Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   One of the few climatologists who refused to play Chicken Little this hurricane season says a leading researcher "would sell his soul to the Devil to get global warming funding"   (rockymountainnews.com) divider line
209
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7529 clicks; posted to Main » and Fandom » on 31 Oct 2006 at 5:52 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



209 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Dancin_In_Anson
2006-10-31 3:49:54 PM  
But it's good money.
 
Mordant
2006-10-31 3:52:21 PM  
Joke's on the Devil, scienticians don't have souls.
 
Kyosuke
2006-10-31 3:53:32 PM  
Why would we need to fund Global Warming? Isn't it happening without our financial input?
 
mediaho
2006-10-31 4:08:53 PM  
submitter: One of the few

Should tell you something.
 
kmmontandon
2006-10-31 4:14:27 PM  
submitter: would sell his soul to the Devil to get global warming funding


A lot of scientists would sell their souls to the Devil to get any sort of funding, if it means pursuing research they believe in.
 
totalsecurity
2006-10-31 4:15:35 PM  
Bias is always a problem. In my field (geology) there's always a few clents that sometimes want so badly for a piece of land to be the next Pebble or Ft. Knox that they won't listen to the facts. So they pay my bill and hire someone else, who will string them along. Perhaps not intentionally; maybe through bias, ignorance, etc.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-31 4:22:28 PM  
kmmontandon: "A lot of scientists would sell their souls to the Devil to get any sort of funding, if it means pursuing research they believe in."


Scientific method, Schiemtific schmefed. I think that all scientists should "believe in" everything that they research. Don't you?? So any of those pesky facts that show up from time to time to mess up their data, can be dismissed otherwise as an unwated anomaly or a statistical error.
 
equilibrium
2006-10-31 4:23:52 PM  
Considering the current state of research grants, selling one's soul is almost what it takes to get grant approval. Of course, getting grant approval for global warming research in the current political environment should present no issue.
 
jarrett
2006-10-31 4:32:15 PM  
That's a provocative quote, to be certain. However, the consensus among scientists that the climate is warming due to human activities is pretty difficult to ignore. To suggest that all the data is fraudulent because scientists worldwide are part of a grand conspiracy to collect grant money is... well, feel free to make your own judgements.

Of course, the scope of the discussion wasn't really anthropogenic climate change at all--just its impact on hurricane frequency and intensity. Even if Gray decides to put forth his own argument instead of attacking the credibility another scientist, it doesn't affect the need to address the bigger issue at hand.

Ah, I see tommy is here to cock up another thread. Good luck with your cartoonishly ridiculous attack on science in general. It shouldn't be too difficult to get everyone to forget how scientific research has affected our lives.
 
jay_vee
2006-10-31 4:32:29 PM  
2006-10-31 04:23:52 PMequilibrium
Considering the current state of research grants, selling one's soul is almost what it takes to get grant approval. Of course, getting grant approval for global warming research in the current political environment should present no issue.

Absolutely. Anyone with an alternate theory to man made global warming basically has a blank cheque from any number of huge industries.
 
RocketRod
2006-10-31 4:40:09 PM  
Y'know... if both these a-holes just STFU, there'd be a lot less hot air affecting the planet.
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2006-10-31 4:50:46 PM  
Some people tend to note that climate change has been a natural part of the earth's cycle...But he's just a crackpot, right?

jarrett: I see tommy is here to cock up another thread.


Couldn't resist getting personal, could you?
 
jay_vee
2006-10-31 4:52:41 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson:- Has that passed peer review, or is still at the stage of opinion?
 
jarrett
2006-10-31 4:56:26 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Couldn't resist getting personal, could you?

I wasn't attacking tommy personally. In fact, that would be impossible because I know absolutely nothing about him. However, he has been known to enter threads making no points, dodges or ignores any relevant questions, and generally cocks up any discussion he participates in.

Calling him a waste of bandwidth is not a personal insult. It's a fact that will be demonstrated in this thread soon enough.

QED
 
RocketRod
2006-10-31 5:11:43 PM  
jarrett: Calling him a waste of bandwidth is not a personal insult.

It's a fact that will be demonstrated in this thread soon enough.


Yes it is.

And trying to construct a self-fulfilling prophecy won't help you either.

'Sides, you must be too young to remember the coming "Ice Age" from the 70's.
 
jay_vee
2006-10-31 5:14:42 PM  
2006-10-31 05:11:43 PMRocketRod
'Sides, you must be too young to remember the coming "Ice Age" from the 70's.

Which was largely media generated (it never became scientific consensus), unlike the current climate change theories which are science driven.
 
jarrett
2006-10-31 5:26:26 PM  
RocketRod: 'Sides, you must be too young to remember the coming "Ice Age" from the 70's.

Indeed I am a bit young, but I'm nonetheless familiar with the the 1975 Newsweek article because DIA has a macro set up to remind us of in just about every climate change thread.

Here's a crazy concept: Modern computer models are far more complex (by orders of magnitude) than anything available before 1975, and our understanding of climatology has actually increased over the past 30 years.

Furthermore, that one Newsweek article that's been linked and referenced by every right-wing blog ever, held aloof as the shining example of How Science Got It Wrong, doesn't even represent the consensus at the time.
 
shadesofblack
2006-10-31 5:45:59 PM  
Okay, so one backwards climatologist still claims global warming is an alarmist hoax.

And Michael Behe still claims that biomolecular machinery is "irreducibly complex" and proves God. So what?

The fact that one guy with some relatively meaningless credentials next to his name says something doesn't make it so, especially when that one guy is not only predisposed by this own beliefs to contradict anything that goes against his worldview, to say nothing of being insulated from the real world by layers of isolation within already insulated academia, but is in fact bought and paid for by interest groups.

Yeesh. One guy tooting his own horn doth not an entire scientific movement unmake.
 
heinousjay
2006-10-31 5:57:06 PM  
Well, this certainly disproves global warning once and for all.

let the tire burning commence!
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2006-10-31 5:57:31 PM  
shadesofblack: Okay, so one backwards climatologist still claims global warming is an alarmist hoax a natually occurring and recurring part of the earth's climate and is not necessarily affected by humans.

Fixed that for you.
 
BrotherTheodore
2006-10-31 6:00:27 PM  
"Global warming is still there," he said. "But this year, natural variability, especially El Niño, overwhelmed the contribution from global warming."

Yeah.

And I'd bang a different supermodel every night except for that natural variability that just happens to turn me into an ogre at just the wrong moments.
 
MasterThief
2006-10-31 6:01:49 PM  
[image from bengalmrl.tripod.com too old to be available]

Yes, Kool-Aid comes in green, too.
 
lelio
2006-10-31 6:03:01 PM  
shadesofblack Okay, so one backwards climatologist still claims global warming is an alarmist hoax.

And another farker apparently can't read. Where does he state that the oceans haven't warmed in the last 30 years? It has to do with why it is happening.
 
RocketRod
2006-10-31 6:03:15 PM  
jarrett: Here's a crazy concept:

Modern computer users have so much extra crap plugged in these days (CPU, CRT/LCD screen, PDA, MP3, Printer, Scanner, Cell Phone, etc.)... and that's just on their desktop! If anyone's to blame for "global warming" it's all the gadget geeks out there who're wasting electricity in an effort to allay their fears of having small cawks.
 
March_Hare
2006-10-31 6:03:31 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Fixed that for you.

...but without refuting his point that one lone dissenter does little to undermine the credibility of current climate change research.
 
BrotherTheodore
2006-10-31 6:03:38 PM  
jarrett: Here's a crazy concept: Modern computer models are far more complex (by orders of magnitude) than anything available before 1975, and our understanding of climatology has actually increased over the past 30 years.

Here's another crazy concept.

Someone will be using that exact excuse to explain away today's fear mongering in another 30 technologically advanced years.
 
ambercat
2006-10-31 6:04:24 PM  
Actually selling out to the oil companies is a lot more profitable. There's far more cash to be had in 'refusing to be a chicken little' then there is fighting over the scraps put out by a gov't which seems to hate funding independant research of any kind. Oil companies meanwhile are flush with cash.

From everything I've heard (from people in the field) most of the 'climate deniers' are in somebody's pocket and making far more cash then prof's with a research grant, and generally don't mix in a serious way with the other academics at all. Of course that's one part of the climate debate that's mostly left out.
 
Multi-Vitamin
2006-10-31 6:04:32 PM  
I was wondering where the eventual "Hey, whatever happened to those RECORD SUPER DUPER HURRICANE SEASON OMGWTFBUSHBBQ!! people are?" would be.

Guess this is it.

/points....laughs

//hides from black helicopters
 
Angostura
2006-10-31 6:04:40 PM  
Dancin_in_Anson

You don't get it do you? No one. NO ONE denies that the climate has changed in the past due. What is under debate is whether human activity is a significant factor in the current rapid change.

Fires also occur naturally in nature. But I presume if someone set fire to your home, you wouldn't sit there shrugging, saying 'well fires occur in nature'
 
Vosh
2006-10-31 6:05:17 PM  
You can make an easy million selling anti-intellectual books. Ask any creationist. Scientists don't get money from anyone unless it's through grants. Scientists don't titilate people or play to their emotions.
 
jay_vee
2006-10-31 6:05:47 PM  
2006-10-31 05:45:59 PMshadesofblack


Okay, so one backwards climatologist

I wouldn't dismiss it so offhandly.

He seems to only be looking at one thing - cosmic rays - and ignoring everything else (which is not a great way of looking at climate - you won't find any of the computer models doing that). I don't see any evidence this has passed peer review. But I wouldn't completely dismiss it until it has been submitted for peer review and has passed or failed.

Until then, it's a meaningless opinion that could be based on good science or not.
 
hockeyguy3066
2006-10-31 6:06:14 PM  
Can anyone link a reputable site with scientific date on global warming, because I'm partially convinced it is another media-out-to-scare-the-jesus-back-into-us, and my google-fu is... well, lets not sugar coat things, lazy.
 
zachwampler
2006-10-31 6:08:45 PM  
Here's a website: www.exxonsecrets.org for consideration.
 
totalsecurity
2006-10-31 6:09:41 PM  
Angostura

You don't get it do you? No one. NO ONE denies that the climate has changed in the past due. What is under debate is whether human activity is a significant factor in the current rapid change.

Now now, don't be trying to bring facts into this. Everyone knows humans caused the melting of ice caps 10,000 years ago, the destruction of the Dinosaurs, and Mars becoming a barren world.
 
Irregardless
2006-10-31 6:10:40 PM  
I blame Bush
 
elroy1
2006-10-31 6:11:05 PM  
Climate change is a fact, no doubt. Is it the fault of humans? No. We could all die in a fire tomorrow and the climate would still change. This "global warming" hysteria is driven by guilt and the mass media that enjoys having something, anything that they can erupt into a do or die situation. It is absurd. Everthing in industry we do today is done cleaner and with much more regard for nature. What more do you want? Answer: going back to living in caves.
 
olddinosaur
2006-10-31 6:12:55 PM  
Sort of reminds me of drug "research".

If you research drug abuse in America, your conclusions DAMN WELL BETTER say that there is not enough money being spent, and more government action is needed--------unless at the very least, you want to be cut off from all further funding, and denounced as a quack.

Makes me wonder why they bother to do the research, just type out the conclusuions and fake the data to fit. These days no one is smart enough to call your bluff and prove it.

The rooster does not cause the sunrise, but from the rooster's point of view it would be handy to convince you that it did; the retirement plan for roosters is not at all that generous.
 
sbf2009
2006-10-31 6:13:10 PM  
Irregardless

Here, Here. CHIMPEACH!!! He's destroying our environment with his evil weather machine and oil price change button.
 
vygramul
2006-10-31 6:13:55 PM  
OK, in all seriousness, you think that any of these guys on either side wouldn't LOVE a fistful of millions for climate research?

Sorry, but the scientific consensus (to the degree there's a scientific consensus on ANYTHING) is fairly robust. We ignore it at our own peril. Conservatives wanted more evidence for AIDS too. Look where that got us. Thought it was funny until it turned out blind religious wishful thinking was (YET AGAIN) wrong.

However, I don't find Kyoto acceptable. Agreeing not to let Japan, Europe, and the US to cut our necks but allow China and India to do so really isn't much of a solution. There's a perfectly good economic model that involves pollution credits that can be freely bought and sold between industries (pushed by that bastion of liberal-think the Wall Street Journal), but environmentalists incapable of complex non-binary thought find any solution that doesn't cut pollution across the board as morally offensive, even if the end-state is the same.

Let's not throw out the economic baby with the bathwater, but Christ do we really need yet more tests to confirm that the bathwater is H20 with exactly 1.00% feces instead of 0.50% before agreeing maybe we shouldn't be wallowing in it?
 
mrvikings
2006-10-31 6:14:08 PM  
Thank God we can all finally agree that global warming is BS. Now I can get back to my gas-guzzler and throw my empties out the window!
 
azazyel
2006-10-31 6:14:15 PM  
"but the real problem we're seeing is the significant cutbacks in federal grants." He explained that fifteen years ago, 20 to 30 percent of all research proposals received significant federal support. The level is no closer to 10 percent. For scientist and researchers, this means more time spent raising money and less time on research. It also means that each year, more and more promising avenues of research are cut off- especially the high-risk research that may ultimately yield the biggest rewards.

-DR. Robert Langer, and Institute Professor of chemical engineering at MIT and one of the nation's foremost scientists. As quoted by Barack Obama from "The AUDACITY of HOPE" p 166
 
paisley
2006-10-31 6:15:30 PM  
I went to a talk by a prominent Canadian climate change skeptic last month.. His arguments ranged from blatant lies to presenting information in misleading ways to making comparisons to things completely unrelated to climate. If he actually believed what he was saying, I would like to know why he would present information in this way.

To the people who say the changing climate is soley due to natural processes, please present some references to peer-reviewed articles with the evidence that natural and anthropogenic climate change must be mutally exclusive.
 
ronaprhys
2006-10-31 6:15:38 PM  
Okay - so we've got evidence that humans have influenced climate change? Have we increased its normal rate by 10%? 50%?

Alternatively, has our influence brought about quicker warming by 10 years? 50 years? Is there anything we could've done to stop it? And if so, at what point?
 
Rakishi
2006-10-31 6:16:04 PM  
Everthing in industry we do today is done cleaner and with much more regard for nature.

...which still isn't that much regard given just how much industry we have not to mention that what is done today is not what was being done for the past 100 years.
 
Ghost of Christmas Presents
2006-10-31 6:16:25 PM  
FTFA: Trenberth countered that Gray is not a credible scientist.

"Not any more. He was at one time, but he's not any more,"

I don't know a lot about global warming, but I'm pretty sure a scientist doesn't become inherently incredible by disagreeing with another scientist, especially in an area as hotly debated and uncertain as global warming.
 
dbaggins
2006-10-31 6:17:51 PM  
has this thread devolved into DIA posting his same links and then arguing that the climate has cycles nad therefore we should all just go home ?
 
mrvikings
2006-10-31 6:18:05 PM  
All that global warming BS is from the hot air from paisley.
 
dbaggins
2006-10-31 6:18:38 PM  
Oh, I see the 30 year old "Ice age coming" rebuttal has been made to imply climate science is all BS.
 
koan
2006-10-31 6:19:37 PM  
Lets see, who should I trust?

1- corrupt politicians and gas companies with an obvious agenda
2- Most scientists
 
BaconBits
2006-10-31 6:21:35 PM  
And referring to the "ice age" of the 70s, guess why many of the global warming "statistics" start out..."since the 1970s..." it's because it was abnormally cold then. And now that it's returns to normal...ai Carumba!
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.