So really has the most to lose if the theory of AGW is wrong?

Question

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4940.3199.0.0

According to this article (and others I have read), the spending on the AGW issue is markedly one sided, "Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million." This means that spending on pro-AGW studies is over 2,631 times the amount spent on studies to disprove AGW. So if I am a scientist, and I am in it for the money, what side should I choose?

Answer 1

G'day Crayzeeeeeee...................Macdonald iz just az bad az the the scaremongers are !

This vociferous godgobber reckonz that "distasters", ie; hurricanes, tornados, floods, earthquakes, droughts, blizzards, tsunamis...........anything of this nature is on the increase, is either man made, and pathetically as well, just to give the godgobbing a bit more flavour, it's all the TRUMPET gods doing as punishment, and is a portent of doom, just before the return of the jesus bloke after a nuclear planetary wipeout !!!!!!!!!!

Auzziegob has just managed to not puke into Auzziegobs morning blast !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

Scientific research is not "intended to prove" anything.   There's no such thing among real scientists as a pro-AGW study.  What your dollar figures actually demonstrate (assuming they are at all accurate, which is suspect) is that a scientist embarking on an unbiased climate research project is 2,631 times as likely to find support for the theory of AGW as they are to find anything potentially contrary to AGW.

Wow, that makes AGW far more solid than the word consensus conveys.

Answer 3

I've found a similar thing during my time at university.  Research is only rewarded if it finds a way to make money or finds something dangerous.

My undergraduate research was about analysing fluid flow in constricted arteries (biomedical engineering), my partner and I discovered that the existing theories overstated the pressure drop across restrictions in arteries, particularly the shape of constriction my supervisor was interested in.  I thought we had discovered something worthwhile as with a better understanding of arterial blockages, we would better understand when it is better for the patient not to intervene.  I remember how disappointed my supervisor looked.  The findings didn't support either more research or increased medical intervention.  For a professional researcher, it was a career dead end.

Thanks for sharing that rant with us Bob, but skepticism is an absence of faith.

Answer 4

Humanity looses ,both ways

Answer 5

"Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion,"

$50 billion in ONE decade. Oil companies will make $50 billion in profit in ONE YEAR. I think the more appropriate question you and other denialists should ask yourself is, who has more to lose if the theory is correct...

Answer 6

This argument is exactly like Creationism.  Faced with any scientific evidence (fossils, the Grand Canyon, the microwave background, etc.) , the Creationist says "God created it to test our faith".  So NO scientific evidence is acceptable to him.

For global warming deniers it's "the scientists are all lying".  It's their last resort, given the mountain of scientific evidence against them.  Equally useful in denying any science whatsoever.

But how do you explain the agreement of all the scientists who DON'T get funding for global warming.  Just lying to support their buddies?  Do you honestly think that's credible to any sensible person?

In any event this denier proposition puts an end to any rational discussion.  Denial is then just a matter of religious faith, exactly like Creationism.

Answer 7

Your question is horribly posed, for starters, so let's reject your initial hypothesis that all that $50 billion went to "proving the veracity of man-made global warming."  More accurately, that money went into understanding the chemistry, physics, biology of climate, and into engineering instruments and systems and platforms that allow scientists to study those processes.  Most of these studies were neutral in tone, for instance instead of trying to show the effect of CO2 on radiative transfer for instance, early studies focused in understanding if there was an effect at all.  From the results of all that research, the overwhelming conclusion is that mankind's effect on climate through injecting radiatively active gases into the atmosphere is discernible and the long-term consequences are likely going to be extremely unpleasant.  

So nobody has anything to lose if it is wrong.  Scientists will go on getting funded to study climate, because understanding climate variability is as important as understanding the impacts of forced climate change.  

If you were in it for the money and you are a scientist, I recommend going into ballistic missile defense.  The money for BMD is a factor of 10 above climate funding, there is no accountability, and when you produce a flawed system that fails in operation, your mistakes will be buried along with everything else in radioactive rubble.  How sweet is that?

The comparatively smaller amount for the skeptics is because they don't do actual research.  The skeptics who do real research like Christy and to a lesser extent Lindzen are funded out of the $50 billion.  The $19 million goes to produce position papers, articles published on the internet, and websites.

Answer 8

When scientists add "and how they affect Global Warming" to a study on "Moose Burps," it kind of says that the funding issue is suspect at least.

Answer 9

AGW is wrong.  

But you'll never hear that the storms in Atlanta last week were "just weather".  No, that only applies to severe winter storms, yeah, that's "just weather".

Remember the dogma:  AGW/GW causes all kinds of natural disasters, but never record cold.  That's just weather.  

Or this one:  AGW/GW causes Global Cooling.

Sheesh!

Most AGW/GW people are like the crazy guy on the street corner with the sign saying the world is going to end...

Answer 10

Oh geez not the same old 'scientists are in it for the money' conspiracy c**p.  Take off the tinfoil hat.

The reason skeptics don't get research grants is because they have nothing to research!!  What are they going to study?  How total solar irradiance isn't increasing and so the Sun isn't responsible for global warming?

Not to mention the fact that scientists don't personally see a dime of their grant money, and scientists who falsify research are always caught and their reputations destroyed.  Give me a break.  Is this really the best you can come up with?  This kind of garbage is why it's impossible to take 'skeptics' seriously.  Next you're going to argue that the aliens at Area 51 are causing global warming.