Global Warming: Man made or Natural?

[Eor]

The title is the way it is because I cannot see how anyone can say that Climate Change isn't happening. However, whether it's man-made or not is the main drive behind it. With Copenhagen coming up, and the recent "climate-gate", I figured it would be a good time to have a thread on this.

So, is this man's fault? Or is it just a natural thing?

Personally I do believe it's man made, but that is just because I trust scientists and don't believe they're out to get me. I don't understand that much of the science behind it, and honestly I personally don't have much interest in debating this, but instead more want to read others debate. And I know others here do want to debate this

 

[Aesir]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=6373565#post6373565

I'll just leave this here.

I will say this about Climategate, anyone who thinks it's a curious skeptic hacker or a whistle blower needs a reality check. This is clearly a well funded smear campaign.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I have legitimate doubts about the ability of scientists to predict something as complicated as global warming. I mean, we can barely predict the weather. Read this correctly: I am NOT denying that the world is getting wamer. I am NOT saying that pollution is okay. I AM saying that I have doubts about our ability to predict such things.

But far more importantly, I have grave concerns regarding the motivations of the climate change lobby. Climate change, and the scientists who study it, are presented as altuistic heroes who are simply trying to save humanity for it's own sake. In reality, promoting man-made global warming is motivated by the same primary factor that motivates those who deny it: money. There are billions and billions of dollars at stake here for both sides, and both sides stand to reap massive profits if they can convince the public that they are right. Look, I don't have a problem with making money while you're doing "the right thing," but it does bother me that no one seems to want to talk about just how much money these people who are saving the world are making. Just look at Al Gore.

 

[CRASHiC]

But how does the average climitgolist profit from it? Once the world makes the decision to take on the challenge, then the engineers step in, make better solar panels, better wind panels, pull more energy out of dams, make more fuel efficient engines. From what I see, it won't be the climatologist who will profit, but the engineers. I'm sure climatologist will be given a nice pat on the back and a few a place in the history book, but I can't see them making a ton of money on the action itself.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Research grants? This is an oversimplification of course, but I think this cartoon illustrates my point:

http://blogs.courant.com/bob_englehart/December92009.jpg

 

[AltF4]

Are you suggesting that there is a massive multi-disciplinary global conspiracy amongst scientists to fabricate climate change data.... to make some money from research grants?

Do you not think that all of these PhD's could figure out a better way to scam people out of money?

 

[Jam Stunna]

You just blew what I was saying completely out of proportion. I don't see the phrase "massive multi-disciplinary global conspiracy" anywhere in my post, or even the suggestion thereof.

What I'm saying is that people stand to profit from "going green," and that's an angle of the climate change debate that isn't really talked about.

 

[AltF4]

Who stands to profit? Scientists through research grants? You have to beg for those things. And you don't get to spend it on yachts and champagne, you know. It all goes into science. I just don't see this hidden profit.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Who stands to profit? Scientists through research grants? You have to beg for those things. And you don't get to spend it on yachts and champagne, you know. It all goes into science. I just don't see this hidden profit.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/driessen020707.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/06/22/follow-the-government-money

 

[AltF4]

Oh, yea, there's plenty of money around in Washington. Indeed way too much about any politicised issue. But you could probably come up with similar figures for any political issue.

But none of that affects the science or the scientists. I don't give a **** what Al gore thinks or says. He's no scientist. You're probably right about him having a stake in maintaining hype. But that doesn't change the data.

It's a bit more like this:

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Who stands to profit? Scientists through research grants? You have to beg for those things. And you don't get to spend it on yachts and champagne, you know. It all goes into science. I just don't see this hidden profit.

Jam does have a point on this, Alt. I read a TMQ which shows very well the hidden profit that can be made off of scientific research. I'll get the link up:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/090922&sportCat=nfl

Scroll to "Publish or Perish."

On the same token, action needs to be taken on Global Warming now. Unfortunately, that can't happen when some of our very representatives believe in something as headdesk inducing as dominion theology.

EDIT: Daggome it, I get ninja'd everywhere on the boards!

 

[Jam Stunna]

Oh, yea, there's plenty of money around in Washington. Indeed way too much about any politicised issue. But you could probably come up with similar figures for any political issue.

But none of that affects the science or the scientists. I don't give a **** what Al gore thinks or says. He's no scientist. You're probably right about him having a stake in maintaining hype. But that doesn't change the data.

It's a bit more like this:

[Image removed for the sake of space]

The thing is that you should care, because regardless of whether he's a scientist or not, he has far more power in influencing public opinion than John Q. Scientist. And I think it's fair to point out that the global face of man-made global warming has a huge financial stake in the debate.

 

[Aesir]

I have legitimate doubts about the ability of scientists to predict something as complicated as global warming. I mean, we can barely predict the weather. Read this correctly: I am NOT denying that the world is getting wamer. I am NOT saying that pollution is okay. I AM saying that I have doubts about our ability to predict such things.

Actually predicting climate changes and predicting weather changes are completely different things.

It's funny when people say this because it completely avoids the fact that we predict changes in climate all the time.

Predicting how hot your car can get is pretty impossible to do. However a car with a black interior with it's windows rolled up is going to be a lot hotter than a car with white white it's windows rolled up. The windows are like the green house gasses and the black interior is similar to the melting ice sheets leaving behind darker rock. -Random analogy I read somewhere.

Basically what I'm saying is climate models are more accurate than meteorologists.

But far more importantly, I have grave concerns regarding the motivations of the climate change lobby. Climate change, and the scientists who study it, are presented as altuistic heroes who are simply trying to save humanity for it's own sake. In reality, promoting man-made global warming is motivated by the same primary factor that motivates those who deny it: money. There are billions and billions of dollars at stake here for both sides, and both sides stand to reap massive profits if they can convince the public that they are right. Look, I don't have a problem with making money while you're doing "the right thing," but it does bother me that no one seems to want to talk about just how much money these people who are saving the world are making. Just look at Al Gore.

Al Gore isn't a scientist he's an advocate, confusing the two is a grave mistake on your part.

There are so many flaws in the "They're doing it for money" argument; Outside of the fact that there's far better ways of getting research grants. It ignores the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming and it's effects.

If scientists were looking for money more would be going after the consensus and trying to find ways to counter it. That's what gets you research grants. Furthermore scientists are not asking for more money they're asking to fix the problem. They won't benefit from nuclear power, solar power or wind or any other renewable energy.

You just blew what I was saying completely out of proportion. I don't see the phrase "massive multi-disciplinary global conspiracy" anywhere in my post, or even the suggestion thereof.

What I'm saying is that people stand to profit from "going green," and that's an angle of the climate change debate that isn't really talked about.

The only people who are going to get money out of this is Shell or any other industry in the United States that handles energy. Not scientists, Scientists have already found the overwhelming evidence they want the problem fixed not investigated more.

So unless you can prove all members of the IPCC board are actually CEO's of shell than there's no real argument here.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/driessen020707.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

http://spectator.org/archives/2005/06/22/follow-the-government-money

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/02/the_cost_of_climate_research.php
Again Al Gore isn't a scientist, also if Al Gore was after it only for the money there are far better ways of getting it.

The thing is that you should care, because regardless of whether he's a scientist or not, he has far more power in influencing public opinion than John Q. Scientist. And I think it's fair to point out that the global face of man-made global warming has a huge financial stake in the debate.

It also has a huge national security stake, a huge human life stake, a huge existence stake. But hey that doesn't matter because since they have "influence" they can't be trusted. This is exactly why I never went into science as my major, years and years of schooling only for people to say you don't know what you're talking about. Awesome.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I don't understand. Why is it so hard to admit that there are financial motives at play when it comes to global warming? One of the selling points for cap and trade is that it creates a market place for carbon credits. That's an obvious financial incentive for compliance.

Doesn't someone manufacture these new fancy light bulbs? Doesn't it cost money to build or buy a Prius? Don't funds have to be allocated to save the polar bears? Why do people like to pretend that money has nothing to do with global warming, unless it's to demonize skeptics and deniers as evil capitalists?

And perhaps I should clarify my position again. I do not support pollution. Smog is bad, acid rain is bad, run-off and toxic dumping are all very bad things. I am also not denying that global warming exists. What I am skeptical of are predictions that the world will end as a result of global warming.

My beliefs fall roughly in line with John Cristy, a climatologist who agrees that global warming is occurring, but that it will not have catastrophic effects. Read his stuff, it's pretty interesting.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#cite_note-sfgate-5

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf

 

[Aesir]

I don't understand. Why is it so hard to admit that there are financial motives at play when it comes to global warming? One of the selling points for cap and trade is that it creates a market place for carbon credits. That's an obvious financial incentive for compliance.

No ones disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with is your accusation that scientists are doing it for the money. You mention cap and trade, okay then name some scientists who are going to benefit from cap and trade. I can say with almost certainty that no scientist is going to benefit from that.

Doesn't someone manufacture these new fancy light bulbs? Doesn't it cost money to build or buy a Prius? Don't funds have to be allocated to save the polar bears? Why do people like to pretend that money has nothing to do with global warming, unless it's to demonize skeptics and deniers as evil capitalists?

Because they're using money to make a problem non-existent, sure a scientists is going to make money off of his research why is that bad? (I don't think you think this is bad I think you're just trying to be consistent here.) The problem I have is the various lobby's who are funneling money to somehow show that our current warming trend isn't man made. That's the problem, they're abusing their power.

And perhaps I should clarify my position again. I do not support pollution. Smog is bad, acid rain is bad, run-off and toxic dumping are all very bad things. I am also not denying that global warming exists. What I am skeptical of are predictions that the world will end as a result of global warming.

No respectable scientific body is saying the world is going to end. They're in agreement that the effects of global warming are going to have dire consequences especially in developing country's.

My beliefs fall roughly in line with John Cristy, a climatologist who agrees that global warming is occurring, but that it will not have catastrophic effects. Read his stuff, it's pretty interesting.

My beliefs fall in with the IPCC says which says we need to do something to fix the problem. Or things will escalate into a huge problem. Than again I might be wrong, for all we know the rapid decline of polar ice sheets is not anything to be worried about just my misunderstanding.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#cite_note-sfgate-5

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf

I know of John Cristy.

My problem is that there are problems with not addressing climate change, I'm sure Cristy acknowledges those problems and knows they're important to address.

What I'm saying is, there's no money in going along with the status quota. However there's a lot of money in going against the status quota. So to say that scientists are all saying man made global warming is dangerous are just trying to make a quick buck shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. Unlike politics science is more economically viable of you're a skeptic of everything.

 

[blazedaces]

Jam Stunna, how exactly do you think research grants work. Do you think scientists in Academia are pocketing some of this money for themselves as a tip? None of the money is given to them. It all must go towards costs in the project it's allotted for. I'll admit you could argue they might get some extra fancy equipment for their labs... but seriously... is this your argument?

-blazed

 

[CRASHiC]

I have a series question on the topic of money extortion through global warming.

When not promoting Global Warming, what DO climatologist DO? What is their role in science? Is it to more accurately predict the weather and that is it?

 

[blazedaces]

I have a series question on the topic of money extortion through global warming.

When not promoting Global Warming, what DO climatologist DO? What is their role in science? Is it to more accurately predict the weather and that is it?

The following is the list of papers in the most recent issue of The Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences by the AMS (American Meteorological Society):

Aircraft Microphysical and Surface-Based Radar Observations of Summertime Arctic Clouds

R. Paul Lawson and Paquita Zuidema

3505–3529

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (5.49M)

Microphysics of Maritime Tropical Convective Updrafts at Temperatures from −20° to −60°

Andrew J. Heymsfield, Aaron Bansemer, Gerald Heymsfield, and Alexandre O. Fierro

3530–3562

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (13.37M)

Atlantic Tropical Cyclogenetic Processes during SOP-3 NAMMA in the GEOS-5 Global Data Assimilation and Forecast System

Oreste Reale, William K. Lau, Kyu-Myong Kim, and Eugenia Brin

3563–3578

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (4.20M)

Reexamining the Vertical Structure of Tangential Winds in Tropical Cyclones: Observations and Theory

Daniel P. Stern and David S. Nolan

3579–3600

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (1.42M)

The Dynamics of Eye Formation and Maintenance in Axisymmetric Diabatic Vortices

Volkmar Wirth and Timothy J. Dunkerton

3601–3620

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (1.25M)

Bi-modal Structure and Variability of Large-Scale Diabatic Heating in the Tropics

Chidong Zhang and Samson M. Hagos

3621–3640

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (2.26M)

Homogeneous and Inhomogeneous Mixing in Cumulus Clouds: Dependence on Local Turbulence Structure

Katrin Lehmann, Holger Siebert, and Raymond A. Shaw

3641–3659

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (1.84M)

Dynamics of the Cumulus Cloud Margin: An Observational Study

Yonggang Wang, Bart Geerts, and Jeffrey French

3660–3677

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (1.97M)

Local Mixing Events in the Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere. Part I: Detection with the Lyapunov Diffusivity

Francesco d’Ovidio, Emily Shuckburgh, and Bernard Legras

3678–3694

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (5.26M)

Local Mixing Events in the Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere. Part II: Seasonal and Interannual Variability

Emily Shuckburgh, Francesco d’Ovidio, and Bernard Legras

3695–3706

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (3.05M)

Quantifying the Eddy Feedback and the Persistence of the Zonal Index in an Idealized Atmospheric Model

Gang Chen and R. Alan Plumb

3707–3720

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (1.15M)

Distribution and Radiative Forcing of Tropical Thin Cirrus Clouds

Joonsuk Lee, Ping Yang, Andrew E. Dessler, Bo-Cai Gao, and Steven Platnick

3721–3731

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (4.58M)

NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE

Influence of Ice Crystal Aspect Ratio on the Evolution of Ice Size Spectra during Vapor Depositional Growth

Lindsay M. Sheridan, Jerry Y. Harrington, Dennis Lamb, and Kara Sulia

3732–3743

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (1.23M)

(SOURCE)

None of these topics are even about Global warming.

No offense Crashic... but didn't Climatology exist before global warming was ever mentioned? How did you convince yourself that its only purpose centered around global warming?

-blazed

 

[CRASHiC]

I wasn't saying that it was centered around global warming, but, as with the majority of people, its a subject that I never heard about. There are no Nova specials about it xD I was just wondering what these people actually do beyond Global Warming, as it is hardly, if ever publicized.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Jam Stunna, how exactly do you think research grants work. Do you think scientists in Academia are pocketing some of this money for themselves as a tip? None of the money is given to them. It all must go towards costs in the project it's allotted for. I'll admit you could argue they might get some extra fancy equipment for their labs... but seriously... is this your argument?

-blazed

Where do salaries come from?

Of course researchers are doing it for the money, because IT'S THEIR JOB. A climatologist collects his check at the end of the week for the work that he did, right? Climate work, presumably?

But fine, I concede that I was wrong to bring up research grants. That was a poor argument. At the same time, I would like to see you concede that in the non-scientific world, moneyed interests have a huge financial stake in either promoting scientific work that they agree with or denying scientific work that they don't agree with. And that in the end, the real argument about global warming is not about science at all, but about the money involved. People who don't support global warming theories aren't doing so because they're flat-earthers, but because they perceive cap-and-trade as a tax increase, or they're developing countries who don't want to incur the cost associated with "green" technology, or they think it's unfair that Western countries built their wealth in the past without having to deal with emissions limitations.

Basically, if going green was free, there would be no debate about this at all. And if there wasn't an opportunity to make money, companies like NBC Universal, which has nothing to do with sciene, wouldn't bother with things like their "Green Week" promotion (which, not coincidentally, occurred during November sweeps this year).

 

[Eor]

Here's a question Jam: You say that there is a lot of money to be gained/lost from going green (which is true), but why are you only using it on one side? Major corporations stand to lose a lot of money going green, but you seem to be posting as if only those who want to go green have a reason other then science to defend a viewpoint.

 

[blazedaces]

Where do salaries come from?

Of course researchers are doing it for the money, because IT'S THEIR JOB. A climatologist collects his check at the end of the week for the work that he did, right? Climate work, presumably?

But fine, I concede that I was wrong to bring up research grants. That was a poor argument. At the same time, I would like to see you concede that in the non-scientific world, moneyed interests have a huge financial stake in either promoting scientific work that they agree with or denying scientific work that they don't agree with. And that in the end, the real argument about global warming is not about science at all, but about the money involved. People who don't support global warming theories aren't doing so because they're flat-earthers, but because they perceive cap-and-trade as a tax increase, or they're developing countries who don't want to incur the cost associated with "green" technology, or they think it's unfair that Western countries built their wealth in the past without having to deal with emissions limitations.

Basically, if going green was free, there would be no debate about this at all. And if there wasn't an opportunity to make money, companies like NBC Universal, which has nothing to do with sciene, wouldn't bother with things like their "Green Week" promotion (which, not coincidentally, occurred during November sweeps this year).

That is hardly an argument. Do you realize how little money climatologists in Academia make? A professor's salary can be anywhere between 30 thousand dollars a year to 60 thousand dollars a year even after the first ten years of employment at a major University (I have read testimonies given at court when a professor of mine, who by the way is now head of a department, where he was questioned about the amount of money he made when he began working and now, now being barely a few years prior to when I read the thing. And believe me this guy at the time already had a lab with over ten students working for him, not just a small chump running tests and publishing some papers here and there).

You can't just argue everyone who has a job only does things for "the money". What about non-profit organizations? I'm digressing.

These people can choose to do research on any subject, not necessarily revolving around global warming, as long as it is published. If you think about it, I'm sure there's plenty of incentive (even a good chance to become famous) if some scientists were to start publishing papers proving global warming to be a hoax. If it was only about the money or becoming famous why haven't we seen plenty of papers like that going around?

Your next argument I'm just not going to entertain. So because it can be argued that an organization would make more money under the situation that global warming exists, then ALL organizations are actually corrupt and are ONLY doing it for "the money". That's the jump you take here, and there is no logical reason for it.

You're going from "well I can show a scientist or organization could in an extreme sense be shown to be corrupt" to "there is a massive conspiracy among all global warming activists to make money from global warming and that is the only primary concern of all of them".

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Where do salaries come from?

Of course researchers are doing it for the money, because IT'S THEIR JOB. A climatologist collects his check at the end of the week for the work that he did, right? Climate work, presumably?

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8571740&postcount=12
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8571825&postcount=14

Both these post should answer your questions, about the payment of scientists in academia.

But fine, I concede that I was wrong to bring up research grants. That was a poor argument. At the same time, I would like to see you concede that in the non-scientific world, moneyed interests have a huge financial stake in either promoting scientific work that they agree with or denying scientific work that they don't agree with.

However in academia which is where most climate research comes from, there's very little bias.

And that in the end, the real argument about global warming is not about science at all, but about the money involved. People who don't support global warming theories aren't doing so because they're flat-earthers, but because they perceive cap-and-trade as a tax increase, or they're developing countries who don't want to incur the cost associated with "green" technology, or they think it's unfair that Western countries built their wealth in the past without having to deal with emissions limitations.

My argument is, that's tough. We're more wiser now and we know the problems that come from using fossil fuels.

Basically, if going green was free, there would be no debate about this at all. And if there wasn't an opportunity to make money, companies like NBC Universal, which has nothing to do with sciene, wouldn't bother with things like their "Green Week" promotion (which, not coincidentally, occurred during November sweeps this year).

Yes.

 

[GoldShadow]

Regarding scientists and being paid for their work, please read this (two part?) post I made in the social thread:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8571740&postcount=12
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8571825&postcount=14

Ultimately, there is potential for bias in research and depending on how the researcher is paid, they can make more money for some things than others. But I don't think this is ever really a problem (for reasons stated in those posts).

That said, this is far less likely in academia than other sectors (industry, think tanks with an obvious slant, etc), and the fact that researchers in every sector (government, NGO, intergovernmental, industry, etc), including academia, agree that humans are causing global warming and that if we do not do something about it, the results could be terrible; well, that says something.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I wasn't saying that it was centered around global warming, but, as with the majority of people, its a subject that I never heard about. There are no Nova specials about it xD I was just wondering what these people actually do beyond Global Warming, as it is hardly, if ever publicized.

Because it's stuff nobody cares about.


Unfortunately stuff related to human influences on climate change is a very hot topic, they could literally be saving the entire universe and nobody would give a rat's *** because it's not the topic of the day and Al Gore didn't make a special about it.