PDA

View Full Version : If climate scientists are in it for the money, they're doing it wrong



The Night Owl
03-05-2011, 04:47 PM
Something I've argued repeatedly...


If climate scientists are in it for the money, they're doing it wrong

By John Timmer | Last updated 5 days ago

One of the more unfortunate memes that makes an appearance whenever climate science is discussed is the accusation that, by hyping their results, climate scientists are ensuring themselves steady paychecks, and may even be enriching themselves. A Google search for "global warming gravy train" pulls out over 50,000 results (six of them from our forums).

It's tempting to respond with indignation; after all, researchers generally are doing something they love without a focus on compensation. But, more significantly, the accusation simply makes no sense on any level.

...

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars

The bullshit claim that climate scientists are in it for the money is a favorite meme around here and so I'm sure this thread will have to be shuffled away to protect delicate minds.

The Night Owl
03-05-2011, 04:51 PM
Okay, will do.

I find your lack of faith in CUers disturbing.

Rockntractor
03-05-2011, 04:52 PM
Something I've argued repeatedly...



http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars

The bullshit claim that climate scientists are in it for the money is a favorite meme around here and so I'm sure this thread will have to be shuffled away to protect delicate minds.

Okay, will do.

Rockntractor
03-05-2011, 04:53 PM
I find your lack of faith in CUers disturbing.

I find your lack of grey matter disturbing.

The Night Owl
03-05-2011, 04:57 PM
How did my response to a post end up getting posted 1 minute before the post which prompted it? Is there some kind of time travel effect happening here?

PoliCon
03-05-2011, 05:04 PM
Your article doesn't add up TNO.

START with salary + publishing fees + appearance fees + government grants + what ever they are making off the hystaria al la Al Gore and his carbon exchange . . . . nope no racket at all. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
03-05-2011, 05:18 PM
How did my response to a post end up getting posted 1 minute before the post which prompted it? Is there some kind of time travel effect happening here?

You slipped out of this dimension momentarily, Since SR has been on lightened duty he hasn't had as much time to spend controlling the universe.

FlaGator
03-05-2011, 05:43 PM
I wonder what Al Gore's speaking fees are?

The Night Owl
03-05-2011, 05:48 PM
I wonder what Al Gore's speaking fees are?

Is Al Gore a scientist?

Novaheart
03-05-2011, 05:57 PM
Is Al Gore a scientist?

I've often thought that there ought to be a law against professors requiring their own book for the course.

AmPat
03-05-2011, 06:22 PM
Something I've argued repeatedly...



http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars

The bullshit claim that climate scientists are in it for the money is a favorite meme around here and so I'm sure this thread will have to be shuffled away to protect delicate minds.

I haven't heard that "meme around here" as you claim. Assuming it is true, who argues that scientists are in it for huge sums of money? The argument at the "scientist" (and I use that term loosely), level is probably that they are perpetuating the myth to sustain their income.
The huge sums are reserved for people like your Pastor Gore and the politicians who suck off the gravy train.

The Night Owl
03-05-2011, 06:22 PM
I've often thought that there ought to be a law against professors requiring their own book for the course.

Why? Even a professor who teaches a class with hundreds of students stands to make virtually nothing from forcing students to buy a book he or she has a stake in. I mean, maybe if the book were a self-published deal then you might have a point.

The Night Owl
03-05-2011, 06:23 PM
The argument at the scientist level is probably that they are perpetuating the myth to sustain their income.

Climate science is difficult. The people who work in that field could make much more money doing something easier.

AmPat
03-05-2011, 06:25 PM
Climate science is difficult. The people who work in that field could make much more money doing something easier.

I recommend they do.

Rockntractor
03-05-2011, 06:30 PM
I recommend they do.

We hear this same story with teachers and public employees but when you give them the chance they act like street gangs.

Articulate_Ape
03-06-2011, 12:45 PM
TNO, even if one takes the article at the link you posted as fact (which I do not, for the reasons Poli mentioned earlier), those $120K salaries, et al, would likely be replaced by an unemployment check for a great many of the climate scientists who currently secure their positions by perpetuating the "gravy train".

AGW cannot escape the fact that it still remains the only "scientific" theory out there, that I am aware of, which includes no means of falsification whatsoever. According to these operators, ALL evidence of every kind supports their convenient myth.

Global warming = Job security, funding, and other related income.

No global warming = Having to find a real job, less job security, and likely far less compensation.

Decisions, decisions...
:rolleyes:

Gingersnap
03-07-2011, 10:18 AM
Climate science is difficult. The people who work in that field could make much more money doing something easier.

Usually not. The payoff in academia and government is in-group fame, control of grant money and projects, peer recognition, and participation in peer advancement. This is big, big stuff and much more interesting than a higher base salary and perks. It also leads to a very long-term career path.

In private industry, "climate science" is concerned with anticipating and circumventing onerous regulation, predictive meteorology, public relations, and the promotion of various "green" market sectors for a company or trade group. In this arena, the pay is substantially better but the peer recognition is nil. The career path is also precarious since you are only as good as your last project.

Odysseus
03-07-2011, 10:21 AM
Is Al Gore a scientist?
He seems to think that he is.

BTW, I notice that you still haven't answered me on Van Jones in the other thread. Have you forgotten the location?

TNO, even if one takes the article at the link you posted as fact (which I do not, for the reasons Poli mentioned earlier), those $120K salaries, et al, would likely be replaced by an unemployment check for a great many of the climate scientists who currently secure their positions by perpetuating the "gravy train".

AGW cannot escape the fact that it still remains the only "scientific" theory out there, that I am aware of, which includes no means of falsification whatsoever. According to these operators, ALL evidence of every kind supports their convenient myth.

Global warming = Job security, funding, and other related income.

No global warming = Having to find a real job, less job security, and likely far less compensation.

Decisions, decisions...
:rolleyes:
Exactly. And let's not forget that government grants perpetuate the myth, and that governments have a great deal to gain from the increased control over economic activity that they gain from green legislation.

Zathras
03-07-2011, 11:43 AM
BTW, I notice that you still haven't answered me on Van Jones in the other thread. Have you forgotten the location?

You actually expect the Yellow Bellied Owl to answer your question?

Odysseus
03-07-2011, 12:23 PM
You actually expect the Yellow Bellied Owl to answer your question?

Of course I do. Anyone who would not answer such simple, obvious questions would have to be a complete coward, an idiot, or both. Nightie doesn't want to be seen as a coward and idiot, does he?

The Night Owl
03-07-2011, 12:25 PM
He seems to think that he is.

So?

The Night Owl
03-07-2011, 12:27 PM
Of course I do. Anyone who would not answer such simple, obvious questions would have to be a complete coward, an idiot, or both. Nightie doesn't want to be seen as a coward and idiot, does he?

I'll be happy to continue our discussion about Van Jones when you retract the claim that I dodged your question about communist states.

Odysseus
03-07-2011, 12:50 PM
I'll be happy to continue our discussion about Van Jones when you retract the claim that I dodged your question about communist states.

But you did dodge it. Repeatedly. You're hiding in order to gain a cheap win by trying to get me to retract a true statement, so that you can pretend to have been wronged. I stand by the statement, and I stand by my estimate of your cowardice and dishonesty.

For the edification of those who haven't read the other thread, here is the question that you are afraid to answer:

Do you have a problem with Obama appointing an avowed communist and someone who has worked with a convicted cop-killer and racist like Abu Mumia Jamal to a position of trust and responsibility within the United States Government?

txradioguy
03-07-2011, 01:12 PM
Climate science is difficult. The people who work in that field could make much more money doing something easier.

What could be easier than making up facts and getting paid for it?

These "scientists" are making easy money.

BTW...you haven't answered the Major's question yet.

The Night Owl
03-07-2011, 01:44 PM
What could be easier than making up facts and getting paid for it?

These "scientists" are making easy money.

BTW...you haven't answered the Major's question yet.

Feel free to show us how easy climate science is by authoring a fake paper and getting it published in a respected journal.

Zathras
03-07-2011, 07:22 PM
I'll be happy to continue our discussion about Van Jones when you retract the claim that I dodged your question about communist states.

I guess you are a yellow bellied coward...no surprise...it's standard issue for the liberal, waste of skin, oxygen stealing douchebag that you are..

obx
03-07-2011, 07:31 PM
Is Al Gore a scientist?

No, he wasn't much of a Vice President either.

Rockntractor
03-07-2011, 07:49 PM
Feel free to show us how easy climate science is by authoring a fake paper and getting it published in a respected journal.

There are none that are respected any longer because of this. Climate science has been made a joke and it will be a long time before any branch of science will be fully trusted after this dishonesty.

Rockntractor
03-07-2011, 07:51 PM
No, he wasn't much of a Vice President either.

After his second chakra incident, he is not much of a human being either.

txradioguy
03-07-2011, 11:06 PM
Feel free to show us how easy climate science is by authoring a fake paper and getting it published in a respected journal.


If it hit all the propaganda points the cultists love to push I have no doubt it would get published as a shining example of how even a layman like me sees the danger in what man is doing to the earth and why we need regulation before climate change ruins this big wonderful planet we call earth.


:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
03-07-2011, 11:49 PM
Yeah, they're " doing it wrong" like alarmist Tim Flannery to head a "climate change agency" for the government.

The $750,000 paycheck doesn't hurt either......:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
03-08-2011, 02:49 AM
If it hit all the propaganda points the cultists love to push I have no doubt it would get published as a shining example of how even a layman like me sees the danger in what man is doing to the earth and why we need regulation before climate change ruins this big wonderful planet we call earth.


:rolleyes:

It seems to me that your side stands to gain a lot by getting a fake paper published in a prestigous journal to show how easy it is to fake climate science. So, why hasn't your side done that? Why don't you do that? Could it be because it's actually extremely difficult to get work published in prestigous journals? Could it be because the peer review process, though not perfect, is actually quite rigorous?

AmPat
03-08-2011, 08:20 AM
It seems to me that your side stands to gain a lot by getting a fake paper published in a prestigous journal to show how easy it is to fake climate science. So, why hasn't your side done that? Why don't you do that? Could it be because it's actually extremely difficult to get work published in prestigous journals? Could it be because the peer review process, though not perfect, is actually quite rigorous?

Could it be that people who know it is all a bunch of liberal crap don't want to waste their time on a massive hoax?:confused::rolleyes:

wilbur
03-08-2011, 09:04 AM
Your article doesn't add up TNO.

START with salary + publishing fees + appearance fees + government grants + what ever they are making off the hystaria al la Al Gore and his carbon exchange . . . . nope no racket at all. :rolleyes:

Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists are the ones.. you know.. making all the findings for a rather relatively small profit motive.

The article did talk about grants, it said they had been in a steady downward trend. And not to mention, grants aren't personal pocket money for the people who get them... its getting some cash flow for your department at work... not the stuff mansions and fancy cars are made of.

Thirdly, do you have any evidence that there is any sort of lucrative industry for public appearances of climate scientists? Again, we're not talking about Al Gore here.

And this article did point out the hypocritical elephant in the room, but it could have twisted the knife a little more. You guys hem and haw about conspiracies from greedy scientists... but oil companies, hello!?! The most profitable businesses on earth - on EARTH. So you are literally pitting a barely 6 figure salary on the part of individual climate scientists or some grant money, against the most profitable industries on the planet (whose product is one that we will literally go to war for) and laughably telling us the climate scientists are greedy bastards with all the incentive here.... the obliviousness is just too damn intense.

Given the current environment, climate scientists actually arguably have some good incentives to jump ship to the dark side of the skeptics. The skeptics are chomping at the bits for any phd they can get who will play ball with them - and any phd who does is greeted with celebrity, praise, (and I bet a good bit of money) from the crowd of skeptics... any climate scientist phd who goes to the dark side is an instant big fish. Its telling to me how so few actually venture over there.

txradioguy
03-08-2011, 11:51 AM
It seems to me that your side stands to gain a lot by getting a fake paper published in a prestigous journal to show how easy it is to fake climate science. So, why hasn't your side done that? Why don't you do that? Could it be because it's actually extremely difficult to get work published in prestigous journals? Could it be because the peer review process, though not perfect, is actually quite rigorous?

No its a little thing called honesty.

Something the Libs and the AGW cultists know nothing about.

The Night Owl
03-08-2011, 02:11 PM
No its a little thing called honesty.

Something the Libs and the AGW cultists know nothing about.

If the peer review process is so corrupt that even a fake paper can get published then proving that by successfully getting a fake paper published would be a heroic action and to the benefit all of mankind. So, why don't you do it? After all, faking climate science is easy! Right?

Sonnabend
03-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists are the ones.. you know.. making all the findings for a rather relatively small profit motive.

Neither are you.


The article did talk about grants, it said they had been in a steady downward trend. And not to mention, grants aren't personal pocket money for the people who get them... its getting some cash flow for your department at work... not the stuff mansions and fancy cars are made of.

Oh? The carbon trading market alone is worth billions, especially when it is being rorted


Thirdly, do you have any evidence that there is any sort of lucrative industry for public appearances of climate scientists? Again, we're not talking about Al Gore here.

Oh?


Denmark Gives Away $7B USD, or 2% of GDP to Carbon Credit Traders (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/denmark-gives-away-7b-usd-or-2-gdp-carbon-credit-traders)

(http://www.zerohedge.com/article/denmark-gives-away-7b-usd-or-2-gdp-carbon-credit-traders)
The Danish tax authority has been robbed blind by a carbon trading scandal that has rocked the market for carbon off sets: while the story saw some press a year ago, significantly higher losses have since been reported and the MSM has ignored the story.



The Danish Auditor General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditor_General) is on the case now as the scope of the crime has become obvious, and grown exponentially since it was first reported. Originally discussed as a quasi-small-time dollar scam, the reality a year later is a lot larger: Europol is estimating a value on the case of 38 Billion Kroners and the values seem to keep going up.


Connie Hedegaard, then the Climate & Energy Minister for Denmark is now the EU Climate Commissioner. While she was with the Danish government, she helped set up and manage a system where there were no background checks on the listings of permitted traders. This removal of identification was done even though the EU requires at least passport. This helped a group of fake, rogue traders set up a program that looted the Danish economy of up to 2% of its gross GDP in lost VAT taxes.


Here's How:
The Denmark CO2 permit registry was setup with extremely lax rules and regulations, possibly intentionally. In 2007, Ms. Hedegaard removed the requirement for identification and in a very short period of time traders figured out the loopholes and started to back up the proverbial truck. How? To put it simply: you could round robin CO2 credits, booking the VAT as a bonus each time.


What is painfully obvious is that over 1,100 of the 1,256 (or about 88%) of the registered traders listed in their system were bogusly set up for fraudulent activity. The traders have since been delisted as the scope of the crime becomes obvious.
The fake but registered traders used made up, unique addresses for their business: in one famous case, a trader was listed as trading out of a parking lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_lot) in London. In another, the trader took the name of a dead Pakistani national.


The fraud centered on the use of VAT as a mechanism to generate real non-taxed cash flow. An international trader would buy VAT free credits from one nation, and then resell them to a VAT added customer in a second nation, pocketing as much as 25% of the cost of the trade as a personal commission. The trader then kept the VAT difference in lieu sending in the VAT to the necessary tax system, effectively arbitraging the VAT system (See, e.g., Cap and Trade; Leaving Las Vegas, “The Hole You’re In”).
This trade was coined a “carousel” as the traders would re-export the credits, claiming the VAT only to reimport the credits and reselling them again with a new VAT assigned. They could wash, rinse and repeat booking up to a 25% VAT in the process each time.



And this article did point out the hypocritical elephant in the room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_Room), but it could have twisted the knife a little more. You guys hem and haw about conspiracies from greedy scientists... but oil companies, hello!?! The most profitable businesses on earth - on EARTH.

And you have concrete proof of the involvement of "Big Oil"


So you are literally pitting a barely 6 figure salary on the part of individual climate scientists or some grant money, against the most profitable industries on the planet (whose product is one that we will literally go to war for) and laughably telling us the climate scientists are greedy bastards with all the incentive here.... the obliviousness is just too damn intense.

..and free travel to "conferences" (flying of course, they'd NEVER teleconference it) in exotic locations with all expenses paid by the taxpayer, and many other lurks and perks.


Given the current environment, climate scientists actually arguably have some good incentives to jump ship to the dark side of the skeptics.

Ah but didnt you say that there went any and that there is "consensus"?


The skeptics are chomping at the bits for any phd they can get who will play ball with them - and any phd who does is greeted with celebrity, praise, (and I bet a good bit of money) from the crowd of skeptics... any climate scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_scientist) phd who goes to the dark side is an instant big fish. Its telling to me how so few actually venture over there.

More than you can imagine. The wheels are falling off, one by one....

Sonnabend
03-08-2011, 07:02 PM
After all, faking climate science is easy! Right

As Jones of the CRU and his lies proved.

FlaGator
03-08-2011, 07:18 PM
A fool and his junk science cannot be parted.

Rockntractor
03-08-2011, 07:54 PM
A fool and his junk science cannot be parted.

But a fool and his junk can be.
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t152/pickel33/SCARYAXEMAN.gif

txradioguy
03-08-2011, 11:20 PM
And this article did point out the hypocritical elephant in the room, but it could have twisted the knife a little more. You guys hem and haw about conspiracies from greedy scientists... but oil companies, hello!?! The most profitable businesses on earth - on EARTH.

Actually no that's not true. This talking point was voided about 4 years ago. You need to update your memes.

Most oil companies barely crack a 10% profit margin at the end of the year.

Which Wall Street and financial experts do not consider very successful.

The fact of the matter is the oil companies that have survived have had to merge or severely reduce their operations to remain afloat.

wilbur
03-09-2011, 09:17 AM
Actually no that's not true. This talking point was voided about 4 years ago. You need to update your memes.

Most oil companies barely crack a 10% profit margin at the end of the year.

Which Wall Street and financial experts do not consider very successful.

The fact of the matter is the oil companies that have survived have had to merge or severely reduce their operations to remain afloat.

If one is looking to get a picture of just how influential and powerful an industry or a business may be, profit margin is irrelevant.

Even with their relatively smaller profit margins (which have been growing steadily for years), big oil STILL beats out everybody in terms of net profit.... so that should give you some idea of just what kind of behemoths they really are.

txradioguy
03-09-2011, 10:00 AM
If one is looking to get a picture of just how influential and powerful an industry or a business may be, profit margin is irrelevant.

If they were oh so powerful and influential...they wouldn't be sitting there with their thumbs up their ass unable to drill in the Gulf because the President and his cultists at EPA lied...then ignored a court order to let drilling begin again.

If "big oil were what you say it is"...there'd be drilling rigs spaced like telephone poles from Midland to Dallas.

If "big oil" was as powerful as you mistakenly claim...they'd be drilling in ANWR as we speak.

YOu really need to update your meme's. :rolleyes:


Even with their relatively smaller profit margins (which have been growing steadily for years), big oil STILL beats out everybody in terms of net profit.... so that should give you some idea of just what kind of behemoths they really are.

The oil and gas business fed and clothed me when I was a kid. You couldn't be more wrong.

I'd explain to you the real deal...but you won't come off your propaganda horse long enough to listen to anyone that actually knows what they are talking about.

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Ah but didnt you say that there went any and that there is "consensus"?


Unanimity is nice but one can acheive consensus without it. You knew that, right?

Odysseus
03-09-2011, 11:55 AM
Unanimity is nice but one can acheive consensus without it. You knew that, right?

Consensus in science doesn't equal validity. A majority can be wrong, too.

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 12:05 PM
Consensus in science doesn't equal validity. A majority can be wrong, too.

A minority can be wrong too!

Odysseus
03-09-2011, 01:45 PM
A minority can be wrong too!

It can, but the numbers are irrelevant.


After the Nazi takeover of the German government in 1933, over two hundred German scientists signed a public letter condemning relativity as "Jewish physics," which for that reason had no place in the science curriculum of the Third Reich. To which Einstein dryly retorted: If these advocates of "German physics" were right, one signature would have sufficed.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/04/on-some-epistemic-pathologies-

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 02:09 PM
It can, but the numbers are irrelevant.


After the Nazi takeover of the German government in 1933, over two hundred German scientists signed a public letter condemning relativity as "Jewish physics," which for that reason had no place in the science curriculum of the Third Reich. To which Einstein dryly retorted: If these advocates of "German physics" were right, one signature would have sufficed.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/04/on-some-epistemic-pathologies-

Your analogy would be poignant if the consensus on climate change had been established by scientists signing a petition.

wilbur
03-09-2011, 02:49 PM
If they were oh so powerful and influential...they wouldn't be sitting there with their thumbs up their ass unable to drill in the Gulf because the President and his cultists at EPA lied...then ignored a court order to let drilling begin again.


They arent all powerful - but if you're gonna sit here and say they are absolutely ineffectual in influencing world policy and public opinion - or are somehow the poor hapless little guy in comparison to a loose conglomeration of largely apolitical scientists, you're stark raving mad.

If you can't even admit to even a single ounce of doubt regarding actions of the worlds most powerful businesses (who have vested interests in opposing climate change), and continue to reserve all your suspicion for the body of climate scientists and higher education, then you're choosing to wallow in your own blatant, hypocrisy and utter stupidity (both of the most extreme and contemptible sort).

wilbur
03-09-2011, 03:05 PM
It can, but the numbers are irrelevant.

Are you going to believe one lone scientist out there who's telling you there is no link between asbestos and cancer, or are you going to believe the scientific consensus on the matter - that there is a link?

Can you actually see asbestos causing cancer in someone? If not, how do you know that it does and how to you determine which opinion to believe?



By the numbers, that's how.

Odysseus
03-09-2011, 03:10 PM
Your analogy would be poignant if the consensus on climate change had been established by scientists signing a petition.

But, that is how they claimed to have established the consensus. They circulate petitions and pretend that anyone who didn't sign is in the minority (as if there were a census of climate scientists that established the actual number of supporters and opponents) and that they are the only "true" scientists, while everyone else is in the pocket of some special interest (beyond, you know, governments, which are the largest and most powerful special interests on the planet).

wilbur
03-09-2011, 03:14 PM
But, that is how they claimed to have established the consensus. They circulate petitions and pretend that anyone who didn't sign is in the minority (as if there were a census of climate scientists that established the actual number of supporters and opponents) and that they are the only "true" scientists, while everyone else is in the pocket of some special interest (beyond, you know, governments, which are the largest and most powerful special interests on the planet).

On the contrary, its the skeptics who are always passing around the petitions.... and they are generally extremely loose with their definition of "expert" - in one case, they were allowing anyone with a BS degree - in any field - sign a petition. A petition I'd be qualified to sign.

Then of course, it gets passed around the skeptic/right wing blogosphere and trotted out on forums time and time again, as if the thousands of names are climate scientists, and physicists, etc..

Psuedoscience LOOOOOOOVES petitions (like the Nazi's, I guess eh?). You see them all the time from creationists, intelligent designers, global warming skeptics... its all they got.

Go ahead, search for "global warming petition" and see what kind of results turn up.

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 03:16 PM
But, that is how they claimed to have established the consensus. They circulate petitions and pretend that anyone who didn't sign is in the minority (as if there were a census of climate scientists that established the actual number of supporters and opponents) and that they are the only "true" scientists, while everyone else is in the pocket of some special interest (beyond, you know, governments, which are the largest and most powerful special interests on the planet).

The consensus is primarily represented by the research:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

And by the institutions:

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

And by the scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/study-scientific-consensus-climate-change-411.html

The trifecta!

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 03:22 PM
On the contrary, its the skeptics who are always passing around the petitions.... and they are generally extremely loose with their definition of "expert" - in one case, they were allowing anyone with a BS degree - in any field - sign a petition. A petition I'd be qualified to sign.


Ah, the OISM petition! That's the one a Dr. Geri Halliwell PhD managed to get on. Good times.

Sonnabend
03-10-2011, 05:14 AM
On the contrary, its the skeptics who are always passing around the petitions.... and they are generally extremely loose with their definition of "expert" - in one case, they were allowing anyone with a BS degree - in any field - sign a petition. A petition I'd be qualified to sign.

But you dont have any climatology degrees. You keep claiming you DO have a degree...but not in what. So tell us , wilbur, just WHAT are you a scientist in? What IS your degree?

Seems like this guy knows more than you do (http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf)
..

The world isn’t warming anything like as fast as the global warmists’ models warned it would

As noted earlier, my main research projects deal with building climate datasets from scratch to document what the climate has done and to test assertions and hypotheses about climate change....


I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only one
third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era (+0.26°C/decade.)


There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly suggests that climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases) and thus overstate the warming of the climate system .



John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_professor) of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former Lead Author of IPCC assessments.Oh dear...poor wilbur gets it wrong again

AmPat
03-10-2011, 08:52 AM
The consensus is primarily represented by the research:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

And by the institutions:

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

And by the scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/study-scientific-consensus-climate-change-411.html

The trifecta!

I wonder why these "scientists" feel the need to get consensus on this if it is such a sure thing?

wilbur
03-10-2011, 09:44 AM
I wonder why these "scientists" feel the need to get consensus on this if it is such a sure thing?

Yea, it must be because they know its a hoax!

wilbur
03-10-2011, 09:52 AM
But you dont have any climatology degrees. You keep claiming you DO have a degree...but not in what. So tell us , wilbur, just WHAT are you a scientist in? What IS your degree?

Computer science - as I have already mentioned about a million times before, in response to your pointless harping on the subject.



Seems like this guy knows more than you do (http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf)
..

Oh dear...poor wilbur gets it wrong again[/INDENT]

Uh, what's your point? You picked out a well known skeptic. You can find a handful of others. If you care to look, you can find thousands on the other side. What, phd's only count when they agree with you?

This really speaks to what I was saying earlier - skeptics are chomping at the bits to parade around any phd they can find to promote their cause - while ignoring the thousands who hold beliefs contrary to theirs. They then make these contrarian phd's instant celebutards in the right media, they even get called before congress, they sell books, get invited on conservative media shows... there's a tremendous incentive for climate scientists to go to the dark side.

txradioguy
03-10-2011, 02:12 PM
Computer science - as I have already mentioned about a million times before, in response to your pointless harping on the subject.



Uh, what's your point? You picked out a well known skeptic. You can find a handful of others. If you care to look, you can find thousands on the other side. What, phd's only count when they agree with you?

This really speaks to what I was saying earlier - skeptics are chomping at the bits to parade around any phd they can find to promote their cause - while ignoring the thousands who hold beliefs contrary to theirs. They then make these contrarian phd's instant celebutards in the right media, they even get called before congress, they sell books, get invited on conservative media shows... there's a tremendous incentive for climate scientists to go to the dark side.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ralj5_j3AEA/TPg3SWjrscI/AAAAAAAAACE/vymM-5TY8pg/s640/stop-global-warming-global-warming-snow-hot-demotivational-poster-1246385001.jpg

Odysseus
03-10-2011, 02:52 PM
On the contrary, its the skeptics who are always passing around the petitions.... and they are generally extremely loose with their definition of "expert" - in one case, they were allowing anyone with a BS degree - in any field - sign a petition. A petition I'd be qualified to sign.

Then of course, it gets passed around the skeptic/right wing blogosphere and trotted out on forums time and time again, as if the thousands of names are climate scientists, and physicists, etc..

Psuedoscience LOOOOOOOVES petitions (like the Nazi's, I guess eh?). You see them all the time from creationists, intelligent designers, global warming skeptics... its all they got.

Go ahead, search for "global warming petition" and see what kind of results turn up.

The only thing that I agree with in this statement is that you are qualified in BS.

Sonnabend
03-10-2011, 07:08 PM
That"skeptic" is a qualified climate scientist. He has degrees and qualifications you DONT. Therefore I listen to him rather than you.

Or Prof Carter here in Aus who stated today that if we stopped all industry TODAY the temp would change by ONE THOUSANDTH of a degree in one hundred years.

These "computer models? Garbage in, garbage out.

Articulate_Ape
03-10-2011, 07:15 PM
Uh, what's your point? You picked out a well known skeptic.

I think the word you were looking for was "heretic". That is, after all, how your religion views unbelievers, is it not?

wilbur
03-10-2011, 09:02 PM
That"skeptic" is a qualified climate scientist. He has degrees and qualifications you DONT. Therefore I listen to him rather than you.


And several thousand qualified climate scientists disagree with him. Therefore, you listen to them? No? Didnt think so.

So we've established that you don't actually care what qualified phd's say.

Sonnabend
03-10-2011, 09:36 PM
There are no hard facts or proof of AGW . Case closed.

Pulpfishin
03-11-2011, 10:07 AM
Something I've argued repeatedly...

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars

The bullshit claim that climate scientists are in it for the money is a favorite meme around here and so I'm sure this thread will have to be shuffled away to protect delicate minds.

Let me enlighten the 5 working brain cells you have:

Timmer:

Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000.

A new hire making $70,000?

I have a master’s degree in Environmental Science and the first job I took out of college paid $45,727 (adjusted for today’s dollars)

If it’s not a “money scheme”, then tell us all why:


U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.

snip

The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/03/how-climate-change-gravy-train-rolls##ixzz1GIg2vAzE

I find it quite hilarious (and hypocritical) that you and yours call us the “deniers”, when it is you that is denying the truth.
Climate change believers are sheep, with little or no ability to seek and understand the truth.

You refuse to understand the concept of the “Climate Industrial Complex”, and when the truth is revealed, (MANY TIMES SO FAR) you lay on the floor with your fingers in your ears screaming waaa, waaa, waaa, waaa!

The facts are as plain as the nose on your face, it's ALL about money, and anyone that refuses to see that is a complete idiot.

Do yourself a favor, grow up, take the ring out of your nose, and TRY to utilize the gray matter between your ears.

To expound on an old animal house phrase: Fat, drunk, stupid, with 10 inches of Gore’s cock down your throat is no way to go through life, son.

I apologize to all for the language, but I have grown very intolerant of climate change wanna be hippy idiots!

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 10:16 AM
A new hire making $70,000?

I have a master’s degree in Environmental Science and the first job I took out of college paid $45,727 (adjusted for today’s dollars)


I think $70,000 is the average for new hires. Anyway, if your salary out of college seems low compared to figures stated in the article then perhaps there was less demand for your speciality. Or perhaps you went to a crap school.

Articulate_Ape
03-11-2011, 11:03 AM
I think $70,000 is the average for new hires. Anyway, if your salary out of college seems low compared to figures stated in the article then perhaps there was less demand for your speciality. Or perhaps you went to a crap school.


New hires that wouldn't be new hires if they hadn't genuflected before the Goracle. You must be a warmist to ride this ride.

Odysseus
03-11-2011, 11:11 AM
I think $70,000 is the average for new hires. Anyway, if your salary out of college seems low compared to figures stated in the article then perhaps there was less demand for your speciality. Or perhaps you went to a crap school.

Or, he lives in a region with a lower cost of living, and wages reflect that. But it's nice to see that you have been working on your people skills since you've been here. :rolleyes:

txradioguy
03-11-2011, 11:20 AM
Or perhaps you went to a crap school.


And what Ivy League school did you graduate from?

Pulpfishin
03-11-2011, 11:38 AM
On the contrary, its the skeptics who are always passing around the petitions.... and they are generally extremely loose with their definition of "expert" - in one case, they were allowing anyone with a BS degree - in any field - sign a petition. A petition I'd be qualified to sign.

Then of course, it gets passed around the skeptic/right wing blogosphere and trotted out on forums time and time again, as if the thousands of names are climate scientists, and physicists, etc..

Psuedoscience LOOOOOOOVES petitions (like the Nazi's, I guess eh?). You see them all the time from creationists, intelligent designers, global warming skeptics... its all they got.

Go ahead, search for "global warming petition" and see what kind of results turn up.

You forgot racists and bigots along with the typical empty suit Nazi comment.

Who signed the petition you ask?

My brother, who has 3 bachelors degrees (Ecology, Biology, and Math), 2 Masters Degrees, (Ecology, and Mathmatics), as well as PhD in Biomathematics.
He is a tenured professor at New Mexico State University, and is currently obtaining his SECOND PhD in Ecology.

50 years old and still in school.:rolleyes:
The man can solve complex calculus problems in his head but couldn’t get laid in a whore house!

I digress; yes, he signed the petition, and is probably more qualified than 90% of those claiming global warming theory is valid!

He is one of the worlds top 50 EXPERTS in statistics and statistical modeling, with well over 200 PEER REVIEWED published papers. It his EXPERT opinion that after reviewing multiple AGW theory data sets, not a one them has enough credibility to (in his own words) “meet FDA standards for over the counter animal medication approval”, and he would know.

He spent several years working as a project leader for a company that was contracted to the FDA. They compiled and verified research data from pharmaceutical companies seeking new drug approvals.

Please feel free to continue demonstrating your ignorance, it provides us with much needed entertainment.

Pulpfishin
03-11-2011, 11:55 AM
I think $70,000 is the average for new hires. Anyway, if your salary out of college seems low compared to figures stated in the article then perhaps there was less demand for your speciality. Or perhaps you went to a crap school.

You really are that stupid aren’t you!

I work in the oil field, one of the HIGHEST PAYING industries in the world, and after 20 years I exceed $150k.

When I graduated there were only 5 universities that offered any "environmental" degree plan.

But you fail to see the point (AGAIN).

$70,000 a year average for a new hires, is higher than MIT engineering graduates!

I know, because we just hired one at $58K.

At least try to think about how many options (industries) an engineering graduate has to choose from, and how competitive the salaries would be to hire them.

In what industry is scientific climate “knowledge” worth $70,000 a year?
What industry is it applicable to?

I’ll tell you, NONE!!!!!!!!!!

Its ONLY value is in the global warming camp, and thus they protect it with lies and deceit!

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 11:58 AM
Or, he lives in a region with a lower cost of living, and wages reflect that. But it's nice to see that you have been working on your people skills since you've been here. :rolleyes:

Pulpfishin describes me as a fat, stupid, cocksucker and you take issue with my people skills. That's classic.

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 12:03 PM
$70,000 a year average for a new hires, is higher than MIT engineering graduates!

I know, because we just hired one at $58K.

At least try to think about how many options (industries) an engineering graduate has to choose from, and how competitive the salaries would be to hire them.

In what industry is scientific climate “knowledge” worth $70,000 a year?

What industry is it applicable to?



You must have a reading comprehension problem or something. The article states that the average salary for new hires in the geosciences department at PSU is about $70,000 per year. So, that is the industry in which knowledge of climate science is worth about $70,000 per year.

txradioguy
03-11-2011, 12:04 PM
Pulpfishin describes me as a fat, stupid, cocksucker and you take issue with my people skills. That's classic.

And either of them is wrong how exactly?

wilbur
03-11-2011, 12:05 PM
Let me enlighten the 5 working brain cells you have:

Timmer:


A new hire making $70,000?

I have a master’s degree in Environmental Science and the first job I took out of college paid $45,727 (adjusted for today’s dollars)


That simply isn't very extraordinary for a phd hire, but obviously some fields pay more than others.

As for the rest of your post, it isn't aimed at the scientists at all...

txradioguy
03-11-2011, 12:08 PM
That simply isn't very extraordinary for a phd hire, but obviously some fields pay more than others.


I'm sorry you said your degree is in what exactly?

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 12:09 PM
And either of them is wrong how exactly?

I'm not fat, I'm not stupid, and I don't suck cock.

Pulpfishin
03-11-2011, 12:09 PM
You must have a reading comprehension problem. The article states that the average for new hires at PSU is $70,000. So, that is the industry in which knowledge of climate science is worth about $70,000 per year.

Finally you admit it is an industry. it is a FOR PROFIT INDUSTRY!

As such, they are in it for the money period, end of story.

Your very first post in this thread is proven to be horsheshit!

Feel free to continue demonstrating your ignorance!

wilbur
03-11-2011, 12:12 PM
You forgot racists and bigots along with the typical empty suit Nazi comment.

Send the condescension towards Odysseus - I was just alluding to his previous comment, which brought up Nazi's.



It can, but the numbers are irrelevant.

After the Nazi takeover of the German government in 1933, over two hundred German scientists signed a public letter condemning relativity as "Jewish physics," which for that reason had no place in the science curriculum of the Third Reich. To which Einstein dryly retorted: If these advocates of "German physics" were right, one signature would have sufficed.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...c-pathologies-


I merely pointed out that the favorite psuedo-skeptic past time of constructing dubious and deceptive petitions had much more in common with the aforementioned scenario.



Who signed the petition you ask?

My brother, who has 3 bachelors degrees (Ecology, Biology, and Math), 2 Masters Degrees, (Ecology, and Mathmatics), as well as PhD in Biomathematics.
He is a tenured professor at New Mexico State University, and is currently obtaining his SECOND PhD in Ecology.

50 years old and still in school.:rolleyes:
The man can solve complex calculus problems in his head but couldn’t get laid in a whore house!

I digress; yes, he signed the petition, and is probably more qualified than 90% of those claiming global warming theory is valid!

He is one of the worlds top 50 EXPERTS in statistics and statistical modeling, with well over 200 PEER REVIEWED published papers. It his EXPERT opinion that after reviewing multiple AGW theory data sets, not a one them has enough credibility to (in his own words) “meet FDA standards for over the counter animal medication approval”, and he would know.

He spent several years working as a project leader for a company that was contracted to the FDA. They compiled and verified research data from pharmaceutical companies seeking new drug approvals.

Please feel free to continue demonstrating your ignorance, it provides us with much needed entertainment.

Well gee, I guess your expert is better than my expert! Or not.

wilbur
03-11-2011, 12:14 PM
I'm sorry you said your degree is in what exactly?

Computer science, as I said, though it doesnt actually matter - you're just being a douche.

FWIW, new hires in MY field can get that much of off just BS or BA degrees, though it would be above average. That sort of salary is easily attainable for anyone with a MS or phd.

Pulpfishin
03-11-2011, 12:14 PM
As for the rest of your post, it isn't aimed at the scientists at all...

I don't think an explanation would help, it's obvious you were dropped on your head at a very young age.

Odysseus
03-11-2011, 12:17 PM
Pulpfishin describes me as a fat, stupid, cocksucker and you take issue with my people skills. That's classic.

Pulpfishin just hasn't gotten to know you like the rest of us have. When he has, he'll be less effusive in his praise of your lifestyle.

wilbur
03-11-2011, 12:20 PM
I don't think an explanation would help, it's obvious you were dropped on your head at a very young age.

You just can't give one - its always funny, you guys complain about be shouted down, insulted and persecuted - yet nearly every word out of your mouth has been an insult like the one above, just ranting and raving ad hominem attacks of the kind you claim to be the victim. Brilliant!

Odysseus
03-11-2011, 12:28 PM
You just can't give one - its always funny, you guys complain about be shouted down, insulted and persecuted - yet nearly every word out of your mouth has been an insult like the one above, just ranting and raving ad hominem attacks of the kind you claim to be the victim. Brilliant!

Pot, have you met kettle?

Pulpfishin
03-11-2011, 03:45 PM
You just can't give one - its always funny, you guys complain about be shouted down, insulted and persecuted - yet nearly every word out of your mouth has been an insult like the one above, just ranting and raving ad hominem attacks of the kind you claim to be the victim. Brilliant!

Whatever, ranting and raving is the stock and trade of liberals and global warming sheep.

I have presented FACTS, that you fail address in your replies, rather you cry like a little girl about EVERYTHING except the topic at hand.

Dispute my assertions, if you can.

I know this will fall on deaf ears and a closed mind, but what the hell, I'll challenge you anyway.

Take everything I've stated supporting my position and try to prove it wrong.

Thus far your only attempt at rebuttal of an assertion has been:


I merely pointed out that the favorite psuedo-skeptic past time of constructing dubious and deceptive petitions had much more in common with the aforementioned scenario.

I post the qualifications of someone who can give an expert opinion that discredits the very heart and soul of the entire global warming theory (their data), and you can’t reply with anything factual.

There’s a simple explanation for that; the data used to substantiate the theory is crap, and it has been demonstrated to be crap by thousands of other people just like my brother.

Yet you still continue YOUR ranting and raving somehow thinking it’s going to change the facts.

Regarding the ad hominem assertion; look up the term in the dictionary then read your post above you hypocrite!

AmPat
03-19-2011, 12:08 PM
Looks like after a week away from this thread the final score is=
AGW is B.S.:cool:

Sonnabend
03-22-2011, 05:46 AM
Yeah the climate people aren't on the gravy train...exotic locations, all expenses paid travel, loads of perks, luxury holidays, five star hotels, millions of dollars in grants...

..I always wonder just how much interest there would be if this lot didnt get to hop on jets and fly at taxpayer expense to all these dreary locations like Switzerland, Cancun, Bali...I wonder just how intent they would be if they had to Skype it from their offices.

All these claims of "carbon emissions" from a bunch of freeloaders who log thousands of miles in gas guzzling, carbon spewing airplanes...spare me. :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
03-22-2011, 06:03 PM
Yeah the climate people aren't on the gravy train...exotic locations, all expenses paid travel, loads of perks, luxury holidays, five star hotels, millions of dollars in grants...

..I always wonder just how much interest there would be if this lot didnt get to hop on jets and fly at taxpayer expense to all these dreary locations like Switzerland, Cancun, Bali...I wonder just how intent they would be if they had to Skype it from their offices.

All these claims of "carbon emissions" from a bunch of freeloaders who log thousands of miles in gas guzzling, carbon spewing airplanes...spare me. :rolleyes:

QFT