Listen people, I'm serial. Man-Bear-Pig is a huge threat, and if you can't see that, and you continue to down vote this thread, I will demand a recount of your down votes. If I don't like that recount, I will appeal to the Imperial Senate and keep appealing until Palpatine gives me a count I like. I'm serial. I did not invent the internet for you just so you could ignore Man-Bear-Pig. You people are about to experience an inconvenient recount. This is serial people.
It's always relevant to consider the source. I like to keep in mind that the material arguing problematic anthropogenic warming all comes from public grant funded researchers, who would like to keep getting grants. "Impending Catastrophe" scares up money, I would think.
Ah, the despicable grant-money trope rears its ugly head again. Fine and fair enough, we all agree that research takes money. But I would really like to see, from people who run this one up the flagpole, substantive evidence indicating that 1) Advocating falsehoods is a good way to get grant money, rather than to earn scientific ridicule and a sure death to one's research credibility, and/or 2) A significant number of theories have risen to acceptance within the scientific community based on the supposed ease they afforded in obtaining funding, and have later been dropped when the scandal was discovered.
Note that the above two, if supplied, would still not rise to the level of proof that any particular area of research was lethally contaminated by researchers' avarice. For that, you would actually have to show 1) That the research was flawed or came to an incorrect conclusion, and 2) That the researchers responsible were falsifying data or inventing specters with the intent of obtaining funding. To discredit research in this way, you would have to use the scientific method to convince scientists, and/or courtroom procedure to convince a jury in, say, a civil trial to recover fraudulently obtained research dollars.
The above should be enough to show why these accusations occur in online forums, editorial pages, and blogs, rather than in research journals or courts of law. Simply put, it cannot be done because these accusations are so patently absurd as to be rejected out of hand by people whose expertise is actually in finding things like this out. If it were otherwise, one could make an academic career out of showing it. If you are so sure of it, please do so. Get published in Nature, or another respected journal. Do such groundbreaking research that you get invited to give talks to academic audiences. Your service to mankind by debunking a flawed institution that claims (at this point legitimately, I might add) the mantle of being the best way that the human race has of gaining new knowledge will be immeasurable, even if you did not, in the same stroke, supply humankind with another and superior edifice. Until then, by perpetuating this silly vicious lie, you are merely pissing in the fountain of knowledge* for the purposes of self-aggrandizement.
Our current body of scientific knowledge has been made possible by the scientific method. This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day. Everything that you rely on to supply you with your modern lifestyle comes from this kind of scientific rigor. Medicine, transportation, hygiene, materials, manufacturing, computers, the list goes on.
Show a little bit of the proper respect due to the edifice that has done so much for you.
*"[P]issing in the fountain of knowledge" borrowed from YouTube user Thunderf00t's excellent videos on young earth creationism whackos. I highly recommend them, even if you think you're sick to death of that whole 'debate.'
> But I would really like to see, from people who run this one up the flagpole, substantive evidence indicating that 1) Advocating falsehoods is a good way to get grant money, rather than to earn scientific ridicule and a sure death to one's research credibility, and/or
The "AGW support gets funding" argument doesn't require that anyone lie. It merely requires that AGW support be used as a criteria for determining funding.
> 2) A significant number of theories have risen to acceptance within the scientific community based on the supposed ease they afforded in obtaining funding, and have later been dropped when the scandal was discovered.
Again - scandal isn't necessary.
AI before the winter qualifies. So does room-temperature fusion. In fact, all of the "trends" do.
No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development.
> So does room-temperature fusion.
You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts.
>> This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day.
You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.
> You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts.
Actually I did. Room temperature fusion actually proves my point that trends exist. The fact that the room temperature fusion one ended doesn't change that fact.
Funding is political. I'm not saying that it's wrong for it to be political, but denying that it is is a serious error and often leads to scientific ones.
If you want to argue that funding isn't political, feel free to explain why certain diseases get lots of funding while others don't. (For example, guess why we know a lot about tobacco plant diseases. Does the relative funding for breast and prostate cancer make sense?)
> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.
Whenever someone says "scientific agreement" or "scientific concensus", I'm reminded of 5000 German scientists.
When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them ....
When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"....
I've no doubt that bogus arguments are being trotted out on both sides.
However, one side wants to use force to change my behavior.
It's somewhat interesting that their "recommendations" line up with a belief system that predates this round of falling sky and that they reject any solutions that don't line up with that belief system. They wrap themselves in "science" to stifle debate and to support conclusions that have no basis in their actual data.
I'm not saying that those non-scientific behaviors prove that they're wrong, but ....
> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming.
Are you claiming actual relevant personal expertise?
Cold fusion shows that the scientific process can quickly correct for errors before they become widely accepted. Even if those theories are ones that would lead to major increases in scientific funding. Maybe in your conspiracy-theory, wacky-science world 'room temperature fusion' was actually a widely accepted theory but in the actual scientific world it was nothing more than a theory proposed by a few people that was rapidly disproven. If that is the best comparable case you can find then you might as well give up.
The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. Your arguments could just as easily apply to evolution, quantum mechanics or ozone depletion
> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them
What? Where?
> When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"
Um what?
> When I hear satan telling me to...
OK I made that one up. Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.
> The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect.
I never said that it did. You're the one claiming that a political process, namely funding, is a strong indicator of scientific truth. Or, are you still arguing that funding isn't political?
>> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them
> What? Where?
"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
> > When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"
> Um what?
I'm still looking for that cite. (While looking for the incident that I was referring to, I found suggestions that Mann et al, the authors of the "Hockey Stick" paper haven't released their methodology, but that wasn't the one that I was looking for.)
> "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
This was a single instance of somebody speaking as a private citizen about people being tried (not specifically jailed) for their -->ACTIONS<-- assuming they knew exactly what they where doing. This is comparable to people now calling for the CEO's of cigarette companies to be convicted for knowingly surpressing evidence that smoking was harmful.
> This was a single instance of somebody speaking as a private citizen
That comment is absurd. Hansen isn't "somebody speaking" and he trades on "NASA climate scientist". Moreover, the comment the setting of his statement gives lie to the "private citizen" theory.
> about people being tried (not specifically jailed)
>> When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"
> Um what?
Philip Jones, in response to a request for "his" data (which was paid for by taxpayers), said "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Does this prove that he knows that he's hiding something? No. It doesn't even prove that he's unknowingly hiding something. For all we know, his data could be perfect or even more supportive of his theory than he's stated. (However, there is the small matter that it looks like every correction to the prominent AGW research has gone the other way, which is statistically odd.)
However, it does demonstrate that dejb's "pure/rational scientists" theory is bunk.
> Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.
What's "deep end" about the truth?
Scientists are monkeys and they (occasionally) behave like monkeys. If your belief system requires otherwise, you've got a problem.
Good to see that you put in the effort to back up your claims. Despite the fact that your other claim was misrepresented (I'll reply to that separately) I'll take you at your word that this instance is as stated.
Your original statement implied to me that this was a common occurance rather than a single case. Anyone can cherry pick individual cases that might look bad against any group of people. I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.
To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case in general you would have to show that scientists who suport the global warming case are generally a lot less forthcoming with their data than other comparable areas (or with sceptics if there was a statistically valid sample group of recognised scientists in that group).
I'm not saying scientist are perfect. But compared with the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day. And really that's what it comes down to. Nothing is an absolute certainly. We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities. Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.
> To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case
Strawman. I explicitly wrote that it wasn't evidence against (or for) the global warming case. I wrote that it was evidence against dejb's faith in the "science" behavior exhibited scientists with whom he agrees.
Since dejb's only evidence for his faith is their behavior....
> I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.
The mark of actual science is looking for holes in what you believe in. The mark of faith is looking for support for what you believe in and looking for holes in what you oppose.
Note the difference....
> the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day.
Since "motley crew of inferentially challenged" also describes the AGW believers that dejb "have experienced"....
> Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.
Except that the scientific concensus isn't. Moreover, scientific concensus doesn't actually have any scientific weight. Then again, you have actually understand science to know why.
> We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities.
Since we don't make decisions based on probabilities, this is an interesting usage of the term "have to make".
I recommend Feyerabend and some direct observations of actual scientists. Popper's discussions of "scientism" are also relevant.
I think it is probably most relevant to consider where the funding comes from - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. You really would have to involve those who fund the research in your little conspiracy theory for it to make sense. Publicly funded research money generally comes from the government. I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming. In fact I would argue that the previous US administration demonstrated a significant bias against the global warming case.
In the case of private organisations the incentive to pay for biased research is obvious and it is an expected tactic.
When proposing a conspiracy theory such as the one you are with respect to global warming it can help to point to a previous examples of where a similar thing has occurred. As an counter conspiracy theory example I'll put up the debate over smoking. Although public research started to show signs of health problems, the smoking industry fought with their own paid 'research'. Millions of lives have probably been lost as a result of the delays in changes to public policy because of the FUD spread by the smoking lobby. To me the incentives with global warming seem to be the same as with smoking was and I see every reason to believe the situation is the same.
It seems your conception of the conspiracy runs deaper than I could have imagined. You are only one step from arguing that global warming as the basis for a plot to enslave the people of the world.
In the end governments have people's expectations of improved living standards to deal with. If the people don't approve of the way things are going they are voted out of office (or removed some other way in non-democracies). Unless you actually believe some kind of 'enslaved world' theory you'd find that the additional costs associated with the carbon reduction are somthing most goverments are keen to avoid for as long as possible.
Doesn't regulation limit the power of the politicians, too? And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.
Japan: ... and those whales are going to suicide at the beach anyway, so we... Ehm, study them and prevent contamination of beaches with decaying whale corpses.
This is about as knee-slappingly insightful as a Japanese person saying "Trust Paul Graham on startups? Pfft. What would Americans ever accomplish with a startup, invading somebody?"
They are from maritime research, and they compared computer modeling of climate changes to astrology, so the step to reading guts of whales doesn't seem so far fetched to me. Japan is famous for needing whales for scientific research, so I just put 2+2 together.
I must admit I missed all pages of the article after the first, though (bloody pagination). Now reading, I can at least sympathize with the notion that man made global warming is only a hypothesis. However, that holds for anything science says, doesn't it? There are still varying degrees of belief based on the known evidence.
Overall the whole article did not have much content, or did it? The only content is basically that there are 3 japanese scientists who don't believe in global warming and 2 who do (or something like that - in any case the real information content is close to zero).
An honest question: how do we know we are not in the opposite of an ice age? So temperatures will get warmer and warmer till they reach a peak and then start dropping till we get to the next ice age?
How do we determine that peak and when was the last one?
It would be nice if more people acknowledged that we should be seriously addressing the problem of natural climate change as well as man made climate change.
This is an idea that's given rise to many conspiracy theories about the politicizing of science, many of which make a lot of sense when you look at them objectively. I recommend reading Michael Crichton's essay on second hand smoking and some of the content on Green Agenda to get some background information:
It's scary to think that powerful people might justify using science as a political tool, just because they believe the ends justify the means. If you're willing to manipulate the truth for what you perceive is good, it opens the door for many dystopian scenarios.
Boffin: "...scientists, engineers, and other people who are stereotypically seen as engaged in technical or scientific research. American equivalent is 'egghead.'"
Just in case anyone had no idea what a "boffin" was and figured it was some kind of flightless bird or something.
Not that this happened to me or anything like that.
From what I understand, these scientists are merely saying that there is not enough evidence yet to instantiate the hypothesis of man-made global warming into fact. And by evidence, these guys are looking accurately descriptions of several known phenomena that affect our climate that are not yet well understood.
The scientists bring up 2 good points for science's sake - first is that scientific models need to be 'tuned' because its impossible to deal with all of the complexities of nature - this makes them susceptible to selective tuning to make them support the hypothesis. They also imply that this hypothesis is unscoped, meaning that solar, aerosel, or other factors haven't been adequately taken into account. If you want to prove the link between carbon and temperature change, prove that that observed effect isn't caused by anything else.
I also think this title is completely link-bait, because they aren't suggesting that Global warming isn't man-made. They are merely saying that the scientific evidence is not conclusive, and won't hold up in a scientific forum if there was no humanitarian agenda attached. I think its healthy for the scientific community, frankly.
35 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 76.7 ms ] thread> The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure...
> JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields
I think in this case it is relevant to consider the source.
Note that the above two, if supplied, would still not rise to the level of proof that any particular area of research was lethally contaminated by researchers' avarice. For that, you would actually have to show 1) That the research was flawed or came to an incorrect conclusion, and 2) That the researchers responsible were falsifying data or inventing specters with the intent of obtaining funding. To discredit research in this way, you would have to use the scientific method to convince scientists, and/or courtroom procedure to convince a jury in, say, a civil trial to recover fraudulently obtained research dollars.
The above should be enough to show why these accusations occur in online forums, editorial pages, and blogs, rather than in research journals or courts of law. Simply put, it cannot be done because these accusations are so patently absurd as to be rejected out of hand by people whose expertise is actually in finding things like this out. If it were otherwise, one could make an academic career out of showing it. If you are so sure of it, please do so. Get published in Nature, or another respected journal. Do such groundbreaking research that you get invited to give talks to academic audiences. Your service to mankind by debunking a flawed institution that claims (at this point legitimately, I might add) the mantle of being the best way that the human race has of gaining new knowledge will be immeasurable, even if you did not, in the same stroke, supply humankind with another and superior edifice. Until then, by perpetuating this silly vicious lie, you are merely pissing in the fountain of knowledge* for the purposes of self-aggrandizement.
Our current body of scientific knowledge has been made possible by the scientific method. This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day. Everything that you rely on to supply you with your modern lifestyle comes from this kind of scientific rigor. Medicine, transportation, hygiene, materials, manufacturing, computers, the list goes on.
Show a little bit of the proper respect due to the edifice that has done so much for you.
*"[P]issing in the fountain of knowledge" borrowed from YouTube user Thunderf00t's excellent videos on young earth creationism whackos. I highly recommend them, even if you think you're sick to death of that whole 'debate.'
The "AGW support gets funding" argument doesn't require that anyone lie. It merely requires that AGW support be used as a criteria for determining funding.
> 2) A significant number of theories have risen to acceptance within the scientific community based on the supposed ease they afforded in obtaining funding, and have later been dropped when the scandal was discovered.
Again - scandal isn't necessary.
AI before the winter qualifies. So does room-temperature fusion. In fact, all of the "trends" do.
Funding is a social process.
No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development.
> So does room-temperature fusion.
You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts.
>> This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day.
You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.
Actually I did. Room temperature fusion actually proves my point that trends exist. The fact that the room temperature fusion one ended doesn't change that fact.
Funding is political. I'm not saying that it's wrong for it to be political, but denying that it is is a serious error and often leads to scientific ones.
If you want to argue that funding isn't political, feel free to explain why certain diseases get lots of funding while others don't. (For example, guess why we know a lot about tobacco plant diseases. Does the relative funding for breast and prostate cancer make sense?)
> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.
Whenever someone says "scientific agreement" or "scientific concensus", I'm reminded of 5000 German scientists.
When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them ....
When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"....
I've no doubt that bogus arguments are being trotted out on both sides.
However, one side wants to use force to change my behavior.
It's somewhat interesting that their "recommendations" line up with a belief system that predates this round of falling sky and that they reject any solutions that don't line up with that belief system. They wrap themselves in "science" to stifle debate and to support conclusions that have no basis in their actual data.
I'm not saying that those non-scientific behaviors prove that they're wrong, but ....
> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming.
Are you claiming actual relevant personal expertise?
Or, are you going, as I am, by "monkey sign"?
The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. Your arguments could just as easily apply to evolution, quantum mechanics or ozone depletion
> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them
What? Where?
> When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"
Um what?
> When I hear satan telling me to...
OK I made that one up. Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.
I never said that it did. You're the one claiming that a political process, namely funding, is a strong indicator of scientific truth. Or, are you still arguing that funding isn't political?
>> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them
> What? Where?
"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623...
> > When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"
> Um what?
I'm still looking for that cite. (While looking for the incident that I was referring to, I found suggestions that Mann et al, the authors of the "Hockey Stick" paper haven't released their methodology, but that wasn't the one that I was looking for.)
This was a single instance of somebody speaking as a private citizen about people being tried (not specifically jailed) for their -->ACTIONS<-- assuming they knew exactly what they where doing. This is comparable to people now calling for the CEO's of cigarette companies to be convicted for knowingly surpressing evidence that smoking was harmful.
That comment is absurd. Hansen isn't "somebody speaking" and he trades on "NASA climate scientist". Moreover, the comment the setting of his statement gives lie to the "private citizen" theory.
> about people being tried (not specifically jailed)
Yeah right.
> Um what?
Philip Jones, in response to a request for "his" data (which was paid for by taxpayers), said "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Does this prove that he knows that he's hiding something? No. It doesn't even prove that he's unknowingly hiding something. For all we know, his data could be perfect or even more supportive of his theory than he's stated. (However, there is the small matter that it looks like every correction to the prominent AGW research has gone the other way, which is statistically odd.)
However, it does demonstrate that dejb's "pure/rational scientists" theory is bunk.
> Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.
What's "deep end" about the truth?
Scientists are monkeys and they (occasionally) behave like monkeys. If your belief system requires otherwise, you've got a problem.
Your original statement implied to me that this was a common occurance rather than a single case. Anyone can cherry pick individual cases that might look bad against any group of people. I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.
To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case in general you would have to show that scientists who suport the global warming case are generally a lot less forthcoming with their data than other comparable areas (or with sceptics if there was a statistically valid sample group of recognised scientists in that group).
I'm not saying scientist are perfect. But compared with the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day. And really that's what it comes down to. Nothing is an absolute certainly. We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities. Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.
Strawman. I explicitly wrote that it wasn't evidence against (or for) the global warming case. I wrote that it was evidence against dejb's faith in the "science" behavior exhibited scientists with whom he agrees.
Since dejb's only evidence for his faith is their behavior....
> I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.
The mark of actual science is looking for holes in what you believe in. The mark of faith is looking for support for what you believe in and looking for holes in what you oppose.
Note the difference....
> the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day.
Since "motley crew of inferentially challenged" also describes the AGW believers that dejb "have experienced"....
> Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.
Except that the scientific concensus isn't. Moreover, scientific concensus doesn't actually have any scientific weight. Then again, you have actually understand science to know why.
> We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities.
Since we don't make decisions based on probabilities, this is an interesting usage of the term "have to make".
I recommend Feyerabend and some direct observations of actual scientists. Popper's discussions of "scientism" are also relevant.
In the case of private organisations the incentive to pay for biased research is obvious and it is an expected tactic.
When proposing a conspiracy theory such as the one you are with respect to global warming it can help to point to a previous examples of where a similar thing has occurred. As an counter conspiracy theory example I'll put up the debate over smoking. Although public research started to show signs of health problems, the smoking industry fought with their own paid 'research'. Millions of lives have probably been lost as a result of the delays in changes to public policy because of the FUD spread by the smoking lobby. To me the incentives with global warming seem to be the same as with smoking was and I see every reason to believe the situation is the same.
The incentive seems obvious to me but correct me if I'm wrong: increased taxes and regulation resulting in more power for politicians.
In the end governments have people's expectations of improved living standards to deal with. If the people don't approve of the way things are going they are voted out of office (or removed some other way in non-democracies). Unless you actually believe some kind of 'enslaved world' theory you'd find that the additional costs associated with the carbon reduction are somthing most goverments are keen to avoid for as long as possible.
No. Regulation is an opportunity to pass out favors.
> And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.
No, spending doesn't have to be for specific things. (What fraction of alcohol taxes goes to alcohol treatment?)
Moreover, controlling more spending is typically more interesting than controlling specific spending.
To put it another way, dollars are fungible wrt political power.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...
Then you don't understand monkeys. (Govts are groups of monkeys.)
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...
> In fact I would argue that the previous US administration demonstrated a significant bias against the global warming case.
And, you don't understand large organizations. (The president and/or congress doesn't actually have strong control over the bureaucracies.)
Even Louis XIV was probably wrong when he said that he was the state.
Here is some scientific proof for you to start your research..
http://www.discovery.org/v/30
I must admit I missed all pages of the article after the first, though (bloody pagination). Now reading, I can at least sympathize with the notion that man made global warming is only a hypothesis. However, that holds for anything science says, doesn't it? There are still varying degrees of belief based on the known evidence.
Overall the whole article did not have much content, or did it? The only content is basically that there are 3 japanese scientists who don't believe in global warming and 2 who do (or something like that - in any case the real information content is close to zero).
How do we determine that peak and when was the last one?
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/mi... http://www.green-agenda.com/
It's scary to think that powerful people might justify using science as a political tool, just because they believe the ends justify the means. If you're willing to manipulate the truth for what you perceive is good, it opens the door for many dystopian scenarios.
Just in case anyone had no idea what a "boffin" was and figured it was some kind of flightless bird or something.
Not that this happened to me or anything like that.
The scientists bring up 2 good points for science's sake - first is that scientific models need to be 'tuned' because its impossible to deal with all of the complexities of nature - this makes them susceptible to selective tuning to make them support the hypothesis. They also imply that this hypothesis is unscoped, meaning that solar, aerosel, or other factors haven't been adequately taken into account. If you want to prove the link between carbon and temperature change, prove that that observed effect isn't caused by anything else.
I also think this title is completely link-bait, because they aren't suggesting that Global warming isn't man-made. They are merely saying that the scientific evidence is not conclusive, and won't hold up in a scientific forum if there was no humanitarian agenda attached. I think its healthy for the scientific community, frankly.