Climate Science not settled

[thebaldfacts]

[Tannin]

^ Not refuted because you can't refute it 'coz it's true.

[Wokko]

[David]

Cool. Do they have one about the gravity cult? Or the quantum physics cult?

[Wokko]

[Tannin]

Gravity was discovered* 300 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted.

Evolution was discovered about 170 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. Even today, there are still loony die-hards bravely denying overwhelming evidence - many of these loons are also prominent climate deniers - but very few scientists, and practically no scientists with relevant expertise.

Germ theory was discovered about 150 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. It has slowly won broad acceptance amongst the general public, but to this day there are weird people who still don't get it.

Continental drift was discovered about 100 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. It wasn't fully accepted by scientists until about 30 years ago, and still hasn't fully percolated through into the popular mind. These things take time.

Quantum physics was discovered less than 100 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted. It was massively controversial for the first 50 years or so and remains disputed to this day, albeit to a rapidly diminishing extent. Partly this can be ascribed to the overwhelming success of all manner of technologies which depend on the understanding of quantum interactions for their very function (including, for example, the screen you are reading these words on), but as always, a very large part of the modern consensus stems from the mere passage of the years and, one by one, the death of the old guard physicists who couldn't get their minds around it. (Einstein himself, despite having possibly the finest mind of the century, was just a little bit too old for quantum theory and never quite managed to come to terms with it.) Practically no-one without scientific training is able to understand erven the basics of quantum physics and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect it to ever enter the public consciousness unless we somehow dramarically improve the standard of secondary science education.

Climate science was discovered less than 50 years ago, and only accepted by most scientific experts around 20 years ago. Some - a remarkably small number given the recent nature of the discoveries - continue to hold fast to their old views despite the mountain of evidence and, as always, we will have to wait for them to die off. As with so many other great discoveries, the public understanding lags well behind that of the experts.

* I'm using the term "discovered" as shorthand for "first understood in terms recognisably similar to modern scientific understanding".

[Tannin]

[Wokko]

There is an insane amount of money in climate change. Here's some graphs on the amounts spent only by the US Government.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

Anything provided by oil companies or whoever the latest bugbear may be is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions poured into climate change science and tech from governments. Do you think any scientist working for an institution that receives millions in government funding to prove anthropogenic climate chage is going to come out and say "nope, not happening".

Are climate scientists who have received these millions and built careers pushing this stuff going to come out and say "oops, I was wrong". No, because science is a field that is full of money, ego and corruption just like any other.

Meanwhile skeptics, dissenters and questioners are shut out of funding, ridiculed for even studying and questioning and fired from positions.

I don't usually bring up this stuff because I'd rather play the ball than the man, but this "deniers funded blah blah" shit keeps being trotted out and the money flows much more freely towards those toeing the line.

[Tannin]

Sigh. You really need to do your research before you repeat rubbish like that. May I recommend this article as an introduction"

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

Or this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-money-changes-climate-debate/

Or this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

[watt price tully]

Exxon. In the words of Eric Idle "say no more".

[David]

[Mugwump]

You'll never get the politics out of science. Galileo had some problems of that nature, as did Socrates. In a sense, it does not matter if different views and hypotheses are tested, as long as data is accurate and as long as there are scientists whose prime loyalty is to science and not to the political interests of their funding source. Happily, the truth will out, and lots of people I trust say that this is a real risk. Even people I know who work for large oil companies accept that it's very likely, and accept that they need to develop strategy in light of that fact (eg by getting out of coal and into natural gas).

I'm doubtful that governments want to see climate change proven. Most politicians woudl be delighted to clear their desks of an issue that presents no end of possible headaches re energy, economic, and international affairs etc. I am sceptical of the tendency for government to enlarge itself at the citizen's expense, but I don't sense that govt funding on this issue demands a one-way answer.

[Wokko]

The pressure on dissenters to conform is enormous, here's an article about a scientist whose views I largely subscribe to (Earth warming, humans have some impact, earth has been warmer in the past, worry about dealing with that, not trying to stop it).

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1&referrer=

Money and grants are incredibly important to established sciences, both in University, government science institutes like the CSIRO. Those who question global warming orthodoxy are harrassed, ostracized, defamed (always accused of accepting money from Big Oil...always) and often fired or have their contract not renewed.

Denying that scientists are under enormous pressure NOT to question the Climate Change orthodoxy is exactly like denying Gravity or a spherical Earth because unlike climate science, we're not relying on computer models or flawed and tweaked data sets, we have the scientists themselves telling us what is happening. The green brigade just don't want to hear it.

[Skids]

[Mugwump]