Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How politics got mixed up in climate science.

  1. #1 How politics got mixed up in climate science. 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    A brief history of denial.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4690900.ece


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    A brief history of the greatest scam in the history of mankind.

    http://www.investigatemagazine.com/a...ate_oct_5.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The topic is global warming denial, not how corrupt business people parlayed global warming into bankruptcy. And comparing David Bellamy to Galileo is typical Cato idiocy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    This is how the global warmingm myth was created:

    Enron then started to finance everything related to the global warming hype, including grants to scientists – but asking for results favorable to their interest – “proof” that humans were responsible for the excessive emissions of CO2 through fossil fuel burning.
    This is how the denial myth was created:

    A 1998 letter, signed by Lay and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enron’s way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to moderate the political aspects of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. The purpose of this commission was clear – high-level trashing of dissident scientists.
    The rest is pure groupthink

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    1 Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

    2 Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

    3 Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

    4 Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.

    5 Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".

    6 Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

    7 Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

    8 Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    That makes no sense what so ever.

    The majority of climatologist studies that mentioned climate change were pointing towards man-made global warming by the early 1970s, which was a full decade before Enron even existed.

    While American government scientist with little to no monetary interest played a leading role to solidify the facts of man-made warming it's been adopted very slowly by the US, where Enron should have been the most influential.

    Meanwhile idea of man-made global warming have been accepted by the Europeans in lockstep with the growing strength of the research conclusions, completely outside the influence of Enron.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    This is swiftly growing mythological. Reminds me of the rhetorical Flat Earthers Copernicus likened his opponents to, who then appeared. Scorn it and they will come.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    let's go back to the original article

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunday Times
    Today the Jasons still meet in San Diego in a quaint postwar construction with more than a hint of Thunderbirds about it. In 1977 they got to work on global warming. There was one potential problem. Only a few of them knew anything about climatology. To get a better understanding they relocated for a few days to Boulder, Colorado, the base for NCAR – the National Center for Atmospheric Research – where they heard the latest information on climate change. Then, being physicists, they went back to first principles and decided to build a model of the climate system. Officially it was called Features of Energy-Budget Climate Models: An Example of Weather-Driven Climate Stability, but it was dubbed the Jason Model of the World.

    In 1979 they produced their report: coded JSR-78-07 and entitled The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate. Now, with the benefit of hind-sight, it is remarkable how prescient it was.
    so, in essence, the scientific conclusion before the waters got muddled by politics was that CO2 caused global warming and that the predictions did not deviate substantially from the developments we've seen so far
    that's good enough for me as far as the ring of truth goes
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    let's go back to the original article

    so, in essence, the scientific conclusion before the waters got muddled by politics was that CO2 caused global warming and that the predictions did not deviate substantially from the developments we've seen so far
    that's good enough for me as far as the ring of truth goes
    In essence, the amount of downwelling radiation of CO2 versus escaping radiation is solely depending on the emitting altitude expressed in IR optical depth count (at the surface about 30 feet as far as I recall). As CO2 increases both optical depths above and below the emitting altitude are affected equally. So the basic question is, what the emitting altitude is doing, which is almost completely dependent on the vertical density of water vapor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    That makes no sense what so ever.
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    1 Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

    2 Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

    3 Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

    4 Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.

    5 Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".

    6 Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

    7 Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

    8 Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Richard Lindzen has some more information about the perversion of science for the sake of politics.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

    Abstract

    For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors.

    By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective.

    The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken.

    The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.

    This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
    Of course there is only one remedy against this:

    #4 Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
    So the next post is probably an attempt to character murder Richard Lindzen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •