[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism & Replicatability

[Ted Moffett]

On 10/21/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:


> Or could it be that it's not that bad - but there is a lot of money in
> crowing about it?  We've been over this ground before, but our biosphere
> is a complicated set of interacting variables that I don't think we can
> model that precisely.


You keep repeating this assessment, in one way or another, that the
"complicated set of interacting variables" results in too much uncertainty,
to model the climate precisely enough, for the scientific consensus
predictions among climate scientists on global warming, caused by human
emissions, to be reliable.  You must understand climate science, and the
modeling being used by climate scientists, better than these scientists.  Or
have documentation of money changing hands to fraudulently present
misleading scientific findings in numerous peer reviewed journals in
hundreds of published papers:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9

I would dismiss your statements as playing devils advocate for amusement, or
the rantings of someone at the bar after too many drinks, but you are
obviously someone of high intelligence, who repeats over and over this
objection to human induced global warming predictions made by hundreds of
climate scientists.

You might be right!  If the tobacco companies could pay doctors to publicly
state misinformation about the medical risks of tobacco, it is possible
scientists are being payed to publish false warnings about human induced
global warming.  Of course this conspiracy theory must address the
considerable financial motivation to dismiss human induced global warming,
given the impacts addressing this problem will have on some rather powerful
interests, such as Exxon/Mobil, recently earning the status of the most
profitable corporation on the planet.

Given you understand the daunting uncertainties in modeling climate science
better than the National Academy of Sciences, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, the American Meteorological Society, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, The American Geophysical Union, The American Association
for the Advancement of Science, and other organizations, I suggest you
inform these organizations of your superior understanding of the
uncertainties involved in climate science, and expose the back room
financial corruption that is motivating all these organizations to publicly
state that human induced global warming is a serious problem based on a
scientific understanding.

Consider the grant(s) you could obtain from Exxon/Mobil and other entities
with great financial resources, who most decidedly have a financial stake in
dismissing the warnings about global warming coming from the scientific
community, if your claims, both about the uncertainties on climate science
predictions, that are being ignored by climate scientists, as you imply, and
the financial corruption involved in motivating hundreds of scientists to
publish hundreds of falsified or fabricated papers, in peer reviewed
journals, could be substantiated?

You'd be on the national news in a New York Minute!

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071021/4e26c539/attachment-0001.html