Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: Written by Paul Vaughan
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

source

This is a good strategy. Just keep posting random links to conspiracy theory web sites until we get sick of responding to each one, declare yourself the "winner" and pat yourself on the back.

Who is Paul Vaughan anyway?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Eelco
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483

Quote: I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… [There are] some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. (Briffa, Sep 22, 1999, 0938031546.txt)

Gee; isnt that odd: climate scientists experience a 'pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years'. I would never have guessed.

How is their situation any different than a researcher working for the tobacco industry? Implicit or explicit, they both know what the conditions for continued funding are.

Never would have guessed? Really? I don't think your remark is serious. In 1999 where was that pressure coming from? Why did Briffa not think it wise to ignore the issue? Was the issue ignored? Doesn't the "climategate" conspiracy theory assert that it was? What evidence do climategate theorists have that it was? A researcher working for the tobacco industry would get pressure from his boss or from the company that paid for the research. Tobacco companies hid their research from the public for decades. The real question is how is this at all similar to that?

Where that pressure was coming from? Either their the evident zeal within their peer group of wannabe captain planets, or their superiors/sources of funding who are politically invested in global warming. Does it matter? That the pressure is there is appearently a matter of fact amongst climate scientists. The pressure from their bosses must be there; implicit or not. Non-existant problems do not get funding.

Were you alive in 1999? Cognizant? The pressure was coming from the denial industry. It was manufactured. In the United States it was generated in large part to create memes that could be used against Al Gore in the 2000 election, but also as part of the long standing and ongoing corporate campaign against pollution regulation. Yes it matters. What those emails show is that these scientists were rattled by the media buzz-saw attacking their work.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Brifta might not have thought it wise to ignore the issue, but as you can read in the article linked, he didnt get his way. What evidence do they have that it was? Uhm, again, read the article. Mcintyre explicitly asked them to note the issue in the IPCC years ago, and they told him to fuck off.

That article talks up the word decline a lot but it doesn't identify what there was a decline in - recorded temperatures or accuracy of tree ring proxy data.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
How ironic; hiding their research from the public is exactly what these guys are trying to do. Yes, they published in journals, but without access to the raw data and code you never really know what happened under the hood; as such reproducability is impossible, a cornerstone of science. You cant deny that the people involved here were making a directed effort to hide access to their raw data. Not only was it fucking obvious for anyone who has been following this for a while, its there in plain writing in their emails.

How it is at all similar? I guess because cigarettes release CO2 too..

You've slipped into the present tense. The conspiracy grows... Investigations into the matter are ongoing. Meanwhile: E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press. [1] Was the effort to hide the raw data successful or was it only talk? Was it an aspirational conspiracy?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
It doesnt say by whom, but once again, what does it matter? These pressures seem to determine the course of events, only getting timidly questioned; questions which are subsequently ignored. Whomever is calling the tune, its not exactly in the spirit of the pursuit of truth.

What events? What course? What are you talking about? Are you saying that email discussions from 1999 determined the course of the IPCC reports dating back to 1990? or just moving forward to 2001 and 2007?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
These guys are part of the IPCC; a significant part of its active inner circle.

What support do you have for this claim?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Note that none of their behavior comes as a surprise to me; ive worked in universities in the alternative energy field; a field of similar political machinations. I dont consider this kind of behavior anything out of the ordinary. This is the default as I know it.

Are you going to come out as a whistleblower?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Guilt by association? Sorry, but this isnt a court: bullshit until proven otherwise, a self-fallating careerist until proven otherwise; those are the standards science should operate under.

You're the expert in self-fellation.

Quote: From UK Newspaper 'The Times'
More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures.
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
...
“The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.

source

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Actions speak louder than words. When they have it in their power to change and yet they don't or they only change enough to create the illusion that they've changed but they continue on business as usual, then they're against a clean environment and in favor of pollution. If they were not, the means wouldn't matter. They would do whatever it would take them to do it.

I love your "they" pronoun, it avoids the necessity of addressing the strata of ideas and lumps everyone that doesn't think as you in a nice little box.

The use of the pronoun made sense before you stripped away the context. So let's restore it: Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromI think it's disingenuous to claim that AGW skeptics are also against a clean environment or pro-pollution etc. It is the means they are against in the most general sense. I addressed your remark, lumps and all.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
The costs of doing nothing will be far greater. Here's the reality that puts the lie to the lip service. U.S. Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Twice That of Renewables:

Government spending and tax breaks amounted to $72.5 billion for fossil fuels and $29 billion for renewable energy, according to a report by the institute today.
...

How many of these companies, upset with the cost of transitioning and opposed to the means and so on, have demanded that their fossil fuel subsidies be directed towards renewable energy sources? Why aren't they refunding their fossil fuel subsidies to the government and demanding that it be directed towards renewables?

Why should renewables be subvened? Why should fossil fuels be subvened? Let's remove all of the subventions on each and let the superior product win out.

Subvention - You really like that word. Subvention convention. Let the oil remain in the soil along with the coal.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
You're the only one talking about a one size fits all solution.

You can't describe my solution, nor have I claimed one. But I know yours. "Let's pass a law"

Don't forget "Dispatch the militia!", "Let's study the problem.", "Move along folks, there's nothing to see here."...

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: From UK Newspaper 'The Times'
More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures.
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
...
“The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.

source

Not sure about all the polices of the met office but that has very little to do with your last post.

EDIT:
also you last quote is a quote of a quote

Part of the probelm I have is it seems like anti global warming is adopting a lot of creationist tactics, namely:
a: claims to have scientific proof
b: if pressed for proof start mud slinging
c: if called out on mud slinging claim their dogmatic for dismissing your proof

I really would like to hear alternate scientific theorys for global temperature trends but of the the ones I've already heard they either have flaws I can spot or it seems like very little effort was put into followup's with research or experimentation.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You're the only one talking about a one size fits all solution.

You can't describe my solution....

YOU can't even describe your solution! ;o)




If you have some sort of free-market solution, why withhold such enlightenment from us? I see that you've decided, for now, to toss around rhetoric and indignation at LessBread instead of making more academic responses. Perhaps you missed my post on the previous page, but I'll clarify that I'm interested in details of any solutions you may want to share with us; earlier, you implied that you may have some....

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Your appeal to the peanut gallery and attempt to label me are a common sense confession you're uncomfortable debating the details.

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Part of the probelm I have is it seems like anti global warming is adopting a lot of creationist tactics, namely:
a: claims to have scientific proof
b: if pressed for proof start mud slinging
c: if called out on mud slinging claim their dogmatic for dismissing your proof

I really would like to hear alternate scientific theorys for global temperature trends but of the the ones I've already heard they either have flaws I can spot or it seems like very little effort was put into followup's with research or experimentation.

Before you ask for an explanation, I would like to ask: what is there to explain? Actual temperature developments are entirely non-exciting, as anyone who didnt let himself get carried away by the few obviously slanted graphs compiled by mann et al.

I have no friggin clue why temperatures give risen during the latter half of the 20th century. And neither does anyone else. All people have is a 'pirates versus global temperature' type correlation, that is completely incapable of modelling past temperature trends, and they didnt see the 21th century lack of warming coming any more than wallstreet predicted the financial crash.

But a nice attempt at switching the burden of proof anyway.

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Part of the probelm I have is it seems like anti global warming is adopting a lot of creationist tactics, namely:
a: claims to have scientific proof
b: if pressed for proof start mud slinging
c: if called out on mud slinging claim their dogmatic for dismissing your proof

I really would like to hear alternate scientific theorys for global temperature trends but of the the ones I've already heard they either have flaws I can spot or it seems like very little effort was put into followup's with research or experimentation.

That's exactly the problem I have, too. At the moment, the only arguments I hear against climate change are a combination of:

1. The climatologists haven't considered *insert obvious thing here*, or
   
2. Those climatologists just can't be trusted (Climate Gate, conspiracies etc.)

It's all attack, attack, attack. And once I look into a few of these accusations and they appear to be either baseless or superficial, it all gets the appearance of a very dirty argumentative technique.

What would sway me is a plausible alternative theory that hasn't already been shot down by someone who knows what they're talking about and isn't peppered with claims about how all climate scientists are lying, cheating scumbags.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Part of the probelm I have is it seems like anti global warming is adopting a lot of creationist tactics, namely:
a: claims to have scientific proof
b: if pressed for proof start mud slinging
c: if called out on mud slinging claim their dogmatic for dismissing your proof

I really would like to hear alternate scientific theorys for global temperature trends but of the the ones I've already heard they either have flaws I can spot or it seems like very little effort was put into followup's with research or experimentation.

Before you ask for an explanation, I would like to ask: what is there to explain? Actual temperature developments are entirely non-exciting, as anyone who didnt let himself get carried away by the few obviously slanted graphs compiled by mann et al.

I have no friggin clue why temperatures give risen during the latter half of the 20th century. And neither does anyone else. All people have is a 'pirates versus global temperature' type correlation, that is completely incapable of modelling past temperature trends, and they didnt see the 21th century lack of warming coming any more than wallstreet predicted the financial crash.

But a nice attempt at switching the burden of proof anyway.

Except that theirs tons of proof your dismissing on the grounds that tens of thousands of scientists and politicians are in on a globe spanning conspiracy to do something.

for example we basically know anthropomorphic CO2 is having some effect on the planet