|
Post by byz on May 6, 2009 19:43:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on May 6, 2009 21:42:54 GMT
"Unease among real climate scientists"
Yes I have heard about these strange mythical beings. They all seem to have been consumed and replaced by strange extra terrestrial pods twenty or thirty years ago. No one has seen a 'REAL' Climate scientist for a long long time.
The pods will never ditch the consensus beamed from the mothership. We have to chop off their roots (lefties) and their nourishment. (funding)
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on May 7, 2009 0:01:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by byz on May 7, 2009 6:46:25 GMT
The interesting thing here is that many of the scientists are now realising that they are being taken for a ride by pressure groups and politicians with their own agenda. Also the scientists are finding themselves "on a leash" as their funding is controlled by the politicians and therefore their research is being restricted to areas that could be used to raise taxes. Plus their bosses won't be scientists so there will be pressure from their bosses to get the results that will keep the hierarchy of employees in there jobs. So they are finding themselves in a situation of being employees rather than research scientists told to provide evidence for something rather than doing real research. Add to this that they may be paying a mortgage or bringing up a family and the world economy is in a downturn they are discovering that he who pays the piper plays the tune.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 7, 2009 8:19:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 7, 2009 9:11:29 GMT
Ken This is not being hair splitting it is being precise. 1. Climate change exists - the argument is whether human activity is the _cause_ of it in any major way. 2. If we were to be dropping into an iceage then *I* would be concerned about it - if there is a chance of a sea level rise that would say flood Holland and Venice - then we can be concerned. That does not require an acceptance that the change is anthropogenic. This is along the lines of blaming upsetting the gods for bad weather. 3. The climate was a lot warmer in the past in the MWP and Venice and Amsterdam were fully functional cities. So some of the more exaggerated claims for warming can be discounted. (look at the graph quoted elsewhere on the board and note its source as you will not believe me. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html So finding someone is concerned about the effects of climate change does not mean that they ascribe it to anthropogenic effects. It is the same faulty argument as "you don't believe in Global Warming then?" When everyone agrees it got warmer especially in 2 periods in the 20th century - the argument is on causation. A growing number find that the hypotheses in support of claims that anthropogenic warming was the reason are becoming increasingly less justifiable if not outright falsified.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2009 10:16:57 GMT
Actually, Mike Hulme has never been afraid of nuanced argument about the links between science and public policy. Just two years ago he was saying things like this: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechangeI thought at the time that the fact these sorts of discussions were being aired more often was a sign that the debate was becoming more healthy, and that the science was getting past the negative effects that the destructive antiscience lobby had had in the 1990's. Ho hum!
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 7, 2009 10:30:55 GMT
I thought at the time that the fact these sorts of discussions were being aired more often was a sign that the debate was becoming more healthy, and that the science was getting past the negative effects that the destructive antiscience lobby had had in the 1990's. Ho hum! You're right. That is a sign that debate is "more healthy"...just like someone no longer needing a machine to breathe for them is a sign that they're "more healthy". It doesn't mean they can go out and jog. It doesn't mean they can walk up a flight of stairs. It doesn't even mean that they could sit up or breathe without oxygen...it just means they're healthier than if they couldnt breathe on their own at all. There's still a HORRIBLE bias against any articles or research that hint at anything other than catastrophic climate change. It's sad that pro-AGW "research" gets a free pass in the press even though it might contain egregious errors and lies.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on May 7, 2009 19:00:29 GMT
".just like someone no longer needing a machine to breathe for them is a sign that they're "more healthy"."
Maybe they no longer need the machine because they died and the hospital are trying to hide the body and tell the relatives that they are still alive. Talking about the dead warming trend of course.
|
|