Posted on 06/20/2013 1:38:51 PM PDT by neverdem
“Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?”
When science prostitutes itself to government funding, then what the people who sit on grant approval committees want is what gets funded. These people tend to be socialists and they cater to fellow socialists. When ideology trumps truth, and science itself stagnates.
If this seems to strong, it doesn’t take too much effort to find numerous quotes where government-funded “scientists” have called for severe sanctions on anyone who disagreed with their “consensus”. Even the very idea that a “consensus” establishes something as fact should disqualify the WHOLE LOT OF THEM.
see:
Comparing climate models – Part One
Guest Essay by Geoffrey H Sherrington
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/comparing-climate-models-part-one/
and this graphic comparison:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/clip_image0023.jpg
Is someone here up to speed on the Atlantic Multidecadal (?) Oscillation, and its current prediction of global atmospheric temperature trends?
Climate change fanatics have overplayed their lies. Even when a pop punk like Obama goes to Germany to talk climate change, people thumb their nose. Sure, some of it was because Obama speaks worse than a drunk crackhead, but people are tired of climate lies.
We had a cool and wet early summer. Several Rockies games were snowed out.
We hear stats like that every year it seems. Personally, I think they play with the numbers to yield that result. There has been no significant warming for the last 15 years, but every year they claim the latest is the warmest on record. That just doesn't compute.
That only appears to be contradictory.
That only appears to be contradictory.
That only appears to be contradictory.
That only appears to be contradictory.
It is not the people who sit on grant committees who are the problem, because they are ordinary scientists who are asked to sit on the committees and flown in from all over the country to do this. They typically have several publications on the specific topic of the grants, and so are considered experts in their fields.
The problem here is squarely on the shoulders of the politicians. Politicians for the last century have been trying one scheme after another to shove socialism and authoritarian control down our throats, and we have, for the most part, rejected. Then along came the hypothesis of "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) that gave those politicians a new angle with which to impose totalitarianism. This time, they can claim that the earth will die unless they get their way! And those politicians thought that funding research in "global warming" (not just climate) would further their goals. So they directed how the research monies would be allocated. The scientists on the grant committees choose the grant proposals that get funded (based on scientific merit, potential to generate new information, etc.) but the politicians told them the subjects that would get funded.
The politically directed disbursement of grant monies led to the situation where scientists whose work was in an area other than AGW didn't get funding. And scientists in many fields stuck the phrase "because of global warming" in their proposals for completely unrelated studies because it increased their chances of funding.
The bulk of scientific research, especially the "basic" research, is funded by the government, and that situation is not likely to change. The scope of privately funded research is typically very narrow--for example, a foundation dedicated to researching prostate cancer will not fund mitochondrial function research. Scientists who want more freedom to choose a research area usually turn to the government.
Mollusks make their shells out of calcium carbonate. That is, they pull CO2 out of the water to make the calcium carbonate. Also, where the oceans get warmer, they hold less CO2 (not more) because gases are less soluble in warmer liquids than in cold. I would say that if acidification processes are impeding shell formation, we need to look for the source of the acid... probably industrial run-off.
So I asked for some examples. He said that the Great Barrier reef has lost 30% of it’s coral reef due to manmade global warming. He went on to describe the 2nd largest barrier reef system as also down 30%. You’d think he could do the math and see that at most we’ve lost 30%, unless other reefs are down to zero.
The entire conversation was like this. Then the thirty-something marine biologist who is studying the effects of global climate change on corals chimes in to his defense. I asked her what’s your baseline? She answered, “Everybody knows...” I pressed her for specifics. I mean she’s a scientist and studying it all. She simply got more and more exasperated and looked like a cornered animal. As if she’d never considered the alternative, I mean she’s got the funding, right?
In the end she said that a baseline doesn’t matter because she’s just studying the effects. I changed the subject.
Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I’m driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can’t simply yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I’ll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society. …Only some scientists?
Global climate change is immeasurable. It’s a liberal’s innumerate fantasy writ large.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
