Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

What use is the science?

Can it tell me what the temperature variations will be next year in Nebraska? Where there will be drought and where there will be plenty? If the science is so advanced, which particular CO2 emissions are particularly harmful or if all are the same? Without the precision of prognostic capabilities, what value is it? It doesn't seem to have much practical application.

Just sounding the alarm, what value is the science? We are spending billions for what purpose?

You are anti-science. We get it.

[Topper]

You are anti-science. We get it.

Huh. You are bad at sarcasm and humor. Stick to offroad chronicles and your profession.

I am against the politicization of science for political gain. There is a distinction if you are willing to put down the bias.

[Topper]

Very well said.

I keep beating the drum of separating the scientific analysis from the policy discussions but for some reason some people can't do that. The vast majority of climate scientists don't want to touch policy issues with a ten-foot pole. They are way too busy doing the science and it is not their field of expertise.

What value is this to me as opposed to theoretical physics such as the Higgs boson? Or cures to cancer? Or finding new methods of discovering oil?

I believe we should allow others to invest in this science, while we invest in more profitable angles which will lead to immediate or more immediate, more lasting results. Investing in a science that others turn into a policy debate is not something I can support. I would much rather invest in space technology, space travel, studying the origins of the universe. Those are knowledge for knowledge sake.

[SoCalCoug]

What value is this to me as opposed to theoretical physics such as the Higgs boson? Or cures to cancer? Or finding new methods of discovering oil?

I believe we should allow others to invest in this science, while we invest in more profitable angles which will lead to immediate or more immediate, more lasting results. Investing in a science that others turn into a policy debate is not something I can support. I would much rather invest in space technology, space travel, studying the origins of the universe. Those are knowledge for knowledge sake.

And laser pistols. I want laser pistols.

[SeattleUte]

ER, 97% of scientists agreeing that global warming is caused in to some extent and in some way by humans is not the same thing as is 97% certainty of anything.

[Topper]

And laser pistols. I want laser pistols.

moi aussi.

[Topper]

ER, 97% of scientists agreeing that global warming is caused in to some extent and in some way by humans is not the same thing as is 97% certainty of anything.

Very true.

Plus those who state we should distinguish between the discoveries of "science" and the debate on public policy ignore the fact, where "scientists" allow their field to be managed by public policy and politicians they forfeit the right to a claim of purity of science. The "97%" have contaminated themselves by injecting themselves into the public policy debate. By aligning with one party for personal gain, their motives become suspect.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Very true.

Plus those who state we should distinguish between the discoveries of "science" and the debate on public policy ignore the fact, where "scientists" allow their field to be managed by public policy and politicians they forfeit the right to a claim of purity of science. The "97%" have contaminated themselves by injecting themselves into the public policy debate. By aligning with one party for personal gain, their motives become suspect.

This doesn't make any sense. You really don't have a clue how scientific research works. You should let it go.

[ERCougar]

What value is this to me as opposed to theoretical physics such as the Higgs boson? Or cures to cancer? Or finding new methods of discovering oil?

I believe we should allow others to invest in this science, while we invest in more profitable angles which will lead to immediate or more immediate, more lasting results. Investing in a science that others turn into a policy debate is not something I can support. I would much rather invest in space technology, space travel, studying the origins of the universe. Those are knowledge for knowledge sake.

Oh Lord. So many idiotic things said here...where to start... I'll just go with the first sentence. Higgs Boson is your example of the useful practical science you seek? Lol. Space travel? Origins of the universe? You're just ranting now.

[ERCougar]

ER, 97% of scientists agreeing that global warming is caused in to some extent and in some way by humans is not the same thing as is 97% certainty of anything.

Fair enough. The 97% number is an exaggeration of the consensus. Not as far of as your misrepresentation of the consensus, but....

[Jeff Lebowski]

Fair enough. The 97% number is an exaggeration of the consensus. Not as far of as your misrepresentation of the consensus, but....

There are a number of ways to gauge consensus. This article presents a pretty good summary (including an explanation of the 97% figure):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

But no matter how you slice it, the answer is the same.

[Brian]

There is usually a reason why some scientists aren't well funded....

[Topper]

Oh Lord. So many idiotic things said here...where to start... I'll just go with the first sentence. Higgs Boson is your example of the useful practical science you seek? Lol. Space travel? Origins of the universe? You're just ranting now.

I want theoretical science for the sake of knowledge. It is often viewed as impractical, but it is valuable nonetheless.

I want science where the scientists don't meddle in public policy. I don't want scientists becoming partners with one of the parties and making it a partisan debate.

The climatologists began meddling in public policy for the base purpose of obtaining more funding. It may be that they have discovered some aspects of the climate, but I daresay, we learn much more from evolutionary biology, medicine, geology, applied physics than we do from public policy driven climatology. Once a science becomes merged with public policy, we should not fund it. If it grows independent of public policy, then we should fund it.

[byu71]

This doesn't make any sense. You really don't have a clue how scientific research works. You should let it go.

Following that logic, you may want to stay out of discussions involving the law and economics.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I want theoretical science for the sake of knowledge. It is often viewed as impractical, but it is valuable nonetheless.

I want science where the scientists don't meddle in public policy. I don't want scientists becoming partners with one of the parties and making it a partisan debate.

The climatologists began meddling in public policy for the base purpose of obtaining more funding. It may be that they have discovered some aspects of the climate, but I daresay, we learn much more from evolutionary biology, medicine, geology, applied physics than we do from public policy driven climatology. Once a science becomes merged with public policy, we should not fund it. If it grows independent of public policy, then we should fund it.

This is horseshit. The funding process for climate research via the NSF, NOAA, NASA, etc is no different than any other discipline.