Man Made Global Warming

[Bewolf]

This thread is more surreal then watching Glenn Beck.

The amound of conspiracy attributed to numerous orgnaisations and proffessions is worse then kennedy, moon landing and Area 51 combined.

[camber]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

This thread is more surreal then watching Glenn Beck.

The amound of conspiracy attributed to numerous orgnaisations and proffessions is worse then kennedy, moon landing and Area 51 combined.

I am a professional genetic scientist/protein engineer. I started out working next to a new research institute, all swoopy architecture and weird piping poking out the top. Security was tight. We all wondered, what really went on in there? Alien ship on the top floor with frozen bodies? Cold fusion reactor?

I started working there a couple years ago and it turned out to be pretty boring, just the same thing again. Floors and floors of modestly paid scientists on depressing short term contracts, delegating work to attractive young students, trying to find objective truths about problems small and large in scope. No alien ship on the top floor, just a ping pong table (but a nice view area and BBQ).

We Scientists (not a climatologist btw) just try our best, for reasons we doubt ourselves sometimes, to present the closest to the objective truth we can produce and hope someone actually reads it. From our clever predecessors we know all the ways that humans can delude themselves in technical arguments when they want something to be true, and we pounce on other scientists in meetings when they make those mistakes. We can be smartarses in forums pointing out when non scientists show these argument biases again and again and again.

But it's not our fault when politicos try to produce policies that benefit their cronies or increase taxation while sounding green. Or when a weatherman says that the hurricane last month was because of global warming, or that the cold snap last week disproves global warming. Or if a coal mine closes, then reopens with the coal dyed green, marketing them as "antiwarming green gaia powerrocks (tm)"

The scientific consensus on global warming is very clear, and has been verified by multiple avenues of research and multiple groups of scientists who probably don't like each other that much. Sorry.

camber

P.S Global warming actually got me into trouble during my PhD. I calibrated my CO2 analyser using a textbook that gave the 1975 atmospheric content of CO2. After my data was a bit weird my boss pointed out I better check, it had gone up a lot since then

[MadBlaster]

I can see it now. Scientists playing ping pong, back and forth, frying up big fat steaks on the BBQ while calibrating their CO2 meters. Please tell us now you work for GE or Monsanto.

Sorry, I try to restrain myself. But gee whiz.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I can see it now. Scientists playing ping pong, back and forth, frying up big fat steaks on the BBQ while calibrating their CO2 meters. Please tell us now you work for GE or Monsanto.

Sorry, I try to restrain myself. But gee whiz.

lies.

[camber]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I can see it now. Scientists playing ping pong, back and forth, frying up big fat steaks on the BBQ while calibrating their CO2 meters. Please tell us now you work for GE or Monsanto.

Sorry, I try to restrain myself. But gee whiz.

No, I am afraid it is good old mostly taxpayer funded research in the land of Aus. I have never actually seen anyone play ping pong but the the BBQ sometimes gets a workout after 5pm on Fridays

Scientists used to be more fun before OH&S, risk assessments and whatnot. Putting dry ice into tiny capped tubes was always fun, then put them down other scientist's lab coats without them noticing (and then sneak away before they explode)

[=CfC= Father Ted]

Originally Posted by camber

Floors and floors of modestly paid scientists on depressing short term contracts

....

We Scientists (not a climatologist btw) just try our best, for reasons we doubt ourselves sometimes, to present the closest to the objective truth we can produce and hope someone actually reads it. From our clever predecessors we know all the ways that humans can delude themselves in technical arguments when they want something to be true, and we pounce on other scientists in meetings when they make those mistakes. We can be smartarses in forums pointing out when non scientists show these argument biases again and again and again.

....

The scientific consensus on global warming is very clear, and has been verified by multiple avenues of research and multiple groups of scientists who probably don't like each other that much. Sorry.

Pretty much plus one to this. I used to work in government-funded research in the UK. People who do this sort of stuff aren't in it for the money. They're not into trying to scam the general public out of money to fund their lifestyles. If they do want more money, it's to fund their actual research. They're driven by a desire to find stuff out, and also to earn the respect of their peers.

To make a slightly tortured analogy, they're like people who fly online and insist it's full switch - they want other people to say "That guy's good!". So there are egos involved. This means, as Camber pointed out, that the scientific consensus is not normally arrived at though some chummy agreement.

Before anyone jumps on this post, I'm not claiming that these people do their stuff for free, or that they'd turn down the chance to get paid like Premiership footballers. But I bet if they did get paid that much, they'd use a good chunk of the money to buy better scientific gear, rather than two Lamborghinis.

Success for them is not about earning more and more dosh.

On the other side of the fence, to my mind, you have the petro-chemical industry. I think we can agree that they do measure success in terms of profits. Why could they possibly opposed to the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is something that we should be curtailing?

Of these two sides, which is the more powerful, in terms of shaping world economy and politics? A bunch of people who just want to prove that they're right to their own small community, or a bunch of people who can convince nations to go to war in their interests?

If there is a conspiracy involved in proving the validity of the theory of man-made climate change, I know who I think is behind it.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by =CfC= Father Ted

Pretty much plus one to this. I used to work in government-funded research in the UK. People who do this sort of stuff aren't in it for the money. They're not into trying to scam the general public out of money to fund their lifestyles. If they do want more money, it's to fund their actual research. They're driven by a desire to find stuff out, and also to earn the respect of their peers.

To make a slightly tortured analogy, they're like people who fly online and insist it's full switch - they want other people to say "That guy's good!". So there are egos involved. This means, as Camber pointed out, that the scientific consensus is not normally arrived at though some chummy agreement.

Before anyone jumps on this post, I'm not claiming that these people do their stuff for free, or that they'd turn down the chance to get paid like Premiership footballers. But I bet if they did get paid that much, they'd use a good chunk of the money to buy better scientific gear, rather than two Lamborghinis.

Success for them is not about earning more and more dosh.

On the other side of the fence, to my mind, you have the petro-chemical industry. I think we can agree that they do measure success in terms of profits. Why could they possibly opposed to the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is something that we should be curtailing?

Of these two sides, which is the more powerful, in terms of shaping world economy and politics? A bunch of people who just want to prove that they're right to their own small community, or a bunch of people who can convince nations to go to war in their interests?

If there is a conspiracy involved in proving the validity of the theory of man-made climate change, I know who I think is behind it.

oh but of course.

then there's the tales of patents for various renewable or non-fossil fuel driven systems being bought up by petro-chemical companies, stock piled to ensure the company survives beyond stocks and supply of said fossil fuels. i mean it's a conspiracy theory, but the depressing thing is that it is entirely credible. why hurt their market share before they have to, right?