I've always wondered. What is it that motivates these scientists to lie about global warming? What's the payoff for them? Anybody know?

I listened to his co-author on the on the radio today talking about the book. He said that there are 100 peer-reviewed articles referenced and they could have used another 200. That's 300 peer-reviewed articles used to support their thesis. I'd guess there must be a sliver of credibility there, wouldn't you think so?

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

The payoff is continued funding of their research, presitge amongst their peers, gov't appointment to bogus committees looking for ways to appease chicken little environmentalists and milk a hysterical public out of its money.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Clearly the US is doing a very poor job in science education.
To have this many people so easily fooled by pure hokum.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Not all scientist lie. Further, humans are smaller than nature and couldn't heat or cool the atmosphere of the earth if we wanted to.

Colorado is bombing with the falling snow and had a record season last year. The snow is doing quite well this year as well.

__________________
United We Stand.

That seems to be the problem with GW advocates. A little misinterpretation and a lot of hysteria.

__________________

So then the National Academy of Sciences has run out of real science projects with which to chase funding and obtain prestige? And their only recourse is to create a fake environmental problem? And who creates these "bogus committees?" And what is their motivation? Why would anyone be interested in appeasing "chicken little environmentalists"? Why would anyone care what those environmentalists think if there is no merit to any of their claims?

I'm sorry but this makes no sense at all that I can see.

I'm sorry but none of your quoted material has anything at all to do with my question.

I asked
"I've always wondered. What is it that motivates these scientists to lie about global warming? What's the payoff for them? Anybody know?"

And your only relevant response was "not all scientist lie" which is clearly ducking the main thrust of my question. If almost all scientists claim there is a human cause for a real global warming problem then most scientsts are lying and not doing real science. So my question once again is:
Why are these scientists lying? What is their motivation?

Please don't respond unless you intend to actually address the content of my post.

This is nothing. At least there are real scientists who have real scientific reasons to question the degree of environmental damage which will result from our industrial activities.
If you want to see real ignorance you need to read some of the creation "science" nonsense. Those are the real scam artists. And there are plenty of suckers who swallow that nonsense whole.

Wow...

Here I post 3 articles. One that says scientists have noticed the sun had started emitting more energy since the late 1970's (just about three decades ago) and two that says the earth started to really heat up in the last 3 decades due to CO2. Given that the sun is a huge fireball, it is highly probable that its the main reason for this recent heating since its energy output increase coincides with the higher temps measured on the earth from the same time. At the very least, this coincidence ought to at least make you question that perhaps there are other factors in play.

To have this many people so easily fooled into thinking that CO2 is thee cause of the last three decades of heating is pure madness given the fact that the output of the sun has increased in the same time period. And its especially maddening since the Kyoto Protocol would have let developing countries increase their CO2 output thereby nulling the effects of the reduced CO2 output from developed countries. In other words, humans would still be emitting more or less the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere under Kyoto. Why was it set up like this if we are all grave danger from global warming? Is it possible the people behind Kyoto are more concerned with re-distributing wealth and jobs from developed countries to developing countries and are using the recent heating of the sun to scare people into thinking that the heating is from CO2? I think so.

And I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't cause warming. If scientists say it has a warming effect, then I believe them. But CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and humans are only responsible for 1 to 2% of the total CO2 that's emitted into the atmosphere.
If someone wants to say that CO2 could add some additional warming to the earth (after acknowledging that the Sun appears to be playing a much bigger role than previously thought of), I could agree with this. But to say that its ALL the fault of CO2 and that the sun's effect is negligible especially after the three decade heating "coincidence" is dishonest at the least.

Kramer

Perhaps its more political than about money. For example, the BBC has long been a biased to the left anti-American, anti-Christian 'objective' news source yet we just found out last month that this is true because top BBC execs are on record of admitting to it. Perhaps some day, the truth will come out why under Kyoto, developing countries would have had to reduce CO2 while developing countries would have been allowed to increase their CO2 thereby not doing much, if anything at all to reduce the total CO2 into the atmosphere. The Kyoto scheme would have ended up transfering jobs and or wealth from developed countries to developing countries. It was a global leftist re-distributionist plan to reduce the disparity between nations. Nothing more. Nothing less.


And here are 17,200 scientists who are skeptical of the claim that CO2 is the leading cause of global warming.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Kramer

The sun definitely has a role in the process, but so does the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Think about it this way, the furnace in our house is set too high, but we continue to put more blankets on the beds. Research into the heat trapping qualities of greenhouse gases has shown that even the sun's increased output would not warm the planet as rapidly as is happening without a thick and increasing layer of heat trapping gas. We can't turn down the sun, but we can take off some the blankets.

I'm sorry to see this become such a polarized issue because that screws up our chances of working together to do what we CAN do to solve this problem.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

So, Kinetic, you don't know anything about global warming either I see. Good for you! I appreciate consistency in a man.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

I can accept that all the scientists who support the theory of global warming are commies or gays or whatever the opposition wants to claim, but what I want to know is how they are melting the glaciers and ice caps. I studied marine biology in college, I follow along with current research, and I am continually amazed at how the proponents of globa warming have managed to change the eco-systems to make it look like global warming is really happening. Fisheries are changing, corals are bleaching, migratory birds and fish are changing their patterns, ocean currents are slowing, ocean temperature gradients are changing...but how do those obviously stupid people who are pushing this crazy, made-up agenda get all these things to happen--they must be working over-time.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Before we put too much stock in the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine folks it would be good to note that this "facility" is one building with perhaps 6 people on the payroll in Cave Junction, Oregon. I looked at the list of 17,200 scientists and it is just a list of names--all of which could have been made up since there is no documentation as to their credentials. When I see groups like this being cited as disagreeing with the major research institutions around the world I am disinclined to give them much credence.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.