Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The Scientific System.....Why We Should Be Skeptical About Global Warming

This is partly why we scientists can be skeptical about global warming.....any opinions?

Please explain what peer-reviewed means. Does that mean some editor agrees with the article? Follow the money.......Do you not believe this?

Every scientist in every field knows that when they're being paid to do a study they had better come up with something that will make the people paying the bill happy. Any graduate student knows they had better make their Thesis Advisor happy or they are not going to graduate and get their degree.

You think all global warming skeptics are bought and paid for by big oil? What about climate modelers being paid for by NASA, NOAA? What about everyone seeking grant money? Nothing attracts grant money like a crisis. The more hysterical and urgent the better. I'm not calling these people liars, they're doing what they have to do to survive in our system. People who have been around in the scientific community for a while know this all too well.

Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", he explains this very well. And before you dismiss him as a mere fiction writer, as Al Gore didn't in his Senate testimony, consider that Crichton is an M.D., a doctor. He has more knowledge of science in his little fingernail than Gore does in his entire being.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Global Warming: More On Following The MONEY
Here is another article on the politics and economics of global warming. The more I learn about this whole issue the more appalled I become. Making a little fun about Sheryl Crowe, other Hollywood hypocrites, and Al Gore, is kind of missing the bigger point. This is a serious issue, not just because life on Earth will not come to any quick end because of global warming, and not just because the public is being fooled and misled, but because the laws being proposed are going to waste billions, if not trillions of dollars. Money far better spend elsewhere.

On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007By David Asman
It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.

There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.

So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.

Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.”

Click here to read the entire blog.Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nation

1 comment:

my2cents said...

A peer reviewed article is supposedly one that has been studied and approved by experts in its particular scientific field. In theory, if the results of a study can not withstand the rigorous review, the study doesn't make the cut.
However in the previous IPCC report of 2001, the Mann 'hockey stick', which has since been proved false, was strongly endorsed and celebrated by the counsel. This one report was such a stark contradiction to all that had been previously believed that it should have undergone the most thorough of reviews.
So what does that say about the IPCC peer review process?