I am linking yet another article demonstrating the climate change on Mars and the ensuing melting of its ice caps. I do this not to once again point out the affect that the Sun has on the -- apparently to alarmists, inappropriately named -- Solar System, but to expose the paranoia and desperation of the alarmist crowd.
Case in point, allow me to present exhibit A.... Lori Fenton, one of the researchers in the following article I am citing. To distinguish that Mars warming is nothing like that which Earth is currently experiencing she makes the compelling argument that the temperature change on Mars causes windstorms that then go on to create temperature change which then goes on to melt the caps...huh?
Mars frightens the alarmists because melting caps and rising temperature are two of the biggest points they have to sell anthropogenic warming on Earth. They ignore and dismiss Mars warming cycle as inconsequential and coincidental because if man is not the cause for Earth's current warming cycle then they fear that their American Idol moment will be over and the eco-socialism movement will have been thwarted.
Obviously on the surface one could make the argument that it is all about money, which to a large degree it is. Grant monies have skyrocketed, end of the world climate Armageddon books/movies/concerts are selling like hot cakes, and a billion dollar imaginary trading market in the name of offsetting our collective eco-conscience has been created.
but....
I think it also comes down to basic human emotion, and that for the most part these scientists just want to be loved. Why risk being labelled a skeptic when the warm embrace of consensus is calling on line one and The Today Show is on line two.
What I'm getting at is that if it turns out that anthropogenic warming is as authentic as a Monday morning shift stripper's mammalian protruberances then their fifteen minutes will be up. They will once again be relegated to labs in the University's basement and the corner of cocktail party conversations. They will go back to being the anonymous nobodies that they once were, and I say that not as a slight, but as a fact, as there is perhaps no greater fan of the lost Age of American Anonymity than I.
The Age of Lights Camera Action is ever corrupting as can be evidenced, for example from any televised court case or the plethora of books by former members of the intelligence community (who had signed non-disclosure and confidentiality contracts) and the scientific community is not immune.
Fame is the bastard of accomplishment and today glaciologists and climatologists are frickin rock stars... yesterdays brain surgeons and rocket scientists if you will, and if it turns out that AGW is a fraud it will all be gone in an instant. I think that makes their judgement extremely suspect, more so then a check from Greenpeace or ExxonMobil.
EE-Aw!!!
Climate change hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake. Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period. Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena. cont'd
5 comments:
aren't the skeptics the ones who stand to benefit from publicity? aren't they the ones making claims most scientists find outrageous?
yes and yes.
the fact is that despite over 95% of scientists subscribing to the consensus view on antrhopogenic global warming, almost half of the quotes in *mainstream* *liberal* papers like the NYT come from skeptics.
to summarize:
- there are much fewer skeptics than consensus-view scientists
- skeptics receive a disproportionate share of media coverage
...so, only a moron would embrace the consensus view as a means of gaining publicity.
i applaud your efforts to scrutinize the motives of your ideological enemies, but your argument here is illogical.
q.e.d. biotches.
aren't the skeptics the ones who stand to benefit from publicity?
NO they are not. They face public ridicule, being professionally ostracized, loss of grants/tenure etc etc. They have more to lose, and for the most part contrary to Gary's constant complaints of Crude cronyism I feel they do it for the pure pursuit of science.
Media bias towards global warming skepticism? Youve got to be kidding me. Thanks for the laugh.
You missed my point. Im not saying they are intentionally seeking publicity (ok some of them are) I am saying it is a corrupting side effect of their sheepish acquiescence, and that the path of least resistance of following the herd has generated certain psychological rewards that would otherwise be unavailable if man made warming is proven to be untrue. Which consensus be damned not one lick of evidence has to this date proven.
What they "believe" is unimportant to me. Time and time again throughout mankinds history the scientific consenus has been proven wrong by the lone skeptic. Contrary to the greenies claim that the debate is over, that is not how science works.
The fact is that they want to eat lunch with the "cool" kids" not with the chess and latin club (which in my day were the cool kids -- fuckin a right)and in my mind some of them betray their own conscience and professional integrity to do so. Substitute peer pressure with peer review and you get my drift.
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever" -- Napolean Bonaparte
first, there is a disturbing pattern among skeptics who misrepresent their qualifications and/or expertise. are you suggesting that they are so driven by the pursuit of knowledge that they feel these ethical lapses are justified? you must be joking.
my point is that it's much easier to attract publicity for being a skeptic than falling in line with the millions of scientists who embrace the mainstream view.
yes, it's "safer" to be in the mainstream, and skeptics may be (rightly, in many cases) ostracized but to speculate on people's motivations for their work is, well, idle speculation. unless you have a PhD in psychology or a related field, your opinion is worth as much as mine (well, almost as much as mine, and that, my friend, is a compliment).
second, if almost the entire scientific community holds one position on an issue, but media coverage gives "equal time" to experts on both sides, the media are irresponsibly distorting the debate for the public. in their efforts to seem unbiased, they have, in fact, grossly misrepresented the issue.
but my point was not that there is any media bias toward skeptics (if anything, most journalists embrace the mainstream view); my point was that it's much easier to get your name in the paper if you're a skeptic. it's simple math, really.
third, i think you should re-read thomas kuhn. my reading of him doesn't support the idea that skeptics are eventually going to be proven right because they're skeptics; in fact, if you look back at the history of science, while major shifts and transformations were precipitated by skeptics, most skeptics never effect such a change because they are usually wrong.
i will agree with you that despite the consensus, this debate isn't really over (if you take a long-term view).
but the eventual revolution in our thinking about climate change will most likely be due to advances in techniques and methodologies of data collection and analysis.
If Mars keeps warming up maybe we can move there if Earth becomes uninhabitable.
Your point that it is easier to attract attention as a skeptic is valid, but that they get equal time is not. It reminds me of a the girl in my class that won "most individualistic" because she was black (that and she wore orange leg warmers at a private school)
But your claim that they receive equal attention is ludicrous. The overwhelming coverage leans towards the alarmist viewpoint, and in fact they propagate it with their headlines of MILLIONS MAY DIE or POLAR BEAR STRANDED.
My old resume said I went ot Morehead St. as a goof. Resume fluffing occurs on both sides, it is just that the unhinged left without merits alone to argue on, attack on the issue of credibility, which is fair so long as that is not the only issue, which it seems to be. Exxon Halliburton blah fuckin blah...
I never said that skeptics are always proven right, but rather that they are always the ones to prove the "consensus" wrong and your statement seemed to be in agreement, but I will add that Thomas was a kuhnt.
As far as my right to idly speculate on others motivations...
1) Welcome to The Aurora
2) Along with wee babies and pieces of shit, I eat PhD's for breakfast
3) From your own statements, email address , and jacket worn at The Continental, if you are a Brown alum, then I would have to disagree and say that my opinion is in fact worth more than yours.
In closing I will quote Chris Walken from Joe Dirt.
"The tone you are talking to my guy is all wrong, and if you do it again I will stab with a soldering iron"
or something like that.
And that is my main gripe..the tone. The world is not gonna end, the science is still very much in question but you have folks that will readily legislate our behavior on whims and to that I can not stand for.
I will say it again, we need to be better stewards of our home, our planet and we proverbially shit where we eat much too much for my liking but to say that an animal (us) that is but a tick of the second hand on the 24 hour clock of Earth's lifespan suddenly is destroying it strikes me as illogical.
The numbers just do not add up, so stop being a traitor to your species.
Post a Comment