Because its about money, taxes and energy.

If its about money, wouldn’t climate scientists be pursuing more lucrative careers, like finance or something? And if its about energy, wouldn’t they be in an energy industry, maybe a lucrative one (fossil fuels, or something like that?)

How do you think they pay for Chris’s trips to Doha.

Didn’t you say in #4 that Chris is a journalist, and not a scientist? How is that answering the question “why is climate science not about science”?

And who is “they”?

…why is climate science not about science?

Because its about money, taxes and energy. How do you think they pay for Chris’s trips to Doha.

Being one of Wired magazine’s ten “sexiest geeks” and part of the televised jet set…

He’s a journalist geek. You’re a scientist geek. He’s a more valuable geek. Here’s why.

Wired loves Chris because he wrote one of the two best books for the Liberals pushing the idea that Conservative Business interests hijack science and media influences to push misinformation. Chris’s book is “Republican War on Science” and the other is Naomi Campbell’s “Merchants of Doubt”.

You’re lab work very likely is useless for generating vast sums of money. Chris and Naomi’s literary work is highly valuable. Doubt is a dangerous thing to someone trying to sell a multi-trillion dollar world wide tax on everything.

Naomi’s book’s message is that conservatives manufacture false controversy to supress science they don’t like. Chris’s book’s message is that the Bush administration ignored science it didn’t like, and made up science it did.

These are uber-valuable talking points for a huge variety of liberal causes. It enables a liberal presenter to use any science-like information they want. If anyone doubts the information, out comes the two books.

Impressive credentials, but apparently all your work has been inside labs, where controlled experiments are possible. Do you have any experience in the Earth Sciences? Atmospheric Physics? Solar physics? Astronomy? Any natural or environmental sciences? Fields where its usually not possible to carry out carefully controlled experiments?

I ask because I suspect a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect on your part, claiming that your expertise in one type of science allows you to judge the science in a completely different field. While observational sciences are coupled to and make use of benchtop results, working on a planetary (or larger) scale is a whole different animal from a controlled experiment. Researchers have to struggle with less-than-optimal measurements, missing data points (i.e equipment failure, bad weather, inadequate funding for full coverage, etc) and more often than not, have to struggle with identifying what is true and known in situations where there are many many unknowns.

so I can state very forcefully that contemporary climate science is not about science but about adding the veneer of science to a doomsday cash cow scenario, merely

and in that context, I ask: okay, why is climate science not about science?

-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry

A trip like you are undertaking must emit many tons of co2. I assume you are purchasing sufficient carbon offsets to cover your emissions. I have heard some offset sellers are nothing but scam artists. What organization do you buy from and what is the current cost per ton.