To put it in other words, what was different in the past that tenure or grants did **not **influence the scientists up to the 40’s? A theory that supposes that the scientists of today are influenced by the money gained by tenure or grants regarding this subject has to explain what changed from the 50’s to today.
Based on history, I’m inclined to think that it was the evidence that convinced them, not the profits that they could get from AGW. (There are still more profits to be gained IMHO by becoming a speaker in denier circuits)
Again, that’s not the question I was responding too. Here is what The Gonz asked:
So…POSSIBLE payoffs and POSSIBLE profit (which is what he was asking for) are what I said. No, it’s not markedly different than it was in the past, though a lot more grant money is riding on things like this today than it was in the 40’s. Do you deny this? That careers and funding, not to mention prestige, ride on the type of research being done? Do you suppose that the same grant money, prestige and tenure is available for, say, flatworm research as that available for climate research?
You seem to be trying to pick a fight with me on this, when I’m basically in agreement with you and freely acknowledge that you know more on this subject than I do. I was merely responding to gonzo’s comic book assertions.
Either we are talking past each other or I’m simply not tracking well tonight. What do you think is unlikely based on history exactly? That universities get grant money and funding based on research?? Of COURSE they do…and always have. So, you must be talking about something else.
Just to clarify my own perhaps murky position here, I’m not denying that there is more money to be made on the private side of research than on the university side. What I’m saying is that those ARE real, tangible motivations that DO influence professors, scientists and researchers…regardless of whether we are talking about climate studies or the mating habits of left left handed dwarf transsexual hermaphrodites. Tenure is important. Funding is important. Grant money is important. Prestige is important. All are real world motivations…even for climate scientists embarked on a noble quest to save the world.
-XT
While it is true that current researchers make more money, it is not likely to be just for climate research. As many forget, climate science did not have many specialists, researchers came from other fields.
Now, Plass was a physicist, in 1955 Plass left his academic position.
So, the one that proposed mechanisms for AGW was not being funded to find what he did, and Plass found the most convincing evidence by moonlighting outside academia.
Now, it seems to me that back on the 60’s many would had gained glory by finding evidence that Plass was wrong, as that was the consensus then. But I guess that most current researchers will have to just conform themselves on confirming the research.
BTW, I do remember also that most satellites send recently to investigate climate were based on the best criticisms by the skeptics, probes were sent up to investigate clouds, feedbacks and other items that could undermine the AGW theories, they ended up bringing more evidence that confirmed the previous research.
Which means that some conservatives take the liberal position on some issues, which is to be expected. But the conservative position on the existence of God is obviously yes. That’s how most of us were brought up and the position taken by the culture that has dominated for millenia.
But there are countless positions that do qualify for a lambasting on FOX, including–to calibrate our lambaste-o-meter–that GW is happening and it’s human caused. This the Al Gore position and these “carbon-heads” get plenty of lambasting from the “cyclers”, even though they both agree that the “coolers” are wrong and that the threat of disaster is real. But the cyclers and the coolers paper over their ratehr sharp differences and gang up on the carbon-heads. It doesn’t matter to the coolers why they’re wrong, just so long as they get plenty of lambasting.
And if that doesn’t happen – if the next decade is rather like this past one – then can we finally stop worrying about global warming and address global cooling? One decade of cooling-off since 1998 isn’t enough; I get that; will two suffice?
That’s your claim, but it doesn’t happen to be true.
Ah, I see the problem.
No, what gets a deserved lambasting from FOX isn’t the mere belief in GW. The problem is when “carbon-heads” start calling for us to do something about the alleged threat of GW, which sometimes involves Very Bad Ideas.
Well, (a) they have been “falling short” of the 1998 mark; as per GIGObuster’s helpful quote for evaluating 1999 and 2000 and 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and 2009, we can only say that “2005 was almost as warm as 1998.” More to the point, (b) I now have it on good authority that a single decade, like a single year, isn’t sufficient evidence; perhaps a second decade of sub-1998 temperatures will somehow both falsify global warming despite also ranking as a hot decade.
I now look forward to seeing how this decade’s temperatures play out.
Good heavens, man, I’ve already copy-and-pasted your other nested quote about “the existence of natural variability means that we could in theory wait a long time (~17 years) before setting a new temperature record.” I’d already used that less-than-20-years figure, carrying the one and everything, to figure on seeing the prediction get falsified in the fullness of time come 2015 – which already fits the quote claiming “that less than 15 years of data allows no confident conclusion about whether the trend in GISS data is warming or cooling.”
Since you’ve already seen me sign on for your “long time (~17 years)” quote – and already quoted me about it, even – why figure you’re doing new work by requesting an amount over and above “less than 15 years”?
I “already had figured the answer” back on page one.
Well, that’s a hard charge to rebut; obviously I feel you’re the one making nitpicks, but with the crucial difference that they’re incorrect nitpicks.
You’re missing the point.
Your claim was that (a) I hadn’t checked the citations, since (b) I didn’t figure the answer would fall in the period of more than fifteen, but less than twenty, years. I replied by pointing out that I’d already signed on for the “long time (~17 years)” period after copy-and-pasting it from your own post – which shows that the second part is as false as the first.
Why you “did quote again” is irrelevant. Whether it “was very unlikely” is irrelevant. What you think I was “asking for” is irrelevant. You made an incorrect claim, backed it up with another incorrect claim, and then accused me of nitpicking when pointing out that your claims are incorrect.
Again, you’re the one bringing up quotes that rule out “less than fifteen years” while okaying “less than 20 years” to claim I would’ve figured the answer in that range; how can it be nitpicking to address that claim by showing I figured the answer in exactly that range?
BTW the 17 year one says “could” and the 15 years one is also set as probable. What is certain is that you are not taking any answer quietly, and it is not going to demonstrate anything for your side, besides you are just showing that you keep dwelling on nits and not dealing on the facts that scientists explained the variability issue.
From my perspective, you’re making incorrect statements. Should I let them pass, or address them?
Go back to the last post on page one: I took the answer quietly, stated that I’d see whether it pans out in 2015, mentioned that I had no objection to something, and capped it by reiterating – in response to sqweels – that no lambasting is deserved for people who believe that global warming is happening, end of post.
I’d pretty well said my piece, at that point.
And then you made an incorrect statement in the next post, and so I then posted a reply: “I made no such claim. What an extraordinary claim you’re now making.” I wrapped up the rest of that post by agreeing with a statement you’d made before hailing yet another statement you’d made as “outstanding” and stating that “I respect the heck out of that approach in general and the quote in particular.”
All apologies, but I can’t take answers much better than that.
Isn’t this entire thread off-topic? The OP wanted to know the view of the country’s conservatives vis-a-vis global warming, intelligent design and the Young Earth model. He didn’t ask people to argue with the responses.
This happens all too frequently around here - someone will ask what the country’s conservatives think about something and then everyone starts arguing with the answers, as though their anger and arguments aimed at SDMB conservatives are going to make the slightest difference in what the country’s millions of conservatives think.
If you want to harp about how stoopit the country’s conservatives are, that’s fine; start a thread and do that (or join in the dozen or so already in progress). But I think it’s ultimately self-defeating in terms of gaining any kind of insight to ask people to explain why the nation’s conservatives think the way they do on certain issues and then attack the respondents when they attempt to give an answer.
As I mentioned before, It is not very important to convince an opponent, that is really hard; but an opponent ignoring pointed replies and evidence that he/she is wrong shows others how unreliable that opponent can be.
But the title says also “and the truth”
Also, not only extreme conservatives are answering.
No, something else – addressing that head-on – is rather the point. Maybe it is merely like unto the tide going out. Then again, maybe it’s the start of a bona fide cooling trend. The key is time: there’s some amount of time that folks on your side will grant satisfy falsification purposes, and I’m aforementionedly happy to sign on for “~17 years” sure as I’m aforementionedly happy to rule out “less than fifteen years” stuff while staying within the “less than 20 years” framework.
And that’s why it’s not about mere nitpickery; rather than “doing nothing else”, I want your side’s falsification period spelled out so that we can establish how long we need to wait for another high-water mark before noting that this sure isn’t like a tide. I want that duration spelled out so I can sign on for it.
I believe you’ve been wrong repeatedly and demonstrably in this thread; I’ve brought it to your attention, with evidence – and you’ve called it nitpicking rather than admit any mistake. You’ve now added something I find quite useful:
My point is that there should be no opponents. The OP simply asked for insights into conservative thought on these three issues; he didn’t ask for those insights to be attacked or debated.
