender the fossil-fueled rout to development for anything they could be offered, and no treaty was going to be ratified by the US Senate. They won't even ratify the Law of the Seas. NATO was only ratified because senators were told it stood for New American Territories Overseas.
There is no policy, never was, and ain't ever gonna be.
Is there really the luxury of allowing the third world's per capita emissions to reach that of the US before measures that will stabilize GLOBAL GGE are implemented?
If the third world's per capita emissions matched the US they woudn't be third world. They'd be first world, like the US now. What the US will be by then is anybody's guess.
Of course there isn't, that's absurd. And in fact it doesn't take a degree in economics to figure that if such an equalization were taking place, corporations and profiteers would exploit it and accelerate the warming by accelerating the industrialization of the rest of the world.
And this is the UN's primary mission. You've given them the reins of global warming policy now too. Don't be surprised it turns out to be a disaster.
The UN doesn't have the reins of anything. It is utterly powerless. The UN's mission, its absolute foundation, is to stop war. That's what it was created to do. Not much progress yet.
It provides the only global institution we've got, which means many matters have been brought under its aegis. Where climate policy is concerned it organises the forum, that is all. The sovereign nations of the world hold the reins of their individual policies
vis a vis AGW and energy policy.
Dismiss the UN as some powerful beast with a secret agenda. I know the image is popular in some circles (the sort that think the UN once banned DDT) but it's patent nonsense.
!) is saying this.
? So is O2. H2O, etc.
. 