Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

Originally Posted by decraew

For the record I do believe in global warming.
I also believe that mankind has something to do with it.

I specifically use "believe" because I don't have the time to go sift through all the available proof. All evidence to the contrary that I've heard of seems to come from company sponsored scientists. And I will never ever put my faith in companies, there's only one thing that counts for those and that's making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Even if man's contribution will prove to be not as important as I think it is, better be safe than sorry no ?

And all evidence in support comes from scientists who are paid to study the problem.

Originally Posted by MasterRolf

And all evidence in support comes from scientists who are paid to study the problem.

Yeah they have jobs as climate scientists and they get paid a salary.

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Yeah they have jobs as climate scientists and they get paid a salary.

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities.

And the salaries are largely from grants that would all go away if they were to discover that there was no problem, or that it was a natural event, or even if there were nothing that could be done. Thus, there very livelyhood is dependent on it being a manmade problem that has a solution. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, so I'm not surprised that the majority of these climate scientiests agree that it is primarily caused by human activities and we need to determine what we can do to stop it (i.e. you need to keep paying me to solve this problem that I have found).

Originally Posted by MasterRolf

Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, so I'm not surprised that the majority of these climate scientiests agree that it is primarily caused by human activities and we need to determine what we can do to stop it (i.e. you need to keep paying me to solve this problem that I have found).

How do you think University research science should be funded?
Who is qualified to decide what should be researched?
How could we ensure that all scientific research is completely unbiased?
If we can't come up with practical solutions to the above, should we ever research anything?

Originally Posted by MasterRolf

And the salaries are largely from grants that would all go away if they were to discover that there was no problem, or that it was a natural event, or even if there were nothing that could be done. Thus, there very livelyhood is dependent on it being a manmade problem that has a solution. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, so I'm not surprised that the majority of these climate scientiests agree that it is primarily caused by human activities and we need to determine what we can do to stop it (i.e. you need to keep paying me to solve this problem that I have found).

The scientists I know don't get paid that high salaries. The grants go to working means. So sorry, the incentive is just not that great.

Industry scientists probably get paid a multiple of what a university scientist makes so who has the bigger incentive ?

I suppose industry "scientists" also told people there's nothing wrong with leaded fuels, asbestos, tobacco, etc. Where huge profits are at stake, business ethics go down the drain, it's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by MasterRolf

And the salaries are largely from grants that would all go away if they were to discover that there was no problem, or that it was a natural event, or even if there were nothing that could be done. Thus, there very livelyhood is dependent on it being a manmade problem that has a solution. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, so I'm not surprised that the majority of these climate scientiests agree that it is primarily caused by human activities and we need to determine what we can do to stop it (i.e. you need to keep paying me to solve this problem that I have found).

Climatologists study the climate. They would continue studying the climate if there was global warming or not. From the data they have gathered the overwhelming conclusion they all come to is that earth is warming and it's caused by humans.

Where do you get your information that there would be no grants if global warming was not caused by humans?

Global warming does exist. The rise of the average temperature in most places of the earth proves it. As do the melting down of most glaciers, Antarctic and Greenland land ice, disappearance of permanent snow cover of many mountains etc.

Is it entirely man-made? Probably not. There have always been climate fluctuations. The presence of dinosaur fossils on Antarctica and charcoal in the Arctic are living proof. CO2 is a green house gas and its content in the air has been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution. CO2 therefore is most likely part of the problem. Many local climate changes (e.g. desertification after cutting forests) are not due to a rise in atmospheric CO2. However desertification means less CO2 is reabsorbed from the atmosphere by plants.

The oceans do absorb CO2 and have always done so. However, the rise in atmospheric CO2 proves the oceans cannot deal with all the atmospheric CO2.

Is glabal warming bad? That is a matter of opinion. The earth's climate does not need us but we do need the earth's climate. Evolution will go on. Many species we know have only been around since the last Ice Age. New species will evolve and existing species will die out. If we like to live in a hospitable environment and leave a hospitable earth to our (grand) children we may want to try and reduce CO2 emissions and desertification.

Here I am emitting CO2 trying to help earth prepare for the next ice age and y'all are trying to reduce emissions... we need to get on the same page!

Originally Posted by decraew

I suppose industry "scientists" also told people there's nothing wrong with leaded fuels, asbestos, tobacco, etc.

Certainly as far back as 1964 when I was at grammar school we were told that medical science had proved that tobacco was harmful. We were given leaflets, shown diseased lungs in jars etc., all provided by medical scientists.

Given that the sister forum to this contains postings such as: "What cigar did you smoke today" not everyone was fooled by this.

=welshwizard;679731]How do you think University research science should be funded?

Endowment funds, trust funds, working with buisinesses, and revenue that they receive from the products they come up with. Government should only give grants in fields where there is no real world application, imo, but I guess climate would probably be one of those fields.

Who is qualified to decide what should be researched?

The researchers, the school, the market, government should try to keep hands off as much as possible. Since without government involvement, the researchers would have far more freedom of thought. Scientific independence is crucial, to valid conclusions, and scientific advancement. Preconceptions is what comes from government funding, mostly research is done to prove a point they already think is true.

How could we ensure that all scientific research is completely unbiased?

We cant, there is no such thing as an un-biased opinion. That doesnt mean we cant have an opinion, only that we need to keep the bias' in mind when coming to a conclusion.

If we can't come up with practical solutions to the above, should we ever research anything?

Schools should be able to research whatever they want, but they shouldnt have their funding dependent on outside sources, as far as possible. If they have to accept outside money, those sources should be disclosed along side their findings.