Cite? Internet sources suggest that Illuminati members are mainly climate alarmists. Suspected members of the secret organization include Obama, Bush-43, the Pope, Bob Dylan, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, George Soros, Jim Carrey, Bob Bernake, and, as evidenced by her masectomies, Angelina Jolie. (No, I’m not joking. Google “Lady Gaga Illuminati” for example to get 694,000 hits and numerous images of the singer making Illumninati hand signals.)
As I understand it, the “ice age” theory was, and is still, reasonable, but on a much larger time scale than global warming. Like, “we can expect the world to ice over in the next 50000-100000 years”. Whereas with global warming where the variations are very significant by 2100.
Of course it was a minority view then, and gets much more press now that it provides a convenient, “don’t listen to those eggheads – they don’t know what they’re talking about” story to be a counterpoint to AGW. Of course for those factions that want us not to do anything about AGW, saying “we don’t know whether AGW is happening and the scientists keep changing their story” is just as good of a justification as “we know AGW isn’t happening”.
In case this has been driving nitpickers crazy, I do now realize the quote is actually “Get your name into the National Geographic”.
This also ignores the fact that scientists could have new data available now that they didn’t have at an earlier time, that requires that they modify their models of what’s happening. Nobody knew in the 1970s that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, either. Most cosmologists up until the 1990s would have told you that the rate of expansion was slowing down, not speeding up, because we didn’t have the data that we now have that tells us otherwise. Nobody knew until the 1920s that the universe was expanding at all.
I just read that the PM of Australia (a major cola producer/exporter) has had unkind words for the AGW community. Which leads to a question: Australia makes a LOT of money by exporting coal-most of which goes to China and India. If these nations are to reduce CO2 emissions, they will have to reduce their purchase of Australian coal. How does the world economy propose to compensate Australia for the loss of its income from coal?
There is a certain amount of funding. The bigger the threat the more the funding. Therefore, climatologists will get more funding for a threat such as global warming which threatens all life then they will for studying El Nino.
The green movement predates the global warming prediction. Environmentalists wanted people to use less energy, and live a different lifestyle for decades before global warming became a popular idea. So people were saying that it turns out what they have been wanting all along is suddenly going to solve this huge problem we just found. It would be like if the McDonalds suddenly found a new disease that is going to kill everyone in fifty years and it turns out that Big Macs are the only cure.
Psst. The universe is not really expanding. That theory (see, only a theory) is just a conspiracy created by those wishing to sell real estate created by the expansion, though there will be nothing there.
Hey, it’s more plausible than the conspiracy theory put forth by the deniers.
Just as was the case for studying the effects of smoking, I suspect there is a lot more money from the energy companies than there is from NSF. And less competition for it.
There were plenty of reasons for reducing energy use (remember the oil crisis) before climate change. Anyhow those stupid environmentalists did nothing - except clean up the air enough that the news no longer needs to have a pollution report each night.
BTW, the NSF grant proposals I’ve reviewed don’t include funding requests proportional to the urgency of the matter, but only based on resources needed to do a particular study.
Researchers don’t get paid to just study climate change. Want to make money off of AGW? Either prove AGW wrong, or find a way to prevent it from happening. You don’t make money just by claiming, “Yep, all my research says it’s bad, now gimme more money to *keep *saying it.”
Climatologists won’t suddenly be out of work if someone disproves climate change.
Scientists certainly could be changing their mind based on additional information, but this is not what is happening here. It is entirely consistent for scientists to imagine that the earth will be three degrees warmer on average by 2100, but that the glaciers will be back by 21000. It’s just looking at evidence of behaviour at different time scales.
After all, no amount of global warming will keep the earth warm once the sun burns out billions of years from now. That doesn’t mean that AGW and stellar physics are in conflict. 
The conversion from “decceleration universal expansion” theories to “accelerating universal expansion” theories, in contrast, is talking about the same system at the same time scale that scientists changed their mind about in the face of new evidence.
Um, we don’t? Why is that our responsibility? Ultimately, they’re selling something that’s harmful, and we think they shouldn’t be. It’s no more our responsibility to find a new industry for them than it is for anyone else who’s selling something harmful that we think they should stop. Should we compensate Colombia for the loss of income from drug smuggling, if enforcement improves? Or Nigeria, for cracking down on spam phishing?
Or, of course, there’s the opposite view: If we don’t get everyone to cut back carbon emissions, then how do we compensate every coastal country in the world for the lives lost and property damage inflicted? They have a lot greater claim to be due compensation than the fossil-fuel-exporters do, since the harm comes not from their own decisions, but from the decisions of the rest of the world.
I would find the thread more informative if posters answering OP, e.g. with
“Climatologists promulgate their lies because of money…”
would prefix their answer with either
“I believe”, or
“Foolish conspiracy theorists believe”
as the case may be.
Why does the world economy owe it to Australia to guarantee its income from coal? How long will this guarantee last?
Well, it’s the oil & gas companies’ own fault for not letting people have the 100 mpg carburetor technology! If they’d just let people have the carburetors, the start-ups will go away!
And make car companies start using catalytic converters, forcing the removal of lead from gasoline, possibly contributing to a decline in violent crime and teen pregnancy, and making people smarter, or at least keeping them from losing IQ points due to lead. In Japan, they stopped people from getting mercury and cadmium poisoning from pollution.
Because they can tax more based on energy consumption and everyone will cheer taxing the bad guys. That means they have more money to spend, and not for the public good!
Actually, it was entirely plausible to predict an ice age about 10,000 years after the last one on the basis of the historical record. And it is entirely plausible to assert that we have avoided it by our carbon emissions. And also that we have drastically overshot.
As I understand it, the idea is that “mankind-hating, conservationist hippies” and “scientists” are largely interchangeable groups. They’re determined to demonstrate that mankind is to blame for everything and, either manufactured data to that effect or at least have not approached their subject matter with a fully scientific and rigorous approach.
This would be blamed for the initial idea and foundational data rather than, necessarily, the bulk of the science that exists today.
Since then, the contention goes, there has been a sort of positive feedback loop wherein the catastrophe scenario gives politicians a strong platform to campaign on to lefties and conservationists, which causes the politicos to finance research that would be pro-climate change, and consequently increases the total mass of data that supports the catastrophe scenario.
It’s basically the left-wing version of the Military Industrial Complex, wherein political hawks gain power by frightening people with tales of terrorists, Chinese expansionism, etc. and weapons manufacturers fund think tanks to pump out material stating that we’re all at risk, all the time.
Reports are coming in that the seas around Antarctica are freezing up again-why is this happening? It is like 2013-when several ships got caught in the pack ice. looks like the southern hemisphere is cooling.
Since this is basically a political question, let’s move it over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator