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].
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?
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 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
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
> 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
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.
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.
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.
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?
- 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