Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
theregister.co.uk
Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#2What about Man-Bear-Pig? Man-Bear-Pig poses a huge threat to this planet. I'm serial, people. I'm totally serial!
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#3Some excerpts
> The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure...
> JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields
I think in this case it is relevant to consider the source.
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#4Some excerpts > The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure... > JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields I think in this case it is relevant to consider the source.
It's always relevant to consider the source. I like to keep in mind that the material arguing problematic anthropogenic warming all comes from public grant funded researchers, who would like to keep getting grants. "Impending Catastrophe" scares up money, I would think.
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#5Japan: ... and those whales are going to suicide at the beach anyway, so we... Ehm, study them and prevent contamination of beaches with decaying whale corpses.
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#6If you research this issue even as a layman you will come to the same conclusion. Global warming caused by man made CO2 emissions is a total farce.
Here is some scientific proof for you to start your research..
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#7Some excerpts > The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure... > JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields I think in this case it is relevant to consider the source.
It's always relevant to consider the source. I like to keep in mind that the material arguing problematic anthropogenic warming all comes from public grant funded researchers, who would like to keep getting grants. "Impending Catastrophe" scares up money, I would think.
Ah, the despicable grant-money trope rears its ugly head again. Fine and fair enough, we all agree that research takes money. But I would really like to see, from people who run this one up the flagpole, substantive evidence indicating that 1) Advocating falsehoods is a good way to get grant money, rather than to earn scientific ridicule and a sure death to one's research credibility, and/or 2) A significant number of theories have risen to acceptance within the scientific community based on the supposed ease they afforded in obtaining funding, and have later been dropped when the scandal was discovered.
Note that the above two, if supplied, would still not rise to the level of proof that any particular area of research was lethally contaminated by researchers' avarice. For that, you would actually have to show 1) That the research was flawed or came to an incorrect conclusion, and 2) That the researchers responsible were falsifying data or inventing specters with the intent of obtaining funding. To discredit research in this way, you would have to use the scientific method to convince scientists, and/or courtroom procedure to convince a jury in, say, a civil trial to recover fraudulently obtained research dollars.
The above should be enough to show why these accusations occur in online forums, editorial pages, and blogs, rather than in research journals or courts of law. Simply put, it cannot be done because these accusations are so patently absurd as to be rejected out of hand by people whose expertise is actually in finding things like this out. If it were otherwise, one could make an academic career out of showing it. If you are so sure of it, please do so. Get published in Nature, or another respected journal. Do such groundbreaking research that you get invited to give talks to academic audiences. Your service to mankind by debunking a flawed institution that claims (at this point legitimately, I might add) the mantle of being the best way that the human race has of gaining new knowledge will be immeasurable, even if you did not, in the same stroke, supply humankind with another and superior edifice. Until then, by perpetuating this silly vicious lie, you are merely pissing in the fountain of knowledge* for the purposes of self-aggrandizement.
Our current body of scientific knowledge has been made possible by the scientific method. This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day. Everything that you rely on to supply you with your modern lifestyle comes from this kind of scientific rigor. Medicine, transportation, hygiene, materials, manufacturing, computers, the list goes on.
Show a little bit of the proper respect due to the edifice that has done so much for you.
*"[P]issing in the fountain of knowledge" borrowed from YouTube user Thunderf00t's excellent videos on young earth creationism whackos. I highly recommend them, even if you think you're sick to death of that whole 'debate.'
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#8Some excerpts > The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure... > JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields I think in this case it is relevant to consider the source.
It's always relevant to consider the source. I like to keep in mind that the material arguing problematic anthropogenic warming all comes from public grant funded researchers, who would like to keep getting grants. "Impending Catastrophe" scares up money, I would think.
I think it is probably most relevant to consider where the funding comes from - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. You really would have to involve those who fund the research in your little conspiracy theory for it to make sense. Publicly funded research money generally comes from the government. I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming. In fact I would argue that the previous US administration demonstrated a significant bias against the global warming case.
In the case of private organisations the incentive to pay for biased research is obvious and it is an expected tactic.
When proposing a conspiracy theory such as the one you are with respect to global warming it can help to point to a previous examples of where a similar thing has occurred. As an counter conspiracy theory example I'll put up the debate over smoking. Although public research started to show signs of health problems, the smoking industry fought with their own paid 'research'. Millions of lives have probably been lost as a result of the delays in changes to public policy because of the FUD spread by the smoking lobby. To me the incentives with global warming seem to be the same as with smoking was and I see every reason to believe the situation is the same.
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#9I suspect they came to that conclusion by studying the guts of whales.
Re: Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
#10An honest question: how do we know we are not in the opposite of an ice age? So temperatures will get warmer and warmer till they reach a peak and then start dropping till we get to the next ice age?
How do we determine that peak and when was the last one?