Global Warming Revisited

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Who are the 97% ?



Quote from link posted:



Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."



Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."



We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.





Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ

So it took me all of 30 seconds to google the answer. The 97% comes from climatologist polled. I mean, that makes sense right?

Let me ask you something IH, if there was a serious question theological question being asked, who would you want polled? Serious educated theologians or atheists? If there was a best practice car maintenance question being asked, who would you want polled? Mechanics, car part corporations that have an interest, or a bunch of Joe Schmo(s) that have Google?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

I find it funny that in my little rant... I just guessed that it was an atmospheric scientist poll that came to 97%.

Because, you know, a biologist is a scientist who 99 of 100 times doesn't see a damn second of coursework on atmospheric sciences. To ask them what they think wouldn't be anything more than hearsay, on most occasions. And I'm not picking on biologists... the same thing goes in reverse, and in all directions. I don't know shit past a sharp understanding high school biology.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I'm just not buying the popular chant that the science is settled.

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
--Isaac Asimov

[Oregoropa]

"Follow the Money"

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

"Follow the Money"

To Exxon.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

To Exxon.

There is much more money being pumped into the Climate Change Industry by environmental groups, left wing foundations, and government agencies (who are chomping at the bit to reap the benefits of a carbon tax).

There is more money available to climate scientists through government grants to fund research in the direction of a changing climate. The science has been politicized and monetized.

Way back in the thread I explained my experience. I have a BS in Atmospheric Science and took courses in climatology. The instructor and guest instructor for my classes were skeptics. One was very vocal and has appeared in national media. But if the one had voiced any opinion against the current dogma he would have been stripped of his title as State Climatologist. Much like what happened to skeptic and state Climatologist of Oregon George Taylor several years ago. Basically professionals can be blacklisted. And why? Because it all comes down to money.

This article shows the money flowing to scientists on each side of the argument.

'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research - Forbes

[LuckyNumber7]

"Climate change industry."

Good one.

Actually, what you're witnessing is called "capitalism." An opportunity for business because something opens the door. That doesn't make the science fabricated. You end up sounding unnecessarily like a conspiracy theorist.

[Irvine511]

And said "climate change" industry is dwarfed by the fossil fuel industry, as well as automobile manufacturers, aerospace, etc.

[LuckyNumber7]

Yeah. Aside from bankers and Walmart, I'm pretty sure oil companies are the biggest companies in the world in terms of cash flow.

[anitram]

Depends on what you mean by cash flow, but generally yes.

The world's most valuable company (by far) is an oil company.

[LuckyNumber7]

Yeah that's what I was going after... the amount of money they're worth. The buying power. Wasn't really trying to be super precise, just making a point that whatever the fictitious "climate change industry" is... that argument doesn't hold up if someone tries to claim "vested interest."

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

There is much more money being pumped into the Climate Change Industry by environmental groups, left wing foundations, and government agencies (who are chomping at the bit to reap the benefits of a carbon tax).



There is more money available to climate scientists through government grants to fund research in the direction of a changing climate. The science has been politicized and monetized.



Way back in the thread I explained my experience. I have a BS in Atmospheric Science and took courses in climatology. The instructor and guest instructor for my classes were skeptics. One was very vocal and has appeared in national media. But if the one had voiced any opinion against the current dogma he would have been stripped of his title as State Climatologist. Much like what happened to skeptic and state Climatologist of Oregon George Taylor several years ago. Basically professionals can be blacklisted. And why? Because it all comes down to money.



This article shows the money flowing to scientists on each side of the argument.



'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research - Forbes

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/22...referrer=&_r=0

Oh hey, one of the main climate deniers in the media and in science was found to have taken $1.2 million from fossil fuel companies and then didn't disclose the conflict of interest in violation of the ethical guidelines of many scientific journals.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the average salary of a climatologist to be around $89,000 with a range of $49,000 to $135,000. So which side has more money for researchers?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Not to mention that there is no opposing "side."

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Not to mention that there is no opposing "side."

Well the scientific debate is settled, but the political one is still raging.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

My neighbor smoked a pack a day and lived to be 98
coacked to death on a burrito

tapatalk, it works

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

Well the scientific debate is settled, but the political one is still raging.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Oh I know. I meant there was no "other side," from the business perspective, competing with the oil companies. There is no "climate change industry."

[the iron horse]

I listened to a two hour interview with Patrick Moore.
All of this "climate change" propaganda is all about money and power.

His website:Home

From his site:

Patrick Moore on how to stop worrying and love Mother Earth - Part 1

Dr. Moore: No. I do not believe alarmism and fear are the correct responses even if our emissions are causing some warming. In particular I do not believe it makes sense to adopt policies that would obviously cause more harm that the supposed "catastrophe" that might be caused by warming. The proposal to end fossil fuel use in a short time frame with no alternative is a classic example. Many of the so-called "cures" for climate change would cause more damage to the patient that the so-called "disease".

The climate has been considerably warmer throughout the history of modern life (550 million years) for most of the time than it is today. These were the Greenhouse Ages, often lasting 100 million years or more, when all the land was either tropical or subtropical. Not that many millions of years ago Canada's Arctic islands were covered in sub-tropical forests. There was no ice at either pole. The sea was considerably higher. Life flourished through these times. They will say that humans are not adapted to such a warm climate, ignoring the fact that humans are a tropical species, and would not be able to live where there is frost without fire, clothing, and shelter.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

All of this "climate change" propaganda is all about money and power.

And the "climate change is a myth" propaganda isn't? Deny the truth and vote Trump 2016


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Moser]

For those who want to know the science better, there is no better literature review than the IPCC Assessment Report 5. Every few years, the UN has asked the field to put together a report of the current science and state of climate change. This is the latest one.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

If you have questions about the more technical parts, feel free to ask. I'm familiar with most of the general concepts, but still have a lot to learn when comes to some areas i.e. geology/atmosphere coupling to name one. I find the whole climate change science a bit boring because it mainly analyzes large spatial and temporal scales, while I'm more interested in the nitty gritty of cloud microphysics.

I would definitely take a read. Many scientists put aside their research for a few years to consolidate these reports, and since many fund themselves through public sector grants, it's not like they're compensated a whole lot for the kind of work they do in the first place.

[Moser]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

All of this "climate change" propaganda is all about money and power

That's news to me. I just took a class with one of the leading climate scientists in the nation (he shares the Nobel Peace Prize with co-authors of AR4). He lives in a little Midwest town in a small little home and drives a Toyota. His office has one window in a small two-story building that was supposed to be constructed for temporary use, but instead has been used as the home of a leading center of atmospheric scientists since 1987.

Now if you wanna see an office, you have to go walk across the street to the engineering mall. Now that will make you think money and power.

Dr. Moore: No. I do not believe alarmism and fear are the correct responses even if our emissions are causing some warming.

No, it's not obviously. And no scientist is saying you should be scared, but rather we ask "What do you need to know about climate change?"

Many of the so-called "cures" for climate change would cause more damage to the patient that the so-called "disease".

Like?

The climate has been considerably warmer throughout the history of modern life (550 million years) for most of the time than it is today. These were the Greenhouse Ages, often lasting 100 million years or more, when all the land was either tropical or subtropical. Not that many millions of years ago Canada's Arctic islands were covered in sub-tropical forests. There was no ice at either pole. The sea was considerably higher. Life flourished through these times. They will say that humans are not adapted to such a warm climate, ignoring the fact that humans are a tropical species, and would not be able to live where there is frost without fire, clothing, and shelter.

Who's saying the human species would go extinct? It will certainly have serious challenges, such as feeding the world, substituting non-renewable energies for renewable, relocating massive populations from rising sea levels, and working around changing zones of precipitation and drought.