Of course, there are many ethical scientists that would never deliberately fudge their data, but how do we distinguish them from the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have recently been caught cutting corners? "Hauser is Harvard’s superstar primate psychologist—and, perhaps ironically, an expert on the evolution of morality—whom the university recently found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct. Harvard has kept mum about the details, but a former lab assistant alleged that when Hauser looked at videotapes of rhesus monkeys, in an experiment on their capacity to learn sound patterns, he noted behavior that other people in the lab couldn’t see, in a way that consistently favored his hypothesis. When confronted with these discrepancies, the assistant says, Hauser asserted imperiously that his interpretation was right and the others’ wrong." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Fudge Factor: A Look at a Harvard Science Fraud Case, Did Marc Hauser know what he was doing?, By Scott O. Lilienfeld on November 1, 2010. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fudge-factor/
Yes and isn't the record of CO2 and temperature telling over those 400,000 years as in the graph I've provided many times for you including those ice ages you are on about: "The results from Petit et al. (as well as earlier ones based on shorter climate records) show that carbon dioxide closely follows the course of climate, as tracked in the deuteriumcontent of the water that made the ice. (The temperature curve is based on deuterium measurements: the colder the snow, the less deuterium in the vapor that made it.) The large range in the fluctuations of carbon dioxide (and methane) is noteworthy, as well as the very rapid rise of these gases during warming when the climate moves from a glacial state to an interglacial state, a process called �deglaciation.� The rapid rise of carbon dioxide and of methane during the periods of deglaciation is of special interest in the present context, because we may find hints as to future developments on a warming Earth. The first statement that needs to be made about these rather abrupt changes in trace gas content is that we are not dealing here with long-term geochemical changes involving large carbon reservoirs of low reactivity. This kind of event calls for involvement of fast-reacting reservoirs with the potential for large impact on the atmosphere. There are two such reservoirs: the ocean's dissolved carbon content ("ocean reservoir") and the seafloor's methane hydrates ("methane ice"). The ocean can be made to give off carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in a number of ways. The first is through physics: changes in temperature and in ocean circulation. By warming the ocean, the solubility of the carbon dioxide is decreased, so the ocean yields gas to the air. Also, by opening a path to the deep ocean some of the excess carbon dioxide stored in deep waters becomes available. Removing sea ice and intensifying deep circulation would work in this direction." https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/ and yes, the Exxon MObile meme: "Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public. Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ "In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels)." https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings I don't know about funny. I think it is sad that they admit they were lying to you but you still won't believe them but think what you get from the think tanks is and denier blogs is the gospel truth because people like Tol and Anthony Watt would never lie to you, would they. Sad.
Have to get back to this but hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been caught cutting corners? I didn't get that number from the article. Look, I'm not going to defend someone like Hauser or any of the others but I still think if you want to solve this problem, get corporate money out of research and get back to teaching ethics and scientific methodology. Universities today are more like factories that turn out managers and corporate elites than places of higher learning or ethical standards. That being said, I still think that you have not made a case for the majority of climate scientists to be fudging data or guilty of scientific conduct - unless you are still buying all that climategate nonsense.
More cut and paste with no individual thought. You have no idea what Tol’s book contains. That is sad. Now you are claiming that CO2 caused the ice ages in the last 400,000 years ??? That’s hilarious.
Science has always been simply corruptible - especially when money and politics are involved. "Though universities and research institutes warn scientists to steer clear of these publishers, many were shocked by their widespread, rapid growth. According to the report, Süddeutsche Zeitung and German broadcasters NDR and WDR found that over 5,000 German scientists alone have been published in such journals, to the chagrin of Nobel Prize winners like Ferid Murad, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine, who said that the credibility of science is at stake." MOTHER JONES, 400,000 Scientists All Over the World Have Been Published in Fake Journals, Journalists investigated widespread fraud within the scientific publishing community., BY KARI SONDEJUL. 20, 2018. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2018/07/real-news-tackles-fake-science/
Nothing in need of saving but, to answer your question, no. Humanity doesn't have the power to destroy the planet without destroying itself. After that the planet will recover.
The explosion of "acidification of the ocean" papers after ~ 2006 from practically zero to 3000 since, bought and paid for by governments around the world is a prime example. Ike warned about both the military industrial complex and the take over of science by government in his last speech in office.
Plus it is not politically possible to reduce global CO2 emissions to produce a significant reduction in the rate of global warming.
In a world of over 6 billion people, even if we con convince every country to enact mass changes to their economies and lifestyles, that with our ever increasing population and development, that we will stop whatever we are doing to the planet? We can only slow it down, but the damage is done and cannot be stopped in my opinion. Besides, Mankind AND planet earth will both evolve. People are just argue on how it all is evolving.
Ike's farewell address was very good. Every American should read it. "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower, Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation, .January 17, 1961. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
The way I see it, whether scientists are right or wrong about the planet being doomed, we should treat the earth as we would any temple, and take care of it to the best of our ability, which we are clearly not doing. Our oceans and rivers are filled with plastic, our last remaining wildernesses are constantly in danger of being destroyed, sensitive wetlands are being paved over, etc etc etc. Right now in Maine, Central Maine Power is trying to build their "Clean Connect" powerline, right through the north Maine woods, which would chop up the largest remaining contiguous temperate forest in the world, crossing over 700 sensitive streams and wetlands, wrecking an extremely sensitive ecosystem. They are getting approval by bribing the government with funding for other programs. ****ing disaster. We need to treat this planet better than we have been.
