Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Imagine that a research team at a university did a study where they found some as-yet-unknown force that is responsible for the current warming, discovered some new property of CO2, or discovered some new interaction between CO2 and the atmosphere. Suddenly, everything that climatologists thought they knew was always wrong. Don't you think that group of researchers would be absolutely showered with fame, glory AND money?
A discovery like that would be a truly humungous deal. It would be relativity, the big bang, evolution, or gravity... a great leap forward in our understanding of the planet. The nobel prize wouldn't be off the table.
The thing about the science world is that nobody notices the studies that make small amounts of progress to slightly change our understanding of an established scientific theory. Those papers get buried under other papers and finally die with a whimper when someone writes a better one. Some of them turn into a tiny footnote, the most significant ones become footnotes more often. THOSE are the studies that the government pays for.
There are actually HUGE incentives even in the public sector to 'disprove' AGW. This is at least one reason why Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, etc. keep at it... because 'disproving' AGW brings them fame, glory and media attention. It's the wrong kind of attention because the glory is fake and their papers are embarrassingly easy to debunk, but it is very possible that they aren't truly corrupt and are simply blinded by their own burning desire to be pioneers.
However the reason that legit scientists aren't disputing AGW is because the facts keep pointing, over and over, to humans as the cause... you can't do a climate-related study without finding that the theory constantly re-asserts itself as the only possible explanation for observed phenomena. From plants to ice to soil to the ocean to the atmosphere-- everything points back to humans and CO2 emissions.
The only place that AGW is in question is in right wing media like the Booker articles and crazy denier blogland... and every week they bring out some new 'revolutionary' study that 'proves' it's anything but CO2. Of course you're going to read about that more than you read about some boring, difficult study that talks about the effects of AGW on soil. But it doesn't mean that all of these 'small' studies aren't reaffirming AGW over and over while the fake ones grab all of your attention.
And what you're saying about Soon doesn't even make sense. The oil companies continued to pay him because he continued to say what they wanted him to say. The money they gave him, combined with the right-wing media's increasingly aggressive anti-science stance, means he is wealthy and relevant without ever needing to be competent or honest.
"perfectly orchestrated "conspiracy" amongst genuine (your claim, not necessarily other's opinions) climate research scientists.
So, because YOU are NOT aware of the email scandle we should just ignore it.
The so-called 'email scandal' turned out to be nothing more than a couple of lines or phrases from a couple of emails taken out of context by climate science conspiracy theorists to try to misrepresent what the scientists were actually saying.
Well, maybe the little ice age we're going into will be a little little ice age. Freezing cold winters are a pain but cooler summers aren't so bad.
It's very unlikely that we'll be going into a little ice age any time soon with CO2 at it's current levels. Even if the sun went through another prolonged quiet period like the Grand Maunder minimum.
Imagine that a research team at a university did a study where they found some as-yet-unknown force that is responsible for the current warming, discovered some new property of CO2, or discovered some new interaction between CO2 and the atmosphere. Suddenly, everything that climatologists thought they knew was always wrong. Don't you think that group of researchers would be absolutely showered with fame, glory AND money?
No, I don't. For the same reason that while everyone under the sun agrees that our current tax system is a disaster and has for years, nothing is ever done about it. Plenty of completely viable alternatives have been designed, yet none has been implemented. Why? Because there's too much power and money invested in the system already.
Quote:
A discovery like that would be a truly humungous deal. It would be relativity, the big bang, evolution, or gravity... a great leap forward in our understanding of the planet. The nobel prize wouldn't be off the table.
If it got traction, which it wouldn't. Because too many people derive money, power, and media attention from the current understanding of things to allow a radically new understanding of things to gain any traction.
Quote:
The thing about the science world is that nobody notices the studies that make small amounts of progress to slightly change our understanding of an established scientific theory. Those papers get buried under other papers and finally die with a whimper when someone writes a better one. Some of them turn into a tiny footnote, the most significant ones become footnotes more often. THOSE are the studies that the government pays for.
There are actually HUGE incentives even in the public sector to 'disprove' AGW. This is at least one reason why Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, etc. keep at it... because 'disproving' AGW brings them fame, glory and media attention. It's the wrong kind of attention because the glory is fake and their papers are embarrassingly easy to debunk, but it is very possible that they aren't truly corrupt and are simply blinded by their own burning desire to be pioneers.
No, disproving AGW does not bring any fame, glory, or media attention. Virtually the entire left wing is heavily invested in AGW from politicians to alternative energy companies to media to researchers. Attempts to disprove AGW are met with insults and derision.
It's just like how the truth is that domestic violence and child abuse are actually committed by women as much as men.
Now, while that link comes from a biased website, you can see from it that both the Justice Department and the Centers for Disease Control found that nearly half of all victims of severe domestic violence are men. The article may not be objective, but the studies it references are. So according to your theories here, that should be major national news on all the networks. After all, that's a complete reversal of the domestic violence problem as society knows it. It means all the resources are going to serve female victims while there are millions of men out there going untreated. It should be groundbreaking news. But instead of becoming famous, it was completely ignored.
So no, I don't think that someone disproving AGW would be showered in fame and glory. It would receive the exact same treatment as the findings on domestic violence have received: they contradict accepted left wing views of the problem, so therefore they will be buried and ignored.
Quote:
However the reason that legit scientists aren't disputing AGW is because the facts keep pointing, over and over, to humans as the cause... you can't do a climate-related study without finding that the theory constantly re-asserts itself as the only possible explanation for observed phenomena. From plants to ice to soil to the ocean to the atmosphere-- everything points back to humans and CO2 emissions.
The only place that AGW is in question is in right wing media like the Booker articles and crazy denier blogland... and every week they bring out some new 'revolutionary' study that 'proves' it's anything but CO2. Of course you're going to read about that more than you read about some boring, difficult study that talks about the effects of AGW on soil. But it doesn't mean that all of these 'small' studies aren't reaffirming AGW over and over while the fake ones grab all of your attention.
And what you're saying about Soon doesn't even make sense. The oil companies continued to pay him because he continued to say what they wanted him to say. The money they gave him, combined with the right-wing media's increasingly aggressive anti-science stance, means he is wealthy and relevant without ever needing to be competent or honest.
And there you've just helped prove my point. Directly after saying how valuable studies and evidence would be that disprove anti-AGW, you immediately denigrate anyone who attempts to disprove it as crazy. And you prove my point about how liberals politicize it by the fact that you felt the need to specifically mention that it is "right wing" media where you find AGW denials.
Quote:
It's not complicated.
No, it isn't complicated. It's just wrong. Your post is well constructed and logical except for the fact that it depends on the completely false premise that anti-AGW evidence would be welcomed. It wouldn't.
The so-called 'email scandal' turned out to be nothing more than a couple of lines or phrases from a couple of emails taken out of context by climate science conspiracy theorists to try to misrepresent what the scientists were actually saying.
Wrong!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
