EvilCapitalist said:nycll said:EvilCapitalist said:nycll said:EvilCapitalist said:You really do not get it, do you? First thing that any scientist dreams about is having a job. Ask anyone who is currently finishing their Ph.D. After they get a job they dream about lining up a few grants to make sure the job stays there. After that is done they may dream about being breaking current scientific view ( provided that they still have job, lab and grants ).Slow down bigshot, I am the phd in physics here.
Q.E.D., dear. Why aren't you using that PhD in physics to become the ubber known scientist by disproving something (not GW as you are a fan of it - but something dear to your heart?). Oh right, because it would cramp your lifestyle until your view becomes accepted. The truth is I didn't have a strong view against the prevailing beliefs in my field. The problem is that it is extremely hard to find a worthy problem to attack. No low hanging fruits.
You are again making my point for me - proving that prevailing beliefs are wrong is difficult and time consuming no matter what those beliefs are and during the time it takes you to make your views prevalent your style is cramped. You can't have a nice house, you can't have nice cars, you lose in competition for the most desirable females, males or trannys ( hey, whatever floats your boat ), etc. Yes, it is difficult to make my mark in physics. But it is because it is difficult to make that big discovery, NOT because it would be hard to have the work published afterwards. See, the real difficulty is to come up with the idea and do the real research. It is difficult because the prevailing belief is based on the prior work of many smarter and more dedicated physicists.

Global warming money showed up after a certain person from UK government promised funding to scientists to prove the global cooling crowd was on crack.Lots of the research money is spent on measurements of temperature and CO2 contents. Regardless whether the results support AGW or not, they have had no problem getting them published.

Warming waters in the North and South pole will slow down the warm currents such as the gulf stream. This will cause a mini ice age until the waters cool again. Everyone will try to migrate to Mexico...do you think they will put up with US immigrants?? I don't - they will put troops on the border and shoot to kill....So much for global warming...

WalStMonky said:You know that you're dealing with people that are clueless when they describe scientific theory as 'just a hypothesis'. No, it isn't equal to a crackpot theory like 'intelligent' design. Demanding proof in this instance is demanding significant damage to the world in which we live, and that might not even rise to the level of proof needed to convince those who twist reality so. Sure, let's just wait until the ecosystem collapses, then we'll do something.

Hey, are the core samples taken from the ice at the poles faked? If not, they prove that there has been significant increase in CO2 levels in the last couple of centuries. Yeah, it's possible that the industrial revolution and this increase are only correlated, but it sure doesn't fit with Ockham's Razor.
Pshaw, scientists and their "theories"! Gravity is a theory, I'm all for "intelligent falling" myself!

staci86 said:nycll said:If someone like Lindzen found a smoking gun proof of the man-caused global warming being wrong, it will take about a week for the scientific consensus to change.
No, it will take about a day for the powers that be to label him a shill for Exxon, and proceed to direct funding to other scientists who are continuing to produce research which causes alarm.

Too much political capital has been invested in AGW for it to be overturned in a week. For the consensus to change, a large number of prominent scientists will have to reverse their position using money not tainted by corporate influence. That money simply isn't available.

Current funding considerations produce a selection fallacy. The current funding is doled out primarily by organizations pushing AGW, leading it to be received primarily by scientists biased to showing AGW. This is no different than how corporate money produces a selection fallacy that found, among other things, that smoking does not cause cancer. These flawed studies were bankrolled by the tobacco industry, but there were plenty of scientists willing to accept their money to produce research that fit the already determined conclusion.

Why would politically-charged pro-AGW funds not be tainted in that manner?

Scientists can be wrong, and it is part of normal scientific procedure. Politicians cannot afford to be wrong when they have invested their careers in promoting crippling legislation on the basis that it must be done to save humanity. If humanity is not threatened by what they wanted to cripple, then they have much explaining to do.Staci, do you realize the difference between science and politics? And the difference between scientific consensus and political consensus?

When discoveries in quantum mechanics accumulated at the beginning of the last century, did the rejection from powerful scientists like Albert Einstein ("God does not play dice with the universe") change the scientific consensus?

As I pointed out before, lots of the funding were spent in measurement. You need to realize although the impact of the world warming by 1 degree is huge, to conclusively prove the warming is true is not trivial. It requires large scale measurements with sensors around the world, satterlite, etc. If the results had turned the warming didn't exist, the scientist conducted those research would have no qualms in publishing their data.