• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Manmade Climate Change: The Deeper Agenda

AngelAlice

AngelAlice

bemused & saddened observer
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
762
I originally posted this on the Global warming thread, but Pietro, true to his word, moved it to a thread discussing the CH4 doc 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Since this comment has nothing to do with that doc, and since we can no longer post any criticisms of AGW on the Global Warming thread, I'm starting a new thread here for discussing the science on both sides of the issue. I hope that's ok with P and others.:)

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Ronson8 said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
In future, all speculation about the AGW, 'swindle', will be moved to that thread.

P_M
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's teling em, this thread is for true believers only. :roll:
Click to expand...
A science and evidence based thread, as opposed to a conspiracy theory thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what?

My point has been from the beginning that the science behind AGW is uncertain, and I've brought a lot of evidence to support that. How exactly is that a 'conspiracy theory', while your claim that Big Oil is funding anyone who even doubts AGW is not?

If you like I'll start a new thread called - "The Complex Science of Climate", and you can rename this one - "AGW is REAL, and anyone who says it isn't is a Shill or a Loon." then people won't make the mistake of thinking this is some sort of open forum where all shades of opinion are welcome ;)

Edit: Moved from Global Warming and Climate Change. P_M
Click to expand...
 
There are two threads already about Global Warming and Climate Change. One, Global Warming and Climate Change, which should be about the actual science and evidence for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming and one, CH4: The Great Global Warming Swindle, about the alleged conspiracy to promote the false concept of AGW. One of the main methods being used to promote the anti-AGW line, is to suggest that the scientific community is actually far more at odds over the general principles underlying the known science of AGW, than it actually is. This attack method has been well documented previously on both threads.

That's why this new thread has been moved to the Conspiracy forum and may eventually end up in the Global Warming Swindle thread.

P_M
 
What possible justification is there for a topic called 'Manmade Climate Change, the evidence for and against' being moved to the 'Conspiracy' slot?

Why can't we have a topic in New Science where people are free to debate both sides of the argument?

Seriously, this is censorship gone insane.

Can wiser heads prevail please?
 
I don't think you should be moderating on the climate debate Pietro, you are so biased in favour of man made climate change that it's affecting your judgement.
 
Ronson8 said:
I don't think you should be moderating on the climate debate Pietro, you are so biased in favour of man made climate change that it's affecting your judgement.
Click to expand...
I am not in favour of, 'man made climate change'. ;)

I am in favour of ensuring that the AGW debate is not skewed by astro-turf influenced talking points. This isn't, Above Top Secret, or 'Alex Jones's Info Wars', plenty of that sort of stuff in evidence there. So, I reckon as a mod, I'm allowed a bit of leeway in setting the ground rules of this debate.

There are two basic Threads. Global Warming and Climate Change, which I reckon should stick pretty close to the scientific orthodoxy and, The Great Global Warming Swindle (I've updated the name), which attempts to question, or undermine the scientific orthodoxy.

I'll play pro-science, devil's advocate, as I see fit. WYSIWYG. I'm not the sort to pretend impartiality and then attack from behind a sock.

P_M
 
Ronson's right P - you're losing your sense of balance over this. That's ok, we all do that from time to time, but I think it's important you take a breath and reconsider.
 
Everybody be nice, take a deep breath and look at the sunshine outside!
8)
 
Isn't it lovely :)?

I've reviewed the threads, and agree with Pietro that the overall tone of each warrants them staying in Conspiracy. However, I've resurrected an existent Climate Change thread, already in New Science, in which discussions of the purely scientific and interpretative aspects of climate change can be discussed.

As I've said on that thread, it's a very fine line sometimes, and there may be a need to shift posts between them occasionally, or indeed to cross-post in each thread, which is acceptable in such circumstances.

The purely scientific thread is here.

I trust this solution is to everyone's satisfaction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
stuneville said:
Isn't it lovely :)?

I've reviewed the threads, and agree with Pietro that the overall tone of each warrants them staying in Conspiracy. However, I've resurrected an existent Climate Change thread, already in New Science, in which discussions of the purely scientific and interpretative aspects of climate change can be discussed.

As I've said on that thread, it's a very fine line sometimes, and there may be a need to shift posts between them occasionally, or indeed to cross-post in each thread, which is acceptable in such circumstances.

The purely scientific thread is here.
I trust this solution is to everyone's satisfaction.
Click to expand...

LOL, well, the 'overall tone' of this thread is devoted to discussing why it was made and why it's been moved to this place :) I just don't get why a thread called Manmade Climate Change the evidence for and against is moved to Conspiracy in the first place, but I guess it's not worth making more fuss over. Why not close this sad anomaly? ;)

It's raining here btw .
 
IMHO it comes under the remit of conspiracy if discussion revolves around how the information for and against AGW is being spun by others to serve a purpose related to various agendas. Okay, maybe 'conspiracy' tends to paint things in a certain light, but that's just the way the FTMB is laid out. Either way, maybe this thread could stay alive it was used to show and discuss how AGW is being used as a subject by different parties to further any given agenda. That would put it under the remit of 'conspiracy' as it would show how such parties are using information to promote such furthering...
 
In my opinion, Conspiracy, in this case, covers claims that the AGW debate is being pursued by scientists, because they are: venal and greedy; liars; crypto-religious fanatics; part of some secret Globalist conspiracy; incompetent; deluded; suppressing, or censoring, contrary evidence; and or, criminally insane. That covers an awful lot of the arguments presently silting up the, Global Warming and Climate Change, thread.

If it's not about the actual science, or evidence, then it should be here.
 
'Actual science' and 'evidence' could both be skewed conspiratorially and still be within the remit of the other thread. The problem with the subject is that the various agendas for and against can still sit within actual science and evidence...
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
In my opinion, Conspiracy, in this case, covers claims that the AGW debate is being pursued by scientists, because they are: venal and greedy; liars; crypto-religious fanatics; part of some secret Globalist conspiracy; incompetent; deluded; suppressing, or censoring, contrary evidence; and or, criminally insane.
Click to expand...

Okay I accept that, but surely then it should also cover claims that people who don't believe in AGW are all sponsored by Big Oil? That's a conspiracy-theory too. It's the lack of evenhandedness that's the real problem here, P, and all the moving of stuff based on unclear parameters has only caused confusion. But heyho...

Here's a suggestion - How about we keep the 'Global Warming Swindle' thread for discussion of the documentary - as it was until recently; rename this thread "Climate Change:possible deeper agendas," and use it for discussing the potential 'conspiratorial' elements, and keep the Global Warming thread for discussions of the evidence on both sides?

Does that sound like a plan?

(gosh we should all get lives shouldn't we? :lol: )
 
It makes more sense to me to keep it all in one thread - that way we can have any new info about current theories, and then also new info about how each side is pushing any given ideas forward. I think it's too complicated a subject to divvy up into seperate chunks and still keep the various themes going for discussion here at the FTMB.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...

If it's not about the actual science, or evidence, then it should be here.
Click to expand...
By here, I meant on the Conspiracy forum, of course.
 
Jerry_B said:
It makes more sense to me to keep it all in one thread - that way we can have any new info about current theories, and then also new info about how each side is pushing any given ideas forward. I think it's too complicated a subject to divvy up into seperate chunks and still keep the various themes going for discussion here at the FTMB.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree totally - but Pietro's the moderator and he doesn't seem to want that so we have to make the best of it. ;)

Edit - I changed the subhead of the thread, because whatever eventually gets decided about this, we don't need two threads for the evidence.
 
AngelAlice said:
Well, I agree totally - but Pietro's the moderator and he doesn't seem to want that so we have to make the best of it. ;)
Click to expand...
I concur!
 
In obediance to the rules, this is going here. I don't necessarily agree with all or any of it. But given the repeated claim that everyone who doubts AGW is being paid by Big Oil, I think this is a POV that needs examining. I've highlighted the bits that seem most challenging...

How Big Oil Benefits From Global Warming Alarmism
  • How Big Oil Benefits From Global Warming Alarmism

    I find it somewhat comical when scientists and others who publicly express skepticism about a looming man-made global warming catastrophe are accused of being in the pocket of Big Oil. Here we are referring to oil and gas… master resource trade commodities that the entire world urgently depends upon. Can you imagine they are losing sleep over market competition from non-fossil “renewable alternatives” such as ethanol, windmills and sunbeams? Do you really think rampaging greenhouse gas regulatory attacks on coal-fired power are anything but a blessing?

    First, regarding that “green” ethanol, consider that it really produces little or no net fuel gain at all…not after the diesel required to power the tractors needed to plant, fertilize and harvest all that corn, along with the energy needed to brew it into 180-proof grain alcohol, are factored in. Then, for those who care, after CO2 emissions released in producing it and burning it in vehicles are accounted for, there’s not much difference, if any, compared with petroleum there either. What should matter to everyone, however, is that ethanol has a much lower energy density than gasoline, meaning that it yields fewer miles per gallon.

    And although ethanol has no rational connection with climate, it’s not like Big Oil has a problem hitching a ride on the green bandwagon. Koch Industries, through its subsidiaries Flint Hill Renewables and Koch Supply & Trading, for example, has purchased several ethanol plants in Iowa, and together with its Minnesota refinery, reportedly has the capacity to supply about one-tenth of the U.S. market.

    As Flint Hills President Brad Razook told his employees in a company newsletter,“New or emerging markets, such as renewable fuels, are an opportunity for us to create value within rules the government sets.” He went on to say, “After all, ethanol production is heavily subsidized, mandated and protected”…then adding, “…while Koch companies openly oppose such government programs.”

    Yes, and why blame them? Why pass up money that can be made blending sweet lemonade petroleum with grain alcohol to produce bitter lemon juice…at least so long as voters are gullible enough to tolerate such state and federal lunacy, and taxpayers and consumers can afford to cover the extra costs.

    Then again, the EPA doesn’t want petroleum refiners to make too much money, and is doing a good job to prevent this from happening. Over the past six months three refineries supplying about half of all the East Coast’s gasoline, diesel and jet fuel have closed down in large part due to overly burdensome environmental compliance costs. Philadelphia-based Sunoco’s Northeast refinery business lost nearly $1 billion over the past three years after spending more than $1.3 billion to meet stricter rules.

    Enormously abundant U.S. natural gas represents an increasingly attractive long-term automotive petroleum fuel alternative. Premised upon theoretical climate benefits, the EPA is actively pushing to leverage such a transition to this “cleaner” alternative. Asserting authorization under the Clean Air Act to issue greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for motor vehicles as a “regulated air pollutant”, they propose to impose CO2 restrictions upon model year 2017 and later light-duty trucks.

    But wouldn’t you expect the EPA to be aware that expanded natural gas use will encourage more fracking in order to tap into our huge oil shale reserves? That’s something they apparently don’t like one bit. Their latest gambit is to try to link this safety-proven six- decade-old technology to drinking water pollution.

    Wind power also provides a big growth opportunity for natural gas, a fact not lost on T. Boone Pickens who is, after all, a pretty smart guy. Remember when he made prime time news back in 2007 announcing plans to build the world’s largest wind farm on his land, a $10 billion, 2,700-turbine venture capable of producing enough electricity to support one million homes?

    Perhaps you also remember that he is a serious player in the natural gas business. And since wind is highly intermittent, a “spinning reserve” of backup power capacity is needed to constantly balance fluctuations in the power grid. That typically involves using inefficiently applied natural gas-fueled turbines that are connected to the grid.Achieving a balanced grid network requires that when the wind generation component increases, the temperatures of gas-fueled turbine boilers must be dropped to maintain demand-supply equality. This involves wasteful shedding of heat for cooling—then more wasting to add heat back into the system without accomplishing any additional work. And since the spinning reserves don’t stop consuming fuel when wind generation is occurring, any energy savings or CO2 emission reductions are largely mythological.

    As for claims of powering those one million or gazillion homes, keep in mind that that there is carefully cultivated industry-promoted confusion which fails to differentiate between maximum total theoretical capacities (typically megawatts), and actual kilowatt hours based upon predicted annual average wind conditions at a particular site.

    Wind is intermittent, and velocities constantly change. It often isn’t available when needed most…such as during hot summer days when demands for air-conditioning are highest. Output also varies greatly according to location, topographical features, and time of year. Although Texas is one of the most productive wind energy states, averaging about 16.8% of installed capacity, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas assigns a value of 10% due to unpredictability. Only about 20% of that capacity is generally available during peak load demand periods (about 5:00pm), while average generation during off-peak time averages about 40% of capacity.

    Like wind, solar power is an unreliable, intermittent, location-dependent option which is fundamentally influenced by daily and seasonal weather and sky conditions. And don’t count on it to recharge your plug-in car or power your laptop at night. Also, since it is the most costly power source of all, currently providing only about 0.01% of U.S. electricity, don’t expect it to significantly change the U.S. energy picture any time soon.

    And coal? Here’s where the global warming regulatory crowd at EPA are doing all they can to help the Big Oil & Gas guys, whether they asked for it or not. Then again, the EPA probably isn’t the coal industry’s biggest problem anyway, and is only hastening its inevitable decline. A greater adversary resides in the free market form of that cheaper, cleaner and abundant natural gas. As Jone-Lin Wang, head of global power research for HIS CERA told the Wall Street Journal, no other threat to coal “even comes close.”

    Whereas in 2003 coal accounted for nearly 51% of all U.S. electricity, its market share had fallen to 43% during the first nine months of 2011. In contrast, natural gas’s share jumped from under 17% in 2003 to nearly 25% of U.S. power. With enthusiastic help from EPA, power sector coal consumption is expected to fall 2% this year, and 4% next year. Experts predict that 10%to 20% of coal-fired generating capacity will be retired by 2016.

    EPA has actually been an ally of Big Oil & Gas against Big Coal for some time, originally with no better friend then Enron. Flash back to the 1990s, a period when Enron’s natural gas business was encountering difficult market competition with coal. The company was already heavily invested in the largest natural gas pipeline that existed outside of Russia, a colossal interstate network. They badly needed some weight in Washington to tip the playing field.

    Some members of Congress were already aggressively pursuing development of green legislation models with interesting possibilities to advance Enron’s purposes. Senators John Heinz (R-PA) and Timothy Wirth (D-CO) had cosponsored “Project 88” to provide a pathway for converting environmental issues into business opportunities. Media-fueled alarm about acid rain provided a basis for legislation to create markets for buying and selling excess sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emission credits, and Project 88 became the Clean Air Act of 1990. Enron was a major SO2 cap-and-trade player.

    So Enron and others wondered, why not do the same thing with CO2? Since natural gas is a lower CO2 emitter than coal, this would certainly be a profitability game changer. But there was a problem. Unlike SO2, CO2 wasn’t considered to be a pollutant, so the EPA had no authority to regulate it. But national hype about a global warming crisis advanced by then-Senator Gore’s highly publicized 1988 congressional hearings on the subject soon appeared to provide a dream opportunity to change that.

    Enron’s CEO Kenneth Lay had reportedly already met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore on August 4, 1997 to prepare a U.S. strategy for an upcoming U.N.-sponsored, Kyoto Protocol-promoting, climate summit that December. Kyoto presented the first step toward creating a carbon market that Enron desperately wanted Congress to support. An internal Enron memorandum stated that Kyoto would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside the restructuring [of] the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States”.

    The rest is history. While the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to prevent U.S. participation in Kyoto, and the 2010 House mid-term elections killed cap-and-trade prospects, the war against global warming-fueled coal still lives on in the heart and hunger of an ever-expanding EPA regulatory bureaucracy.

    So why shouldn’t Big Oil cheer?
Click to expand...
 
Why is big oil financing astroturfed climate scepticism?
http://priceofoil.org/2012/05/14/koch-ing-the-climate-exploiting-the-tar-sands/

Koch-ing the Climate: Exploiting the Tar Sands

PriceOfOil.org. Andy Rowell. May14 2012

Last week, the god-father of climate science, James Hansen, who directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, re-iterated his warning about exploiting the tar sands in an op-ed in the New York Times.

His warning was dire: “Canada’s tar sands contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history”, he warned. “If Canada proceeds and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate … If this sounds apocalyptic, it is”.

Thanks to series of great Greenpeace investigations, we have long known about Koch’s funding of climate denial. We also know about their involvement in the tar sands, and both I and Steve have blogged before about this before.

But a day after Hansen’s warning, with impeccable timing, InsideClimate News published the results of a long investigation into the secretive Koch brothers and their long involvement in Canada’s tar sands.

Although we already knew about their involvement, what is shocking is the extent of this involvement, which becomes apparent in this new investigation.

The new investigation reveals that “Koch Industries has touched virtually every aspect of the tar sands industry since the company established a toehold in Canada more than 50 years ago.”

At every step of the way the Koch brothers are involved.

The investigation reveals: “It has been involved in mining bitumen, the hydrocarbon resin found in the oil sands; in pipeline systems to collect and transport Canadian crude; in exporting the heavy oils to the U.S.; in refining the sulfurous, low-grade feedstock; and in the subsequent distribution and sale of a variety of finished products, from jet fuel to asphalt. The company has also created or collaborated with other companies that have become leading players in the development of Alberta’s oil resources, and it remains deeply invested in western Canada’s oil patch.”

The investigation discovered:

The company is one of Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters, with more than 130 crude oil customers.

The Koch brothers are among the largest U.S. refiners of oil sands crude, responsible for about 25 percent of imports.

They are one of the largest holders of mineral leases in Alberta, where most of Canada’s tar sands deposits are located. Almost 500 well sites and facilities tracked by regulators under the Koch name are scattered across the oil sands regions.

Koch owns pipelines in Minnesota and Wisconsin that import western Canadian crude to U.S. refineries and also distribute finished products to customers.

They own and operate a 675,000 barrel oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, a major tar sands export hub

And this year they kicked off a 10,000 barrel-a-day mining project in Alberta that could be the seed of a much larger project.

Koch Industries has repeatedly denied any connection to the Keystone XL, although evidence compiled by Inside Climate News suggests otherwise.

Just as the brothers are heavily involved in US politics, they are also deeply embedded in Canadian politics too. As I have blogged before, in March last year the company added another lobbyist to its operations. Alberta’s lobbyist registry shows that Koch Industries signed up a Calgary-based lobbyist to lobby the Provincial government on energy and resource development policy issues.

No prizes for guessing what Koch will be lobbying for: unrestricted exploitation of the tar sands, even if this does mean “game over for the climate”.
Click to expand...
Full links at link

One of the filthiest refining processes known to man and with the most to fear from regulation.

So, less than ingenuous for Forbes to point to Koch industries, peanuts invested in greenwashing ethanol plants, when the motherlode is Keystone XL.
 
So, are you saying, P, that the man's claims about Enron standing to benefit financially from Kyoto are wrong? Because if not, then that's quite a significant thing isn't it?

if we're going to talk about financial motive we can't just talk about one side of the deal. Yes, no doubt, industries fund some climate skepticism (but it's of course nuts to suggest they fund 'all' of it!), but if that's relevant to the discourse then so is the fact that industries, bankers and politicians might stand to gain - both politically and economically - from promoting AGW and counter-productive pseudo-green energy plans.

Otherwise we're not getting a compete picture of this complicated situation. We're reducing things to simplistic slogans that might make us feel like we have our finger on the pulse but which actually just mislead and end up making us a part of the problem.
 
if we're going to talk about financial motive we can't just talk about one side of the deal. Yes, no doubt, industries fund some climate skepticism (but it's of course nuts to suggest they fund 'all' of it!), but if that's relevant to the discourse then so is the fact that industries, bankers and politicians might stand to gain - both politically and economically - from promoting AGW and counter-productive pseudo-green energy plans.
Click to expand...

Big business funds research which supports its position. So do governments and pressure groups. I don't think there's anything surprising about this and it's not *necessarily* sinister as long as the conclusions from such research are treated with appropriate scepticism.

It's also important to remember that individual scientists are not always neutral. Many are deeply personally invested in the outcome of their research and the politicised nature of this partiicular area attracts people with strong environmental views. Plus there's the very basic point that you tend to want your funding, and hence your job, to continue. If your research was suggesting that climate change wasn't happening at all, or that maybe it was but it was nothing to do with human activity, that funding would be at risk. The temptation must be there.
 
AngelAlice said:
So, are you saying, P, that the man's claims about Enron standing to benefit financially from Kyoto are wrong? Because if not, then that's quite a significant thing isn't it?

if we're going to talk about financial motive we can't just talk about one side of the deal. Yes, no doubt, industries fund some climate skepticism (but it's of course nuts to suggest they fund 'all' of it!), but if that's relevant to the discourse then so is the fact that industries, bankers and politicians might stand to gain - both politically and economically - from promoting AGW and counter-productive pseudo-green energy plans.

Otherwise we're not getting a compete picture of this complicated situation. We're reducing things to simplistic slogans that might make us feel like we have our finger on the pulse but which actually just mislead and end up making us a part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Enron's part in Kyoto is now only a matter of academic and historical interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

I'd say about the last bunch to ask whether the figures add up. :lol:

More about Larry Bell (the author of article), at link:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1358
 
Reading Bell's article again. It appears to be a defence of both fracking and big coal, in the US. A thankless task, for anyone outside the industries. But, somebody has to attempt it, I suppose. With the rider that the EPA are not to be trusted, as they favour oil and gas over coal.

Bottom line, the USA's energy policy is a mess, at mercy of vested interests.

But, we knew that.
 
Quake42 said:
if we're going to talk about financial motive we can't just talk about one side of the deal. Yes, no doubt, industries fund some climate skepticism (but it's of course nuts to suggest they fund 'all' of it!), but if that's relevant to the discourse then so is the fact that industries, bankers and politicians might stand to gain - both politically and economically - from promoting AGW and counter-productive pseudo-green energy plans.
Click to expand...

Big business funds research which supports its position. So do governments and pressure groups. I don't think there's anything surprising about this and it's not *necessarily* sinister as long as the conclusions from such research are treated with appropriate scepticism.

It's also important to remember that individual scientists are not always neutral. Many are deeply personally invested in the outcome of their research and the politicised nature of this partiicular area attracts people with strong environmental views. Plus there's the very basic point that you tend to want your funding, and hence your job, to continue. If your research was suggesting that climate change wasn't happening at all, or that maybe it was but it was nothing to do with human activity, that funding would be at risk. The temptation must be there.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - very well put. And beyond the science, we have the benefits accruing from carbon taxes and the millions that have been made in carbon credits trading and in grants to develop and install alternative energies. All of which gives powerful incentives to powerful people to promote AGW. It's become an 'industry' of its own.

P - in your three responses to my post you didn't actually address that main point -don't we need to consider the financial motives and potential for corruption on both sides, not just on one?
 
AngelAlice said:
...

P - in your three responses to my post you didn't actually address that main point -don't we need to consider the financial motives and potential for corruption on both sides, not just on one?
Click to expand...
The actual quality of the science is the decider, not whether someone can hang on to their research grant by bullshitting.

Scientists stand, or fall, according to the accuracy of their results. That's why the vast majority of climate scientists stand by the AGW hypothesis, because that is the outcome most of the evidence clearly points to. Lobby groups and astroturfing think tanks, only have to muddy the waters and create doubt. For them, truth, or accuracy, are not an issue. They only have to be plausible.

Bell's article is not even really that plausible. How he continues to be published in Forbes is a bit of a mystery. Real Climate identifies him as bit of a master of the 'Gish Gallop'.

See also:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/
&
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...bell-and-the-climate-of-corruption/?mobile=nc
 
Quake42 said:
...

It's also important to remember that individual scientists are not always neutral. Many are deeply personally invested in the outcome of their research and the politicised nature of this partiicular area attracts people with strong environmental views. Plus there's the very basic point that you tend to want your funding, and hence your job, to continue. If your research was suggesting that climate change wasn't happening at all, or that maybe it was but it was nothing to do with human activity, that funding would be at risk. The temptation must be there.
Click to expand...

This statement suggests that climate scientists are mostly employed as climate scientists purely to prove evidence that climate change is happening, rather than to do good science studying climate. I think I see a possible problem with this assumption.

If I were an academic who employed people because I believed they would give me the results that I expected, rather than accurate results, I would be a very poor academic. If I were in business and I relied purely on results that supported my optimistic expectations, rather than accurate results, I would probably very quickly go out of business. Enron was mentioned earlier. Isn't that what happened to them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top