White House Science Advisor: Climate Change Skeptics Are ‘Heretics’

CNSNews ^ | February 17, 2011 | Chris Neefus

[BRK]

This is a little more complicated than that.....

I don't have any actual direct knowledge of the type of study or real versus public motives of climate scientists. My observation is just based on good old fashoined human nature. I read a figure of something like $36B has been handed out by politicians and spent on climate research. I am pretty sure that GW proponent politicians are the ones who are pushing this funding since a positive finding holds the ultimate promise of nearly unlimited power over everybody's lives. For that kind of money, you can really count on having a large and reliable group of folks who will "agree" with you.

[kroll]

Ok so I work on stochastic systems (a whole lot of math really) which has application in Atmos./Ocean Science and Economic theory. I do attend talks and seminars in the climate division which can have a distinctly different tone (in terms of AGW alarmism) than the IPCC like situation. The one seminar course(where you cover the literature in a particular area) I did on Ocean sea level rise, it came out that none of the papers in literature showed any significant sea level rise in this decade and all the students were surprised because they figured it would be rising. Similarly most scientists “think” that AGW is happening but most are clear that the evidence is not even close to being clear! Most climate scientists Dont trust the models because the limitations are rather obvious from a mathematical/computational perspective...

But in funding proposals, they always mention AGW to increase likelihood of grant. I know you(and most conservatives) think that AGW is some kind of global conspiracy but its more a Bubble (like the housing bubble) where everyone keeps infalting each other’s perceptions without any obvious motive except money(research money not in the sense of getting rich, because scientists can’t really get rich from grants) or fame (not, i think, control as you imply).

[BRK]

I know you(and most conservatives) think that AGW is some kind of global conspiracy but its more a Bubble (like the housing bubble) where everyone keeps infalting each other’s perceptions without any obvious motive except money(research money not in the sense of getting rich, because scientists can’t really get rich from grants) or fame (not, i think, control as you imply).

I suffered through a graduate level course in theoretical statistics, a whole lot of math indeed! I still think there is a global conspriracy though, not because of the scientists, but because of the politicians who push it. They don't have any problem making predictive and declarative statements not only about Global Warming, but about the scientists too. How many times have they told us that "all scientists agree" on Global Warming? This does not match up with what you are saying about climate research actual findings being somewhat less reliable and conclusive. I did not say it was the scientific community, but rather it is the leftist political establishment that dreams of gaining power over peoples lives using global warming mumbo jumbo.