Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed?
sycodon writes "Global Warming has become more than just a scientific issue and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Hollywood, Politicians and Science Bureaucrats, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to Richard Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. From the article: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"
And in other news, people who don't like certain viewpoints tend to supress those viewpoints...
...whether your a nazi in disguise as a neo-con or a tree hugging liberal college enviro-hippy.
It's a highly politicized topic. One can easily trace the links: global warming/industrialization/fossil fuels/automobiles/SUVs/selfish conservatives. Or maybe it's global warming/savetheearth/treehuggers/anti-social liberals.
An objective scientist doing his job has no place in the arena by any of its participants no more than Socrates' objective criticisms of the Greeks were welcomed. In the end, they would rather force the hemlock than hear the truth....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Anyone notice how when everyone was saying global warming was seven or eight years ago, Slashdot was all for the Kyoto protocol. And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?
Hint: Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it right. This is why people dislike nerds.
This is why it's important not to have State control over funding; anything unacceptable - which is of course entirely orthagonal to truth or falsehood - naturally, to a lesser or greater extent, tends to be suppressed.
Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?
The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.
The State inherently holds political power; to give the State economic power is to provide it with a forceful means to implement its own ends. This is one of the reasons why its so vital to keep the State out of economic activity; because of the danger of the abuse of that economic power.
Certainly they would get a lot more money to prove that global warming wasn't real despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are way higher than they have ever been in the last ten thousand years. Fixing global warming will cost certain companies billions of dollars, although with carbon trading the economy as a whole doesn't really suffer. Even still though, I'd bet the big companies would be willing to pay a people a lot of money to say the problem isn't real, no?
First we hear the science supporting global warming is being suppressed, now we hear that science opposing global warming is being suppressed. The only clear conclusion is to get politics out of science, but I don't think anyone's ever succeeded at that in its entire history.
It is really sad when someone who doesn't agree with the rest of the world faces these kinds of problems -- I think it directly has to do with the politics of science. With more and more scientific studies paid for out of public dollars, of course you're going to see more and more scientists come up with the alarming issues that raise the most money.
It also goes to show that you'll find dissent creates outcasts. This is no different when anything else becomes public policy -- try speaking out about the inept public school teachers you find more often, or the low-IQ workers at the DMV, or anyone else on the dole.
Global warming is more myth than science. Much of it comes from socialist desires to control large corporations -- "why not make cars more fuel efficient?" Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too. "Why not curtail smokestacks?" Because other countries won't, and you'll lose jobs on top of jobs (this is already evident).
I'm not surprised in the least by this. It is harder and harder to find anti-global warming facts not because there aren't any, but because people who know the facts are afraid to bring them to light.
I don't care either way. I directly finance all the environmental causes I believe in through www.perc.org and that's the way we should be dealing with it. Drop the federal and public-taxpayer funded grants and let each individual focus on what they believe in. Instead of crying that the sky is falling at some lame protest, go work those hours at Starbucks and donate the money to the scientific research company of your choice.
Yeah, they just have $1.7 Billion in funding to fight over, in the US alone.
RTFA
I tend to believe this guy.
The global temp started increasing alarmingly only after 80's due to cleaner air supported by green house gases.
But, as per the storm counts - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=140, there is an increase of stronger storms, from 1920 onwards.
Even though this doesnt prove anything, it actually puts a seed of doubt in my mind. I used to believe (without any doubt) that increased temp is causing stronger storms et al. But I do have my doubts now.
Also I do not know if some localized temp changes caused these storms too...
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Let's see...spend four years in college, another year getting a masters, another four years getting a PhD, and another two years doing post doc research. Then make 40,000 a year teaching at a B level university for the next ten years. If you get tenure then your pay goes up to 80,000, but most likely you don't get tenure and end up effectively getting fired.
OR work go to business school and make 250,000 your first year out of college.
I'm sure the world's climate scientists are all just in it for the money.
Let's have General Motors and Exxon pay the Association of Petroleum Geologists to do the research.
Then the Truthiness will Come Out.
No, I question the credibility and the timing of these claims, and I find it disgraceful of MIT to be associated with what appears to be little more than a political stunt. Note I said "appears". There may well be some basis to the claims, but the timing and nature of their presentation destroys all of that. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't come across as a spoiled brat whose toy - possibly NASA - has been taken away from you.
The claims against Global Warming may or may not have any validity. That isn't being discussed, so I'm not going to address that here. What I am going to address is efforts to turn the debate into propoganda - by whatever side. Whether you're talking about the Swift Veterans For Toothfairies, or some other totally political movement, is also unimportant. Reality cares not one whit for opinion polls or campaign financing. If the climate is shot, it's shot, and all the PR in the world won't change that. If it isn't, it isn't, and again PR isn't worth a damn.
Politics has no business meddling in the affairs of science. The reverse is not true, as science has the knowledge necessary to define politics. But politicians should learn their place - they are the servants of the public and the slaves of the forces of nature. Allowing politics to control anything is the ultimate recipe for disaster.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This totally ignores what the story is trying to drive home. The greed of the scientists is what drives them to support global warming. If they don't support global warming then they lose their funding, popularity, and their status as a scientist. I feel that in this way the global warming crowd is hurting the cause for a cleaner environment. (I believe that most global warming is fueled by sunspot activity - just look at the world around the 1500s - Look it up you will see) The West is always berated for all the polluting we are doing. Has anyone ever been to China, Taiwan, or India? We really need to start working to educate these governments about pollution, and the environment. If only a few western countries cut back on pollution where will it get us if China is belching out billions of tons of pollution every day? How about we cut the global warming crap, and just talk about the facts. Lets work to make the environment cleaner - for cleanliness sake. The air is dirty, and we want it clean. Our water is dirty and we want it clean. This is much easier to sell then fuzzy global warming theories designed to scare the crap out of us It really is sickening when you are walking down the streets of Tainan, Taiwan and you have to wear a mask because the pollution is so bad. How come I never see or hear the global warming people complaining or doing anything with these countries? Why is that? Could it be that the only purpose is to use scare tactics so people will fund more of their research? I hope not.
I equate the invective with a fervently held belief that the invectors doubt can withstand criticism.
Global warming is a fairly simple concept. It most likely has been occuring over the past century, but definitely withing historical norms and probably withing historical rates-of-change. The cause is much less provable. Some people blame CO2 (especially anthropogenic), when it is almost certainly an effect (ever open a warm soda?).
Yeah...sure...okay, first off...let's get the !@#$% debate defined.
Question 1) Is Global Warming occurring?
Question 2) If so, is it abnormal?
Question 3) If so, is it influenced by man?
Question 1 is still under debate. Though a majority is inclined toward the belief that it is indeed occurring.
Question 2 is far from agreed upon with many believing we are going thru global warming but believes it is not an atypical fluctuation.
Question 3 is even farther removed from being an absolute. Recent measurements recording increase of polar temperatures and melting of polar ice caps on Mars is potentially a shattering revelation to the theory that said warming is due to man's actions.
That said, regardless of global warming, there is no excuse for the amount of pollution, inefficiencies, toxic waste, and mis-use of resources on the part of mankind. However, bad science is not necessarily a good case for said change.
No, because they have so much to gain by receiving money to study the "problem." Which is the very reason they're producing alarmists commercials concerning global warming.
Oh wait...what's that link in your sig? What pathetic irony.
I'm getting tired of the science community saying 'MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!' constantly. Hating on conservatives because of your prejudice against all of them being texas-cowboy retards who drive giant trucks. It's pathetic that a community who is constantly speaking out against people who exclude them for having different views has to exclude other people, and ridicule them, just because they believe in something different then you do. Creationism is a completely valid viewpoint, and so is evolution. They're both *possible*. I've always thought the internet was a place where you could get away from people being judgemental, conservative or liberal, believer in global warming or not. It isn't fair for people like me who are christians to be told that they're outright wrong.
And remember, just because some people treat you like assholes doesn't mean you have to be assholes to everyone else.
First off, it's not professional to call peers "alarmists", especially if you want respect from them. Scientists are usually if anything very reserved about stating an opinion, so I'm highly skeptical of scientists willing to immediately and simply label a broad class of their peers as "alarmists". It might explain why these guys are getting their funding yanked and such. Second, just like "Darwinism" isn't a theory but proven fact- global warming, the fact that humans are causing it, and that we had better do something very quickly or we'll be fucked- is all widely accepted. We have decades of research and evidence, like glacial "records" going back more than long enough to show the planet has never seen anything like us humans, climate-wise. Or evidence that on September 11th, when the FAA grounded planes across the country, the weather patterns changed dramatically.
It's widely accepted that pretending we're not having a massive effect on our planet's climate is the exact opposite of "alarmism"- it's sticking your head in the sand and hoping the lion's gone away.
We have an administration which forbids government scientists from speaking with press, and requires all climate-related press releases to be routed directly through the whitehouse, where they are absolutely gutted? (really. 60 minutes got photocopies of the press releases and reports, after they'd been scribbled all over by white house staff.)
So in one corner, we have a bunch of disgruntled scientists claiming they're being marginalized for taking an unpopular view. And on the other hand, we have scientists being gagged and censored by the Bush administration for presenting valid evidence that the climate is seriously fucked up.
Yeah, I'm really going to loose sleep over the head-in-the-sand people getting to be "unpopular"...
Please help metamoderate.
"Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes." I really hated that sentence in the beginning of the article. Many gov'ts have signed the Kyoto agreement, and many reputable scientists have urged us to lower CO2 emissions. While I admit there is always a chance that so many people were wrong, it is still retarded to think it's better to take a "wait and see" approach. We need to lower CO2 levels now and then see if it helps, not wait until it is too late.
...the fact that CO2 concentrations are way higher than they have ever been in the last ten thousand years
When did that last ice age finish? 10.000 years ago or so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
And to repond to a couple other posts you made, we need to think about global warming with a clear head. We still don't know if mandating everybody to drive a Prius is going to stop it. We still are not sure what all the effects are going to be, the Earth is a complex system. We still don't know what the effects of the industrialisation is exactly.
We need more research, we need contingency plans, be it protection against a rising sea or moving to Mars. It is just to early to dismiss any of it.
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
I don't lose sleep knowing corporate advocates are being suppressed. I wish every corporate advocate would drown in a lake of their own vomit actually.
As far as legitimate scientists being falsely labelled as corporate stooges, there's really no justification for claiming that global warming isn't a sound theory. Flatly dismissing the impact of human polutants on global warming is like driving the Titanic into icebergs because some tool labelled her 'unsinkable'.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
The first major city lost to global warming is in the USA, but the USA government still doesn't believe in global warming. Sounds to me like the people who don't believe in it are still winning. Which city is next I wonder?
What a cesspool of nonsense. The first city lost to global warming? I'm pretty sure it was lost to a hurricane. Do you have proof that global warming causes hurricanes? Did you read the article where he goes on to describe the HUGE debate in the science community about whether global warming would produce STRONGER or WEAKER hurricanes? There is no consensus that hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming. You are literally making that up.
Next you go ont to say "Sounds to me like people who don't believe in it are still winning". Guess what, genius... he states.. repeatedly... the earth is WARMING. He "believes" in global warming as much as I believe in your ability to read (and your ability to choose not to). What he argues is the effect it will have on the climate, and it's actual cause.
Real scientists don't make dumb statements implying that global warming caused Katrina. That's idiot-babble. No real scientists that I know of declare that global warming doesn't exist. For the 927th time in the history of this topic on slashdot, I have to correct some ignoramus who is modded up to +5 because he doesn't understand the scientific debate between the existence and the cause of global warming. And lets not even pretend that science can hope to predict the effect of global warming in the long-term future.
It is people precisely like you that make it so easy for right-wing to keep parrading out the same strawman and striking them down. You are arguing with people who haven't existed in 20 years. Get your facts straight, read the articles, and then think for at least 45 seconds about what you want to say before parroting this same tired old tripe that is easily refuted. It's ridiculous.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
No, he hasn't come up with the answer. He's found a way to move the polution out of southern california. I'd really like to know how many miles per ton of coal he got. He's a fraud
Instead of rebutting the facts of their science, climatogogists that don't hold global warming alarmist views are critisized for their funding. Where else is a climatologist supposed to get funding if they don't stand with the majority on this?
Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded.
You just proved the point of the article. If you find yourself claiming a "99.9%" consensus on ->*ANY*- topic, you might want to at least consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and what you think you know might be a house of cards. Even Einstein fell victim to that, so there's no shame.
We were discussing an article whose claim was "These scientists are denied funding, skewing the debate."
Parent post said, this information is not accurate; these supposed pariah scientists are quite well-compensated for their research.
This post says parent post does not rebut the science, but engages in ad hominem attacks. Then it says, "Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded."
Of course, all of this was a discussion on funding, and discussing the science is (strangely) an attempt to distract from the issue actually at hand. Real opponents of global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refuse those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded. (In this case, against their government funding.)
There isn't a lot of grant money for people who propose that the world is flat, or that gravity doesn't exist either. But I'm hardly going to lose any sleep over the fact (unless, of course, I fall off the edge of the Earth and float away -- that might cause me to lose some sleep for a little while).
Yaz.
My main opposition to the Republicans on this is that they vigorously oppose any research designed to try to determine whether or not there is a problem.
There really isn't any doubt that the Earth has warmed up over the last 25 years. There is also no doubt that some of the basic parameters of our climatological system have changed.
We need to find out how much of the global warming that we have seen is due to our activities. It might be 10%. It might be 90%. We just don't know. It might even be 100% natural.
We need to determine how far the warming will go. At what point will it slow down or even reverse itself? It really doesn't matter at all whether or not we are the cause.
We need to find out whether or not we can slow it down or even stop it as well as how to do that.
Finally, we need to determine, based on the other factors, whether or not we should even try to slow it down or stop it. The benefits of global warming, up to a reasonable point, may outweigh the downside.
And as TFA stated, you do not get as much money for verifying that there's probably nothing to something than you do for looking into how bad a dire catastrophe something might be.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
There is no serious debate regarding global warming. There is some disagreement about the particulars, but broad consensus that it is happening. Linking to this kind of disingenuous crap is not terribly useful.
It is suppose to warm up. We're living in a period between glaciation.
Do you really really want to turn the hands of time back to the point that the ocean levels drop 100 meters and have a kilometer of ice on Toronto?
Jeeez... It looks like 99.9% of the population slept through geology.
>
wganz
My main opposition to the Republicans on this is that they vigorously oppose any research designed to try to determine whether or not there is a problem.
gimme a break. didn't bush put more funding for this very research instead of signing kyoto?
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
That's because such remarks are never backed up with a convincing (insightful/informative) argument. Picking random excuses that conflict with known data (eg "It's the suns fault!", "Ummm... we're coming out of some mini ice age!", "It's the fault of those tree huggers over there! Look over there!") and which have been refuted again, and again, and again will not get you modded insightful. Why would it?
I'm getting tired of the science community saying 'MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!' constantly.
Too fucking bad! Tired of gravity being 9.8m/s2 too or the Earth revolving around the Sun? There's scientific knowledge, which adheres to a specific set of criteria and not-scientific knowledge, which is what doesn't adhere to that criteria. Either adhere to the criteria or hit the highway, that's how science works. Change that and it's not science.
Hating on conservatives because of your prejudice against all of them being texas-cowboy retards who drive giant trucks. It's pathetic that a community who is constantly speaking out against people who exclude them for having different views has to exclude other people, and ridicule them, just because they believe in something different then you do.
It's the conservatives doing the hating. You can't seem to get it through your thick fucking skulls that science has criteria and that your beliefs don't meet those criteria. No one is hatin on you for holding unscientific beliefs, we're hating on you for demanding that your clearly and demonstrably unscientific beliefs be categorized as scientific. You don't fucking make the rules here, logic does.
Creationism is a completely valid viewpoint, and so is evolution.
No creationism isn't; stop repeating this ignorance. Creationism is no more falsifiable than the question of God's existence. Evolution is falsifiable and has survived falsification thus far. Evolution is science, creationism is metaphysical. Creationism is NOT a valid scientific viewpoint, no matter how much you wish and wish.
They're both *possible*.
Not as scientific knowledge. Science does not consider creationism because it fails the first criteria of science, it is not falsifiable. Science will never consider creationism or the existence of God until someone has a falsifiable conjecture. But don't hold your breath, humanity hasn't come up with one yet, and it appears as if we aren't likely to ever.
I've always thought the internet was a place where you could get away from people being judgemental, conservative or liberal, believer in global warming or not.
Are you kidding? Since when have you been able to go on the internet and demand that 2 + 2 = 5 over and over again, no matter how many times it's patiently explained that 2 + 2 = 4 and not get flamed for it?!
If you have a valid logical criticism, then go ahead, but just repeating this ignorance is flameworthy. You should expect derision to follow you wherever you try to trot out half-baked, illogical assertions and the participants know better.
It isn't fair for people like me who are christians to be told that they're outright wrong.
It is fucking fair, you're more than "outright wrong"! There is no objective way for you to not be wrong, but perhaps I missed the part of your comment where you refute Tarski and then falsify falsificationism. And don't hide from objective criticism behind your religious views, I consider your belief in creationism to be heresy. The Christian view of the creation stories (that's right, stories as in there are 2 different ones in Genesis), were written as "my God is more powerful than your God" stories. This has been repeatedly confirmed by Talmudic scholars and is the standard understanding among Jews. Any attempt to claim that the story is literal is blasphemy and therefore heretical.
Your views aren't Christian, they're relativist and nihilist. To honestly conjecture that science is the same thing as a religious view, you've let your brain fall out of your head. It belies a belief that objective knowledge does not exist. Well this nihilistic viewpoint is objectively wrong. This goes for the idiot mods who gave this rubbish points too.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
The only people who care about global warming are those who stand to make money or reputations from it - just like every other issue.
With the march of technology, global warming will be a non-issue in several decades.
This is just a rehash of the crap being spewed about "population bombs" in the 1970's. By now, the whole world was supposed to be starving with half a billion dying every year. Never happened. The solution proposed by Ehrlich was kill off 80 percent of the population in order to prevent ten percent from starving - brilliant...
Fucking morons. Concentrate your efforts on nanotech and fuck climate change.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
No, that's not quite right. The problem is that their theories and data are ignored because funding is slashed, and they must resort to gaining funding from intrests which are not neutral. This brings their research into question, and they are easily dismissed.
This cycle perpetuates itself, and we only end up hearing half of the story.
Therefore, the poster you are attempting to discredit is quite right. The issue is not necessarily the funding of Lindzen, but the issues he raises that is there is no longer a healthy or balanced debate (the scientific ideal) on the global warming issues, and that they've been co-opted by special interests and that is the "if it bleeds ... it leads" in the newspaper parlance.
I hate sigs (especially yours which is a waste of my bandwidth)
Logical Fallacy # 1: Poisoning the Well
linky:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning -the-well.html
Logical Fallacy # 2: Guilt By Association
linky:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- association.html
Both are particularly amusing due to your choice of link to "prove" your point.
Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.
Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.
If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?
Robert Racansky
Don't forget that if they really want to prove that humans are causing global warming they first have to explain the "Middle Age Warm Period" (a time when global temperatures were warmer than they are now) and explain why the methods used to produce the "Hockey Stick Graph" (the central piece of data used to push Koyoto) will produce a graph with a drastic shift upward when given random noise as input. There is a lot of questionable sience that is being protected from those that wish to discredit it. Any study that is worth reading has strong enough support to withstand attacks; the fact that much of the global warming studies are treated like they're made of glass and protected just makes me suspect that they're not worth the paper they're written on.
He actually agrees with all of them.
The only thing he disagrees with is whether this is caused by civilization.
Now, in the last IPCC report (THE source for the scientific consensus, at least of the one attacked by Lindzen in this article), it is said that human activities are "likely" the cause of global warming. Not "certainly", but "likely". Even on an earth that is getting hot, I can't see how this is suppressing the view that humans may not be the cause of global warming.
In fact, the only thing he is attacking with any substance are the casual, frequently overheard claims that the recent increase in storms, tornados etc. is caused by global warming. Well, that's a straw-man as far as I am concerned. I have never heard this a scientific claim, just as an informal "could well be" answer e.g. by meteorologist in reply to question by journalists.
If an industry funds research it must be false? What about agencies perpetuating their own existance by delivering research which supports their existance? Your link is exactly what the issue is all about. Just as much as their is a "Greenhouse Denial Industry" there is a "Greenhouse support at all cost industry". Neither side is completely wrong, just some sides are much more virulent at denouncing the other.
Considering the track record of some of the Global Warming advocates and their actions I have a hard time believing every new definition they create. Seems that anything that isn't normal is a sign of proof to them. No hiding the fact than an elephant is in the room, his name is doubt and attempts to will him away only harm the facts that do exist.
Too many people on both sides, claiming to be scientist, are nothing more than the equivalent of relgious whackos. All who fail to believe are wrong and must be justly punished. Of course we know which side puts nails in trees, releases dangerous animals in attempt to free them, or torches businesses don't we. If the point is so obvious then why the need for extreme and irrational action?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Keep in mind a sign of global warming is cooler temperates in teh UK where the article was posted due to cold freshwater obstructing the gulf stream.
Infact the mini ice age was the result of this and the gulf stream died down for several centuries during the late middle ages.
The gulf stream has slowed down by as much as %30 which would certainly explain the temperature decrease in western europe and that is quite serious
http://saveie6.com/
Right, let's teach the debate.
So, I'm afraid that I'm not receiving adequate government research dollars for my proposal on demonstrating that babies are delivered by storks.
As far as I can tell, any of the arguments used to defend anti-Global-Warming scientists can apply equally well to my babies-come-from-storks argument. Saying that the discussion isn't "balanced" and that we need to "teach the debate" or "show both sides" is what you say when you don't have arguments that are strong enough to convince your opponents in debate.
I'd like to keep an open mind on the issue of climate change, but the proponents of no-climate-crisis have failed to convince me, or pretty much anyone else. I'm not sure why we should continue to fund them. Saying that they're not getting their fair say isn't much of an argument.
Lindzen gets his papers rejected by Science and Nature, has a bunch of grants not come through, and then whines about having his views being "suppressed". Well, if we take those criteria, 99% of all scientists are being "suppressed" because that's the rule rather than the exception.
I applaud Nature and Science in "suppressing" people like Lindzen--they simply don't have anything to say that I care about anymore, and I suspect that's true for the majority of readers of those journals. As far as I'm concerned, reducing CO2 emissions has so many other economic, political, and environmental benefits that this is simply not an interesting debate anymore; arguments like Lindzen's should be relegated to obscure journals.
I would be suprised if 'polluters' and petrochemical companies weren't funding scientists who argue against global warming. They generaly are against regulation, of course they would support people who argue that regulation isn't necessary. I'd be worried if they weren't funding him.
Accepting funding from your supposed enemies of the environment does not itself rob him of credibility. I agree that it gives you good reason to examine his motives, but if he is doing good science, what should it matter where the money comes from?
The state of the climate and whether it is changing is not a known quantity. The best predictive models are still crap. There is ~100 years of kind of O.K. data. Ice core data and the like better be really freaking good if we are going to argue that short term temperature changes on the order of 0.3 degree C are signifigant. I haven't stumbled across anything that convinces me the data is that good. To be fair, I have not really looked either.
That website is crazy. It accuses people who agree and who work together of being in cahoots, simply because they oppose the agenda of those writing the page. The part diparaging Lindzen is particularly circular. He is accused of trading "on his qualifications constantly to gain access to top level discussion in the US government or scientific institutions" and denying the 'consensus', but if he is taken as credible there cannot be a consensus and he should probably be at those top level discussions. Foaming at the mouth attacks aren't going to advance their cause. Perhaps they should refute their positions instead of attacking their politics?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You don't get much more suppressed than the views of NASA:
- change/mg18925403.900-us-agencies-accused-of-muzzl ing-climate-experts.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate
But as long as I have to de-plane whenever there is the slightest threat of a terrorist attack on a plane or someone misses a security checkpoint, I'm going to demand that we "de-plane" when there is any indication whatsoever that life on Earth could end. It sort of makes sense that we error on the side of safety since there are tipping points in this debate- meaning that everyone acknowledges that should the whistleblowers be correct, there is a point of no return.
It doesn't matter whether 99% of people agree ... SCIENCE IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST
If it were Gravity wouldn't exist, we would live on a flat world, the sun would revolve around the earth in a funky pattern, and we would live in a 7,000 year old world where everyone was created by a supreme being and fossils would just be funky paterns that were found in rocks.
The facts are that Scientists are funded (heavily) through government grants (any other grant, ie. Oil company based grant, will cast doubt on your findings); government grants are given out by govenment employees who are influenced by Politicians; Politicians recieve their money from Lobby groups (of which the Environmental Lobby groups are some of the wealthiest and most influencial); and Environmental groups ONLY RECIEVE DECENT FUNDING FROM DONATIONS WHEN THERE IS A MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHY ON THE WAY.
Moreover, there are three separate questions:
I don't have answers, and serious scientists are very cautious too. Good data is too scarse, and too much money is involved for rational debate.
Most debates on the subject don't even acknowledge the existence of these separate questions, so how can they even be constructive? Both sides end up yelling at each other, but they aren't talking about the same thing.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
or they could be politically motivated. I wonder how many of the global warming supporters are to the political left?
I dunno. How many global-warming ignorers are on the right?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Let's take another heavily-politicized scientific issue. HIV and AIDs. AIDs was a political hot-button of near-Biblical proportions from day one, with a cure being promised as being just around the corner. With terrible rapidity HIV was identified as the root cause of the disease, and vast funds and resources have been expended in an effort to find a cure for "HIV disease." So far as publicly funded research is concerned, those scientists who are beholden to the bureaucrats in charge of that money are not as free as one would like.
... and not all researchers are in agreement here. What do you suppose happens to those that don't go with the flow? I'm just an engineer so my opinion on the reality of AIDS or global warming is irrelevant ... but I am trying to demonstrate how politics and science have become inextricably intermingled in the U.S. research establishment. In the immortal words of Richard Ballinger Seaton: "this is veree ungood." I am disturbed by this: our understanding of such important aspects of our lives and our world cannot move forward when those tasked with that advancement are not allowed to dissent. What, then, is the point? In such an environment, whatever results are obtained are of little scientific consequence and have no legitimate value in determining public policy. So far as I'm concerned, a President suppressing politically-inconvenient research should be an impeachable offense. There is a certain cost in human lives that must be paid for such actions.
So now, suppose you were a scientist whose research did not support the conclusion that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. Billions upon billions of dollars are riding on that assumption
Decisions regarding both AIDS and global warming have enormous implications for whichever way we jump, and in both cases the science frequently takes a back seat to the politics. You would think (just because the consequences of making an error in judgment or policy are so severe) that those in charge would want the best information possible at their disposal. That would, of course, mean good science unfettered by political shackles of any sort. But our imperious leaders (all of them, and I don't just mean the U.S.) are more interested in using the respect our populations have for science to bolster their own credibility, and further their own agendas. Where we figure in all that is yet to be determined.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
One of the better sources for an objective opinion may be the insurance industry. More specifically, a good place to search would be the area of insurance risk securitization, or catastrophe bonds (cat bonds).
The investment bankers and insurers involved may not always be correct in their projections, but they have a vested business interest in creating the best numerical risk models for any given outcome being insured for. In this case, you might want to check out the published info and analyses for cat bonds related directly or indirectly to global warming.
The weak side of this source is that, ultimately, those structuring the cat bonds need to rely on the data of research scientists. Using some amount of critical analysis and due diligence, the investment bankers will then filter through the data. It is my understanding that one of the world experts on hurricane risk models is a particular NYC investment banker who works on cat bonds.
If the main investment banking group structuring the bond has a reputation for bad models, the amount of business coming their way will decrease. The reinsurance industry may have even more accurate information, but that information may not be as easily accessible to the public.
Okay, so you've arbitrarily decided to dismiss this man's credentials, and then you make some vague implication about "mucking around with the variables" without telling us what variables have been mucked around with. Then you sum it up by bringing into question whether the past can predict the future. Are you in denial, or what?
"He only studies the deep past!" Are there scientists who specialize in the "deep future" we should be consulting instead? How does one become qualified to discuss what will happen in the future--buy a crystal ball? How silly. "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results." No predictions are, but studying the patterns of the past educates you about the likelihood of the future. You're dismissing the numbers on really shaky logic here.
The record shows what the record shows. Global temperatures have not risen since 1998. I guess we're going to dismiss it now because it doesn't fit nicely with the "consensus science" the mainstream media is currently peddling to the folks. Frankly, I'm shocked this submission made it to the front page of Slashdot, which is usually a storing house for asteroid collision scares and global warming propaganda. I'll place them on the shelf beside the "second ice age" predictions of the 70s that never happened.
So this is the big argument in favor of global warming? Ignore the official global temperature record that proves the temperature hasn't risen since 1998 and instead go into my garage and turn my car on. Yeah, great argument! I'm convinced!
Michael Crichton is right--global warming is a religion, a remapping of Judeo-Christian values for the urban atheist.
1.) Natural untouched Eden
2.) Eden marred by unclean man
3.) Make man feel guilty so he follows religious tenets to save himself from impending end of world
You just don't want to hear that man isn't some unclean, unnatural beast polluting his environment beyond repair. The same reason Christians don't want to hear that man isn't some unclean, unnatural beast polluting his soul. You need a guilt complex so you can feel enlightened by spreading the Gospel.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Why wouldn't you count water vapor? If you're talking about "greenhouse gasses," why would there be an assumption that water vapor "doesn't count?"
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
I'm going to pretend that your question was genuine instead of rhetorical. Here goes...
Our current understanding is that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (whether they come from natural events or from industrial activity) are the driving force behind the warming. Lately (since the Industrial Revolution) we've been pumping ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Trying to argue that we shouldn't be concerned about industrial greenhouse gasses because carbon dioxide variations occur naturally is a bit like arguing we shouldn't be concerned about arson because fires occur naturally in the wild.
Also, the rate of climate change isn't falling in line with the long-term climate patterns. That 1 degree change may not sound like a lot, but it has occurred in about 1/50th the time considered "natural." This alone causes many climate change experts to suspect that something decidedly unnatural is going on.
Mind you, I for one do not feel we must "insist that climate change is the fault of humans". Our assessment should be guided by the evidence available. I strongly believe that for climate science to be scientific, it must explore its hypotheses critically and question every assumption, regardless of how politically palatable those assumptions may be.
Procrastination Man strikes again!
That's the real problem of global warming arguments. I would like to assemble a Bill of Materials of Carbon Dioxide Uptake and Production for the planet. On each item on this bill, I would like to have the experiment that establishes CO2 levels, step by step, so that anyone could do it, assuming that they have access to high sky rockets, ocean research vessels, submarines, 3km drill heads, or even portable gas spectrometers. Then, I could tally up, quite easily, all the sources of carbon dioxide, and see that a comprehensive case has been made. But, until that time, I think all we really have in the academic community is a bunch of fundraising baby birds all chirping for some funds.
This is my sig.
Your username is a misnomer. You are not sufficiently critical of the study which you cite. If you reread this topic, you will see several 5-score comments which explain why the study you are citing is flawed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
While you definitely have a point, the simple fact is that where your money comes from will always cause the public (if they know about it) to either believe or disbelieve you. Accepting funding from the oil industry when you're trying to disprove global warming (or the human influence on it anyway) is like accepting money from NAMBLA when you're trying to prove that the relationship between a man and a boy is healthy. This is a particularly apt metaphor in my mind because even if you don't believe in human-influenced global warming, or maybe don't believe in it at all, the oil companies are still rapists of the planet. Drilling, spilling... And they just posted record profits while fuel prices are rising to all-time highs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are sites that shed a critical eye on global warming claims.
Really, it's quite surprising how fuzzy the science is when you actually examine it, but more surprising is just how angry and vitriolic some people get when you confront them about it. Apparently you're just supposed to not care about that--for them, there is no debate, which is a dangerous mindset.
"Sufferin' succotash."
- Atmospheric concentrations of heat retaining gasses (greenhouse gasses) have increased exponentially in the last 250 years.
- The global average yearly temperature has increased significantly in the last 20 years.
The debate is over whether the first causes the second, because there are many other possible drivers of the second by other natural causes. But that still means we should worry about adapting to these changes and understanding the effect they have on earth.1998, 1998, 1998, ... Geez guy, you say we have a religious bent. Every single one of your posts mentions a year that anyone who has ever taken a statistics class can obviously see is a what's called an outlier. Have you taken a look at where it sits on the whole graph? Sure it's a local maxima, but the trendline for the whole series is about as significant as you get with real world data. We might be down 0.1 to 0.2C from the worst year, but we're still up at least 0.8C from a century ago. Or are you the type who needs data with absolutely zero noise to agree there's a trend? Sorry dude, but that's not the type of data that Mother Nature doles out.
"There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, and only I have managed to erase that line." - Dr. Science
1998 was an El Nino year, a new record high year, and at that time stood out as an anomalously hot year.
We are now seeing years with temperatres near or at that anomaly as the standard.
In other words, we have seen a steady climb in temperatures, with an anomalous peak in 1998. If we pick that standout year as the starting point, and 2005 as the end point we get no trend. But this is ONLY true if we cherry pick that ONE single year, 1998, as the starting point.
Look at a long term trend, as in LOOK AT THE GRAPH, and we see a steady climb with variation. This dishonest attempt to hide the trend by picking extremes in the year-to-year variation as the ends of a selected time period, is just one example of the kinds of dishonesty too often thrown at this issue.
""Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now."
If YOU have significant holes to poke, publish them! Don't worry about an academic journal, get a blog. If you are worried about it affecting your own chances for funding and positions, then create an anonymous blog. Get the word out, make them responsible for their holes. If you don't, you are just as culpable as they in letting incorrect findings stand for future generations of research to assume and thus come to incorrect or irreconcilable findings.
You might think that's someone else's job because you are "just" a Ph.D. student, but because of your specialist knowledge, there probably isn't hardly anyone else. The number of people with your knowledge of climatology is probably a few thousand worldwide or less. If you don't do it, no one will, and the rest of us will just be taken for fools because we don't have the knowledge to rebut.
The odd thing is, the article actually refers to the data in the second image ("drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"). Simply by the fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record he draws his little conclusion.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The question of global warming depends on the timeframe you're looking at. This is further complicated by the fact that we're currently in an Ice Age, but between glacial advances.
Looking at the history of the planet, over human history, and since the blossoming of life in the early Cambrian, we're still WAY below the planetary average.
And I'll also note that climate scientists were (correctly) predicting a new "Ice Age", in reality, another glacial advance, back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They just didn't get the timing right: it's due Real Soon Now. . . in geologic terms. Which means anytime in the next 10,000 years or so. . .
What amuses me about climate scientist either way, is their claims to prediction, when, in reality, current long-term weather forecasting starts really falling off the accuracy numbers at 12 hours, and is mostly patterns and educated guesswork beyond that for about a week. Beyond that, it's relatively random, inside seasonal parameter limits. . . so forecasting 25, 50, 100 years in the future is pretty much fiction. . .not science. . .
The residence time of water vapor in th atmopshere is on the order of weeks. It equilibrates very rapidly; this means taht it RESPONDS to other forcing drivers of global temperature as part of the feedback process.
CO2 has a residence time several ordrs of magnitude longer, its persistence makes it a forcing, a driver, not a feedback.
Raising CO2 slightly increases temps, which increases the water capacity fo the atmopshere, and (this is almost certain now) increases water in the atmosphere, which amplifies teh warming effect of the CO2. Th siprocess in included in every model of global climate dynamics; it is NOT ignored. But including it in the driving, forcing players i nclimate change is wrong, becasue it responds to temps in part of teh feedback loop, it does not drive changes.
Unfortunately, taking out a blog and talking about holes in science isn't much of a route. Real science takes place in peer reviewed journals. There are simply too many people without education on blogs; which makes blogs a popularity contest (see slashdot.org) instead of the scientific process.
. When the results of an event are immense, they should impact your planning even if your not sure that the event will happen. I could also tie in the insecurity of our nation as a reason to cut down on oil consumption and the massive amounts of mercury released into the oceans as a reason to cut down on coal use. Really, how many reasons do we need?
The thing about global warming is that the theory is sound, even if unprovable. The consequences are huge. And there are other consequences to the large amount of CO2 production like the death of all molluscs which we might consider (see ocean acidification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
People get all caught up in defending their lifestyle, by poking holes in another's argument. They're so caught up in defending themselves that they forget they're just dead wrong. I call these people apologists.
Sorta like the guy who slept with my wife back before she and I split up. I of course didn't know about it (gettin' played is no fun at all). But what irked me is that he kept telling me to my face how great he thought my relationship was and then when it fell apart said it was doomed to failure from the start. He was one of the reasons it failed, but denied it. Sorta like all the people driving SUV's sitting in gridlock traffic on the highway. In 20 years they'll say it was all inevitable. People are so funny I could cry.
> Great, at least one moderator doesn't know what "noise" on a curve is.
Riight. A six year trendline that is flat is 'noice on a curve'. when discussing something that we are so lacking data on that no less a luminary than Dr. Carl Sagan was warning about GLOBAL COOLING on his (insert major award) winning Cosmos miniseries in 1980. Yes indeedy, I have the DVD box set, he said it.
Global warming may or may not be occuring. The evidence is pointing to slightly higher temps on a short term basis but we lack the precision in our existing dataset going back very far to say much more.
Is it a long term effect? What is the cause? (If it is an increase in solar output we will need a totally different solution.) Can it be stopped by Kyoto? (A question we really need answered to several significant digits of precision before we destroy Western Civilization implementing it.) Would the secondary effects of trying to implement Kyoto create even worse environmental problems? And so on.
Democrat delenda est
I've been reading /. since I was a teenager and have learned a lot here.
When discussing anything like this issue I have learned a favorite phrase from others here which you touched on, but didn't quite say it.
"Correlation |= causation"
If more people understood this, the world would be a better place.
Libertas in infinitum
>>It appears he is a scientist as well as a writer.
and his publications in peer reviewed journals are where exactly?
Do they have to do with climate?
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Our 650,000+ years of ice core data, and thousands of years of proxy data, and hundreds of years of measurement data, couled with growing physical understanding of the process involved, are not sufficient to determine if warming is happening on this planet.
But three years of poorly uunderstood changes in ice cap size on mars is definitive evidence of solar-system wide warming, which disproves anthropogenic warming on earth..
Sheesh, people. Think!!!!
If mars is warming significantly, then changes in solar activity may be influencing the Earth. This is not a logical fallacy, it may be a useful piece of data that is relevant.
Scientist may agree that human action has some influence, but 99.9% of scientists won't agree to what extent humans have changed the climate.
The problem is too big to know exactly what is going on, but trends may emerge. Remember, we were told we would see the next ice age back in the 70s. What does that tell you? We don't always know what is going on.
Being a novelist and being right are not mutually exclusive.
[if we don't adopt Kyoto (and thereby destroy Western Civilization, which just happens to be another stated goal of most of the Green lobby, total coincidence of course)] I find it fascinating that you conflate "pollute less" with "destroy Western Civilisation." Tell me, do you also conflate "pay workers enough to survive on" with "socialism?"
Sure, here you go.
A few cut and pasted highlights:
In short - you can't use Mars as proof/disproof of global warming on Earth.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
And there are NO other good explanations.
Except all the ones *you* don't think are good. These things may all be happening, humanity could very well be affecting the climate, but it could very well be from something man is doing that hasn't been thought of yet. We don't know with any certainty either way whether it's even happening, let alone what is causing it or how to correct it.
Even scarier, we may inadvertantly worsen things with some misguided attempt at climate manipulation in an effort to "fix" things. For all anyone knows, the earth may be moving naturally into either a warmer climate or a new ice age, and our pollution may be acting to soften the changes.
Nobody has enough data or the knowledge to make predictions based on any such data we do have or could get at this point in mankinds' scientific development. Anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"Michael Crichton is/was also an M.D. graduating from Harvard Medical School"
Which means his opinions on medical matters are probably valid, while his opinions on other scientific topics should not be given more weight than those of any other educated layman.
(expertise in one field) (expertise in all fields)
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
You're making the classic layman's mistake and confusing meteorology with climatology.
The people who are forecasting the weather 12 hours away or 5 days away or 10 days away are meteorologists. The people who are looking at trends affecting the next 250 years are climatologists. They both deal with weather but the two aren't that comparable.
A good analogy might be this. Take a large pan of water, uncovered, and set it on a gas stove at low heat. The meteorologist is the guy who tells you that a convection will appear *here* and *here*, and in 3 seconds, a bubble will appear *here*. His predictions will get increasingly inaccurate as time goes on - indeed, he'll probably have a lot of difficulty predicting where convections appear in 10 seconds time.
The climatologist on the other hand is the guy who says if you put a lid on the pan, the water will heat quicker, and the convective currents will be more pronounced and the bubbles will be more numerous. He doesn't try to say where they will appear, he just says there will be a general trend that more will appear since you're now keeping more energy in the system. Similarly, the climatologist will tell you the pan will boil in N minutes if you turn the heat up to setting M, but boil in N-2 minutes if you set the heat on M+1, or N-3 if you cover the pan and leave the setting at M, since he has a good grasp at what trapping energy in the system or adding extra energy to the system will have.
Just as surely that a pan of water will boil faster with the lid on, more energy will be kept in the Earth's atmosphere if you increase the concentration of CO2. These things simply aren't disputed, and the fact that meteorologists aren't accurate past five days does not make it not so, any more than the inability to predict where convections will occur in ten seconds time in a pan of water somehow invalidates the prediction that putting the lid on the pan will allow the water to boil more quickly. Meterology != climatology, even though the two are related.
We have good evidence going back into geological timescales that when there are higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are also higher temperatures. It's simple cause-and-effect - if you do something that keeps more energy in the global system, it will warm up, just as 1 + 1 = 2. The continual confusion between what a climatologist does and what a meterologist does is either simple misunderstanding, or burying heads in the sand.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
As you can see from my UID, I've been around a while too. Slashdot has always been a forum where discussions of an issue can take place. Discussions by their very nature are two-sided - not a monologue. If your world view can't handle the possibility that there might be other view points - you're better off at some other site.
[Insert pithy quote here]
The author of this piece clearly has a bone to pick with those who have gotten funding. he freely admits that one of his most recent papers was "discredited" by a major journal. I think that the major motivation of this piece is to vent his frustration and it clearly shows his bias on the issue.
I do agree that the current US administration breeds an environment of alarmism that seems to have taken over...well...EVERYTHING.
However, the author states three "truths":
1. the global temperature has increased by one degree since the 1900's.
2. global CO2 levels have increased by 30%.
3. increasing CO2 levels should add to global warming in the future.
As an atmospheric scientist, at MIT no less, he should know that that type of a chemical shift in the atmosphere is significant. In fact, the last ice age was brought about by a shift of only 2-3 degrees (F).
There are extremes in this argument, as with any that involve extreme amounts of money (scientific funding & oil revenues alike). There are those who truly believe that there is reason for alarm. There are also those who believe that global warming is not happening.
And of course, there are people on both sides of the issue whose opinions are driven by greed. Such is human nature.
This does not, however, allow us to discredit the fact that those three truths are still true and real facts, and something to be dealt with.
Whether or not you believe that those changes are the result of human activity, they are atmospheric shifts that will undoubtedly cause global changes in our lifetime.
The point is not to fight about it; the point is to find a solution, or at least some sort of amelioration. THAT is why the global community is talking about how to fix the problem and not whethere or not it's happening.