[geeks] Global warming, was Mr Bill?

[wa2egp at att.net]

- 
> I'd be careful there.
> 
> A lot of scientists are just as bad as economists/finance guys on  
> stuff like this.

How do you know it's "a lot"?

> I've seen scientists thoughtlessly jump on one bandwagon after another  
> for years.

Not as much as nonscientists.  Most don't do it "thoughtlessly".  That's your spin.

> Doctors do it too, as you can see by the massive fraud and malpractice  
> in the pharmaceutical industry.

Doctors are not scientists.

> When I was growing up, the "consensus" among scientists was that I'd  
> see an ice age before I was 40.  One of my professors in college told  
> us about it, and how many of his colleagues got sucked into it without  
> really doing their own work.  He had himself done work that suggested  
> it could be happening, but avoided the popularity contest that  
> consensus had become back then.

They probably read the article that someone wrote, figured it sounded logical from the data they had before them and accepted the possibility.  Since then, the model got better or the data changed and now it doesn't look likely.  So?  Big deal.  The problem/mistake was corrected.  You have a problem with that?

> It happens all the time.

Surprisingly, they are human.

> A number of "scientists" area also taking money, which is also not at  
> all new.

That happens too with a few.  Does that make the rest wrong?

> Global warming, regardless of what caused it or if it exists, is big  
> business and big political power.

So is the lack of global warming.  The oil companies don't want it to be true.  They would financially support scientists who were against it.

> If "consensus" turns around and they think it's an ice age after all,  
> big money and political power will come out of that too, and will have  
> equal effect on people's behavior.

Of course.  But wouldn't that negate or reduce the effect of big money if it works either way?

Bob