Has anyone talked about how the whole global warming hypothesis has been accepted as a canard by the scientific community?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

The scientific community loves global warming because most are liberals and liberals hate industry and want to do away with it. These liberals don't really believe in global warming but it's so convienient to use it to get legislation passed in order to destroy industry. Most people are ignorant of science and these liberal scientist take advantage of this in order to spread panic and fear.

And to continue getting their research grants from the government.

I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm. If it's not, this is one of the most absurd things I've ever read.

First of all the scientific community "loves global warming?" Well just about everyone accepts global warming, it's anthropogenic global warming some are skeptical of. But nobody "loves" it. Scientists have genuine concerns which result from examination of data and years of research.
.Oh do they? Who told you that? That is simply not true, and a truly silly generalization.
First, how and why did all of the worlds scientist come together to form a massive conspiracy that is so easily seen through by somone so obviously lacking in scientific knowledge as you. Second, why would scientist want to destroy industry?

Hmmm, what scientific community to you speak of? Surely not the one that has been shown by multiple polls to believe humans are a significant factor in climate change. Surely not the one where all the industrialized nations national acadamies endorse anthropogenic global warming.

Easily debunked.

Here it is from logical science.

Flaw #1 - They don't want more climate research, they want the problem fixed. Climate Scientists have nothing to gain from fixing the problem.
The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money. They are asking you to fix the problem. Climate scientists simply do not have the expertise and training to develop nuclear fusion, the next generation of solar panels, or other forms of alternative energy. If we develop those technologies then money would go to people who have nothing to do with climate research. Climatologists also aren't in the position to benefit from carbon taxes. So this argument has some serious flaws.


'I do not lobby for more climate funding. If you ask anyone who has actually interviewed me, they will say that what I say is "We don't need more research money to deal with the issue as to what needs to be done. ".
Andrew Weaver Ph.D.

Flaw #2 - It's not just scientists.
There some real heavyweights in industry that say the problem is obvious. Shell, British Petroleum, Walmart, DuPont, Cinergy, Swiss Re, and many more agree climate change is happening..

Flaw #3 -
There simply isn't a lot of money in science
Then there is the argument that scientist are doing this only because controversy or the IPCC pays well. Again, these people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living. Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay.


"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money.... The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""- William Connolley Ph.D.


"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.


If this is a scam, then why are all of these people in on it? The best scientists from 18 countries are saying the exact same thing. Countless CEO's from Fortune 500 insurance companies to even oil companies such as BP are also saying man made global warming is real. If this is a scam, it is the most prolific scam in history.

Flaw #4 - There are far better ways of getting grant money
If they wanted more money they would say "hey we aren't sure, we need to study this more because of potential dangers." That is not what the National Academies of 11 countries that signed the G-8 joint statement are saying. They are saying we know the dangers, it's time to take action. They are not stalling for more funding.

Flaw #5 - Scientists are competitive. It doesn't pay to be jump on bandwagons.
Each individual scientist must compete for funding. The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to prove everyone else wrong. It is their job to poke holes in each others arguments. The fact that nobody can come up with a legitimate theory that debunks the consensus on climate change speaks volumes about the strength of the evidence.

Flaw #5 - Scientists aren't exactly organized
In order to perform a worldwide consipiracy you would have to organize every individual scientist in the planet. This simply isn't possible given that most research scientists do their own fundraising and the sheer numbers of individual scientists.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skepti...s/funding.html

I'm referring to the one that shows that there is no global warming.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Here's the deal, guys. Global warming was a manufactured crisis to rally the stupid people around a government response. A lot of people make a lot of money off of stupid people, and gain a lot of power. It's run it's course, and you'll find the rhetoric shifting to "clean power". That's because the whole premise is about to be universally destroyed. Those same stupid people, however, will latch on to the clean energy thing with the same fervor. We'll be talking again about the fragile Earth and all that, and the big boys will exploit for money to no actual benefit. It never ends with you stupid people.

Having said all that, Obama is about two years behind the rest of the world, and still may get that bs passed. Anybody realize that the "science" of the predicate of that bill is complete crap? Who cares, right?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

So, basically your reply to the several paras above is "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, particularly all the Nobel prize winners etc who advocate or agree with GW"

Thank you for that opinion, it's pretty stupid, but it's clear.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Most educated people understand that it is science which has made the rapid industrial expansion (on a global scale) during the past century possible, and that it is industry which has largely financed the scientists whose discoveries have driven the process. In fact, the relationship between science and industry could best be described as "symbiotic"--each has helped the other to prosper and grow. Scientists would gain nothing from the destruction of industry, and that is why your suggestion is so badly misplaced.

I have observed that whenever a particular group (such as the Democrats) attempts to "make a lot of money off of stupid people," immediately another group (such as the Republicans) attempts to "make a lot of money off of stupid people" by proposing an alternative course of action. The only thing that is consistent is that both these groups understand that a significant portion of the electorate consists of "stupid people."

Some parts of the administration's proposals, such as their advocacy of "clean coal technology," are nothing but pie in the sky. But it is certainly true that we are damaging the environment in which we live by pouring pollutants into the atmosphere, into the waters, and encasing toxic wastes in the very Earth on which our descendants must ultimately live.

We need to impose term limits on our Congress, get rid of the self-serving clowns from both political parties, and replace them with thoughtful and well-intentioned representatives who will place the common interests ahead of their own. Of course that would mean that the Democrats would have to give up Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, and others, but it would also mean that the Republicans would have to eliminate McConnell, Boehner, Cantor and others. I think that would be a fair trade. Do you have a better suggestion?

Has anyone talked about how the whole global warming hypothesis has been accepted as a canard by the scientific community?

I have not accepted the global climate change aka. global warming theory as a canard. Let me explain why.

From a purely "common sense" point of view, when we consider how much carbon has been and will be released into the atmosphere(as a result of fossil fuel combustion ie. oil, gas, coal) in relation to the total volume of atmosphere the earth has, there is a significant increase of carbon mostly in the form of carbon dioxide. The increase is in full percentage points. Only a few percent but it doesn't take a lot to have an effect.

Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas. That means there is more energy being trapped in the atmosphere than there was before the increase in carbon. That does not mean an instant or even a dramatic increase in temperatures but, it does mean there is more energy in the total atmosphere.
That extra energy is having and will continue to have a measurable effect on global weather systems ie. climate.

Also, the polar ice caps and glaciers are melting. The glacial melt rate is fast enough in some cases that it can be seen with the naked eye. This coincides with where one would expect to see temperature increase to have a noticable effect on a system, at the extremes.

Now consider that the earth should be in or heading into a cooling trend right now due to periodic changes in orbit and wobble around it's axis.

All of the above leads me to think there is probably something to the global climate change theory. Notice I use the word theory because the concept can be reproduced in a laboratory and computer models even if only on a smaller scale. For that matter just go visit a real greenhouse. It traps heat and gets hot. Also, it is a reasonable conclusion that the current weather conditions on Venus are a result of a thermal runaway greenhouse effect. So, it is a bit more than a simple hypothesis.

The only questions I have are how much and how fast. No scientist worth their salt will give you a definitive answer to that question because they don't know and will tell you so if you ask them.

Since we don't know how much of an effect we are having on global climate, and we will run out of oil within 50 years at the current consumption rate anyway, and much of the oil we currently consume comes from a part of the world that has been nothing but trouble for us, it seems to make sense to make other arrangements for meeting our energy needs. It is the conservative thing to do.

problem solved, it stopped warming years ago, starting to cool a bit.

oddly enough in line with solar activity...

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

The histeria of global warming is the best thing that has ever happend to tree hugging liberals in cluding the scientist who exploit it to spread panic and fear.

A canard is defined as a "deliberately misleading fabrication".... you are suggesting that the scientific community has uncovered some sort of evidence of a vast conspiracy of climate scientists going on for over 100 years?

Wow...

How's that tin foil hat fit Chucky?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen