I know, I know…but its like talking with a backwards child. You want to reach out to help them comprehend. But then again, it is like trying to teach a pig to say the rosary.

It makes you look foolish and it only serves to tick off the pig…

Scientific societies do not receive are mainly supported by membership dues, conference registration fees, journal subscriptions, etc.

Again, these societies are made up of people who know where the money is coming from.

The anti GW groups are industry funded. Phillip Morris “scientists” to this day rebut the smoking/cancer link.

This is precisely what I am talking about. Once someone knows who is driving the gravy train, expect the ingratiation to that person/cause.

This is true for certain medical studies. You can’t “double blind” temperature data (a guy who doesn’t know whether he has a thermometer of a placebo?).

It also means that you do not know what conclusions you are expected to arrive at because you know who is funding the research. By double-blind, the researcher is kept from knowing the benefactor and must draw conclusions from all data presented, real and placebo.

This is just good science but bad politics.

On July 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm, lgm said:

What a great point! It would lead to a bonanza of funding. Climate science has more to gain financially from this uncertainty than from GW as an established fact not in need of more research dollars.

I see your point, and I don’t disagree with it from a purely knowledge or scientific perspective. However, think of the political perspective. No matter who you agree or disagree with, there are AGW supporters (for lack of a better term) and AGW deniers in power. The people at large may not really know what to think at present. If even one well-connected and respected climate scientist came out and said “I was wrong,” you really don’t believe government would seriously reconsider how much it spends on climate research?

Think of it this way: AGW has many skeptics. (Whether or not they are considered qualified.) Such a event as described above would give a tremendous amount of fuel to the AGW deniers, and the people may choose not to spend more money on it, whether it were warranted or not.

At present, the research dollars (and corerect me if I’m wrong) aren’t going so much to “proving” AGW as they are toward what to do about it. Isn’t it still the same scientists?

I am certain climate scientists know this. By definition, they’re not idiots. If scientific uncertainty were introduced, there would almost certainly be less political will to fund research in this matter. At least that’s my take.

On July 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, lgm said:

Scientific societies do not receive are mainly supported by membership dues, conference registration fees, journal subscriptions, etc.

Um, membership in a society is no different than an industry organization. Both members rely on that industry for revenue. The societies you cite are no different. Their members rely on the AGW research industry for revenue.

You can’t “double blind” temperature data (a guy who doesn’t know whether he has a thermometer of a placebo?).

Actually, this is a great idea. And it’s certainly possible. Give the temperature “interpreters” (I should call them “manipulators”) real data and placebo (fake) data and see what they do with it.

I’d bet you millions that all the placebo data would show warming trends, too.

On July 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm, lgm said:

Climate science has more to gain financially from this uncertainty than from GW as an established fact not in need of more research dollars.

What? The pro-AGW propaganda is what maintains the uncertainty (btw, it’s good to see you at least admit that there’s uncertainty). If the mountains of evidence against AGW was released, then it would certainly put the nails in the coffin of global warming forever.

On July 10th, 2009 at 12:19 pm, lgm said:

That stuff about hockey pucks or sticks or whatever hasn’t convinced anyone who actually knows their stuff.

Well, that doesn’t include you. You don’t know your stuff.

“or whatever?” How can you NOT know about Mann Hockey Stick?

What would happen to GW research dollars if credible evidence against GW were in fact published?

What a great point! It would lead to a bonanza of funding. Climate science has more to gain financially from this uncertainty than from GW as an established fact not in need of more research dollars.

What if more ‘credible’ scientists came out against, based on their interpretaiton of ongoing data?

A credible refutation of the GW established view, or even a part of it, would be a huge boost to anyone’s scientific career. It would be like the discovery of reverse transcriptase, which overturned the one way view DNA –> RNA.

Scientific societies do not receive are mainly supported by membership dues, conference registration fees, journal subscriptions, etc. The anti GW groups are industry funded. Phillip Morris “scientists” to this day rebut the smoking/cancer link.

Okay, I’d like to pose a question about one part of this. I realize the ‘societies’ themselves are funded by member dues or some such means, but how do the members derive their incomes? Are they not funded by government grants in some way? Aren’t universities funded by tuitions and government funds?

What would happen to GW research dollars if credible evidence against GW were in fact published? What if more ‘credible’ scientists came out against, based on their interpretaiton of ongoing data?

The tobacco people are a bad example, as they worked directly or nearly directly for the tobacco companies. “Climate Scientists” maintain an air of independence due to their relative diatance from actual government employment. However, thay would surely suffer financially if GW were disporoved. (If there were no crisis, there would be no need for all the spending.)

They are human. Humans will do what is in their best interests. Scientists aren’t above human nature. They need money, too.

First, define credible. Is it credible

The most important scientific societies in each discipline. Why don’t you list the scientific or professional groups opposed to GW so we can compare credibility?

because you believe it or is it credible because they have a financial stake in the outcome?

Scientific societies do not receive are mainly supported by membership dues, conference registration fees, journal subscriptions, etc. The anti GW groups are industry funded. Phillip Morris “scientists” to this day rebut the smoking/cancer link.

To be credible scientifically, you have to perform your tests with at least a double-blind format.

This is true for certain medical studies. You can’t “double blind” temperature data (a guy who doesn’t know whether he has a thermometer of a placebo?).

On July 10th, 2009 at 12:19 pm, lgm said:>That’s my case.

What’s yours?

Um…That is your case? Really? A bit short on details, don’t you think? Try again, and next time, try not to sound so stupid.

…where there money…

their, their, their…

Damn. Need more coffee and self-editing.

Sorry, Mrs. Garrett!