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.'"
Slashdot's financial situation has become more than just a mess and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Zonk, Malda and Scuttle Monkey, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to various Slashdot denizens. From the article: 'Slashbots who dissent from the alarmism have seen their karma disappear, their posts derided, and themselves libeled as Evangelicals, Republicans, or worse. Consequently, lies about Slashdot's impending death gain credence even when they fly in the face of the truth that supposedly is their basis.'
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.
From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
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.
Yeah, they just have $1.7 Billion in funding to fight over, in the US alone.
RTFA
Richard Lindzen is a well known Greenhouse denier. Don't suppress him or the other deniers - just read more about their Greenhouse denial industry, and the Greenhouse producers they cover for. Will you be surprised when you learn how their network is funded by polluters and petrofuel corporations?
--
make install -not war
People who disagree with global warming are just blowing hot air. If we don't suppress them, this hot air is going to contribute to global warming.
I am 100% on the side of the global warming crowd. The way I see it, if global warming does happen, I will be able to score points by telling everyone "I told you so." If it doesn't happen, I can claim that I saved the planet.
I'm pretty sure the Post Office, which ran the telephone system back then, didn't ban Churchill from anything. As for the BBC, I can't find a reference to anything about Churchill not being allowed to speak upon it, so without further information, I'm going to chalk this down to typical pseudo-libertarian misleading given the term could mean "He was considered irrelevent to politics back then and thus never got airtime", or it could mean "Neville Chamberlain personally called up Reith, and told him if the BBC ever gave Churchill airtime, he'd personally revoke their charter."
I'm guessing the former explanation is more likely, knowing the historic spirit of independence of the BBC.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
New Orleans was definitely the first victim of global warming. Hurricaines never happened in the Gulf before all those selfish white people started driving SUVs.
Global warming went back in time and convinced the founders of New Orleans to build on a coastal swamp below sea level and not to reinforce their levees?
No wonder people are afraid. That's powerful!
how to invest, a novice's guide
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.
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.
This is hardly the position of MIT as an institution. It is a single MIT professor's opinion.
Are you suggesting that it is disgraceful for MIT to employ professors who don't blindly parrot the majority opinion on scientific and political issues?
This space intentionally left blank.
"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.
By the way, am I the only one to see the irony with the negative mod points about my take on global warming in a topic about Global Warming dissenters being unfairly moderated...
liqbase
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.
Think that gives you doubts...try this: ...And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
t ml
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.h
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.
If you don't trust Lindzen, you can run your own global climate model at home and check the outputs yourself!
EdGCM is a NASA GCM that has been ported to run on Mac and Windows, and given a GUI interface. Want to turn the sun down by 2% or add some CO2? Just point and click and drag. Then, hit play, wait a day or two, and you'll have your own GCM outputs, complete with a visualization utility to view them with.
Space and Computers.
I might be feeding the trolls, but here goes...
It is NOT being accepting to give all viewpoints equal weight. If you told me that gravity was created by invisible gnomes pouring out anti-wedgies that held me down to earth by the seat of my pants, I'd have no problem telling you that you're an idiot for believing it.
"Creationism is a completely valid viewpoint, and so is evolution. They're both *possible*."
One is way more possible than the other. I'll take the one that has a mountain of verifiable scientific evidence, thanks.
"It isn't fair for people like me who are christians to be told that they're outright wrong."
If you think that 2+2=7 I am not being an asshole by telling you that you're misinformed. Also, life isn't fair. Welcome to reality.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
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.)
Please Mr. Rhetoric, explain to me the cause for the global warming currently transpiring on Mars.
t ml
"...And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.h
Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too.
While the cheapest way to increase MPG is to use less metal, you're discounting the research into more efficient engines and lighter but stronger construction materials and techniques, plus technology that helps reduce the risk of collision in the first place.
let each individual focus on what they believe in.
For the past several millenia (at least), people have tried as hard as they can to believe in as little as possible. Part of the problem is education, part is apathy, and part are just assholes who believe it's their god-given right to use other people's property as their trash dump.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
There's a general rule of thumb about scientific claims. When a researcher goes through abnormal channels, like going directly to the press, the alarm bells should ring. When a researcher starts tacitly or directly invoking conspiracy theories, even more alarms should go off.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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)
And it coincides with man's activities on Mars! Aha, more proof!
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.
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.
... is irrelevant to this discussion.
y cle.html ) as a prime example of what happens when we begin looking more closely at these problems. Many scientists are tossing out potential hypotheses in a science that is very difficult to easily test these hypotheses properly. There's a rush to put out results of any type by the P-or-P philosophy... easiest is verification of previous results in a slightly different regime.
;) Cooler heads will prevail eventually.
There is something that he points out (in a roundabout way) that needs to be said: There is a lot of bad science going on in this debate. Both sides.
Now, granted, I'm a lowly Ph.D. student in Atmospheric Sciences studying hurricanes... what would I know about this, right? (Yes, that's slightly sarcastic.)
"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. (I speak mainly for atmospheric science articles in those journals. Other articles may be fine... I don't know.)
The real science happens in the less-public journals. And, believe it or not, the actual science always leads to more questions than answers. There are details that aren't covered in science news coverage that are vital to making valid conclusions in these issues. But, the nature of the "publish-or-perish" funding makes careful science difficult to do.
So, we're left with more questions than answers. Look at Dr. Denning's carbon cycle findings ( http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/globalcarbonc
I'm not claiming that the scientists in this debate are bad scientists... I'm claiming that they're getting caught up in a problem that is so incredibly complex that we're far from having a more-than-cursory handle on. A lot of this is pioneering work... and even pioneers in sciences can get things wrong or not understand everything (how many refinements of Einstein's relativity theory have there been in the last couple decades, for example?).
It's not just about politics or philosophy or science or anything like that. It's seeing the maturation of a whole discipline of science. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that alarmists may be taking things too far. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that there are politics involved here. He may be off-base in a number of points, but cooler heads will prevail eventually. This is an exciting time to watch all this... it's like our generation's relativity (20's and 30's) or nuclear chemistry (late-40's to 60's).
Those who are getting up in arms about all this... settle down. Seriously. Your hyperventilations are only speeding up the global warming process!
-Jellisky
The earth has supposedly been warming over some period of very, very recent history. So with over 4 billion years of weather, we humans in our infinite wisdom are choosing about 100 years of data and trying to extrapolate where the earth is heading.
Let's face it, religious zealots have been calling for the End of the World since the beginning of time and now Scientific zealots are getting into the act.
What's really funny is that when I was a kid the real weather scare was the coming Ice Age. What happen to those Ice Age zealots anyway? Probably driven underground by the latest "Sky is Falling" group known as the Global Warming evangelists.
I'm so sick of the press reporting on predictions of idiots from idiot scientists to idiot psychics as if they were fact and then never following up when most of these nutballs are wrong.
I guess the press doesn't want to report on the failings of these wackjobs since the press was the ones who gave them credence in the first damn place.
We had Y2K in our industry and look how many billions were spent on something that we all knew was a bunch of BS. Many people post rationalized that the reason nothing bad happened was because something was done. But these people were part of the problem and don't want to admit to their bosses that huge amounts of money didn't need to be spent. And if you don't believe me, just look at the countries that didn't spend the money we did. No doomsday for them even though very little was done.
Global warming is going to follow the same stupid path. Tomorrow there will be a new threat and billions will be spent on that problem, meanwhile we'll be paying $10.00 / gallon for gas and no one will be solving the real problems.
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.
>>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!!!!
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