Percentage of climatologists

[JustTheFacts]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

And how could you even believe that that was possible? The APS are scientists. They're not going to suddenly say, oh, yeah, all those papers that were published on climate change over the last 20 years were erroneous are they?

There has been no flurry of papers finding the the physics of optics has fallen through and the greenhouse effect is now not a fact.

There has been no flurry of papers finding that the climate sensitivity is now much lower than it has been modelled to be currently and has been calculated to be in the past.

Therefore, global warming is real and is caused by the anthropogenic enhanced greenhouse effect, unless you're going to claim that science is rubbish.

Like a homoeopath or creationist.

There are three factors to consider here: 1. Self-fullfilling Prophecy; 2. Economics; and 3. Pride.

1. Self-fullfilling Prophecy - people see what they want to see. Climate models are highly dependant on widely fluctuating variables and feedback loops. Any climatologist can tweak the variables to get any outcome that they want to get. Their peers are focused on global warming, so they make their models predict global warming.

2. Economics - climatologists have discovered a cash-cow. When I was writing scientific papers, I was always taught to add, "More research is required to fully understand the processes involved." Why? Because science is funded by grants. Grants are given to areas of science that politicians deem appropriate. Scientists are ALWAYS looking for their next paycheck through a new grant or a grant extension. The more that the general public is freaked out about global warming, the more the grants come flooding in. Do you think that there is more than a little incentive to keep the gravy train rolling? Do you think that if a climatologist colleague tried to refute global warming, he would be ostracized out of fear that the money would stop rolling in?

3. Pride - you now have piles of scientists that wrote papers expounding on global warming. Are they going to humiliate themselves by recounting what they wrote?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

There are three factors to consider here: 1. Self-fullfilling Prophecy; 2. Economics; and 3. Pride.

1. Self-fullfilling Prophecy - people see what they want to see.

It would be unusual if after twenty years no new blood had some in and seen the new way though wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Climate models are highly dependant on widely fluctuating variables and feedback loops.

Which variables in a climate model fluctuate widely?

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Any climatologist can tweak the variables to get any outcome that they want to get.

No they have to hindcast accurately. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support.

Sensitivity analysis of the remaining uncertainties in the inputs still leaves no doubt about the basics, that warming is anthropogenic and that climate sensitivity is about 1.5 to 4.5°C for a doubling of CO2.

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

2. Economics - climatologists have discovered a cash-cow. When I was writing scientific papers, I was always taught to add, "More research is required to fully understand the processes involved." Why? Because science is funded by grants. Grants are given to areas of science that politicians deem appropriate.

Then there wouldn't be anyone in the USA claiming that global warming was occuring would there?
The Government has notoriously tried to hide the findings of climate scientists.
But climate science hasn't entirely come from students seeking grants. There are a lot of academics with salaries and tenure. No one has produced a paper refuting global warming, despite the fame and recognition (and so future salary) that that would bring (assuming it were right).

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Scientists are ALWAYS looking for their next paycheck through a new grant or a grant extension.

Not all of them. Not even most of them. Most of them are looking for truth, and perhpas recognition.

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

The more that the general public is freaked out about global warming, the more the grants come flooding in. Do you think that there is more than a little incentive to keep the gravy train rolling?.

I think that the scientific community are much more freaked out than the public, because of the denialist propaganda put into the popular press by fossil fuel interests.

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

Do you think that if a climatologist colleague tried to refute global warming, he would be ostracized out of fear that the money would stop rolling in?

I doubt it. People who have looked for evidence of such have failed to find anything systematic. (For example this guy:Climate science: Sceptical about bias)

Do you have any examples of any example of grants being turned down, papers not being published, job applications refused, or invitations to speak at conferences halting because of this?

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

3. Pride - you now have piles of scientists that wrote papers expounding on global warming. Are they going to humiliate themselves by recounting what they wrote?

Quite the opposite. Producing sound evidence that the status quo is wrong is how fame and recognition is earned in science. If someone had such evidence there is no chance that they would sit on it for reasons of pride.

Global warming hangs on:
1) The greenhouse effect.
This is well establish optics, and quantified about a hundred years ago, and has withstood a hundred years of advancing physics and optics with only more precise understanding.

2) That humans are increasing greenhouse gasses.
This is being directly measured, and isotope ratios show that the source is human activity.

3) That the earth is warming.
This is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming.

4) That the consequential warming of (1) and (2) is a significant component (3).
And Models do show this, and I claim that you are overstating their errors.
But it is not just models. Climate sensitivity from increased CO2 has also been calculated from the past record, and estimates have be compared to measurements with Bayesian analysis.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by JustTheFacts

There are three factors to consider here: 1. Self-fullfilling Prophecy; 2. Economics; and 3. Pride.

Plus, if you're argument has reduced to why we shouldn't believe any of the science, you are just not thinking critically enough.

Science has to be the basis. If your argument doesn't stand up against science, it doesn't stand up. Failure to understand this gives us geocentric solar systems, homoeopathy, chiropracty, ghost hunters, dietary supplements, and those little stickers you stick on the outside of batteries or your fuel tank to increase their efficiency. And global warming denial.