Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charles Koester wrote:
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
affirming or denying global warming?
=================

Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from
ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only
recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to
stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking.
Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars
from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed
journal.

They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published.
All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors
have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals.
Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.

A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928
randomly selected research papers on climate change
published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000.
Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.

Zip. nada.

A quote:
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the
first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly
accepting the consensus view; 25%
dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
no position on current anthropogenic climate
change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.

Read it for yourself:

http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf


My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.

Charles Koester

(snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)

I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
the subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.

No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.

Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if
we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.

Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution.

Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing
science that disagrees with its ideological position. See
Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the
issue. DAGS.

Bob

And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
among he earth worshipers.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/