[WeatherOp]

http://www.desmogblog.com/science-committee-slams-industry-funded-climate-science-attack


I wonder how many of those scientists were bought and paid for by certain industries. So yeah, what kind of research have those guys done?

Ah, a breath of fresh air on Capitol Hill today. Was it the spring air? Nope, it was a Congressional Subcommittee hearing today questioning industry efforts within science agencies, like NASA, NOAA and the EPA, to control federal scientists and confuse the public around the science of global warming.

Ahhhh, sweet sweet exposure.

I'm still waiting on my check. 

But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?

[Flipside]

I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.

The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.

The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.

[karajorma]

But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?

They're all hippies. Where would they get the money?

[WeatherOp]

But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?

They're all hippies. Where would they get the money?

Drugs, dur. 

[perihelion]

According to my observations, the industry and military will employ the best of the classes and have far more demanding tasks. This is simply because you cannot do business by being stupid and making big mistakes in the analysis, so you might as well call them even better qualified than University researchers.

As someone who has a foot in both academia and the oil industry, can I just call bull****, please?  You get idiots and geniuses in both camps, to be sure, but it is a helluvalot harder for the idiots to hide in academia.  You are expected to publish peer reviewed articles; lots of them.  If you don't, you will not get tenure.  If your science is shoddy, it will eventually get caught (re: Hwang Woo Suk, cold fusion, etc.)  In industry, there are usually few to no peer-reviewed papers.  Your work will NOT receive public scrutiny.  It frequently won't receive much scrutiny within the company itself.  It is EASY to hide the fact you are incompetent when there is no one in contact with you who could also do your job.

[CP5670]

Although I agree with you in general, the standards aren't exactly great in the academic world either. Unless you're exceptionally good, either the peer review process involves having connections in the editorial committees or the nature of the subject is such that it's trivial to make up nonsense. Even in math, I've seen plenty of cases where a guy writes 5+ papers on essentially the same thing, just presented a slightly different way each time and spread out over a few years. Only someone familiar with the area would notice it, but that probably consists of less than 30 people in the world, most of whom are likely the author's friends anyway.

[Hazaanko]

I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.

The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.

The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.

I'd like to bring up a point I think interesting.  Apparently there is a relatively significant divergence of earth's surface temperatures vs its atmospheric temperatures --  With surface temperatures generally increasing, and atmospheric temperatures having a lower trend and in some cases cooling.  There is, of course, also debate on the methods of measuring these temperatures.  Stationary ground stations for the surface, and weather balloon & satellite for atmospheric.  I won't throw a huge wall of text to explain my view on the whole issue, but it seems to be solar activity causing much/most/all of the warming previously thought to be caused by greenhouse effect.  My reasons for believing this being: #1, Surface temperature of Mars as well as other planets are increasing on a parallel level, #2, solar activity has the tendency to warm surface temperature while having a much smaller effect on the atmosphere (even in the long-term) #3, the greenhouse effect theory supposedly conjects that atmospheric temperature should have roughly the same trend as surface temperature with little time-delay between the two.

Anyways, just some ideas to throw out there.

[Kosh]

But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?

With what? Green organizations are non-profit grass roots organizations that depends completely on donations from its members. Compare this with the billions of dollars the energy industry makes every year. "It's a vast green conspiracy", rrriiiiigggghhhhhttttt. Lets face it, they don't have the money or the power to do something like that.

[Hazaanko]

But, I'm just wondering, if the industry is paying scientists to be sceptics, could we also say greenies are paying scientists and people like Al Gore?

With what? Green organizations are non-profit grass roots organizations that depends completely on donations from its members. Compare this with the billions of dollars the energy industry makes every year. "It's a vast green conspiracy", rrriiiiigggghhhhhttttt. Lets face it, they don't have the money or the power to do something like that.

You'd be surprised how much some of these "Green organizations" make every year.  And they don't (contrary to popular belief) depend completely on donations from members.  Just google anything like "FavoriteEnvironmentalGroupHere to sue/sues."  You wouldn't even be able to read all the cases before you died of old age (or boredom).

Also, its not just the "Green" groups.  Much more so, the money comes from lobbyists, universities, TONS of foundation funds, and of course, government funding.  Its not a conspiracy theory because they're not trying to be secretive about it.  Its proudly presented all over the place.  Everybody is scrambling to be the next Captain Planet.

I was going to finish the thought, but I'm way too tired and about to pass out.  Cheers!

[Kosh]

I think it's interesting you say I am a conspiracy theorist for saying pretty much the exact opposite you are.

[Hellstryker]

I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.

The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.

The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.

I'd like to bring up a point I think interesting.  Apparently there is a relatively significant divergence of earth's surface temperatures vs its atmospheric temperatures --  With surface temperatures generally increasing, and atmospheric temperatures having a lower trend and in some cases cooling.  There is, of course, also debate on the methods of measuring these temperatures.  Stationary ground stations for the surface, and weather balloon & satellite for atmospheric.  I won't throw a huge wall of text to explain my view on the whole issue, but it seems to be solar activity causing much/most/all of the warming previously thought to be caused by greenhouse effect.  My reasons for believing this being: #1, Surface temperature of Mars as well as other planets are increasing on a parallel level, #2, solar activity has the tendency to warm surface temperature while having a much smaller effect on the atmosphere (even in the long-term) #3, the greenhouse effect theory supposedly conjects that atmospheric temperature should have roughly the same trend as surface temperature with little time-delay between the two.

Anyways, just some ideas to throw out there.

Well then yay, were still screwed. we DEFINATELY cant change things on a solar scale at this time

[jr2]

Who said we're screwed?  Why should global warming be a bad thing?  Hel-lo, there are frozen palm trees buried in ice in the Arctic, not to mention mammoths... oh, did I mention they were frozen with the contents of their stomach not having decayed!!??!!... something changed there... and appartently, we're on the other side of that event.

[Janos]

I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.

The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.

The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.

Ahh yes, the good old "Truth is in the middle"-fallacy. Yes, IPCC and other international huge scientific organizations are wrong, these news brought to you by Flipside from the internet!

[TrashMan]

You'd be surprised how much some of these "Green organizations" make every year. 

A LOT less than the big companies.

And they don't (contrary to popular belief) depend completely on donations from members.  Just google anything like "FavoriteEnvironmentalGroupHere to sue/sues."  You wouldn't even be able to read all the cases before you died of old age (or boredom).

How many of those cases do they win? Who pays for the procedure? Do they sue for money or to force some action? If for money, check what that money is used for.
 

Surface temperature of Mars as well as other planets are increasing on a parallel level

Nah, I don't know where you get this from, but there is no consistent increase on all solar planets. The temperature on Mars has risen somewhat, but is has actually fallen on some other planets. That said, given how little we know of those planets and their cycles, any increase/drop of temperature could very well be a part of their cycle, so any "evidence" derived from that is on shaky legs (to put it very mildly).

[Flipside]

I'd say that without a doubt, scientists are having a great deal of pressure put on them from those that stand to benefit from the outcome, regardless of which direction.

The answer probably lay somewhere in the middle, i.e. We are having an affect, but the environment was headed that way anyway.

The important half of that sentence is the second one, it's the one we really should start thinking about more deeply.

Ahh yes, the good old "Truth is in the middle"-fallacy. Yes, IPCC and other international huge scientific organizations are wrong, these news brought to you by Flipside from the internet!

Gosh! Did I actually say that I didn't necessarily agree with a large, scientific body that relies on funding? Unthinkable, maybe I should be put to death by stoning for daring to go against the 'flow'!

Do you realise where that kind of thinking leads?

'You can't argue with the IPCC! They're....the IPCC!'

Seen that fallacy rise to the surface more than once.

Edit: And for clarification, 400 years ago would you have been saying 'The Earth? Around the sun?? don't be ridiculous!'?

[Flipside]

And now that I've calmed down a little from waking up to Janos' rudeness, I will explain a little further....

Saying that 'You cannot agree with the scientifically accepted answer because it's the scientifically accepted answer' is a surefire path to stagnation, axioms are made to be tested and questioned. That's why Janos' comment annoyed me so much, I don't agree that we should ignore the argument, but I also don't consider that any organisation or person has the right to say 'We are the only ones who are right'.

Oh, and considering the thread is about the difference between the alarmist view and the passive view, not the passive view and the denial view anyway, it might have helped if you had read all of it.

[karajorma]

Saying that 'You cannot agree with the scientifically accepted answer because it's the scientifically accepted answer' is a surefire path to stagnation, axioms are made to be tested and questioned.

Questioning is fine Flip. But you went further and claimed to have a probable answer different from the IPCC. At which point it's only fair that we question your claim and ask you on what evidence you arrived at it?

Janos might have been rude in the way he put it but you can't simply disagree with IPCC just because they are a bunch of people claiming that it's wrong. It's quite possible the IPCC is correct and the others are cranks and yes men.

To use your Earth and Sun analogy you probably ought to explain why your "It's probably in the middle" argument isn't like someone saying "Can't we just say that 50% of the time the Earth goes round the Sun and 50% of the time the Sun goes round it" and thinking it would please both sides since in effect you're disagreeing with both sets of scientific opinion on the matter.

[nubbles526]

I sometimes feel guilty in posting these things but...
US Scientists have 'proven' that global warming is not due to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but because of Earth itself. The scientists claimed that the Earth is rotating faster, and therefore the core of the earth is also heating up.
I bet all you played Blue Planet right? That would happen one day...except there is no Knossos portal AND there is no Delta Serpantis AND there are no Vasudans AND ther is no subspace.

[Flipside]

If people want to disagree with my opinion, that's fine.

The entire discussion I was having was regarding a document where several of the scientists involved are questioning the alarmist approach, just as I do. That doesn't mean I don't think there is a problem, it means that I am more on the side of the people who think Al Gore and the other politicos are over-playing it.

My problem is not with Janos disagreeing with me, that's his prerogative, my problem is with the whole 'Oh noes! He questions the Panel!'

A more accurate answer to the 'Earth round the Sun' analogy would be to say, 'Yes, the Earth does go round the Sun, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.'

In other words, I believe in climate change, I don't believe in some of the more alarmist points of view, and neither do many scientists.


Edit: And, I hate to say it, but if I can post anonymously to a bulletin board and get my credibility vehemently attacked, when I never even pretended to have any, it does make me wonder how accurate that report is about scientists who are afraid to mention their own personal concerns about the alarmism.

[nubbles526]

I am disagreeing you, I am just saying that people are trying to make exuses to fool the people that this is a natural cause and we can't help it.

I am with you, since alarmist are a lot of times lying.