Is anyone curious about this snowy weather?

[Philly Q]

Touché!  :lol:

[dave_mc]

1. AFAIK all data is gathered from geological, meteorolgical research. Weather stations, ground and ice drillings, sattelites etc. Both parties probably have similar raw data.

2. Back in the early 80's I was told in school we were heading towards an ice age. 'Problems' back then were acid rain and later ozone. Somewhere around that time the greenhouse thing came along. I personally think they made a couple of mistakes. (3) But instead of going "Oops! Sorry, we were wrong." They didn't want to loose face and feared they would lose their fundings.

(4) Now then, the money making. First the scientists themselves. They scream the world is headed for a disaster, it's man's fault and man can stop it. But to know how to stop it, they need to do more research and for that they need more money.

(5) Governments: They find it a great excuse to raise taxes. I mentioned some examples from Holland earlier. The latest addition to that is upping the VAT on meat because cows and pigs produce CO2.

(6) Semi-government: My country is littered with committees and such. They do research, some are (sociological) think tanks, some develop ideas for durable technologies. Every now then they show something on TV or a local newspaper. Most of their ideas are from from realistic. Maybe the think Futurama and Star Trek are reality shows. The big kahuna's of those committees are ex-politicians, highly rated friends and members of red and green parties, celbrities, guys with grey beards and sandals who never been off campus grounds and the odd ex-astronaut. They probably couldn't have any other job. All heavily funded by tax payer's money.

(7) Business: The last who jumped on the band wagon. But now they know how to sell their product. "Buy this new car. It takes less fuel, it's better for the environment." "Buy this new fridge, it uses less electricity." Philips jumped into the energy saving light bulb. They get some govt. funding and praise and make more profit on them. That those lights take more energy to produce and recycle and that they contain mercury doesn't seem to matter. Then there's companies that produce wind turbines, sun collectors and stuff. A booming market but only viable because of government support. Stores are filled with 'eco products' and I find it questionable wether or not they really are.

Save the planet, buy new stuff.

1: don't think that's how it works. all those weather stations are (presumably) also run by scientists. Do you trust those ones and not the climate change ones? etc. etc.

2: acid rain and ozone were problems. As I told you in a previous thread (i think), where you claimed that these things went away on their own, I posted links which showed that what the scientists suggested doing actually fixed the problems. i don't remember being told about an ice age in the 80s (i was too young), but i'd add that i was told a lot of cr@p in school, primary school especially, mainly because the teachers weren't science specialists.

(3) That may be so, but I'd also point out that another surefire way of losing funding (and maybe even your doctorate) is to be caught making stuff up. It's really not worth it. Would you rather lose your current job or never be able to work again (at least in science)?

(4) Plenty of scientists make money without screaming that the world is going to end. The vast majority, in fact. And I'd point out that if money is your main priority, scientific research is a fairly bad path to follow.

(5) Oh, I agree, but as I already pointed out, green taxes make a very small proportion of the overall tax revenue, in the UK, anyway (and I assume the netherlands is the same). Plus many of these green proposals etc. would actually cost the government money, in terms of reduced VAT revenue, corporation tax, income tax, etc. (because of reduced consumption), not to mention the costs involved in completely changing the entire infrastructure.

(6) can't argue with that, it's the same here. But again, they're rarely the scientists, they're other eejits jumping on the bandwagon.

(7) again, i'm not arguing with companies jumping on the bandwagon, I hate that. But that's a symptom of climate change, not that they're manufacturing climate change to sell more stuff (for the vast majority of companies, anyway). It's not like they struggled to sell stuff before climate change became a big issue, and climate change is likely to be very hard on a lot of very big companies (oil, mining, etc. etc.).

OMG!

I just had the laugh of the year. Nothing will be able to top this.

Someone in the Dutch Labour Party just put this on twitter: http://twitter.com/ChantalGillard/status/7724057954

Translation: If we don't act disasters like this on Haiti will continue to happen. We must stop climate change and improve the coasts of the islands.

assuming he claimed that the earthquake was related to climate change (never gone to twitter before, not starting now :lol: ), that is fairly retarded, nice find. :lol:

and hey, i didn't start the thread. I don't like every thread on here, and don't post in them saying the ones i don't like should stop. :)

[Dr. Stein]

Now then, the money making. First the scientists themselves. They scream the world is headed for a disaster, it's man's fault and man can stop it. But to know how to stop it, they need to do more research and for that they need more money.

This seems like a bit of a cop out to me. If scientists can't be trusted, who can we trust? Obviously, there is no way for any layman to answer these questions without appealing to (scientific) authority, so just shouting down authority in general pretty much calls a halt to the whole debate. There's no longer any scope for presenting arguments either way.

Also, as dave_mc says, you'd have to be pretty dense to decide that a career in research science was the best way to make yourself rich.

[Afghan Dave]

Not to fuel this fire but...

I don't think a guy wakes up and thinks... "Oh I want to be rich, I think I'll become a research scientist!"

More like.. A research scientist thinks...

"How the f**k am I gonna get funding for my work"

He realistically assesses that his chances are vastly improved if he can hitch it to the current climate change Zeitgeist.

Then his work gets published and speaks at a few conferences...

"Oh people are really listening to me, I like this"

Maybe gets invited onto network news for a 30 second talking head spot... he loves it.
If all goes REALLY well he gets appointed to a Govt quango as a special advisor.

Hubris and a proportional increase in earning potential within one's own profession is a pretty universal motivator. Scientist, Kindergarden Teacher or Hedge Fund Manager...

[Dr. Stein]

Hubris and a proportional increase in earning potential within one's own profession is a pretty universal motivator. Scientist, Kindergarden Teacher or Hedge Fund Manager...

To some extent, obviously, but equally the nature of the job does give you a clue as to the kind of people who do it. Kindergarten teachers, being people who care about children, are going to draw the line at beating the kids to discipline them ("what a job you're doing, they're all so quiet...") and it seems reasonable to assume that those who go into research science are people who care about truth and the scientific method. Unless you have something to gain in them all being untrustworthy, money grabbing liars, in which case it might start to look like a much less reasonable assumption.

I've worked in retail for long enough (2 years, more than long enough!) to know a thing or two about bullshiteeee peddlers, but it's a pretty cynical view that takes as a blanket generalisation everyone who makes money to be liars and cheats.

... Or is it just the ones we want to disagree with who are the liars and cheats? Just a thought...

[Afghan Dave]

Good grief... jump to extremes why don't you.

Scientist are generally good, kindergarden teachers are generally good and yes even some hedge fund managers are good!
Their methods are generally moral & honest.

I am not making a moral judgement & I am not attacking the scientific method...

BUT

To believe that there are people or professions that are somehow above self interest is a denial of human nature.

A question was raised regarding motivation & I was stating that "Rich" & "famous" are powerful motivators and can't only be judged in absolute terms.

One can be highly motivated to become more rich and famous in comparison to:

A) Yesterday
B) Their neighbor
C) Their colleagues
D) Elvis  

It's up to you and your talents what you choose to shoot for...

Stating that "Big Business" would make more money measured in absolute $$ does not protect research scientists from individual bias or motivation founded on self interest to make more $$ or become recognised to a greater degree.

 :?

Such bad science motivated by self interest WILL be uncovered in due time but the sense of catastrophy is a dangerous camouflage NOW...

So excuse me for not asking how high when those with loud voices tell me to jump.

[Ratrod]

1. There's probably nothing wrong with the raw data. I gave the Russian example. They got that data but they decided not to use 75% of it. Why? Because it included Siberian low temperatures, perhaps?

2. I still think those problems and it's sollutions were exadurated.

3. Those scientists will be protected by the politicians. Or they'll come up with an excuse. It's a good old case of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your's." and "If you tell this about me, I'll tell that about you." POLITICS!

4. Afghan Dave nailed that one.

5. You're lucky. We're being taxed to death.

7. It would be better to consume less. Now they're making you feel guilty for driving an older car. Remember that 'cash for clunkers' programme in the USA? That had more to do with stimulating sales than the environment. They blew up the engines of the older cars so they couldn't be sold on. There was a clip on youtube where they blew up an Olds Aurora. That was equipped with a Northstar V8. Actually a very efficient engine, not a gas guzzler at all. Couldn't they have traded that with some poor guy's gas guzzling El Camino?

Toyota seems to do well with their Prius. And it's not as green as they say it is. But good for the mining companies who mine for the materials needed for those batteries.

[dave_mc]

Not to fuel this fire but...

I don't think a guy wakes up and thinks... "Oh I want to be rich, I think I'll become a research scientist!"

More like.. A research scientist thinks...

"How the f**k am I gonna get funding for my work"

He realistically assesses that his chances are vastly improved if he can hitch it to the current climate change Zeitgeist.

Then his work gets published and speaks at a few conferences...

"Oh people are really listening to me, I like this"

Maybe gets invited onto network news for a 30 second talking head spot... he loves it.
If all goes REALLY well he gets appointed to a Govt quango as a special advisor.

Hubris and a proportional increase in earning potential within one's own profession is a pretty universal motivator. Scientist, Kindergarden Teacher or Hedge Fund Manager...

as i said, though, for all the increase in earning power that would provide, it's not really worth it if you risk not getting to work again. Plus, you won't get published in a (reputable) journal if you make shite up. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a paper accepted for publication in a reputable journal?

To some extent, obviously, but equally the nature of the job does give you a clue as to the kind of people who do it. Kindergarten teachers, being people who care about children, are going to draw the line at beating the kids to discipline them ("what a job you're doing, they're all so quiet...") and it seems reasonable to assume that those who go into research science are people who care about truth and the scientific method. Unless you have something to gain in them all being untrustworthy, money grabbing liars, in which case it might start to look like a much less reasonable assumption.

I've worked in retail for long enough (2 years, more than long enough!) to know a thing or two about bullshiteeeeee peddlers, but it's a pretty cynical view that takes as a blanket generalisation everyone who makes money to be liars and cheats.

... Or is it just the ones we want to disagree with who are the liars and cheats? Just a thought...

exactly. if you want to make a ton of money out of science, you can make a lot more by going and working for a private company, it's not like the only jobs available in science are in universities :lol: . There's a ton of competition for university lectureship jobs, not to mention a ton of training (degree (preferably a first) + PHD + Postdoc), after which the pay is total shite (less than a teacher, the last time i checked, plus you don't get teachers' holidays or working hours) for pretty long hours, and your job is pretty much under constant threat if you don't publish, because of the competition.

don't get me wrong, i agree with afghan dave's second post on the matter two posts up, I'm just saying that, considering everyone is biased to some extent, the scientists probably have fewer reasons to be, plus all the hoops you have to jump through to get to be a lecturer will hopefully have weeded out the more mercenary types long before they get near to being a lecturer.

ratrod:

1) again, why do you trust the raw data then? surely if it were a conspiracy it'd be easier (not to mention harder to catch) to manufacture the data than to collect the real data and try to manipulate it?

2) that's convenient. Any proof for that?

3) I don't think that's true. Certainly here the government's drug tsar was fired for not supporting the party line; and jobs in universities aren't really anything to do with the government (or at least, they shouldn't be).

4) I don't think he did. I'm not saying scientists aren't human, but when you have two sets of people, one with a small reward for making stuff up, and pretty severe consequences if caught, and another with gigantic rewards and fewer consequences, who is more likely to be making stuff up?

5) So are we, but the vast majority aren't green taxes. I'd assume yours aren't, either.

7) again, those are private companies and governments jumping on the bandwagon. that doesn't affect the science.

[Johnny Mac]

^ It might not affect the science Dave but it sure helps brainwash the public.

It would be great if the world could pull together and do something to slow down out impact on the planet, like i said a few pages ago. Its not going to happen. To implement a task as vast as that would cause those involved to melt down arguing and fighting about what it is that we should all be doing. (This thread is proof of that :P). Time will fly by and anything that does get done will be not be anything like as effective and will be seen as a waste of time. Life will go on...for a while.

[Philly Q]

[Ratrod]

1. Manipulating is easier than fabricating. Better to cover up as well.

2. Plenty of proof to be found. won't post it, you don't want to read it anyway and you'll say it's conspiracy nutter bull.

3. You're really that blind?

4. Small reward? Millions of dollars, surrounded by the rich, famous and powerfull, in the world news, big events (Copenhagen) with michelin star food etc. And if you don't go along with it, you'll be treated like a leper.

5. Assumed wrong.

It's all bull and you don't want to see it for some reason. Like I said, this is like a religion. No proof in the world will make you doubt anything.

[Philly Q]

[Ratrod]

Indeed Philly.

This is going nowhere. DaveMC is still denying the manipulation and that meens he hasn't read any of the hacked emails yet. Those are the smoking gun. Reasons of why aren't even important. Those mails are the smoking gun.

Last post.

edit: This is convenient: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-millions-paid-to-Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html

[Dr. Stein]

This is starting to read like a conspiracy theory, Ratrod. Wait a minute, it is a conspiracy theory...

 :lol:

(1) To believe that there are people or professions that are somehow above self interest is a denial of human nature.

(2) Such bad science motivated by self interest WILL be uncovered in due time but the sense of catastrophy is a dangerous camouflage NOW...

(3) So excuse me for not asking how high when those with loud voices tell me to jump.

1. Granted, but it's equally clear that some people and some professions are less motivated by self interest, and further motivated by different values apart from that.

2. A sense of catastrophe seems like pretty piss poor camoflague if you ask me. Seems like the opposite if anything, people are bound to take more notice of studies suggesting imminent catastrophe than studies suggesting, say, a new type of chewing gum is possible.

3. Without meaning to sound too confrontational, whose voices do you listen to? Nobody goes through their life without appealing to experts in one form or another, who do you turn to if not those with loud voices? For a lot of people it seems to be those who are saying what they want to hear...

[Afghan Dave]

Mine isn't a theory and it's not ring fenced by this debate.

I only give a sh1t about the dynamics going on here and the polarised thinking apparent.

I have stated clearly that I have total confidence that in time when accurate meta-analysis is undertaken the poor or biased studies will be exposed.

There are voices here that appear to discount bias or use its existance uncritically.

My further point is that the sense of catastrophy introduces time pressure and this is an impediment to clarity in any debate.

"Act in haste repent at leisure"

I don't listen to theory until I've discounted the most salient FACTS.

Doing this takes TIME and one side of the current debate appears to relish in stating that it is running out.

If others want to hand responsibility over to the state or "experts" I'm happy for them but don't try to limit my freedom & I will extend the same courtesy.