An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[Quagmire]

I see so these scientist aren't scientists.Two have died so their research is useless? Following that line of reasoning we should dispose of the Theory of Relativity because Albert Einstein died in 1955. One is a crackpot on the fringes,shouldn't a good part of research be on the fringes? How else are we going to progress.Because a person isn't part of the " In Group" doesn't lessen his/her research effort.All that aside as I look into the issue,one idea keeps nagging me.If global warming is largely caused by our emissions of greenhouse gas,then its a problem we should have been looking at 30 years ago.Not because of global warming,but because of air pollution that has been poisoning us since shorty after the beginning of the industrial revolution.If global warming is naturally occurring with minimal input from humanity,then the money and time being spent on proving other wise would be better spent on ways to make our air cleaner to breath.For me global warming in its self is becoming a small issue.Its either the wrong reason to do the right thing,or one more reason in a long list of reasons, to do the right thing.I would rather see the grant money,and money spent in the media to push these agendas,turned toward practical research on ways to clean up our environment.

Almost forgot,here's an interesting survey

http://forecastingprinciples.com/Pub...armAudit31.pdf

[trilinearmipmap]

I am more concerned about the other effects of increased CO2 in our atmosphere, rather than the alleged effects of CO2 on global warming.

One thing reefing has taught me is the importance of CO2/bicarbonate chemistry to our oceans and indeed to all living things.

We are breathing in a much higher concentration of CO2 than we have in the past. How does this affect our health? Could it be the explanation for various illnesses for which the cause has not yet been found? I could list scores of medical problems which have no known cause, maybe the increased CO2 in our atmosphere could be responsible for one or more of these problems.

There are other phenomena in the natural world, for example the widespread loss of amphibian species, which have no clear cause. Could the increase in atmospheric CO2 be a factor here?

I would rather see research money devoted to these issues rather than being flushed down the toilet promoting the global warming "consensus".

[mark]

Not doubting global warming (hey, sort of keeps me employed) but one thing I still have a hard time grasping is how you can tell the temps thousands of years ago by drilling for ice cores.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

One of the problems with peer-reviewed scientific research is the scientists are dependent on grant money.

All research is dependant funding. That source of the funding is usually the University's own research budget, governments, charitable foundations, the military or corporations. The military and corporations are less likely to fund research that is not going to result in some useable product or application. Very rarely will these groups fund pure science for altruistic reasons.

Consider the court case that started this thread. It was started by a headmaster who was funded by "a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...190770,00.html

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

Those honest scientists with the balls to debunk the global warming groupthink quickly find their research funding has dried up.

If you look at the previous post. The scientific method and inductive reasoning searches for the truth whatever that may be. Some conclusions will be unpopular and against popular opinion but opinions have no role in science.

It is through experimentation, collection of data and publication in peer reviewed journals (peers = scientists conducting research in that field) that our body of knowledge increases.

Have you got any names of debunking scientists who have lost funding?

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

I do understand science better than most, I also understand the limitations of science and the pressure researchers face to come up with the "right" findings. What I object to is politics interfering with science.

Ignore the politicians and the lobbyists. Don't accept one one side or another says.

Look at the research from the scientists with an open mind and no preconceptions. If you truly understand how science works you'll see that global warming is real.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

I see so these scientist aren't scientists.Two have died so their research is useless?

They never did any research in climatology! Even if they did, their research would not have any current data because one died 5 years ago.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

One is a crackpot on the fringes,shouldn't a good part of research be on the fringes? How else are we going to progress.Because a person isn't part of the " In Group" doesn't lessen his/her research effort.

Research on the fringes - yes. Listening to crackpots - no.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

All that aside as I look into the issue,one idea keeps nagging me.If global warming is largely caused by our emissions of greenhouse gas,then its a problem we should have been looking at 30 years ago.

Maybe it should have been looked at 30 years ago but the Kyoto Accord was signed in 1997.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Almost forgot,here's an interesting survey

http://forecastingprinciples.com/Pub...armAudit31.pdf

forcastingprinciples.com "The Forecasting site seeks to develop a set of principles to guide forecasting for problems in management, operations research, and the social sciences"

These guys aren't climate scientists!!!!

One is from Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University in Melbourne and the other from Wharton Business school

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by mark

Not doubting global warming (hey, sort of keeps me employed) but one thing I still have a hard time grasping is how you can tell the temps thousands of years ago by drilling for ice cores.

This is how:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

[Quagmire]

Sorry that was the wrong link

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Sorry that was the wrong link

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

"The Heartland Institute is a free-market oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago."

"The Heartland Institute's research covers a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, and the environment."

"The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy. The Institute received over $150,000 from the Phillip Morris over three years from 1997 to 1999"

"The Heartland Institute has received annual donations from Exxon-Mobil in amounts ranging from $100,000 to $200,000."

-WIKIPEDIA

[mark]

Originally Posted by pinhead

This is how:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

Like the use of 'inferred' and 'models'.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by pinhead

"The Heartland Institute is a free-market oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago."

"The Heartland Institute's research covers a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, and the environment."

"The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy. The Institute received over $150,000 from the Phillip Morris over three years from 1997 to 1999"

"The Heartland Institute has received annual donations from Exxon-Mobil in amounts ranging from $100,000 to $200,000."

-WIKIPEDIA

That all maybe true,but who payed the bill doesn't negate the fact that it was a survey of climate scientists.As I said earlier,both sides have an agenda.
But the funny thing is,if they would have put their money into research aimed at dropping emissions, or possible containing emissions in some way.They may be able to change the burning of fossil fuels from producing greenhouse gasses/smog to something more enviro friendly.And in doing so,wouldn't feel threatened by this issue.