Slashdot Mirror

"I'm pre-med myself, but I have no illusions about the profession."

Someone else also pulled me up on this and as I stated I don't live in Australia and made some "bold" legal assumptions in my post. It does not invalidate my point about the meaning of censorship and the overuse of conclusion mats.

Your post also begs the question, what should be done to improve US standards?

BTW: Your link points to an article by the noteworthy Fred Singer who gained noteriety for his tabbaco industry bullshit before moving on to fossil fuel industry bullshit, I would be surprised if he was unknown to all your lecturers. He is the guy you call when you want to delay something for a few decades (such as officially aknowlaging a smoker has a 1/20 chance of dying from their drug addiction and it is almost a certainty it will damaging their health), yes I'm a smoker but I don't encourage others and don't deny it's illogical.

Fred's own "survival" is liked to his ability to draw grants from vested interests. Since he also lobbies space policy I would not be surprised if he hand in redirecting NASA's gaze away from our own biosphere.

If you want to practise skepticisim, you can talk directly to some of the world's top climate scientists here. Being "pre-med" and all that, you will easily recognise the analogy between "consensus" climate diagnosis and a "firm" medical diagonsis.

When will people STFU about volcanoes, mars warming, water vapour, solar flux and all the other politically inspired red herrings that have well and trully been acounted for if you look beyond the WSJ. As for TFA they are not censoring anyone, they have a right (if not a duty) to shun psuedo-science in their own ranks.

"I'm saying that a religious belief in a single monolithic truth is extravagantly unlikely to deliver the best choices"

Show me one scientists who claims to know the "truth" about the future and I will show you a fraud. Religious belief is defined as faith without evidence, religious dogma is faith in the face of overwhelming contra evidence, some weathermen are indeed guilty of religious dogma and are a prime source of red-herrings as described above. If they're not guilty and it's all just "groupthink by the establishment", then why did we stop examining animal entrails to know when to plant crops? Why don't we have a weatherman slaughtering a live chicken to decide where the next hurricane will land? Or an astrologer to predict drought by the colour and position of mars? And why aren't they all certified by the AMS and taught in our schools via appropriate stickers in a narrow minded effort that would further cloud any critical thinking by the general public?

BTW: I don't want to discourage anyone from being a skeptic in the scientific sense of the word. Informed and introspective skepticisim is why science is so stunningly successfull (but far from perfect) at predicting future consequences. But be aware that skepticisim must first trample on one's own beliefs and dogma to become a usefull tool.

And Morano works for James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe, the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

My spouse is a research scientist whose work is directly related to climate change issues. She is not a climatologist, but she is well published and her work is used by climatologists.

I thought there still was quite a bit of legitimate controversy on this issue.

Its a broad issue. Be more specific. If you are referring to AGW (anthropogenic global warming) as I suspect, you are wrong. It is pretty settled that AGW is happening and to a large degree. The extent of which is not completely clear, but it is happening.

My understanding is that, while it is generally accepted that global warming is real, it is not nearly as accepted that the warming is "manmade" as the article puts it.

See above, your understanding is not right. There certainly is a cyclical component to the current warming trend, however, there is nothing in the historical record (~>100,000 years) compares to the current rate of warming.

The other leading claim is that it is merely part of the normal warming and cooling cycle of the earth, similar to what takes place at the end of each ice age.

How many times does this have to be debunked before people will quit saying it? Seriously.

To strip meteorologists of their certifications is irresponsible abuse of power

There are qualifications to get a certification. How can modifying those qualifications, according to what scientific research shows be irresponsible? Irresponsible is people like Geogre Taylor, Oregon's state "climatologist" who is a skeptic. He does not have a PhD in the field, has not published any scientific, peer-reviewed research. Yet he cherry-picks data points that fit is pre-concieved notion of what is happening and he has enormous influence on public policy. THAT is an irresponsible abuse of power.

The debate is over folks. Its all about mitigation at this point.

The first volume of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assesment Report is to be released on February 2nd (URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Also check out (url: http://www.realclimate.org/)

As to if decertification is extreme? Possibly, but essentially what you have is people that have been certified, providing misleading information to the public under the banner of that certification. This is a legitimate grief.

**disclaimer: I know of Heidi Cullen, I have never met her and until now didn't even know she had a blog. My wife has had professional contact with her, but I have not spoken with her on this issue yet.....its news to me.

"Just because everyone believes the rags we call newspapers does not mean global warming is man-caused by any means....and seeing that my weather forcaster can not even predict weather 10 days from now, how the heck am I supposed to believe doomsday predictions of 20 years from now? Am I supposed to believe that we can predict weather 20-30 years from now, but not 10 days? "

Weather != Climate, read some more about it in the scientist's own words here and get back to us when you understand the basics.

I know (first hand) what research scientists will do for grant money, but you're right it would be a little hard to conceive of it on this scale.

You can get grant money for results which challenge the status quo. In fact, you can get a lot of grant money this way, as long as you can back up your claims. On a more mundane level, you can certainly get grant money for work that reevaluates the reliability of climate models, temperature reconstructions, etc.

It has happened in the past with Newton's theories of light, for over a hundred years the Royal Society refused to accept anything that went against Newtonian optics, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence (and there wasn't huge sums of money involved).

To be fair, science along the traditional European model in previous centuries was much more hierarchical than it is today. Today there is such a broad range of funding sources, journals to publish in, and a vastly larger number of scientists, that it is hard for any one small group to dominate the discourse.

Yet their only evidence they present are fancy diagrams and graphs produced by experts who are never mentioned or sourced. So I tasked myself to find information and answers. Instead of anything solid all I find insinuation

Well, why don't you try reading some of the actual scientific papers? Go journals like Journal of Climate, Climate Dynamics, Journal of Geophysical Research, as well as the prestige journals like Science and Nature. Read the articles they have on the subject. Hunt for review articles for an overview. Or look at the latest IPCC report and the references therein.

Now, if there is so much debate over the models people are using (and are best weather model programs can't predict the weather a week in advance) how can they predict anything?

Climate models can predict over much longer timescales than weather models, because climate models only need to predict annual global averages, instead of specific temperatures over specific cities. Global averages over annual time scales are less sensitive to error.

And are these predictions accurate?

That depends on what you mean by "accurate". See, for instance, the variation in predictions for various models regarding global temperatures during this century (here). As you can see, there is a wide range of variation, but you can make general conclusions, such as "Warming is likely to continue, with a rate of 3.5 degrees C/century being the most likely".

I was told at Uni that we simply didn't know the effect of CO2 concentration on global temperatures (this by an "expert" University lecturer) now six years later we all of sudden have a solid indisputable understanding with rock solid models indicating we are all going to die.

We don't have "solid indistputable understanding" and our models are not "rock solid" and certainly do not indicate "we are all going to die". However, we do know a lot about the effect of CO2 concentration on global temperatures, and have for some time. Your lecturer was mistaken.

So my first thought was how can something so publicly accepted be contested so strongly and me not hear about this?

It's not contested as strongly as climate change skeptics and politicians would have you believe. For every paper contesting global warming there are literally hundreds of other papers that find evidence for it. It's true, however, that you can't rely on the media to give you a balanced presentation. Just read the scientific literature. It takes more work but it's the best source. You can get good information aimed at the layman on the RealClimate blog, written by a group of climatologists. It's not totally biased as skeptics would have you believe, either; they are quite frank in discussing what you can and

I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.

Be alarmed. Greenhouse gas levels are greater than at any time in the past few million years. Temperatures will certainly rise rapidly to levels greater than at any time in the past few million years. The consequences of this are very dire. I such cases you don't wait for an exact description of the consequences, you get alarmed and act, because delaying worsens the consequences. The temperature takes about half a century to respond to greenhouse gasses increases, so most of the disaster is in the post. So waiting until it gets bad is not going to work.

The planet has been warmer than it currently is plenty of times before.

Possibly at a couple of points in the last 7 ice ages. But we are within 1C of the warmest that humanity has ever co-existed with.

Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.

Utter bollocks. Have you not heard of the greenhouse effect? It causes warming!
Greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing. It's caused by humans.
This is not a mystery. The greenhouse effect is very well understood.

1st heads up: The ahref=http://www.ipcc.ch/rel=url2html-30846http:// www.ipcc.ch/> is going to be releasing the 1st volume on the 4th Assesment Report on February 2.

Seeing as how this is a tech-savy mostly educated community, I have to admit that I'm stunned as to how many misleading and flat out wrong statements there are here.

Being married to an actual scientist whose work is directly related to climate change issues (she is not a climatologists, but her research and models are used by climatologists), I can speak to some of these issues.

climate models are teh suck

No. They. don't. Considering the complexity of the systems involved, their interactions with each other and the feedback, the models are quite good. However, there are some suprising questions popping up as of the last 12 months, mainly why the resolution of current climate models has slowed in the past 3 years?

it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet. - Yes they are. - Yes you do.

As to the claims that scientists are overstating the dangers.. sure there are some, but if you actually take a few moments to look up some reputable published scientists and try to contact them, you will find that they take this issue and their work very seriously.

The argument is over folks. AGW is occuring. The big buzzword in the community at this point is mitigation. This is why statements such as "if we stopped using fossil fuels today, would GW stop?" are so completely inane and stupid.

What I don't understand is why people who claim that this is mostly just "cyclical" are so damned proud of wearing their ignorance so proudly?

To the skeptics: Please, stop reading the likes of the non-published cherry pickers such as George Taylor and get some education on the issue before talking out your.. ahem.

A great place to spend some time on the issue is http://www.realclimate.org/. A blog run by actual climate scientists. It can be a bit thick with the science, but it is extremely informative (especially on the state of current models).

**note: Neither myself or my wife is directly associated with RealClimate. Though she does have some contributions to the Fourth Assessment Report.

"That's 928 peer-reviewed papers, zero dissent - and the agreement of every major scientific body [in the country]. on the planet. - There all fixed :)

And if you want to speak to the horse, err scientists, you can do it here in language that is understandable to the average high school student.

What we have to realize is that there is no one model of global warming. Rather there are dozens of teams of climatologists, physicists, physical oceanographers, and atmospheric scientists working on their own versions of Global Climate Models (GCM), Thermospheric/Ionospheric... Global Coupling Models (TIGCMs for all you space weather types out there), etc... All of the ones I am aware of show that Global Warming will be an issue in the next 50 to 100 years in that sea level will rise, climate zones will shift, and possibly, the ocean conveyer (thermohaline circulation) will be affected. Temperature anomalies from model to model differ as indicated here. And this is one of the inputs into other aspects of the models such as "how much ice from Greenland do we think will melt". Scientists are at great pains to only include known data into their models and as such, most models tend to be conservative. In fact most of these models are being tweaked and modified on a daily or weekly basis as new information becomes available. As an example of this, see this on how methane emissions may have been seriously mis-estimated both in source and amount.

Complaining about the lack of accuracy in these models is like complaining about the fact that modern weather forecasting can't tell you exactly what hour a storm that is two weeks off will hit, and how much rain will fall. Weather forecasting is exponentially better than it was 30 years ago and has saved the lives of seamen, mountaineers, and others. (In fact much of the goal of weather forecasting was specifically to save lives.). These models will continue to improve as we learn more, and if we actually act on their predictions, we can stand to benefit.

More detail than you ever wanted: here, here, here and especially here, from last week.

More detail than you ever wanted: here, here, here and especially here, from last week.

More detail than you ever wanted: here, here, here and especially here, from last week.

More detail than you ever wanted: here, here, here and especially here, from last week.

As for Occam's Razor, I like Einstein's version: "Everything should be made as simple as possible and no simpler." Sure, it's not a literal translation, but I think it captures the essence.

As for global cooling, it was the popular media who were responsible for that myth, just like the summer of the shark. See Real Climate's article on it.

That said, one is well advised - whether it is the hottest day (or even year) on record or the coldest - to not take a single data point as proof or disproof. What makes the global warming theories so compelling is that they were advanced during the time that the popular media was going hysterical about global cooling. It's not exactly a new theory. It's just that normal people are just now beginning to see some of its effects - and, of course, blame random weather on it as well.

The best take I've seen on this (Northern Hemisphere) winter's weather is over at the Real Climate blog:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /01/el-nino-global-warming-and-anomalous-winter-wa rmth/

The sun is at a 10,000 year peak cycle right now....

No scientist was predicting "freezing to death", nor were any peer-reviewed journals publishing articles to this effect. The "1970's prediction of an iceage" myth is based on two media articles by National Geographic and Newsweek where the journalists got their science wrong (more so in Newsweek.)

a better explination is here

This is myth is keept alive by the likes of George Will (a fairly respectable conservative on most other topics) and that "expert" Michael Crichton. The only thing close was the discovery in the 1970's of teperature variations with a periodicity of 20000 years. Well below the time scale of anthropogenic warming (on order of decades to 100s of years.)

Ain't revisionist history fun to use when your worldview is upset?

Yeah, whatever. If you don't like that reference, try this one. While a few scientists expressed concern, most admitted they didn't have enough data, at the time, to make any real predictions.

What I don't get is why there are still so many people who don't get the whole "follow the money" concept. Where is there more money: fossil fuel companies or universities? Duh.

And I very rarely learn anything new on these threads, since I started reading RealClimate; and even the entertaining troll posts about not wanting to go back to living in caves, and anyway it's all a scam by the Chinese to destroy American industry have died back in the last year or so.

So how's the weather back there in the States? Pretty miserable in the NE this time of year, I bet.

The problems with the "the Sun is globally warming Mars and therefore Earth theory" is twofold:

1. The warming on Mars is regional, not global
and
2. As you note, solar irradiance has not increased during this regional warming (it has actually decreased)

I would like to know the mechanism by which "sunspots and solar flares" can significantly warm a planet when the actual energy being received by the Sun does not increase.

But that aside, the regional warming on Mars (near its South Pole) is not due to solar irradiance, and is likely due to the local topography inducing transient climate instabilities. See here for more discussion.

This has been addressed over and over again. It was the popular media, not scientists, who were talking about global cooling in the 1970's. Kind of like those shark scares we see today. (Yes, you might have found a small handful of scientists who were concerned. However, even back then climatologists were warning about global warming, not global cooling.)

Except the oceans are currently a massive CO2 sink, not a net CO2 source.

Two decades of ocean CO2 sink and variability (abstract)
The Acid Ocean - the Other Problem with CO2 Emission
Direct observation of the oceanic CO2 increase revisited

"While I will agree with nearly all of it, the one point that MAY be wrong is that this is man-made."

It is not a binary situation as some would have you belive but man is causing the majority of the accelerated warming observed since the 50's, the question most people now want answered ishow much CO2 is too much?".

The link contains detailed attributions for the multitude of forcings and feedbacks involved in the observed warming. Suffice to say that without man's input the planet would have cooled very slightly over the last century as opposed to what we are experiencing now, ie: looking back millions of years to find other examples of similar (yet slower) rates of warming on a global scale.

Against the Mars canard:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

If you're one of those who don't trust realclimate.org (after all, it is biased in favor of climatology!), feel free to follow the references. If you're someone who trusts junkscience.com more, then I guess you also think that smoking is healthy. (I'm just covering my bases here. I seriously doubt that you trust junkscience over realclimate, but there are those who do.)

The Gulf stream will not stop as a result of global warming; it is wind-driven. The North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (part of the Great Conveyor) may stop, although the odds are thought to be somewhat low (less than 30%). That would cool northern Europe relative to the rest of the world, but in the face of overall global warming, Europe could still end up getting warmer. A shutdown of the THC could have other consequences, however (see the aforementioned Wikipedia articles).

There is a nice recent RealClimate post on the anomalously warm U.S. winter this year, discussing whether it can be attributed to El Nino or to global warming. (The short answer: El Nino plays a large role this year, but global warming is still making winters warmer on average, although you can't really attribute anomalous warmth in any given year to climate change — due to statistical fluctuation, you can only see its definite effect over longer time periods.)

For those who point to the Colorado blizzard as evidence against global warming, they also note that Colorado temperatures have also been warmer than usual. You don't need very cold weather for a blizzard; you just need freezing weather — which will continue to happen even with global warming — and a lot of moisture in the air. Interestingly, warmer air carries more moisture, so some regions may experience more precipitation on average as the Earth continues to warm. However, a particular storm certainly cannot be attributed to global warming.

Read the post that points to http://realclimate.org/ the people you've been reading are evidently pointed in a different direction from the rest of humanity. Solar radiation has been modeled and analyzed, so you can see that the SKY IS FALLING really!
The data you cite are irrelevant. There are several posts by people on this thread that cite Mars for some reason. Is there something that links Mars, a planet with little or not liquid water, to Earth? Is there some reason the sun's radiation has not been taken into consideration by climatologists who virtually all agree that makind's activity is driving global warming? A statement about a one degree limit to global warming over a 100 year span is indicitave of anything without supporting context.

YOU are pretty sure that if ALL the ice melted there would be negligible rise in sea levels? Good lord, on what do you base this assertion? I live in Florida and would like you to be absolutely sure before you say something like that.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the fellows of the National Science Foundation as well as the fellows of the Royal Scoiety are now "alarmist anti-capitalist forces attempting to undermine the economy" ????????????? Break out the tinfoil hats.

Read the post that points to http://realclimate.org/ the people you've been reading are evidently pointed in a different direction from the rest of humanity. Solar radiation has been modeled and analyzed, so you can see that the SKY IS FALLING really!
The data you cite are irrelevant. There are several posts by people on this thread that cite Mars for some reason. Is there something that links Mars, a planet with little or not liquid water, to Earth? Is there some reason the sun's radiation has not been taken into consideration by climatologists who virtually all agree that makind's activity is driving global warming? A statement about a one degree limit to global warming over a 100 year span is indicitave of anything without supporting context.

YOU are pretty sure that if ALL the ice melted there would be negligible rise in sea levels? Good lord, on what do you base this assertion? I live in Florida and would like you to be absolutely sure before you say something like that.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the fellows of the National Science Foundation as well as the fellows of the Royal Scoiety are now "alarmist anti-capitalist forces attempting to undermine the economy" ????????????? Break out the tinfoil hats.

But apparently it takes a bored IT guy on slashdot to correct an international consortium of climatologists.

And why not? It took a bored minerals consultant and a bored economics professor to point out that the infamous hockey stick being touted by "real" scientist Michael Mann was actually spitting out hockey sticks with random data. If it has been accounted for, then please enlighten us... How much lower would the temperature be *EXACTLY* without the solar radiation increase according to the computer model you say accounts for such a thing?

I mean, we're all curious and you seem to know so much about it. So please, do share that information in between insulting the people who dare ask questions.

The first paragraph of your post is covered by the old maxim "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence", yet you seem to expect the taxpayer to fund extrodinary claims by mediocore scientists who freely admit they can't come up with an answer either way. The way to get funding for the idea that "there's no actual certainty here, and many variables to account for" is to publish papers that point out why people who have given error bars for their certainty and accounted for the many variables, are wrong! And yes, this mostly boils down to mundane details, and only a tiny minority of those details become a revolution (eg: constant speed of light -> relativity). Basically, welcome to the real world where only a handfull scientists have become immortal in the minds of the general population.

"we got [hurricanes] horribly wrong in 2006"

Only if you assume the hurricane season is confined to the N. Atlantic.

"We want to hear the extent of what we really do know"

So I take it you have read the past IPCC reports and are looking forward to the one due out early 2007?

"we want honest research to tear down established theory when it needs tearing down because that's how the scientific method works"

Climate theory has ripped a few gapping holes in the prevailing economic theory recently, not to mention calling into question the "goals" of the industrial revolution.

"We just don't know, and that's all people like me want to hear."

The question in my sig certainly applies here. I have found Realclimate to be an excellent "bootcamp" for what we do and don't "know", provided that is, you are willing to devote the research time required to hear it.

ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".

I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?

Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.

As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.

You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.

ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".

I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?

Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.

As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.

You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.

ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".

I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?

Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.

As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.

You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.

ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".

I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?

Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.

As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.

You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.

ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".

I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?

Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.

As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.

You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.

ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".

I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?

Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.

As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.

You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.

ExonnMobil and some in the coal industry have been clear about the rewards for scientists to distort science in their favour. What is the motivation for all other scientists to distort science in the other direction? As someone who gives grants has pointed out, grants are given to answer the plethora of genuine scientific questions that still remain. Lindzen conspiracy of oppression rings hollow since he himself has been invited to give evidence to political commitees on both sides of the Atlantic, unfortunately he did not come up with anything new and spent most of his time labeling anyone who does not agree with him "alarmists".

I put it to you that Lindzen has his conspiracy theory back to front. As for the congressional debate you mention, it wouldn't happen to be linked to Lindzen or a certain science fiction writer giving "scientific evidence" to the senate would it?

Dragging up old arguments is a waste of time and resources and is also the main reason why scientists try to ignore to the likes of Lindzen. Naturally Lindzen is entitled to his opinion and the WSJ is entitled to print it, but please remeber others are entitled to be skeptical of that opinion, particularly when it tells only half the story and totally ignores the science that does not serve Lindzen's or the WSJ's agenda. However I do agree "the politics of science is out of hand" when the WSJ repeatedly gives that much column space to what is basically an individuals fringe opinion.

As for people "getting on with the science", here is a short article about the usefullnes of climate models and what goes into them. Here is another one expalining why scientists back the IPCC even though it may not precisely line up with their own views.

You are correct in saying that science dependes on skepticism to progress, you are wrong to assume the IPCC is political dogma that does not represent the culmination of scientific skepticism that you claim is absent from climate research. I humbly suggest you actually read the 2001 version as background for the next installment due early 2007.

I think the comparison to Big Tobacco's "science" is very apropos. Well into the - what, eighties? nineties? - there were scientists testifying that there was no link between tobacco and cancer. Science shouldn't have an agenda. If evidence is found that takes you in a new direction - you follow that evidence. I'd like to see a source for claims such as,

ajs: "If you work in this field, you know that you have two choices: do work that supports the "consensus" or leave the field for lack of funding."

Nicely done; you fit most of the skeptics' standard and discredited talking points in 3 lines. And added a dash of standard logical fallacy as well.

You can go here, here, or here for more info.

Actors should be reminded that, just because they've played a doctor, doesn't make them one.

Actors should be reminded that, just because they've played a doctor, doesn't make them one.

"Why would there suddenly be an increase in volcanic activity in the last 50 years?"

Apparently melting glaciers have caused a slight increase in sismic activity. Some oddballs think increased sismic activity equates to increased vulcanisim and "disproves" AGW or at least absolves human's of any blame. Kinda like some poeple still insist on perverting science to support a literal interpretation of "The" bible, only they pervert science to support their version of "The" economy.

"The increase in CO2 over the last century would cause an increase in water temperature as well..."

Indeed it has and will continue to do so for another half century even if we stopped all emmissions today, the accompaning "thermal expansion" from the wamer water is a large part of the predicted sea level rises. However the lag between atmosphere warming and ocean warming (that incidently demonstrates cause/effect) means that we are only just now seeing the full effect of the CO2 released in the 50's. Even worse than wet feet is that as the ocean dissolves more CO2 it becomes acidic creating a hostile environment for things on the bottom of the food chain, like phytoplankton and coral. Coral reefs in particular are the "cannaries" of the ocean and 30% of them are now dead.

Mankind (including this little black duck), lacks the enlightenment to eliminate poverty and look after the garden with or without a religion although I suspect we have the ability to do so. The industrial revolution has become Frankenstien's monster turning on it's master first with sophisticated weapons and three-eyed fish, and finally a increasingly likely global famine. Yet I as much as any other would still like a technological fix so my showers can last more than three minutes (where I live the cities are on permenent and increasingly severe water rations). Preferably I would like to see it achived by getting economists "onboard" to suggest ways of "steering" the global economy in the "green" and "human rights" direction (eg: The Stern report) rather than the false greenie vs capitalist dichotomy that has been shoved down our throats since the 70's and has done nothing but squander time. /rant

For any article about climate change, I change my threshold to see all the articles. Slashdot seems to have become a major target of global warming denial spam. It also seems the moderation is biased in favor of the denial spam, such that the key denial spam posts are marked as insightful. By viewing all posts, I get a far more realistic idea of the discussion.

So in a sense I am putting up a bit of a white flag to the GW denialist public relations campaign, and so they have achieved part of their objectives. If you want a real discussion, go to realclimate.org . You'll still see the denialist spam there, but it is responded to convincingly by experts knowledgeable in the field of climate science.

I believe it is a strong likelihood that much of the GW denialist spam is connected in some way to oil interests. Oil companies face billions of dollars in losses if their primary product is regulated. Anyone who doubts that such oil interests wouldn't provide a paltry few million dollars to protect their future profits by funding people to post denialist spam to discussion groups such as Slashdot is I believe quite naive. It's just self interest.

correction: the medieval warm-period at its hottest ~1000ad was colder than now.
certain isolated geographical may have been warmer ( eg. england ) but the average global temp at the time was at about the same temp as the 1970s.
right now is the warmest period on record for a long time.

oh. and england started growing grapes for wine last year.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 /12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval -warm-period-than-they-are-today/