Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

phonetic said:
See, you've fallen for pop culture's bullshit, hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...

No.

phonetic said:
The earth (you know, the big round thing we all live on?) naturally goes through cycles. It warms, it gets colder and it does other funky stuff, like change the way it orbits now and again.
Click to expand...

And we are adding the unnatural element. Many scientists are in agreement that global warming is happening at an unnatural rate, and that we're disrupting the global climate significantly, thanks to our greenhouse gases.

Pay attention.

phonetic said:
Look at the amount of carbon dioxide that occurs natually - Volcanoes pump out hundreds of tons of co2 and sulphur dioxide a day. On eruption, it's thousands or hundreds and thousands of tons.
Click to expand...

Where do you get these numbers? And have you compared them to what humans pump out?
 
Baron Max said:
And those same scientists have agreed that nothing we do now will have any affect on the warming trends for centuries! A "slowing" of anything is like pissing onto a roaring conflagration ...sure it "helps", but is it the thing to do?
What we should do is direct our efforts to overcoming the EFFECTS that global warming will have on our cultures....
Trying to stop global warming is senseless and a wasted effort ...the damage has already been done. Let's worry about and work towards minimizing it's effects on human existence and culture.Baron Max
Click to expand...
I think this is probably true, but there is a disasterous chance it is not.

Quoting my prior post:
"My main concern is that the fraction that man does add to increase rate of global warming may be sufficient to trigger the decomposition of the methane hydrates. - Then it is possible that Earth will be transformed into a cooler version of Venus. I.e. no liquid oceans on Earth -all H2O on Earth as a very high pressure steam atmosphere,...This risk of a runaway instability is small, IMHO, but real as the amount of methane that can be released is now large and with man speeding of the natural warming, may come into the atmosphere in a time too short to be removed by low temperature oxidation or dissolved into the oceans. "

If that should happen, then nothing can live on Earth any more that organisms can live inside a very high pressure steam boiler. If the oceans are converted to steam, the pressure at ground level will be approximately 1000 atmospheres and steam temperature ~100 times hotter than steam you know. (Only guessing at these values - but they give the correct idea.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we have the moral authority not to try to do something? Trying might stop disaster. With such enormous odds at stake the answer should be obvious...
 
zenbabelfish said:
Do we have the moral authority not to try to do something? Trying might stop disaster. With such enormous odds at stake the answer should be obvious...
Click to expand...
I am reminded of a story I like:
Scene:
Huge forest fire near the sea. Pelican sitting on dock post watching small bird repeatly fill beak with water and then dump it over the fire.

Pelican to bird:
"You are being silly. - what you are doing will not put out that fire."

Bird to Pelican:
"You may be right, but I have to try."
 
zenbabelfish said:
Do we have the moral authority not to try to do something? Trying might stop disaster. With such enormous odds at stake the answer should be obvious...
Click to expand...

Well, since it's highly likely that you can't define "moral authority", nor probably denote who is to be the leader/commander/etc., then your question is completely non-sensical.

Moral authority? What is it? What do you mean? And who do you include?

Moral? What is it? What do you mean? And who do you include?

And what would be the "moral authority" if the efforts to "try something" actually crippled other nations of the world? Welfare? Charity?

But enough of that psycho-babble bullshit ....most of the nations of the western world actually are doing something, even if it's small and seemingly insignificant. We now have the option, for example, to buy hybrid cars. Engines are being made more and more efficient. Bio-diesel fuel is being made and used more and more. And there are other such things that might have the slightest, most insignificant impact on global warming (althought I don't think so!).

I still think it's best if we start seeking ways to live WITH global warming as opposed to fighting it. Turning the world from it's present course is not going to be easy, nor is it going to happen overnight. We'd best look to adapting!

Baron Max
 
I guess by moral authority I refer to the onus referred to in the Garret Hardin article, Baron. I apologise if you're already familiar with it which I assume you are.
 
Baron, I'm getting the feeling you don't care much about doing what is best for the Earth. After all, you'll be dead before most of this bad shit actually happens.

It's interesting to see this aspect of your character.
 
Has anyone actually read the letter that was sent to these scientists? Here it is:
Dear Prof. Schroeder:

The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007. We are looking to commission a series of review essays from a broad panel of experts to be published concurrent with the release of the FAR, and we want to invite you to be one of the authors.

The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports. An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change and clarify the basis for various policy strategies. Because advance drafts of the FAR are available for outside review (the report of Working Group I is already out; Working Groups II and III will be released for review shortly), a concurrent review of the FAR is feasible for the first time.

From our earlier discussions of climate modeling (with both yourself and Prof. North), I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab approaches the characterization of climate modeling data. We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy (as opposed to the utility of climate models in more theoretical climate research). In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy. If you are interested in the idea, or have thoughts about who else might be interested, please give Ken Green a call at 202-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.

If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.

Please feel free to contact us with questions and thoughts on this invitation.

Cordially,

Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar Kenneth Green, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like bribery to me. It sounds like being paid to perform a project. No different from any other corporately funded scientific research. This is much ado about nothing.
 
So because other research is corporate-funded then its ok to go against all the tenets of science and make the destruction of the planet and its nature permissable...is it?
 
I think that many scientists fear for their careers if they criticize the global warming theory.
 
No doubt about it, a Weather Channel honcho wants certificates given to only meteorologists who see human-caused global warming.

Similarly with Darwinism and Uniformitarianism, if you don't trumpet those notions, you have little upside in career advancement and tenure at State U.
 
MetaKron said:
I think that many scientists fear for their careers if they criticize the global warming theory.
Click to expand...

Ditto marijuana research in the UK - it appears that the professional scientific establishment is subservient to corporate imperialism. The general funding issue alone merits this comment.
 
zenbabelfish said:
So because other research is corporate-funded then its ok to go against all the tenets of science and make the destruction of the planet and its nature permissable...is it?
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about? No where in the letter does he ask them to do anything but study the issue. This is the same kind of scare mongering we see throughout the anthrogenic global warming movement. It's like a new "red scare" but this time it's a green menace we have to fear.
 
Really - so the recent evidence from Antarctica is scaremongering?

You don't think communism is/was a threat to the USA? Cuban missile crisis?
 
zenbabelfish said:
Really - so the recent evidence from Antarctica is scaremongering?

You don't think communism is/was a threat to the USA? Cuban missile crisis?
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing that the average global temperature has risen slightly over the past hundred years. I do dispute that it can be said that this has anything whatsoever to do with human activity.

Alterations in the activity of the sun are more likely to "blame" for the slight increase in temperature. This is especially obvious when you consider that the temperature on Mars also seems to be rising

If the increase in temperature does have anything to do with "greenhouse gasses", one must consider the fact that 99% of greenhouse gases are produced by nature (94% if you ignore the most important gas, water vapor)..

And yes, I did consider the godless commies a threat. I just couldn't resist the green menace line.
 
The best way to solve the climate change crisis is to all get together and pray to God.

He’s causing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top