Global Warming Scam

[varwoche]

The "Global Warming" schtick ... All that's happened is that a certain selection of climate scientists, with a certain set of theories, have been thrust into the spotlight because their predictions are friendly to government action

Sounds downright conspiratorial.

Do you think this is happening in the US? If yes, what mechanisms are used to skew the science? And do you have specific evidence?

 

[varwoche]

did the peterson manuscript that goes with the NOAA abstract appear any where?

Not that I found. It's frustrating when government funded studies aren't available to the public free of charge (which is often the case even if not in this instance).

 

[gurugeorge]

Sounds downright conspiratorial.

I doubt it's a conspiracy, it's just Postmodern Transnationalist Leftist Boomer networking.

Do you think this is happening in the US? If yes, what mechanisms are used to skew the science? And do you have specific evidence?

It's worldwide. I don't think the science is skewed, it's just one particular scientific view that it has become politically correct to believe in because it fits in with the whole idea of intellectuals gaining control of the economy and taking it away from those bad, greedy businesspeople.

Sorry I don't have time to gather evidence to support my ex cathedra pronunciamenti, which I tossed in partly for fun. However, this is my honest impression from following some of the debates since the 80s.

For instance, anyone who thinks (as many ordinary people I've spoken to think) that the IPCC is representative of the opinion of a healthy majority of climate scientists in the world is mistaken. Newspapers often trumpet "x hundred climate scientists in the IPCC think yz about global warming", but IIRC there are only a dozen or so actual climate scientists on the IPCC, the "hundreds" bulking up the numbers are politicos of one sort or another.

Like that.

Anybody who's been interested in science will know how convincing a theory can be, or how convincing evidence can be, yet it can be wrong. "Global Warming" looks convincing to many at the moment, but I think this is an illusion due to fashion. Check back with me in 20 years (If we live that long ), and see if I am not a prophet beloved of the gods!

 

[Oleron]

I'm not saying that GW isn't happening or isn't our fault. I'm no expert but the evidence seems to suggest that GW is real. I'm just saying that it is a short term issue as fossil fuels will simply cease to be a problem in the future.

I think that the bulk of our efforts to combat GW would be best employed in hastening the end of the fossil fuel age by the discovery and development of new technologies, rather than doing nothing but hiking up pointless taxes.

Taxation is a lazy, unintellectual and ineffectual answer to any of the problems that GW poses (or might pose).

 

[varwoche]

it's just one particular scientific view that it has become politically correct to believe in because it fits in with the whole idea of intellectuals gaining control of the economy and taking it away from those bad, greedy businesspeople.

I live in the US. (You?) To suggest that this government has an agenda that is somehow biased towards GW is disconnected from reality as I know it.

For instance, anyone who thinks (as many ordinary people I've spoken to think) that the IPCC is representative of the opinion of a healthy majority of climate scientists in the world is mistaken.

I take it then that you can cite some recent, peer-reviewed scientific studies that indicate that humans do not significantly contribute to warming?

Anybody who's been interested in science will know how convincing a theory can be, or how convincing evidence can be, yet it can be wrong.

Sounds like faith based psuedo-skepticism.

 

[gurugeorge]

I live in the US. (You?) To suggest that this government has an agenda that is somehow biased towards GW is disconnected from reality as I know it.

The US government has acknowledged GW as a fact IIRC.

I take it then that you can cite some recent, peer-reviewed scientific studies that indicate that humans do not significantly contribute to warming?

No, and I've never beaten my wife either.

 

[oponol]

The "Global Warming" schtick is going to turn out, in retrospect, to have been the scientific Tulipmania of the late 20th - early 21st centuries.

All that's happened is that a certain selection of climate scientists, with a certain set of theories, have been thrust into the spotlight because their predictions are friendly to government action, and contribute to a media sense of emergency which sells newspapers. If a big enough fuss is made, and a big enough sense of politically-correct emergency can be created, governments can thrust themselves forward as our saviours, and waste even more of our money on slowing our economy down even more.

There's going to be a lot of embarrassment in 20 years' time. Or maybe not; the defeat of Communism didn't leave many of its supporters embarrassed at the end of the 80s, they just blithely carried on as if nothing had happened, and have now transferred their affections to Islamism. Nothing is going to come of "global warming", but its supporters will simply find another bunch of obscure scientists with a prediction of doom, and thrust them, blinking, into the limelight.

20 years ago they were saying this. 10 years ago they were saying it. You are just repeating what contrarians have been predicting for decades. "Just another 5 years", they tell us, "and temperature will start to fall again". So far no luck. The anthropogenic theory looks stronger with each passing year

 

[Buckaroo]

This thread has turned into a game of whack-a-mole, hasn't it? The more Deniers are refuted, the more new ones pop up, repeating the same tired, hoary old points.

'Twas ever thus, I suppose.

 

[carlvs]

Sounds like faith based psuedo-skepticism.

No, it's more like greed based psuedo-skepticism.

 

[a_unique_person]

The US government has acknowledged GW as a fact IIRC.



No, and I've never beaten my wife either.

Funny that, neither have I.

 

[Ceritus]

This thread has turned into a game of whack-a-mole, hasn't it? The more Deniers are refuted, the more new ones pop up, repeating the same tired, hoary old points.

'Twas ever thus, I suppose.

Im not denying it, I just think we need more evidence.

You sound almost like a religious person calling on those who do not believe in god.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, he sounds like an atheist calling for proof of god, you sound like a creationist denying evolution, and calling for more proof.

 

[varwoche]

The "Global Warming" schtick ... a certain selection of climate scientists, with a certain set of theories, have been thrust into the spotlight because their predictions are friendly to government action

Nothing is going to come of "global warming", but its supporters will simply find another bunch of obscure scientists with a prediction of doom.

Obscure?

Because a bunch of our so-called intelligentsia think they and people like them would do a better job controlling the economy

Their real aim is simply to take the "captains of industry" down a peg or two.

Sorry I don't have time to gather evidence

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Anybody who's been interested in science will know how convincing a theory can be

The US government has acknowledged GW as a fact IIRC.

Well duh, so has everyone else on the planet except for a few wingnuts.
--------

I hope this summary helps explain how I gained the impression that you are a conspiracy theorist.

(I must say, nutty though these posts may be, I do enjoy your good humor.)

 

[Ceritus]

No, he sounds like an atheist calling for proof of god, you sound like a creationist denying evolution, and calling for more proof.

No I never claimed Gw was not happening, I do not claim human beings have had or not had any part in it at the moment. I am just saying there isn't enough data to conclude either yet.

How much CO2 erupts out of a volcano during a large eruption? How much CO2 does the average human being produce? How much CO2 does an average tree absorb?

 

[a_unique_person]

Fortunately, the scientists have been asking all those questions, and finding the answers out. For some reason, they are way ahead of you.

 

[lenny]

Im not denying it, I just think we need more evidence.

climate is an extrapolation problem with inertia: there will never be "enough evidence" until it is far too late (if there is ever evidence).

and the cost of delaying action can be huge.

i think the stern report did a pretty good job of telling the tale; certainly in his presentation of the report nick stern in no way underplays the uncertainties, he just argues that the relative cost/lost is enough to justify action now. (and repeatedly notes that the uncertainty may well mean that real impacts are much "worse" than expected.)

this is science, not engineering.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indep...conomics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

 

[Ceritus]

Seriously though, what is the worst thing that could happen? Lets deal with the risks rather than trying to promote something with insufficient evidence.

So the earth is hotter than it ever has been in the past 400-1000 years, woop de do right?

Even if it was hotter now than it ever has been in the past 4million years! Still not all that hot right? considering how long the earth has been around?

I for one don't plan on living by the shore 300 years from now. Buy beach front property in Nevada haha!

Global warming is good for the earth but bad for unprepared people. Prepare them no?

 

[Ceritus]

All in all though the only reason I have a problem with any of this is because of what I pay in taxes. Although as long as they are not increased to do more things to help the environment I really don't care as it will have no effect on my personal life. I refuse to recycle. I only use a fuel efficient car because its cheaper and I am not rich, if I ever became rich I would be glad to drive a bus around to cart my family and I around.

This is all old hat. I doubt I will ever really start caring about the environment any time soon as long as we have the indoors to work with.

 

[a_unique_person]

Seriously though, what is the worst thing that could happen? Lets deal with the risks rather than trying to promote something with insufficient evidence.

So the earth is hotter than it ever has been in the past 400-1000 years, woop de do right?

Even if it was hotter now than it ever has been in the past 4million years! Still not all that hot right? considering how long the earth has been around?

I for one don't plan on living by the shore 300 years from now. Buy beach front property in Nevada haha!

Global warming is good for the earth but bad for unprepared people. Prepare them no?

I care about the world my children get.

Here in Australia the current drought has been changed in classification from 1 in 100 years to 1 in 1000 years. This is unprecedented, with many accepting that this is not just a drought that comes and goes, but a permanent change in climate. That is water is going to be much scarcer. Rainfall when it comes will be a lot less usefull, as runoff will be reduced. That is, when the ground is dry, the runoff into dams doesn't work until the ground the rain is on is soaked. For the projected 30% reduction in rainfall, we will get, say, 50% less runoff. The droughts will be much more severe.

 

[Ceritus]

Fortunately, the scientists have been asking all those questions, and finding the answers out. For some reason, they are way ahead of you.

You mean "other" scientists and ofcourse they are, I am just a mere meteorologist. I am not a climatologist although I do use climatology for forecasting at least for the short term.

I get paid to forecast the weather and send out met records.

Why would I bother doing something I am not paid to do when it comes to something as pointless as GW?

Global warming is a political scam and any intelligent person knows it. Yes it is happening and no we really have no definitive reason as to why it is happening and yes it has happened numerous times before!