If Climate Science Is Settled Then Why Do We Need Research Scientists?

[LowDown]

“If the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science?” Brandis said on Tuesday.

“Wouldn’t it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers’ money and research capacity within CSIRO to allocate its resources to an area where the science isn’t settled?”

The attorney general’s argument is similar to that used by the CSIRO chief executive, Larry Marshall, who said in an email to staff in February that further work on climate change would be reduced because climate change had been established.
…

“It doesn’t seem to me that the science is settled at all but I’m not a scientist,” he said. “I’m agnostic, really, on that question. But I can follow a logical argument.

“I am simply challenging the illogic of the proposition being advanced by the Labor party who say, on the one hand, that the science is settled but, on the other hand, say it is a disgraceful thing that we should make adjustments to our premier public sector scientific research agency that would reflect the fact that the science is settled.”

Good question. If we already know what we need to know about climate science such that we can go ahead with enormously expensive policies to address it then why are we still spending money on the research? Seems like the money could be spent in more productive areas, like putting climate skeptics in jail, abolishing free speech and democracy, switching to a centrally controlled economy and generally advancing a totalitarian agenda; for the good of Gaia, of course.

 

[Sherman123]

Good question. If we already know what we need to know about climate science such that we can go ahead with enormously expensive policies to address it then why are we still spending money on the research? Seems like the money could be spent in more productive areas, like putting climate skeptics in jail, abolishing free speech and democracy, switching to a centrally controlled economy and generally advancing a totalitarian agenda; for the good of Gaia, of course.

No matter what you think about climate science this is a ludicrous point of view. Just because a particular question is settled doesn't mean we stop inquiring and learning about the subject. We didn't drop our tools after discerning the Big Bang.

 

[bubbabgone]

No matter what you think about climate science this is a ludicrous point of view. Just because a particular question is settled doesn't mean we stop inquiring and learning about the subject. We didn't drop our tools after discerning the Big Bang.

Very noble thought.
The problem is they're not really inquiring and learning about the subject.
Why?
Because what they're doing now assumes AGW is the proven cause of climate change and they're excluding the overwhelming cause ... big mama Nature ... the very same influence on climate that existed before there ever was human activity.
And it's something they'll even sometimes admit they just don't know enough about to predict, let alone control.

 

[Kobie]

Good question.

No, it's not. It's ridiculously ****ing stupid.

 

[Deuce]

Good question. If we already know what we need to know about climate science such that we can go ahead with enormously expensive policies to address it then why are we still spending money on the research? Seems like the money could be spent in more productive areas, like putting climate skeptics in jail, abolishing free speech and democracy, switching to a centrally controlled economy and generally advancing a totalitarian agenda; for the good of Gaia, of course.

So what you're telling me is that your interpretation of "the science is settled" is "there couldn't possibly be anything more to learn about the Earth's climate."

That's what you thought when you heard that phrase? Is that what you're admitting?

 

[MickeyW]

No matter what you think about climate science this is a ludicrous point of view. Just because a particular question is settled doesn't mean we stop inquiring and learning about the subject. We didn't drop our tools after discerning the Big Bang.

It's farrrrr from settled!

No, it's not. It's ridiculously ****ing stupid.

Not at all. Climate Chagne as regards man alone...is a Giant Fraud!

 

[Jetboogieman]

Belligerence and ignorance doesn't change reality.

If many on the right want to deny climate change, that's fine, you are free to do so, but history is not kind to the ignorant.

 

[TheGoverness]

Why the **** would we not need research scientists?

 

[Deuce]

It's farrrrr from settled!



Not at all. Climate Chagne as regards man alone...is a Giant Fraud!

By "giant fraud" do you mean you believe mankind has no effect on climate at all? Help me out here.

Why the **** would we not need research scientists?

All the answers are in the bible! The One True Science Texbook!

 

[Kobie]

Not at all. Climate Chagne as regards man alone...is a Giant Fraud!

Absolutely nobody has claimed that man is the sole cause of climate change.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The fact of AGW is settled, the details will come from further research. Science always progresses. If science knew everything, it would stop researching.

 

[LowDown]

So what you're telling me is that your interpretation of "the science is settled" is "there couldn't possibly be anything more to learn about the Earth's climate."

That's what you thought when you heard that phrase? Is that what you're admitting?

"The science is settled" is a stupid conceit. I merely take it to a logical conclusion. If it doesn't mean that no more research is needed, that we can act on what we know now, then exactly what does it mean? If there is still a lot we need to know then why are they talking as if we already know?

Are you admitting that the science is not settled?

 

[LowDown]

Why the **** would we not need research scientists?

Those damned people are expensive.

 

[LowDown]

The fact of AGW is settled, the details will come from further research. Science always progresses. If science knew everything, it would stop researching.

Science for science's sake is a nice idea, but there is a question of money and priorities.

If you want to know what science for science's sake is worth to the Federal Government then take a look at the budget for research on priapulids.

 

[legalimmigrant]

No, it's not. It's ridiculously ****ing stupid.

I first read your two-sentence response. Then, I concluded from the amount of ****ing stupidity contained in those two sentences that the author must be a liberal. And, guess what? He is!

 

[legalimmigrant]

Quit funding pro global warming "research", start rewarding anti global warming "research", and we will be amazed how that 97% "scientific consensus" will flip to the other side, putting to rest the claim that being a prostitute and a global warming scientist are mutually exclusive.

 

[Kobie]

I first read your two-sentence response. Then, I concluded from the amount of ****ing stupidity contained in those two sentences that the author must be a liberal. And, guess what? He is!

Wow, sick burn, bro.

 

[Deuce]

"The science is settled" is a stupid conceit. I merely take it to a logical conclusion. If it doesn't mean that no more research is needed, that we can act on what we know now, then exactly what does it mean? If there is still a lot we need to know then why are they talking as if we already know?

Are you admitting that the science is not settled?

I am glad you admit this is your interpretation of the phrase "science is settled." You think this phrase means no further data can be collected. You think it means there's nothing new to learn.

Well, let me help you out. When the rest of the world uses that phrase, this isn't what they mean. What they mean is that these facts are settled:

Climate is changing
Humans are having an effect on climate

But there's a lot more to learn about how it all works, exactly what we can expect to happen, and what the impacts of that will be.

There. Now you understand. You'll never make this mistake again.

 

[LowDown]

I am glad you admit this is your interpretation of the phrase "science is settled." You think this phrase means no further data can be collected. You think it means there's nothing new to learn.

Well, let me help you out. When the rest of the world uses that phrase, this isn't what they mean. What they mean is that these facts are settled:

Climate is changing
Humans are having an effect on climate

But there's a lot more to learn about how it all works, exactly what we can expect to happen, and what the impacts of that will be.

There. Now you understand. You'll never make this mistake again.

It's nice that you appreciate science for science's sake, but there are issues of money and priority to consider. If we've done enough work to know what the policy should be then we don't need to be spending billions more on more research. We can certainly do more research, but we can't justify spending that much. Perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars would do.

In either case, the science is settled, or it's not. If it's settled like some keep insisting then there's no need for so much spending on research. I hope this clarifies things. Unlike what many liberals seem to think, there's not an infinite amount of money to be spent on things they like.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is the dumbest thread on climate science in a while.

By the reasoning presented in the opening post, since we still have Evolutionary Biologists, evolution is not settled science.

 

[TheGoverness]

It's nice that you appreciate science for science's sake, but there are issues of money and priority to consider. If we've done enough work to know what the policy should be then we don't need to be spending billions more on more research. We can certainly do more research, but we can't justify spending that much. Perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars would do.

In either case, the science is settled, or it's not. If it's settled like some keep insisting then there's no need for so much spending on research. I hope this clarifies things. Unlike what many liberals seem to think, there's not an infinite amount of money to be spent on things they like.

I'd rather we spend our money on scientific research than on something completely ****ing useless like our bloated military.

And just because scientists have come to a consensus does not mean that research about the subject should just stop. That's ludicrous.

 

[longview]

I'd rather we spend our money on scientific research than on something completely ****ing useless like our bloated military.

And science is never going to stop. It's always going to be improving.

There are many improvements that could be made to how the federal Government spends our money.
US Federal Budget Pie Chart: - Spending Breakdown Deficit Debt Pie Chart
The Military could be smaller, and Europe and Japan could shoulder some of the load.
The Federal government does not have a charter for education, or many of the social services.
There is much room to trim, or move the money to research.
The NSF is not currently funding research into CO2 sensitivity, or cold fusion, or many other
ideas. They do fund some strange things.
Wastebook 2014: Eight Absurd Government Projects Funded By Your Money
I personally think there is a lot of room to fix the home solar power rules.
The current rules, cause the utilities to push back against solar home installations,
it needs to be fixed.

 

[TheGoverness]

There are many improvements that could be made to how the federal Government spends our money.
US Federal Budget Pie Chart: - Spending Breakdown Deficit Debt Pie Chart
The Military could be smaller, and Europe and Japan could shoulder some of the load.
The Federal government does not have a charter for education, or many of the social services.
There is much room to trim, or move the money to research.
The NSF is not currently funding research into CO2 sensitivity, or cold fusion, or many other
ideas. They do fund some strange things.
Wastebook 2014: Eight Absurd Government Projects Funded By Your Money
I personally think there is a lot of room to fix the home solar power rules.
The current rules, cause the utilities to push back against solar home installations,
it needs to be fixed.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The Federal Government could spend our money way more wisely.

 

[MrT]

Quit funding pro global warming "research", start rewarding anti global warming "research", and we will be amazed how that 97% "scientific consensus" will flip to the other side, putting to rest the claim that being a prostitute and a global warming scientist are mutually exclusive.

There are already such funding methods available. And yet, the 97% claim persists because that's what the science dictates.

 

[longview]

There are already such funding methods available. And yet, the 97% claim persists because that's what the science dictates.

So you cite a 9 year old article alleging that the American Enterprise Institute was funding method,
in reality real grants are worth much more than $10K, Most researchers would not bother with a $10K grant.
No, the real money in AGW is in toeing the company line.
National Review Online

Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails.