Slashdot Mirror

Of course, this was meant to be funny, but the fact is that SciAm long since stopped being a "science" magazine, and turned into an advocacy magazine.

From slash articles on Bjorn Lomborg, to umpteen editorials and thinly-designed hit pieces on the Bush Administration's politicization of science data, SciAm abandoned objectivity entirely. Certainly, they'd always had a vaguely leftish tilt, taking an obvious anti-Reagan stance in the 1980s, but the magazine nevertheless maintained SOME credibility at that time by not pushing their politics too far.

The problem with today's level of technology is that it's beyond simple understanding.
Either you listen to experts who have their own biases and politics (ala FOX or CNN), or you try to grab as much raw data as possible - only possible thanks to the internet - and logically try to parse it yourself, despite the knowledge that you may not personally have the training or experience or both needed to interpret it correctly.

Yes, a strong case has been made for AGW (weakened, IMO by the grandstanding and uncritical adulation of Al Gore, frankly). But AGW != GW, and as much as I've seen points that are persuasive, I've seen a lot of goalpost shifting and smoke and mirrors, more akin to televangelism than to science.
Several months ago, in discussing this subject, I found a list of more than 160 serious climate scientists that objected to AGW - http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/ - interestingly, that site no longer comes up? Google cache at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QW7i-7So08MJ:www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/+copenhagen+climate+challenge&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Strange? Hard to decide?

Alexis de Tocqueville called, he'd like his comments on the general anti-intellectualism of the United States from 1830 back.

So, you're saying a political party is trying to ride a cultural hobbyhorse to power? Let's see, the Right says that the world is ending because of Communism, Liberals, Secularism, Abortion, and Homosexuality. The left claims the world is ending because of Pollution, Oppression, Religion, Industry, and Republicans. It's perhaps An Inconvenient Truth that grossly narcissistic politicians from BOTH sides like to try to wave FUD at us to hand them more power. I guess they don't all get Nobel Prizes or Academy Awards for it?

Not sure, but I'm pretty certain that the world will keep changing, it's not going to "end" anytime soon (LHC notwithstanding :) ), and life is better now for most people than it's ever been in the larger scale of human history.

Anti-intellectualism (like religiosity, or our tendency to be community-oriented) is one of the very basic paradigms of American culture, and has always been. What's perhaps more interesting is that this culture nevertheless managed to become (somehow) an industrial and scientific leader.

That article, however, is a thinly-veiled anti-Republican screed, nothing more.

And while I know that this will bring the worms out of the woodwork, one might say that there are at least 165 climate science experts who significantly doubt the conclusions from the data: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
Facts are, of course, not decided democratically. But the inviolable certitude of the AGW proponents seems like zealotry. I think theres room to believe that (both)
- AGW is a fallacious, narcissistic religion advanced by 3-decades failed environmentalists, scientists desperate for funding, and anti-west, anti-industrial marxists.
- you don't want to sh*t where you live, so we should generally try to keep the place clean and toxin-induced mutations to a minimum.

Here's another letter:

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

And they even have a section of signatories and their credentials:

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64

And just because 31,000 or 140 scientists are a 'small percentage' of the scientific community, that doesn't mean the rest of those who didn't sign disagree with those who did sign.

I'm not one to say these signature mean AGW is wrong... All I'm saying is that its not a uncontested belief.

Oh, and before I go, take a look at the IPCC, the 'the leading body for the assessment of climate change' (http://www.ipcc.ch). They are working groups of 'experts' who push the belief in AGW. How many of them were qualified? Take a look: http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/

Here's another letter:

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

And they even have a section of signatories and their credentials:

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64

And just because 31,000 or 140 scientists are a 'small percentage' of the scientific community, that doesn't mean the rest of those who didn't sign disagree with those who did sign.

I'm not one to say these signature mean AGW is wrong... All I'm saying is that its not a uncontested belief.

Oh, and before I go, take a look at the IPCC, the 'the leading body for the assessment of climate change' (http://www.ipcc.ch). They are working groups of 'experts' who push the belief in AGW. How many of them were qualified? Take a look: http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/

I agree that there is no such thing as "settled science", but that is not what is relayed to the public when government officials proclaim that AGW is incontrovertible. I don't personally doubt AGW but I am skeptical of the degree to which we contribute and the degree to which we will be able to affect change by cutting emissions.
If you are referring to "a majority opinion" when you say consensus then I will not disagree. If you are using the following...

Consensus (n.): An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

then that is completely different. The latter definition implies unanimity, rather than a majority opinion, and there is clearly no unanimity in the interpretation of global warming data. Also, I would appreciate if you gave a reference to the "fake signatures" on "those lists" (specifically, the one I linked to http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64). Lastly, how can you believe that there was no effort being made to stifle dissent by the CRU at East Anglia when Jones talks about doing just that??

One problem with this analogy is that it's not just one "doctor" that's saying "operate", it's thousands . How many more "second opinions" do you want before you accept that perhaps you actually need an operation? Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

Here are some "second options" :

• Heidelberg Appeal http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html
• Leipzig Declaration http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/leipzig97.htm
• Oregon Petition http://www.petitionproject.org/
• Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf
• US Senate Minority Report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
• Copenhagen Climate Challenge http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

Prior to Climategate and unbeknownst to many, there are many of scientists who question the data behind the AGW proponents' claims. I would venture to say that, due to the politically volatile nature of this subject, there are many more that would also like to become signatories yet fear the repercussions. http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64