Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
The thing is, for a conspiracy theory to hold any water, there has to be a motive. NASA wanted to beat Russia to the moon to prove their dominance, but there was no way they could do it for real. Obama is part of a secret plot of Kenyans to take over the US Reserve (ha, joke's on you guys!). If Greedo really did shoot first just shows how lucky Solo is (hence his convo later with Luke on the Falcon).
But this conspiracy theory has no motive. What, so all these scientists are conspiring with the "enormous alternative energy consortium"? There's no such thing. Before we started taking this shit seriously there were no viable alternative energy sources besides nuclear, and nuclear isn't even being pushed by these guys. There's no money in making up a claim that global temperatures are going to rise.
(BTW, the conspiracy theories above are not the views of this commenter, or of any rational thinking individual.)
11/25/09
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on a global climate crisis to to pay their paychecks.
I'm not saying climate change is a conspiracy, but saying that no one's making money off it is just plain wrong.
11/25/09
Chicken and egg. The money came after the climate crisis was recognized, not before.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Arguing that the motive of grants for scientific study is enough to prompt a conspiracy of this magnitude is a valid argument. Not likely, but valid. My case on that would be the simple evidence that most governments face the daunting reality of an intensely expensive redesign of their industrial infrastructure if they agree that climate change needs to be addressed. So it's still an uphill battle to prove that anyone would have profited from climate change BEFORE anyone agreed it was an issue.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
While there is a lot of money being dumped into climate research right now, the same spirit of discovery that drives scientists to research the climate for evidence of anthropogenic global warming would drive them to research something different if there were no signs of agw, so the paychecks would still exist, they would just come from researching something different. This further reduces the likelihood that scientists would be faking climate research because their receiving a paycheck is not dependent on agw existing. If anything, scientists would not want to fake results on agw not only because it would lead us to waste money on cleaning up our act and reducing emissions when not necessary, but it would take them away from doing research in other fields that they feel are dire.
Also, most grants are not payouts. Government funds and research facilities do not care about the results of an experiment as long as there are results. If they find that a study is capable of making an important discovery the experiment will get funding. This funding will come regardless of whether or not the results are favorable. The only case that fudging results to make extra money would make sense is to fake results refuting agw. Companies that would benefit from research that finds that agw exists do not have the funds necessary to buyout researchers because they are spending their money on R&D for whatever product they are producing since green tech is still lagging far behind. Meanwhile, companies such as coal companies and oil companies that have a vested interest in making sure that any research proving agw exists does not become public are the ones that have the available funds to buyout scientists.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
@the real that guy dave: @DH405:
11/25/09
These studies relayed and shoved down our throats, the amount of money these people stole from governments and concerned citizens of the world... it makes banking look like childs play (in terms of scandals).
But man, i would of loved to of been there when the head researcher whoever he was walked into the office and just about every government, environmental group, and company was waiting there and wanted to know, "what the hell dude?"
11/25/09
My assumption has been that the bad guys in this drama would be the usual suspects: vested business interests , the lobbyists, and the bought politicians, who oppose the consensus.
But it fits that they are all fucking crooks eh?
11/25/09
They all want our money.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
That's about the best I can do.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
I also believe if people chose to look behind the curtain of "climate change", they would see that the folks fueling the fire and funding the research, that happens to increase the heat of the flames, stand to gain the most FINANCIALLY from all of the legislation and products tied into the hysteria. Al Gore has increased his net worth over 500% due to his involvement and that's without the government's cap and trade legislation (Al Gore's company sells carbon offset credits, hmmmm). GE sells all sorts of new fangled poisony light bulbs that have a low carbon footprint.
I implore you, look behind the scenes with a logical (not emotional) approach. I promise you'll see the corruption, besides that of a few idiots who can't encrypt email properly (and who will say anything to keep their funders happy).
11/25/09
con·spir·a·cy
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
11/25/09
You are free to believe that the consensus on global climate change is a conspiracy, but in order to do so you must also acknowledge how broad it is, which is to say, you must hold in your head the idea, and tell others with a straight face that scientists in china, japan, Russia, South America Europe, and North America are all "in on it." That they, despite different governments and forms of economy, they all have some unseen gain to be had. and perhaps most preposterously, that what they stand to gain is better than writing the tell all book about the process.
You propose nothing less than most climate scientists in the world being hopelessly incompetent or corrupt, and as we all know, the reason to study science is because its easy and the reason you go into climate science is to make the big bucks.
11/25/09
Just because some people are profiting from try to stop global warming doesn't mean its not real.
11/25/09
The Earth's climate changes in cycles. It's been this way for longer than humans have been on this planet.
The argument is what is the cause of "global warming."
11/25/09
I'm not a climatologist or any other kind of ologist, I just have common sense. In the 70's, the big cause was global cooling. Didn't catch on. Global warming did, better marketing. I'm not saying there is global warming or there isn't (though the data suggests that there was and it has reversed). I'm saying that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is not scientifically sound.
Should we be cleaner and more efficient? YES
Should we consider our impact on the environment? YES
Should we do these things at the expense of our economic and otherwise well-being? NO
11/25/09
My point is to simply look at your source. Who stands to gain? Who stands to lose? Maybe there is your answer.
Also: The size of the conspiracy doesn't actually have to be that big. I mean, how many climate scientists do you know?
11/25/09
Don't these emails kind of prove that whole conspiracy thing?
11/25/09
11/25/09
The argument is not whether or not we cause global warming, it is whether or not we have an effect on global warming; nobody believes that there are not natural cycles, just that we are impacting the temperature in a positive direction on top of the natural global cycles.
If you feel that your economic well being is more important than your surrounding environment's well being, that is unfortunate, especially because continuing to neglect the environment will eventually hurt our overall well being, with or without global warming. The mentality that the Earth is a resource specifically existing for our exploitation is a dangerous one that could lead to more economic demise in the future than investing in green tech now could even come close to causing.
What these emails prove is that scientists are humans, too. They do not like the competition and will throw insults at them and do whatever they can to have their arguments heard louder than the arguments of those who disagree with them.
11/25/09
I explained my position. Clean, efficient and profitable. If it wasn't for profit, no one would be in business. And unfortunately, we don't all live in teepees.
11/26/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
Really the financial motive just isn't present. Well, except if you're a global warming denier of any prominence, where you can usually find an oil company or a right-wing think-tank or a not-so-scrupulous vanity press ready to promote your nuts off, and hand you personal checks for the privilege of doing so.
11/25/09
That statement is provably untrue, and calls into question the accuracy of anything else you say.
11/25/09
Don't think that scientists won't make their results look good to those who supply the funding. That's a way to maintain funding.
Now, selling carbon credits and taxing the living shit out of people makes some people money, not anyone who is a "global warming denier".
You know, some people believe in the boogeyman. I don't. Am I a boogeyman denier?
11/25/09
11/25/09
Way to go, Giz commenters.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
I deduced an answer to the rising sea level: More ships keep being built. Perhaps it's not rising sea levels, but over-displacement of the ocean?
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
I bet this is extremely prevalent.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
See CA Prop 7 (2008) for an example.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Yes... if only all the data was already available....
[www.cru.uea.ac.uk]
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09