Slashdot Mirror

Of course scientists are only interested in arriving at the truth, right?

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming. Global Warming With the Lid Off - The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science

Mann and his group are hardly the only climate scientists out there, and whatever you think of him flying off the handle about the pseudo-scientific stuff that some second-rate journal was publishing, there are plenty of other climate research groups that come to the same conclusions as him. I don't see any hidden "truth about climate science". I'd be pissed too if someone was using such bullshit tactics to try to discredit my work. It's one thing to be a skeptic and do honest research. It's quite another to use obviously fraudulent tactics, like cherry-picking your data, and then try to claim it's evidence. It was an indefensible study, as evidenced by their inability to defend it, and the eventual acceptance of even the journal publisher that they never should have printed it.

I doubt that the departments dealing with matters touching on evolutionary biology would be much (any?) better than the tainted "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" departments in dealing with dissenting views regardless of the strength of the scientific case. That is really too bad. The skeptics are going to bring closer scrutiny of the theories and help weed out the bad ones better than those who love the theories. The scientists may deal with the ideas of evolution, but they are still only human.

I'm sure you doubt it. But then you don't seem to know what you're talking about anyway. New information is found all the time. Evolutionary theory has undergone a lot of changes over the years, as the information had to be accounted for. The theory itself hasn't been disproved, it has simply been made stronger and our knowledge has grown incredibly. Modern biology is based on these ideas, and works very well for us.

As soon as some other theory manages to explain more and be more useful in practical ways, it will displace the theory of evolution. Unfortunately IDers don't seem to be able to put together anything that's even testable, let alone complete enough to stand against the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

Mostly because it is.

Seriously, they are about as unbiased on some topics (environment being one of the big ones) as Skeletor is regarding He-Man, and their idea of being fair is that they are completely open about being biased.
As if saying you are biased somehow "fixes" your cognitive bias and makes right of your faulty logic.

Also, books could be written and movies could be made about them cherry picking the worst samples and presenting them as norm so as to achieve a greater "look at the crazy person" effect.
And that is about as "fair" as presenting Charles Manson as a prime example of an American.

This is not handwaving away. If you cannot be bothered to read...

As for your last comment, why should the oil companies pay you anything as willful ignorance is so easy to cultivate?

And that's the one thing that continually puzzles me about Slashdot. You would think that a site that actually talks about science would be supportive of the science that's out there. But then there's loads of people like you who find it easier to believe that there's a cabal of scientists who are bending the numbers of their research in order to...what exactly? Fat science grants? Certainly then you've not been exposed to any scientists doing work.

Perhaps it would be better if you saw this which is a list of those who have come forward and said that climate change is real. You may be surprised by the list. I'm not kidding myself though as it is much, much easier to look out the window and make your decisions rather than looking at a bigger picture.

I think you missed the context of my remark or perhaps I was not clear. I agree with your post and offer this list of consenus statements from various organisations who still put their faith in the republic of science.

You call that trying? I can tell you now the qualificatioons in the climate and earth sciences on that list dwarf those on the IPCC list. Including the IPCC authors who wrote dissenting opinions that were never published but they still got listed as authors on the report. that is of course until they threatened to sue the IPCC. but, I guess you wouldn't respect their opinions would you?

I certainly don't respect your opinion, especially if you think a bunch of Electrical Engineers, Computer Scientists, and Veterinary Doctors are qualified to comment on climate models.

Here's a quick list of the consensus on man-made climate change and here is another showing that the petition project is bunk.

ets say you go to Canada and try to turn some "tar sands" into oil. That's like trying to suck the oil out of asphalt.

Another problem with the tar sands is that it's water intensive.

You might get 2-3 times more energy out than you put in.

That's true with corn ethanol as well. According to Corn Ethanol: The Great Boondoggle the only reason corn ethanol returns more energy than what is used to produce the ethanol is because the plant material left can be used as animal feed. The New Economy says the Energy Returned on Energy Invested, EROEI, for sugarcane is from 8 to 10. Exploring the Ethanol Debate also says sugarcane returns 8 units per unit used. Unfortunately I didn't find the EROEI on Switchgrass. Is Ethanol the Answer to the Energy Dilemma? goes this.

Falcon

Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" [...] "Mythbusters" [...] I like both shows, but really they are no more trustworthy than TV wrestling.

Urm... no.

TV Wrestling (the WWF sort) is mock-combat in which the actors pretend to fight, but are actually just performing a series of well-rehearsed stunts. This is the sort of lie that we accept because it is presented as entertainment.

Exactly like PTB, in which every interview is staged, every presentation edited, and every data point carefully selected to eliminate any semblance of a valid opposition viewpoint.

Point 1: staged... well, yes, there's a stage involved in many such interviews. What's you're point. Do you mean that the interviews aren't impromptu events with people they just happened upon? I guess you're right, but I'm not sure I see a point.

Point 2: edited... You're out on a deep limb here. Major network news, tabloid gossip shows and everyone in between edits interviews into the ground. They re-shoot all of the questions on a stage with an actor filling in for the "stunt head". This is almost always the way everyone shoots interviews. You can't call P&T:B dishonest for doing this alone. Now, if you want to throw rocks at the practice as a whole and start with the big boys, then I'm 100% behind you!

Point 3: carefully selected data... what part of my previous post did you not read such that this seemed like a unique point? It's a political show about Penn Jillette's political ideas. It's not a news show. Of course, he's picking the points he wishes to introduce carefully. Why would he not?

P&T's Bullshit! is an advocacy show that attempts to promote Penn Jillette's arguably libertarian political and social ideas. It's honest about what it presents, and has never sought to present itself as news or anything of the sort.

Although everything Penn Gillette is involved in does serve as a vehicle for his oil-industry sponsored right-wing views

HUH WHAT?

Penn Jillette is right wing now?! He'll be shocked!

You're really losing me here. This man is more libertarian than anyone I've ever met. I'd also love to see a source for your funding claims.

Mythbusters is a reality show of sorts about a group of technical, but scientifically relatively untrained people attempting to validate or debunk urban legends. Again, the show has never pretended to be anything that it isn't, and for the most part they get their mythbusting right. Occasionally they take on a topic that has more hidden complexity than they realize (I recall frozen chickens hitting windshields being an example), but they certainly know more about basic engineering and physics than their average viewer.

Which is the problem, in a nutshell. They make an entertaining show, but unless you know more than they do about engineering, physics, and history than they do (which actually isn't too hard - they mostly know about machining and crafting) you should assume that anything you see on their show has the same validity as TV wrestling.

Here you go again with the absurd hyperbole. How can you even suggest that you could compare the two? There's orders of magnitude more CORRECT information delivered in one episode of Mythbusters than in a season of Pro Westling, and let's not talk about the amount of outright FICTION in a single episode of such a spectacle (in which you are routinely asked to believe that Newtonian Physics is suspended by the application of an elastic rope). This is beyond meaningless as a comparison.

Mythbusters is no Scientific American Frontiers, but they do a damned good job.

You seem to have some serious hangups about TV science and politics. I suggest you take a deep breath and remember that a) people who disagree with you are allowed to have TV shows too b) people who get a lot of s

The entire faculty of the largest atmospheric sciences department in Texa, A & M, with over twnety faculty, uinanimously signed a declaration in support of the IPCC position.

http://www.met.tamu.edu/climatechange.php

More examples here

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus. htm

The number of remotely qualified scientists who disagree that humans are responsible for a majority of recently observed warming is really, honestly, negligible.

One problem with that theory: Climatologists are suggesting more grant money be made available for carbon neutral energy research. The climatologists aren't going to see any of that. http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fu nding.html

Yeah, and check out this page on the other guy mentioned in the Slashdot header, Richard Lindzen. Apparently even an MIT professor has his price. http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm