Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jan 2010 10:07 On 1/23/10 2:21 AM, Benj wrote: > On Jan 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > >>> Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept >>> the facts. >> >> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. > > Which is something you and yours are banking on to get your AGW story > across, no? > > Hey, Sam. I just want you to know that while I've been blasting holes > in your propaganda, times are hard and I can be bought. If you'd like > a real honest to goodness scientist to back your claims, let me know > how much money you can offer! Together we can do much to convince the > public that AGW is universally accepted as true among scientists! > Work on that guy that claims he's a good guy. If you are successful we'll talk... ;-)
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 10:45 On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >> objective. >> > There is a risk of that happening. > > However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money > to fund work that supports the opposing objective? Yes, and they do; Money the big oil companies are spending on lobbying; http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million already in the 2010 cycle. Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists; http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets And extensive astroturfing; http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-and-climate-rallies-real-or-astroturf > cf > > The Temperature of Science > James Hansen > http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS... > > <Start extract> > > The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, > on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to > yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians > would certainly have done that � but they have not. > > <End extract> > > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ > > >
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 10:50 On 1/23/2010 2:03 AM, oriel36 wrote: > On Jan 23, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Climate of suspicion >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >> >> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues >> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely >> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. >> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People >> have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the >> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus >> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when >> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should >> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a >> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they >> share something in common with that other side. > > Hah !,the wider population now know enough to recognize climate change > as a normal function of planetary processes be these processes > astronomical or terrestrial in origin,what these same people are Which specific processes are responsible for the current warming? > cottoning on to is scientists trying to make people believe that there > are those out there who 'deny' climate change when verily these > people,at the very least,object to the idea that humans can control > global temperatures to within a certain range by some act of human > activity by doing something or leaving something undone.Even in that Man can have no effect on the earth? That's creationist talk isn't it. > loathsome commentary you present they link climate change with carbon > dioxide emissions demonstrating that far from any real contrition for > this intellectual holocaust,they seek to perpetuate it in such an > unintelligent way.Who they think they are fooling nowadays is anyone's > guess,more like thumbsucking as far as I can tell. There will always be the nutjob no-science fringe, unable or unwilling to examine the evidence or accept anything challenging their world view.
From: Mike Jr on 23 Jan 2010 10:55 On Jan 22, 10:22 pm, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 1/22/2010 8:10 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 8:06 pm, Peter Franks<n...(a)none.com> wrote: > >> Sam Wormley wrote: > >>> Climate of suspicion > >>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > >>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > >>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > >>> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues > >>> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page > >>> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely > >>> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. > >>> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People > >>> have more trust in experts and scientists when they sense that the > >>> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus > >>> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when > >>> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should > >>> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a > >>> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they > >>> share something in common with that other side. > > >> That's just common human decency. > > >> The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to > >> prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude > >> that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. After > >> all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, do > >> they?. > > > You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as > > proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you > > only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political > > objective. That isn't science, that is advocacy. > > I think you need to prove your hypothesis. > > > Decide; are you a scientist or a politician? Nature's editors have. > > Unsubstantiated bullshit. How eloquent.~ --Mike Jr.
From: Mike Jr on 23 Jan 2010 10:59
On Jan 23, 1:15 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > > <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as > >proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you > >only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political > >objective. > > There is a risk of that happening. > > However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money > to fund work that supports the opposing objective? > > cf > > The Temperature of Science > James Hansenhttp://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS... > > <Start extract> > > The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, > on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to > yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians > would certainly have done that but they have not. > > <End extract> > > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ Remember your words. Independent analysis has already started. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/ --Mike Jr. |