i would characterize the global warming (now repackaged as climate change) campaign as a wholly-manufactured vehicle for broke governments to introduce new avenues for collecting additional tax revenue and backing it with bought and paid for scientific studies mandated with pre-ordained results. and i have degrees from berkeley & columbia
This is quite possibly the most succinct description of the global cooling/global warming/climate change campaign I believe I have ever read. The government solution is always the same, massive control and taxation legislation. What government wouldn't be into that?
The scientific theory about Global Warming / Climate Change isn't the same as a policy debate. The scientific theory doesn't say anything about solutions.
You cannot say that the prevailing scientific theory is not influenced by the source of funding and that source wants a bogeyman that creates the policy debate.
Current theory as proposed by the IPCC leaves a lot of interpretations of the projections of global warming. This is because the IPCC has four different scenarios of high confidence - not that anyone here knew or cared about that.
I understand cynicism with respect to governments. They get bloated, lazy, and often corrupt too. That is too true. But speaking as a physicist, I don't agree with your characterization at all, at least not on the scientific side. I truly think most governments wish excess carbon in the atmosphere wasn't something they had to worry about. Sure governments usually welcome new streams of revenue. Not sure carbon taxes (if they're even implemented) are going to really do that. In any case, the costs are, by all reasonable estimates, going to greatly outweigh whatever you think they can "make" via new tax systems. The scientific studies do not, as a rule, have "preordained results." That's just a myth from the most cynical of denialist voices. Part of the myth of: 1. Scientists concoct global conspiracy to fool everyone. 2. ??? 3. Scientists make lots of money! Or you may be saying that governments have conspired with scientists to "cook the books" and dream up a climate myth. Having worked as a scientist for a long time, and having interfaced with government agencies, I just find that totally impossible. The two sides constantly complain about one another like you wouldn't believe. Scientists are not very well paid, compared to the private sector especially, and more importantly, grants studying climate don't provide more money than grants I've had from NSF for work in physical chemistry or from DARPA for biophysics work. It's pretty standard if you're a professor who gets a research grant. Mostly it pays the tiny stipends for graduate students, buys some equipment, and then a little salary bump, in some cases, for the profs. It's like an extra month of salary during the summer, if you're fortunate. LOL. (Make it rain!) That's it. Research grants are research grants and the climate grants aren't more lucrative. It's one of hundreds of different things governments fund for research, (and thank god, if you like things like computers or medical treatments, but whatever). Finally, to no useful outcome I admit, I feel like I want to one more time address this other myth. "Climate change" is some sort of sneaky rebranding because "global warming" was... what exactly? Unpopular? Discredited? Nobody has ever explained this in a logical manner to me, they just smirk at the term "climate change" and nod knowingly to their Rush Limbaugh portraits nearby. Everyone who can read data at all agrees the world is warming up. We're taking in more radiation from the sun than we output, as a global system, period. And the temp. measurements back this up. So, global warning is, for most, just a done deal and we all agree. Happening. So the point of "climate change," is not to hide from that fact or trick anybody (?). If you have someone studying climate change, it means they don't necessarily study just thermometer measurements or computer models for greenhouse gas effects on the atmosphere. No, if someone studies "climate change," then maybe they are measuring or modeling the rise or fall in sea levels, the changes in glacial ice, changes in rainfall patterns, et cetera. It is not sneaky or really very hard to understand, is it? ... I mean, unless we're convinced that scientists have come together globally and all agreed to run a massive scam on everybody because... profit. (?) Okay, back into staying out of it. Cheers.
As has been pointed out before this is one of the most specious arguments when you consider how much money there is in the fossil fuel industry and how many governments are dependent upon fossil fuels to sustain their economies.
To answer B-Bob I think the rebranding had to do with how many people misunderstood the nature of climate. That's why you kept on getting, and still do, the people who say "How can the Earth be warming when it just snowed?"
I am curious to know, is there an RCP which you personally find more convincing than the others? I offer this question up to any others willing to discuss.
I hear that -- I really do. I'm not sure that's what happened. I think it's natural for one topic, once it's been established, to branch out to broader or related topics. That's just how science has always worked. "Global warming" (established) naturally leads to studying "climate change" (confusing, multi-faceted, study ongoing). Now, if politicians embraced one term in their speeches more than another, maybe to sound more scary or alarming to prompt action, that might make sense I guess. Or heck, just to get away from the stink people associate with Al Gore, LOL. Poor guy. Maybe the politicians were making the decision to use CC instead of GW. I just don't know that it was a decision that scientists made at all. Maybe. But the terms are totally logical, as separate and co-existing, I think.
thanks for this detailed and sincere response B-Bob. my view is based on what i see markets-wise, where smart money is clearly betting on global cooling over the next century. and as the poster Ipaman has already alluded to here, regular cycles are being pinned as the cause of this. you have mentioned that data supports warming up of the planet, but what i've been advised is that this data only goes back about a century. i guess a couple decades (and hopefully a few rings) from now we'll know better.
That's it exactly because more energy in the system from the extra heat that isn't allowed to escape isn't going to uniformly warm the earth and may actually result in some places being cooler, or wetter, or dryer, etc. Thus climate change vs. global warming. Problem with deniers is that they look at day to day weather as a means to disprove climate change even though the science at this point is about as solid as you can get without having a 10 foot rise in the seas. I guess that's what they want - first let climate change happen, and then discuss what to do about it.
Not saying that you don't have those degrees, because you may and I actually believe you do. But stating as much doesn't help your argument. This coming from a guy with degrees from Stanford and MIT. See what I did there?
only stated the schools because peleincubus implied anyone who doesn't believe the global warming farce must be poorly educated
I don't think anyone is arguing that scientists are in this to get rich but it could impact their jobs. The money comes from people who would like to see a particular result i.e. all the politicians that are selling AGW and there is no shortage of them. If there is no AGW then why would we pay to study it? Why don't we spend our money to save the whales or close the hole in the ozone layer? Scientists are being paid to research how man is impacting climate. If the research says that man is not impacting the climate do you think the funding will continue?
Anybody who believes in gigantic multi-year, international science conspiracy theories is by definition poorly-educated with respect to reality. But I see you've already walking it back because "the market" and "the smart money" or something...uh ok. Very sincere!
