Thread: Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Originally Posted by Monash

Actually all jokes aside I have been following the thread for some time but it has gotton quite long and what with work and renovations (as I write I have a kitchen stacked around me in pieces and holes in every wall) there are lengthy gaps when I don't get to visit WAB or any other forum for that matter. So going back to the beginning to "catch up" is a bit of an ask. In any case my point still stands I think. I can't recall seeing a logical/cogent reason for large numbers of professional scientists to engage in what amounts to fraud. Let alone an explantion for why such a conspiracy wouldn't eventually break down due to the sheer impossibility of to coordinating such an endevour on a world wide basis. And thats forgetting the fact that at some point the deviations between the fraudulent data and reality would become so blatant that it would collapse anyway. (Even Enron could only "cook the books" for so long before it all turned %#$t! So still waiting I think. ... Cheers

Why do you assume it would take a large, coordinated effort?

The controversial part of the IPCC report was authored by a relative handful of scientists, who were referencing their own work and as lead authors were given the power to reject criticism of their own work!

Once it published it's part of the literature, and it's the "authoritative report"

You think every scientist referencing the IPCC report is checking it first?

Very recently, a paper was published in J. Climate that documented a flaw in the ERA-40 analysis which "leads to significantly exaggerated warming in the Arctic mid- to lower troposphere" This ERA-40 analysis has been referenced over 2000 times in literature, yet nobody found this problem until now. It didn't take a large coordinated conspiracy to get it wrong. It just took a flawed analysis by a few people that was accepted and not checked to invalidate 2000+ papers.

All you need is a few people to get it into the literature, which is much easier when the same few are "peer reviewing" their own work, and it spreads.

Eventually, actual science catches up and problems are revealed. But it's a slow process and even slower when it's as much a divisive political issue as a scientific issue, as AGW certainly is.

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
(Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth - Both IPCC Lead Authors in the above mentioned IPCC report. You don't need thousands of willing conspirators when the power to shape the report their way is given to only a few)

"The theory of "global warming" is however ultimately provable/disprovable via the application of the scientific method and can be subjected to scientific and/or statisitical analysis."

Do you actually follow the published literature? Do you actually know what is being argued in the literature regarding GW and what is and isn't contested? If not, then how would you know what has and hasn't been disproved? And who has to tell you for you to believe it?

The theory of Eugenics was ultimately provable/disprovable via the application of the scientific method too, yet despite having no actual scientific evidence to support it it was very popular and well supported by activists, politicians, institutions, and scientists.

Was it a giant, well-coordinated conspiracy? How did it happen? How much damage was caused before it was thrown away as rubbish?

The world has been down this path before. No need to speculate on motives and entertain conspiracy theories. Just read some history.

Originally Posted by Monash

Gunnut, I considered the money idea but in the final anaysis it does't pan out. More money for atmospheric science doesn't equate to better financial rewards for individual scientists in the field. For example does an increase in the defence budget equate to significantly more money in the hands of individual soldiers? The answer is almost always no, oh they might benefit indirectly through a various defence procurements but would that be enough to radically change the individuals behaviour. Would soldiers [I] as a group [I] conspire to engage in dishonourable or dishonest conduct in the hope that the organisation as a whole would benefit.Obviously not - the risk for the individual outweighs the reward.

Soldiers would be a bad comparison. They don't do research.

Let's compare that to say...immunologist or the evil pharmaseudical company. What would happen if someone, or some company, to come up with a magical immunization that defeats the common cold? I mean, no more cold, sniffling, flu, fever, blah blah blah. They'd be out of a job and will need to find something else to research on.

What happens if I were a researcher on global climate, and I conclusively prove our planet is the same as always, there is no need to worry about man-made climate change/global warming/hokey pokey? I'd be out of a job. If I were smart, I'd say something ambiguous. There could be a link between the current weather and climate phenomena, we don't know the exact link. We "think" it might have something to do with the CO2 in the air, warming the air, or maybe warming the ocean, possibly El Nino/La Nina. We just don't know. I will present my findings and I can't give any definitive answer until further data is gathered and analyzed. But that could take years.

Boom! Job security!!!

Let's contrast this to the other scenario. There is no link between CO2 and the weather. Earth is just fine. Can I have some money to research on something that is of no consequence to the world?

Yeah, good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Monash

The same thing applies to any large organisation, profession or group. There has to be significant financial benefits for the individual before they change their behaviour. I've forgotten the name of the principals involved but they have been identified by ecomomists and behavioural scientists. The problem is that scientist in the field don't benefit enough personally to make the effort worthwhile. (Unless for instance they worked a group with a vested interest in achieving a specific outcome and in this case the only examples I can think off would be scientists employed by the fossil fuel industry! So you could make a stronger case for scientists being paid to fake data disproving global warming science than you can for scientists being paid t try and prove it! (I'm not saying this is happening by the way - just that I can't see a way for the scientists to benefit significantly the other way.)

What do "scientists" do? How do they make their living? How does anyone studying rain/snow/wind pattern make money? Why would I fund someone to do that research? Most "scientists" make their living on grant money. Someone has the money and interest to find out more about what they do, so they give them money. You said so youself. Fossil fuel industry employs geologists because they want to know where to find energy source. There's money to be made. Studying rocks doesn't make money.

Likewise, studying the weather doesn't make money. But finding a way to prevent global catastrophe does make money. Those with money will want to find out how to prevent the loss of money. That's where the money is.

Originally Posted by Monash

When you increase research into climate change you hire more scientists you don't increase the pay of the ones you have already (at least by much). So I don't see money cutting it as a motive unless as I think I mentioned once before they all have shares in wind turbine factories

Sure. Some one will need to manage them. I, as the senior director of the global climate research institute, will need a staff, a car, and 1st class tickets on airlines so I can attend all-expense-paid conferences in Cancun and Bali during the winter. During my absence, I will leave the affairs of the institute to my 2 vice senior directors. They will oversee the 37 scientists, their assistants, and interns, working for the institude.

Originally Posted by Monash

So if money doesn't cut it on a individual basis what does? And remember when it comes to scientific fraud on the scale required - we potentially talking serious jail time here for anyone caught doing this. Governments do NOT have a sence of humour when it comes to people scamming them for significant aamounts of public funding. (It looks bad at election time).

But it's not fraud. They simply did not have all the data available at the time they published their report. They will need more time to gather more data, hire more people to do more analysis, to see if their last report was correct. Of course someone will need to manage these extra people that I would like to hire at my global climate research institute.

Originally Posted by Monash

Having chased criminals for a living for many years now I am sure of one thing - its all about the money and the smart ones don't work for peanuts!

There you go. Now you know why Al Gore is so desperate to push his global warming agenda. I'm not saying Al Gore is "smart" or anything... He's just smart enough.

Originally Posted by Monash

In conclusion if money is to be argued as the motive someone has to be able to show/chart significant cash flows on a global basis into pockets of climate scientists and I can't see that happening so ... what motive does that leave?

They are employed right now. Are they not? What would they do otherwise?

Originally Posted by Monash

The two situations aren't comparible. Religious belief by default cannot be proved/disproved via scientific means. The existence or nonexistence of God cannot be proved or disproved via the application of the scientific method, neither can he??? be measured or subjected to statistical analysis. The theory of "global warming" is however ultimately provable/disprovable via the application of the scientific method and can be subjected to scientific and/or statisitical analysis.

My point was that if you wan't to go down the "Global warming is a conspiracy" road you have to come with a motive - and I havn't seen a convincing one yet. You want to disprove it - go for broke but do it scientifically.

On the other hand if you want to disprove the existence of God try studying theology, philosophy, theory of mind and consciousness etc and then be prepared to debate the issue with someone who disagrees, setting aside a reasonable period of time in which to do so (say from the beginning of the universe as we know it to the end) and still not reach a definitive answer!

Alternativly you can simply wait until you die and then find out for yourself.....

Your original two assertions were based purely on numbers, not science,

Originally Posted by Monash

...why the vast majority of the world's climatologists, geophysicists, atmospheric scientists and members of various related disciplines...

Originally Posted by Monash

I can't recall seeing a logical/cogent reason for large numbers of professional scientists to engage in what amounts to fraud.

as such your argument has nothing to do with science and everything to do with faith. My rebuttal stands. If on the other hand you wish to discuss the science, there are plenty here to address your issues.
Cheers

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Your original two assertions were based purely on numbers, not science,



as such your argument has nothing to do with science and everything to do with faith. My rebuttal stands. If on the other hand you wish to discuss the science, there are plenty here to address your issues.
Cheers

But...but...but...we have a concensus...

...and it feels good to think you're saving the world dammit!

You can still recycle and feel like you're doing Geia a favor.

There is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and significant. That consensus is evidence in favor of AGW. It is not sufficient in and of itself, as very popular scientific theories have been proven wrong (and not just incomplete) in the past. But it is evidence, especially for those of us who do not have sufficient knowledge to judge all avenues of evidence, or the time to gather and analyze that evidence.