‘Unqualified’ scientists stand to gain from hysteria of global warming
The Soapbox by Professor William Gray in the April 4 Coloradoan points out correctly the news media’s eagerness to embrace uncritically the catastrophic global warming scenarios. The Coloradoan is certainly guilty of endorsing the claims of unqualified “scientists” in this regard.
It is useful to understand the motives of people who make these claims. Suppose someone comes along and says to you: “Boy, do you have a problem. If you don’t do something about it, you’ll suffer a terrible fate. But wait! I have a solution; and if you’ll just give me some money (i.e. support my research in this case), I’ll show you how to avoid catastrophe.” This approach has been used successfully by charlatans, unscrupulous religious evangelists and snake oil salesmen. In the case of global warming alarmists, it has been used successfully to get research grants, so in the end, it’s all about money.
James G. Ling, Ph.D., Fort Collins, former assistant director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
h/t to Tom Nelson
Some people accuse skeptics of claiming that there’s some kind of “conspiracy”. When they’re handing out money for alarmism, there doesn’t need to be a conspiracy; just sing the tune all the way to the bank.
It is a general failure of climate science, not a conspiracy; it is a general incompetence among today’s scientists, from the teaching of false theories to them and their complete failure to overcome those theories through competent observation and research, over decades. And the incompetence–the false theory–extends throughout the earth and life sciences, so don’t expect things to get any better until all of that rot is torn out and replaced by the truth. It looks like the current generation in science is lost, as have scientists in other fields than climate, for up to 150 years.
I’m bothered by Dr. Ling’s use of the word “unqualified.” Does he see Lord Monckton as unqualified? After all, he has only a bachelor of arts degree.
Maybe Dr. Ling labels those who are wrong or make mistakes as being unqualified.
I don’t think Monckton is trying to shake down people for money.
Another reason he uses unqualified is that the team uses that word so often to describe skeptical scientists, even for paleogeologists, atmospheric physicists, statisticians.
He is reminding them that if he is unqualified, surely the signatories are even more unqualified, using the teams qualification.
The bit you missed out Gamecock was
“The Coloradoan is certainly guilty of endorsing the claims of unqualified “scientists” in this regard.”
You don’t need a phd to be a sceptic but you certainly do need one if you are going to make climate projections that affects billions of people and leads to a restructuring of our energy system. I’m sure you will agree.
By the way Stephen McIntyre I vaguely recall has a Stephen McIntyre yet he smashed the hockey stick from phd holding Mann. So there.
Meant to say:
“By the way Stephen McIntyre I vaguely recall has a bachelor of science degree yet he smashed the hockey stick from phd holding Mann. So there.”
Unqualified is aus ABC r williams decrying the correct facts on past geology by Ian Plimer etc
or flim flannery a paleo guy, good at that maybe, but crap on climate and yet gets 180k a yr for 3 days a week work..if you call agitprop for agw work?
Is that the same Dr. Gray who puts out a hurricane forecast every year? How many phantom “storms” in the middle of nowhere that the National Hurricane Center will name? That is a huge fraud in its own right and seldom accurate in the real world.