Why do the vast majority of climate scientists think it’s real? Most of them aren’t hippy environmentalists.
The anti global warming side is ridiculed because it doesn’t actually do anything. They don’t submit peer-reviewed papers that overturn AGW. They bitch about it on the intarweb where uneducated clods are persuaded.
Bitch all you want, but do the actual science to convince people.
And neither has done it at all. My invitation is still open: I have laid out my case in detail on my blog. Feel free to point out the fatal flaw(s) in my reasoning.
But somehow I expect you will not. Instead you will probably claim (without pointing to any specifics) that I am wrong.
Just like alarmists who cite the entire IPCC report; or Fundies who point to the entire Bible.
Within your lifetime, we will be. And that’s only if we’re lucky.
It’s important to separate the scientific community from political advocates of combating the effects of anthropogenic climate change. The scientific community consists almost exclusively of academic researchers, almost exclusively funded by public agencies like the National Science Foundation. There is no financial incentive for a climate scientist to invent or maintain a fictional climate crisis. They don’t get a cut of hydrogen-powered car or solar panel sales.
Moreover, any climate scientist who came up with a credible model to explain the recent warming data that showed no correlation with carbon dioxide would publish it in a heartbeat. Academia is very competitive, and high visibility publications are the brass ring everyone is reaching for. Coming up with e.g. The Giraffe Model for Global Climate Change would be a career-maker.
While environmentalists/oil companies each have their own agendas and motivations to accept certain data and throw out other data, there is no real incentive for a mass cover-up among academic researchers. Quite the opposite – there are huge incentives for any scientist who can disprove the current consensus to go public with it. People who accuse scientists of covering up the truth for some nefarious financial / political motivation don’t hang around a lot of scientists.
Ummm, that should be “alarmists who cite the entire IPCC report for some narrow point”
Proof is a concept found in mathematics. Evidence is a concept found in science.
Leaffan is in Canada. Canada has little to offer the world apart from oil, and “dirty” oil at that, so it is hardly surprising that he is grasping at any straw that floats his way. There are many like him around here.
What do you think would happen to Michael Mann’s prestige and ability to attract funding if it came out that CAGW is false and temperature changes have been the result of natural variation? Comon, his funding would dry up faster than you can say “hockey stick” Along with a lot of other scientists.
We also have fresh water and a Rush worth listening to.
I don’t necessarily agree – scientific theories are often modified or abandoned when new evidence comes to light. It’s not as if the scientists holding the old theories are drummed out of the field, or immediately lose their funding.
But even if we postulate that the leading advocates of CAGW have an incentive to promote the theory in the face of contrary evidence, what about every other scientist in the field, particularly the young up and comers? Anyone trying to make a name for themselves is not going to hold back on publishing a huge new paper just to protect the current big names in the field.
Where does the scientific community draw its funds from? It seems to me that if you can get the public into a panic, all sorts of funds will get pumped into the universities and private research to study the problem and develop responses. No problem ? Then funding will whither. While I accept AGW, I’m fairly convinced that most scientists in the climate field would like to keep the financial attention on themselves. There’s an unavoidable bias in the science as to the conclusions which I believe worries a lot of skeptics.
History shows that people who go against the popular view tend to face negative consequences. There are many examples of some Young Turk who goes against the popular view and is dismissed for a loooong time before his ideas finally gain acceptance.
It would different, of course, if the up-and-comer had ironclad proof. Failing that, the route to professorships, grant money, and tenure is to be very careful not to challenge the popular view and not to offend anyone.
Well that is at least a reasonable argument, much better than **Leaffan **Al Gore is the bogeyman theory. 
Actually you are more like the Fundy that wants to teach ID in science classes in spite of science.
People who call something a "slam dunk’ when it clearly isn’t a slam dunk[sup]*[/sup] tend to face negative consequences in both the scientific and the political communities.
This is as things should be.
[sup]*[/sup] See Don Easterbrook’s words, in post #1 of this thread.
It should be noted, incidentally, that there is plenty of funding available for any scientist who wants it, for developing evidence against AGW. Exxon, for instance, funds such work. The funny thing is that, even though the funding is available, very few scientists seem willing to take it. The logical conclusion, of course, is that scientists are primarily motivated by something other than money.
I don’t think this perspective bears much relationship to reality. For example, quite a bit of climate research is based on computer simulation and modeling. Scientists routinely propose and critique each other’s models and methodology: how to use experimental data to set parameters, what assumptions go into a given set of underlying equations, etc. It’s far from blasphemy to publish modeling results with a given set of assumptions and describe how they give a significantly different outcome than previous models. People would probably argue about which set of assumptions are more valid, but the net result would be an updated estimate of the variance of the model’s predictions until new data came along to support one view or the other.
On the flip side, if an unbiased approach toward setting up the model consistently produced results which showed little to no effect of CAGW, you couldn’t keep it a secret. Here’s the thing about academic research: most of the actual work is done by grad students. Grad students talk. If one of them was doing his/her thesis research and all their data was showing that CAGW was a load of crap, everyone would know about it.
Again, researchers want to find something new and exciting, something that will make headlines or get them cool invited talks at conferences. If you have defensible data that shows something different than the current view, people are going to want to hear about it and discuss it. You don’t have to disprove all of CAGW to get taken seriously, you just have to show something credible and reproducible that falls outside the current understanding.
I agree that’s how it should be. Do you agree the same standard should apply to James Hansen?
Do the scientists who DO publish results which contradict CAGW get treated as blasphemers? It sure seems like it sometimes.
Just like everyone knew for the past 10 years that we were headed for a massive mortgage/financial crisis and that the risk models for these mortgage-backed securities were seriously under-estimating the amount of risk involved. The facts were there for anyone to see, but not a lot of people wanted to rock the boat.
Look how people like Lindzen, Christy, Svensmark, Loehle and Carter are being treated. Are they making headlines? Yes, if you count conservative blogs.
Not really. The warmist position is most analagous to religion here.
I can’t attest to the veracity of these figures, but according to this site, Exxon-Mobile spent 2 million dollars for AGW compared to the government spending 2 billion. Thats 1000 to 1. I’d say the logical conclusion is that scientists tend to tap the most productive well like anyone else.