Surprise: Consensus on Climate Change was a Lie

Great Debates
1

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/
“Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can
leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading 10 scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”
-https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%255B1%255D.pdf
I’ve always been a skeptic of man-made climate change. I’ve seen the debate grow from a few environmentalists to an all out political movement. It’s not even meant to be questioned anymore… like it’s evolution.

And when I question it, I’m always given the same answer: 2,500 scientists can’t be wrong. And that works considering the majority of scientists also believe in evolution.

But there is a problem that I’ve always suspected. Money. The green movement is bringing in a ton of money for their respective corporations. And why not play big oil at its own game and cheat your way to the top.

I’ve always suspected greed as the motivator for these scientists, and while I’m sure some actually believe that their science is good… having to resort to misleading people about how many other scientists support your claim is very wrong.

Whenever I mentioned this to someone, they would always tell me that scientists are good and just and want to be proven wrong. They do it all for science! They would gladly give up their millions of dollars in grant money to have their science proven wrong. That’s how science works. That’s how technology advances.

That is what I’m supposed to believe. That these scientists want to be proven wrong…

So at this junction usually someone accuses me of being and evil denier that should die.

Here are the arguments against me:

  1. I’m brainwashed by the oil industry.
    A)I actually support alternatives such as electric cars.

  2. I am a global warming denier.
    A) To be correct I am a ‘man-made global warming skeptic’. I do believe the Earth might be warming, but I don’t believe it has anything to do with pollution.

  3. I’m evil and that I support corporations polluting.
    A) I don’t and would rather companies not put toxic chemicals into our water and our air because it can cause cancer and other health problems. I am just not sold that carbon emissions from man or any other living creature on the Earth is the problem.

  4. I saw a Mythbusters episode and the ice melted faster when it was exposed to carbon dioxide.
    A) That’s no surprise because carbon does trap heat, but most of the heating comes from water vapor. Had the ice been exposed to water vapor it would have melted just as quickly. There is 60x more water vapor in our air than C02. If anything is to blame for global warming it would be sunspot activity evaporating our oceans more quickly resulting in more water vapor in our atmosphere.
    -Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

  5. Sunspot activity is bad science, and it’s not proven to be related to climate change.
    A) Completely wrong. Even before today’s corporate environmental movement, sunspot activity was closely monitored and was thought to correspond with the Earth’s climate changes.
    -Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High | Space

–

This is from my friend who studies astronomy: “I’m not someone who would deny that the sun plays a key factor in the climate of the Earth. But you have to look at this from a political perspective. It’s not so much what is real science, but what is best for the people on this planet. We’re in a position today to get rid of these oil companies who are making our world an ugly place. Wouldn’t you rather live in a world without pollution? Wouldn’t you rather live in a world with more efficient and less noisy vehicles? I think so.”

I’m not giving her name because I am posting this without her permission.

This is how I think all the environmentalists feel.

It’s unfortunate that people think this way. The end never justifies the mean if it involves corporate greed and mass hysteria.

2

I’ve said it before - I don’t really care, since the benefit of more efficient and less polluting vehicles and powerplants is a worthy end in itself,so I guess I’m with your unnamed friend.

3

Really? You’re fine with being lied to? Because I would rather, if you think the goal is so desirable, that you convince me to join your position, not lie to me and ask me to believe in Santa Claus.

4

I’m having a bit of a hard time deciphering this part of your ranting. Are you saying evolution is a big scam by scientists just like global warming?

5

:dubious: Look, which side do you think has more money on it? It ain’t the “warmist” side. The affected industries, mainly the oil industry, have a long history of funding astroturf groups of whore-scientists and faux-scientists and non-climatologist-scientists, such as the erstwhile Global Climate Coalition. For more information, see the SourceWatch page on Global warming skeptics.

6

I’m saying that global warming is given some unquestionable status, like evolution. That because it’s accepted by all scientists it’s pretty much fact. I personally believe in evolution, but global warming is not accepted by as many scientists as many claim it is.

7

Evolution doesn’t have unquestionable status. Hell, Newtonian physics aren’t unquestionable. You’re portraying the process of science inaccurately. But these things are solidly backed by quite a large mountain of evidence so it would take a lot to shake them up considerably.

Global warming doesn’t have the same mountain of evidence, although it seems to have a hill. But there’s still significant debate on the subject, although a consensus does seem to have formed.

I do notice that these debates almost never actually treat it like a scientific question - they are essentially excuses to push whatever you wanted to believe and paint the other side as having secret evil motives.

8

Evolution does have unquestionable status. Most scientists will tell you that it’s no longer a theory, it’s a fact. It seems like you’re just playing semantics with my statement. Evolution is not the topic. The message I was trying to convey is simple: Global Warming does not have as much evidence to back it up as Evolution.

There is no significant majority if you read my post. The findings were published and listed 2500 supposed climate scientists, but there were only a handful of actual climatologists on the list. The only majority that I see is public opinion on the matter, and that’s not good science. If public opinion counted we’d probably accept creationism.

The debate shouldn’t be about painting the other side as evil, but from what I can tell… if you’re going to lie about something there has to be an intention as to why you’re doing it. Probably money.

I don’t support big oil. Like I said earlier I have no agenda other than wanting the REAL science, and not just some politically motivated pseudoscience.

9

I wasn’t trying to play semantics games with you. Your argument seems to involve painting scientists as people who are unwilling to question their beliefs and therefore since they’ve all been brainwashed to want AGW to be true then their opinion doesn’t matter, they won’t change it if it turns out to be false.

As far as evolution, you’re right in the sense it’s effective fact in the sense that it’s not gonna turn out to be “lol jesus rode dinosaurs after all”, but there’s still our ability to accept new information and refine our understanding - for example, we’re only beginning to understand the role of epigenetics.

As I understand it, there is a consensus amongst climatologists. I don’t know about your particular 2500.

Who exactly stands to gain all this money by promoting the idea that AGW is true? The monied interests most certainly lie on the other side - the powers that be have benefitted for a long time from not paying the true cost of the pollution they subject all of us to. Any effort to fix that could hit them pretty hard in the pocket books, and they’re the ones with the power and money on this one.

10

I don’t think you’re evil. I just think you’re misinformed.

Science is not faith based. Scientists do not just get together and decide what they want to believe and then try to convince other people that it’s true. Deciding whether you believe or don’t believe in global warming or evolution or gravity isn’t like deciding whether you like Coke or Pepsi better - one position is correct and one is not.

Scientific truths exist independently of belief. Evolution is real because it’s real. If everyone believes in evolution it’s real. And if nobody believes in evolution it’s still real.

The danger comes when people start to not believe scientific truths. And that danger is to the people not the truths. If you convince a bunch of people gravity is a myth, they’ll still die if they jump off a building. And if you convince a bunch of people that global warming is a myth, the environment will still get worse.

11

Scientists know that most of the heating comes from water vapor. But if there were absolutely no greenhouse effect in our atmosphere at all we’d be at like 0 degrees Celcius or something, and the majority of the warming after that is water vapor. Carbon Dioxide is the extra on top of that, that is causing disruptions because of the speed of the increase.

So, assume without any greenhouse effect we’d be at
0 degrees.
Then with the water vapor we are at 20 degrees
Then with the C02 we are at 25 degrees.

So the majority of the warming is due to water vapor but the C02 in this hypothetical example has pushed the temperature up another 5 degrees, which can have severe consequences especially if it happens on such a short scale.

A more practical example: many deniers point to the fact that there apparently hasn’t been much warming if any at all over the past decade. What they don’t usually mention is that scientists know this, and it is almost entirely due to the upper atmosphere drying up. So, on the extreme ends of possibilities are:
– it’s a self correcting system and the upper atmosphere will dry up when we release more CO2 and thus counteract global warming (although that’s not sustainable in the long term.)
– Or, the upper atmosphere drying is just a random glitch, and when it gets wet again we’ll have the double whammy of water vapor AND CO2 warming at the same time.

12

However, people can, and do, lose their faith in Science when it’s credibility is corrupted by $$$ in the way of grants and other financial awards.

13

True. But that’s not the best reason to suspect global warming deniers.

14

Science isn’t faith-based, but that’s not to say crooked scientists working towards a political and financial goal won’t sacrifice their scientific credibility if they think they can get away with it. And what about those who feel pressured to accept it out of fear of losing their funding or their jobs:

“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
-Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal

It’s not longer acceptable today to be skeptical about certain scientific ‘facts’ because you’re likely to be ostracized for it.

15

Evolution is fact.
Gravity is fact.
Global warming due to man? Possible and maybe even likely but certainly not a fact. It is the people who contend that it is a fact that I have a disagreement with.

By all means, we should reduce CO2 emissions as much as possible since we don’t know the exact consequences of our actions but it probably won’t be good.

Anybody who puts it up there with evolution as a scientific fact loses all credibility with me.

16

Who are the deep pocket folks convincing all these scientists to write evil grants?

17

And that would be who, again?
What industry sponsored blog is spreading this supposed comparison, because I’m seeing it all over the place…but only on one side of this debate. While I admit it beats actually debating what is actually being put forth, it looks a little suspicious when starts popping up all over the place.

18

Bingo

There are those in the scientific community that have tarnished not only their own work, but the community as a whole by association.

19

:rolleyes: Yes. See post #5. This is the most preposterous line of attack in the AGW-skeptic arsenal.

20

I guess you don’t believe in POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY HIGH ROI from green energy and carbon regulation.

Just because big oil has market share NOW and has the money NOW, doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t trying to get in on their action. And personally I think that this is what it’s about. Even a little bit of a multi-trillion dollar industry is A LOT.