Climate Change Poll

[BlasterBates]

woo another vote this morning.

Yaa boo sucks to the AGW crowd.

[pjclarke]

An argument often heard in the fruitlooposphere* is that the scientific community has financial incentive to push the consensus view that humans are responsible for climate change. The idea is that toeing the consensus line translates into more research funding.

There is, of course, never any evidence presented with this argument. Rather, it is presented as "common sense": "Well, of course they're just trying to get more funding ..."

So let's apply a little common sense and see how the argument fares.

First, consider that the scientific community has been saying for several years that our understanding of the climate system is quite good. Not perfect, mind you, but good enough that many scientists feel we should be taking action now to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the strength of this conclusion, many politicians have started saying "the science is settled."

Does that sound like a recipe for getting lots of research funding? Saying that we have a pretty good understanding of the climate system?

In fact, it should be obvious that the scientific community would be better off saying we're not sure that climate change is caused by humans: "It might be human-induced, but it might not be. What we really need is more money for models, satellites, and analysis." I can imagine a bipartisan groundswell of support for massive funding of climate science. That's the way to maximize funding. You don't say that the science is settled. You say it's unsettled.

And what would happen if the scientific community said definitively that humans were not to blame? I don't think funding would go down much, for the following reason. The climate is still warming, and if it is not human, then what is it? Obviously, we need to do a lot of research to figure out what is driving the climate, and how the climate will evolve over the next century. Enormous amounts of research on geoengineering and adaptation will be necessary, regardless of whether the cause is human.

So, it doesn't appear that the scientific community has done itself any favors by concluding that humans are responsible for climate change.

It should be clear that, like most skeptical arguments, this one doesn't stand up to an application of common sense.

Andrew Dessler.

[shaunbhoy]

Stand to reason. As you move from 'General Public' to 'Active Climate Researcher' (whose very existence is dependant upon him/her receiving additional research funds from malleable Governments itching to make a connection in order that punitive taxation can be levied on guilt-ridden electorates the world over, the proportion who answer yes to the question Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? increases, ending up at 97%.

FTFY

Keep the Research Funding coming and we will continue to unearth "trends" that appear to back any given contention.

[pjclarke]

Stands to reason. As you move from 'General Public' to 'Active Climate Researcher' the proportion who answer yes to the question Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? increases, ending up at 97%.



Source Given the degree of informedness round here I am mildly surprised the correct answer got as many votes as it did ... ;-)

[BlasterBates]

I know it wouldn't be applicable to most here who like to argue about AGW, but where's the "I'm intelligent enough to realise I don't know enough to know for sure" option?

Although I'll vote whichever way you want if it'll shut you up.

Do you have a mainframe access that forces you read everything to get to the threads you want to read?

I find it quite fascinating you keep reading and posting in boring threads.

[shaunbhoy]

Although I'll vote whichever way you want if it'll shut you up.

What options need to be added to get YOU to shut up?

You are always piling into threads that you claim don't interest you and chiming in with irrelevant soundbites.

Honestly................isn't there a God-Bothering Forum you'd feel more at home in?

[Mich the Tester]

"I'm intelligent enough to realise I don't know enough to know for sure"

[SIZE="1"]

whs

[DimPrawn]

Even I'm bored with it now!

[d000hg]

Let's settle this once and for all with a CUK consensus.

I know it wouldn't be applicable to most here who like to argue about AGW, but where's the "I'm intelligent enough to realise I don't know enough to know for sure" option?

Although I'll vote whichever way you want if it'll shut you up.

[TimberWolf]

I'd have preferred a multiple choice poll.

[TykeMerc]

I voted the nearest option to "I'm not convinced that the evidence and science is comprehensive".

I don't deny that CO2 emitted by human civilisation might be having an effect on the global climate, but I've yet to see evidence that it probably is let alone that it certainly is responsible. Climate changes are a normal part of how the planet functions, you only have to take a look at the fossil records to see that.

[Mich the Tester]

No Andyw option, no vote.

[BlasterBates]

Let's settle this once and for all with a CUK consensus.