Global warming: would so many scientists really be willing to lie publicly to preserve their funding?

Question

As that's what it would take for the claims against anthropogenic climate change to be true. I know the majority of my friends wouldn't.

Harry H: You seem to be basing most of your counter-argument on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" shown on channel 4; which, with all due respect, is a sensationalist get-out clause for idiots. For a start it bases a lot of its core argument on correlation with solar activity despite solar activity cooling in the period the earth has been warming (this is why the graphs stop in 1980 on the program). Further, a number of those who have their work used as 'evidence' in the film have spoken out against it (eg Eigil Friis-Christensen, Carl Wunsch).

But I think the best debunking is left to Martin Durkin (the filmmaker) himself. This is the well-reasoned science he uses to deal with his critics:

"You're a big daft c*ck ... Go and f*ck yourself" (To Armand Leroi, who said the data used in the show were wrong)

Sounds like someone in control of their position and capable of well-informed, reasoned debate to me ...

Harry: McKitrick (excuse me correcting your spelling) is a Professor of Economics. Not an expert in Climatology. Have you got any source with any convincing credentials?

3DM: It is obvious that there will always be learned people such as yourself who can find a way to validate a counter theory. I mean, when I did one of my degrees there was a guy who was a genius programmer and a fundamentalist Christian - and I'm talking literal word of God here. So I will simply add something personally anecdotal and something akin to Pascal's wager:

Anecdotal - right now I'm a few miles from unprecedented flooding in the UK. Meanwhile, my Mother in Australia is watching her prized garden die in the worst drought in recorded history. These are two of many weather-based 'oddities' I have personally noted in recent times.

Pascal's wager logic - If I choose to accept environmental responsibility and it turns out I'm wrong, I still make the world better. What do you gain by disputing it?

Answer 1

It's a popular misconception that some scientists are willing to lie publicly to preserve their funding.

If they lied, and it was shown they had, it would be the end of any credibility they had and their career would be in jeopardy.

Many scientists and scientific organisations are commissioned by third parties to conduct research on their behalf. These third parties could be anyone, they could beleive in global warming, not beleive in it or have no opinion one way or another. If the results of the research turn out to be anything other than factual and impartial then the scientists have failed in their duty.

Further, contrary to what some people may think the science of global warming isn't awash with money. If these scientists were more concerned about the money than their careers then they'd go and work where the money is - petrochemicals, medicine, pharmacuticals, oil and power etc.

There are openings in all these industries and it wouldn't be difficult for a GW scientist to switch careers and earn more money. There are people, myself included, who have taken substantial pay cuts in order to work in the field of GW and climate change.

Ultimately, there is so little credible evidence to refute anthropogenic global warming that some skeptics have to resort to the incredible instead.

Answer 2

That's not what it takes (Which is likely why you constructed this straw man). The scientists are NOT at the forefront of this argument: bureaucrats and politicians are. Would so many scientists really be willing to not rock the boat while bureaucrats made invalid suppositions concerning their work in order to preserve their funding? Absolutely. While much scientific research is not immune to agenda-driven motives, researchers are often careful enough to present their work simply as hypotheses. In a sense, they are insulated from those who would take action or make policies because their work is NOT presented as fact.

The wonks are the ones out there saying the "debate is over", AGW is a "fact", or there are no other explanations.

And as far as Ross McKitrick goes, he is an Environmental Economist and is particularly qualified to investigate environmental policy creation - more so than any scientist is able to determine the economic viability of proposed "solutions". And, as the science of economics has a well established track record in the quantification of observed phenomena, creation of formulas describe this quantification, and the designing of computer models to simulate and predict these phenomena, I'd say that he is well versed in the necessary statistical and mathematic methodologies involved.

What exactly is the track record of current climate modelers? I see a multitude of models employing a shot gun approach. They conveniently meet at the present day climate, but vary considerably the further out you progress - or regress for that matter. If the science is SO definite that we should sink trillions in the pursuit of a solution, then why can't we arrive at ONE MODEL and have that model COMPLETELY open-sourced: data, algorithms, source-code. Given the purported urgency required to avert disaster, it is negligent, bordering on criminal, for the IPCC to keep a lid on this vital information.

Answer 3

There is much disinformation surrounding the scientific consensus.

1.) There are many scientists who do not agree with the consensus. There are many peer reviewed papers that are unknown to the public.

2.) Mann (the hockey stick graph), who is a big Global warming advocate is on the board of most popular science publications. So no-one wants to get on his bad side.

3.) The IPCC report has 2000 plus "scientists" who support the IPCC findings. Most of the scientists who are listed actually don't agree with the report. See "Great Global Warming Swindle" where scientists that are supposedly listed on the report speak out and say that there names were put on the report even though they did not agree and why and how those names were put there in the first place. This is one of the major reasons much energy is put to discredit the movie and to keep people from seeing it. This provocative and shocking information is given at the beginning of the film just in case people don't see it all the way through.

So the question is, are scientists lying when they say that even though they are listed on the IPCC report as agreeing with it's findings that they actually don't agree?

You may need to speak to more scientists. You may find out that the science is much more controversial than what the media is making it appear to be. Science has no mercy and the truth will inevitably win over propaganda, money, big business or politics.

______________________________________________________

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

_________________________________________________


EDIT: OK, how about Newsweek? Ross McKirick did not make an appearance or have anything to do with the "great Global Warming Swindle" but he will tell you the same thing in the first paragraph of this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/



The IPCC consensus is a fraud.

Answer 4

I sometimes wonder if these scientists really know what they're talking about, I mean lets face it, scientist who claim that carbon emmissions created by industry, car travel, air travel etc. are the main contributers to global warming never seem to look at the much wider picture, the Earth is billions of years old. There have been inter-glacial periods (inter-glacial meaning periods of warming during an ice age) throughout our planets history. Global warming is a fact, but we are merely in the midst of an "inter-glacial period", just one of Earths many natural processes.

Answer 5

Its not that I think scientists and government are lying, but there are other voices out there saying the opposite and they don't always get a fair hearing.
Most global warning predictions are based on computer modelling and perhaps the old computer maxim
Crap in Crap Out applies. In other words the answer you get depends on what data you put in and crucially what data you leave out. I do appreciate that most computer models indicate that global warming is fact and that mankind might be one of the causes but lets listen to the other voices they have something to say.

Answer 6

Who told you that they are lying... When you come to interpret scientific simulations or experiments, its all come to guess works, and when you can`t see where to look to get the correct variables, then you just got a fraction of the truth, and sometimes this fraction is just enough to let them believed that their hypothesis is confirmed! But to make a realistic climatic models, we would needs all the informations about our planet climate (past and present), our atmosphere, our sun, our solar system and even our galaxy! So only by getting ALL those NECESSARY parameter we will become capable to REALLY understand what is going on! Right now those scientists think that they got it all, this is where they are wrongs and they don`t even see that they are all wrong! So lying to us, NO, but ignorant in their beliefs, YES!! I guess it all come down to the human factor! We are all as good as our weakest point, which is often lack of broader perspectives!

Answer 7

I find it amusing that if a scientist is a skeptic, he is said to be in the pockets of big oil. Never mind there are companies that have a financial interest in alternative sources of energy that fund global warming research.

So the question is, why is it that scientist that support the global warming theory are truthful, (despite the financial interests) but scientists that appose it are corrupt bastards?

Answer 8

I did not watch t.v. and cannot comment on any comments made by the environmentalists. However, in general I think that they are right in that we need to reduce our miss-use of the planet. Further I believe what is happening now with the weather is in the course of natural events and we may well be in for another ice-age. There is nothing we can do as nature will follow its course. I do, however, need to treat our beautiful Earth with more respect and love it. It is all we have.

Answer 9

No, the conspiracy theory that scientists are creating a global warming hoax is as insane as the Area 51 or Bush was responsible for 9/11 conspiracy theories, if not more so.

Scientists rely on their reputations. If a scientist is found to have falsified data, his reputation is ruined and career is basically over. It's a scientist's job to be completely unbiased in collecting and analyzing data and drawing conclusions from that analysis.

Anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax doesn't understand how science works. Anyone who thinks there isn't a concensus about anthropogenic global warming is uninformed:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

Answer 10

Why do you think they wouldn't lie to preserve their livelihood? Everyone else in this country is willing to lie for the sake of a buck, why would scientists be exempt? Even doctors will lie to make money, and they've taken an oath to do no harm. You're seriously naive if you think there's anyone that wouldn't lie to you.