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?
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 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
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
> 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.
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.
"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.
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
Well, I posted it down below, here's the link so people can find it quicker. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137608 &cid=11508081
Thats about what I posted, the only thing I'm not completely shure about is how I worder "Choice Quote" originally. I forget what I originally put the title down as, I think it was along the lines of "Climate Change Scientist Disenters" or something like that.
As for what michael did to it, I'm pissed. As for what these guys say, since all I've ever heard anyone talk about is "We're all going to die and it's ?ALL YOUR FAULT (imaginie someone poking you in chest with their pointer finger as you read that last part)" (or seems that way) I'd like to at least here what these guys say. Seems like anytime anyone says something against global warming the get killed in the press. Always makes me interested when someone says that and makes me want to listen more.
As for the definition of Global Warming, I have heard it is something like this:
Global Warming is the Theory that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and that said increase will cause the average temperature of the planet to increase.
If anyone else can elaborate, please do. As for the poles and all the glaciers melting and what not, that has yet to be proved. If they get a lot warmer, they will. But GW also predicts some areas will get warmer (such as the poles), and some will get colder. Last I checked, the majority of the antartic was getting colder, I'd like to hear if any of the several thousand glaciers in other parts of the world are expanding as well.
Lets see, to cover anything else that may come up, I drive a honda acord (2004). I was looking at the civic hybrid, but it felt to "plasticy" to me to be a good car. That and the fact that the dash was mesmerizing (and would have caused me to get into an accident) led me to get the accord instead. If I had known about the 2005 accord hybrid I would have waited to look at that (still need to take a peek at it). Mainly for the extra fuel economy is why I considered it. I do know several people who drive SUVs. They use them as intended. Just last week a lot of them went to West Virginia for skiing and it snowed. The 4WD helped them a lot more than the 2WD did for us. Also on the camping we do monthly it helps out a lot as well. I realize that a lot of idiots use the SUVs only in cities where they could get by with a smaller car, but I don't know any (yet) that do.
Well, that's what I have to say, it's a bit of a ramble, but that's how I think.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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?
"How long have we been recording CO2 levels?"
o und/scena rios/found/fig2.html
We have been measuring CO2 levels for at least 50 years. Not a long time geographically. We have a suitably accurate record of the global average CO2 concetration for over a thousand years. Rather longer. Regardless, the trend from both recorded CO2 concentrations and measurements of historic concentrations from Antarctic ice cores demonstrate a very clear spike in CO2 levels around the time of the industrial revolution.
Here, if you feel the USGCP (US Global Change Research Program) is a reasonably credible source:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/backgr
If you doubt the spike exists then you have not been paying any attention. The spike in CO2 levels exists and any credible scientist will agree with that.
If you still choose to ignore the CO2 spike, despite relevant data then you are beyond hope and should seriously consider crawling under a rock since you are clearly serving no useful purpose among those who would like to continue breathing oxygen (that's O2, notice the striking lack of C).
Let's hope that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'Cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth.
- 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