When do climatologists in training learn The Truth?

Hah well that's a valid question to ask the conspiracy theorists, because nobody in the scientific community claims it's all a massive scam/fraud/hoax. Not even the Spencers/Lindzens/Singers. You would think that at least one graduate student, upon learning that proceeding with a successful career in climate science would require a lifetime of dishonesty, would reveal this dastardly plot. Unless he took the blue pill! Or was it the red one? Haven't seen The Matrix in a while.

Anyway, while some deniers subscribe to this tinfoil hat-style conspiracy theory, most seem to subscribe to a less nefarious one - that climate scientists simply can't get grant money unless they begin with the premise that humans are causing global warming.

This of course begs the question how guys like Lindzen and Spencer and Christy are managing to operate, supposedly without accepting this premise (actually I don't think any of them disputes it, contrary to what the deniers would have us believe).

But anyway, Spencer is a prominant "skeptic" with a government job (UAH) who manages to get published in peer-reviewed journals every so often and doesn't claim AGW is all a massive hoax. I wonder which pill he took?

The key problem virtually all keep missing is that the peer reviewed experiments have deliberate flaws in procedure built into them so desired results will always be achieved if the experiment follows the listed procedures. Now do the test independently and observe all reactions and maybe you will get a clue to how the procedures have been developed to produce the desired result that is scientifically incorrect. It is the procedures that produce co2 contaminated by humidity that produce the results that favor the AGW fiction.

If you eliminate the humidity in the sample it no longer reacts s a greenhouse gas and so cannot be called a contributor to global warming. So break out of the mold and do something really scientific for a change. Do the experiment first by the documented procedures that produce saturated co2 and then again with the use of a hygrometer drying the co2 to the same humidity level as the air control sample has. You will find as we did that it is humidity and humidity alone that is a greenhouse gas. But of course you will not do a real scientific experiment that will shake your faith in the lie that is AGW because then you would have to admit that science is being controlled for commercial purposes and then you would have to become a skeptic like the rest of us heretical outcasts.

Scientists don't seek "the truth". They seek to explore and explain the physical mechanisms of the world around us. And they do this by using the scientific method. As a graduate of science and engineering I can honestly say that the climate change issue is not following any scientific method that I recognize.

I first became suspicious of this entire debacle when I read about Michael Mann refusing to release data to Steve McIntyre. I don't have a source but I recall Mann being quoted as saying "this data is proprietary of the US government". After he finally relented, the next task was to request his method and code for analysis of his findings. Again, resistance. This just flies in the face of how scientists check each others' work and how scientific knowledge progresses. As his work was being assessed, the simple question came up "did anyone with a background in statistics aid in this effort?" Unfortunately, the answer was no which explains a lot.

Yes, there are all sorts of points and counterpoints about his claims and data and code, that it was all was made public (well eventually), it's on the up and up, etc., etc. Just the simple fact that this is controversial is enough to make me very suspicious. His original paper on the "hockey stick" was peer-reviewed and published before anyone had a chance to verify it. That is highly unusual. How exactly did that happen, peer-review without verifying the data and the method?

I don't blame most climate scientists. They are likely working hard and advancing knowledge in this field and I applaud them. I am however very suspicious of a few who seem to be more politically driven. They perhaps have a political end goal and are trying to fit the science to achieve that goal.

I've been in science and engineering since 1980 and this whole mess stinks (at the top). I'll reiterate, I have not seen this type of issue in any other scientific field I've studied or read about (well maybe astrology or herbology). There are plenty of controversies in science obviously but none are being handled like this one at the political and media level. Actually, a good example of how science is normally handled is stomach ulcers. For years, doctors believed ulcers were caused by stress. It took one researcher to discover a bacteria that caused ulcers. After proper verification and duplication, that is now a proper medical advancement. No big political interference or media exaggerations.

What really stings about all this is that the public trust in science and scientists may take a hit because of all this. I'm in the profession so I know a lot of good scientists but I can sympathize with Joe Public who has his doubts.

This obviously isn't a serious question. You assert that anyone who doesn't shares you beliefs must believe in a cloak and dagger conspiracy.

I can see a couple of simple truths that researchers need to know if they want to get a run in the media, though not ever researcher can be a media star.

One truth is that people want to believe certain things along the lines of "the bad guys are being bad again'. There are a lot of people in the community who believe there is a group of polluting industry bad guys out there it won't surprise them in the least if they're making more pollution than before.

The other simple truth is that the media is not discerning regarding scientific evidence. I've know academics send a press release to newspapers (not on climate change) and they run a "new research shows ..." type story without any vetting at all.

Same thing was stated by activists like you Dawei and Dana about the DDT scare, the Alar hoax, the silicon breast implant hysteria and the world in 1970 is going into an Ice Age. To step back in time there are people just like you two alarming the world and in the end they were wrong.

How many physicians lost everything due to the silicone breast implant fiasco? How many Dana and gee there were no repercussions against the lawyers who made billions off of lawsuits as did their clients. I have investigated issues like this where hysteria and false assumptions and science dominate an issue until much time later when it is proven wrong.

You have been brainwashed and then you brainwash others so to answer your question, these little guys in training have already learned not to think for themselves by people like you two.

When their minds are taken over by the Lord of Darkness. He shrivels their brains, and converts them to anthropogenic impact deniers!

Just like in the "Matrix" these converts are easily spotted, like the black cat, their minds LOOP, and remain stuck on these singular "tracks", forevermore ranting biased propaganda for their true masters.

These "masters" have a singular, dark agenda; to extract the wealth of this planet in all its myriad forms, and to convert the planets biosphere to one which they can survive in, but we cannot.

But beware, the "alien" agenda has no interface with real time: it is a hermetically sealed process repeated on many other planets. The "native" population enslaved and hell bent on extracting every grain of value, and converting the atmosphere in the proves, a "win - win for the stinkin' slimin' evil aliens!!.

[Hey, i am watching the first Matrix just now! Love it.]

When they go and try to publish a paper that they think contradicts the global warming theory and have a hard time getting someone to publish their paper. Knowing that the only way to advance your career is by publishing papers they quickly learn to tow the line.

google the big time alarmists names with Maurice Strong or the United Nations and see what results you get.

sorry this is about controlling energy use and the rich stealing your money

the is no proof of anything man could do that would change the climate to a cooler climate

scam scam scam

I would love to be enlightened. Provide me with some proof of your "truth". As far as I know it is all theory at this point. Fact is the earth is getting warmer, what is debated is the cause.

When they sign up to study Global Warming, they are already committed to it and their future prosperity depends on it being a serious threat. That is certainly true of the vast majority. The subject obviously attracts anti-capitalist radicals who don't even care about the truth. It is more a religion to them.