<p>Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.” According to a PBS Frontline report, " According to PBS, Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement".[22]</p>
<p>FF: I was referring to the kind of Beavis and Butthead level “wit” which passes for “skepticism” in public discourse like this - but the small minority of scientists who dispute climate change theory have a few things in common: 1) a dearth of actual, peer-reviewable studies, i.e. “science”, and 2) Lots of adjectives in their writing, directed at an emotional response rather than nuts and bolts science. There’s a lot of actual science being done around atmospheric issues, but it’s being done on details and refinement. If a concrete rebuttal to the consensus on climate change actually existed, what do you think would keep Exxon/Mobil from plastering it on dual page newspaper ads all over the country? It’s no coincidence that the same PR guy who operated the rear guard defense of smoking for Big Tobacco - Steven Milloy - is employed a Fox “News” science columnist while being on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil. The tactics are tried and true. They convinced a majority of Republican Fox viewers in 2003 that WMD’s had actually been found in Iraq - how hard is it to convince those same people that almost all scientists studying climate change are wrong?</p>
<p>You build a model to fit and explain a set of conditions. Then you test the model’s reliability with a new data set. We only have one earth so that makes validation with a new data set a bit difficult. The only validation possible with be waiting for a long time to determine if the model’s predictions were valid. </p>
<p>The issue of past climate shifts cannot be ignored. It doesn’t seem that there is much understanding - just some speculation about the possible effects changes in solar output, volcanic activity and possibily meteor impacts.</p>
<p>Let me get this right. You seem to be claiming that if John Edwards wanted to have an expert witness for one of his trials against a corporation and paid to fly him in to testify plus a per diem charge, that from that point forward - even 15 years later, any scientific work of that expert would no longer be considered? Sounds like a pretty steep price to pay for your expertise. So, naturally, in all fairness, the organizations that look into fees received by Lindzen for his testimony are also exploring the vouchers of the alarmists to see who is paying for their testimony?</p>
<p>“but the small minority of scientists who dispute climate change theory have a few things in common: 1) a dearth of actual, peer-reviewable studies, i.e. “science”, and 2) Lots of adjectives in their writing, directed at an emotional response rather than nuts and bolts science.”</p>
<p>You’ve made a claim but failed to back this up with any data to support it. I would suggest you research every scientist who disputes the alarmism of global warming and list his/her scientific papers on the subject. Short of such documentation, your assertion falls into the Beavis and Butthead category.</p>
<p>I read much of the UN report and one thing struck me–they can’t get their model to work very well actually explaining known historic changes in climate. So I am supposed to believe that it is much better at predicitng the future because why? I run models every day for a living. I know how small changes in the assumptions can significantly impact the results depending on what I want to show.</p>
<p>In a court of law- I assume everyone there is telling the truth and is open to cross examination.
However, we have seen that research funded by corporations is subject to certain interpretations- as is any research- but govt research IMO has less bias than a company which stands to make a profit by certain conclusions</p>
<p>Scientists have ethics standards for research & while erring on the side of caution does not harm biodiversity- erring on the side of do as ye may- does.</p>
<p>Why take that risk?</p>
<p>We have already seen the extinction of plants/animals/birds in our lifetime.
Weve seen the writing on the wall for many more species.
We endure pollution of the water and air and the land from man made causes, causing death and disease because of carelessness, ignorance or malice.
Weve seen restriction of habitat for wildlife, less arable land and less potable water for a exploding human population.
We are depleting resources that have taken millennia to accumulate & environmental conditions are not renewing.</p>
<p>I admit I havent’ done the research myself- and I don’t have a big title or even a college degree to put after my name- but it seems to me, to be common sense-
that if my house is burning, and I attempt to put out the fire, but I am stopped by those who are trying to convince me that I didn’t do anything to cause the fire, so I don’t have to worry about putting it out because it would have happened anyway as part of a “natural cycle”.</p>
<p>How does that help me in anyway to have a place to live?
Even if I am able to put water on part of it- it might save enough of it for me to get time to make other arrangements.
But if the whole thing burns to the ground while they watch- where can I go?
And aren’t they culpable in the result if not the cause?</p>
<p>emerald; now you’re comparing apples to oranges. Not one thing on your list has anything to do with global warming. If we want to expand the topic to include pollution; air and water; elimination of resources; taking land away from other species; etc… this could become a very long thread.</p>
<p>The truth is; scientists have no substantial proof whatsoever that mankind is a major contributor to global warming. There are plenty of scientists who believe global warming; or at least the majority of it; is a natural occurance. Obviously this has been, is, and will be debated for a very long time. And of course, the rational of many is; “Why even take a chance”? Well, sometimes the technology and cost isn’t conducive to such immediate change. Even the scientists that believe that mankind is a major contributor behind global warming, agree that our contribution to CO2 is less than 5%. The argument then becomes that the earth is so “Fragile” that even the 5% is what’s causing the problems with global warming. That is the big debate. Other scientists and laymen don’t believe that it’s all that fragile or that we have such an impact; positive or negative.</p>
<p>Why should laymen even be involved in this discussion, though? I mean, most laymen probably don’t have the right mental tools and training to discuss this properly, anyway.</p>
<p>I mean, some 50% of Americans believe some silly things about biology and science, it doesn’t make them true.</p>
<p>UCLA; you bring up a great point. BUT, because the laymen are the “Customer” and are generally footing the bill for the scientists, politicians, etc… then they generally deserve a say so. I won’t blindly trust anyone just because they are the supposed EXPERT or authority figure. That’s like allowing the Ford Dealer to blindly charge you $500 because you heard a squeak in the car and they fixed it. If you blindly pay them; go for it. Most people want to know what they did to fix the problem.</p>
<p>The same goes with science, politics, etc… The laymen may not need to do the research, experiments, models, etc… That is what the scientists are being paid to do. But, to blindly take the word of the scientist or politician without seeing any hardcore proof is also wrong. If scientists want to claim that mankind is contributing majorly to global warming; and that if we don’t do something about it immediately; such and such will occur; then they need to provide undisputed proof. They’re asking for a major switch economically, politically, and socially on something they can’t prove. That other scientists dispute. etc… That’s why laymen need to be involved. They’re paying the bills. And as such, have every right in the world to know the facts.</p>
Show me where this research was funded by corporations. Receiving travel expenses and per diem consulting fees does not equate to funding research -especially when the charges were incurred over 15 years ago.</p>
<p>“We have already seen the extinction of plants/animals/birds in our lifetime”</p>
<p>Actually, if you believe fossil records, some plants/animals/ birds probably became extinct before our lifetime, even before big oil and the evil capitalist hoards. Almost forgot… I think there were some really BIG lizards that didn’t make the evolution cut, either.</p>
<p>You describe a class principle-agent conflict. However, I contend that a lot of this research, if not most of it, is coming from private sources and therefore should be free and unfettered by common concerns.</p>
<p>I mean, plenty of Americans would probably like to see evolution removed from science curricula, but that would be pure madness. I agree that the title of “scientist” isn’t carte blanche to say anything. But I also don’t know that we should be looking at this as blind support for “experts.” Unfortunately, most people simply are not equipped to look at the data themselves, nor do they have the time. Kind of like medicine or fixing a car. I’m sure most of us are capable of rebuilding a transmission, given enough time and the right tools-- but that’s the problem. Most of us have neither the time nor the tools. Similarly, we have to give some leeway to scientists with this sort of problem.</p>
<p>But of course you as the principle are welcome to reign in your agents. But what happens when the agents are also principles and the principles are also agents?</p>
<p>Actually, if you believe fossil records the VAST MAJORITY of species have at some point in time become extinct. It doesn’t mean we want to be part of an end-of-Cretaceous sort of mass extinction, though…</p>
<p>"nor do they have the time. Kind of like medicine or fixing a car. "</p>
<p>Off-topic, but I have to know. I can find the transmission manual but am having a really tough time locating those plans and the factory repair manual for humans. If you know where I can locate these, let me know. They would be very useful in my medical practice.</p>
<p>By the way. I agree with the statement that most laymen lack the mental tools to discuss certain things.</p>
<p>I spend a lot of time reading scientific literature. (None of my efforts even touch on climatology.) In general, it is easy to become a skeptic. Much of the scientific literature is poorly done. In our world of public or perish and the world of research grantsmanship, this should not be a surprise. We are all about quick publications and a lot of them. It is also too easy to jump on the latest scientific bandwagon. This makes it easy to get research grants and publications and to be accepted onto committees and to give scientific presentations. None of that is very easy for the researchers who want to try a new approach.</p>
<p>Doctors learn from textbooks, just like mechanics. Theirs is just a more highly regulated (and rightly so) and higher entry (and rightly so) trade.</p>
<p>You (principle) hire the doctor (agent) because you don’t have the time or inclination to become a doctor yourself and treat your condition. Similarly, the doctor goes to the mechanic (same sort of principle-agent relationship) because she doesn’t have the time or inclination to learn how to fix her transmission.</p>
<p>But given enough time, most doctors could become mechanics.</p>