Slashdot Mirror
Public Relations Firm Shapes Opinion with Fake Science
Ironsides submitted this BBC link about a conference on climate change and global warming. When you read it, you'll note that there's a real conference with real scientists being held a few days later. So what is this, if it's not the real conference? This is a fake, public relations "conference", organized by a corporate lobbying group, specifically to create doubt about an issue of considerable public importance. So the real scientists doing real work meet on Feb 1-3, the fake ones being paid for their opinions schedule a press opportunity for Jan 27, and the press covers them as if both their opinions should be given equal weight. Jon Stewart's media criticism applies: You're hurting [the world].
equal weight is the only way to get people to listen.
if people sense bias (this sense is dulled in some folks) they won't believe a word they hear.
people know when they're being lied to. they might not let on that they know, and they might vote for the liars, but they know when they're being lied to. they just choose to ignore the lies, and see things their way. if people choose to ignore evidence, they get what's coming to them.
the environmentalists of the world just have to take caution and present a believeable case with as little embellishment as possible. environmentalists should paint the true picture, not the doomsday picture. i'm an environmentalist (born on Earth day, no less) and we've been saying that the world is ending for a while now, but we're all still here.
i dunno... i'm filled with nyquil. i won't even remember this post in an hour. moderate to your hearts content.
So, some so-called "fake scientists" organize a meeting because they have concerns that another science group is being alarmist. So to debunk the fake scientists, we attack them for being corporate schills? Whether or not they are corporate schills is irrelevant. If they're truly fake, it shouldn't be hard to disprove what they're saying, and you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies to discredit them. Ad hominem attacks have no place in science.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Would you care to back up your statement with evidence or proof?
/. crowd?). On the other hand, scientists would try to discuss every evidence and proofs with glee (hell, they even try to disagree with each other, only to improve their understanding better).
That's the difference between fake and real. The fake media won't be able to produce anything that provokes scientific debate. Philosophical debates are useless (did I just criticize the mass of the
Where is the base for michael's claims? Sure, common sense or something, but no matter how strongly i believe in the pro-global warming science, i still find it questionable that this slashticle was posted. If michael wants to write an article about the pr efforts, and links it, fine, but as this story stands now, its 0% newsworthy as it's stuffed with bias from the editor. Mod me down for it, i want to post this as not an AC.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Where? Maybe misguided, but not fake.
How about you, Michael? Just what sort of scientist are you?
Maybe you're just using your position as a slashdot editor to manipulate us.
Don't waste your time. Most of us can think for ourselves. We don't need your help deciding who is a fake and who is real.
What's new? Equal time in today's media is presenting the views of someone who is right, presenting the views who is completely wrong, and letting the public decide.
A slight spin on it would be to present the views of 99.9% of all scientists, give equal time to the 0.1% of scientists who disagree, but not to explain that the 0.1% who disagree are complete raving loons. Instead the impression is made that there is an actual controversy in the field, when there is actually none. Evolution vs. creationism is a good example. There's no controversy, except in the minds of the supremely ignorant.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
A "scientist" shilling for a corporate client without first shedding the mantle of science is not only of great public interest (so we can be certain whose claims to disregard as corrupt), but attracts the justified anger and ire of real scientists for dirtying the public view of science.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Like the other comments, I take issue with the summary. Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) and Prof. Fred Singer (US Weather Sat. Service) aren't real scientists?
As much as I believe in global warming, these "scientists" weren't force do join this society, and weren't forced to speak at this conference. Can people not meet to discuss alternative viewpoints? If they have good points, let them be heard.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
An MIT professor isn't a scientist?
I realise that you're supposed to be editors, but I could do with less editorialising. At the very least, those strike me a semi-serious allegations, yet not one of them is substantiated, either in the editorial comment or in the provided links. That would have been appropriate.
Canthros
The next story on a conference about climate change may look like a dupe, but isn't really.
Unless, of course, they dupe this one first...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The BBC article seems to take this Scientific Alliance (even the name drips of corporate PR'ism) at face value, either that or the British sense of sarcasm so dry as to be beyond subtle.
So, I looked them up myself and found the following links pretty quickly:
SourceWatch and GMwatch which seem to coroborate the claims of duplicitousness in the original submission.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The above posters have fallen completely into the "equal sides" trap. For some reason modern citizens are shepherded into thinking that everything and everyone, no matter how moronic, should have an equal say. Yeah, there are grey areas, but sometimes there is a right and wrong, especially, and most notably, in the field of science. And if you think there's no consensus on global warming, you've obviously bought into the very PR machine that michael's posting about.
Of course, whether or not you believe that is up to you. But in this case at least, one opinion is much less idiotic than the other.
Glog!
> Insteead, there seems to be largely a grab for grant money and political power, as opposed to real science
Fortunately, we've got some big altruistic corporations ready to intervene on behalf of our best interests.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh you fucktard get back to your ranch/oil refinery. I'm fucking sick hearing this same bullshit reasoning the third time this week.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/28/031923 9&tid=126 ... or not
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
It's the job of the party making the extraordinary claim to provide the proof. Let's see, you're claiming what again? That 200 years (at most) of industrial activity influences a planetary system? And that there are no natural causes that can explain this?
> promoting bogus "man-made global warming" theories
Why do you think the theory is bogus? Do you doubt the extraordinary spike in greenhouse gasses since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Do you think the spike was caused by something else? Do you doubt the physics of the greenhouse effect? Is there some other problem with the theory?
Please be specific.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
While I understand Slashdot does not follow the basic rule of journalism, "Try to present an unbiased view of the issue," this is simply ridiculous.
Michael's description of one set of scientists as "fake" and another as not-fake is a much worse public relations ploy than the so-called fake scientists are making. They aren't even claiming that GW is false, they are simply pointing out that many claims made by the so-called not-fake scientists require leaps over large gaps in knowledge and studies.
Of course companies have an interest in downplaying GW, and they will certianly do what they can to reduce impact to their bottom line.
However, anyone who thinks the scientists don't have a vested *financial* interest in continuing to publicize GW is deluded. These scientists are doing this work as much for continued support and grants as they are 'for the good of humanity.' Further, most scientists on both sides of the debate go into their studies with bias on one side or the other.
It's very telling that few scientists have changed their views on GW after entering the field. They usually go in with prejudice, and their tests come out in their favor.
This means, at the minimum, that there is insufficient knowledge to accurately test whether GW is 1) caused by human activity 2) stoppable or 3) part of the cyclic nature of the universe.
Michael's characterization of the issue and scientists involved leaves me in awe. I can see he has extraordinarily strong feelings on this issue - but it's one which he should probably take a back seat to given his obvious tunnel vision.
-Adam
Go here for consensus
Here for the global cooling myth.
I begin to wonder what is hurting more, an objector, or a bad arguing proponents.
As a "tree-hugger", I begin to think the latter.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
You ought to read this. Then take a look at the rest of the site, and see what real climate scientists are saying. It has not one shred of hysteria in it, but plenty of it ought to worry you.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
In this case, the argument that we can pump out massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, removing huge carbon sinks from the ground and putting all of that carbon into the air, would not result in a greenhouse effect is the extraordinary claim.
Where's your extraordinary proof?
When I read "fake science" I thought that they might be after Randi's million but then when I read the conference agenda I thought that they were much less exciting than most of applicants, especially those two and I was like, wtf? Is this story boring or what? And then I was enlightened. Jon Stewart's media criticism indeed applies, even if it is completely irrelevant here, but they in fact are "hurting [the world]," for their frivolous greedy publicity stunts happenings might indeed have a real influence on people and their respective behaviour. Some people might think "hey, the global worning is not such a big deal after all, why not buy another ugly GM SUV monster instead of a hybrid Honda Civic?" which in turn will make the climate even warmer. The question is, why would anyone want to increase the temperature of the planet? It doesn't seem to make any sense, does it? Could that be only a side effect of billions to be made selling oil? Were the recent decisions on the Middle East only a beginning of a bigger plan? Only time will tell.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
the scientific opinion of an editor who posts urban legends as legitimate science news?
Then they're not doing science either. But do not confuse a scientific conclusion which happens to support someone's agenda with advocacy; medical scientists discover things about the biology of diseases all the time, but they are not paid shills for the opponents of Mary Baker Eddy's sect.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
I know National Geographic isn't a scientific journal, but they had a chart in one issue plotting greenhouse gas levels against average temperatures for known history (e.g, current data, ice cores, etc.). It didn't take a statistician to see the correlation.
The only real debate is over causation, the correlation is obvious.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
@Ironsides
I think we all would be interested to see exactly what you wrote in your article submittal to michael. You were not quoted at all in this current article's summary. I was initially ready to call you out for calling these scientists "fake" but realized that the summary was not yours.
You posted quite a bit in the "New Climate Change Warning" article of yesterday. I figured you'd have an opinion to share on this.
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
> Let's see, you're claiming what again? That 200 years (at most) of industrial activity influences a planetary system?
Yeah, it's just coincidence that our earth, sea, and sky have suffered huge spikes in pollutants since then, and an even more amazing coincidence that we're getting extinctions, meltdowns, and deep-sea fish contaminated with mercury at the same time.
> And that there are no natural causes that can explain this?
Heck, there might even be supernatural causes that could explain it.
But the questions for scientists is, what is the best explanation.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh, yes, and in the 12th century scientists were saying the earth was flat. That should tell you something about scientists. Those morons.
Silly to respond to AC, but I'll bite.
This isn't about the validity of global warming. This is about how science is being discussed by the uninformed masses and what bad influence it has to policy making. Example? The AC's response: "it's the job of the party making the extraordinary claim..." Don't you know that scientists have produced such evidences for everyone to study? Here, have a look at global warming in Wikipedia:
Global Warming
It even discusses the pros and cons of the current global warming study. Read it up and learn.
But the root of the problem is that the common mass generally don't understand science enough to appreciate the evidences presented there. And scientists aren't exactly the best media to disseminate such info in a simpler term, either. So the general audience tends to listen whatever they can comprehend, which generally requires no math or analytical skills. They will approach you only with the common frame of reference...via examples like, "the changes in the Sun correlates with the change in temperature [true, btw]. It must be the reason for global warming, not us! (but safely ignore the fact that careful atmospheric modeling excludes the possiblity that the rate of temperature increase cannot be explained by the current radiative transfer model...but to appreciate the degree of "deviation" between the theory and measurement, you have to be able to evaluate the model, statistics, and measurements....
In any case, this is why a government forms a scientific study group (e.g., NAS) to study difficult topics like weather, etc., and let them inform and advice to its policy makers. Again, that's because not all the general audience can't make out what all those scientists are telling. And for scientists, they have a "real" scientific conference to discuss science by gathering evidence and debating the hell out of them. Some agree and other disagree. That's science. On the other hand, the fake conference gathers the believers of their theory and agree with each other and figure out how to inform their consensus to the policy makers. I leave it to you to decide which group is more worthy of listening; I have chosen the former.
To me, these uninformed "experts" are true terrorists who are against what's good and civil.
This is a good example of traditional social patterns showing up in science and confusing the issue. Here's a good article about Richard Lindzen's take on the subject. You can find his papers and testimony before the Senate on his website at MIT.
See also Rufus's speech on ideas vs. beliefs in Dogma.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Remember, 25 years ago these same folks were howling about 'global cooling', that should tell you something.
Yeah, it's really terrible that scientists should change their predictions when new evidence is found, rather than sticking to their ideas no matter what, like a priest or a politician.
And despite that:
1) You're wrong anyway
2) Even if you weren't, after 25 years the top climatologists are not the "same folks"
3) If the original evidence did point to global cooling, then the current rise in global temperatures is even more indicative of human influence.
Carrying on:
There's no actual consensus on 'global warming' is in fact happening,
Wrong! Absolutely no one with any credibility suggests that global warming is not occuring.
whether or not human activity has anything to do with it.
Any fringe theory will find a handful of scientists to support it.
Sorry, but science ain't about fuckin' consensus.
If so, whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice versa is still up for debate in the U.S.
I disagree. Greenland used to be green, and then became cold and icy, prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine and the emisison of 'greenhouse gasses' by human-constructed factories and such.
Or, what if human beings are making a difference, and we're really staving off an ice age.
Or what if global warming is happening, and whether or not we have anything to do with it, we'd see increased crop-yields and all the benefits thereof for the needy and starving of the world?
We don't have enough data, and the scientists are too busy with political posturing and grubbing for grant-money to sit down and do actual science. And when you look at the economic impact of something like the Kyoto Treaty, it becomes apparent that we need to be damned sure, one way or another, before we start making huge policy change which might well prove iatrogenic.
We're talking potentially about the future of the species - we need to get this right. We also need to get into space and start colonizing so that all our eggs aren't in one basket, we need to invest in fusion research and solar-power satellites, and all sorts of things, instead of making pronouncements without a truly scientific basis for doing so.
"There's no actual consensus on 'global warming' is in fact happening, and if it is, whether or not human activity has anything to do with it."
:)
There is some very compelling evidence that there are environmental changes going on around us. Consensus? No probably not, but then for the longest time there were enough holdouts to prevent a consensus between a causal link between smoking and cancer. The other part of your statement on the question of human involvement is an interesting one... but I would dare say an academic one. If it is happening then the why is only relevant as it pertains to understanding and solving the problem. A massive asteroid on a collision course would be an entirely natural event and yet we would want to study and stop it (even if this solution cost jobs and hurt the economy).
"Insteead, there seems to be largely a grab for grant money and political power"
Ahh yes the powerful science lobby that dominates modern society... sorry not trying to make fun of you but I couldn't resist on that point
"This is far too important an issue to rush to judgment on, IMHO."
I totally agree, unfortunately it is also too important an issue to delay action on, so we are left in one of those positions that while philosophically interesting to debate, is rather difficult to formulate policy on.
You misspelled "Christian" as "scientists" there...
If so, whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice versa is still up for debate in the U.S.
Based on the successes the creationists have been having lately, I expect it will be soon.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The BBC writes: A conference to question whether global warming will have a catastrophic effect is being held in London on 27 January. Choice Quote: "Most climate scientists, inside the IPCC and outside it, are ready to acknowledge that they still do not know nearly enough about some key aspects of climate change."
/. editors not modifying what people submit. As for what michael says, I would like some proof of what he says about the conference. As for Jon Stewart's media criticism applies: You're hurting [the world]. I'd personally say he's done more to further that by posting such a completely biased summary without letting the readers decide.
So much for
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
If these creationists would try, we'll bring down the word from Pope John Paul II in 1992. Here is an exerpt from Wikipedia [on Galileo Galilei]:
"In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial, Pope John Paul II issued an apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: 'Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.' After the release of this report, the Pope said further that '... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard [the relation of scientific and Biblical truths] than the theologians who opposed him.'"
For a second I thought I was reading a story from Indymedia.
I'm posting this from a mountain city in Brazil near Sao Paulo city. Twenty years ago, they grew fruit trees here that need to freeze once or twice in the winter to bear fruit in the summer. Now some of the trees are here, but there is no fruit.
Humans are slowly destroying the earth by having too many babies.
There is only one thing that will stop global warming. Show women that it is not advantageous to them to have so many babies.
Actually, 25 years ago "these same folks" realized what was wrong with the global cooling idea. Namely that it a) only looked at the northern hemisphere, and b) that it likely was caused by all kinds of dirt that was released into the air by industry, and has since been reduced because it killed people even faster than global warming. The Discovery of Global Warming
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Maybe because we instead see More And More Deserts On Earth?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Go choke on a dick and die, fag.
What a non-christian thing to say! Shame on you.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Sims, but the world doesn't give a rat's ass what we do to it. Take a look at Venus: greenhouse gases, surface temp around 400 degrees, yet the planet is still very much there.
Oh, perhaps you mean "the world's life"?! Better not get too crazy about that one, son. Life is known to exist in extreme conditions.
Oh, wait, you probably mean "human life," right? Well, to quote Rush Hour: "Wipe yourself off. You're dead."
YAAT. YHL. FOAD.
Yeah, right.
Do you doubt the extraordinary spike in greenhouse gasses since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
Yes. Question: How long have we been recording CO2 levels? How accurate are our measurements?
Do you think the spike was caused by something else?
I doubt the spike exists. Once we prove that we are in the middle of a CO2 spike then we can talk about where the CO2 is coming from.
By the way, it has been shown that if we can attribute human causes to the supposed rise in CO2 levels, then North America is a CO2 sink, not a producer, and as such, we have no responsibility for global warming. If anything, everyone else should be doing what we are doing.
Do you doubt the physics of the greenhouse effect?
Yes. For this simple reason: The earth likely balances out the imbalances. For instance, let's suppose CO2 levels rose, and the temperature rose ever so slightly on average. There is a counteraction to lower the CO2 levels and to cool the planet, thus restoring balance. Were it not so, our planet would have been destroyed long ago.
I also doubt the greenhouse effect because it is unproven. Do we have a CO2 spike? I say no, you say yes. Do we have an increase in temperature? Depends on what time scale you are looking at. To what cause can we attribute this increase in temperature? Since I say there is no CO2 spike, then we can rule that out until you can convince me otherwise. I can show you that the sun is more active than it has been during that period of warming. I believe the sun is the reason for global warming, not anything we do here.
Scientists underestimate the effects of external causes (the sun, natural cycles in the climate) and overestimate human causes, in my opinion.
Is there some other problem with the theory?
Yes. First of all, we don't understand how gasses behave at very low pressures such as exist in the ozone layer. Yet we believe that we understand why we have ozone holes and such.
We don't have any proof of the greenhouse gasses causing an increase in temperature, except several computer models and theories that have been unproven and untested. Show me that greenhouse gasses raise the global temperatiure by showing a correlation that cannot be explained any other way. Show me that it is indeed the gasses causing the rise in temperature and not the rise in temperature increasing the gasses.
We can theorize and philosophize about the causes of global warming, but no one has conducted any experiments or done enough analysis to conclusively prove one way or the other.
Finally, we can't say that global warming will be a bad thing. All we know is that the last time we had serious global warming, the Egyptian, Persian, and Babylonian empires were founded, and humans began to record history. Was that a bad time? Of course not!
The last time we had global cooling, we went through the dark ages. Is that a good thing? Definitely not!
I say we need to raise global temperatures. Let's thaw out the polar caps, increase the rainfall, and let's make snow a thing of the past. I would rather have the earth be a moist, warm planet, than a cold, dry one.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
But we *DO* have time. The worst case scenario say that over the next one hundred years, the global temperature will rise about 1 degree Fahrenheit. I'll take a 92 degree summer day over a 91 degree one any day. And I'd much rather have "bitter" cold be -32 than -33.
And in a hundred years, the world economy will be how many thousand times larger? We'll be able to blink and create superstructures that today's engineers and architects can't even dream about. We'll have cities with thousands of times the populations, bustling with millions of times the economy.
This is the reason why really smart people say to young couples, "You're going to have a bit of a hard time making house payments today. But 10 years from now, you won't and you'll be looking at moving into an even bigger house with an even better neighborhood. Buy the house, it is worth the debt." We go into debt because today's dollars are much more valuable than tomorrow's. I'll be making 10 times as much money as I am now, so paying off my debts is that much easier.
As a world economy, it'll be thousands of times easier to take care of any environmental problem than it is now.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I don't think they care what the Pope says. The Vatican (i.e. Pope John Paul II) supports the theory of evolution.
Be a little careful what you say, you are treading dangerously close to the bounds of being outright wrong.
First of all, in the past global cooling would have been more of an issue, as engines were more prone to release particulates, which tend to cool the earth. Now that devices of all sorts produce much less particulate pollution (but about the same quanitity of CO2), it seems reasonable that the problem will shift.
True there is no absolute consensus, but the general trend looks highly anomalous (look at a graph of temperatures, it's hard to deny what's happening), the mechanism is reasonably well understood, and the whole scenario is far beyond plausible. It is highly likely that CO2 is heating our planet. Nobody has really proven very well exactly what this means, or even whether or not it'g a good thing, but it is certainly dangerous to tread into unknown territory so quickly with so little understanding. The primary reason for restraint is not that we know what will happen, but rather that we don't know, but we strongly suspect that something is going to happen, and it is not likely to be good.
You fall into all the same fallacies. Just because people were wrong before, doesn't mean they're wrong now. Furthermore, you didn't even show that they were wrong, as far as I know, if we had continued to use 1960s era technology to the present day, perhaps global cooling would still be the more likely scenario.
It is true that a few anecdotes don't make data, but wake up. It is hard to deny that the weather has been unusually harsh lately. The global temperatures are rising (easily enough verified by satelites and simple record keeping). In Idaho (where I grew up) it is undeniable that the weather was shifting, and this was 10 years ago, it's even more clear now.
Even if the odds of global warming are only 50-50 (and evidence indicates that it's at least 90-10 in favor, most scientists claim more certainty than that), the cost to reduce it is not so great, and the possible consequences are huge. We should at least attempt to mitigate the situation, whether we truly believe or not.
Nice idea, but it is just too convenient. Suspiciously, and unrealistically convenient.
Some argue that we don't have a good enough understanding of global warming to justify changing. I can see where they are coming from. My argument is that the theory makes sense, and the consequences are so dire that it cannot be ignored.
We are rapidly burning fossil fuels that were of created over millions of years. The theory that this is having a detrimental impact on our climate that could lead to serious problems makes a lot of sense. It still needs to be proved or disproved, of course, but since this takes time, and since the consequences of inaction could be catastophic, hoping for the best, or even hoping we should do more of the same seems like a crazy thing to do, even if it would be fantastic if that was how it worked.
The starving of the world isn't because of failed crops. Its always because of political failure. Beside, global warming does not predict better crops, it predicts more extreme weather. More floods. More droughts. More huricanes.
> ...the scientists are too busy with
> political posturing and grubbing for grant-money to sit down and
> do actual science.
I don't think this is true. The media may make it seem like there is a raging debate because so many think "fair and balanced" means presenting both sides of any argument as equal regardless of the merits (and sources), but if you ignore the propaganda and guff from those with vested interests, the scientific community is increasingly of one voice.
> We're talking potentially about the future of the species - we need to get this right.
Exactly.
Which nations do you trust to use nuclear weapons responsibly?
That's a good point.
- Anthropology
- Chemistry
- Physics (high-energy, solid state, plasma, etc.)
- Planetary geology (Spirit/Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens)
- Cosmology
- Biology
- Paleontology
I'd be very interested in any facts you might have regarding matters such as the financial payoff from finding extrasolar planets, or pre-Clovis human artifacts in the Americas. And while you're at it, how about the fee schedule for different "correct" results from paleoclimate research? If their ability to publish depends on their results agreeing with the corporate interest, would you still say that? (You aren't going to hear the full story even from the honest people, and the honest people will tend to leave.) You have no idea how science works, do you? Research scientists live and die based on the accuracy and usefulness of their results. If their results cannot be replicated (or worse, show signs of being fraudulent) then their careers grind to a halt. Scientists may be sloppy, but the system works to get rid of sloppiness and incorrect results.In the case of climate research, there is one hell of a lot of prestige which would come with a correct debunking of the global-climate models which all predict warming. There might even be a Nobel in it. But note that I did say correct debunking; anyone withoute the facts on their side need not apply. Have you noticed where the huge majority of the climate scientists (who have the facts such as they are) stand today?
You're implying that "all scientists are self-interested, therefore nothing they say can be trusted". I suppose that you disregard everything you're told about the safety of the water supply, the recommendations for nutrients in your diet, the effectiveness and hazards of drugs, and everything else that was researched and published by a scientist. Because, y'know, "there are bad scientists and they're all just out for their personal interests"?Regarding climate science, I refer you to this entry:
It takes some gall to deny something which can be measured by infrared absorption in a test cell, or the Keeling curve. And it's certainly not honest, far less honest than anything I've seen from the "self-interested" scientists. Calling someone an "industry shill" is one of the most flattering things you could do.Sustainability and energy independence essay
I realise that you're supposed to be editors
Well you see, there are editors, and then there is michael.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124 -10.html
A distributed compute-engine simulation calculated a worst case temperature rise of 11C. While I have absolutely no doubt that their simulations produced these results, I - unlike most of the population listening to this on the news - am fully aware of what simulations are and how they work.
It requires accurate initial conditions, accurate models, and an accurate physics engine.
So what does this mean?
As an example, a story from one of the grad students I met who was working on modeling a supernova explosion: we were chatting in the lab and I was fascinated by the process (they were running it on a Connection Machine -- a bunch of processors networked in a hypercube topology). He told me he had a physics model with over 200 parameters and the star had a fairly simple composition model, also with many parameters. He ran 4000 simulations before he got an explosion.
A climate model is an enormous undertaking.
1) You divide the planet into finite element. This is a long process, done offline where you must decide what portions of the atmosphere can be divided into 10 km voxels and what portions should be divided into 1km voxels. You then divide the surface into a grid and incorporate elevation data (which is important for prevailing winds). You divide the entire ocean into voxels.
2) You assign all the initial conditions, the density, composition, viscosity, fluid flow velocity, etc. Then you try to predict how it will change over time. There's a lot of guesswork here because you don't know what the exact composition of the ocean is or it's complete temperature profile, but you can get kind of close. Same problem with land cover - satellite data can give you percentage of plant cover, but you're really limited to visible light for absorption spectra, and you'll never know how land usage will change over time, so you project current trends. (We should all know how accurate curve fitted projections are outside the data set.)
3) You then project changes in the atmosphere due to human activity and apply adjustments throughout the run.
4) You develop physics models. Note that climate models are not the same as weather models. Weather models are HIGHLY non-linear and sensitive to initial conditions (chaoitic) and can't be used more than several days into the future before they diverge greatly. A climate model depends on long term averaging of weather chaotic behavior, taken primarily from history data. This too is difficult. We have perhaps 200 years of
measured climate data, and aren't very sure about its accuracy or how it relates to worldwide surface temperatures (basically because nobody was measuring it back then.
Your physics engine becomes full of tweakable parameters. You tune it by attempting to make it behave as your (scant and full of assumptions) history data, based on initial conditions and population dynamics that are also largely guesswork.
5) You then run the simulations in Monte Carlo, varying your input parameters according to some algorithm that you also invent, then run more simulations, varying even more parameters, in an attempt to find the most sensitive parameters, all the while hoping that you don't get stuck in local minima. You focus on refining your most sensitive parameters and acquire more accurate data for initial conditions, while spending less time on parameters that have little effect on the outcome.
This critical process is Model Validation. You must be absolutely sure that your models accurately reflect what happens in real life to trust the simulation. For those of us who run simulations for a paycheck, the phrase is "your simulation is only as good as your model."
From a critical eye, and being smart enough to actually understand it, I absolutely require seeing the data, the initial conditions, the parameters, and the process by which models are validated, because I know for a fact that you can make a simulat
And the bias gravy, don't forget the bias gravy. The post says, "Ironsides submitted this BBC link..." So he submiitted the link--who wrote the description?
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
I'm interested in the responses to bubble fusion,
cold fusion and global warming news on slashdot.
The skeptical responses on the first two subjects
seem merely uninformed-off the cuff-I want to blab
on slashdot stuff. On global warming there seem
to be talking points coming in at times. Perhaps
this is only because the talking points are out
there and we are just hearing the dittos from
those who aren't bothering to read fully or think
for themselves. When I submit a scientific paper
I have to declare any finacial conflicts of
interest, but I don't have to do that when I post
to slashdot. Heck, I don't even have to say who I
am. Could slashdot be attracting fruaduant posts
in the same way that google is attracting
fradulant hits?
I support funding for fusion research, solar power satellites, and research to get us onto a hydrogen-based economy. I want us to get away from fossil-fuels.
I totally agree. Saying modern science is fueled by personal financial interest is such a complete disrespect to all of the hard working scientists who work tirelessly day and night without concern for personal gain, but towards the success of those generous corperations who have enough loot to fund them.
Others here have posted stuff about scientists saying different things than cooling in the past. But I also want to point out that I quite distinctly remember in the 1970's in elementary school being told that pollution was going to heat the earth up, to disasterous "Venus" levels. At that time the problem was considered CO2 making a more insulating earth's atmosphere. It probably was bogus, probably just a lot of misinformation from my decidely liberal teachers, but it certainly did predict HEAT, not cold! I also distinctly remember "nuclear winter" in approximately 1979 or 1980, and that it was intially attacked precisely because it predicted the opposite of common knowledge, and Carl Sagan and other proponents of that explaining that the winter was a short-term effect in order to deflect this criticism.
Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures.
So I take it there have never been any swings in temperature till man started putting out greenhouse gases?
Just get an oppinion that's evan remotely with the times, dickhead. (number of hyperlinks deliberately kept to a minimum to keep with the corporate cock-sucking, arse licking sub-literate whoopee we're all gonna die fucking stupid mentality of the parent poster).
"...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
"Do you doubt the extraordinary spike in greenhouse gasses since the beginning of the industrial revolution?"
Please provide a reference that describes the *source(s)* of pre-industrial revolution measurements. Who was measuring greenhouse gasses then and why? What was the nature of the instrumentation used to make the measurements and good/accurate was it?
Without reliable pre-industrial revolution data, the "spike" is meaningless. Ditto for temperature measurements. They call it GLOBAL warming. How good was the instrumentation in undeveloped countries 100 years ago? How dilligent were the measurement takers? If 100-year-old data from technologically backward regions around the world is part of the model, the model is irreparably flawed.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
> > Do you doubt the extraordinary spike in greenhouse gasses since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
> Please provide a reference that describes the *source(s)* of pre-industrial revolution measurements. Who was measuring greenhouse gasses then and why? What was the nature of the instrumentation used to make the measurements and good/accurate was it?
> Without reliable pre-industrial revolution data, the "spike" is meaningless. Ditto for temperature measurements. They call it GLOBAL warming. How good was the instrumentation in undeveloped countries 100 years ago? How dilligent were the measurement takers? If 100-year-old data from technologically backward regions around the world is part of the model, the model is irreparably flawed.
Please get informed before you rant. The source of the data is ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, not Neanderthal thermometers. Here, for example, is a graph of CO2 vs. time, one of many graphs you can find by spending a few minutes with Google.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh, no. It isn't up for debate anymore. We finally locked up all the socially deviant heliocentrists. Thank god we didn't need to bother with trials for all those bastards.
And maybe no long-term ones as rapid as the one we're causing, with the exception of those caused by asteroid strikes. (Volcanic eruptions cause brief swings.)
You write
(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.
If this was undisputed we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
Stephen Colbert on race: "While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad."
Is the second link the fake and the first one real!!????
You know, Like this post!
half the stuff in the news is corporate lobbying disguised as news and infortainment.
BTW, this topic is very important and really should be front page on slashdot.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
There are people who dispute that the Earth is older than 6000 years. Just because some people are idiots does not mean there is a dispute you need to take seriously.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
What's more, Catholics are not true Christians, according to the born-again christians in the USA.
Their reasons vary from worshipping of idols (statues in catholic churches), worshipping of false gods (praying to Saint Mary and other Saints), and believing in "salvation through works" rather than "salvation by accepting Jesus" (apparently, as long as you're "saved", you can be a mass murderer and all-around horrible person, and still get into heaven. Meanwhile, everyone who's not a born-again Christian goes to hell automatically because they didn't accept Jesus.).
During the 1980's, there seemed to have been quite a bit of confusion between the effects of greenhouse gasses and the effects of nuclear winter. Greenhouse gases were going to heat up the earth and nuclear winter effects were going to cool down the earth.
The theory of Nuclear Winter is about the effects of an all out nuclear war on the climate, not the effects of greenhouse gasses on climate -- two totally different things. The theory of Nuclear Winter was controversial and unwelcome by some segments of society because it made a nuclear war appear even less survivable.
Probably the biggest thing that caused the theory of Nuclear Winter to be confused with greenhouse gas climate change was that the effects of ancient wildfires on climate were used to support the Nuclear Winter theory. The effects on climate change between wildfires producing large amounts of particulates and internal combustion (or gas turbine) engines producing large amounts of C02 are quite different, but they can be confused.
There was a volcano in Japan back in the late 90's that produced thousands of times more environmentally toxic pollutants in the first 5 minutes of eruption than mankind has in it's entire history. So-called "environmental scientists" have conveniently ignored this fact for almost a decade. Anyone giving even a cursory examination of the "evidence" produced by the extremist environmental movement can debunk their entire position in minutes. I think the same could be said for the opposite position as well. The truth is that scientists (and everyone else) do not understand even a fraction of a fraction of how this planet operates. There are a million possible and plausible explanations for environmental changes. What I find irritating about the environmentalist whackos out there is that they cling to one explanation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not science, that's a religion.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
All that proves is that there was a rise in those particular gasses in Greenland and Antarctica. What about Chile? France? Russia? America? Extrapolating results from small isolated data samples makes for worthless junk science. The Earth is over 4.5 BILLION years old with a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles. Show me a C02 survey over 2.5 billion years from every lattitudinal and longitudinal crosshair and I will go along. The so-called "evidence" you give is like me examining a piece of grass and claiming to be able to explain the entire forest from it. BTW - I did my research before ranting.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
Lets start with: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/46 9987%3Fformat=html 3 1&art_id=qw1106022963550R131 a dID=300034074&messageID=300411450
_ station.py?id=700890090000&data_set=2
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?thre
Showing the southpole has been holding steady temp: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/update/csci/show
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars