Wells Hall Off Topic Board

First off, I really don't understand why people have a problem with Gore making money. Isn't that what capitalism is all about? There are people out there making millions from all sorts of crap. You may not like what he is selling but doesn't he have the right to sell it?

Do you have any idea how grants and contracts work? Do you honestly think that million dollar research grants go to the pockets of the scientist themselves? They may get a fraction of their salary paid and maybe travel expenses but the bulk of the money goes to pay for equipment, staff, graduate students, sub-contractors, overhead, etc. They are certainly not making massive profits and living the life of luxury.

If new evidence arose to "prove" them wrong then I would expect them to critique the new data, verify the results themselves, look at their own data and see how they might have been misled and carry on. If the data showed they were wrong, then there would be funding available to investigate the next possible explanation. The motivation is the next challenge.

What possible motive would executives of fossil fuel based companies have to admit they were wrong regarding their company's impact on climate?

1. At this point I have no idea what you're talking about.

2. Read the links.

3. Again, refer to the links. You provided an unsupported assertion (logical fallacy) while I linked to research.

4. Your attack ad hominem (logical fallacy) of Hanson has nothing to do with the research on the costs of action compared to the costs of inaction or the quality of his research.

You do understand that 97% of practicing climatologists say we're changing the climate, right?

1. Untrue, many other scientists are at least trained to recognize potential flaws in some basic methodology, including statistical analysis.
3. You keep making statements like this. I'd love for you to supply some links.

I am microbiologist, and plenty people in this field like to try and connect dots with our field and global climate change. Does this make them not trustworthy if they produce data that they feel points towards climate change? Microbiology and climate change are pretty far apart, yet if you read some paper from people doing modeling and other studies within the field they often just to connect the two concepts.

Faculty at universities are often on a 9 month appointment so they are technically not paid over the summer. They often pay themselves a month or two summer salary since they are actually working during that time. Scientists at research institutes are often on what's called soft money and have to obtain all or part of their salary from grants and contracts.

Microbes have a significant impact on climate change - both good and bad. Many of the potential solutions are going to involve microbes.

I don't think anyone has said the world will cease to exist due to global warming. I think the general viewpoint is that life as it exists now will cease to exist. Mankind may or may not survive in some form. Only time will tell on that score. Microbes, yeah I think you are right. They will adapt and continue. At least until the sun goes nova and wipes out all the inner planets that is.

Yes, I know what you were saying about microbes and climate change. You were not likely to get a straight response from CV and I took the opportunity to inject a little science since I happened to have that particular SGM pamphlet on my desk at the time.

Yes, the details of how grants are spent is trivial but the general public has so many misconceptions about funding and where the money really goes. If a PI is on a 9 month appointment, even if he/she spreads the payments over 12 months, that pay is for the work they did during the academic year and not during the summer so they certainly have the right to seek salary for the work they do during the summer. Whether the PI includes summer salary in their grants can depend on a lot of factors ranging from their university contract to the funding agency they are working with.

With that rational much of science and medicine as we know it today would not exist because the claims people made would not be worth enough for anyone to feel they need to investigate or listen. The concept behind that idea is very nice. It makes sense. However, in my opinion, science is much more interdisciplinary. Many of the fields are connected in ways fair beyond what the average human thinks about. Environmental microbiology is deeply tied with climate change and ecosystems, but according to you the only real data they can discuss is that of the microbe. Yet, to fully understand the scoop of what is happening with your project you often happen to discuss biogeochemical cycles, waste remediation, disease, and other things. This is why papers will include multiple different professors that helped collaborate and talk on the project. But I still think the value of what they are saying is worth something.

Now in the scoop of applying this rational to this conversation, it is a little more useful. But if you use that rational you must not have many conversation because no one is an expert in everything. This is why you must take what people say with a grain of salt. Apply what they say and research it. Many of the people arguing global climate change on here have provided papers and solid articles discussing why it is relevant. If you please I can also provide plenty of articles published in highly reputable journals (from people who's PhD is in a relative field) discussing why you should care. Now if someone is reading these types of journal/articles on a consistent basis I would be willing to listen to them. Generally, they will be fairly well informed on the topic. Most people arguing for global climate change (the ones I have met) are pretty knowledgeable people. They argue because they have a grasp on what they are reading and are fairly knowledgeable in the area. The ones that are not A) don't care, B) don't understand, or C) choose to go on with what they are doing until it changes. If someone in this conversation has said something overly outlandish that contradicts what the currently state of science is saying please call them out. There are always a few extreme examples, but if anything your argument is only a way to protect yourself against something you don't care to believe.

I am shocked that you Warmists are completely ignorant of the arguments made by the climate change skeptics. Have you been living in caves the last several years?

Here is a good site by a critic of the statistical analyses made by leading warmists. He does not claim to be a climatologist. He is a recognized expert in statistical analysis.

http://climateaudit.org/

Here is another website I just found. Can't vouch for it. Seems to touch on the main points of the skeptics anyway. Do your own research on the skeptics and explain why are they are wrong if you don't like it.

http://www.climategate.com/

I knew someone was going to say that. He never claimed to be a climatologist. He is an expert in statistical analysis. He has challenged the statistical methods and sampling used to create the infamous hockey stick graph that was an important tool used to sell the Warmist theory.

He doesn't dispute that some warming has occurred. I don't believe has has rejected the Warmist theory outright. He has only challenged some the methods that some of the Warmists have used to support their findings. He is well qualified to do so.

YOU just said that scientists other than climatologists are unable to comment on GCC. Now they are?