Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ... 31394041
Results 401 to 408 of 408

Thread: ‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

  1. #401
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,068
    Amen (Given)
    69
    Amen (Received)
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Partly it is that I really don't see that much climate change as the proponents are suggesting. I see them manipulating data to increase the numbers in the charts, to "correct" them I mean - I see a lot of money to be had in believing in global warming and getting government grants. I see a lot of political clout to be had in controlling the narrative that we have to do something and the sky is falling. But when I look at the actual climate, I don't see that much difference. And when people do bring up things like the Antartic ice is growing or that the ice caps are not shrinking as predicted, it seems there are always excuses to handwave away any evidence that doesn't fit the models.
    There's a lot there that i could take on, but it's easier to take it one issue at a time. I'd like to start with this:
    "I see a lot of money to be had in believing in global warming and getting government grants."

    Which i have several thoughts on. One is that, obviously, the government paid money for climate research before it was obvious that CO2 is a problem, otherwise (duh) it would have been hard for us to discover that CO2 is a problem. The second is that you don't give out grants based on conclusions; they're evaluated based on the questions they ask, and any decent climate research is equally capable of finding out that CO2 isn't a problem, or is less a problem than we think. So, there's really no money being handed out based on what a scientist has concluded based on past research.

    The final thing is that accepting climate science doesn't mean more money, as the GAO makes clear:
    670757.jpg
    (source: https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/clima.../issue_summary)

    And that's basically because doing something about climate change doesn't require a climatologist. It requires engineers, materials scientists, etc., because those are the people who are going to be designing wind turbines, figuring out how to possibly make nuclear affordable, and so on. So, climatologists don't get any more money if we accept the scientific evidence.

  2. #402
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    43,642
    Amen (Given)
    4095
    Amen (Received)
    19795
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    There's a lot there that i could take on, but it's easier to take it one issue at a time. I'd like to start with this:
    "I see a lot of money to be had in believing in global warming and getting government grants."

    Which i have several thoughts on. One is that, obviously, the government paid money for climate research before it was obvious that CO2 is a problem, otherwise (duh) it would have been hard for us to discover that CO2 is a problem. The second is that you don't give out grants based on conclusions; they're evaluated based on the questions they ask, and any decent climate research is equally capable of finding out that CO2 isn't a problem, or is less a problem than we think. So, there's really no money being handed out based on what a scientist has concluded based on past research.

    The final thing is that accepting climate science doesn't mean more money, as the GAO makes clear:
    670757.jpg
    (source: https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/clima.../issue_summary)

    And that's basically because doing something about climate change doesn't require a climatologist. It requires engineers, materials scientists, etc., because those are the people who are going to be designing wind turbines, figuring out how to possibly make nuclear affordable, and so on. So, climatologists don't get any more money if we accept the scientific evidence.
    Except anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money and is ostracized by the scientists that do. And the studies that support AGW help fund the programs like you mention that require engineering, etc. There is a an entire industry built around accepting AGW as true and nobody wants to rock the boat. If the scientists were to reverse and say there is no appreciable AGW, the bottom would fall out of all of those projects.

  3. #403
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,068
    Amen (Given)
    69
    Amen (Received)
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Except anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money and is ostracized by the scientists that do. And the studies that support AGW help fund the programs like you mention that require engineering, etc. There is a an entire industry built around accepting AGW as true and nobody wants to rock the boat. If the scientists were to reverse and say there is no appreciable AGW, the bottom would fall out of all of those projects.
    But they're not the same people. They're not even in the same academic departments. Why should the scientists care whether or not engineers get more or less money?

    Also, how do you know that "anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money"?

  4. #404
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    43,642
    Amen (Given)
    4095
    Amen (Received)
    19795
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    But they're not the same people. They're not even in the same academic departments. Why should the scientists care whether or not engineers get more or less money?

    Also, how do you know that "anyone who questions AGW doesn't get grant money"?
    Each group cares about themselves. Politicians supply grant money to scientists to study AGW, then use those results to pander for more money to "save the world" and start various programs that require more funding, etc. Like I said, it seems to be an industry.

    And I have seen reports of scientists who don't go along with AGW lose tenure at universities, not get grant money, called lunatics, climate deniers, etc. Heck you guys do that to anyone here whether they are a scientist or not.

  5. #405
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,068
    Amen (Given)
    69
    Amen (Received)
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Each group cares about themselves. Politicians supply grant money to scientists to study AGW, then use those results to pander for more money to "save the world" and start various programs that require more funding, etc. Like I said, it seems to be an industry.
    In the US, 2 of the last 3 administrations have been opposed to the conclusions of climate science; frequent majorities of either or both houses of congress have been too. Yet scientists haven't changed their conclusions during those periods. And scientists within oil companies have reached identical conclusions to those at universities.

    It doesn't make for a convincing cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And I have seen reports of scientists who don't go along with AGW lose tenure at universities, not get grant money, called lunatics, climate deniers, etc.
    Could you share some of the losing tenure or not getting grant money details?

    I've heard stories about the same things happening to people who don't believe in evolution, but they mostly come from Jorge :P

  6. #406
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    43,642
    Amen (Given)
    4095
    Amen (Received)
    19795
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    In the US, 2 of the last 3 administrations have been opposed to the conclusions of climate science; frequent majorities of either or both houses of congress have been too. Yet scientists haven't changed their conclusions during those periods. And scientists within oil companies have reached identical conclusions to those at universities.

    It doesn't make for a convincing cases.


    Could you share some of the losing tenure or not getting grant money details?

    I've heard stories about the same things happening to people who don't believe in evolution, but they mostly come from Jorge :P
    A quick google search returns

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1615947.html

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...y-interviewed/

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...U2N/story.html

  7. #407
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,068
    Amen (Given)
    69
    Amen (Received)
    353
    Judith Curry retained her tenured position until she left to start a private company.
    Lindzen has been emeritus for well over a decade, and hasn't been forced out of MIT.

    The initial link is a case where a person's contract wasn't renewed because they gave "science" class presentations that, according to the article, included stuff like this:
    The same slideshow suggests global warming is part of a “new world order” and an attempt to establish “global governance,” and the only reason people don’t link it to solar flares is because they can’t make money off of it.

  8. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  9. #408
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,062
    Amen (Given)
    2360
    Amen (Received)
    1666
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    So now it is only "highly probably" instead of a "fact" and "settled science?"

    And my dispute is with AGW, not climate change. While I believe civilization has probably affected the climate a bit, I don't believe it is to the extent that is being claimed. I believe much of it is a natural cycle.
    Global warming has not been characterized as “settled science”, but there is very good reason to accept it as fact. So, why are you so reluctant to accept this?

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...ming-overview/

    https://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming

    Given the catastrophic dangers to life on earth it poses if, as is highly probable, it is true it behooves us to take action to modify it as per the Paris Agreement.

    https://populationeducation.org/what...-it-important/
    Last edited by Tassman; 01-18-2019 at 10:34 PM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •