CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect

Whether or not Kirkby is correct that the Sun is the cause, he's not denying that there is a problem. He is not denying that global warming is happening too fast for civilization to avoid a lot of pain unless something expensive is done.

From what I can see, any disagreement among scientists is over the cause, not over the giant consequences if we fail to address the problem. For those who deny global warming is a problem, Kirkby is an opponent, not an ally as your pundits pretend.

 

A couple of them speculated. But now there is a consensus and a very broad range of data.

True, but this is science, not common sense. They have the numbers to show that this is very unusual. 2nd answer: You might say that this happened 800 years ago or 5000 years ago or something according to tree rings. But world population, and the amount of effort put into buildings, is a thousand times higher now. The calamity will be far greater.

 

This is a pretty common misconception. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage, much like we see today with news outlets overstating the effects of man-made global warming.

A survey of the scientific literature found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

 

There are 2 ways to do this. 1) In the next half-century, everyone moves farther from the equator and the coasts. Whatever heat level you like, move 400 miles north and you'll still have it. 2) Change the chemicals that factories and cars are emitting. This sounds a lot easier. The captains of industry don't want to because it will be a lot of work and it will cost a lot.

As for the specific line item costs you request, I'm an accountant, not a scientist, damn it, Capt. Kirk! That plan will have to evolve in concert with other nations.

I would like to brag, though, that I have a very specific line item plan for balancing the budget...just copy however it was done last time, in the late Clinton years. Relatively painless. Bush doubled intelligence employees--halve them back. He started wars--end them. He cut taxes for the rich--reverse that.

 

When it comes to the climate change issue, I'm always amazed at (1) how easily non-scientists discard the work that scientists do and act as if they are somehow more in the know than scientists who live the stuff every day and (2) how easily people cite the work of hacks as proof that climate change is not occurring.

That said, you don't get more solid than CERN and some of the other recent articles have been interesting in raising the possiblity that climate change isn't occurring. It will be interesting to see how things pan out as more our understanding gets refined.

The one thing I know for sure is that anyone who says they absolutely know what's going on with climate change is an absolute idiot and shouldn't be trusted.

 

This is a two way street. There are also conflicts of interests from sources of funding specifically to disprove AGW.

No self respecting scientist would take grant money with the stipulation that the research has to prove a certain ideology.

 

How naive.

Dumb as a rock gangsters know better than to walk into a shop and demand money or we break your legs.

Just talk about the hapless shop owners in the "unprotected" neighborhood nearby who are suffering fires, theft and assaults and how unfortunate that all is. After being established, they don't even have to say that much.

Similarly, with BIG organizations (Govt, Business, etc.) that hold purse strings, they (and they are NOT scientists) effectively control everything. Scientists are free to do their research as they like - ON THEIR OWN DIME. And a dime is about all most have. If they want to do real research they need money. And money almost never comes without strings. The more politically important or charged the research the more strings.

And, the BIG's with the money don't have to say anything. Nothing at all. They are established. They are known. What they want and what they need is known. The scientists that give them that get the most money.

 

If what you guys are saying about scientists is true, then why did they react so strongly against the Bush administration revising their findings? The guy held the purse strings and wanted them to discount climate change, but scientists generally reacted strongly against it.

And for what it's worth, funding controls what research gets the money, but it generally does not get to magically say what data the research will yield. Some of you guys have a really skewed idea of how scientists actually work. Granted, it's far from a perfect process, but it's not nearly as biased as you propose.

 

Just to be clear: it's OK to question the science of global warming. Scientists are normally skeptics by nature.

The grant proposal process is nothing like you portray.

Usually proposals are reviewed by a board of scientists, many of which aren't even in the same field (the bias must extend to all scientists!). They're job is purely to evaluate your hypothesis and methods to ensure they are scientifically sound. They have no stake in whether your results support or dispute a theory.

 

And who do you suppose, picks which scientists are on those panels?

 

bluefrog's got it right, for what it's worth.

 

LOL

The 1970's equivalent of People Magazine.