[TerraHertz]

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt

Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that CO2 lags temp, not the other way round.

It's the same old story - figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.

[jbooth]

"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer."

So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective.

Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money? Or, if they know climate science, they could probably just call the coal industry and build graphs saying the opposite for 10X what they're making right now.

So the reality's actually the exact opposite of your statement.

[enko]

I think what you say is wrong. I am reasonably confident that in any middling govt job, eg school teacher, in which advancement relies on lip service for the status quo, you would be sure to see 95% support for same.

"Trying to make money off a scam" is way too strong. "Trying to keep their heads down and fit in" maybe. I can see that happening, sure. BTW I am neither for nor against global warming†, just wanted to disagree with your thesis.

† I really just don't know what to think.

[ced]

Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having a lot of grad students, etc.

All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his field had been corrupted that way.

I agree that Science is our best hope for understanding climate, but let's not idealize it.

[jbooth]

Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case? Total meal ticket. Everyone loves the David beats Goliath story when David wins.

The problem isn't incentives, it's evidence. The overwhelming majority of evidence points towards an existing warming trend that's exacerbated by CO2.

[ced]

In solar science, the reason we get so much money is that satellite-launching agencies would like us to produce a "solar weather forecast", because solar eruptions can severely damage equipment in orbit. The top scientist I mentioned earlier had a paper that basically said:

"Solar weather forecasting is much more complicated than anticipated. The medium-term prospects are grim."

He bitterly complained that his paper was ignored. All the other scientists were busy making (possibly hopeless) predictions and applying for more grants. See also: the AI winter.

Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case?

The issue here is that in a complex field, with such incredible uncertainty, when do we ever have a truly "convincing case"? Who's to be the judge on that? Hacker News readers? The government? So that leaves us with the other scientists. If they are any good, they'll graciously acknowledge the challenger's criticism. But if they are heavily invested in the status quo, they might find it easier to just ignore you.

I love science. But I'm uneasy its politicization. We've discussed a prominent scientist's resignation from the American Physical Society before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775143 The top comment was great.

[16s]

The scam is this... they all own stock in Toyota.

The same people who cannot accurately predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow know with 100% certainty that the polar ice caps will melt if I don't buy a Prius.

[shadowfox]

> The same people who cannot accurately predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow know with 100% certainty that the polar ice caps will melt if I don't buy a Prius.

Citation?

[lutorm]

You mean I should believe a huge stream-of-consciousness ascii file over scientific papers? Sorry, that's not going to fly with me.

And your money argument doesn't work. Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?

[enko]

> Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?

Are you seriously saying that every single person who has ever questioned the establishment line on AGW has a financial interest in some kind of carbon emitting industry? Bollocks. I am not a "believer" or a "denier" but rather a skeptic, of both sides, whom I find to be very agenda-driven.

Now you might think I'm an idiot, and fair enough, but my argumentativeness is in no way whatsoever driven by financial interests. I don't think I am alone in that. Please factor that into your thinking.

[lutorm]

Please. I didn't say "every single person" any more than you did.

I'm exactly like you. Except that I happen to generally think that the vast majority of climate scientists probably are honest and know what they are doing.

But neither you nor me are pushing our opinion in the media, in congress, etc. So we're not really relevant to your argument, neither of us.

Let's think about who have financial interests, shall we:

On the "would prefer a world where fossil fuels are fine and dandy all around" side we have entities like oil and automobile companies, which just so happen to be some of the largest and most powerful organizations in the world.

On the "would prefer the world be going to hell" side we have... green-tech startups? Maybe climate scientists have a slight incentive because research funding is probably easier to get if people generally think an issue is important. But that might have been true 20 years ago. Nowadays I bet you'd get as much funding really proving there's nothing to worry about, lots of politicians would like that to be true. For the oil companies, on the other hand, there's no silver lining, they need to sell less oil and that'll come right out of their bottom line.

If we now compare the amount of money in climate research grants with oil company profits, it is at least to me pretty clear which side I think has the largest financial interest.

[ced]

figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.

How do you know the people behind the link you gave aren't self-interested?

Besides, just because a foolish/corrupted person says X, doesn't mean that NOT X is true.

[TerraHertz]

Ha. Quite a few people getting upset about my post. <yawn> 'huge stream-of consciousness ascii list', etc. Ha ha ha! Points:

* It's TWO lists. Pay attention.

* They're not 'stream of consciousness', they're chronological archives of links to AGW related articles, posts, papers, documentaries, etc.

* They're ascii because that works best for maintaining such a record. Deal with it.

* They're 'huge' because there's been so much going on in the AGW discussion, especially since the CRU emails story broke. I'm not in any way trying to present a convenient summary, but an archive of events. Deal with that too.

Also,can't help laughing at the poor sods who still believe (or pretend) that '95% of climate scientists agree AGW exists and is due to CO2' twaddle. Yeah, if they did I'd have been wasting my time keeping such lists.

However,there's no such consensus, only a small number of individuals pretending they represent a near-universal consensus. And being supported in that effort by various media and journals. As becomes clear to anyone who actually looks into the matter. Which could involve reading through a 'huge list of references'- heaven forbid that it might require actual effort. Or that anyone would dare to subvert the 'consensus' by providing a convenient list of dissenting resources.