FYI, there isn’t much money behind solar physics…
Proof is what all the little bits of evidence are supposed to point to. So the thread title would have been much more accurate had it read “More Evidence That Global Warming Is Toast”, and finished with a question mark.
You’ve laid out your case in countless SDMB threads. It never holds up on close inspection.
Cite?
How do all those guys at the EPA, USDA, NASA, the Federal Climate Change Program, and the Department of Energy profit on AGW? With 500,000 climate scientists in the US, if the theory was all that holey, you’d think that you’d be able to find more than a couple guys on the internet who everybody serious ignores.
There’s going to be a lunatic fringe in every area of science who spout nonsense, but I’ll bet you that per capita there’s as many guys in the climate sciences saying that AGW is fake, as you’ll find in physics who say that the Earth is hollow (or whatever the popular physics nuttery is.)
That’s nonsense. But please feel free to point out the weak link in the argument I have laid out. If there really is a fatal flaw, I will change my mind – just like I switched from being a believer to a skeptic.
You want a cites for companies that are making money from the AGW scare? Are you serious? Start with Al Gore and everyone who’s selling carbon credits or carbon offsets? How many cites should I provide, 100?
Which money making industry is larger out of interest? The Oil and Coal industry or those that have some hope of making a profit on reducing carbon emissions and producing alternate and greener energy?
I don’t think it can be repeated enough, you can believe what you want. However, if the thousands of scientist studying AGW have found enough evidence to convince the bulk of scientists that Global Warming is being contributed to by human actions then a few hundred dissenters who mostly are not studying the issue are not likely to be given much weight in the debate.
Well, it is a G-type star.
Quoth Leaffan:
There’s certainly a huge money-making industry trying to silence talk of AGW: Most of the fossil fuel companies, for starters. And there is also a money-making industry, albeit a much smaller one, with the goal of finding out the truth about man’s impact on the environment (NASA, the NOAO, etc. are part of this). But I know of no industry, large or otherwise, that has a vested interest in finding that AGW is true regardless of whether it is or not. Could you give an example of any company in this industry?
One example? I’m sure I could find 100. But here’s one.
Brazil, I’d draw a distinction between CAGW and AGW. I think there’s been adequate evidence to suggest that something real, with a substantial anthropogenic component, and with potential significant deleterious effects, is present. I don’t yet think proof is in place for catastrophic effects – they’re based on modeling which may or may not be valid. I’d love to see your reaction to that distinction, if you don’t mind.
Leaffan, there’s a standard bit of sardonic scoffing any time a Hollywood star speaks out on matters political or environmental, to the effect that they may be celebrities, but are not experts on the subject. (Not always valid, by the way; remember the Hedy Lamarr effect.) I feel the same way about geologists being outspoken about astrophysics, metallurgists being outspoken about geophysics, etc. Expertise in one field does not translate to expertise in another, by and large. It may give some credence to methodological criticism, but not necessarily to predictive/interpretive criticism.
A datum for your reference: I have a friend named Pembroke, from Nova Scotia, who is a vehement Tory, to the extent he has been a Canadian Bush supporter. His wife is from Nunavik (sp.? - Inuit area of QC, as opposed to Nunavut), and they and their children lived there several years before moving to NS a year or two ago. According to him, the permafrost is melting in areas that were frozen year-round according to both the oldest living memory and preserved tradition. Though hardly an environmental nut – far from it – he is convinced that AGW is real and needs to be seriously addressed.
(Hey, a thread wherein I get to defend AGW!)
You may think that, but the anti-AGW crowd have yet to prove their case. I’m thoroughly sceptical about AGW, but that cuts both ways. There is a significant lack of actual hard science tha proves the basics behind AGW, but that doesn’t mean that AGW isn’t real, just that it hasn’t been proven to be real. I don’t think anyone doubts that the northern hemisphere has warmed considerably over the past few hundred years, but to assert that that rise is due to man is very presumptuous; it’s equally presumptuous to assert the contrary. We simply don’t know.
I’ll repeat: Which money making industry is larger out of interest? The Oil and Coal industry or those that have some hope of making a profit on reducing carbon emissions and producing alternate and greener energy?
The oil companies have about a 150 year head start, so the answer is obvious.
I agree that based on theoretical calculations, there is a good chance that increased CO2 will produce modest warming. I believe that Richard Lindzen has estimated it at 1C for a doubling of CO2.
Note that temperatures have increased by about that amount since the Little Ice Age ended without causing harmful effects, as far as anyone knows.
I doubt that there’s enough data to empirically confirm that a Lindzenesqe warming has taken place.
Does that answer your question?
So don’t you think if it was really just a conspiracy to make money that the oil companies would have already fought this down. That they are throwing money against this and still losing the debate should tell you about the overall scientific community that studies AGW are finding compelling evidence and trends.
jshore has done it better than I can – e.g., in this thread. But you never seem to acknowledge defeat.
The answer was in the OP:
or, in other words, serchez l’argent
How often does anyone do that on the SDMB?
It happens, I have seen it. But never from the poster in question.
There doesn’t appear to be a debate. One side says it’s real, and anyone who opposes that side is summarily silenced or ridiculed. There appears to be a growing voice that opposes the AWG theory however.
Environmentalists won’t believe anything sponsored by oil companies, naturally. Nasty oil. What good has it ever brought us? We should all be biking to work and eating vegetables grown within 100 miles of our house.