The Science and Politics of Climate Change

[CRAPCANNONS]

"Organized Crime in Charge of EU Carbon Trade, Europol Says":

/watch?v=oL-e33oaI94&feature=c­hannel_video_title

[QWQWQW603]

over U.S. laws laughs the whole world

[cinemaus]

Hulme's work also helps me think about climate beyond a physical phenomena. Sure, climate and climate change is measurable, but climate is also a cultural construct, based on our values, morals, etc. It makes it hard to understand science because we're not just talking carbon ppm, but how we view the world. Behavioral & cognitive sciences, media, psychology -- a lot more work is needed there. Hulme is pushing us to think in those directions.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Markbotv3:

You just perfectly recreated an argument crafted and disseminated for your benefit. While scientists spend their time and funding doing science, Big Biz and Free Market Orgs spend THEIR money funding lobbyists and think tanks to come up ideas - meritorious or not - to spread to the public to help their cause. The idea you just presented is one such argument, and it has no merit, for reasons I will now explain.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

1) Let's start with the fact that most of the active researchers on this are either academics or government scientists. Tenured professors and government employees enjoy greater job security than any other group in the USA - save lifetime judicial appointments. They're virtually impossible to fire. Also, research universities only get part of their funding from the government; the rest come from tuitions, endowments, etc..

[markbotv3]

the polititians are jumping for joy because they have found a way to massivly increase taxes without causing mass riots and the "scientists" get their big cars jumbo jets and swiss bank accounts...its a classic case of you wash my hands and ill wash yours

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

"the "scientists" get their big cars jumbo jets and swiss bank accounts"

Amazing. When confronted with a detailed, accurate, and rational description of a situation that shows your position is in error, your mind just shuts down and you then repeat your same idea, to an even greater degree, and with even greater force and confidence. That's so stupid that I'd assume that you were joking, except that the internet has sadly taught me that many people really are this arrogant and dumb.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

2) Scientists don't get rich, so greed is not a big issue. In fact, for their education level and intelligence, they chose a career paying less than optimal; they didn't become lawyers or doctors or similar better paid professionals of equal stature. The reason is that science is interesting. It's a good interesting lifestyle, and is sufficiently well paid that one can live comfortably. So while scientists are human, as a group they're self-selected against greed being a dominate motivation.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

3) But like everyone, they're looking out for themselves. Greed might not be an issue, but simple employment might. If global warming were discovered tomorrow to be no serious danger, how many scientists would lose their jobs? The answer is very very few. There were weather and climate research jobs before the first IPCC, and there would continue to be jobs in these fields if global warming became a non-issue. The research focus for most would simply change.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

4) Science doesn't have the same relationship to knowledge that other fields do. Its every facet (public, repeatable, peer reviewed, double blind etc) is designed to minimize/eliminate errors from human bias (intentional or not), and it works extremely well. For the world-wide scientific community to achieve a willful distortion would require a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions - one that would make 9-11 conspiracies theorists say "you guys are crazy and paranoid - that's impossible."

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

5) If a scientist really wants to become famous, get rich from book sales and speaking tours, etc., over all other motivations, then the way to achieve that is to OVERTURN a well established or consensus theory. Thus EVEN IF some scientist had both the will and the means to fudge his results and con the world to suit his personal wealth and glory, his incentive would be to DISPROVE anthropogenic global warming.

[markbotv3]

ahh ha so you admit that your long term goal is to say that their is man made global warming...get the govt to throw billions of dollars at you and at a predetermined time in the future do a complete 180 and say anthropogenic global warming was a "govt" hoax thus getting famous and still getting to keep all them govt checks...evil downright evil shame on you

[evanm8]

it is not seen in the scientific community a "profitable" or "beneficial" for any persn in science to go against the norm. There are some scientists today(Max Planc Institute)that have presented evidence that the world has now entered a stage of cooling, owarming. They, however, receive no media attention, very little scientific attention and no government grants. Saying we are not powerful and have very little impact on this worlds climate is not what governments and the people want to hear....

[hoomelemele]

who is this guy? he is obviously not a real scientist.

[ThinDreamer30]

Who are you? A real scientist?

[bikestu]

Well all i can say is watch "melting perafrost accelerating global warming" this is another point of view

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

This guy is RIGHT ON THE MONEY. It's very encouraging to hear someone try to stress this point. It's a shame that his view is probably too subtle for the scientifically illiterate public to grasp. Science can only tell us how things are and how they'll be under various scenarios, and how confident we can be in their assessments. It says nothing - ZERO - about social values, wise policy, optimal economic choices, or politics.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

It's tragic that greed has driven the powerful to attempt to confuse the public about the scientific case. This has drawn science into fighting politics, where they must battle just to convey the actual situation over the din of the propaganda. This public battle over the science of global warming, when the science hasn't really been in dispute, has been an utter waste. From the start, the public debate SHOULD'VE been over social values, wise policy, and optimal economic choices.

[markbotv3]

hmmm your point is valid...however...arent the scientists funded ENTIRELY by tax payer dollars? so wouldnt it be in their best interest to con the public into funding them? hmmm seems to me like greed and self interest is on BOTH sides of the fence

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Compare all that against the annual budget in the millions Exxon spends on lobbyists, think tanks, etc. to directly influence views of the public and politicians on this issue. And that's just one company. Big Biz fears profit loss from this situation, and reacts as it always does. So there is BIG MONEY AND GREED involved in this issue to be sure, but don't say that applies equally to scientists as to Big Biz and their corporate shills. It just ain't so. Listen to the scientists.

[blueboyblue]

Here the thing about climate change, regardless of whether global warming exists or not, everything global warming demands that we do, we need to do regardless of global warming. If the rest of the world aspires to consume at the rate the USA does, then we are doomed. The earth simply can not sustain that level of consumption. The USA needs to become the most efficient nation on earth, and science needs to devolp new safe energy sources, regardless of whether climate change is real.

[Zoidborg1]

Thats science!! Its the same clapthrap as the flat earth now greenhouse gases. Read a REAL book on it like from the 1960's when this was controversial. Sad world of BS we live in.

[Zoidborg1]

2 degrees will effect us all violently. Look into it don't trust anti-global warming propaganda big business hires phony experts. Science is doing its role if it uses objective examination to predict danger and passes peer revue to gain scientific consensus then share there findings with the world and urge us to act on them.

[jbear3333]

as we come out of this ice age, which historical global climate charts, show we are... can we not expect global warming no matter what??? We have to be prepared not confused

[chaostherie]

And you get your info form where? TV??? are you a scientist? hahaha most likly an office worker...

[rspawn]

we are not coming out of an ice age

[everybodysfavourite]

ya, i like this fora tv~~~

[classic14rider]

Hulme makes several key points: "Science cannot provide us with the script that we all read from -- science is over-reaching its legitimate role. Science can contribute to debates about what constitutes danger, but it cannot tell us what IS dangerous. There's a real danger that we have confounded science's true role with an inappropriate role in relation to climate change."