Found this image from a “Progressive” Cheer Leader:
Its all well and good, except that the “Global Warming” money is all coming from Government grants, not small private research groups, and PACs. These research grants are only interested in a “Global Crisis” so if the groups’ findings are NOT that the world is warming to dangerous levels the money goes away and their labs close down…so what do you think their numbers will do?
I witnessed the same cooking of numbers when I worked for NOAA on fisheries research. If they said fish stocks were stable then the money dries up, and the NOAA labs analyzing the data are reduced to a skeleton crew.
Government research is always walking the tight-rope, and I ended up being laid off because NOAA funds were shifted to the Iraq war. Also that’s a great little metric to look at. Look at how much the Department of Defense spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think the oil company money is a drop in the bucket compared to what the .gov can throw at a convenient emotional fulcrum to pass laws of intervention and regulation?
**UPDATE** And I forgot about the whole “Consensus” thing. First one has to look at WHO is preaching “Greenhouse Effect”/ “Global Warming”/ “Manbearpig”. Yes we have a good number of climatologists, and ecologists, but look at the biggest advocate, Al Gore. He’s a lawyer turned politician, has he even taken a single course in ecology? I’ll also add myself into this. I’m a marine biologist who now spends his time doing medical research, I’m personally not the guy who’s going to blow the doors off this. Still I became a skeptic of this back in the late 90s when I was taking ecology courses and my PROFESSORS were calling what was then the “Greenhouse Effect” a dubious theory. More here:
Neil Stenhouse, lead author of a paper accepted for publication by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, trashed the ability of American Meteorological Society meteorologists to understand global warming after they failed to validate Stenhouse’s mythical global warming…Stenhouse, a psychologist and doctoral student in communications at George Mason University, emailed all full members of the American Meteorological Society for whom he could find an email address and asked them to fill out an online survey on global warming. More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey.
Only 52 percent said global warming is occurring and is caused mostly by humans – which is itself a far cry from having 52 percent say humans are causing a global warming crisis. The results were a huge blow to the mythical notion that all or nearly all scientists agree that humans are causing a global warming crisis. This is especially the case considering the AMS survey reflected the views of scientists with atmospheric science expertise. This wasn’t a survey of engineers or other non-atmospheric scientists with little if any atmospheric science expertise….Considering only 52 percent of AMS scientists believe humans are the main cause for some global warming, and considering the Guardian protested that only 13 percent of AMS meteorologists listed climate science as their primary area of expertise (as if having expertise in one area of atmospheric science precludes expertise in others), this leaves Stenhouse asserting that the term “not climate experts” applies to a majority of AMS members.
Yep, meteorologists study WEATHER, and you’ll note that many from the religion (and it is a religion now) of “Global Warming” will tell you, that climate change is NOT weather…tho recently they have taken to blame extremely cold conditions on what was once called “Greenhouse Effect”. The bulk of the people who preach this stuff, including the blogger who posted the image, and the activist that created the image have NO scientific background, so they consider anybody with a science degree an “expert”.
Of course I’m not an “Expert” because I’m obviously one of those scientists being bribed by the oil companies…which further makes me an idiot, because I really don’t want to go to the lab today!
There really is no “Consensus”, there are just a large group of activists and scientists who are either emotionally, spiritually, or financially invested in this being the crisis that the .gov wants.
Correct sir… TOTALLY correct…
Because science depends on consensus and “which is more likely”.
That whole “My model can repeatedly and independently predict empirical phenomena” is just witchery.
Shit, I didn’t even get into the “Consensus” thing! Update added!
Not a religion. A cult. Complete with apocalypse myth and sacrificial rituals.
Can you have a cult without a religion?
Sure- Marxism.
I would call Marxism a religion, just not a “Spiritual” one.
Well its also a bit spiritual as it involves a bunch of greedy, angry people with contempt for people they perceive as “better off” than them, all talking about an idealized people who selflessly care for one-another.
You must be one of those Deniers, or something.
Paid by the oil company! Six Figures, weekly in non-consecutive bills! 😉
“Climatology” and “ecology” are pseudosciences. They do not follow the scientific method. Their practitioners carefully avoid making testable predictions.
Furthermore, those at the head of these movements have lifelong histories of making politically convenient failed predictions, before they figured out they should stop making predictions at all.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest…” Stephen Schneider, creator of the “global warming” meme, in an interview with “Discover” Magazine, in the October 1989 issue.
Mr. Schneider, for those unfamiliar with his antics, had previously spent most of the 1970s screaming at the top of his lungs that “pollution,” a phenomenon that occurs whenever white people refuse to live in caves and wear grass skirts and die of the common cold before the age of thirty, was going to cause “another Ice Age” and would destroy all global civilization and bring about the extinction of mankind before 1980.
The tl;dr version: these people are evil, insane, and stupid. They lie. They lie willingly and knowingly. The truth is not in them. Every word they speak is false, including “a,” “an,” and “the.”
Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Very interesting article, and certainly there are vastly too many scientists who are peddling religion rather than reason, or bending the scientific laws of ethics, but I have known and worked with several climatologists and ecologists who were indeed REAL scientists. Many of them teach, and they are the start of my septic view, and many of them do other research work because they are both desolate fields.
But I wonder how many of them have been flipped by the easy grant money poured into the desolate field for the small-price to pay of abandoning all ethics…
But they ARE real fields, just you’ll only read about the hacks because the media ignores the truthful ones.
I knew global warming was a hoax back in the late 90s when I noticed that there was no pattern to the supposed breakout of record high temperatures. As they were announced by the weather reporter there was no pattern; sometimes the record was from 1888, other times from 1978. If the situation were as catastrophic and as runaway as claimed, the records being broken would operate more like a stock breakout, each day/year breaking records set recently.
In the early 90’s there was a digest-sized magazine called “The Skeptical Inquirer”. It dealt with crop circles, remote viewing, alien abductions, ESP, speaking with the dead — all sorts of paranormal activities. One article mentioned that people go into the business of debunking these things, but they are ill-equipped to do so. Generally they are successful in some unrelated field and are, in the course of their “investigation”, convinced that there must be something to the paranormal claims. The magician, James Randi, said that fakery can only be detected by someone who knows what fakery looks like, and knows where to look. Most of the scientists who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are either not in fields that have anything to do with climate, or are trained in only a small portion of what one needs to know in order to make correct analysis. As Will Rogers said, “There is nothing more ignorant than an educated man outside the area of his education.”