Politics and 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Frogbeater writes "The producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is accusing the National Science Teachers Association of being in the pocket of Big Oil because she can't get preferential treatment for her film. The entire situation is turning into a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' yelling match. Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?" The Washington Post makes things out to be less than above board: "In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school ... NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called 'Running on Oil' and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called 'You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel,' a shameless pitch for oil dependence."

Comments

Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

-Hypothetical: Let's say you run a business, and people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business. What do you do? NO, WAIT: You can't fund anyone who tries to scientifically demonstrate the invalidity of the accusations, because that taints the research, right?

-I remember seeing in science class a movie produced by Exxon about the Valdez oil spill. While it was propaganda, I also remember the teacher pointing out all the flaws and telling everyone that it was Exxon's propaganda. "Oh, look at this part, where they act like everything's all peachy now."

-Oh, so *now* you care about teachers' associations getting political. Just not when they oppose any whiff of school choice.

-Should no research into oil be funded by oil companies? Even basic research into hydrocarbon chemistry? That seems to be the implication.

-To answer the question: yes, science can remain apolitical, as long as it rigidly adheres to the scientfic principles of reproducibility and transparency. That's what makes science science: Even if someone refuses to believe you, it doesn't matter. Other people can perform their own corroborating experiments. Even if someone believes it to be all voodoo, you can then go out and continue to make valid predictions that result in useful services. And then anyone is free to propose alternate theories that match the data better.

When the above isn't possible, science can become political. When you can't make a thousand copies of the earth, causally separate them, randomly vary emissions, wait a hundred years, and run a regression, people have all the room the in world to reject your theories since it can't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. When you can't engineer an entire planet's existence, start a weather system, wait a billion years, and see complex organisms evolve, you again don't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. BEFORE YOU FLAME ME OR MOD ME DOWN, I'm not trying to dispute global warming or evolution, but rather, just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.

Re:Random questions and comments

[thatguywhoiam]

-To answer the question: yes, science can remain apolitical, as long as it rigidly adheres to the scientfic principles of reproducibility and transparency. That's what makes science science: Even if someone refuses to believe you, it doesn't matter. Other people can perform their own corroborating experiments. Even if someone believes it to be all voodoo, you can then go out and continue to make valid predictions that result in useful services. And then anyone is free to propose alternate theories that match the data better.

So what happens when the other party refuses or is incapable of 'performing their own corroborating experiments'? What if they tell you that God has decreed that this science is wrong? What are you supposed to do with that?

Re:Random questions and comments

[aicrules]

You are a complete idiot for disputing global warming or evolution...I think you are not just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.

BEFORE YOU FLAME ME OR MOD ME DOWN, I'm not trying to dispute global warming or evolution, but rather, just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.

...oops...sorry, ignore that first part. Very well thought out message!

Re:Random questions and comments

[SatanicPuppy]

This is always the counter argument..."As long as we hold true to our principles it doesn't matter where the money comes from."

This is fine as long as everyone does hold to their principles, as long as there is someone there to point out that, in fact, X, Y, or Z piece of propaganda is propaganda.

History is rife with examples of corporate special interests skewing research about their products through carefully chosen grants and commissioned studies. Lead, Tobacco, DDT, Oil; hell, you even get a lot of it in government sponsored hydro power, because if the people who make dams run out of places to put dams their jobs go away.

It's real easy to say, "We can keep our principles and take their money" but history shows that that's just not true. You take their money, you drink their kool-aid, you sacrifice your principles, and you produce biased research.

It's like a politician saying, "Just because this lobbyist gave me a million dollars, doesn't mean I'm going to vote the way he wants me to." Come on. You're only fooling yourself.

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

That's my point -- you don't need their approval. You make predictions routinely. They are correct routinely. You apply these predictions to perform something useful routinely, that maybe this zealot actually uses routinely! What does it matter if he does or doesn't endorse it? The fact that you are performing a useful service (predicting the fall of objects, building structures, etc.) suffices as evidence that the science is valid enough for those services to be performed (by tautology).

When you have no service to perform that relies on this science, then you have no real-world check.

Re:Random questions and comments

[spellraiser]

... people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business.

I disagree with the assumption that the oil companies truly believe that global warming is a nonexistent threat. Remember big tobacco? They persisted in denying that cigarettes causes cancer, etc. all the while knowing full well that this was false.

A quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.

I'm one of the people who believes that this is exactly what most big corporations do. Call me cynical, but I think a lot of empirical data supports this theory.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Frumious Wombat]

We do what we've always done; use indirect measures and accumulated evidence to reduce our uncertainty, then make extrapolations based upon the reproducible data. Go to your nearest university library and look up Tom Ray's work on the Tierra simulator, or read a few physics journals to find out what goes into those climate models that you're implicitly rejecting. (hint: lots of physics, parameters derived from measurements as appropriate, and endless validation runs) Other people are free to use the same equations, write their own simulation, and if they aren't deliberately feeding the models misinformation, will converge to a result within some confidence interval similar to yours, presuming you did your job correctly as well.

I make my living as a computational chemist, and while I know that we're neglecting many terms in our solutions, reproducible results come back, that agree to varying degrees of confidence to experimental results. Furthermore, we understand how to improve those results, and make rational time/accuracy/resource trade-offs to get the answers we need to the precision required.

In short, while I've never directly observed an oxygen molecule, accumulated indirect evidence has caused me to believe in them. It has also led to the conclusion that removing them from my immediate environment is bad. Same for your examples. Come up with a reasoned set of arguments that explain why a couple thousand physicists or biologists are all wrong, send out some papers and get yourself slotted into a presentation at a conference, and have at. You're free to try, and that's what the process is all about.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aquaepulse]

Let's say you run a business, and people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business.

Big Oil is throwing so much money at "investigating" the environmental impact that it shows that they believe it to be more than baseless accusations. In my opinion it is just an attempt to muddy the waters and confuse people who are scientifically illiterate, for example politicians.

When you can't make a thousand copies of the earth[....]

But you can get all the ice cores one wants and correlate CO2 with temperature. These arguments are the same ones used against global warming and evolution and they are intellectually dishonest at best. Sniping at perceived weaknesses in a theory to confuse, instead of proposing a real alternative theory to be tested.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jstomel]

As someone who has been trained in scientific ethics I can answer your questions. Research funded by industry into the effects of that company will be viewed as valid if the following conditions are met. 1) The scientist performing the research is independent of the company. He can be funded by grant from the company, but must be independent of it's internal organizational structure and to hiring/firing pressures. 2) Said scientist must have free reign in his choice of methods and staff. 3) Results must be published in peer reviewed independent journals regardless of what those results show and without editing/review of the company funding the research. 4) The results must be repeatable by independent labs. and finally, 5) Said scientist must not receive any personal mony or "bonus" from the company at any point before or after the research. If these conditions are met then the research is generally considered to be unbiased. Many companies follow these guidelines as a matter of course, especially drug companies. But we're not really talking about companies funding research, are we? We're talking about companies being able to buy the beliefs in which your children are forcefully indoctrinated by the state. And that's wrong.

Re:Random questions and comments

[yankpop]

I think you're missing the bigger issue here. There is not necessarily any problem with the oil industry doing their own research, and disseminating that research to teachers. It becomes a problem when they are allowed to buy access that other groups don't have. In this case they've been treated as loving benefactors, and the teachers have willingly accepted their message along with their cash. But when another group tries to offer a different viewpoint, they are labeled special interest and shut out of the process.

What's the real difference between what the offerings of the oil companies and the film-makers? Both have a vested interest in the issue, and both have done substantial research on the subject, research that merits careful consideration. But one is welcomed and the other is marginalized. The only difference, obviously, is cash.

It would be different if this were a fringe environmental group advocating a return to the stone-age or something, but it's not. It's a very conscientious group trying to advance a carefully researched opinion. They're not even asking for equal time. They just want to make their material available, presumably allowing individual teachers to decide how to present the information.

Underlying the whole issue, as the author points out, is that the teachers aren't really bad guys here. They've been forced into a corner by dwindling budgets, and its now so bad that corporate sponsorship trumps curriculum content. That's frightening.

yp.

Re:Random questions and comments

[fistfullast33l]

That's my point -- you don't need their approval. You make predictions routinely. They are correct routinely.

The problem with this argument is that you assume your predictions come true the majority of the time. In many cases, environmental science especially, this assumption is not true. So what happens when you make your predictions and those predictions are wrong? While I think that his book on environmental theory was a bit of a sham, Michael Crichton definitely had a good idea when he proposed that scientists should be separated from donors - all research grants should either be anonymous or via the government, which as NASA and NOAA would attest, is never biased.

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

Come up with a reasoned set of arguments that explain why a couple thousand physicists or biologists are all wrong,

To be "wrong" means their model doesn't match the real world. And that's my point: it doesn't matter how complex and cool and difficult to understand your model is; all that matter is, does it make valid predictions? Your focus is on whether someone can reproduce the model's result rather than whether the model matches reality:

Other people are free to use the same equations, write their own simulation, and if they aren't deliberately feeding the models misinformation, will converge to a result within some confidence interval similar to yours, presuming you did your job correctly as well.

If the model were making valid predictions (the same model, that is), you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity. No, not the past. I mean, predict it *now* and see if it bears out in the future. But obviously, you aren't getting that, or it would be used ad infinitum to shut up global warming skeptics.

Again, my point is not that the models themselves are without basis, just that it is difficult if not impossible to do the empirical tests that will determine if they are valid.

Re:Random questions and comments

[orb_fan]

I guess the question is not about whether science is political or not - as you rightly point out, when any uncertainty exists there is room for political or other emotionally charged ideas to creep in and color the discussion.

No, the question is whether the teaching of science should be political. And I would come down firmly on the side of NO. Both politics and religion have no place in a science classroom. I'm probably being very idealistic, but it's a sad fact that all too often that people (politicians) with little science understanding or idealogical axes to grind dedicate what is taught in our schools. Just look at the hoopla over creationism/intelligent design...

Re:Random questions and comments

[fastcoke11]

4) The results must be repeatable by independent labs.This seems to me to be a reason why all labs should be independent (that is, free of direct funding from groups interested in selling said results to the public to their benefit). Why do we have a possibly compromised lab doing work that is just going to be repeated by an independent lab? Why don't we just cut out the middle-man?

Re:Random questions and comments

[MoralHazard]

Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.

You totally misunderstood Friedman's point, probably because you never read Friedman, but instead took the quote out of context.

First of all, in the section of his book where he makes the quote you pulled, he's not talking about how companies do behave, he's talking about how he thinks the should behave. Friedman argues that corporations engage in all kinds of frivolous charity, making donations to causes and such, and that they should stop. Instead, corporations should return those profits to their shareholders, and let the shareholders make charitable donations as they wish.

Second of all, Friedman didn't believe that corporations should take any action necessary to secure profit. His understanding of corporate responsibility is the commonly-accepted, rational one: corporate businesses, like all businesses, individuals, non-profits, clubs, or other human agencies, should obey the law equally. In other words, if corporations take less-than-optimal actions, and they're not breaking the law, you need to change the law, not the corporation.

Your interpretation is akin to saying that Winston Churchill was a big supporter of Hitler--it's the exact opposite of the facts.

Re:Random questions and comments

[spellraiser]

Thanks for clearing that up. I have of course never read Friedman and was merely quoting him third hand, obviously out of context as you point out.

I find it interesting, though, that you should say that Friedman believed that corporations should obey the law, like individuals et al. Most corporations do of course mostly obey the law, not least because breaking them often carries great risk, which outweigh the potential benefits. However, there's a whole lot of less than ethical things that can be done within the boundaries of the law. There are, for instance, no laws against lying, except under circumstances such as a sworn oath.

I still stand by my belief that corporations lie all the time, just like politicians. I'll refrain from dragging the Friedman quote into the argument in the future, though.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all.
In the context of this article, he's saying that corporations skew research and/or "donate" to sympathetic politicians because that is in the best interest of their stockholders -- to obscure any negative information about the corporation or it's activities.

That's not illegal, and if you had to make every such case illegal (while fighting the same lobby you're trying to outlaw mind you) the books would overflow with special case laws (not that they don't already).

I believe the point was that corporations should be held to some moral standard, since outlawing every possible antisocial action a corporation can take is a Sisyphean task.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jadavis]

more interest in pushing their political agenda than teaching science

If I read that out of context, I would guess you were talking about the environmentalists.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Re:Random questions and comments

[hey!]

Hypothetical: Let's say you run a business, and people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business. What do you do? NO, WAIT: You can't fund anyone who tries to scientifically demonstrate the invalidity of the accusations, because that taints the research, right?

Wrong.

You can fund all the research you want, it just has to pass peer review if it's going to be published. Happens all the time. There's plenty of science paid for by industry, industry that has an axe to grind. What makes the science credible is having to pass rigorous independent peer review in the publication process. Until that happens, you aren't citing science, you are citing a hired expert opinion.

People pay to get friendly expert opinions all the time. There's nothing wrong with it, so long as claims made for that opinion's objectivity aren't inflated. While some minimal lip service must be paid to objectivity to avoid a complete lack of credibility, it's normal and expected that a paid for expert opinion report is drafted with its thumbs on the scale to the customer's favor. So if I have a study that says my hypertension drug cures impotency, that is not enough to approve it for that use.

People who use these non-reviewed reports are fond of citing the fallacy of appeal to authority. However, the shoe is actually on the other foot. It is permissible to cite authority as evidence for the credibility of an assertion, provided the authority is competent and unbiased, and that independent verification of the authority's claims is possible. Citing "your own" science falls on the account that until it has passed rigorous peer review "your" science cannot be regarded as unbiased.

In any case, this isn't what this situation is about. What it is about is your right as a company to exclude those views you disagree with buy buying exclusive access to the public sphere.

Oh, so *now* you care about teachers' associations getting political. Just not when they oppose any whiff of school choice.

Well, they are entitled to have their opinion about how schools are administered. They are not entitled to hire themselves out as flacks hawiking the viewpoint of the highest bidder.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jadavis]

What kind of experiment might I perform to test the accuracy of a global warming doomsday theory?

And I'm not just talking about "the Earth is getting warmer". We all know that.

Re:Random questions and comments

[araemo]

"If the model were making valid predictions (the same model, that is), you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity. No, not the past. I mean, predict it *now* and see if it bears out in the future. But obviously, you aren't getting that, or it would be used ad infinitum to shut up global warming skeptics."
The thing is, this is starting to happen. None of the models can tell you with a high degree of certainty what the temperature in a given city will be on a given day, or the average on a given week, but on larger time and geographical scales, the models are starting to make valid predictions, and the very first few have been validated (well, you do have to wait a while to find out if the predicted global average temperature for 2006 matches reality, you know what I mean?) So, while they're still working on the details, the simplified global simulations seem to be very close to reality. And even though you're dismissing models that accurately predict past events.. they are very good tests for the simulations. Currently my home computer is running the BBC climate change experiment. It starts with historical data from 1920, and runs the simulation forward to 2050. If it predicts accurately from 1920 to now, there's a decent chance it will predict the next few years accurately. The reason it's being done as a distributed computing project is to allow many different models that match the historical data to be tested, and vetted against reality as we get more and more data. As models fail new data, they get tossed out or changed, until we have a mathematical model that mirrors reality and makes valid predictions. Once we have a mathematical model that works, we'll try and figure out WHY it works.

There are other people working the other way - trying to figure out what drives climate change, and turn it into mathematical formulas (and they definitely were integral in designing the climate models being tested in the first place).

Most useful scientific models do NOT match reality 100%. The math would be too in-depth to be worthwhile if you wanted 100% accurate results. But you don't need 100% accuracy for ANYTHING. 99.9999999999% is still good enough for nuclear physics, and is many orders of magnitude quicker to get than 100% in most cases, if 100% is even POSSIBLE in the situation.

Re:Random questions and comments

[ryanov]

Unfortunately, however, the corporations that manage to amass enough money manage to buy off the lawmakers, so there will never be any such laws.

Re:Random questions and comments

[djchristensen]

What's the real difference between what the offerings of the oil companies and the film-makers? Both have a vested interest in the issue, and both have done substantial research on the subject, research that merits careful consideration. But one is welcomed and the other is marginalized. The only difference, obviously, is cash.

Actually, I think the real difference is in the conditions behind the offers. The film-makers are trying to get their message out by giving away free copies of the film. As far as I am aware, they aren't putting any conditions on the give-away. The oil companies, on the other hand, appear (although this may be supposition on the part of the NSTA) to be placing certain conditions on their future contribution, such as "don't teach anything that would put us in a bad light." An accusation is made that the NSTA would rather not jeopardize that funding by showing the movie.

I'm not supporting the oil industry here, but I also don't like hypocrisy. The linked article implies that oil companies have threatened the NSTA with loss of future funding without evidence of such threats. It's easy to believe that such threats have been made, but it would be better to have evidence. Also, a big deal is made about the oil industry's contributions to the NSTA and their convention, but no mention is made of the other contributors. If bio-engineering companies are contributing, should we accuse them of trying to create a generation of GMO-lovers? If high-tech companies contribute, should we accuse them of trying to sweep the issue of e-waste under the rug?

My point is that all of these companies depend very heavily on well-trained, talented scientists. It is not unexpected or subversive that they would be giving lots of money to help foster science education to help create the next generation of the scientists and engineers that they will depend on. It would be great, though, if there was a way for them to contribute without even the appearance of using the contributions to influence the beliefs of those students.

A side point is that we need to be careful about treating some of these companies as faceless evil monsters. I don't particularly like Microsoft, but I certainly respect the talents of some of the engineers that work there. Similarly, I don't like how the oil companies behave, but at the same time, I recognize that there are brilliant scientists there who truly are trying to find ways to substantially lessen the environmental impact their companies have.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Martin Blank]

Ice cores tell you the temps at a particular location. You have to go looking for other sources (tree rings, sedimentary evidence, etc) to get reasonably accurate temps elsewhere to build up a good picture of the global climate.

While I'm on the fence regarding anthropogenic global warming, I appreciate the attempts by both sides to poke holes in the other's arguments, because even if it's done for propaganda purposes, it forces the side on the defense to provide better support for its argument. A few years ago, when the question of whether a change in solar output was responsible for global warming, there was a general attempt at refutation, accusing the anti crowd of trying to draw focus away. Yet a group of scientists took the notion and ran with it, looking for evidence of changes. That's what a good scientist does -- take a question about the theory at hand and find an answer to it, not act like a high priest and call all challengers blasphemers.

There have been a lot of interesting events in the last year, including evidence that solar output has not changed enough to have caused a significant portion of global warming, the surprisingly mild Atlantic hurricane season, and the recent announcement that from 1998 to 2005, methane levels in the atmosphere were essentially stagnant. When applied to forecasts related to anthropogenic global warming, you have evidence for, against, and ambiguous.

A lot of the ideas to deal with global warming are going to be good no matter what may be the final result. Lower- and zero-emission vehicles, expanded use of solar panels on homes, and the possible increase in use of nuclear power are all going to help to reduce the need for imported oil, destruction of mountains in the Appalachians for their coal, and keep down the price of home heating for those using natural gas. In the end, they may also save the planet.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jadavis]

science can remain apolitical, as long as it rigidly adheres to the scientfic principles of reproducibility and transparency

You hit an important point: Forensics are not Science

Global warming is more like an applied science, like forensics, that is used to construct an explanation or a scenario. Science is all about testing hypotheses.

You can test only the most basic claims of global warming, that is, that the Earth is warming. That's pretty much where it ends. Once you start extrapolating, it is no longer science, it is more like forensics. Nobody can create their own Earth and install non-CO2-producing humans and see what happens.

Forensics uses well-tested scientific theories or laws to infer unknown details from known facts. That has all kinds of political and social implications, because you may change public policy or you may convict someone based on forensics. There's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.

In science, the only valid approaches are to develop new theories that fit the facts, and to test the implications of those theories. This can be quite apolitical, so long as people separate their data from their extrapolations. However, extrapolations are what sell newspapers and gain research funding. And global warming scientists are certainly not above saying "the sky is falling" to get a big grant (I'm sure some are, but we can't assume that).

Science: It has increased 10 degrees since this morning.
Theory that has been successfully tested 5 times since 6am: The temperature increases 5 degrees per hour.
Extrapolation: It will be 150 degrees by Thursday.
News Headline: Scientists predict the hottest night in history!

Re:Random questions and comments

[MoralHazard]

I believe the point was that corporations should be held to some moral standard, since outlawing every possible antisocial action a corporation can take is a Sisyphean task.

A good check on your logic is to try substituting "person" for "corporation" every time you make a statement about corporations. How Sisyphean of a task is it to outlaw every possible antisocial action that a PERSON can take? Why is this a different question for people than corporations?

See, everybody's always forgetting that corporations are just groups of people. They don't actually have an independent moral or ethical existence--legally, we treat them as such in a limited manner because it makes the law work better. But really, the rights and responsibilities or a business are understood by society to be an expression of the rights and responsibilities of their employees and owners.

You're just insisting that we hold certain groups of people responsible to a moral standard other than the law. WTF? If you want a law against lying, ask for a law against lying. If you don't want to accept the horrendous social consequences of it, don't ask for it. It's the same whether you talk about corporations or people: the law is what we're required to follow, nothing else.

Re:Random questions and comments

[operagost]

I'm wondering if anyone is claiming that this year's hurricane non-season is further evidence of global warming.

Re:Random questions and comments

[syphax]

If the model were making valid predictions (the same model, that is), you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity. No, not the past. I mean, predict it *now* and see if it bears out in the future. But obviously, you aren't getting that, or it would be used ad infinitum to shut up global warming skeptics.

Or, you could make accurate predictions, and some skeptics might claim (i.e. lie) that you didn't.

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, I guess when all else fails, there's the strawman.

None of the models can tell you with a high degree of certainty what the temperature in a given city will be on a given day, or the average on a given week,

I didn't set this standard, an in fact, was careful not to. If you follow the advice in my sig, you'll see that what I actually said was "you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity." Note the level of generality I was expecting out of the model.

Most useful scientific models do NOT match reality 100%.

Another standard I didn't set.

Elsewhere you're stating my position while thinking you're disagreeing with it.

(well, you do have to wait a while to find out if the predicted global average temperature for 2006 matches reality, you know what I mean?)

Yeah, I do know what you mean. Exactly what you mean. You can't claim a model is valid until it's had some ... validation. Like, put your neck on the line, and THEN see if you're right.

My point was that there is a lot of data you have to gather to claim validation -- data that doesn't exist yet.

And even though you're dismissing models that accurately predict past events.. they are very good tests for the simulations.

No, they're not. They're proof that you curve-fitted to the past 80 years. Whether that curve is *right* ... well, that takes future data.

Data you don't have.

If you can just get over the emotional reaction of defending your life's work, you'll see that I'm just pointing out the necessary things you have to do to validate the model. Until the model can consistently predict, there's no reason to endorse it, for the same reason you want to wait to actually see planetary motions before endorsing Kepler's theory. It's great if you have a theory for the past data, but true science requires being able to predict the future.

It's amazing -- I'm just stating basic scientific principles and you're probably going to accuse me of spreading doubt.

Re:Random questions and comments

[WrongMonkey]

As someone else who does computational chemistry, I have my doubts about global warming because the simulations don't match reproducible results. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a model that accurately describes the current warming trends as well as previous cooling/warming cylces. This http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005 1110/20051110_03.html is the closest that I've seen. Since inconsistencies like this exist, I don't think we can say conclusively that global warming is human caused. The compelling thing is that if global warming is human caused, it might be too late by the time we have conclusive evidence.

Re:Random questions and comments

[m0rph3us0]

Read about the medieval warm period and what lengths the usual suspects will go to get rid of it. Hint: Weighting one model of temperature prediction by 326 times during that period to get rid of it. The other thing is that most of these models fail to predict the cooling during 1940-1980. This is primarily because they leave out the effects of the sun on global warming. The models are crap and they just pick and choose a model to predict a certain time period but over the data we have they fail to align to the past with out fudging the numbers. Different time period, different fudged numbers.

The real inconvienient truth is that there is no valid prediction for global warming and nothing we can do if the sun turns up the heat. Also, on a global scale global warming is profitable because it produces more arable land on the poles than it claims in the tropics. And improves the shipping situation.

Re:Random questions and comments

[MoralHazard]

However, there's a whole lot of less than ethical things that can be done within the boundaries of the law. There are, for instance, no laws against lying, except under circumstances such as a sworn oath.

I still stand by my belief that corporations lie all the time, just like politicians. I'll refrain from dragging the Friedman quote into the argument in the future, though.

I don't get how you believe that corporations are so fundamentally different from any other collection of people in society. Corporations, and all businesses, generally, are just a group of people making decisions within a management and ownership structure. It shouldn't be surprising when they behave like, well, people. People lie all the time, and act unethically. If a corporation does, it's because the people running it and owning it have decided, AS HUMAN BEINGS, to engage in that behavior.

There are arguments that the most common corporate governance structures change human decision-making behavior, by misdirecting the feeling of responsibility that comes with certain actions, or distributing responsibility amongst enough people that each one feels too little guilt to prevent bad actions, or encouraging an "I was just following orders" mentality. In my experience, these are sometimes true and sometimes not true. But to the extent that they exist and influence corporate decision-making, it's only to the extent that any other self-interested collection of humans does, also. Every corporation, company, government agency, non-profit, club, and party in society has the same issues.

So saying that corporations can be unethical, or that corporations should be more tightly controlled and watched, is silly because it singles them out. If you feel that a behavior is harmful and should be regulated, just have the guts to make the statement that it should be regulated throughout society.

Re:Random questions and comments

[araemo]

Oh, and a small pet peeve:

This is 'climate change simulation/prediction'. CLIMATE change. Not weather change. The climate is the long-term weather trends for a geographical area. Weather is what temperature humidity/etc it is at a given time/day. The computer models are getting pretty good at predicting the climate, but they still suck at the weather.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Frumious Wombat]

No, my argument is how well do our models reproduce reality. Models that fail that test are discarded. White-earth models of the 70s were the result of not enough factors and too large of grids. Current models with smaller cell sizes, better hydrodynamic codes, and more atmospheric factors included (reflective aerosols, additional greenhouse gases, etc) can reproduce climate trends, within certain error ranges, rather well. If you read the primary literature, you will see that given a suitable start point (parameters chosen from historical data, ice cores, tree growth patterns, etc.), you can reproduce climate trends leading to now rather well. That data is being presented, those models are out there and validated, and the skeptics are hiding behind, "well, you haven't sat around watching first-hand for a few thousand years, so your model is untrustworthy." If you read the primary literature (or you've spent any time doing simulations in physical science), you'll know that these results come both with error bars, and with internal checks and validations. Again, from chemistry, using a variety of codes based upon different numerical approximations to the underlying physics, if you want molecular structures or vibrational frequencies, we can get those within a percent or less. Relative energetics, about 4-12 KJ/mol, if we are willing to spend the time, farther away but with a known error range if not. We can also compare them with real-world data from a variety of sources, which demonstrates the generality of the models, as models based upon widely differing approximations (plane-wave DFT, localized orbital post-Hartree-Fock perturbation theory, etc) converge to results which agree with each other and the available experimental data to within measured precision. Once again, science is a process, and it deals in probabilities. There is some percent chance (large by current estimates), that we are contributing to global climate change, and one of the results will be a rise in sea levels. There is some chance (small) that there is a teapot orbiting Neptune (with apologies to P. W. Atkins for stealing his example). Therefore, policy-wise, I would worry about preventing flooding in coastal cities, but not necessarily worry about whether to take Earl Grey or Darjeeling on a trip to Neptune.

There are two issues: what do we accept as close enough to correct to believe and use to make further predictions or policy recommendations, and to what extent do we act? The issue becomes, do we do nothing, or do we take reasonable (i.e. presuming the results in the range of greatest confidence) action? Shutting down all carbon emissions is extreme, especially in light of the role played by methane and other gases. On the other hand, preparing coastal cities at very low elevations for raised sea-levels and increased storm-surges is not. You may say that it's only computer fictions reproducing historical results (from a starting configuration, may we add, not from adjustments along the way), but that will be cold comfort to the bankers on Wall Street who get to pump out their offices from the storm surge the simulations predicted 40 years before, but you wouldn't act on because "the models only reproduced historical trends, not current events".

Again, these simulations are based on the same physics used to predict wind-resistance in cars, aerodynamics of new airplanes, stresses that bridges can withstand, and behaviour of new microchips. You will notice how many events such as that on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge have occurred since finite-element modeling came into widespread use by civil engineers. The models aren't perfect, but they reproduce reality to a sufficient extent to use them to make predictions, with those predictions having confidence ranges associated with them. Unfortunately, what gets reported in the general press lacks those ranges, and only reports what is most sensational and will sell the most media. Spend some time looking at how any of these simulations (climate, hydrodynamic, q

Re:Random questions and comments

[James McGuigan]

Redundancy in testing helps to improve the certanty of a hypothesis - this is not just to protect against "influenced" findings, but also against mistakes in testing, methodology or even statistical flukes. Aslo if the second lab takes a slightly different approach to testing, it may also show up the fact that some variables are more or less significant than previously thought.

In very basic mathmatical terms, if you would trust the results of lab A 50% of the time, and those of lab B 80% of the time, then if both labs come to the same conclusion, you should be 90% confident of the results (more so than if just lab B did the test itself).

Another point to note, is that while the data and research of an "influenced" study may be perfectly valid, the majority of the "influence" may have gone into rewording/re-emphasing the summary and press-release (the bit most non-researchers will read).

Another major feature of "influenced" research is the ability to cancel funding when the research does not look promising. While this makes perfect sense from a commerical viewpoint (why waste money on a dead end), it reduces the amount of "negitive knowledge" (ie what we know doesn't work) which is often very useful and can unbalance the amount of "positive" and "negitive" research papers on a subject (and the mass-media is often more sensitive to quanitity over quality).

One suggestion for pharmacuitical research, would be for all clinical trials to be logged by the government before they start, even if they are later canceled before completion.

Re:Random questions and comments

[m0rph3us0]

What's the problem?

If you want to fund public schools you get to put your message in them.

The problem is the public wants public schools but doesn't want to pay for them.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The first problem is compulsory education, the second problem schools recieving public money, get rid of those two fundamental problems and it becomes a non-issue.

Re:Random questions and comments

[thatguywhoiam]

That's my point -- you don't need their approval. You make predictions routinely. They are correct routinely. You apply these predictions to perform something useful routinely, that maybe this zealot actually uses routinely! What does it matter if he does or doesn't endorse it?

I'm not really articulating myself properly.

Perhaps this is a better example of what I am talking about.

(I might add, the fact that someone modded my fairly innocent question down sort of makes my point.)

Re:Random questions and comments

[Frumious Wombat]

Interesting, and nice to see a response from a modeler. Point taken. You'll note in my previous reply, I have no real interest in various CO2 reduction schemes, but do in flood-prevention of economically important population centers. This may be a personality defect caused by hurricane Agnes when I was very young (but old enough to remember going through it), but is also based on the extent to which I trust the confidence intervals. I trust them far enough to say, "we ought to consider flood-gates such as London has or Venice is considering for NY Harbor and possibly D.C.". (though other than the museums, I'm not sure what in DC couldn't be more easily moved uphill into West Virginia, Northern Virginia, and inland Maryland) I don't trust them enough to say, "we ought to turn off the lights and live in mud huts so we quit ruining the planet".

On the other hand, I am empirically observing that where I currently live (Upstate NY at about 42 degrees N), has far longer and warmer falls that when I was a kid 30 years ago (and I have photographs from about 25 that demonstrate this), so there is some change occurring. It used to reliably hard frost by second week in September, but now often waits until early to mid November. Friends who have kids corrroborate that while we used to often get snow (or at least freeze; those extra chocolate calories were good for something) while Trick-or-Treating, they haven't been out when it was below freezing yet. What can we do about this, I don't know. On the other hand, crops that require a hard winter (sugar maple and spruce come to mind), are probably not ones that one should invest much in unless you're moving up in altitude or farther north latitude-wise. I realize that these are ancedotes until we get enough examples with some real data together. One of my neighbors was a weather freak, and reliably recorded temperature, humidity, etc every day at the same time. The records of people like him and with local records from official sources would help confirm our minimally verified observations.

I suppose the other problem is the language of "reproduces well". Do they mean, "within a few percent", or "we predict that it will be cold in january most years"?

Re:Random questions and comments

[MightyYar]

There's nothing wrong with making models that fail, as long as the goal is to tweak them until they cease to fail. The problem in this country is that the environmentalists jumped all over data from the models before they were mature enough to make decent predictions. They were jumping all over the global cooling predictions in the 1970s. This has (rightly) eroded the environmentalists' credibility. Unfortunately, they have taken the credibility of climate science with them, and it will be a while before either recovers.

Fortunately, we are starting to see some recognition among mainstream politicians. Even (the Slashdot 4-letter-word) Bush has accepted that humans are probably responsible for the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. The warming climate deniers and the environmentalists are really in the same boat - neither really cares about the science... they simply have an agenda and they will jump all over whatever they can to support their position.

Re:Random questions and comments

[WhiplashII]

As a scientist, I am sure that you have studied statistics - but you may have fallen into a common trap of those with a scientific mind. That is, to create a model based on past data and then to believe it when it makes predictions wildly divergent from said past data. When the model is making predictions that are outside of it's experience you are in a danger zone.

For example - I know that the complex models you describe are missing at least one critical element: Methane has stopped increasing for unknown reasons. Methane is an important green house gas, and not modelling this behaviour may invalidate the model. Why did we not forsee this? Because the model was based on past data, which has never included humans farming at the level we are today. Are they completely invalidated? Who knows!

Your branch of science is much further developed - because people made predictions based on past data, and then verified those predictions! Even then, the predictions are not always correct, even after a millenia of improvement. (For example, rocket fuel formulations almost never work exactly as predicted - they are all on the edge of stability, and without actual testing you cannot know which side of the edge they are on).

Making models and running past data through them until the output matches is not science. That approach suffers from a form of survival bias - you keep changing the model until it matches, but that doesn't mean you can predict the future.

The stock market exhibits the same behavior. Many people come up with algorithms to predict the markets using past data. They all fail when run on future data. It's just not science!

Re:Random questions and comments

[harl]

The thing is, this is starting to happen. None of the models can tell you with a high degree of certainty what the temperature in a given city will be on a given day, or the average on a given week, but on larger time and geographical scales, the models are starting to make valid predictions, and the very first few have been validated (well, you do have to wait a while to find out if the predicted global average temperature for 2006 matches reality, you know what I mean?)

Please provide evidence to back up this claim.

Re:Random questions and comments

[WhiplashII]

provided the authority is competent and unbiased

And you honestly think the global warming crowd in unbiased?

I think both sides are equally biased - but only one side is trying to use the government to make me obey their rules. The other one gives me a free choice.

Re:Random questions and comments

[yankpop]

Actually, I think the real difference is in the conditions behind the offers.

Exactly my point. We'll help you out, but only if you help us out by shutting out competing viewpoints. Whether or not the oil companies actually make the threat is beside the point. The critical issue is that the education system has been slashed so hard that teachers feel they need to pander to industry in order to get badly needed dollars for their work.

The agenda of a corporation and a school are fundamentally different. The corporation is ultimately about profit for shareholders, while the school is about preparing students for full participation in society, both economically and socially. Those two agendas may coincide in some areas, but if we leave it to industry to police itself conflict is inevitable.

It would be great, though, if there was a way for them to contribute without even the appearance of using the contributions to influence the beliefs of those students

There is. It's called taxes. If the government had the resolve to collect enough taxes to cover the needs of the education system, and the wisdom not to waste it, then we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation to begin with. But then, responsible government depends on informed and engaged citizens, which in turn depends on solid education. Which is very difficult to provide if the curriculum is set by corporations.

yp.

Re:Random questions and comments

[saltydogdesign]

A quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Taken to the limit, this means that a company will take any action neccessary to secure and guard profits.

I'm of the opionion that this is one of the major shortcomings of capitalism: it is excellent at allocating resources in the short- to mid-term, but is largely incapable of long-term planning. For example: it's a no-brainer that the oil industry won't do well if they cause the kind of major ecological cataclysm that seems to be lurking off the port bow, but the pressure of quarterly returns makes it impossible for them to make a serious effort at addressing returns a century from now. It seems to me that Friedman's error was that he was thinking about current shareholders and neglecting future ones.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jedidiah]

If you are in the business of interfering with the professional integrity of the academic institutions you associate yourself with then you rightly deserve all of the criticism (valid or otherwise) that gets hurled in your general direction. There's no good excuse to trifle with the intellectual integrity of an academic organization. This ranks right up there with Bush turning the EPA into a propaganda arm of the White House. This was something that was so low that even Nixon wouldn't do it.

          If Exxon playing the role of meddling federal government, then it should rightly get all the derision that is directed at big government and the all too commonplace abuses of the interstate commerce clause.

Re:Random questions and comments

[drsquare]

Why should oil companies have any responsibilities? They aren't the ones burning the oil. I love to see all these lefties railing against those evil companies, whilst driving around in their oil-powered cars and using products which have been transported by oil.

How about Al Gore makes a film about the hypocricy of environmentalists?

Re:Random questions and comments

[jedidiah]

It would be nice if the Conservatives just started being that. I bet a fair number of them used to be Boy Scouts. They need to get in touch with that and their own alleged sense of personal responsibility.

You leave the land the way you found it, PERIOD.

You don't just pollute the air or the land and let that be. You clean up after yourself. It DOESN'T MATTER if it's causing global warming or not.

Re:Random questions and comments

[hey!]

Well, what is your criterion for "biased"? It can't be just "disagrees with me".

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

I was using "curve-fitting" in the more general sense. Let me explain: While the scientific laws (expressed in formulas) used in these models may be deterministic and with solid basis, the variables you account for can be switched around. In such a large and chaotic system, you have the unavoidable problem of choosing which factors you're going to neglect (how coarse shall we model the reflectivity in this region? Do the emissions from this region matter much? Can we assume that this heat input spreads quickly enough to [...]? Will we use the upper or lower bound on reported emissions from this region? Etc.). You can therefore have "curve fitting" in the sense of "add and remove factors until you match history". That is what I meant they were doing. (Note: to reiterate, this kind of curve-fitting is unavoidable -- you *must* exercise discretion in which factors are included.)

Re:Random questions and comments

[bogjobber]

I would suggest, if you haven't already, to read the book The Corporation or watch the movie of the same name. It makes some very interesting points. It is definitely "biased" but it provides sound arguments and generally doesn't devolve into Michael Moore like mudslinging. One of the main points I got out of it (and from other places) is that you really can't treat corporations like people.

Corporations, especially the huge multinationals, are amoral and any individual person is not responsible for the actions of the corporation unless they act illegally. That is where they differ from the rest of society. The entire purpose of the corporation is to create wealth for the stockholders while removing any personal responsibility from either the stockholders or the employees of the company. Most of the time this is in the best interest of society, but when it goes wrong it goes very, very wrong.

Your claim that corporations should be treated the same as other things in our society is just flat out wrong. When corporations act unethically (which is a huge difference than illegally), more often than not it is because the people involved are just doing their job. Many, many scientific studies have shown that people will put away their personal beliefs and do some very bad things if they believe what they are doing is part of their duty or some authority has authorized it. An obvious example is the experiment where people believed they were torturing a man by shocking him but did so anyway because of the doctor telling them it was ok. This is even more true when the acts aren't as morally repugnant and the decision making is further removed from one person.

Regulating everything equally throughout society with respect to corporations is just not possible. Corporations are given special exemptions by law, and it follows that they should face special regulations. If we really wanted everything to be "equal" we would create laws disallowing people from forming corporations. That way they would have to take personal responsibility for the way their companies act. That, of course, would be financial suicide. Conducting business should not be an unbearable risk for people. It should, however, benefit society, and that is why extra rules are needed to keep corporations in check.

Re:Random questions and comments

[UbuntuDupe]

Again, these simulations are based on the same physics used to predict wind-resistance in cars, aerodynamics of new airplanes, stresses that bridges can withstand, and behaviour of new microchips.

No, it's not, for any reasonable meaning of "same physics".

Spend some time looking at how any of these simulations (climate, hydrodynamic, quantum mechanical, etc), and you'll see the effort that goes into validation, precision, and reproducibility.

I'll do you one better: I actually work in aerospace. And I can tell you that pretty much every formula I've used is semi-empirical. It's basically some textbook theory, with fudge factors thrown in (usually drawn from a table) that are only there because of a long history of testing. The factors vary based on the context in which you're using the formula, for reasons no one completely understands.

(Ex: buckling load in the textbook is n^2*pi^2*EI/L^2. Formula we actually use: n^2*pi^2*ki*ke*EI/L^2. Get the ki and ke off of a table for this material and setup.)

In other words, the theory is guidance, but has to be modified by the observation in order to consistently predict the future. With far less empirical data (and far less control over what conditions we get to observe), there being only one earth, it only makes sense that (as per Bayes) one should consider the results far less certain, regardless of who wants what to be true. No "intellectual dishonesty" required, though I agree that CBA provides *separate* reasons to prefer other solutions.

(If I were an insecure jerk, I'd accuse you of looking for an excuse to get more control over others through inflated catastrophic scenarios. But I'm above that.)

Re:Random questions and comments

[MightyYar]

I don't think that's a fair generalization. Many "conservatives" are hunters or fishermen, and they do care very much about the environment. It is common to be out fishing and to actually pick up trash that is floating by to be properly disposed of. Hunters mostly respect the environment because they quite enjoy being in the great outdoors. You are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans". It is no more correct to assume that a Republican is conservatiev than it is to assume that a Democrat must be a union worker or minority. There are Democrat and Republican corporate whores, and there are a very large number of Democratic "conservatives". Talk to a Southern black family, union coal miner, or a Hispanic person about homosexuals some time. Odds are that you will find some very conservative attitudes among these traditional Democrats.

That said, I agree that people need to have a better attitude towards the environment, but I feel that it isn't as simple as you are asserting. We need to mine for coal/uranium/silica/iron. We need wood. We need to destroy an environment and live on some piece of land formerly occupied by something else. It's all about balance, and I'd like to see more of it towards "sustainable".

Don't hate on the hicks for driving their pickup trucks - in rural areas, smog is not an issue. Sure, they are contributing somewhat more CO2 to the atmosphere, but frankly that needs to be dealt with on a global scale - getting mad at SUV drivers won't get you very far. Anyway, I've seen a lot of SUVs with Kerry stickers :)

Re:Random questions and comments

[jahudabudy]

Why is this a different question for people than corporations?

1) Due to the nature and scale of their actions, corporations tend to be involved in much more "gray" areas than individuals, requiring more exact definitions of right and wrong. There was no need to define the amount of Chemical X one was allowed to put into the atmosphere until the first processing plant that produces tons of it per day appeared.
2) We have had thousands of years to work on the task of identifying anti-social behaviors that people might engage in, and regulating them. Pretty much the only ones left undefined are behaviors based around new technologies, which enable new behaviors. Not that this is a small set, but it is a tiny subset of the corporation to corporation, corporation to individual, and corporation to society behaviors still left to be defined.

Re:Random questions and comments

[WhiplashII]

Yours apparently is "makes money from". Well, that fits - but my definition encompasses more. I believe that you have a bias on this issue (just like everyone else), even though you have basically nothing at stake other than your ego (just like everyone else). For me, bias is best described by: you would not change your desired outcome even if the experiment had the opposite result.

Would you be pro-oil if global warming was eliminated tommorrow?

Re:Random questions and comments

[NMerriam]

Why is this a different question for people than corporations?

I don't know about your peer group, but most people I know do consider it a basic moral standard that people shouldn't knowingly lie (about anything significant).

Your constant invocation of red herrings about making it illegal completely drives past the point of the original poster, which is that most poeple DO consider it immoral for individuals to lie for personal benefit. Yet you and others consider it not just acceptable but in fact necessary for corporations to lie whenever necessary for shareholder benefit. It is the Friedman libertarians who are holding a double standard.

Re:Random questions and comments

[SatanicPuppy]

Their speech isn't the real problem. If they were saying something, that would be fine. But using their money to slant science education is pretty crappy. Ideally, the government and the people would give enough money that this sort of trick wouldn't work so well...In the real world, however, there will always be people who want to take the money.

Basically, this is what happens when education and politics collide. I don't see any way out of it...Even privatization wouldn't make the problem go away. Just a fricking mess.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Tyler Durden]

The problem is that one can argue that corporations are the most powerful type of collection of human beings today (including governments). If this is the case, then it is only rational that they be more tightly controlled and watched since their wrongdoings can do more damage than any other organization.

Re:Random questions and comments

[maxume]

How does one get trained in scientific ethics? Do you read the wind and accept it or is it more complicated than that?

Re:Random questions and comments

[maxume]

So how does anything get paid for? Benevolent independent committees? Magic?

Re:Random questions and comments

[hey!]

Yours apparently is "makes money from".

You could only thing that if you didn't read very carefully. A report can be considered an unbiased authority if it has gone through the process of independent review by people of different opinions. As I noted, it could well have been paid for.

I believe that you have a bias on this issue (just like everyone else), even though you have basically nothing at stake other than your ego (just like everyone else).

But you make my argument for me. People as you say cannot totally rid themselves of their personal biases. It's not even necessarily desirable that they do so. What makes privately published study A less authoritative than a journal published study B is the kind of scrutiny it was subjected to. Private publications are reviewed to ensure they reach the conclusions desired by their publishers. Journal published articles are reveiwed for completeness, accuracy, fairness, and ability to stand up to adversarial examination. Both studies could be funded by the same organization and reach the same conclusions, and it still would not matter. A would be less authoritative than B.

For me, bias is best described by: you would not change your desired outcome even if the experiment had the opposite result.

This is not a verifiable standard, because it is premised on observations that can only be made in situations contrary to fact. It's usually best to look at the statement, not the person making it, and certainly not a hypothetical projectsion of that person's behavior in situations that haven't happened.

I'd suggest that attributing authority to a statement is proper if (a) if it hsa been subject to independent scrutiny and found reasonable and (b) no more authority is ascribed to it than contrary statements that have survived equal or greater scrutiny.

Re:Random questions and comments

[AK Marc]

If a corporation does, it's because the people running it and owning it have decided, AS HUMAN BEINGS, to engage in that behavior.

Well, given that it is illegal to take actions that reduce shareholder value and the "moral duty" of a corporation is to increase shareholder value, I would argue that it is the moral imperative that corporations lie. Well, not exactly lie, but that they say whatever they think will best help their bottom line. If it happens to be true, then all the better. If it is a lie, then it doesn't matter. It isn't about corporations being capable of lying, like any other organization. It is that corporations are the only organization that is set up in a manner where lies are apparently encouraged. Add to this that they have many of the protections of "people" but few, if any, of the drawbacks, then you have amoral entities encouraged to lie and harm with few, if any, consequences to their actions.

So saying that corporations can be unethical, or that corporations should be more tightly controlled and watched, is silly because it singles them out. If you feel that a behavior is harmful and should be regulated, just have the guts to make the statement that it should be regulated throughout society.

And I find that statement just silly. If I were to lie repeatedly to people to get them to buy something I'm making that ends up killing them, I will be unable to sell that or anything else after I'm tossed in jail for negligent homicide. When's the last time a corporation was banned from interacting with society? I'm guessing never. There is no "jail" for a corporation. When Ford saw that Pintos were going to kill people and purposefully sold something they predicted would kill people, that is a criminal act on the part of the corporation. Ford should have been shut down 100% for 5 years or more if they had the responsibilities of people. Since they have many of the rights confered to them, but few of the responsibilities, they do need to be singled out. They are completely different from people and above the law for the worst offenses, so greater regulations make sense.

Re:Random questions and comments

[WhiplashII]

Hm - I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about the credibility that you give a scientifically published article that you have 1) found yourself, and 2) somewhat understand. 1) is important because it is possible to convince someone of anything if you give them a biased sample of articles, for example the media is heavily biased to report global warming disaster stories rather than boring reports - this would lead you to believe that all global warming reports are disaster stories if your only access to reports was through the media. 2) is important because if you can't understand it, someone has to explain the "important" parts to you - and therefore that person introduces his personal bias. (And, yes, I believe everyone has a bias - there is only a question of degree)

Which brings us to my point - the question is whether that person would change his mind if he knew the outcome was different than what he was saying. This is not scientifically testable, true - but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how a normal person, not knowlegable in the subject, can make a rational decision. Most people can see someone's bias - it is a relatively normal life skill, useful in a wide variety of tasks. And this is what most people use to tell if they should alter their lives to match someone else's predictions.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Impotent_Emperor]

I just want to point out that it is sometimes the politicians who extort lobbyists. Since politicians have the power to regulate the hell out of almost any business, they can threaten corporations with all sorts of bills. Once a large donation is made to their re-election campaign, those bills can go away.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>It's real easy to say, "We can keep our principles and take their money" but history shows that that's just not true.

History going back a long way: "Where the man's treasure is, there is his heart also" is from Matthew 6:21.

Re:Random questions and comments

[2short]

What kind of experiment can you perform to test the accuracy of plate tectonics?

I don't know what you mean by "global warming doomsday theory", but I do know the ability to perform an experiment is not the limit of science. It's certainly nice when one can perform an experiment that forces the evidence into existence. But in many fields (Geology, Astronomy, Paleontology, etc.) this is not possible, and we must settle for examining what evidence is naturally ocurring. The hallmark of science is simply that others may examine that same evidence; you need never take anyones word for it.

Evidence that anyone may examine makes it quite clear that the earth getting warmer at a rate somewhere between 100 and 10,000 times faster than it ever has before. There is currently only one very reasonable explanation for this phenomena that anyone has come up with, though a lot of people keep throwing up all manner of poor theories that don't actually fit the data, in what looks like an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jstomel]

Well, I'm a graduate student in life sciences and occasionally there are (generally non-mandatory) seminars and lectures in what is and is not good scientific practice. Things like what constitutes a conflict of interest in science, what constitutes informed consent in medical research, and what are proper procedures for aquiring and handling and data. The national acadamy of sciences and NSF have guidelines for this sort of thing and they're generally accepted by the scientific community. I think that there are actual degree programs and certificate training in scientific ethics, but I havn't gone that far. Nonetheless, most scientists get training as to what is considered ethical practice in science at some point in their training, just like most docters get training as to what is ethical practice in medicine. It would be nice if it were better emphasized and enforced, as many scientists I know are on the decidedly shacky side of ethical practice, but there you are. I'm not sure what "read the wind" means, but it is certainly a consensus code of behavior rather than an individual one. It's more complicated than simply going with what's popular at the time, but less scientific than, well, science. I've never been on a policy setting board for any of the institutions that decide ethical standards, but my impression is that they use a combination of common sense and learning from the past. Does that answer your question?

Re:Random questions and comments

[maxume]

Read the wind -> ethics is simply (currently) accepted practice.

Any reasonable adult should not need training in ethics. Any sort of ethics. Part of being reasonable is ethical behavior. Learning about them is 'gaining experience with' not 'training'. The notion of training implies learning to follow 'the' rules, which is scary for anything where someone is supposed to be thinking.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Frumious Wombat]

>>(If I were an insecure jerk, I'd accuse you of looking for an excuse to get more control over others through inflated catastrophic scenarios. But I'm above that.)

Given that I'm a chemist, and therefore barely have control over my graduate students, thank you.

Re:Random questions and comments

[blake3737]

"You totally misunderstood Friedman's point, probably because you never read Friedman"

Ok then good Will Hunting, tell us more of you're great intellect.

(applesauce bitch!)

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

The real problem is that science isn't something you "believe in." It's not a religion, though so many people try to foist it as an alternative to Christianity or some other religion. It's just like those who try to claim that everyone from Alexander the Great to Peter I. Tchaikovsky were homosexuals. Most of what is considered "science" was "discovered" by religious men. And most purely scientific "atheists" are full of silly notions about fairies and orcs and space aliens.

Those that want you to believe in science really want you to believe in their particular fairy tales and try to lend credibility to their arguments by trying to associate themselves with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. But even smart folks like these aren't infallible. Newton believed in alchemy and Einstein in relativity.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Chris Burke]

And even though you're dismissing models that accurately predict past events.. they are very good tests for the simulations.

No, they're not. They're proof that you curve-fitted to the past 80 years. Whether that curve is *right* ... well, that takes future data.

Data you don't have.

No, not necessarily. The model has no concept of 'past' and 'future' because it is just a model. It is very easy to do something like take all the data from 80 to 40 years ago, call that "the past", then take the data from 40 years ago to the present and call that "the future". You curve-fit your model's parameters to "the past", and then continue the simulation to see if it's predictions match "the future".

This has actually been done before. Not with 80 years of data, but with about 20, again split into "the past" training sets and "the future" testing sets. Several different climate models were compared, trained with "the past" and asked to predict "the future". In this case, only the model which used CO2 as a primary greenhouse gas was able to predict "the future" -- bearing in mind that this was a while ago, i have no link, and I'm just illustrating the principle not trying to suggest this proves anthropogenic CO2-based global warming or anything.

I'm just saying that it is possible to validate a model without having to wait until the future has occured to see that the data was correct. Now I understand that what we really want is a model that we trust for predicting our actual future, as opposed to "the future" as defined for model validation purposes. However, that's not a very useful constraint to put on the trustworthiness of the model. First, because we're trying to make predictions of the future so we can make decisions today, and if we wait until the future arrives then it's too late for predictions or decisions. Second, when that future comes there will be a new unknown future that we want to make predictions about, and that new-future data won't be available to validate the models. You could level the exact same criticism against the model at that time, even if it has perfectly predicted all the data up to that point and seemingly answered your criticism of today.

That criticism would be accurate, as well. Weather and climate are chaotic systems. Even if we could be sure we had a perfect knowledge of the workings of the climate, one would naturally expect the model and reality to diverge due to differences in the measured vs real conditions. So even if our model perfectly modelled current data to our limits of precision, and was in fact the "right" model, it could still produce predictions that don't match up with reality as it changes over time. So that criticism is accurate, but also useless, because it applies to the best possible models as well as the worst.

We're talking about predicting the future. You have to accept a couple things to do that. First is that the data from the past is the only data you can ever have to test your predictive models with. Second is that even if you understand the past perfectly and have the correct model it is still possible to mispredict the future.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

So is your definition of "scientist" someone who has patches on his elbows and smokes a pipe?

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

Many, many real world examples support the scientific studies you cite, specifically that people will put away their personal beliefs and do some very bad things if they believe what they are doing is part of their duty or some authority has authorized it.

Examples include governments, religions, armies, non-profit organizations, protest movements, homeowners associations, parent teacher organizations, and the department of motor vehicles.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

Well, given that it is illegal to take actions that reduce shareholder value and the "moral duty" of a corporation is to increase shareholder value...

And I find that statement just silly. And false. Okay, just silly and false and stupid. Well, just silly and false and stupid and a naive misunderstanding of reality. Among the many dubious qualities of that statement are it's silliness, falsity, stupidity, and exemplification of a naive misunderstanding of reality.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

Call someone and all his friends idiots and see if you get invited to his convention or published in his fanzine.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

I predict it will be warmer next summer than this winter. I predict Canada will be colder than Australia. Such generalities are easy to predict. "A 1 degree temperature increase on average over 100 data points over 100 years might possibly cause Europe to plunge into a new ice age" are easy to dismiss with relative certainty.

Re:Random questions and comments

[2short]

No, my definition of science, as referenced in my post, is: "you need never take anyones word for it". A scientist is someone who doesn't need you to take their, or anyone elses, word for it. You can collect the evidence yourself, and look at it yourself.

But it's not really my definition. It is, if I recall corectly, Robert Boyles. But in any case either he or one of the other originators of the scientific revolution, who adopted it as the motto of the Royal Society. Naturally, it sounds better in latin: "Nullius in Verba"

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

I guarantee you every time a scientist gets quoted in a newspaper or magazine he cuts out an clipping and frames it. If he were concerned about being misquoted, he'd raise as big a stink as he can, same as an athlete who gets a rebound shaved off his stats.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

I think you'd be surprised how many skeptics are not building beachfront homes in Alberta with the money we've received from BIG OIL. It seems like they have a lot of allies to their enemies, but that's just because the global warming believers aren't very smart, and by invading Switzerland, they piss off more than international bankers and skiers.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

No, the producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" believe, quoting from their press release: "every student in every school in the United States [needs] to see this movie." The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) decided not to endorse this viewpoint and probably could not enforce it either. I'm sure if the producers are sincere, they could still give copies of the movie to every science teacher who requests it. The NSTA has simply chosen not to be a distribution channel for their propoganda. Whether it is because they accepted money from Exxon or not is, as they used to like to say on Slashdot, completely orthogonal.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

You're only saying that because most of the science teachers agree with you politically. You'd say the opposite about economics or history teachers.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jmorris42]

> You take their money, you drink their kool-aid, you sacrifice your principles, and you produce biased research.

Ok, lets follow the money. So who funded Al Gore's little horror flick? Somebody fronted the money to produce it, fly Algore and an entire crew all over the world during principle photography, generate state of the art CG, make 500 prints to ship out, etc.

Either it was done as a profit making venture, making Al Gore as big a whore as someone producing a documentary/pr event for Exxon or somebody ponied up the money with little hope of even recovering the investment, meaning it was financed as propaganda for somebody. So which is it?

Re:Random questions and comments

[2short]

"Ice cores tell you the temps at a particular location. You have to go looking for other sources (tree rings, sedimentary evidence, etc) to get reasonably accurate temps elsewhere to build up a good picture of the global climate."

Yup, and we've done that. It appears that over the last hundred years, the earth has warmed up at a rate roughly 1000 times the fastest it ever did before. Now, there's a lot of error in those measurements, but taking the most optimistic assumptions you possibly could, if you really strained the limits of plausibility, maybe the last hundred years hae only seen warming 100 times faster than the fastest ever before.

Now, there's one possible explanation for what's different in the recent past to cause this that seems to fit, i.e. the industrial revolution. You certainly can't prove it, but there are reasonable mechanisms that could arguably account for it.

Meanwhile, people propose other ideas that could account for 10% increases in warming, or maybe a radical doubling of the rate. These ideas are not remotely on the right scale for the observed data. This is pointed out, and people keep yammering on as if they were deaf. So the actual scientists wind up sounding a bit shrill.

An attempt at refuting the idea that a change in solar output was responsible? No one took that seriously, not because they are zealots, but because the suggeted change in solar output was in the ~5% range, so it didn't take a lot of "refuting" the idea it was responsible for the 100,000% change in warming.

Attempting to poke holes in scientific arguments is valuable, and helps scientists refine their theories. Spouting nonsense to confuse laymen is not valuable.

Re:Random questions and comments

[aevans]

Only politicians are cheaper to buy than corporations. Getting Exxon and all of it's customers to support your cause is difficult. Getting John Murtha to do so is less difficult (although moreso than with some other politicians.)

Re:Random questions and comments

[AK Marc]

I agree that it is silly, and stupid. However it is neither false nor naive. Corporations are sued all the time for harming shareholder value. Vonage is being sued right now (http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1114) as are many other companies. It is illegal for corporations to harm shareholder value, and the winning lawsuits against corporations all the time just prove that point.

Re:Random questions and comments

[drsmithy]

I disagree with the assumption that the oil companies truly believe that global warming is a nonexistent threat.

For more concrete proof of this, look no further than the huge investments energy companies (rather than just big oil) have made in researching and/or buying alternative/renewable energy sources.

"Big Oil" knows what's coming - they're just stalling so when it arrives they're in the best position to profit from it.

Re:Random questions and comments

[drsmithy]

Why is this a different question for people than corporations?

Because corporations aren't people and don't act like people (well, they do in a sense, but they act like the kind of people that society typically refers to as varying degrees of "badly adjusted", and throw in gaol).

See, everybody's always forgetting that corporations are just groups of people. They don't actually have an independent moral or ethical existence--legally, we treat them as such in a limited manner because it makes the law work better. But really, the rights and responsibilities or a business are understood by society to be an expression of the rights and responsibilities of their employees and owners.

The whole *point* of a corporation is to (almost) completely exempt the people running it from individual responsibility for their actions. There are certain, rare, examples of this not occurring, but in general corporations exist to protect the individuals running them from the risks (ie: responsibilities) they would otherwise be exposed to acting _as people_.

Contrary to your opinion, people are, in fact, well aware that corporations are run by people. They are also well aware that those people know they will rarely, if ever, be personally responsible for the actions the corporation takes. They are also well aware that positions of power (eg: running a corporation) attract people who are either a) extremely selfish or b) live their life to the mantra "the end justifies the means". Ie: psychopaths.

In short, people don't trust corporations because they're typically run by selfish arseholes with little to no accountability for their actions - exactly the kind of people you don't trust in one-on-one relationships, either.

You're just insisting that we hold certain groups of people responsible to a moral standard other than the law.

The law is an exceptionally poor moral compass. Largely because it is not meant to be one. There's a reason people talk about lawyers with disdain, and that's because lawyers are typically the kind of people for whom the law *is* their moral guide.

Re:Random questions and comments

[jmorris42]

> What kind of experiment can you perform to test the accuracy of plate tectonics?

None are needed. On the other hand if a bunch of geologists announced that based on their studies of plate tectonics that they could now project that a massive disaster was almost certain to befall Tokyo (why Tokyo? fool, don't you know Tokyo is always being trampled by Godzilla or fending off some other disaster?) and the only answer was to abandon the city and relocate everyone that would be a valid comparison.

Then it would be a matter of trying to evaluate the odds their prediction was likely to come true, the cost of moving Tokyo and the potential cost of not moving Tokyo.

And one factor in the analysis for most people would be the credibility of the group of scientists making the prediction along with the scientists and politicians who began promoting the theory against scientists and politicians who didn't buy in. Another factor would be to consider any alterior motives of the principal advocates. If they are buying up all the real estate as people move out it would be a big red flag. :)

Now consider the GW crowd. Morons like Al Gore as spokespeople, dubious politics masquerading around as science, touting one world government socialism as the ONLY answer. We are expected to believe it is a total conincidence that almost every one of the GW proponents was promoting socialism long before GW became the latest fashionable wave. Why is it considered unreasonable and anti-intellectual to ask, "Is Al Gore pushing Socialism as the answer to Global Warming or is he proposing Global Warming as the justification for Socialism?"

Re:Random questions and comments

[Martin Blank]

1000 times faster?

According to the Mann "hockey stick" graph, one of the measurements (the light green line representing J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002), "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability") from 1300 to 1400 shows a rise from about -0.80 C to about -0.55 C (admittedly eyeballing it). From 1900 to 2000 is from about -0.4 C to +0.4 C. That's a ratio of 1.0:0.25, or about 4:1, from what looks to me like one of the sharper increases over a century (1350-1450 may have seen about a 0.5 C increase, but it's hard to say). A rise of 1000 times would mean that we would be dead, as the outside temps would be around 270 C. Even a rise of 100 times would put us at about 45 C.

As you said, spouting nonsense to confuse laymen is not valuable.

Re:Random questions and comments

[2short]

What the hell has global warming to do with socialism? Never mind, I'm sure your ideas are fascinating, but I've no wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Regardless, my point was, science is all about not having to take anyones word for it. Don't like Al Gore? No problem. Science isn't about who advocates it; it's about evidence you can check yourself. Evidence you can check yourself indicates that over the very recent past the earth has been warming at 1000 times the fastest rate previously.

If you've got evidence we can check ourselves that indicates this warming is due to a nefarious commie plot, let's hear it. Otherwise, those of us who understand what science is are trying to have a conversation, so please quit interupting.

Re:Random questions and comments

[Max Littlemore]

None are needed. On the other hand if a bunch of geologists announced that based on their studies of plate tectonics that they could now project that a massive disaster was almost certain to befall Tokyo (why Tokyo? fool, don't you know Tokyo is always being trampled by Godzilla or fending off some other disaster?) and the only answer was to abandon the city and relocate everyone that would be a valid comparison.

How is that a valid comparision? Are you saying that global warming is a disaster waiting to befall oil? Are you saying that the existence of Tokyo is somehow precipitating said major disturbance in the Earth's crust?

From what I can tell you are comparing apples and oranges in the first, then going on to a value comparison that seems to be comparing the dollar with the survival of a population without whom the dollar loses all value within the area of interest.

You then continue with some strange notion that scientific proof is about democratic consensus or that a scientific theory that was born from observation of a natural phenomenon and later became a political movement is somehow less scientific due to the prejudices of the politicians who first noticed the phenomenon and voiced their concerns.

In a master stroke, you finish with a strange rant about how a political framework similar to some ideas advocated by Jesus Christ somehow has something to do with fashion, science and fucking turtles on camera for all I can make out.

So your point is what? That science cannot remain apolitical when donkeys like you insist on weighing into the debate? Oh right, yes, good, I see your point...... shame really.....

Re:Random questions and comments

[hey!]

Which brings us to my point - the question is whether that person would change his mind if he knew the outcome was different than what he was saying. This is not scientifically testable, true - but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how a normal person, not knowlegable in the subject, can make a rational decision. Most people can see someone's bias - it is a relatively normal life skill, useful in a wide variety of tasks. And this is what most people use to tell if they should alter their lives to match someone else's predictions.

I think you are talking about confirmation bias, and the varying degrees which people are subject to it. But confirmation bias, within limits, serves a useful cognitive function. The nature of real world evidence is that it is inconsistent. Some hysteresis in opinion formation is desirable.

Taken to extreme, confirmation bias is a kind of intellectual dishonesty. I think that is what you are talking about. I agree, somebody who willfully indulges in intellecutal dishonesty cannot be regarded (as a person) as unbiased.

However, this is too restrictive a test for finding bias; bias exists in the viewpoints of honest people too. True, it is not reasonable to change your life because a dishonest person thinks you should. But also, it is not reasonable change your life because somebody else honestly thinks it's a good idea.

This is why I think that we should look at the degree of scrutiny an assertion has received, not just the character of the person making the assertion.

Which brings us to my point - the question is whether that person would change his mind if he knew the outcome was different than what he was saying.

Well, again it is important to remember that real world evidence for a question like this is always contradictory. The earth's climate is a complex system. Under every possible climate change scenario (global warming, cooling, or stasis) one can find evidence to support other scenarios. In some global warming scenarios, Europe becomes cooler.

This means we have to consider the interpretation of each piece of evidence carefully.

Global warming debunking comes in three flavors: those which deny global warming based on chosen pieces of evidence, and those that call it into question by calling the accuracy of the data supporting it, and those that call the interpretation of that data into question.

While it is possible to mount a challenge to global warming by contradictory data, it's important that this data be fit into a pattern supporting the contradictory hypothesis. Mere volume cannot achieve this, because if we go by that standard the support for the warming hypothesis is much more voluminous. Popular debunking often takes this form; it sounds like there is a lot of data because there is a lot of contradictory data, which is just what we expect. A single data set has to have an unusual claim to relevance to attract our attention. Unfortunately, the data sets like this (e.g. global average temperature data) support the warming hypothesis.

Objections of the second kind were at one time serious sources of skepticism of the global warming hypothesis. I am not an Earth scientist (I'm married to one, but even she is not a climatologis). But I have followed the global warming hypothesis since around 1980, when it was not a scientific consensus, and early on these were very common and received serious attention. However the most serious of these challenges (e.g. of remote sensing data) have not surivived scrutiny.

All along there has been strong challenges to the hypothesis based on the interpretation of the data supporting it. These remain the most serious challenges, particularly of the anthropogenic aspects of the theory, which may never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

My personal evaluation of the challenges to the basic warming hypothesis is that they are base

Re:Random questions and comments

[WhiplashII]

Thanks for that post, very clarifying - but again, note that as a scientist (or at least married to one!), the questinos you are asking (and have well reasoned answers for) are 1) "Is it happening (the average temperature data)?", and 2) "Why is it happening (is it anthropogenic)?" Those are interesting questions, and exactly what a scientist should be concerned with. But that is not the global warming debate.

The global warming debate is: "Should we cut down our economy in favor of decreased CO2 emissions?" That is the premise being thrown around (although, of course, they say that industry is doing it anyway and all that - if that is true, we don't need laws!). That is not a question that science can answer - and I don't think that true scientists are trying to answer that. The problem is that the science is being abused for political purposes...

Re:Random questions and comments

[ryanov]

They build a better product than anyone else, yes -- at first at least. Then they earn those profits. Then they use those profits to lobby in the government, so that they aren't taxed at the rate they should be. They buy off politicians that exempt them in situations where ordinarily they'd be accountable -- to the people, and sometimes to their shareholders (chapter 11). They forge monopolies, and use the money to protect themselves from this.

People who vote for conservatives are just fucking themselves. Why does no one sit down and say "shit, maybe I can't actually USE $15M; maybe if all of us had a couple million in the bank, that would do it." What is this need to accumulate millions of dollars at everyone else's expense? And frankly, why do so many "little guys" fight for this "right"?

Re:Random questions and comments

[NateTech]

So how do shareholders today demand that the companies they invest in stop making these donations and give the shareholders the profits?

This is ultimately where the system is broken. Too many complacent shareholders (401K and other retirement fund based mutual funds!) and not enough people actively watching what the companies they invest in are actually doing with the profits.

People are too "busy" to be bothered with checking up on and fighting with the idiots running the companies they invest in, and they're losing a lot of money letting these guys play games with their investment dollars.

If you're not researching what's in your portfolio and communicating to the corporations in it that you're unhappy with what they do with their money, you're not an investor -- you're just along for the ride given and planned by the fat cats running the company who have a lot more shares than you do.

The only people companies have to keep happy are the large "institutional investors" once they reach a certain size. Ever stop to think what the "institution" stands for? You? Probably not.

Re:Random questions and comments

[MoralHazard]

DUH!! Group decision making is different from individual decision making?!! OMGWTF!! WHat a shocker!!

We KNEW that already, and anybody who missed it in the last 3,000 years of human history is a complete idiot. I didn't need 'The Corporatation' to tell me that.

BTW: If you thought 'The Corporation' was good, you probably:

    - live in Seattle, or San Franciso;
    - have long hair, sandles, and lots of ticket stubs from Phish concerts;
    - have had a lobotomy or traumatic brain injury (TBI) at some point;
    - drool on your keyboard;

It's propaganda-shlock, barely distinguishable from the Michael Moore variety. Read any undergraduate-level business or microeconomics textbook, and you'll learn many more or capitalism's dirty little secrets.

You make me almost sorry to call myself a Liberal. People like you are the Left's version of Rush Limbaugh: an embarrasment to the reasonable adults who don't want to fellate Karl Marx.

science IS political

[delt0r]

"is it even possible that science can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?"

No and No. And IAAS

Science + Money = Politics

[sycodon]

Where there's money involved, so too will there be politics.

Re:Science + Money = Politics

[metlin]

Shouldn't that be:

Money - Science = Politics

???

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Anivair]

It's funny how stupid the first claim seems till you read the below figures.

I guess being paranoid pays off sometimes. You only have ot be right once to make all the tin foil worth while.

Get in Touch!

[RecycledElectrons]

> NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called 'You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel,' a shameless pitch for oil dependence."

I believe that the video in question shows exactly how dependant we are on oil and gas. That's reality. If you want to change it, criticizing a cartoon is slightly less damaging than criticizing the source of funding for science education, but it's still incredibly stupid.

Andy Out!

The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[Junior J. Junior III]

...to the known universe. In other words, *everything* has a political dimension to it. Politics is unavoidable.

What needs to be avoided is not politics but the temptation to distort scientific findings and inquiries to match preconceived ideas that support entrenched political interests.

We're pretty terrible at that. But it might not take a genius amount of forethought to understand that putting Al Gore's name on the movie doesn't help to de-politicize the issue.

I mean, duh.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[Ingolfke]

Of course... I think that to not put Al Gore's name on the film probably would have meant it was pretty much ignored.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the range of politics is isomorphic to three sixteen-year-old girls catfighting at a slumber party.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[gmuslera]

The invconvenient truth about "An inconvenient truth" is that is not one documentary. Is 2. One about global warming, and another about Al Gore having some points of touch with the 1st topic. If the documentary were presented by known scientist like the late Carl Sagan, or by someone known by documentaries like Michael Moore, an actor or even by Homer Simpson, would be mostly ok (i hope), but it is so tied about Al Gore, his political career, his last election result and what he could had done if were elected, that make it half documentary, half political campaign (even if he starts saying that he retired of it)

To go to some extreme. If someone does a documentary on selective breeding, shows cows, or dogs races, and show some potential of growing for humanity, is somewhat science, inconvenient truth or not. But if the presenter is called Josef Mengele Jr., shows "desirable" future characteristics of minkind (skin color, hair, race, whatever) and even show experiment of his father/grandfather in the 40's, the science message is somewhat dilluted with the "political" message behind. Should that documentary be showed in schools?

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[WhiplashII]

Pretended science has always been a tool to the liars, politicians, charlatans, soothsayers and those that benefit from general ignorance.

There, fixed that for you. There is much more science used to promote agendas than anti-science used to promote them.

Think about it - even anti-evolution people use "science" to promote their agenda.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[saltydogdesign]

So Gore is the Josef Mengele of global warming? That's a pretty tortured argument, if you ask me.

Moreover, reading your post, I don't think you've even seen the film. Suggesting it is about Al's politics is like saying On the Waterfront is about Communism.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[tehcyder]

But the range of politics is isomorphic to three sixteen-year-old girls catfighting at a slumber party

I have no idea what this means, but I like the image.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[saltydogdesign]

But it might not take a genius amount of forethought to understand that putting Al Gore's name on the movie doesn't help to de-politicize the issue.

If it never becomes a political issue, it will never be addressed. The science is what it is, but once the science has been done, politics necessarily enter the scene. And what better person to put forward a political argument than a politician? They may be stinky, and we may all hate them, etc., but I'm sorry -- global warming researchers haven't got the clout or political savvy to move the issue where it needs to move. Perhaps Al Gore doesn't either, but who are you going to get? George Bush?

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[tarks]

Well, I'd rather say politics is isomorphic to a dense subset of the universe. Some subjects are indeed not political but arbitrarly close to being so.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[gmuslera]

Not putting them as related, only putting a situation of the same "shape" (but far more pointy edges) that you must agree that is wrong.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[saltydogdesign]

No, I'm inclined to believe that the act of putting forward a political argument is best done by a politician, and Al Gore is going to be a far sight better on this topic than, say, Sam Brownback.

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[Androclese]

They need to pick somebody other than Al "I created the Internet" Gore if they plan on making us take the topic seriously. They also need to start putting in the words "possibility" and "prediction" and not treat their statements and preductions as fact. Didn't Al Gore say that 2006 was supposed to be the worst Hurricane season ever? Well, umm, it ends on Thursday and we're *way* below average. No Cat 4's or 5's, and only one hurricane in the Golf of Mexico.

I get that the globe is warning up; that's fine, we can show that over time, that this is true, but take a look at a few decade back; we have proof that the globe was cooling down. I get that we want to cut down on Carbon emissions because we *think* that it *might* be a factor in warning the globe. I'll go with that too. I don't believe that mankind, in specific, that the US is the main reason for the global temperature warming up, but I'll play along.

So what are we to believe? Warming or Cooling? The temp may have been going up over the last 30 years, but the Atlantic current is slowing and that shows signs of a cool down (last mini-ice age ended near 1776) The Models are too long term to be taken seriously. Example: here in Chicago, they predicted that the weather on Tuesday would be a high of 62 and then on Wednesday, the weather would be in the 30's. Now, today, it is Tuesday and the weather it was a high of 65 and now it is supposed to be in the high 60's on Wednesday and the snow won't be here until Friday. It's a simple shift of 2 days in the weather pattern, but magnify that margin of error over decades and you see why we scoff and predictions of "doom and gloom", world famine etc., for 30 years out. They are far fetched and cannot be proven with any facts or hard data. The best we can hope for is short term predictions, but even those are wrong (this years hurricane season and this weekends outlook)

Bring forth somebody without an agenda (political or otherwise), somebody who isn't trying to say "do it my way or we all die", somebody who can explain the facts, the opinions, and the predictions, and not get them confused, and *maybe* the topic will be taken seriously by all. I for one would make an effort to really listen and not cringe and think "oh great, another wack-job tell me that cow farts are killing the ozone". Until then, I'll just sit back and laugh at Al Gore and his prediction of "the earth will end in 10 years... just like I did at Ted Danson and his 10 year prediction... 12 years ago...

Re:The domain of politics is isomorphic...

[saltydogdesign]

They need to pick somebody other than Al "I created the Internet" Gore if they plan on making us take the topic seriously.

Aside from the fact that the "I created the Internet" meme is bunk, nobody "picked" Gore for this -- he's just *doing* it. See, that's the way it is in the real world: people who want to see something done don't wait for someone to pick them, they just do it. As for taking the topic seriously, plenty of people do, and Gore has won over plenty more (the recent greening of the U.S. governors is not entirely his work, but he helped). Just because *you* don't take it seriously doesn't mean others don't

...various mumblings about the validity of the theory...

I'm not going to rebut all your inanities. They've been publically rebutted a thousand times. If you want to wander afield from the topic at hand, that's your business, but I'm not getting involved.

Bring forth somebody without an agenda (political or otherwise),

People without agendas don't make political arguments. The moment someone makes a point that global warming is real and a danger, by your logic, they suddenly have an agenda and are invalidated. That doesn't make any sense. Agendas are the means by which people accomplish ends. There's nothing inherently wrong with having an agenda, so long as it can be supported.

somebody who isn't trying to say "do it my way or we all die",

Gore has never issued any such ultimatums. He has described the problem and its severity, and he has offered suggestions as to how it might be fought. You don't like his ideas? Offer some counter ideas. Oh, wait, you don't believe there's a problem. So what's your deal? Shut up then. Nobody's hurting you by talking about global warming.

somebody who can explain the facts, the opinions, and the predictions, and not get them confused, and *maybe* the topic will be taken seriously by all.

If you're really that confused you must just be dim.

I for one would make an effort to really listen and not cringe and think "oh great, another wack-job tell me that cow farts are killing the ozone". Until then, I'll just sit back and laugh at Al Gore and his prediction of "the earth will end in 10 years... just like I did at Ted Danson and his 10 year prediction... 12 years ago...

No, you wouldn't make an effort. You are judging the guy based on a bunch of preconceptions -- many wildly erroneous -- and you don't even have a clue what he's actually saying. You've heard bits and pieces here and there and you just mischaracterize them in order to avoid jostling your mental map of the world.

But you know what? That doesn't matter. Al Gore is a man of considerably more influence than you, and that will only become more so. There are always crackpots. You want to be one, be my guest.

Science is hard to sell

[defile]

Science just doesn't have anything to offer to the average Joe Sixpack.

Getting a definitive answer to anything takes effort, time, and worst of all, intelligence. And not just any intelligence, good intelligence, one that could explain something complex in simple terms that the average Joe Sixpack can understand. And even with all that, important science doesn't always have profit motive.

Without profit motive, the scientific community doesn't stand a chance of competing against all of the other noise makers that can make billions by getting their junk-science-but-profitable messages out there. Unfortunately, Joe Sixpack's going to hear a lot more about the snap crackle and pop of Rice Krispies than he will about the impending snap crackle and popping of his skin as it blisters and sloughs off as the temperature of the earth approaches 1,000 degrees. (Or however this global warming thing is supposed to work; I'm no scienceologist)

Re:Science is hard to sell

[WhiplashII]

Just FYI, the measured change so far is only 1 degree. The maximum change predictable by 100% CO2 spectrum absorbtion is 10 degrees.

There is a larger difference between Chicago hottest day and Arizona's hottest day than the maximum difference global warming can make. The difference between Arizona's day and night in the summer is about 3 times the maximum change. Humans will continue to thrive no matter what - the real issue is polar bears, etc. That is why the overlap between the global warming people and the green people is 99%.

Re:Science is hard to sell

[enodo]

Where do you guys come up with this crap? The surface of Venus is approximately 850 degrees F. That's not mostly because it is closer to the sun - it's because the atmosphere is mostly CO2, and so there's a runaway greenhouse effect. If somehow we could convert the earth's atmosphere to CO2, the earth would be nearly as hot, not just 10 degrees more.

See e.g. here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/GeorgeRyabov.s html

Yes, there's no doubt that humans will survive if the planet is (say) 10 degrees F hotter. There will be lots of species that won't however, and it will very costly even for us.

I am not a poliSci major, but....

[zappepcs]

It seems to me that all big business is incapable of being apolitical. It is politicians that make the laws that help or hinder the processes of big business, so therefore, big business necessarily must be political.

While it is offensive that big oil is trying to shape the minds and hearts of children in school, it is hardly surprising. Did everyone miss the evil masterminds in the James Bond films? Its not like big business is terribly different. Okay, not as destructive, but they are still trying to make more money than anyone of us normal folk can imagine, and to do that it takes some immoral actions.

Having this situation pointed out to everyone should be the call for 'honest' politicians to 'look into the matter' as a part of their responsibility to their constituents... if enough of them care to ask... that is how politics (at least in the US) is supposed to work. If anyone can make an election year issue of it, something might actually get done... /cynical despair

Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxon

[Billly Gates]

A decade ago while I was in highschool I saw the film believe it or not but the teacher had the courage to tell us that Exxon had invested in the movie before we watched it. It went on how great the ecosystems were and despite the oil spill Alaska had the best salmon catch in history the following spring. THe teacher mentioned that this was an actually bad thing as those on the top of the food chain were negatively affected. Also we all laughed while the film had a diagram of most of the oil evaporating and doing little harm in Valdez. What was bad was that Exxon was not mentioned in the credits at all. Only the wetlands coalition as a major sponsor.

For those who do not know, the wetlands coalition is madeup of oil and gas companies despite the decietful name.

Can't Be Cool Without Fuel: what about Canada?

[fantomas]

"You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel"? Seems like it gets pretty bloody chilly in places like Canada and Finland in the winter and you get mighty cool if not plain freezing if you don't have any fuel. Damn those oil guys don't know much, do they?

I swear...

[Otter]

If people just turned out the freaking lights when they left the room, it would cost them essentially zero effort, save them money and make a genuinely useful contribution to the environment, whatever the details of global warming turn out to be. It's like some people can't imagine any useful activity that doesn't involve denouncing someone else.

Re:I swear...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The next step beyond that actually saves effort, namely installing compact fluorescents. They don't need to be changed as often. For overhead light bulbs that would be worth it even if they used the same amount of electricity as incandescents.

LED home lighting is still for special effects, except that I've installed an LED bulb for that one fixture every house has which it's suicidal to try to reach. It sips a grand total of three watts and illuminates the stairs to the point of safety even with everything else burned out. I felt weird paying $30 for a light bulb until my wife pointed out "You mean $30 for specialized and highly effective safety equipment?"

oooh, I have an idea...

[clambake]

Make a documentary about it!

Science?

[spikev]

I'm not saying they're not right about the NSTA being in Big Oil's pocket, but An Inconvenient Truth didn't have much in the way of science in it as far as hard numbers go. And without numbers, all of Al's pretty graphs don't mean anything. If my body temperature increases .000000001 of a degree, steadily year after year, I don't think it would amount to much. I'm not saying the science in An Inconvient Truth is wrong, it's just that the movie doesn't give any hard numbers to relate it to. I'm sure they're out there, but if I'm a science teacher and I'm going to spend valuable teaching time showing a movie, I want everything to be put together for me.

Re:Science?

[MrCopilot]

An Inconvenient Truth didn't have much in the way of science in it as far as hard numbers go. And without numbers, all of Al's pretty graphs don't mean anything.

So... You are arguing that in order to make a Science Documentary Film more palatable it should have MORE numbers in it.

You do realize this was a theatrical release film, right. It is supposed to spur you to action, including looking up the numbers at, oh I don't know, the film's website.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[MECC]

She's not complaining about a 'lack of preferential treatment' - she's citing that the National Science Teacher's Association rejected an offer to provide free copies of the movie to classrooms, for fear of losing money from Exxon.

From the above link:

The producers of An Inconvenient Truth have offered to supply American classrooms with 50,000 copies of the movie free of charge. That offer has been rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the nation's leading science education teachers group, citing a risk to funding from key financial supporters.

One of those supporters is Exxon-Mobil.

Or if that's not enough, how about this from NSTA directly:"Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters."

Me - 1
/. Editors - 0

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[defile]

This is real inconvenient for left-wing environmentalist nuts (all of them live in cities, obviously, which are the least environmental of surroundings imaginable, but hey, let's just disregard that).

I guess by "least environmental of surroundings" you could mean that there aren't any lush forests, but while they are soul crushing, living in New York City is a more energy efficient way to live according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New _York_City:

New York's uniquely high rate of public transit use and its pedestrian-friendly character make it one of the most energy-efficient cities in the country. Gasoline consumption in New York City is at the rate where the national average was in the 1920s.

why be cooperative

[grapeape]

The MPAA and RIAA continue to fund "copyright" education programs for schools and have been attempting to stronghold "entertainment" taxes to universities across the country. Propaganda is Propaganda, and whether you agree with the message or not, An Inconvenient Truth fits that mold. You cant strongarm and threaten with one hand and expect people to want to shake the other.

Like it or not you do have to have fuel of some sort to be cool. Exxon and other companies have been funding science programs for decades, concidering school budgets these days they are probably one of the saving graces for science in lower education. Sadly Exxon also leads the pack in being the most hardline against the Kyoto Accord and initiatives into alternative energy sources. Its a Convenient Lie however to ommit the other members while focusing on Exxon. Other companies in the American Petroleum Institute such as BP however are strongly researching alternatives such as wind farms and have gone so far as to publicly admit that fossil fuels are a huge contributor to the problem.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[moheezy]

1: As Gore points out in the movie, most of the "scientists" who don't believe in Global Warming are either those who have no right to speak(Non-Ecologists) or are astroturfing. 2: Actually, you might want to look into Fusion and even Solar power. 3: You crying about their crying about Global Warming *also* does nothing for the current situation. 4: I remember reading this somewhere but A disk a couple of miles wide in diameter between the Sun & Earth(LaGrange Point) will produce enough energy to power the world. Just a thought.

This isn't new.....

[LordPhantom]

.... Seriously folks, there have been big corporations and governments trying to influence the way schools go with everything from computers to food. Advertising brought into schools to get kids to buy things. Special interest groups spending money on things schools need to get a new generation of consumers interested in them.

Try:


* Discounts from Apple, Microsoft, etc on computers (I'd link, but I'm going to go with this as a given...)
* Coca-Cola
* Book It (Pizza Hut)
* A growing trend of commercialization of sporting events and buildings
* Large amounts of money being spent by religious lobbies to support Creationist teachings in schools....
* Large amounts of money being spent to promote evolution as a science teaching in schools
* Politicians getting involved in the above 2 items
* Politics derailing attempts to get anything done about improvments in materials and course work.

Where there is money and future political mindsets involved, people will spare no amount of money and/or stupidity on all sides of a debate. It's really too bad that politics and ideology wars have to get in the way of doing what schools should be doing, give the kids the ability to think for themselves instead of telling them what to think.

Re:This isn't new.....

[LordPhantom]

After all, a peaceful man has no use for a special right to employ coercion against others, does he?
How about you bother posting as yourself? As for the answer to your question, yes - because not all men are peaceful.

Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing...

[doug141]

A week ago slashdot had a story about the inconvenient truth DVD was out, and to go buy it, and about how noble Gore is. I realized, the movie was in theaters first, then the DVD came out, and it hasn't been on tv yet. Isn't that how you maximize profits from a movie? If I was all noble and I made a movie I genuinely felt people needed to see to save the earth, wouldn't I just give it to PBS on day 1?

Re:Hey, dummies!

[SatanicPuppy]

Sure, because all science education is beneficial to the oil companies.

All companies act in their own interests, and while oil companies need geologists, etc, they also stand to make a hell of a lot of money on increased consumption of their product. When oil prices spike, that's the oil companies making more for the exact same quantity sold. At the same time, if they can discredit this or that research that says they should be forced to implement this or that safeguard, that lowers their operating costs. Likewise research about atmospheric carbon; if people take that seriously and start putting an extra tax on gasoline to lower the consumption, that's the oil companies seeing a drop in sales.

In their ideal world, we'll stay addicted to their product until the last drop is sold. Any science that threatens that, they're going to work like hell to discredit.

Pro-big oil apologism

[91degrees]

It's not right that all science teaching is geared to the environemntal message. Yes, the Big Oil companies have done some questionable things, but the nature of our society is that we debate these points. The environmental lobby is hardly a tiny group of zealots these days, and it's not like they're totally without blame for spreading misleading propaganda. We should not allow all our science information to come from any single source. And there's some truth to what the oil conmpanies say. For good or bad, oil is essential to our society. Cars need it to run. Most machines will stop working without oil based lubricants. Oil is used for all sorts of purposes.

There can even be some largely apolitical justification for oil companies to be sponsoring science education. They are the largest employers of geologists, and oil probably account for a substantial portion of professional chemists. It's simply in their direct commercial interests to fund science. And if they do this, it's a good thing for everyone.

Likewise, with the lobbying against environmentla regulations - The adversarial system is not limited to the courts any more. Should politicians enact any and all possible environmental legislation no matter how small the effect without any concern at all for the costs to the oil industry?

2 comments

[SageinaRage]

Two things I was thinking of while reading this:

1. By passing on some free material, I wonder whether the teachers are trying to promote having a single 'correct' view on things, as opposed to showing multiple different views, to show both differences of opinion, as well as differences in research. This to me seems pretty dangerous, as it makes the assumption that one thing is definitely 'correct'.

2. The author of the article's main problem seems to be that the movie isn't being accepted despite being OBVIOUSLY right. It's this attitude of smug correctness, even when from what I can tell global warming is not universally accepted even among scientists, which hurts their position.

Dependency is cool?

[benhocking]

And calling that dependency "cool" is any less stupid?

Re:Dependency is cool?

[RecycledElectrons]

> And calling that dependency "cool" is any less stupid?

The title said that you can't be cool without fuel. Look at what kids consider cool: having a hot car, having an IPOD or DVd player, a new pair of shoes, or a NASCAR jacket. Do you think that any of this is currently likely to happen without fossil fuels? The title is exactly right: You can't be cool wihtout fuel. Today, our energy comes from fossil fuels, but even if it all came from pig excrement, we would still need some sort of fuel.

Your comment reminds me of the "public minded citizens" in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You don't want those evil industrialists drilling for oil. I hope we both get to see you lvie without it.

Andy Out!

Re:Inconvenient Truth is convenient bubkis....

[oh_my_080980980]

Just to add and what a cursory review can turn up:

Junkscience.com

The most visible public activity of TASSC [The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) was an tobacco-industry-funded lobby group which promoted the idea that environmental science was "junk science", which should be replaced by "sound science" more favorable to corporate interests] was its support for the Junk Science website run by Steven Milloy, who describes himself as the "Junkman". Milloy denounces research on environmental issues such as climate change, pollution and public health as junk science if it produced results suggesting a need for public intervention or regulation. He promoted the idea of sound science, interpreted in practice to mean science favorable to corporate interests.

Adverse publicity about Milloy's links to Phillip Morris were followed by his departure from the Cato Institute, where he had been an adjunct fellow, at the end of 2005, and the removal of links to junkscience.org from the Cato website. However, Milloy remains influential as the science columnist for Fox News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_ Science_Center

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[delt0r]

If i had mod points I would give you "insightfull". But i don't think you will get that here. \. does not agree with you. Therefore you are in bed with trolls and OT posts and probably oil companies.

Whats real funny about all this "its a fact we are ****ing the planet" crap, it they really do nothing about it. The planet is warming. I don't think we will ever know for sure if its us or just par for the course (well at least for a long time). However reducing oil dependance is a good thing so at least I will travel by train instead of aircraft when I can for example. I don't just bitch about how the leaders of my country won't fix it.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So ? Total energy consumption per surface area (which is all that matters to the environment) is definitely NOT up to par with 1920.

These people are completely isolated from the environment.

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[mc6809e]

Also we all laughed while the film had a diagram of most of the oil evaporating and doing little harm in Valdez.

Why would you laugh? An oil slick really will evaporate over time. It happens every day in the Gulf of Mexico where oil literally rises to the surface from the sea floor.

Immediately after the laughter, your science teacher could have made the important point that the results of experiments often conflict with what our intuition suggests.

Environmentalism has become anti-science

[MikeRT]

Allow me for one to say that I am sick of the "Christians are anti-science" bullshit that the left loves to harp on while giving the environmental movement a free pass. You will notice, if you are honest, that the areas where even the most fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible conflict with modern scientific work are in areas that Christians have an **ethical** objection to the way that life is manipulated or ended or in how things came to be on some level. The environmental movement on the other hand is generally wildly antagonistic to everything from GM foods to many promising alternative energy sources to nanotechnology.

If there is any group that can be called anti-human, anti-science, it is the "true believer" segment of the environmental movement. No other politically active group is so thoroughly terrified of every promising area of research and development, so violent in opposing science (animal rights groups bombing research labs, for example) and so quick to limit the quality of life of the majority of the human race.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[Red Flayer]

You will notice, if you are honest, that the areas where even the most fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible conflict with modern scientific work are in areas that Christians have an **ethical** objection to the way that life is manipulated or ended or in how things came to be on some level[1]. The environmental movement on the other hand is generally wildly [2] antagonistic to everything from GM foods to many promising alternative energy sources to nanotechnology.

Are you serious?

[1] So it's an ethical objection that causes a lot of the Christian fundamentalists to say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and all animals were created by God as-is? What exactly is the ethical objection, there?

[2] Hogwash. Some environmentalists are diametrically opposed to some areas of research. Most environmentalists are much more temperate in their approach to questionable technologies. Most scientifically educated environmentalists believe that above all, we need to know the implications of our behaviors before we can make an ethical decision on what behaviors are appropriate. This is the obejction to GM foods (where we don't know yet how far-reaching some of the implications are), ditto for nanotech. As to nuclear, I believe you are right about a lot of the environmentalists, who are unaware of current research and programs that are much safer and cleaner than the nuke plants of the 1970s.

At any rate, you totally dismiss the ethics of environmentalism in your post. I, for one, would rather that people followed ethical behavior patterns due to a rational analysis of the merits and demerits of a behavior (such as -- does this behavior run the risk of causing harm to others), than choice ethical behavior patterns based upon the utterances of a few men issued a couple thousand years ago and their modern interpretations (such as, thou shall not have sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex).

Either way, there are zealots on both sides, and it's as much of a mistake to lump garden-variety Christians in with extremist Christian pedagogues as it is to lump typical environmentalists in with extremist environmental pedagogues.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Allow me for one to say that I am sick of the "Christians are anti-science" bullshit that the left loves to harp on while giving the environmental movement a free pass.

Well, technically, christians, by definition, ascribe to a non-scientific belief or system of beliefs. Environmentalist, however, are by definition advocating a goal, not ascribing to a belief. There are certainly people in both camps that are more or less disposed to adhere to the scientific method, but christians go in with one strike against them.

I think it is fair to say, however, that a significant number of influential christians are very anti-science. That is not to say that christians in general are, but where you see fundamental attempts to undermine science or legislate behavior that ignores the facts and theories determined by the scientific method, you're often dealing with one religious lobby or another.

Bickering over what culture has more extreme anti-science elements, however, is useless. It is just a variation of the "at least we're not as bad as china" argument. I think eliminating unscientific arguments at the onset is prerequisite for reasonable decision making. At that point it becomes clear that while there are plenty of unscientific arguments out there, the scientific method does indicate that global warming is happening, at a faster rate than can be explained by any proposed natural causes. The correlative factors that give the most promise for explaining the phenomenon indicate a human action and carbon dioxide emissions are the most probable candidate of all theories thus far proposed. A person acting rationally, therefore, must act with the knowledge that it is the most probable way to effect change and should be addressed as such.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[inonit]

My view:

The poster is right in pointing out that there is a segment of the environmental movement, and the far left in general, that is essentially anti-progress. They are afraid of anything that is not "natural." This means they go after pesticides (and sometimes they're right). It means they go after nuclear power (probably wrong) and GM foods (probably wrong). They glorify the pre-technological era.

The GM foods part particularly annoys me since virtually all of the "natural" foods we eat were genetically modified by early humans when we started agriculture. (These folks who idealize our previous "sustainable" existence before the rise of technology would also be disappointed to know that we overhunted many of the world's large animals to extinction before we developed technology.) They favor organic farming, etc. They oppose population growth. Astrology is very popular amongst this group, as is alternative medicine (particularly "natural" cures, like herbal medicine).

The poster is wrong to say that these are the real anti-science people. Fundamentalist Christians and "naturalism" advocates (I am coining this term here; there may be a better one) are both anti-science. Basically this comes down to attitudes toward the unknown and belief in the value of the scientific method. The naturalists fear that there's always a hidden "catch" (looming disaster scenario) to things that are not natural. The creationists ascribe everything that they don't understand (including everyday occurrences, like bad luck) to a hidden omnipotent actor.

I spoke with the guy from the intelligent design trial (the biology professor, Miller) about why this is so and he argued that one of the big problems is that science discourages the popularizers (Carl Sagan etc.) by jealously regarding high-profile scientists as not doing real science.

In any case, we all need to do our jobs helping science along by critically evaluating science we read but also explaining science to the masses who have never seen it in action.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[krakrjak]

Hold on there!!!! Back the train up! Animal rights activists are not environmentalists. They are whack jobs. We're all for animals being treated well, but groups like PETA are just insane. In no way shape or form are they environmentalists.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[MtViewGuy]

I'm surprised you haven't been modded down to 0 as Flamebait by now. :-)

But seriously, I think the problem with many environmental groups is that that tacitly support the extreme radical groups like PETA, Earth First!, the Animal Liberation Front, etc. They'd get a lot better reception if the environmental groups distance themselves from the groups I've mentioned, because I am afraid that very soon somebody from a radical environmental group will end up deliberately killing people in the name of environmentalism.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[nortcele]

If there is any group that can be called anti-human, anti-science, it is the "true believer" segment of the environmental movement. No other politically active group is so thoroughly terrified of every promising area of research and development, so violent in opposing science (animal rights groups bombing research labs, for example) and so quick to limit the quality of life of the majority of the human race.

Agreed. There's another group that downplays science. I've yet to hear of scientific study of mammals concluding that homosexuality is a natural and acceptable form of procreation. Any truth is inconvenient for those that WISH to believe something different. Time proven scientific truth cannot be explained away. Fact and theory are quite different. For example, facts for evolution or for creation are actually quite hard to come by, but theories based on certain evidence abound. What one side claims as evidence may in time be determined as bogus. Time will tell, and it may take quite a bit of time. Please mod me based on the truth of my statement and not whether you agree with me or not.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[SatanicPuppy]

Just because they are also crazy, doesn't mean you are right. Both the radical left and the radical right are equally idiotic; pointing out that there are idiots on the other side doesn't change that fact.

If you can't bring yourself to meet in the middle and agree that the other side's rational concerns have merit and ought to be taken into account, you're part of the problem.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But seriously, I think the problem with many environmental groups is that that tacitly support the extreme radical groups like PETA, Earth First!, the Animal Liberation Front, etc.

I think your assertion is offensive. You might as well write that the problem with christian groups is that they tacitly support radical groups like the KKK and Anti-abortionists. Many environmental groups do speak out against the organizations you speak of. To claim that "environmentalists" support them in general is nothing but an empty assertion.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[2short]

So basically, if there is anyone who is bad, it's everyone who disagrees with you, lumped into one undifferentiated mass and presumed to all agree with each other.

I've never actually heard of animal rights groups bombing reseach labs, but what would that have to do with environmentalism in any case?

I, for one, would never criticize all christians for being anti-science, as I know some perfectly nice, pro-science christians. I guess it's hard for you to imagine the idea that I disagree with them on one topic, but still think they are nice people who are right about other topics, but there you have it.

I'll happily criticize anti-science people for being idiots. Some of these people ocasionally seek to avoid such criticism by claiming their anti-science ideas derive from their christianity, and that I should thus respect those ideas. If I were a christian, I might be offended by these people; as I am not, I'll settle for just still thinking they are idiots.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[kchrist]

I've yet to hear of scientific study of mammals concluding that homosexuality is a natural and acceptable form of procreation.

That's ok, because I don't think anyone has ever claimed this.

Homosexuality in nature, on the other hand, has been widely documented. I used to keep rats and I've seen it myself.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[newhoggy]

Environmentalism is very much for science because without foundation on ecology it is nothing. What people sometimes fail to understand is that environmentalism is also about ethics (Christians don't have a monopoly on ethics by the way). For example, the ethics of environmentalism requires that environmentalists oppose decisions made with humans as the central concern. This is in no way anti-human - it is experience that when decisions are made solely for the benefit of humans at the expense of everything else, those decisions will produce so much damage that they will eventually come back to bite us. Actions have consequences. With GM foods it includes for example the risk that pesticide resistance will be introduced in crops, thereby increasing the use of pesticides. For nuclear power, the problem is legacy of nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear waste. There may or may not be valid reasons to oppose nanotechnology, and for the moment I have no opinion on the matter. Whether or not I support nanotechnology may well depend on the sorts of applications it is used for in the same way that I support GM medicines but oppose GM foods. Also I wouldn't be so quick to say "so quick to limit the quality of life of the majority of the human race". Under our current socio-economic order most of the time such research benefits only a tiny minority of the human race, so the claim is hugely exaggerated.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[slickrockpete]

I'm so tired of shills for industry putting words in my mouth.
It's the right wing nut job columnists who are always trying to connect the "environmentalists" (as if there's some monolithic "environmentalist" orthodoxy) to some imaginary anti-technology, peta-whacko, everything-would-be-better-if-we-lived-as-before-X -technology-was-invented nut jobs. These fanatics have zero political clout, and are in fact a vanishingly small minority. Believing in global-warming, advocating laws restricting how much pollution can be emitted, conserving non-renewable resources, or protecting some ecosystem does not mean I want to send us back to the stone age.

I've seen so many of these columns trying to fire up the right wing reactionary base associate rational calls for a little restraint and thought with a desire to see us all living on Pol Pot's Utopian stone-age farms.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[lukesl]

I think you're right that there are anti-science elements on both the left and the right. You say that Christians are targeted more than radical environmentalists, and I agree. However, you seem to be arguing that this is because scientists are all pinkos, and the attacks are politically motivated. In truth, it's because anti-science Christianity is a much larger threat to science in the US right now. If anyone actually listened to radical environmentalists, I'd be out in the street picketing them too.

A second point is that many of the "ethical" objections you're talking about are actually based on misunderstanding, or occasionally deliberate misrepresentation, of the facts. For example, somatic cell nuclear transfer is not the same thing as cloning. Yet some political operative managed to get it branded with the term "therapeutic cloning" or "research cloning" or whatever, which is simply incorrect, and by the time the scientific establishment realized what was going it was too late. How many fewer people would be ethically opposed to SCNT if they ACCURATELY understood what it was? It's the same thing with the "life begins at conception" meme that caught on years ago, in spite of being demonstrably false. The point is, it's not just ethics.

Re:Environmentalism has become anti-science

[MtViewGuy]

I just hope your comment is correct. The day that a large group of people in the USA gets killed and law enforcement trace the "perps" to a radical environmentalist group will be the day that more legitimate environmental groups will have to start openly speaking out against such acts before the public turns against them big time. And don't brush off this as insane, too--go read the actual literature from Earth First! and the more radical environmental groups and some of it is frightening, to say the least.

Maybe because they admitted to it?

[benhocking]

How in the hell can anyone be stupid enough to think that there is a political motive behind "Big Oil" giving to science education? I don't think Welsely Mouch from Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged would be that moronic.

Maybe because the NSTA themselves admitted it? As a previous poster pointed out: "Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place 'unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.'"

How in the hell can anyone be stupid enough to think that's NOT a political motive? ;)

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[cunamara]

Carbon exhaust is causing climate change. Okay.
1) there is no scientific consensus on this
2) I seriously doubt that consensus will be forthcoming withing less than 10 or 20 years

I give you props for persistence, but you're wrong about both of these points. If you are holding out for universal acceptance, that ain't gonna happen on any topic. Expert consensus is not universal acceptance, it is acceptance by the vast majority of experts in a field. In this case, the consensus has been reached and it is that human fossil fuel use has profoundly affected the environment. And, as recent studies show, the problem of carbon dioxide pollution is accelerating (while interestingly methane levels have been contained, at least temporarily).

It always astonishes me to hear conservatives complain about the restrictions of the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc.- given that those laws and associated agencies are part of the proud heritage of the Republican Party! It also astonishes me to hear the helplessness and despair of the conservatives, that "nothing can be done to stop it so we shouldn't even try." Wah wah wah! It's too bad that the conservatives fell for Ronald Reagan's soundbite that "government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem." That's an attitude that guarantees incompetence in government and which has given us the past six years of vast governmental stupidity.

Re:Hey, dummies!

[M. Baranczak]

Yes, they depend on engineers and geologists to make money. So it's in their interest to support those fields. On the other hand, ecologists and climatologists are not making them any money whatsoever - in fact, many of them are actively threatening their profits. So it's not at all surprising that they would try to distort the teaching of those sciences. And don't you go quoting Ayn Rand at me.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[jamie]

the National Science Teacher's Association rejected an offer to provide free copies of the movie to classrooms, for fear of losing money from Exxon

That's an allegation, but the facts of the article don't strongly support it. Yes, the NSTA was worried about losing corporation contributions; whether they actually would have or not has not been demonstrated. And yes, one of their supporters is Exxon-Mobil, and other contributors are also in that industry, but it has not yet been shown that Exxon is the supporter that the email's author was chiefly concerned about.

Slashdot is being accurate here, presenting the facts and allowing you to draw your own conclusions. Slashdot - 1, you - 1 :)

Nothing to see here; move along, children

[Paladin144]

There's certainly nothing to be concerned about here. Sure, the increasing prevalence of corporate influence in every sector of our lives is astonishing -- astonishingly profitable. That's why the economy is in such great shape -- because we let the corporations do whatever they want. Look how far it's gotten us! We've got highly edumacated students, a brilliant president and a society that values truth... as long as it doesn't get in the way of profit, which is how things should be!

The omnipresence of major corporations is not a bad thing -- it makes things so much better. Imagine if we didn't give corporations the keys to our kingdom. Who would be in charge then? People? Voters?! Pshaw! We need the benevolent hand of Wall Street to guide us to the promised land of low, low prices.

Now, let's all rejoice in Big Oil's concern for the welfare of our children. It's obvious that they know what's best for us, and they obviously have our best interests at heart! After all, they are oil men, and oil men are the most caring, compassionate and kind people ever to walk this green earth (although they actually hover a few inches off the ground).

It is a blessing that corporations care for us so much that they intervene in our daily lives. We can only hope that they will one day bring their bounty to slashdot.

____________________
This post brought to you by the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft loves you. Microsoft made Vista from little bits of love and crafted it into a generous helping of goodness, just for you. Microsoft makes operating systems just like your mother used to. Microsoft cares about your bits. Microsoft would like a few minutes alone with your children. Buy Vista!

Re:Nothing to see here; move along, children

[maxume]

How's the air up thar?

Re:Nothing to see here; move along, children

[RexRhino]

The trouble with blaming corporations with all the problems, is that no-one has an alternative. Some people claim to be "socialists", but socialism is really just state-capitalism, the most extreme form of capitalism... the government as monopoly corporation.

If you have some truly new and novel idea on how to run an economy, I would truly love to hear it. State-capitalism (or Socialism) is not the answer (just look at the terrible enviornmental destruction in the Soviet Union, which was clearly entirely free of any "Big Oil" influence).

Right now, allowing multiple corporations to exist means that we at least have some choice between corporations. If you had your way, and we put one government run corporation in charge of everything, all that does is eliminate choice and make that one corporation all powerful. In the pyramid of authoritarian power structures, you have Government/Corporations/Small Buisness/The people. While corporate power is far less desirable than people power, it is far less oppressive than government power (which is the only alternative to corporate power that leftists ever offer).

If you are going to rant on about "the evil corporations", offer a viable solution (and make sure it isn't the same old Marxist bullshit that has failed time and time again).

Re:Nothing to see here; move along, children

[Paladin144]

I think there's an obvious solution -- no corporations! Economies, both free and bonded, existed for thousands of years before the corporation was invented (by rich men to evade liability for criminal acts). How hard is that to understand? Well, I guess it is hard. Hell, I've never lived in a country without them. I'll admit that it's not easy to find examples, but that proves my point about the incredible pervasiveness of corporations.

As for Soviet-style economics, I think the idea should be to give more freedom/power to the people -- not to the government. Of course, in America the government is supposed to exist at the will of the people. We all know how that turned out. But I like the idea of people-power. In fact, I think we need more of it. I think we should have elections for just about everything, including the leadership positions of major utilities, like the power company, the phone company, etc.

My ideal power structure would look like this: The People > Government > Small Businesses/Utilities

Note the absence of major corporations. Yeah, that was intentional. I think it's fine to have large groups of people operating merchant-oriented enterprises, but would I give corporations "rights?" Hell no. Currently, corporations enjoy personhood status. This travesty must end. Corporations are NOT people! Corporations are immortal (and amoral), limited-liability, supremely-powerful institutions that can spawn offspring at will, influence elections, buy politicians and marshal a team of lawyers to defend their actions the way a king defends his castle. They have become a menace, a many-tentacled being that is virtually indestructible. I think we should hold people personally responsible for their actions. Enough of this limited-liability crap.

Also, I think the current power structure might have corporations on top. Within the international banking system the U.S. Government is just one more corporation (albeit one with a rancorous board of directors) to be controlled. It's worthwhile to note that our primary ideology is not democracy (we are a republic for one thing), but capitalism. And who are the Kings of Capitalism but the Bankers? Ask the Federal Reserve who it's primary shareholders are and then you will have a better idea of who really controls this country.

BTW, it's best not to assume that people are leftist simply because they see problems with the current corporate system. A better description for me might be "Green Libertarian" or "Radical" or "Nonconformist", but not "Democrat." I've never voted for a Democrat in my life.

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[ductonius]

Also we all laughed while the film had a diagram of most of the oil evaporating and doing little harm in Valdez.

That's actually what happens, you know. Most of the lighter fractions of crude oil (the majority of the oil, that is) evaporate very quickly leaving behind the sticky tars and such. One of the most ecologically sound methods of getting rid of an oil spill is to light it up (since that's what were going do with the oil anyway), but that can't happen after the lighter fractions evaporate since the tars need 'help' to burn.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[jmorris42]

> in other news NSTA rejects KKK film for fear of angering everyone. whats the difference?

No you hayseed retard, Algore's movie is the TRITH, says so right there in the title. Rejecting it means science teachers are against the Truth. My god (little G, don't send me to the camps) if one of the Democratic Party's core groups are rejecting Global Warming Theology what is the world coming to. What the hell was the point of taking Congress.

I'm off to pout on DU. :(

Environmentalism as Religion

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is a good read about environmentalism as a religion, a speech by Michael Crichton to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2005.

Before the crowd starts jumping up and down, his speech contains errors. So does An Inconvenient Truth. But his theme has merit - science should stand alone whereas Al Gore asks people to pray for environmental change.

We really need to teach schoolchildren facts, the skills to consider and weigh evidence, and enough wisdom to know when someone is blowing smoke up their dresses. An Inconvenient Truth isn't the right tool for scientific education, though it's a great propaganda piece, artfully assembled, and gets some things right. A proper school curriculum can cover all of the things Gore gets right, and then the things that he's omitted for 'time', e.g. solar activity and global warming on other planets, the effect of water vapor on the greenhouse effect, natural cycles of warming/cooling, etc..

Let's not assume our children are too dumb to learn about science or think like scientists.

They can then spend some time teaching the children about ways to conserve resources, get towards carbon-neutral economies, and cut back on their own energy uses. These things will have real environmental and economic benefits but only millions of small impacts, no big splashes which work out nicely for Big-Media political coverage.

The conspiracy theorists are going to have a heck of a time, though, reconciling the fact that the NEA isn't lapping up the film from a guy who will be a Democratic contender in '08.

Re:Environmentalism as Religion

[Idarubicin]

Before the crowd starts jumping up and down, his speech contains errors. So does An Inconvenient Truth.

I would be much more comfortable with such a statement if you were prepared to discuss the nature and severity of the errors in the two presentations.

Otherwise we might as well be saying things like "Aspects of the Bibical account of Creation are, as yet, not fully supported by experiment. This is also true of aspects of evolutionary theory" and using that assessment to lend equal weight and credence to the two positions.

Re:Environmentalism as Religion

[thatguywhoiam]

though it's a great propaganda piece

You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Propaganda is by definition produced by a government, not individuals. So no, its not propaganda. Its a documentary, free to express an opinion on an issue (unlike say, reporting).

I do think that Crichton has a point insofar that a number of people take on the mantle of environmentalism and use it as a cudgel for furthering pet issues. Where he is wrong is in thinking that this is not a vanishingly small number of people. Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand, number in the tens of millions, and they are not shy about 'going to war with science' (see: Discovery Institute)

Re:Environmentalism as Religion

[maxume]

The part at the end of "State of Fear" where he essentially says "everybody has an agenda, do your best to think for yourself" always made me think that Crichton must be a huge shill. The book is still ham fisted as hell, but it's at least reasonable.

Re:Environmentalism as Religion

[bill_mcgonigle]

Propaganda is by definition produced by a government, not individuals.

What dictionary do you use? Here's a common definition.

Re:Environmentalism as Religion

[bill_mcgonigle]

I would be much more comfortable with such a statement if you were prepared to discuss the nature and severity of the errors in the two presentations.

Sorry, a thorough review of the evidence in both would have taken 5-6 hours to assemble. Anyway, my point was thematic, not detail oriented.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

1: As Gore points out in the movie, most of the "scientists" who don't believe in Global Warming are either those who have no right to speak(Non-Ecologists) or are astroturfing. 2: Actually, you might want to look into Fusion and even Solar power. 3: You crying about their crying about Global Warming *also* does nothing for the current situation. 4: I remember reading this somewhere but A disk a couple of miles wide in diameter between the Sun & Earth(LaGrange Point) will produce enough energy to power the world. Just a thought.

the answers, respectively (assuming a person who does not know the enter key can now the meaning of the word "respectively")
1. have you checked this ? I actually go to university. Trust me, or go check for yourself.
2. fusion - not operational for 30-40 years solar - not operational (by a much larger margin than fusion btw)
3. why are you attacking me ? respond to my points or shut up
4. "you remember reading somewhere" - in the "fiction" department of the library ? This is not a viable option. The use of a difficult word such as lagrange does not vindicate your idiocy

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[mc6809e]

As Gore points out in the movie, most of the "scientists" who don't believe in Global Warming are either those who have no right to speak(Non-Ecologists)

I hope he meant physicists, since very few ecologists even understand the basic physics behind global warming.

We're making a lifestyle choice.

[Tungbo]

"Truth :
1) we need energy. Lots of it."

            That's not a 'truth', but a result of choices we made and continue to make.

"Truth :
No amount of politics will solve the energy crisis. Yet all they do is politics."

            Politics is PRECISELY the public process that MIGHT lead to a change in our choices.
It IS the main driver for changes in our infrastructure.

            Pretending that one has no responsibilites in the face of immutable 'truths' is
certainly not going to solve any problems.

First step: No commercial donations to politics

[Bou]

Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?A first step would be to disallow political parties taking money from corporations. I know this is what US politics is based on, but still, the rest of the world calls that corruption, or at least a conflict of interest... Political parties should never change their ideas or decisions to those of the highest bidder.

Re:First step: No commercial donations to politics

[Bob-taro]

A first step would be to disallow political parties taking money from corporations. I know this is what US politics is based on, but still, the rest of the world calls that corruption, or at least a conflict of interest...

So the "rest of the world" doesn't allow corporations to fund politicians? Are you quite sure of that?

Science ? Apolitical ?!?! Has it EVER been ?

[unity100]

Even in times when discoveries exploded in late 1800s, it was a matter of 'national' pride and s/he who got sponsored by governments got the boon and get their names on history annals.

today its even worse with all the private colleges, funded universities, 'foundations', and government projects about.

Science has grown to be an extension of the governing body, just like church was in older times - they are now telling us what to believe, what to not.

Fixed link.

[bill_mcgonigle]

sigh.... <a href.

Using the Preview button this time...

Little Environmentalists

[Dachannien]

When I graduated high school years ago, our Chemistry II class used a college-level textbook. The education I got from that class was good enough that I sailed through freshman Chemistry in college.

The year after I graduated, I went back to visit a few teachers I considered to be friends, including the chemistry teacher. She told me with some disgust that the school board had decided to replace the chemistry textbooks for both Chem I and II, and she handed me one of the books so I could see what the problem was. Instead of college-prep chemistry, most of the textbook was filled with text and pictures (rather than equations and homework problems) about protecting the environment. The quality of the actual chemistry education provided in that book was so low that I suspected that many students would have insufficient background for their freshman-level chemistry classes they'd be taking next year.

In other words, Big Oil isn't the only lobbying group that attempts to influence high school education.

Re:Little Environmentalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments have long controlled education and altered history to present themselves in a favorable position. The proof is in the pudding: the average teenager living under the rule of organized coercion (i.e. government), even during his most "rebellious" years, not only believes that government is an absolute necessity and that society would self-destruct without it, but views government (i.e. coercion) as the proper and just solution to any concievable problem. Why? Simple -- he has been trained to do so, exactly the way government brought him up.

If some third-party beneficiary (i.e. business associate) of government intervention manages to convince government to alter the curriculum to favor their own interests, the root of the problem is still government. Government, after all, holds the keys -- they are the ones who posess this special "right" to employ coercion as their means, not "Big Oil" or any other random beneficiary of government policy.

You didn't think that kids were still raised by parents, did you? This is 2006, and while I don't enjoy pointing this out, freedom (as defined by human nature, not your rulers) is long gone.

Re:Little Environmentalists

[CagedBear]

Instead of college-prep chemistry, most of the textbook was filled with text and pictures (rather than equations and homework problems) about protecting the environment.

That's not chemistry, it's environmental science. I remember high school offering both. One for the college bound track and one for a general diploma. Are you sure it wasn't added as a new class and your teacher just wasn't happy about having a class full of trouble makers?

Or perhaps they dropped chemistry due to budget cuts. Wouldn't surprise me.

Re:Little Environmentalists

[thatguywhoiam]

Instead of college-prep chemistry, most of the textbook was filled with text and pictures (rather than equations and homework problems) about protecting the environment. The quality of the actual chemistry education provided in that book was so low that I suspected that many students would have insufficient background for their freshman-level chemistry classes they'd be taking next year. In other words, Big Oil isn't the only lobbying group that attempts to influence high school education.

I'd like to believe you, but this really doesn't pass the smell test. Are you sure the class didn't turn into Environmental Science? What would be the purpose of lobbying a school to insert more pictures rather than equations? To what end? (Particularly if they just flunk out of College next year?)

Re:Little Environmentalists

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>What would be the purpose of lobbying a school to insert more pictures rather than equations? To what end?

Textbook contracts are big money. Crap is cheaper to produce than quality textbooks are. The decision makers on school boards and curriculum committees have lots of possible motives, only a few of which relate to educating students. It may be easier to sell them a picture book with a congenial message than to sell them an equation-filled book they don't even understand themselves.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[jandrese]

Carbon exhaust is causing climate change. Okay.
1) there is no scientific consensus on this
2) I seriously doubt that consensus will be forthcoming withing less than 10 or 20 years

I assume by "consensus" you mean everybody who calls themselves a "scientist" agrees? I think that will take longer than 10 or 20 years. If you mean the mainstream scientific community, then the consensus has already occurred. You will see people occasionally raise doubts about certain aspects of it, but the base is sound and excess CO2 is defiantly warming the Earth.

When you think about the scales involved (the US alone emits around 1.5 Billion (with a B!) tons of CO2 a year[1]), and the fact that only about half of that gets reabsorbed by the biosphere[2], coupled with the fact that we know CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (this has been replicated in high school science labs), and there really isn't much room for doubt that the Earth is warming due to human influences.

1. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each- countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html 2. http://www.john-daly.com/co2-conc/ahl-co2.htm

No.

[KermodeBear]

it even possible that science can remain apolitical?

Highly unlikely. A lot of science has been mired in politics or religion. The earth going around the sun; The earth being flat; Contraceptives; Stem cell research. Science is part of culture and it has to interact with it accordingly. It will never escape from politics or religion - and I'm not certain that it should.

when i was a kid

[Lord Ender]

As a kid in the 80s, I learned all sorts of fun non-fact in science class. I learned when I grow up, I will live on a land-fill unless I stop throwing things away and recycle EVERYTHING. I learned that as an adult, I would have to wear sunblock all day long or else I would die of cancer because the ozone would be completely gone. I learned some stupid social darwinism/organism-based model for evolution which was quite wrong in light of selfish-gene theory.

As an adult, I learned that predictions which assume current trends never change are almost always wrong, and should not be taught to children. I also learned that K-12 science teachers don't really know or care enough about science to have a right teaching it.

Re:when i was a kid

[NeutronCowboy]

And exactly where do you think those changes in trends come from? From people who have been shown that IF nothing is done, all hell will break loose, and that therefore things need to BE done. Way to ignore the effect, buddy.

Re:when i was a kid

[ryanov]

You ever heard of better safe than sorry?

I love the anti-enviro folks who keep tossing shit like "see, global warming didn't kill us all like those tree-huggers said it will, so why should I give a shit?"

Maybe it's because when explained without hyperbole, everyone completely ignores it. Even if the environmentalists are wrong... the harm done is... what? Fewer chemicals in the air? Oooh, shit, we're going to regret that someday, aren't we?

Take the damn movies!

[McGregorMortis]

If the oil people decide to cut your funding because of it, then on their conciences be it. I'm sure the organization can survive without it.

Conversely, if you refuse to show this movie soley out of fear of losing oil-industry funding, then remove the word "Science" from your name, since your motivations clearly have little to do with Science.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Psykosys]

The difference is that the NSTA would reject the KKK film because it's a KKK film. The NSTA's response to the Inconvenient Truth plan suggests that they seriously considered distributing it, but then bowed to financial pressure.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[markov_chain]

The real problem is convincing people that preventing global warming matters. So what if a bunch of coast floods? Humanity has lived through worse. I say bring it on!

Slashdot misleading..

[kryptomaniac]

"The Washington Post makes things out to be less than above board:"

Turns out if you read the article, this is IN NO WAY the Washington Post's view. The Slashdot summary implies that the Washington Post "NEWS" paper is making this statement. This is not from the news section, but an opinion piece written from an interested party, printed in full.

Not all were the choir

[benhocking]

I convinced my dad to see the movie, who had previously admitted to being unconvinced on global warming. He told me that it changed his mind - but that he still didn't like Al Gore. Of course, it no doubt helped that my dad is a scientist as well (retired, but with training in computer science and agricultural engineering). And yes, I've told him about junkscience (so aptly named, but not for the reason they think) and the people who were funding it, and let him make up his own mind about that. Not a big surprise that he was able to find the holes in their arguments as easily as I could.

The little girl in the coal commercials...

[mrfett]

Does anyone else gag when they see that commercial touting the beauty of burning coal, using a little girl to sell the premise? Our country is run by energy companies. To deny it is tantamount to denying Iraq is in a civil war. Until people start voting, expect more of the same.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[kjart]

So ? Total energy consumption per surface area (which is all that matters to the environment) is definitely NOT up to par with 1920.

Hunh? Why would total energy consumption per surface area be important? I would think per capita figures would be more important. You seem to be saying that if the population of New York was far more spread out it would be more environmentally friendly. You've obviously never been to Los Angeles.......

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Qzukk]

in other news NSTA rejects KKK film for fear of angering everyone. whats the difference?

Are the Black Panthers a major financial supporter of the NSTA?

Re:Hey, dummies!

[yankpop]

How in the hell can anyone be stupid enough to think that there is a political motive behind "Big Oil" giving to science education?

How can anyone be stupid enough to think that there isn't? Sure, they want to support the education of future engineers and geologists. But do you honestly think they are equally interested in the training of ecologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists? I'm sure McDonalds employs a lot of food scientists, and Monsanto employs a lot of biotech scientists, but do you think that means they sign a lot of blank checks for "science"? Or is it possible, maybe, that they direct their support towards the kind of research and 'education' that serves their interest, and away from the sort of research that might question the value of their products?

yp.

Nature BAD, Science GOOD

[NotQuiteReal]

Nature is out to get you! ...Lead, Tobacco, DDT, Oil...

Lead, Tobacco, and Oil are all natural products, and bad for you.

Meanwhile, a man-made product, DDT is In (and used, of course, to fight nature).

Let's just pave everything and live indoors. That way we can just set the thermostat wherever you like. Global warming, global cooling - irrelevant with enough styrofoam insulation!

If nature is a circle, science is a square. Everyone knows the opposite of "circle" is "square". That's why we live in boxes.

Learn more here!

And if you don't think I am joking, you're batty!

Re:Nature BAD, Science GOOD

[Bryansix]

Making death threats on a webpage is a really dumb idea. Even if that is satire it's really dumb satire.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Does it really need to be said that saving energy will not help for a decent amount of time ? It will buy us 5, maybe 10 years, yes. But there's no way to tell.

The hybrid systems are in early stages of development. At least 10 years away from large-scale practical use. More likely 20 or 30 years.

For the other arguments, I give up, it's just not worth my time. There is no consensus. The hypothesis "global warming exists" is unproven by decent scientific standards.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[fastcoke11]

It's nice to pretend. I don't think it's that far of a leap to take to draw the conclusion that an anti-oil "documentary" is being rejected by the NTSA because, admittedly, they are afraid of losing funding from a donor, and that the donor who would stop funding them is an oil company.

Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[WileyC]

...unlike the movie, however, this is actually based on facts.

Global warming does exist... on Mars. And, in fact, on every body in the solar system that we can measure accurately including the Earth. Polar ice caps are melting that aren't terrestrial. Until people realize that whatever human beings are doing to the atmosphere is not and cannot be the whole story, then the "It's all our fault!" environmental movement is bankrupt both morally and intellectually.

Here's some other Inconvenient Truths...
* DDT is not very dangerous to the environment
* One of the founders of Greenpeace supports nuclear power
* The Kyoto Treaty exempts some of the biggest carbon polluters of all

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Until people realize that whatever human beings are doing to the atmosphere is not and cannot be the whole story, then the "It's all our fault!" environmental movement is bankrupt both morally and intellectually.

This is called a strawman argument. No one ever said that there were not multiple factors that determine the temperature and even warming trends. That does nothing to address that the best scientific theory indicates that humans are significantly contributing to unusually rapid changes in global warming.

Here's some other Inconvenient Truths... * DDT is not very dangerous to the environment

DDT is plenty dangerous to regulate its use. It may not be as harmful as some other substances, but few of those substances were ever used in the massive quantities DDT was.

* One of the founders of Greenpeace supports nuclear power

So? Greenpeace is a political group and nuclear power is a reasonably safe clean, and cheap power source compared to fossil fuels.

* The Kyoto Treaty exempts some of the biggest carbon polluters of all

So? The Kyoto treaty was a compromise designed to reduce global emissions. Some large producers of carbon dioxide are in the same industrial growth phase the US was seventy years ago. You can't get ahead of everyone else using a practice and then ban others from doing it themselves and expect them to go along with it.

In any case, all the points you make do nothing to address the issue at hand. Our best data indicates humans are significantly increasing the temperature and rate of change of temperature of the planet. Oil companies are using money to influence our educational system to teach that this is not the case.

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[SnarfQuest]

so let me see if I understand your logic.

1. Global warming is real, and is caused entirely by man, as our computer simulations prove.
2. They don't explain why Mars and all the other planets are also warming up.
3. They don't explain why hurricanes weren't worse in 2007, since the 2006 season was caused by global warming, which is caused by man, as out computer simulations prove.
4. Volcanoes have spewed out more greenhouse gasses in one event than has been created by people in 10 years (i.e. krakotoa and penatuba [sp] for example), and none of them have had any effect on global warming.
5. Therefore, global warming is real, and is caused by man, as our computer simulations prove.

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[dragondm]

If you are going to complain about logically impaired people who believe what they want to, it is wise not to commit a logical fallicy in your argument .
Specifically a strawman argument. The claim is not what you said it was.

The claim being made is not just that A (CO2) causes B (increase in surface temp), but that changes in B are necessarily caused by changes in A. Logically, that can only be true if A is the sole cause of B. If A is not the sole cause of B, then changes in B could come from changes in A or changes in other causes X, Y and Z, or some combination thereof.
The observation that B is changing absent changes in A does indeed invalidate that claim, since it proves that A is not the sole cause of B.

Also, how in the world would CO2 emmissions affect insolation?? Insolation = amount of energy being received from the sun. Insolation has increased in recent years, due to changes in solar output, but CO2 on earth dosen't make the sun shine brighter. CO2 could reduce the radiation of thermal IR from the Earth into space, but that is something different from insolation.

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[10101001 10101001]

The claim being made is not just that A (CO2) causes B (increase in surface temp), but that changes in B are necessarily caused by changes in A. Logically, that can only be true if A is the sole cause of B.

Problem one is, the argument isn't A (CO2) causes B (increase in surface temp). Sufficient decreases in solar output can negate increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in a net decrease in surface temperature. Instead, the argument is that A' (increases in CO2 concentrations) causes B' (an increased retention of solar energy that touches the surface). Further, those things that would cause the temperature to increase (increased solar radiation, less cloud cover, etc) don't match the temperature increase. In fact, any temperature rise would be magnified by CO2 which is precisely why we can so clearly measure the effect of CO2 even when there is an increase in solar radiation from the sun.

Btw, there are other greenhouse gases than CO2, so A' causing B' doesn't mean a change in B' necessitates a change in A'. There could C' (an increase in methane concentrations) causing B'. Simply put, we've tried to come up with C's, D's, etc to explain things. And in the end, A' is the best fit.

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[AK Marc]

Global warming is real, and is caused entirely by man,

I have never seen anyone claim that. It is easy to make people look like fools when you lie about what they are saying.

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[pad13]

* DDT is not very dangerous to the environment I guess birds aren't part of the environment, then. It almost wiped out entire species of birds, especially predators. The DDT, concentrated in the prey species, weakened the eggshells until they cracked almost at a touch. That is why the American bald eagle almost became extinct in the lower 48 states. When you remove predatory species, the impact can be devastating. If you are going to make ridiculous statements like this, be prepared to be shot down.

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[Hackie_Chan]

Global warming does exist... on Mars.

And on Venus, which is usually called our sister planet. The atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide. It has the densest atmosphere of all high density planets. It's pretty much a good example (though very extreme) of how bad shit can get if we don't get our act together and stop it here on Earth.

I've been reading Slashdot now for many years. Often at times the comment sections are a great place to go for additional facts and opinion. Most people here are geeks who tend to have heavy favoritism towards the rational thought and the empirical....but when it comes to environmentalist threads I've never seen so many Slashdotters who are simply science deniers on this issue (and modded up for it).

Re:Another 'Inconvenient Truth'

[Guzzitza]

"* One of the founders of Greenpeace supports nuclear power"

This isn't an amazing revelation. Nuclear power isn't the risky business it is portrayed to be when managed correctly. Nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than having several coal plants. So if your option is having one nuclear plant supplying several cities, or several coal fuled power plants which pump out massive amounts of carbon dioxide for those same cities - it would seem that supporting nuclear power is not ridiclous for someone who is pro-environment.
It is this realistic approach which is needed, we can just magically conjure up enough wind farms to support all our power required, but we can use nuclear power which is cleaner than coal until power sources such as wind and solar become more efficient.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[div_2n]

whats the difference?

You'll have to remind me what science the KKK deals with. You know, the "S" in NSTA?

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Because this is what determines wether nature has a decent chance of repairing the damage done by the city.

Unlike humans, who can live many per square meter (especially in a city with skyscrapers and such), trees per surface area is a de-facto constant, they can not be put in skyscrapers as they need access to sunlight. So carbon reabsoption is constant per surface area. So carbon exhaust per surface area is what matters. And, in every human city, it's WAY too high.

Also there is no real environment in just about every city.

Difference

[wytcld]

The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.

Meanwhile, films that proclaimed the virtues of burning fossil fuels - nothing more than public relations - were distributed in past years under the guise of "science" education.

But I suppose to you a scientist and a Klansman both look the same, what with their white cloths? Except that you figure the Klansman prays to Jesus and the scientist is in league with the Prince of Lies? I'm sure you know your Klansmen; but you don't know jack about scientists. Nor do our students, being raised on crap rather than best data.

Re:Difference

[ArcherB]

The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.

Aren't these the same climate scientist that said we were going to have a record hurricane season this year. What was the number I read? "One in Six Americans Could be Directly Impacted by 2006 Hurricane Season " But we are supposed to believe them when they say that the film is 99% correct on long term forecasts when they can't tell me if it is going to rain today or not.

Yeah, these guys may be the top of their field, but being on top of a bunch of people who don't know crap doesn't say much.

Re:Difference

[bluekanoodle]

So as one who believes in rigorous scientific analysis, you'd be willing to reference where you got your statistics from? Just curious.

Re:Difference

[MightyYar]

Mods, don't diss this guy for making a personal attack and then reward the parent with an "insightful" rating for doing the exact same thing. Mod points aren't for people that you agree with - they are for posts with content. I hope I get to meta-moderate your ass.

Re:Difference

[liposuction]

teh hockey stick graff is godly tho!

Re:Difference

[IflyRC]

Is the 1% innaccurate part how it botched the hurricane predictions for 2006?

Re:Difference

[MightyYar]

I know very little about climate science (my total exposure is what I gather from Scientific American and some other rags), but I would point out that you are comparing two very different things. In the case of global warming, they are trying to model the amount of CO2 contained in the entire system (Earth), whereas in hurricane prediction they are trying to model a very complex process in a very specific region of the system (the Atlantic seaboard). They also know exactly what happened to their model - an unexpected El Nino - and when they plug that into their model, it more closely matches what actually happened this season.

I suppose that you could argue that some unforeseen event will occur that dramatically throws off the CO2 model, and most climate researchers would probably agree with you. However, I'm not really into depending on a natural disaster blocking out sunlight. We should probably do something about this ourselves.

One could also argue that we're going to run out of stuff to burn pretty soon, so all of this is just academic anyway :)

And in a billion years, the sun's intensity will increase - rendering the planet uninhabitable no matter what we do, and no matter who controls congress (the otters?). Happy thoughts, happy thoughts.

Re:Difference

[WhiplashII]

Not to mention that these scientists that can predict the next millenia's weather to three decimal points didn't forsee the recent unexplained drop in atmospheric methane levels. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas the CO2!

You can make all sorts of dire predictions if you assume that things will remain constant. The problem is that in the real world, nothing is constant... GIGO

Re:Difference

[ErroneousBee]

Accuweather.com are climate scientists now?

If I lend you a fiver, can I be a financial expert?

Point me at predictions by Hadley Center, NOAA, or similar.

Re:Difference

[DavidTC]

Those people are idiots.

A strong hurricane season always means a weak one the next year, due to stirring up the ocean currents. Hurricanes are causes, in part, by warm surface waters, and they tend to mix the water up so it doesn't happen the next year. It doesn't matter what causes a strong season.

Likewise, a weak year, like this one, means we might have a moderately strong year next year. (Actually, I don't know how bad the season was, I just know not many of them hit land or even threatened to.) This isn't assured, because, like I said, a lot of factors are required for that.

In fact, you want a sure sign that something is screwing up the weather, that would be it, two strong seasons in a row. We're nowhere near that point.

Hurricanes are a lot like earthquakes in the respect that, if we could magically stop them, we'd start building up a monster one that would wipe everything out, as the top of the ocean got warmer and warmer. (Of course, we don't need them to hit the damn land.)

Re:Difference

[Pentavirate]

Just a thought having nothing to do with whether global warming is true or not....

The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.

Do you think that scientists that have a vested interest in global warming (ie reputations, grant money, etc.) might support a film that furthers their cause?

Science isn't researched in a vacuum. Nothing is apolitical.

Re:Difference

[hswerdfe]

OK, Hurricane is a possible prediction and effect of global warming, possible.
The fact that global warming is occurring is not prediction, it is measured and fact.
The amount of global warming is sometimes debated by scientists as are some of the effects of global warming.
But global warming is happening NOW. Global average temperature is rising.

This **MAY** Cause :
  * Flooding
  * drought
  * hurricanes
  * desertification
  * melting ice caps
  * Loss of farm land
  * mass extinction
Some or all of the above may someday come true because of global warming. we don't know for sure yet which ones.
What we do know is that Global warming IS currently happening. and we can probably slow its onset, with real things we personally can do, and we as a race can do.

mainly Lower your personal carbon emissions.
encourage your government to enact legislation to lower carbon emissions.

Re:Difference

[wanerious]

Aren't these the same climate scientist that said we were going to have a record hurricane season this year

Nope, different scientists. Hurricane predictions are issued by meteorologists. In fact, in the article you linked, the prediction was for fewer storms than last year, and there is no mention *anywhere* of global warming having anything to do with it. Climate scientists are not so concerned with year-to-year fluctuations in the population of severe storms. The strong hurricane season was predicted based on a number of indicators that have very little to do with the CO2 level in the atmosphere or long-term climactic trends. The lack of Atlantic storms this year is blamed on strong shearing winds off the African coast that disrupted many storms from forming. Not anything to do, one way or the other, with global warming. The Pacific hurricane season has been pretty active, but I don't know if it's any more or less so than expected. Climatologists do predict, though, that *generally* one might expect those storms that form to be stronger than when the planet is cooler.

Yeah, these guys may be the top of their field, but being on top of a bunch of people who don't know crap doesn't say much

Well, that's a pretty uncharitable remark, considering that these are thousands of pretty smart people who spend their professional careers researching this field, and you don't. I'd think you were *really* smart if there wasn't evidence to the contrary!

Re:Difference

[ErroneousBee]

The methane level 'predictions' you talk about are actually methane level 'projections'. In the absence of any data indicating how methane sources respond to climate change and changes in land use they pretty much have to just take a stab at the methane release rate, and they incorrectly projected a continuing rise.

Methane is not as dire a global warming gas as you characterize it. It oxidises in the atmosphere. I would guess its atmospheric 1/2 life somewhere in the range of 6months-2years (CO2 has an atmospheric 1/2 life of about 30 years). There is more on the impact of methane at realclimate.

BTW, almost everything you say is innaccurate:

• scientists that can predict the next millenia's weather to three decimal points ... they predict between 2 and 6 degrees of warming, and express what this means for the weather in very vague terms (increased storminess, etc).
• didn't forsee the recent unexplained drop in atmospheric methane levels ... read the literature. Theres loads of dissenting opinion on how much the various sinks and sources contribute, and how they change according to climate change and land use.
• drop in atmospheric methane levels ... Wrong, levels remained constant.
• Methane is a worse greenhouse gas the CO2! ... Methane is oxidized quite rapidly, so a 1 tonne release of methane does not have the long term effect a 1 tonne release of CO2 would have. (Ive seen similar, even more wrong, arguments about water vapour)
• You can make all sorts of dire predictions if you assume that things will remain constant. ... You can make all sorts of dire predictions if you assume things will change too. This statement is more meaningless than innacurate.
• The problem is that in the real world, nothing is constant. ... apart from the physical constants, and the laws of physics, and human stupidity.
• GIGO ... really?

Re:Difference

[AK Marc]

Do you think that scientists that have a vested interest in global warming (ie reputations, grant money, etc.) might support a film that furthers their cause?

Sure. Just like I have a vested interest in technology spending. There have even been cases of scientists lying to get interesting results to get them more funding. Everything in this movie is stated plainly and comes from an outside source. Are there any facts in the movie that you disagree with? I'm not asking for an attack on specific references used in the movie, but that, using the references as quoted, was there any factual error in the movie? If not, but you still think it all lies, then the movie should be watched as a masterpiece of propoganda and should be watched by scientists to see how their numbers could be misused. If there are no errors and you do not have serious objections to the sources used, then the movie has an important message to be delivered. Either way, it is worthy of being watched.

But, either way, there is no reason for a non-profit organization to turn down the donation. Well, unless they purposefully taint their message to please corporations that pay them money (we call that bribery here, but I'm not sure what you call it).

Re:Difference

[Pentavirate]

I actually haven't seen the movie yet, though I plan to when life slows down.

I see your point. I guess it's just in my nature to look at something that's stated as fact and try to find what's not included but might be important. For example, I have heard that in the movie it shows the ice shelves in antarctica falling into the sea yet it doesn't mention the fact that further inland the ice is thickening. Does one negate the other? I don't know. Is it something worthwhile to know? Absolutely. Maybe they're both caused by global warming but maybe it's part of the self-regulation of the earth. I don't know but anyone that takes a documentary with an agenda (they all have them, of course) and thinks that that is the whole story is really missing out.

Re:Difference

[AK Marc]

I have heard that in the movie it shows the ice shelves in antarctica falling into the sea yet it doesn't mention the fact that further inland the ice is thickening.

Ah, those are the non-scientific things that come with making a documentary watchable. It didn't tell us facts abobut the mass of ice covering Antarctica. It gave us an impression based on images and talked about a few specific places. If you sit down and make a transcription of what is presented as fact (CO2 levels, among other things) there does not seem to be significant dispute over the recorded numbers. There is significant dispute over the meaning of them, but not as much over the recording of them.

Re:Difference

[Pentavirate]

OK, I'll give you that. I agree without a doubt that CO2 levels are rising which is a greenhouse gas. I'm just reserved in deciding to change all of western civilization and potentially decimating our economy based on some opinions of what it could mean. I just want all sides considered instead of a knee-jerk, reactionary, "we're all going to die" reaction.

Re:Difference

[ArcherB]

Yeah, these guys may be the top of their field, but being on top of a bunch of people who don't know crap doesn't say muchWell, that's a pretty uncharitable remark, considering that these are thousands of pretty smart people who spend their professional careers researching this field, and you don't. I'd think you were *really* smart if there wasn't evidence to the contrary!

I meant no disrespect to our fine climatologists worldwide. I'm sure they are brilliant, extremely well educated men and women. However, the same could be said for computer scientists in the 1950's, or geneticists of today. While these are certainly brilliant people, we are merely beginning to gain an understanding of what is going on and what is possible. Fact is, computer scientists of the 50's didn't know crap about computers compared to what we know today, geneticists don't know crap compared to what we will know in 20 years from now, and climatologists are just beginning to understand what we don't know about climate changes. In other words, quite frankly, they don't know crap, but I will admit that they know much more crap than I do!

Politics, Science and Money... Love em mmm mm good

[isa-kuruption]

So troll me now, you won't like what I have to say...

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a very political movie. If it wasn't, why is it presented and narrated by a Politician? Not a scientist, not someone who would actually have facts... but a guy who's job has been for the last 30 years to spin ANY news or ideas in the favor of his point of view.

So what's the problem with "Big Oil" donating money to teachers? Last time I checked, teachers were underpaid and schools underfunded. So, we have some organizations willing to give money to help out in our failing schools, and all the lefties complain. Where are the lefties donations? If they donated as much, or more than, "Big Oil" to such funds, then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

So do such organizations have the right to "protect" their funding sources? YES! Is it political? YES! Is "An Inconvient Truth" all fact? No, it's fact mixed in with a bunch of hypothesis, because in reality, no one really knows. What happened to that horrible hurricane season we were supposed to have this year... all the scientists told us it would happen... but yet it didn't!

Twenty years ago science told us we're entering an ice age... today we're "warming"... tomorrow? Who knows! Let's face it, most "science" relies on government funding. If, as a scientist, you say 'well, everything is as expected' or 'well, everything looks okay' then you don't get the next federal grant, because you just said everything was okay. So, you fudge the numbers, you make up things, and say 'ooooh this looks bad, I need to do more research' and the grant money continues to roll in. You write a few papers, get published a few times, do some talks making $10,000 per speech... and drive around in your brand new 7-series. All that doesn't happen when you say, 'I've spent the last 5 years to tell you everything is OK'.

Doesn't Big Oil Need Scientists?

[filesiteguy]

I am not at all surprised that "Big Oil" gives so much money to such organizations. After all, they need scientists, don't they? Aren't scientists - or at least Chemical Engineers - the ones who design and test petroleum cracking processes?

Seems like a big conspiracy theory to me.

Why expect apolitical?

[redelm]

People are political creatures. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. Science _is_ political, but has anarbitration mechanism (physical proof). That is not the same as fundamentally apolitical.

Al Gore is nothing if not political. I'm disturbed by many advocates of Global Warming since they often do not adress the objections of their opponents with facts, but more often appeals to authority.

And aren't the shareholders of Exxon entitled to freedom of association (into Exxon) and freedom of speech as that association? If their lies are flagrant, they must be easily disprovable.

Unless they have different ideas than you do...

[benhocking]

Can you guess where the maximized profits are going?

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[kjart]

Also there is no real environment in just about every city.

Exactly - this seems like an argument against having large, sprawling cities though. As per my example, Los Angeles is extremely spread out and certainly doesn't seem to have a smaller environmental impact compared to New York. I would think that you would want smaller, denser cities to lower the overall footprint. You also gain, as per the GP, in energy efficiency due to public transport, etc.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[zootm]

I think the difference would be that this could be indicative of a trend whereby private funding of institutions effectively gives those providing the funding the right to censor and/or alter the educational material being provided to those being educated. The KKK example is different because it's not the funders who are being given the right to decide the materials available.

If McDonalds were to pour funding into schools, you might expect (with the same logic) for education about the unhealthiness of fast food to "fade away" from textbooks; this is much the same as that situation.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[ArikTheRed]

Slashdot is being accurate here, presenting the facts and allowing you to draw your own conclusions.

I think I've heard something like this before... was it?:

Slashdot: We Report - You Decide!TM

Free DVDs

[Tungbo]

That was their offer to NSTA. RTFA.

The Real Inconvenient Truth is...

[WED Fan]

...its hype.

Anyone remember all the dire predictions that the east coast was looking down the barrel of a gun for this year's hurricane season, and man was the cause? That global warming was going to be driving a huge hurricane season for 2006? This is the slam dunk.

Facts:

1. Warming is taking place
2. The planet is still cooler than it has been in recent geologic history
3. The sunn is in a heating phase
4. Mars has shown an increase in global temperatures
5. There are no SUV's, factories, or cans of Pam on Mars
6. While noxious and bad smelling, man's contribution to warming is miniscule compared to the Sun and volacanic activity

And the biggest fact:

There is nothing we can do to slow it or hurry it along. But, our expenditures of energy and voter goodwill in this arena take attention away from areas where we can be effective:

1. Poverty
2. Disease
3. Hunger
4. Slave trade
5. War

Not only that, but regulation we are forcing upon other countries actually prevent them from activities that could bring more wealth and aid to their populations.

And, regulations are preventing the building of cleaner solutions.

Can we get off the Global Warming kick and turn our efforts, money, voter action towards something we can change?

Re:The Real Inconvenient Truth is...

[prandal]

Last time I looked, CO2 wasn't bad-smelling.

Very recently published research indicates that the warming we are experiencing on earth is due to radiative forcing (i.e. greenhouse gases), and not increased solar irradiation.

Keep up to date with the scientific literature or shut up.

Your "facts" are bullshit

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[YrWrstNtmr]

You'll have to remind me what science the KKK deals with.

Genetics.

I'm sorry....hell?!

[StressGuy]

from the parent post:

"History is rife with examples of corporate special interests skewing research about their products through carefully chosen grants and commissioned studies. Lead, Tobacco, DDT, Oil; hell,...."

Why do we have to bring Microsoft into it everytime somebody mentions "big corporations"?

Re:I'm sorry....hell?!

[SatanicPuppy]

I suggest you take a visit to the Lair of the Semicolon.

Re:I'm sorry....hell?!

[StressGuy]

Yes, I knew somebody would point that out....

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[jandersen]

No consensus? What utter nonsense is this? Something like 90+ % of those who actually know about these things agree that climate change is happening and that our burning of fossil fuels is the cause. That constitutes consensus to me and most of the rest of the people in the world.

So you feel you need lots of energy? For what? Continuing you wasteful, sedentary lifestyle - that is slowly killing you? Well OK; if you think that is a worthy way to spend the world's resources. But fusion is not the way forward - I read an article only yesterday (sorry, no link) about a study that concluded that we could cover the entire world's energy needs with very low-tech generators: basically a big mirror that heats the boiler of a turbine. We would need to cover ~2% of the world's deserts with these generators. The report suggests a number of ways to make it financially viable.

So why don't we do this already (well, we do, actually, but only on a small scale)? Because somebody stands to lose a lot of money is we go that way, that's why.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[MaWeiTao]

I find it funny that someone who disagrees with what seems to be the majority of people here is automatically considered a troll... So much for open debate.

biased article summary?

[alex_guy_CA]

I know /. is not a news outlet, but the level of bias in the summary "..because she can't get preferential treatment..." is pretty offensive.

It seems to me from reading TFA that the producer does have some type of legitimate gripe. Just take this sentence FTA "Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp."

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Dr. Smeegee]

I don't think many schools get money from the KKK ... although this guy I knew in middle school did have to go to KKK summer camp in Florida one year. Scaaaarrry dad Doyle had.

Who's getting rich from environmentalism?

[BTWR]

Everyone always loves to say how the Big Oil guys keep getting richer by denying global warming, etc. Now, I know *someone* is making millions off of environmental activism. Anyone know which companies or which people? It'd just be interesting to see...

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[SatanicPuppy]

As opposed to the god fearing midwestern farmer. That's a man of the land! He knows all about the environment, read about it in the good book! Practices non-sustainable farming, just like all them folks in the bible! He don't believe in no damn "no till" farming! Only a bunch of hippies'd come up with crap like that.

Fertilizer, pesticides, and drainin down the aquifers, that's how god meant man to live! Top soil blowin away? Hell, boy, you think we're gonna run outta dirt? Go back to yer city!

Face facts, jackass. There is no place in this country where people are really living "with the land". Cities are actually nice and efficient, because they cram all those people and services into a tiny area. Sure they produce pollution, sure they use a lot of energy, definitely a hell of a lot more than in the 20's, but don't pretend that everyone in this country doesn't use more power than people in the 20's, and cities don't produce more pollution than the same number of people living outside a city would produce...Quite the contrary.

And it's a widely proven fact that the worst thing for nature is too much contact with man. Wildlife in the area around Chernobyl has rebounded since the disaster, and is more healthy now than it was before the meltdown. The demilitarized zone between the Korea's has healthy game populations, despite being paved with fricking landmines.

So all those people crowded together in that city are far far better for the environment than the same number of people spread out equally around the country. It's not that they're isolated fron the environment...city folks just love to go out and spend time with nature! It's that the environment is isolated from them...And that's a good thing.

Crude is not a single element it is a mix

[aepervius]

You have inside crude a mix of very light organic element, and some downright long chain. Some part of it will indeed evaporate over time (the lighter element). But i think the Tar and most long chains, what most people think when picturing crude, will not evaporate over time. And most probably this is the first to fall down on the bottom of the sea to be decomposed :

how crude behave with time

So scientists == anti-science?

[benhocking]

I'm not sure who you're calling "environmentalists", but I know that I self-identify as one. I also have 3 science degrees, and am working on a fourth. I don't think you could sanely call me anti-science. Also, when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, every single last climatologist who does not receive money from fossil fuel companies is in agreement that it is real, and that it will be a major problem for humanity if something is not done about it.

Of course, I'm not 100% against GM foods (although I appreciate caution), I'm in favor of informed uses of nano-technology, and I think that nuclear power (i.e., fission) is the best option we currently have for dealing with greenhouse gases. So maybe I'm not an "environmentalist" by your definition - but I still recognize that global warming is a real, anthropogenic, threat.

Re:So scientists == anti-science?

[kilgortrout]

I'm glad to see the environmental movement has rethought its position on nuclear power. Thirty years ago the movement opposed nuclear power with the same zeal they now reserve for global warming issues and they were, by and large, successful in stopping the construction of any new nuclear power plants in the US. Of course this ironically led to an increase in the emission of green house gasses from the conventionally powered plants that were built instead of the nuclear plants.

I wonder were the movement will be in another thiry years.

Know-Something Party

[Doc Ruby]

"Science" is completely "apolitical". It's a-everything, because it's an abstract systematic behavior, not a person.

Scientists, on the other hand, can't be apolitical. They're humans, so they're going to be political to some degree, even if negligibly. More than two people in any society means politics. But apathy and disenfranchisement are political conditions, especially useful to those with power who make arbitrary decisions for their own reasons.

American politics does vast amounts of work according to decisions derived from facts about the way the world works. Especially the way that it works physically, as we know from physics, chemistry, biology, even astronomy. Those facts are supposed to determine the decisions we make, and the facts about those facts, to whatever degree of confidence we know we have.

Scientists are obligated to participate in politics. Not just like any other people in a democracy. But because they don't have the excuse that they don't know what will happen when the politicians do what they say.

Certainly scientists are much more appropriate to our Constitutional democratic republic than are, say, religious ministers. The Constitution specifically directs the government to "promote science", and specifically prohibits the government for "respecting an establishment of religion". Our government is crawling with religious establishment professionals. While its scientists increasingly get edited, silenced, ignored, fired, scapegoated. Scientists need to organize better to protect their interests in science. And we need them to do so, to protect our interests in science, and in them.

That's why I recommend people join SEA: Scientists and Engineers for America, even if you're not a scientist (it's free and open). Or join any more specific technical association in your discipline, then vigorously work to make policy hear your science. If you're a scientist, your work is already surely contributing to some corporate political action / lobbying industry. You should make sure that the facts you produce are being represented at least as much as the money you make for them.

Think of it as an experiment, in a lab made of people. Think of a political hypothesis to describe the way your country works best, then test it with the equipment. Share the results with the rest of us.

Re:Hey, dummies!

[fastcoke11]

I don't know how you can contradict yourself so obviously within two paragraphs and still post it. These "Big Oil" companies depend on science to do business. They pay scientists to find ways to make them more money. That's what businesses do. They do NOT, however, pay scientists to do research on how their product is bad. If you don't believe that burning oil and sending up tons of it into the atmosphere is negatively impacting our environment and our health, then I say it is you who is the dullard. I hate to sound like a hippy here, but corporations have a HUGE track record of paying for misleading scientific results in order to boost profits and fool the public into believing they're nice and only want to do what's right for the public's sake. They're interested in making money. Not helping out you and me. For examples I could point to the aritifical shortages that Exxon imposes on the gasoline market in order to boost the price of gas, adding to their quarterly profits of over $10 billion. Or maybe further in history we can look at the misleading "research" on Marijuana, and the production of 'Reefer Madness'. These were financed by companies who were going to lose money if Marijuana were legalized. It amazes me that people can hear/read/see no proof of something whatsoever and still spout this nonsense that their baseless beliefs are correct.

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[ductonius]

If I was all noble and I made a movie I genuinely felt people needed to see to save the earth, wouldn't I just give it to PBS on day 1?

If you wanted people to see a movie why would you give it to PBS? I mean, aside from during the week they run their Red Dwarf marathon.

Life time of crude here inside :

[aepervius]

And here is data from the previous link showing that there can be rest of crude YEARS after the spill :

lifetime of crude way below the page see the graphs with time

Group Density Examples
Group I less than 0.8 Gasoline, Kerosene : disappear in hours
Group II 0.8 - 0.85 Gas Oil, Abu Dhabi Crude : disappear in days
Group III 0.85-0.95 Arabian Light Crude, North Sea Crude Oils (e.g. Forties) : disappear in week/monthes
Group IV greater than 0.95 Heavy Fuel Oil, Venezuelan Crude Oils : disappear in years

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[Red Flayer]

Unlike humans, who can live many per square meter (especially in a city with skyscrapers and such), trees per surface area is a de-facto constant, they can not be put in skyscrapers as they need access to sunlight. So carbon reabsoption is constant per surface area. So carbon exhaust per surface area is what matters. And, in every human city, it's WAY too high.

You're missing the point of concentrated population. What's important is not carbon output per surface area, but total carbon output. Surface area is only important on the reabsorption side. What this actually means is that area not occupied by people (well, their buildings) needs to be maximized -- and this is done by minimizing the area occupied by people.

Total Area = Area(peopled) + Area(unpeopled)
Carbon reabsorption = R * Area(unpeopled)
Carbon exhaust = E * (number of people)

R and C are theoretical constants.

So how does one minimize carbon exhaust? By reducing the number of people, or reducing the carbon output per person (E).

How does one maximize reabsorption? By increasing the reabsorption per unit area (a constant, as you say -- though certain plants are more effective than others) or by increasing the unpeopled area.

Seeing as total area is constant, the only way to increase the unpeopled area is to reduce the peopled area -- by concentrating the people in cities, for example.

Scientists and politics

[wytcld]

I'd like to ask those of us who actually socially know a number of scientists: Are your scientist friends political? Frankly, of the scientists I know (I'm not one, but I attend some pretty hard-core conferences every year), very few concern themselves any more with politics than they do with religion - which is to say, hardly at all. Oh, there may be the "politics" of their standing within their university departments, which they grudgingly pay some attention to, or the "politics" of writing grants that the NSF or DARPA or whoever will actually fund their research; but they really are much less concerned with the circus of party politics and posturing than are most of us out here in the "real" world - a world they by preference have left behind to concentrate within their own disciplines.

One of my friends conducts research in Antartica each year. His research has been misused by CATO and the like, who like that it shows that more snow is falling in certain regions, and ignore that this is consistent with models of overall global warming, instead making happy talk about "more snow!" But even this misappropriation of research doesn't draw my friend into politics. He just accepts that the daily world most of us live in is tainted by trash propaganda, and takes refuge within the circles of his scientific colleagues, for whom truth matters.

The notion that scientists are all primarily political, slanting their findings for political advantage, is promoted only by those who are trying to deny the findings of science - for political advantage. It comes from both the deconstructionists on the far left, and the neocons on the far right. They'd each love to reduce scientists to their level, so that facts can no longer inconvenience the absolutist ideologies they promote.

So why are we entertaining this slander of scientists her on Slashdot. I know there are more engineers than scientists here, but are that many of us, as engineers, that removed from the purer realms of science?

Re:Scientists and politics

[EaglemanBSA]

I would venture to say the scientists I know as friends are among the most active in politics I know.

Re:Scientists and politics

[FleaPlus]

I'd like to ask those of us who actually socially know a number of scientists: Are your scientist friends political?

As a grad student at a university in California, I'd say that it's about half-and-half: half of the scientists I know are apolitical, but the other half are pretty hardcore political liberals. There's also a few libertarians, but they tend to not be as vocal. In general, discussing how much Bush sux0rz is a pretty popular conversation topic.

Coincidentally, the other day I was a reading a paper by Cardiff & Klein (2004) of the political affiliations of professors at California universities. It's pretty interesting. Here's the abstract:

FACULTY PARTISAN AFFILIATIONS IN ALL DISCIPLINES: A VOTER-REGISTRATION STUDY

ABSTRACT: The party registration of tenure-track faculty at 11 California
universities, ranging from small, private, religiously affiliated institutions to
large, public, elite schools, shows that the "one-party campus" conjecture does
not extend to all institutions or all departments. At one end of the scale,
U.C. Berkeley has an adjusted Democrat:Republican ratio of almost 9:1,
while Pepperdine University has a ratio of nearly 1:1. Academic field also
makes a tremendous difference, with the humanities averaging a 10:1 D:R
ratio and business schools averaging 1.3:1, and with departments ranging
from sociology (44:1) to management (1.5:1). Across all departments and institutions,
the D:R ratio is 5:1, while in the "soft" liberal-arts fields, the
ratio is higher than 8:1.These findings are generally in line with comparable
previous studies.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[w00f]

I think it's funny (read: sad) that slashdot has such a leftist slant to it. Sadly, when someone makes a comment that outs the truth (see the post I'm commenting on) it gets modded as a 'troll'... interesting.

    What's really sad is that politics is the root cause for everything you see on the news, everything you learn, and everything you hear.

    Now - to comment on the original issue presented. I think it's incredibly ironic that the NSTA refused to distribute a film which would villify some of its main contributors. The hardest thing to understand for us here is this - Exxon and the NSTA's other 'contributors' have a vested interest in us consuming fossil fuels, as they sell and research them. There are also very few alternatives. So consider this... if the current donations dry up as a result of the NSTA accepting this DVD (let's take it as a hypothetical), where does the NSTA get its funding. Right, tax dollars from the government, wait... we would have to re-shuffle the budget to get funding for that from the government, right? Does that mean our taxes go up? Does that mean that something else (some other pork-barrel project) gets less funding? And who makes this decision?... that's right - the government officials who are lobbied by big Oil... how's that for a twisted circle of life for you?

    What's the solution? I don't have an answer... but it's interesting to point out all the issues with finding it. I will finish with this statement - humans being what we are - it's impossible (read: improbable) to get a donation made from a corporation (or an individual) completely selflessly and without any self-interest expected back... except of course in the form of tax dollars :)

science / politics

[Russ Nelson]

"Climate change" is about science. "Global warming" is about a political agenda which is indifferent to the science.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[1u3hr]

Jamie wrote "Slashdot is being accurate here, presenting the facts and allowing you to draw your own conclusions."

Oh really? You say "The producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is accusing the National Science Teachers Association of being in the pocket of Big Oil because she can't get preferential treatment for her film."

What "preferential treatment" did she ask for? That's not a fact, not from TFA. This charactersiastion is only in the summary, if not written by you then endorsed by your publishing it. Lots of industry groups supply free "educational" materials to the NSTA, as she points out. Only theirs was rejected. It seems more like an attempt to redress the balance.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[friguron]

With all respect, solar energy needs to be the future... http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[kindbud]

What if they did offer it to them, but PBS declined because it would offend their other sponsors, like Exxon-Mobil? It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[ArcherB]

you are correct. A KKK film is a bad example. Let's say that Michael Moore wanted to give out copies of his box set that includes "Dude, Where's My Country", "Bowling for Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 911" to classrooms. If they refused, would they be "in the pocket of Big Bush?"

And before you say that Michael Moore is full of sh1t and AlGore's film is "The Truth" (as "inconvenient" as it may be), weren't we supposed to have like 15 hurricanes hit New York this year?

Missing the point

[Trails]

A lot of people are missing the point. This isn't about choice, or scientific debate, or agreeing to disagree.

The NTSA have themselves stated that they turned this down because they were concerned about their funding, instead showing a movie that is at least if not more bent in the opposite direction.

They said they're afraid of losing money. They never said they thought Inconvenient Truth is a crock of shit or that Gore is a snake oil salesman. They simply said if they do this, they may lose money.

This isn't about principles, this isn't about debate, and it isn't about educating kids. They've been bought and they admit it plain as day.

Only a sellout of U.S. science is all

[mattr]

I don't understand why responses are so cool, and why the article says it is hard to tell if the association is being bad or not.

It looks pretty clear to me. People wonder why U.S. science is beginning to suck, and obviously it has suffered from a long deevolution that has culminated with examples like big oil attempting to control formative environmental education and religion attempting to control formative biological education.

Clearly, even if the association had no clue of reality and decided to cave in to a editorial style where they show both sides of the story, they should show Gore's film.

It is not clear to me why public education requires corporate sponsorship and even allows corporations to inject any type of media into the education of young people.

There is a place for businesses in showing the practical side for example I still remember a trip to the Lamont-Dougherty oceanographic institute and that was maybe 30 years ago.. a high point of my public school education which sucked. Lucky for me I switched to a private high school and bloomed.

How come people aren't outraged? Or is it just a kind of quiet outrage? You know, Bush is still in power and that's his boys there or something? This is the kind of thing that makes the U.S. the utter laughing stock of the entire planet. I cannot imagine another first world country that would allow this, or has public education become even more dismal than I thought? Certainly it was sheer hell for a nerd, but it also sounds like an utter waste of cow-brain level stimulation. Why even bother?

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[bazorg]

Another way to look at it is accepting that cities/human dwellings are not part of a normal ecosystem. This way, all the unnatural things that human activity produces in NYC (example) will be restricted to that area, thus leaving a lot of space elsewhere to plant tress, to clean up sewage, to let animals roam free, ...

The advantage of doing this in a compact city is that there will be critical mass and a market for getting the most environmentally safe solutions for transportation and energy production, while a city that spreads a lot to suburbs with low population density will most likely fare poorly in terms of energy usage and each landowner will have to invest individually in means to clean up the area. In this sense, I believe that measuring polution per inhabitant is more useful than polution per area.

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[doug141]

Well, then it would have been aired on a different channel, right? Surely Gore didn't say "PBS turned us down, oh well, let's change the whole game plan and do a theatrical release followed by DVDs instead."

Re:apolitical...

[zxnos]

why does everything have to be 'apolitical'? what about the other 25 types of political? you are all a bunch of bigots with your 'i only like apolitical' technology forums!

there i win the argument, i made a baseless assertion. ha! :P

Re:apolitical...

[MightyYar]

Polls pretty much consistently show that about 30% of Americans are "conservatives" who always vote Republican and about 30% are hard-core Democrats who may or may not be "conservative". The rest of us are more up-in-the-air. I think that the reason Slashdot seems to be so lefty is that academia tends to be lefty. We, being nerds, tend to be fairly educated. In other words, we are a very small cross-section of the world and do not represent the broader political reality at all. Further, we tend to be smart and are used to often being the smartest one around, so we tend to be jackasses when other people express an opinion that does not agree with our own. This is accentuated by our relative lack of social grace. :)

Note that these are all gross generalizations, and nearly everyone reading this will take exception to some specific thing that I said... one guy will claim that he never finished high school and another will claim that he's not socially awkward, as if that really matters when discussing generalizations.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

No it is an argument that people, who only succeed in organising because of the structure, population density, communication possibilities, and the absolute protection from the environment that a city provides (what it's target is) should not be complaining about the very structure that keeps them alive.

They are not good examples to follow in relation to carbon emissions. Not at all.

So unless 99% of these people want to become farmers in wide open spaces, completely out of reach of civilization (and obviously only using the car for the bare necessities), there is no solution to reducing energy consumption significantly.

It's not the editors.

[Grendel Drago]

That's not from the edit summary, that's from Frogbeater's story submission. Now, the editors may have picked that particular summary in order to piss off Slashdotters because we'd all point out how baldly inaccurate ("preferential treatment"?!) it was, so they'd get scads of comments. It wouldn't be the first time, but it's not quite the same as the editors themselves saying anything quite so stupid.

Re:It's not the editors.

[1u3hr]

That's not from the edit summary, that's from Frogbeater's story submission.

I've seen plenty of submitters bitching about how their submission had been butchered. The editors cut and reword them if they feel the urge. And Jamie explicitly said they were just presenting "the facts".

Re:It's not the editors.

[Rei]

Agreed. This slashdot summary is so twisted that it strains the concepts of "journalistic integrity". And yes, Slashdot, by posting and summarizing content that proports to be factual, you're practicing journalism. By posting articles but twisting the facts about them, you're practicing shoddy journalism. NTSA wouldn't even accept free DVDs of material that has been widely commended for its scientific accuracy and is already part of the science curriculum in several countries, while it accepts ludicrously biased material from its energy-industry sponsors.

I think the message from the NSTA is a big "We're For Sale" sign. Note to the Christian Coalition: Buy now! For a few million dollars, you can get them to start distributing pamphlets talking about that great flood that wiped out our dinosaur enemies 6000 years ago.

What are you talking about?

[Grendel Drago]

What, exactly, did wytcld fail to understand, how did he demonstrate actual hate for this thing he failed to understand, and how did this make him look like a complete tool?

something about carbon neutral...

[doug141]

Good point, and thanks for the link. Something I read recently, I think in Sagan's last book, said planting trees is useless unless you commit to burying the trees. If they are harvested and burned (forest fire, firewood, or even after being made into furniture), there's no offset. Sounds like we need to be growing trees now (and burying them in the future) as fast as the oil is coming up, right?

Re:something about carbon neutral...

[derubergeek]

Something I read recently, I think in Sagan's last book, said planting trees is useless unless you commit to burying the trees. If they are harvested and burned (forest fire, firewood, or even after being made into furniture), there's no offset.

It sure sounds like a Saganism. Meaning that the underlying assumption is that for every tree I plant, one tree will be oxidized and all of the gases released to the atmosphere. Which is a hell of a wild assumption. Makes me wonder how all of that carbon got sunk into those oil deposits in the first place. Really - from that standpoint, all we're doing by burning oil is helping to release that poor pent-up carbon from it's unnatural grave and restoring the atmosphere to it's proper, carbonated state.

Re:Politics, Science and Money... Love em mmm mm g

[1u3hr]

Twenty years ago science told us we're entering an ice age....

NO, it DID NOT. Some newspapers printed stupid stories about that. Not "Science". Read this for the story of how this myth has propagated and been spread by various "warming sceptics".

Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Woundweavr]

Science is wrong a majority of the time? Perhaps if you include every tested hypothesis. However, climate change and the extent that humanity is causing a large amount of the current change is not an untested hypothesis. There isn't a single scientific peer reviewed study that contradicts these findings in any way in decades. There have been hundreds that support the scientific theory that man is causing global warming.

If you truly believe that the predictions science makes don't come true a majority of the time, I wonder how you get anywhere. Science is what predicts your automobile, train, or even bicycle will work. The predictions of science make it possible that when I strike a button on my keyboard, a signal is sent through my system (and dozens if not hundreds of other consequences therein) so it appears on my screen and eventually on slashdot. Science predicts that when you take medicine, it will have certain health consequences.

The hostility to science has to stop.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

There isn't a single scientific peer reviewed study that contradicts these findings in any way in decades.

To relate this directly to global warming, what about the failure of climate scientists to predict current atmospheric methane levels? Methane is an important greenhouse gas, and the fact that it apparently has a self-regulated maximum concentration far lower than anyone predicted would certainly change, possibly invalidate, a lot of the predictions made by models that did not include that fact.

This was a big miss - what about CO2, the boogeyman of the global warming crowd? What if there is a self-regulating aspect to it at some level? What we know from the historical record is that warming is always followed by CO2 - what if that is because there is a strong self-regulator built in that we do not know about?

You can say that I don't know that CO2 self-regulates - but I am not the one extrapolating current trends a few centuries into the future. I really don't trust a science built on models when they 1) base the models on past data alone, and 2) are making predictions wildly divergent from past data.

For a more interesting example of all the fallacies associated with this, please look at the stock market prediction algorithms - they share the same problems.

(OK, all you weak minded mods can now mod me down for daring to challenge you to think for yourselves!)

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

Science is what predicts your automobile, train, or even bicycle will work.

Just to put in another point - science doesn't do this, engineering does. Science teaches engineers how to make things work, though. In my perspective, an engineer doesn't care why it works, only that it does work. A scientist doesn't care if it works or not, as long as he can say why.

Perhaps that is the problem with global warming - too many scientists, not enough engineers. Why do you guys care who caused it, man, sun, or butterflies flapping away? I don't really care what caused it - I want to know what the most likely effects are and the cheapest way to fix them. (And an acknowlegement that this may not involve forcing China to give up oil).

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Twanfox]

what about CO2, the boogeyman of the global warming crowd? What if there is a self-regulating aspect to it at some level? What we know from the historical record is that warming is always followed by CO2 - what if that is because there is a strong self-regulator built in that we do not know about?

Oh, there most likely is a self-regulating aspect of atmospheric CO2 production. There are CO2 sinks into which atmospheric CO2 can be dumped. CO2 that would otherwise become atmospheric (decaying plant matter) can be frozen under ice or buried under silt in the ocean. Atmospheric CO2 can dissolve into the oceans, if the concentration is not sufficiently high (or forcibly pumped deep in order to liquefy it). The issue is which of these avenues are naturally occurring and how quickly does it operate?

Currently, based on scientific observation, the natural processes are not outstripping our production fast enough to keep the levels stable. What the observations do not tell us is how do the natural processes react to sudden surges in atmospheric CO2? Over the last 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have not topped 300 parts per million (and this includes both periods of ice ages and warm spells). Within the span of human civilization, it has risen far beyond that mark. Nature just takes it's sweet time to catch up.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_sink

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[wanerious]

To relate this directly to global warming, what about the failure of climate scientists to predict current atmospheric methane levels? Methane is an important greenhouse gas, and the fact that it apparently has a self-regulated maximum concentration far lower than anyone predicted would certainly change, possibly invalidate, a lot of the predictions made by models that did not include that fact.

Of course, the failure to predict something current does not invalidate future predictions. Sure, methane is an important greenhouse gas, but I'm not aware of any predictions that included it as a necessary and significant component of warming in the near future, nor any observations of a significant present abundance of methane. CO2 is enough.

This was a big miss - what about CO2, the boogeyman of the global warming crowd? What if there is a self-regulating aspect to it at some level? What we know from the historical record is that warming is always followed by CO2 - what if that is because there is a strong self-regulator built in that we do not know about?

I think you've got it backwards. Over the last million years, there has been a smooth correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, with the temperature lagging the CO2 somewhat. At no point had the concentration been higher than 300 ppm, but recently a sharp rise has taken the abundance out of this envelope to almost 400 ppm. And the global temperatures are responding in kind. What's the big miss? Sure, maybe there's a deus ex machina that will somehow reverse the current trend, but is this what you're counting on? In fact, we know of a mechanism that runs the other way --- warming oceans tend to release some of their dissolved CO2, making the problem worse. And an increase in water vapor is no good, as this is a greenhouse "gas" as well.

You can say that I don't know that CO2 self-regulates - but I am not the one extrapolating current trends a few centuries into the future. I really don't trust a science built on models when they 1) base the models on past data alone, and 2) are making predictions wildly divergent from past data.

It's not a "few centuries" that is the problem, it's the next few *decades*. And it should be alarming that *there is no past data* to mimic what we're seeing. We've burst outside of that envelope. Perhaps the predictions are wrong, but it's also possible that we're *underestimating* the climate's response. We should be cautious.

OK, all you weak minded mods can now mod me down for daring to challenge you to think for yourselves!

You should have the courage of your own convictions without a sniveling appeal to persecution. I wish people would stop writing this passively defensive crap.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[wanerious]

In my perspective, an engineer doesn't care why it works, only that it does work.

Yes, this is true in my experience as well (physicist).

Perhaps that is the problem with global warming - too many scientists, not enough engineers. Why do you guys care who caused it, man, sun, or butterflies flapping away? I don't really care what caused it - I want to know what the most likely effects are and the cheapest way to fix them.

Oh good lord, no. The willing ignorance of *reasons* and consequences is a root of the whole problem, both politically and industrially. It's even probable that the most *effective* ways of treating problems are not the cheapest.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[bogado]

Let me understand your point, you're telling that there could be a CO2 regulating mechanism that science has not yet detected or seen. Ok I can agree with that.

After you went on telling that this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic and known difficult to predict subject. But even so there were a few predictions, not as strong as "there will be larger hurricanes" but yet they started to happen, in fact several glaciers that were frozen for more time that man walked the earth are now melting, just google it "siberia melting" or "greenland melting" for a few sources.

So now sure we have some evidences that at least for now the globe is indeed warming, for now at least. What could happen if it go on like this is at large speculation but if it goes on almost everyone agrees that it will be bad. Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth, less alarmist people say that it could affect the global economy in very, very bad way as a report from the British government say. But there is the possibility that some kind of auto-regulation that no scientist know about will be triggered and nothing will happen after all.

So with all those cards in the table, you want us to bet that this auto-regulation that we don't know about will appear to save the day so we can go on in our business of polluting the world in a scale that has not precedent on the hole history of life on this planet? We'll be fine? That is your argument?

If it is, I must say I don't agree. If there is some point I misunderstood, please I would like to hear.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

From your point of view, what is the difference between effective and cheapest? From a standard economics point of view (another field of engineering, not science, IMO), the cheapest (well, least expensive all in) is always the best solution. Why is this not the case here?

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

But that is my point! The models cannot predict what is happening now if they were programmed to handle the historical data! We don't know what is going to happen!

But that is not the message of the global warming crowd (not the scientists, but the media that reports what they think the scientists said) - they say we are all going to die. There is no scientific rational for that!

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

with the temperature lagging the CO2 somewhat.

I'm afraid you are totally wrong and have obviously never examined the data. The reverse is quite obviously true at the merest glance at the chart in question.

We've burst outside of that envelope.

And you still think that models created using past data are valid? I'm not saying that we shouldn't study it - I'm saying that climatologists cannot predict what is going to happen. And they keep making predicitons - and then they make predictions as to how to prevent their predicitons. Madness!

I wish people would stop writing this passively defensive crap.

Unfortunately, most of the people with your convictions mode people that disagree down. Look at my posting history - you will find well-reasoned (or at least rational) posts marked troll, etc. In the last global warming debate there was a mod war over my post - it was modded up about 7 times, and down about 6.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[wanerious]

rom your point of view, what is the difference between effective and cheapest? From a standard economics point of view (another field of engineering, not science, IMO), the cheapest (well, least expensive all in) is always the best solution. Why is this not the case here?

I have two answers: one, the most obvious, is that an effective solution removes the need for further iteration and repair which may cost more over the long run. Related to this, you may argue that this is really what you mean by the "cheapest" solution --- the cheapest in the long run. I would not disagree with this on the surface, but it assumes that we know the *reasons* why other approaches will not be, in the long run, as cheap. This evaluation of the "whys" is something that you and other engineers would apparently like to avoid.

And the issue of "cheapest" is not obvious. What is the metric used to determine cost? Lives? Property? Dollars? Evaluating the impact of warming and migrating populations on these observable effects takes careful consideration and the application of scientific methods.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

People like you are the problem.

this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic

OK, so what does that have to do with missing the fact the atmospheric methane is self regulating? They said "methane will continue to go up unless we kill the cows!" and methane went down instead! The same could be true of CO2, we don't know! CO2 levels have always tracked (lagged behind) temperature levels - so perhaps there is a self-regulating mechanism. I'm saying that the models are probably not valid, that's all.

Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth

I see. So the maximum possible event - worst case warming by CO2 - of 10 degrees is going to kill us all. Do you realize that Arizona is 10 degees warmer than Chicago? And they farm there - did you know that? Global warming cannot end the human race. Worst case global warming will be totally ignored by 90% of the world's species.

Don't over-hype the issue. Global warming needs to be studied, but drastic measures should not be taken without a) making them feasible (China is not going to cut CO2 production - that must be dealt with), and b) knowing that we are doing more good than harm.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[MightyYar]

You're right, but I suspect that our reactions are different. Of course there could be some mechanism that limits CO2. But without knowing the level, let alone the mechanism, I don't think that it is prudent to base policy on this notion that we might be saved by some unknown force. To me, it seems more prudent to limit our behavior in some way to work within our current understanding of the climate. The consequence of limiting our carbon output is more limited economic growth... the consequence of pouring carbon into the air may be abandoning our most populated cities - how's that for limiting economic growth? Frankly, I just don't feel comfortable watching atmospheric CO2 go up, hoping that we hit some kind of limit before all of the ice melts. I just look at the dampened economic growth as a sort of insurance policy.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

but it assumes that we know the *reasons* why other approaches will not be, in the long run, as cheap

But surely I can just turn that around and say that you cannot prove that your method is long run cheaper. In your scenario, I can at least show short run cheaper and long run unknown - while you have short run more expensive, long run unknown. (And yes, I was obviously using all in costs - including all future costs) The thing is, the way our economy works is that present costs are more important than future costs (this is true as long as the economy is growing at all).

What is the metric used to determine cost? Lives? Property? Dollars?

What metric is used in the insurance business? What metric is used for car safety? This is a political question, not a scientific one.

Evaluating the impact of warming and migrating populations on these observable effects takes careful consideration and the application of scientific methods.

And this is the big one, NO! Science can tell you about processes, and other things. It can tell you nothing about value! (All you have told me are your values - there is nothing scientific about them!)

In any case, worst case warming of 10 degrees is not going to require a lot of population movement. It may require a larger energy expenditure on air conditioning, though.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[bogado]

People like you are the problem.
  I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car. :-) Why am I problem? Because I tend to believe what people who understand a certain field when they say that there is a big problem coming?
  this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic
 
OK, so what does that have to do with missing the fact the atmospheric methane is self regulating? They said "methane will continue to go up unless we kill the cows!" and methane went down instead! The same could be true of CO2, we don't know!Exactly, we don't know. What does it mean? It means that yes it is possible that the level of CO2 will, in the future, drop, but it is also possible that there is no mechanism of self regulation on CO2. You see, you want to bet that there is such mechanism so we can go on living our lives putting out as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we can. But I think the odds are high and we shouldn't bet on this, unless we are certain that there is such mechanism and how much CO2 this process can revert before it becomes overloaded. CO2 levels have always tracked (lagged behind) temperature levels - so perhaps there is a self-regulating mechanism. I'm saying that the models are probably not valid, that's all.
 
  Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth
  If read what I wrote, carefully you would see that this is the worst case scenario (or maybe the best-case for the rest of the living things on earth).
I see. So the maximum possible event - worst case warming by CO2 - of 10 degrees is going to kill us all. Do you realize that Arizona is 10 degees warmer than Chicago? And they farm there - did you know that? Global warming cannot end the human race. Worst case global warming will be totally ignored by 90% of the world's species.
 
Don't over-hype the issue. Global warming needs to be studied, but drastic measures should not be taken without a) making them feasible (China is not going to cut CO2 production - that must be dealt with), and b) knowing that we are doing more good than harm.Well when scientists say an increase of 10C, they are about global warming not local temperature. So if the temperature scale in a 10C it would mean that Arizona would be 10C hotter along with Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Antarctica and all over. It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes, and those species would die out, and as there are species that die there would be some species that depend on those species that would either die or would start to kill other type of food, changing the hole equilibrium. In this particular scenario many species would die, and this would turn out to be a source of pressure in the human civilization.

In fact, stating that the human race would be wiped out from face of the earth is exaggerated, and I don't think that this would happen. But between those predictions and the "nothing bad will ever happen, because nature has self-regulating mechanism" there are some very bad previsions, and as I said many people are indeed worried that this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now by polluting the earth. Well, it happen that the great Britain government believes that this is a real possibility, maybe they are the problem, it most certainly is not America, America is perfect and good for all.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Mister Whirly]

"But that is not the message of the global warming crowd (not the scientists, but the media that reports what they think the scientists said) - they say we are all going to die. There is no scientific rational for that!"

Really, there is no scientific rational for the fact we are all going to die? I am no global warming expert, but I am pretty safe in my prediction that every human will in fact die at some point.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Fred_A]

I am no global warming expert, but I am pretty safe in my prediction that every human will in fact die at some point.

Oh yeah ? How about those who are already dead ? Are they not human ? And regarding global warming, I cannot help but notice that it doesn't take into account such major theories as the time cube. How could it possibly taken seriously ?

Ah, time for my pills...

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Mister Whirly]

"Oh yeah ? How about those who are already dead ? Are they not human ?"
Nope, they are a worm buffet, a decaying carcass, rotting meat.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

Not me, I plan to live forever, or die trying!

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Mister Whirly]

I'd love to be immortal too, but only for a little while....

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[WhiplashII]

I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car. :-)

The reason you are contributing to the problem is because you exagerate it out of proportion. Reasonable people read your rant and assume that there is nothing to global warming, just some nut cases. We need ratinal thought, and debate (to bring out more rational thought). We don't need people running around proclaiming the end of the human race.

It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes

OK, but I do not perscribe to the belief that we must maintain the status quo. I believe change has more value than stasis. If the species are worthy of survival, they will move to where they can survive. We are not the worst thing to happen to everyone on the planet, and preserving specific types of bugs, or a special brand of polar bear is not high on my list of concerns.

this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now

OK - that is something we can have a ratinoal discussion about. How much will it cost us to do nothing for 100 years? In 100 years, everyone (including everyone in China) will have personal fusion reactors for power, so the problem goes away on it's own. So what are the (relatively) short term costs of doing only what we are doing now (pushing conservation as quickly as economically reasonable)? Vs what are the costs of trying to stop the CO2 increases? What are other alternatives, that we can more easily do?

I believe that in the short term (100 years), we should continue to do what we are currently doing. We should get to the personal fusion reactor stage as quickly as possible. And, personally, I think we need to start moving people off this planet - that will open up a whole new range of options as yet unexplored.

But then, I build rockets - what did you expect me to say?!

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Maxo-Texas]

August 2005
Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis...

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

As a healthy person approaching the half century I now have 30 years of memory of scientific facts that influenced policy and culture that turned out to be wrong (sometimes grossly so).

Facts are always correct. It's the *conclusions* people draw from the facts that are so often wrong.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[wanerious]

But surely I can just turn that around and say that you cannot prove that your method is long run cheaper. In your scenario, I can at least show short run cheaper and long run unknown - while you have short run more expensive, long run unknown.

The whole point behind scientific inquiry is to show that those two unknowns above are not of the same magnitude. The end result of science is to be able to ascribe probabilities of likelihood to various assertions about the natural world.

What metric is used in the insurance business? What metric is used for car safety? This is a political question, not a scientific one.

I agree, but the point is that they require different approaches to understanding potential outcomes. What we should *not* do is blindly start swinging for the pinata.

And this is the big one, NO! Science can tell you about processes, and other things. It can tell you nothing about value!

Now you're just niggling. Of course it's the *application* of scientific principles, reasoning, and results that helps evaluate between differing courses and outcomes.

In any case, worst case warming of 10 degrees is not going to require a lot of population movement. It may require a larger energy expenditure on air conditioning, though.

Is this intended as a serious statement? 10 degrees is an *enormous* shift. I don't know of many predictions that go even this far. With around 80% of the world's population susceptible to water levels rising even a few feet, this would be catastrophic by anyone's measure.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[wanerious]

I'm afraid you are totally wrong and have obviously never examined the data. The reverse is quite obviously true at the merest glance at the chart in question.

Yes, I've examined the data, and I don't think it's as clear as you think. It would be interesting to see a real statistical test applied instead of bald assertions. It's hard to pull out much conclusively when each *pixel* in the chart represents about 1,000 years. Rather, we should note that they are at least tightly correlated during all this time. Looking at data over smaller time periods, I've seen the lag in temperature with respect to CO2 that I alluded to earlier.

And you still think that models created using past data are valid?

Given the degree of correlation in the past, they may very well predict future correlation. In what other sense do they use past data?

Unfortunately, most of the people with your convictions mode people that disagree down. Look at my posting history - you will find well-reasoned (or at least rational) posts marked troll, etc. In the last global warming debate there was a mod war over my post - it was modded up about 7 times, and down about 6.

It is what it is. Posturing yourself as some kind of whiny perpetual victim is tiresome to read.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[aevans]

Who's the pope of science, chump? What if there were a schism?

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[aevans]

I'm completely terrified that you are partially wrong, and the data you have examined is sadly, upsidedown, but fortunately wildly inaccurate and slightly irrelevant.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[aevans]

You're misunderstanding the problem. The problem isn't producing CO2. The problem is using lies and scare tactics to attempt to take away people's freedoms and destroy the economic and technological advances we've worked for thousands of years to attain. We can adapt to a world with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Millions of brown people could enjoy a higher standard of living by manufacturing respirators or selling suntan lotion to eskimos. They'll die with whitey if you take away western civilizations prosperity out of spite over losing the cold war.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[aevans]

Dollars are a measurement of lives, property, and whatever natural resources can be traded. Everyone votes (with their dollars) which is most valuable.

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[aevans]

who will rally for corpses rights?

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[Mister Whirly]

Please, won't someone think of the dead children!

Re:Wrong a "Majority of the Time"

[bogado]

I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car. :-)

The reason you are contributing to the problem is because you exagerate it out of proportion. Reasonable people read your rant and assume that there is nothing to global warming, just some nut cases. We need ratinal thought, and debate (to bring out more rational thought). We don't need people running around proclaiming the end of the human race.

Well I thought I was being rational, I just brought to the debate all the cards, from the "human race will be wiped out" nuts to the nothing will happen. All I was saying is that most of the scientists and now even some economists believe that if this goes on consequences will for the hole world will be bad, really bad. Now you come on with the argument "the Methane self-regulates it self then the CO2 must be self regulating also", I say yes this is a possibility, but as long as we can't see any evidence of such mechanism we should not act as if such mechanism do exist and more even if there is such a mechanism we can't be sure that it will not be overloaded by the huge amounts of CO2 that we produce.

Now you quote me selective, so I may look insane and nuts to you, but I can only assume that you are intentionally taking the reasonable part of my discourse to make me seem that way. Or maybe you simply have a preconception based on those few remarks, that were so much against your beliefs that you couldn't even read the rest of them, any way your tactic of attacking the message and not the message is common among people who are desperate to win a discussion without a clear reason or line of thought.

It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes

OK, but I do not perscribe to the belief that we must maintain the status quo. I believe change has more value than stasis. If the species are worthy of survival, they will move to where they can survive. We are not the worst thing to happen to everyone on the planet, and preserving specific types of bugs, or a special brand of polar bear is not high on my list of concerns.

this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now

What you're not seeing is that if one species die it can take with it some others. If the environment changes lots of species will die, or move, but this is a bad thing for it will destabilize the hole ecosystem. But the worst, for us humans at least, is that this changes will affect crops and will bring down economies, and in our global interdependent economy, this will affect others economies including yours. Bad economies could trigger famine and wars. That is what the economic study made by England's government found out, and it is not a pretty picture.

OK - that is something we can have a ratinoal discussion about. How much will it cost us to do nothing for 100 years? In 100 years, everyone (including everyone in China) will have personal fusion reactors for power, so the problem goes away on it's own. So what are the (relatively) short term costs of doing only what we are doing now (pushing conservation as quickly as economically reasonable)? Vs what are the costs of trying to stop the CO2 increases? What are other alternatives, that we can more easily do?

That is what the UK government was studding, and it didn't liked the answer. The answer is to lower our emissions, make the oil more expensive so the research of better energy sources are cheaper, in perspective, and more attractive. This will be bad, probably, but it will not be as bad as the other option.

I believe that in the short term (100 years), we should continue to do what we are currently doing. We should get to the personal fusion reactor stage as quickly as possible. And, per

The real inconvenient truth

[popsicle67]

We are all being led by the noses. All of the shouting on both sides takes our minds off the real problem. The real problem that humanity has to defeat is fractionalism. We are given labels to name all that are not us, borders to keep at arms length all that are not us, and wars to instill fear in us against all that are not us. Everything that government does, including allowing the current twisted discourse on the theory of global warming, is a component of the plan to control all of our thoughts and deeds. What we believe is freedom of the press is just the most effective tool for managing us, there are no free thoughts anymore. Everything we believe has been fed to us to blind us to reality( including all of the conspiracy theories I am spouting ). We are slaves

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[wired_LAIN]

But if that donation ends up distorting what our children are learning, then its not worth it. I'd rather have crappy facilities and truth rather than a well-equipped system that teaches children to doubt global warming and alternative energy sources.

Come on, Mr. Magoo.

[Grendel Drago]

From the WaPo article:

Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters."

Given that Exxon-Mobil et al. donate money and propaganda to the NSTA, could you explain what this could possibly mean other than that they're afraid of offending their corporate overlords? It takes a certain amount of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singing LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU to not see this.

Re:Come on, Mr. Magoo.

[Opie812]

It takes a certain amount of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singing LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU to not see this.

Well said sir! When I wish to not see something, I stick my fingers in my ear and yell "LA LA LA..."

tee-hee-hee

Who made this film again?

[ArcherB]

Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?

Not when the science we are talking about here is really a film by a politician.

(Besides, as we saw with Gaius, scientists don't make good politicians, why would we expect it to work the other way around?)

Hear that?

[bmajik]

That's the sound of another problem that vanishes when there are no more government run schools, government paid teachers, and government employees teachers unions.

Support school choice. Vote with your feet and your dollars.

The Fear Card

[Spud Stud]

The Fear Card has been played by the Bush Administration in destroying civil liberties and has always been a favorite tool of environmentalists. When somebody is trying to scare you, it's time to guard your wallet/Constitution.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[DavidShor]

Moore movies are political commentary. This movie presents scientific facts in a understandable matter. The science happens to have political implications, as does most science.

Key argument might be distribution

[neonfrog]

One way to look at this is the distribution angle.

Perhaps the producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is miffed that the NSTA won't do her classroom distribution for her. She might have to work a little to get those DVDs to 50,000 schools herself.

If education is really what she cared about, she wouldn't put a financially strapped Science Teacher's organization in the position of losing funding. She wants the NSTA to choose sides which puts them in a very difficult position. What benefit does that yield education in general? Might get her film out NOW, but does not benefit NSTA in the long run. Have to question her motives on that one.

You think a science teacher would NOT use the film if it showed up in the classroom? The individual classroom isn't directly funded by Exxon-Mobil (I never get gas from them anymore! stopesso.org). Does the NSTA have stopping power to ban classroom material? Hardly.

Rather than gripe that they won't take care of the mailing list for her, she could note that the NSTA, like nearly all educational institutions, should not have to be in the situation of begging $$$ from corps in the first place. She could then save the NSTA some money (and make a big PR campaign of it) and not risk their future funding by getting the film to classrooms herself. If her motives are education and realistic, why would she do anything else?

No right to speak

[mrcparker]

So, if I am a mathematician with a background in non-linear analysis I have no right to speak, but a "climate scientist" does? Staring at computer models all day and making predictions does not make science, and Al Gore has no right to say who has the right to speak. This whole debate is being framed by the wrong people, and got way too political a long time ago.

Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[PopeRatzo]

The latest dishonest meme is that those who don't believe there is global warming are merely expressing their "valid difference of opinion". We see the same nonsense from the Creationists, as if any crackpot pseudoscience is just a valid in the marketplace of ideas as experimentally validated theory that an overwhelming number of scientists hold in accord.

Further, I've noticed a troubling trend in the community of self-described "conservatives". It now appears that to be considered a conservative, you must predictably hold certain absolute beliefs. For example, if you believe that say, pollution is a bad thing, you are not a conservative. Or, if you believe the Iraq War was a mistake, you cannot possibly be conservative. If you believe that women should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to carry a fetus to term, you're no conservative, yet to be conservative you must believe that all limitations on public smoking or gun ownership are very bad.

The thing that makes this a problem is you will notice some clear conflicts within these beliefs. Absolutely no regulation on guns, but lots of regulation on abortion. No limitations on smoking, but absolutely no naked breasts in video games.

I know liberals who are against abortion, who are extremely religious, who smoke like chimneys and who are against pornography. There are even liberals who are in favor of military action in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein. But find me a conservative who wavers from the established dogma established by the National Review (Dems are the "Party of Death"!!!) and I'll show you a person who's being singled out as "not a real conservative".

When you have to hold such dogma in political thought, it means your arguments are weak.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[derubergeek]

The latest dishonest meme is that those who don't believe there is global warming are merely expressing their "valid difference of opinion".

Really. And here I was thinking that the latest dishonest meme is that anyone who questions the veracity of the global warming claims must be some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[thatguywhoiam]

Really. And here I was thinking that the latest dishonest meme is that anyone who questions the veracity of the global warming claims must be some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states.

By what name would you prefer we called you? I'm open to new suggestions.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[derubergeek]

By what name would you prefer we called you? I'm open to new suggestions.

Try open minded on for size.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[PopeRatzo]

Well, fact is, anybody who questions the veracity of global warming claims is, as you say, "some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states".

Thanks for expressing it in such colorful terms.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[derubergeek]

Well, fact is, anybody who questions the veracity of global warming claims is, as you say, "some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states".

Cool. Thanks for confirming your position as a narrow minded bigot. Your input helps to continually improve my filtering.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[letxa2000]

For example, if you believe that say, pollution is a bad thing, you are not a conservative.

No, but if you believe that a gas that makes up a large part of our atmosphere, is needed by plants, is created by humans and animals naturally, and is invisible, is not a pollutant, then obviously you're a right-wing uninformed idiot?

I'm 100% opposed to pollution, which used to be the brown cloud hanging over the city, coal deposits downwind, and dirty streams. When environmentalists start talking about pollution again, I'll be happy to support their efforts.

Re:Not "difference", but "dopeyness"

[DoninIN]

I'm inviting you to go to your local welding supply store. Purchase a bottle of this wonderful stuff, by a regulator and a mask and breahte in this non-pollutant for about oh... 4-6 minutes should do the trick. Your surviving family members will at least have learned that a naturally occuring gas created by man and animals and needed by plants to live might be a pollutant.

Different meaning of "independent"

[Woundweavr]

The general scientific method indicates that an experiment should be repeatable. Who does the experiment shouldn't matter. In this case, "independent" means, I think, a lab without connections to the first lab. By doing so, the chance that the experimenter is acting as a non-neutral agent in the experiment can be largely eliminated (as the experiment is repeated more and more times). While this has a side effect of potentially eliminating corporate bias, science inherently calls for it regardless of the source of funding.

Re:Different meaning of "independent"

[aevans]

And oil companies are funding research that says to climatologists, "your experiment is not repeatable and these are the flaws we see in it."

Carbon neutrality is complicated, no doubt

[benhocking]

Yeah, I've always been a bit skeptical about some ideas surrounding carbon neutrality. Obviously, the best option is to not emit carbon in the first place or to emit as little as possible, with ideas like increased efficiency, solar power, nuclear power, etc. However, planting trees does seem better than doing nothing, as long as those trees are native and aren't stifling diversity.

Re:Carbon neutrality is complicated, no doubt

[RsG]

However, planting trees does seem better than doing nothing

Ay, the trees do indeed do some good. Essentially, you're storing X many tonnes of carbon as biomass per Y many square kilometers (miles if you prefer) of land used. Key word here is "storing" though - those X tonnes of carbon will remain as biomass as long as there is a forest covering Y land. If you later decide to log, or burn, or otherwise clear, or if the forest dies due to natural causes (if for example the land was unsuitable for sustaining trees without human intervention, and we stop interfering) you undo the process. And let's be honest, eventually we will do exactly that. Nothing lasts forever.

Sagan's point (per the GP) is that in order to have a lasting impact on the amount of airborne Co2 in the carbon cycle, you need to first plant trees, then cut them down, then bury them. You need to lock up the carbon as biomass, and then remove that biomass from the system. Otherwise, you just end up back at square one when the carbon compounds in question burn, decay, or are otherwise returned to the air.

I'd be in favor of switching over to biofuels, to ditch the fossil fuel habit, and then creating an artificial carbon sink by diverting some of the biomass used in making the fuel to long term storage. Burying it deep enough should do the trick; it isn't dangerous, so it doesn't matter if the carbon sink leaks a bit over time. That, or we find a way to make plastics from biomass, and start using those in construction and the like (make a useful carbon sink, instead of a mere dump).

Oh, not Michael Crichton.

[Grendel Drago]

Ugh, not this Michael Crichton crap again. The man thinks that an underground conspiracy of cackling socialists in lab coats debasing their fields for some vague political reason is way more plausible than moneyed interests debasing science for their own ends, when there are plainly billions of dollars at stake, and there's a demonstrable money trail from said interests to fake science.

I think his sense of perspective is a bit... skewed.

Shoot'em All

[wolff000]

Why not just wipe out around half the population of the planet and start this little society experiment all over. This time around has turned out to be an absolute failure.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[ArcherB]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Tanktalus]

Throwing the word "censor" around like that seems to imply some sort of first-amendment complaint. But nothing could be further from the truth. What's going on is simple. The oil industry has money. They have the right to throw it where they want. If you want some of their money, don't piss 'em off.

The solution, then, should be obvious. NSTA needs to stop taking money that has strings. Until then, they will self censor to ensure the money continues to flow.

(I said obvious, not simple.)

I suppose the question is: do we prefer organisations like this to garner private dollars, or would we rather increase taxes to pay for this organisation's operations? Or, the third option: would we prefer disbanding it? Note that disbanding it not only probably wouldn't work (it's natural for people to organise into groups based on creed, philosophy, job description), but probably wouldn't save money (pushing all the decision-making down into state or county-based groups - not saying that this is bad, just expensive).

Re:apolitical...

[WhiplashII]

we tend to be smart and are used to often being the smartest one around, so we tend to be jackasses when other people express an opinion that does not agree with our own.

And, of course, the definition of "smart" that is used here is "agrees with me..."

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[Red Flayer]

I think it's funny (read: sad) that slashdot has such a leftist slant to it. Sadly, when someone makes a comment that outs the truth (see the post I'm commenting on) it gets modded as a 'troll'... interesting.

I'm sure the OP in this thread was modded troll because of the antagonistic way in which it was written, regardless of whether or not it had elements of truth to it. That antagonism is, in fact, trollish behavior, and deserving of a troll mod.

As to your post:

where does the NSTA get its funding

Other companies and NGOs? It's not an either|or choice between taxpayer funding and corporate funding. Never mind the fact that the NSTA is not eligible for government funding. What's more likely is that the companies with interest in seeing this video silenced would shift their funding to another organization. It still boils down to whether principles trump cash, and the answer for NSTA is no.

it's impossible (read: improbable) to get a donation made from a corporation (or an individual) completely selflessly and without any self-interest expected back... except of course in the form of tax dollars

I disagree completely. There does not necessarily have to be any financial interest on the part of the donor -- the self-interest could be the feeling of having 'done good' or the feeling of having met one's debt to society. Yours is a very cynical view (perhaps because your motivation is solely self-interest? not trying to insult you, just to figure out where you got the idea that no one is capable of acting selflessly), and I think it is off-base.

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[Pedrito]

"If I was all noble and I made a movie I genuinely felt people needed to see to save the earth, wouldn't I just give it to PBS on day 1?"

Did it occur to you that: A, PBS doesn't exactly have the biggest audience of all the networks. Second of all, the people that generally watch PBS are probably educated enough to have a pretty good idea that Global Warming is for real and that man is causing it.

So, let's assume for the moment, that the target audience isn't the people who already know this stuff, but perhaps the people that don't. So, putting it in the theater will help give it a wider audience than it might otherwise get on PBS.

And you're bitching about this not being noble, but they're trying to GIVE AWAY tens of thousands of copies to schools FOR FREE and the schools won't take them.

Look, you say what you want, but Gore truly cares about this issue. He spent about 20 years of his life in congress and the senate doing everything he could to bring it to peoples attention. This has been his #1 issue for just about his entire career. Show me anyone in politics who's tried to do something more noble!

Re:Politics, Science and Money... Love em mmm mm g

[anwaya]

> Not a scientist, not someone who would actually have facts...

What, if you please, prevents a person who gets into a position where they can get things done from being allowed to "actually have facts"?

If this were true, then there'd be no point in anyone learning anything with a view to making informed decisions.

Your argument is absurd. Your own statements of "fact" are underresearched if not outright false ("all the scientists"). Please think again.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[WhiplashII]

weren't we supposed to have like 15 hurricanes hit New York this year?

Yeah, isn't it funny how a 1 degree change in a decade makes so much of a difference? Now, every weather event is Global Warming. It's hot - global warming. It's cold - global warming. It's windy - global warming.

Let me ask, can you tell the difference between two temperatures separated by 1 degree?

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[ArcherB]

Here is the link btw:
Accuweather

Natural variability allowed excessive dust from Africa and the el niño effect to kill the ability of hurricanes to grow this year. Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming.
If they could not predict the dust and el niño effects over a period of less than a year, why should I respect their predictions 10 years out?

What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.
Oh was it? You mean that global warming snuck up on us all last year? Why wasn't 2004 worse than 2003 which was worse than 2002 and so on? So I guess next year, if we don't have el niño and African dust, is it going to be another bumper year for hurricanes, increasing every year until we have hurricanes in Idaho? If we are talking about "Global Warming" here, why was 2005 an average year for hurricane's globally? (yes, it was a bad year in N. America, but average world-wide).

You telling me you know what caused last year's hurricane season is about as ridiculous as some preacher saying that it was caused because God was mad at the US policy toward homosexuals.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[zootm]

I think I have pretty much the same opinion as you here, actually.

Throwing the word "censor" around like that seems to imply some sort of first-amendment complaint.

It's not. I was just explaining why the analogy to materials which are rejected because they have no educational value (and I've not seen the film, but that's not the reason they gave for rejecting it) was fundamentally flawed.

The solution, then, should be obvious. NSTA needs to stop taking money that has strings. Until then, they will self censor to ensure the money continues to flow.

That's basically it. Compelling someone to self-censor is still using the power of censorship, though. The fact that they're one of the only parties willing to provide the funding gives them that power of censorship, and until "better" means of funding are found, they will continue to have that power.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[DavidShor]

Most science video's shown in schools have some celeb host who is irrelivent to the feild.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[ryanov]

Bonehead: If these people all lived independently in rural areas, they'd be using much more energy, or they'd have to become Amish or similar. The most energy-efficient modern place to use is in a city. I personally do own two cars, but since I moved into a city, I drive maybe 1/10th the amount that I used to. To some, the idea of using public transportation isn't even on the radar.

You're missing the source of the complaints...

[mengel]

It isn't that companies cannot or should not sponsor scientific resaearch relating to their products. It is that when they do so, they should do it in a way that doesn't taint the results, and they should publish the results whether they are favorable to them or not -- that is, do it scientifically.

If companies actually started doing this, there wouldn't be complaints.

However the history of companies like the big tobacco companies doing research and then showing it to their lawyers so they could claim it was "priveleged communications" to bury it, rather than publishing it, gives people a bad taste about corporate sponsored research.

Perhaps if you breathed into a paper bag for a sec

[ScentCone]

Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming

No, the el niño is periodic thing that's been happening for a very, very long time, and is considered a natural coupling of the ocean and atmosphere with a predictable recurrance. Whether any larger change in global temps has anything to do with how it interacts with other weather patterns is a separate issue, and not at all clear. But it is not "caused by global warming." That's complete BS. Likewise, the dust from Africa exists because the Sahara desert has been there for 2.5 million years. Dust storms blowing out to sea are completely expected, and happen all the time. We're just now getting the regular use of imaging tools and computer models that help us to understand how readily that hot bowl of dust impacts Atlantic storms. The Sahara is as dry now as it was 13,000 years ago, but has gone through numerous huge fluxuations in wetness and vegetation unrelated to "global warming" as that phrase is now used. Unless, of course, you consider the last ice age - things were cooler, then, and the Sahara desert was much larger, drier, and dustier than it is now.

What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.

What are you talking about? We have a hurrican season every year, and we're in the middle of a cyclic 25-30 year peak, which has been going on for thousands of years and is most likely tied to solar variation. Further, the number of storms reported in 2005 include storms that never came ashore - seen (and thus counted) by satellites that we've only recently had at our disposal. During a previous cycle (say, 100 years ago?) the dozen or so Atlantic storms that we saw stay out to sea might also have been there (or been more frequent), but they'd never have made it into the statistics that we now generate because they would have gone unobserved.

Take a deep breath, how about.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[Johnny5000]

The real problem is convincing people that preventing global warming matters. So what if a bunch of coast floods? Humanity has lived through worse. I say bring it on!

I suppose you live inland?

Self correcting problem

[flatulus]

I am a regular Slashdot reader, so I get to see all the "scares" that fly by on a daily basis. What amuses me most is the juxtaposition of "global warming" and "oil depletion".

Hey - we are running out of oil in the ground. As demand further outstrips supply, the price of gasoline will climb, and climb, and climb, and... Consumption will naturally fall as supplies fall. How can you consume what you cannot get?

Global warming freaks try to get us all in a tizzy about how we are destroying our planet with - fossil fuel consumption? (which I believe is the single largest factor contributing to greenhouse gases, right?)

The global warming freaks can huff and puff about how we're killing ourselves, but:

a) The world can't just STOP using fossil fuel, without a total collapse of modern civilization

and

b) Like it or not, the world cannot continue to consume fossil fuel at increasing rates, and will in fact have no choice but to reduce consumption, eventually reaching zero.

So does anyone really believe that anything meaningful can be done to curb global warming (with respect to fossil fuel consumption) that isn't already going to happen whether we want it to or not?

What I think we should be serious about is sequestering a percentage of fossil fuel production and make sure it is set aside for those industries that produce secondary products that are not possible without petroleum - e.g. pharmaceuticals, plastics, various advanced materials.

You might be able to build a clean-burning coal-fired automobile, given the NECESSITY of doing so (in the not-so-distant future), but can you imagine the difficulty of doing so with no plastics?

whatever....

Re:Self correcting problem

[Darren Hiebert]

Most of the fossil fuel consumed is in the form of coal, not oil. Yes, oil is necessary for vehicles, and they do generate a lot of carbon pollution.

Yet, while oil is starting on the decline, the world has enough coal to last hundreds of years. And most power generation is fueled by coal.

To get one's arms around the magnitude of coal consumed, let me cite this statistic, relayed to me by someone who works at a power plant near Nebraska City. That plant burns 780,000 lbs. of coal per hour, equivalent to 68 train-car loads per day.

Re:apolitical...

[MightyYar]

It's hex, so there are actually 16 different types of political.

Further, slashdot = apolitical > 2.

See how ignorant you are? :)

Downside to a TV release?

[doug141]

It seems he could reach more people by making the movie free on TV. If, as you suggest, he's interested in targeting a theater-going, dvd-buying, and money-paying demographic, he could STILL reach more people by making the movie free on TV as well as all the other stuff. Is there ANY downside to making the movie free on TV, other than cutting into profits?

Re:Downside to a TV release?

[espressojim]

Well, the movie would have to draw a larger audience than whatever was going to be shown in those timeslots otherwise. Otherwise, the station showing the movie would have less viewers, and thus lesser add revenue.

So, this sounds like an opportunity cost for TV stations, and it might be steep. Not to mention the fact that the movie will be broken up into 10-12 minute segments (at best) with 2-3 minute commercial breaks. Or, it's shown on TV at 3AM, which you know will just get the largest draw of the population to watch it.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[EzraSj]

You don't need to be a scientist to present the conclusions of the scientific community at large to the public.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[ryanov]

They're not a troll necessarily, but the fact remains: stupid is as stupid does.

Oh, Steven Milloy. Fabulous.

[Grendel Drago]

Yes, the great Steven Milloy! Lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute who stuck his name on content provided by RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris, enemy of "special, and often hidden interests" wherever they may be found!

Who, by the way, won't utter a peep against creationism, even when asked. Possibly because the NSF isn't employing him; I don't know.

By golly, if ever there was a man with an ironclad reputation for fairness, honesty and resistance to the encroachment of hidden interests, it must be Steven Milloy!

High School level, temperature and "Fuel is Cool"

[Woundweavr]

First, the NSTA represents secondary level science educators. "An Inconvenient Truth" holds material completely appropriate, and in most cases more advanced than they currently receive, for High School and Gen Ed science level courses. Science majors can read the peer reviewed papers mentioned in the documentary. Additionally, numbers are mentioned in the film along with "pretty graphs." Numbers without context would be meaningless, especially to lay people.

Second, it is not equivalent to your body increasing ".000000001 of a degree, steadily year after year." Perhaps greater familiarity with the concept of climate change would be beneficial before commenting. Humanity has existed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but lets look at more recent history. Being generous, let's say "civilization" is 6000 years old. In the last 100 years, temperature has increased 1.1 degrees F. If you're a 30 year old, thats in 6 months. It is projected that global temperatures will increase 2.5 to 10.5 degrees in the next 100 years if major energy changes are not made. Do you think a fever of over 110 degree F might amount to much?

I'm sure they're out there, but if I'm a science teacher and I'm going to spend valuable teaching time showing a movie, I want everything to be put together for me.

Well aren't you lazy? If you're talking about a movie made specifically for science classes, think again. The price would be too much for many districts and the quality would be much lower than "An Inconvenient Truth." If you're talking about teachers materials, you should check your facts. The information is freely available to anyone online. The movie and DVD packaging both point to this website as material can be updated and up-to-date instead of months or even years behind on the ever-increasing scientific consensus.

Re:apolitical...

[MightyYar]

(try again, that'll learn me to use preview!)

It's hex, so there are actually 16 different types of political.

Further, slashdot = apolitical << 2, as opposed to Fox News = apolitical >> 2.

See how ignorant you are? :)

Clean coal technology

[amightywind]

The TV commercial you describe refers to this site..

How can you argue with this?

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced a Presidential initiative to build "FutureGen," a $1 billion project that will lead to the world's first emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing greenhouse gases.

Re:Hey, dummies!

[oldwindways]

I just want to emphasize that scientists and engineers are essential to a colossal number of companies. Money that ExxonMobile contributes to education not only benefits them by hopefully raising a new generation of petroleum engineers, but it also helps any number of smaller start up companies that depend on a generation of Americans with a strong math and science background. Many of these companies can not afford to make massive donations to this end, in fact many of these companies do not even exist yet, but they will reap the benefits none the less.

While there may be political motives involved in such donations, you can only carry that argument so far. I work for a company that has a multi-million dollar initiative to get middle school students energized about math and ensure a future crop of engineers. This is a large defense contractor, so if we really wanted to brain wash the youth of America, we would do it through the history and political science classes, not through math.

Re:Inconvenient Truth is convenient bubkis....

[prandal]

At least they don't lie in their site name.

science is political

[ajs318]

Science is sometimes going to get in the way of politics, or vice-versa. It has been ever since Galileo. Sometimes, political desirability is at odds with scientific soundness.

Science usually wins in the end, though.

How about you finish the quote

[Sapphon]

[blockquote]quote which is attributed to Friedman goes: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders..."[/blockquote] ... within the constraints provided by law.

Those mightn't be the exact words (it's been a while since I read the original text, and I don't have the paper I wrote on CSR on hand), but, taken, to the limit, this means that a company will take any legal action neccessary to secure and guard profits.

So if a (legal) action of the company is morally reprehensible or otherwhise 'wrong', then it is the fault of the lawmakers for allowing it, not the executives of the company for playing within the rules. That's what Friedmann was saying.

The text is a good read, btw. If I remember the title, I'll post it for you.

Re:How about you finish the quote

[Rary]

Actually, as another poster pointed out, the actual quote makes no mention of "the constraints provided by law", but rather that the business "engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud".

So it is not, as you stated, the fault of lawmakers if a company's action is morally reprehensible or "wrong", unless you think that all morally reprehensible acts can somehow be crammed into the definitions of "deception" and "fraud".

Re:How about you finish the quote

[Sapphon]

The quote itself doesn't specifically mention lawmakers, no. However, earlier in the same article from which the quote stems, Friedman writes:

He (a corporate executive) has direct responsibility to his employers. That
responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which
generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic
rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.

Anything else?

Reducing Friedman's position to the contents of a single sentence is almost as bad as reducing Adam Smith to "that guy who talked about the invisible hand". Which, by the way, is also used by almost everyone completely incorrectly.

Re:How about you finish the quote

[Rary]

"...both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom..." (emphasis mine)

Even better. So, again, when businesses act in morally reprehensible ways, it is not the fault of lawmakers for failing to incorporate all morally reprehensible acts into law, it is, according to Friedman, definitely the responsibility of the people making morally reprehensible business decisions, for they are failing to conform to the basic rules of society as embodied in ethical custom.

I'm not trying to reduce Friedman's position to a single sentence. I'm merely arguing that it is not at all acceptable for business people to act in morally reprehensible ways and then hide behind the lame excuse of "but what I did was legal, so blame the lawmakers". And it seems Friedman agrees with me.

Re:How about you finish the quote

[Sapphon]

Friedman agrees with you to the extent that CEO's cannot hide soley behind the "it was legal" excuse. However, he has also written about the unsuitability of unrepresentative, unelected people (i.e. CEO's) taking it upon themselves to define what is "morally reprehensible" or not.

CEO's have a duty to their employers (shareholders), to society, and to themselves. How is CEO to know what society wants? Well, how about looking at what the representatives of a society (politicians) say they want. How are the values of society codified? Through law.

What shareholders want of CEO's is simple: they want profit. If they want anything, they'll write it into the company's charter, which is, guess what - also law.

Now, obviously there are situations where there is no clear legal "right" or "wrong", and it precisely in these situations that Friedman argues a CEO should sublimate his own moral conscience - which might compell him to a course of action his employers entirely disagree with - in favour of doing that which he knows definitely is right: doing what the shareholders want and not breaking any laws. CEO's don't get to decide what's morally reprehensible or not in line-ball cases.

If you're not attempting to reduce Friedman to single sentence, you are at the very least stripping all complexity out of his arguments and then selectively quoting them. You obviously haven't read the article, otherwhise I wouldn't have to spend my time contextualing the excerpts I've used.

The Environmentalist Religion

[rjschwarz]

I think most people believe global warming is probably real. After all there is evidence that Mars has been warming up as well over the same period of time. There is also evidence that volcanoes spew out some nasty stuff that can warm up the planet. The question is should we screw up our economies when man is probably not even close to the biggest source?

Your standards are wack.

[Grendel Drago]

By your lights, "all known living organisms descend from a common ancestor" is also unproven by "decent scientific standards", as is "HIV causes AIDS", and possibly "the Earth is more than six thousand years old", depending on how charitable we're being. Because not only is the science not unanimous, I can find you plenty of axe-grinders who'll be willing to bend your ear on these topics.

Not to mention that if any of this buys us five or ten years, it's important. It can make the difference between transitioning to nuclear fusion and transitioning back to the stone age. This isn't important to you?

Give it away for free on iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not give it away for free on iTunes. By pass the teachers and let the students download it onto their computers or video enabled iPods.
Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple, I'm sure he can work something out with Steve Jobs. All Apple has to do if foot the bill for storage and download bandwidth.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[hswerdfe]

maybe you should actually look into some climate research.
No, Global warming did not predict 15 hurricanes hitting NYC this year.
Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes.
This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including :
  * more drought
  * more floods
  * desertification
  * loss of productive farm land
  * more extreme weather changes in local areas
All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.

but what is OBVIOUS is that
  1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
  2. CO2 is a green house gas
  3. Global temperatures are starting to go up

If Carbon emissions are left unchecked by 2050 we will have twice the pre-industrial age level of carbon in the atmosphere. and there is a good chance we won't be be able to slow them down fast enough to avoid massive temperature increases. Every time in earths history the climate has radically changed the dominate life form on the planet became extinct. Guess what species is the dominant life form this time.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[harl]

Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming.

Evidence please.

Only in America

[4D6963]

Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?

No, not in the USA.

Trolling aside, this is really a problem you meet more frequently in the USA, and I think it's because americans are engaged in a big arm wrestling match between the science side and the faith side. That's how such topics as evolution or global warming become disproportionatedly huge debates as in Europe hardly anyone sees these topics as controversial, since even the roman catholic church admitted the theory of evolution, and as no-one can in their right mind question global warming.

Here, we rather discuss the consequences and the possible solutions, no matter the position on the political spectrum, as in the USA, it seems like the debate about whether global warming is due to our industrial activity or even is exists is kept alive in order to avoid having to move on to the next level, which is discussion of solutions and acting up.

If I was a bit more paranoiac than I am, I'd think that anyone having any interests in the oil industry is throwing oil (ha ha, i know, sorry) on the fire of this debate to protect their short and medium term interests.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[NichG]

Is one allowed to submit tap water/sea water/etc for use in this test and/or have you perform the test at a different ambient temperature than 1 atm?

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[mugnyte]

Sir, I hate to break it to you, so I'll put it gently:

  - There's not enough farmable land for everyone to "spread out"
  - If everyone was a farmer, we'd have a population skill set diverted from many other important things.
  - Check your average rural fuel usage statistics, even culling down to trips of "necessity". Compare that to city life. Surprised?
  - The NUMBER OF PEOPLE in an area form a city, naturally, not by force. It's a socio-economic reality that people "clump" (traffic, markets, trends, crowds, shopping). Cities are unavoidable.
  - The carbon-uptake of a city IS lower, but can be easily mitigated by switching this (more easily contained) to a new fuel than an equal number of rural folk spread out. Consider: Converting commuters to bicycles is way easier in a city than the country. Hint: It's being done right now.
  - I believe carbon uptake by trees is the most efficient atmospheric remediation technique for CO2, as you imply. However, the location of the trees doesn't need to be in the city. It can be anywhere.
  - BY THE WAY, the power generators (NG, Coal) supplying our population are the real culprits. You should be concerned more with individual farms trying to heat/cook alone (4 walls against the cold) than cities, where the average temperature is 1-5 degrees higher, just from proximity.

  Sir, I implore you. Don't tilt against the windmill. Think about the core of your argument, and start planting trees - even in cities. You alone could make a change and sway a small group that affects the world. Sitting here typing is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass, which (if you haven't figured out) is not making any friends.

Full quote

[Sapphon]

there is one and only one social responsibility of business-to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.

From "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits", The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970
copies here or here (annotated)

What, we can't call a spade a spade?

[Grendel Drago]

Consider, for example, a thread about IQ testing. Someone drops a post about how IQ tests have conclusively shown that black people are inferior to white people, and have for many years; it's a conspiracy of liberal race-mixin' scientists who are keeping the results quiet. This guy gets modded troll for posting that.

By your lights, he was modded troll simply for "disagreeing" with the majority. Not for willful ignorance, for baseless assertions which have been refuted a thousand times, but for "disagreement".

Re:What, we can't call a spade a spade?

[Anonymous Coward]

You MUST be new here. That is standard operation for Slashdot.

The lunatics are running (moderating) the asylum. Slashdot is nothing more than an echo chamber
for those who:

a) hate America
b) blame America
c) hate capitalism
c) hate conservatism
c) hate Chrisitianity
d) hate Christians
e) hate Microsoft
f) hate non-free software
G) hate George Bush

(If you say something even remotely positive about anything listed above, you are on the fast-track to
being labeled a Troll or Flamebate. It is absolutely predictable and enternaining to watch this phenomenon.)

Slashdotters are notoriously/hilariously sheep-like as well. You will, no doubt, find that the vast majority (OK, all.) of
threads/posts not only devolve into an opportunity for the sheeple to spout one of, if not more of, the ideals listed
above, but that at least one, if not all of the following little blurbs will be found in any thread. No, you will not
find much original thought or dissent here at good 'ol Slashdot. Gotta love those tolerant and open-minded liberals!

1) Nice straw man...
2) Oh wait...
3) x != n
4) ...tin-foil hat...
5) Er,
6) Nice. (usually followed by some predictable, unintelligent sarcasm)
7) Wow! (usually followed by some predictable, unintelligent sarcasm)
8) Any of the multitude of childish spellings of "Microsoft" or "Windows". (M$, Windoze, etc...)

If anyone would like to challenge the validity of anything I just wrote, please do so. What, no takers? Thought so...

Now, back to your regularly scheduled propaganda...

Re:What, we can't call a spade a spade?

[finiteSet]

If you say something even remotely positive about anything listed above, you are on the ast-track to being labeled a Troll or Flamebate

If I stepped into a southern Baptist church and started extolling the virtues of the pro-choice or gay rights movement I would be trolling - regardless of how meritous my arguments may be. Nonetheless, I have seen several pro-microsoft, pro-christian, pro-conservative posts get +5. It typically hinges on how childishly the poster taunts the majority. Let's analyze your post.

Slashdotters are notoriously/hilariously sheep-like as well.

It is called consensus. Yet you choose instead to insult the masses.

Gotta love those tolerant and open-minded liberals!

Now you are a) stereotyping and b) picking an offtopic fight.

If anyone would like to challenge the validity of anything I just wrote, please do so.

Success - you lured me out. Most know that they are being trolled and simply skip over such posts; the fact that you are ignored is far from a sign of victory.

I will continue to enjoy reading posts from those who make their arguments with maturity and reason - regardless of whether or not I ultimately agree with what they are saying. If you come back tomorrow, Mr Anonymous Coward, with such a post and I come back tomorrow with mod points, perhaps you'll find that your situation is different. However, if you continue with the insults and playground taunts, you'll have no one to blame but yourself for being down in the -1 ditch.

Global Warming "Freaks"?

[bodland]

What is a global warming freak?

What is the opposite, earth destroying selfish bonehead?

The fact you pointed out that fossil fuels are going to run out is key. If we don't start to change our behavior in regards to fossil fuel consumption (which we "freaks" are already doing) then the earth destroying selfish boneheads are in for a shock. So are we to provide exceptions for those fools who believe that they deserve to consume more than a fair share of global resources?

Think about how to balance fuel consumption and global warming while you row your boat down fifth avenue to work.

Global warming minimizers are quick to forget that a huge percentage of the earth's population live not far above sea level. And it seems possible that those levels are going to be significantly higher in the coming century at our present rate of consumption.

Do what you can do now. Reduce, recycle, buy more efficient transportation or use mass transit when possible, use renewable energy sources...is this so difficult to do? Make plans for the future, set an example for children to follow. Living heavy with all the toys and the lights on does not set the example.

Re:Global Warming "Freaks"?

[808140]

While I understand what you're trying to say, you're missing the GP's point. Let's say the price of oil is 3 dollars per gallon. As we deplete our resources (which we are certainly doing at an alarming rate) the price of oil will not remain at 3 dollars per gallon until there is no more oil. So there will be no "shock", at least not economically speaking. As oil becomes more expensive to discover, well, and refine, its price will naturally go up, because scarcity generally forces prices to climb. So going forward, the price of oil is going to increase, and increase, and increase.

This doesn't happen overnight, but it doesn't happen really slowly, either. People don't have an unlimited supply of money. People drive SUVs and otherwise have lifestyles that center around wanton waste primarily because they can afford to do so. It's sad to say, but for most people, the desire to be green doesn't fit into their calculations. We can bitch and moan about the death of altruism all day, but when we check back into reality, people are basically selfish and not particularly concerned about the common good (see, for example, the tragedy of the commons).

Luckily for you, and for humans in general, in this particular case, economics is working in our favour, surprisingly. Because as the price of oil increases -- and it will increase -- people will naturally substitute away from gas-guzzling machinery and inefficient oil-based energy solutions. Right now, oil is the cheapest alternative, but with prices continuing to increase, this ceases to be the case. This is already starting to happen in some places -- for example, solar power is increasingly being used by vineyards in California's Napa Valley (see the latest edition of the Economist) because vineyards get a lot of sun and use very little energy during the summer months -- thus the vineyards can sell their excess power back to the energy companies when prices are high, and buy it back from them later in the fall, when prices are low (vineyards consume most of their power during the harvest). They aren't doing this because "they love the environment" and they're not doing it because "the government said you must", they're doing it because it's profitable. That's why most people do things, unfortunately.

But I guess the GP's point, maybe, is that being green is increasingly going to be necessary because oil prices are on the rise. Here's something for you to ponder: we will never run out of oil. Can you believe I just said that? Do you know why? Because eventually, what oil is left in the ground will simply be too expensive to bother extracting. If oil costs 500 dollars a barrel, demand will be nearly zilch -- at 500 dollars a barrel, there are already lots of other energy production methods that are much, much cheaper -- heck, producing hydrocarbons in a lab using nuclear power is cheaper at that price. So why would anyone even think of trying to take it out of the ground? The answer is, they won't.

Hybrid vehicles have been all the rage lately in California (which is where I live), and let me tell you, it's not because we're all a bunch of tree-hugging hippies. It's not because we love being green, although that might be what we say at parties. It's because at 3 dollars a gallon, with our insane average commute time, it makes good fiscal sense to avoid the SUV. That's what it comes down to. In France, gasoline costs nearly 4 times as much as it does in the US, so is it at all surprising that the average French person is much less likely to be wasteful? Why do you think little fuel-efficient Renauds and Peugeots are so popular there? It's not altruism, buddy, it's economics.

And the price of oil is going to keep going up. Some people like their SUVs enough that even at 3 bucks a gallon they're willing to bear the burden. But will they be willing to do that at 4 bucks a gallon? 5? 8? It's going to happen, so they'd better start thinking about it.

As for your quip about rowing your boat down to

That's not funny.

[mosb1000]

You can mod that funny, but eugenics was considered a scientific endeavor at during the '30s when the KKK was at it's peak. Many people simply took it as fact that white people were genetically superior to other races. It is an apt comparison, though most people wouldn't agree because global warming is "real" and eugenics is "fake".

Re:That's not funny.

[letxa2000]

True. The comparison will be much more valid in about 70 years when I firmly believe the current chicken-with-its-head-cut-off scaremongering about human-induced climate change is going to look every bit as silly as KKK eugenics does now. The probability is nearly zero that we have a sufficient grasp on the global chaos that is our atmosphere in order to make the policy recommendations that some of these people advocate. I suspect that in 70 years (and probably only 20 or 30), we'll look back and laugh at the current nonsense much like we laugh at the "coming ice age" science of the 70's or eugenics of the 30's or drowning witches of a few centuries ago.

I'll get flamed, I'm sure, but it's amazing that some people go crazy about the freedoms we have supposedly lost under Bush but aren't even phased by the implications of some of the solutions proposed to deal with the global warming "threat." Absolutely amazing.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[HiThere]

Do you know that it's easier to predict the seasons than the weather?

Why should you be able to predict the seasons when you can't tell whether it will rain tomorrow?

I'm sorry, but your argument "Why wasn't 2004 worse than 2003 which was worse than 2002 and so on? " appears silly. Your general argument would be worth addressing, except that your tone implies you won't understand the replies.

However, I consider planetary albedo (generally ice coverage) more significant than hurricanes. Frequent and intense hurricanes are a predicted end result from certain weather models. Ice is directly measurable, and directly causative.

Also, global changes are more significant than local changes. Rising sea levels are more significant that melting glaciers. One may contribute in a minor way to the other.

P.S.: "The Day After Tomorrow" was based on an absurd story line, and it compressed (hopefully) centuries worth of change into a year or less, but the basic concept is reasonable. (Except that Mexico would welcome folk from the US in such an event.) It bears as much relation to science as Shakespeare Histories bear to history. I.e., there are several points of match-up, but it's been adapted to suit supporters more interested in political propaganda than facts.

P.P.S.: Also there's currently a question of whether the shutdown of the great conveyor would actually cause an ice age in Europe. AFAIK this hasn't yet been decided. But at the time that the movie was made it was the orthodox belief, where now it's disputed. (I haven't heard any report on the effect on the US. One can presume that this is also in dispute.)

N.B.: IF the shutdown of the great conveyor leads to an ice age, then a "big melt" can be expected to be the normal prequel to a new ice age. The mechanism would work sort of like this:
1) Temperatures rise
2) Ice melts
3) The earth starts absorbing more sunlight, causing temperatures to rise more quickly.
4) Enough ice melts to shut down the great conveyor. (Say, much of Greenland.)
5) The great conveyor shuts down.
6) The poles freeze and the equator heats up.
7) The new ice on the poles reflects lots of sunlight, so the earth cools down, but the oceans are still warm, so there's lots of moisture evaporating.
8) Lots of precipitation, cloud coverage increases. In the north snow starts piling up.
9) More clouds & snow means more sunlight reflected. Things cool more.
10) The glaciers begin walking south.
11) Finally the oceans cool off. There's now less precipitation.
12) Cloud coverage decreases, but there's all that new snow...so things keep getting cooler for awhile. ......
I don't know what's supposed to happen here. Something eventually causes the glaciers to retreat.

Note that an important part of this cycle is the thermal mass of the oceans. When they are warm, they evaporate a lot of water. When they are cool, the amount of evaporation is a lot less.

N.B.: I don't say anything here about how long any particular step lasts. I don't know. Some indications seem to show that the glaciers may begin a rapid walk south in as little as one year. (Quick frozen Mammoths with tender green vegetation still in their stomachs, e.g. Perhaps there are other explanations.)

He could put it on YouTube.

[doug141]

LOL, there's a lot of tortured logic in this thread on why Gore might be shunning PBS to avoid the most obvious conclusion. Look, he could put the movie on YouTube, and none of the anti-PBS arguments apply there. You know what is on YouTube? The movie trailer! An AD for his movie!

1) Make a movie about saving the earth
2) Control distribution,
3) PROFIT!!!

Re:He could put it on YouTube.

[kchrist]

You forgot #4:

4) Donate the profits

Your point, again?

Weather vs. Climate.

[Grendel Drago]

But we are supposed to believe them when they say that the film is 99% correct on long term forecasts when they can't tell me if it is going to rain today or not.

I can tell you that next July 1 in New York City will be warmer than next January 1 in New York City. But I can't tell you whether or not it's going to rain/snow on those dates.

If you can understand this, you can understand the difference between climate and weather. That's a nice soundbite, but it's intellectually void, and you should know better.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[sycodon]

So let's all kill ourselves and leave the planet to the animals...you go first, please.

Well, duh

[FhnuZoag]

If they said that this was because it would threaten funding from their sponsors, then, well, YES. This is not so much an argument, as a tautology.

I agree - no strawmen

[benhocking]

I agree, leave the strawman out of it. I was attempting to point out that his argument (and yours) is a strawman argument.

Sorry but not every scientist agrees with the claim regardless of who is funding them. That is a simply a standard phrase used by any group to dismiss anyone who opposes them. It is the cliche method... in other words if you use it you are indicating you do not care to debate as you have already decided.

Can you find one scientist who disagrees with that claim who is NOT being funded by a fossil fuel company? Should be pretty easy to prove me wrong. I've made a very straightforward claim, and one that only requires one counter-example. I'm more than willing to debate you as I'm quite familiar with the science. I was merely pointing out that the argument that there is no consensus is wrong (as implied by the anti-science comment). There is a consensus amongst all scientists not being funded by fossil fuel companies.

I know there is little debate that anthropogenic global warming occurs, the real debate which you gloss over is that no one agrees on just how much is being contributed by man.

I'm guessing you don't know what anthropogenic means. :D

If your argument has merit them argue the point, attacking those who offer the opposing opinion and not the opinion itself shows you have no desire to debate the issue as your hard locked mentally in your belief.

I was arguing the point - that anthropogenic global warming can't be anti-science when it is supported by virtually all scientists. What point did you think he was making? (Assuming he was making a point, of course.)

Re:I agree - no strawmen

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there is little debate that anthropogenic global warming occurs, the real debate which you gloss over is that no one agrees on just how much is being contributed by man.

I'm guessing you don't know what anthropogenic means. :D

He probably does know what anthropogenic means. He's saying that nobody agrees on its magnitude.

For someone with three science degrees, you seemed to exercise very little critical thinking when evaluating his sentence.

And the discussion on magnitude is the heart of the issue. Yes, with current knowledge of radiation in participating media, we can reasonably expect that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will change the way the earth retains heat. What we don't know is how much or how fast, because the entire system is extremely nonlinear and full of crazy feedbacks and forcings we don't either don't understand or don't know about. So while the majority of scientists and engineers in the related fields may agree that there should be some sort of anthropogenic effect on global warming, the reality of the matter is that they don't agree on what the magnitude of that effect is.

And for this reason people both inside and outside of the relevant fields seem to get this enormous "you're either with us or against us" mentality, and the politicians and politically motivated environmentalists jump on this because it suits their particular brand of deception. When they can paint anyone who questions the politics as a "science hating denialist" and have the public believe them, they've done their jobs well. They've convinced the public that there is no middle ground, there are only extremes, and have thus pulled off the scary yet impressive feat of making their real enemy not exist.

Fair enough. Downside to a free release?

[doug141]

You make excellent points about a TV release. I'll rephrase: whats the downside to a free release, other than cutting into profits? I'm sure Gore knows enough about the internet to know what a torrent is. And YouTube.

Re:Fair enough. Downside to a free release?

[Vellmont]

I'll rephrase: whats the downside to a free release, other than cutting into profits?

You seem to think that the only one affected by a free release is the movie producers. If you release the movie for free, it becomes less attractive for the content distributors. They really don't give a rats ass about everyone seeing the movie, they just want to make money by selling advertising.

So say you release the movie on some free distribution channels outside the normal mass-markets. Let's say 20% of your target market sees it via these free distribution channels. If you then wanted to distribute it via a more mass-market channel like ABC, CBS, etc, you just reduced your market segment by 20%. It also might be a market segment advertisers really LOVE (higher tech people that can watch via YouTube or Bittorent tend to be younger and have higher incomes). What you really wanted was to get the other 80%, not the 20%. By distributing it free on a limited channel you just made it that much harder to get the mass-market channel.

Re:Fair enough. Downside to a free release?

[espressojim]

I'll totally agree with you there. Release it as a podcast. Use some of the already made money to fund bandwidth. And/or release it as a torrent. Perhaps wrap the download with an inbedded torrent-client, so people don't have to set up a client themselves.

"Causality"

[gklue]

Did anyone ever prove that smoking causes cancer? I understand that statistically there is a high correlation, but did anyone point at the mechanism where "smoking does this, which makes this happen, ... which causes cells to mutate and become cancer?" I thought this was why it was so hard to win a smoking lawsuit.

I'd love to see some links.

And where did smoking come from? A group of people who were taken advantage of by another group. Some people might call that justice.

Bzzt - wrong!

[enodo]

There is no "global warming" on Mars. There *have* been some isolated incidences of regions on Mars that are warming up, over the course of 3 Martian years or so, but to infer from that that anything like a global warming trend of the type seen (and predicted) on earth is invalid.

As a reference, see the discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

The case for anthropogenic global warming is extraordinarily solid, and is based on lots and lots of observations of different effects, combined with modeling based on principles of physics. These talking points are just hot air.

You forgot "industry shill".

[Grendel Drago]

No, no, not bible-beating rednecks, well-heeled industry shills! And that stereotype exists largely because there's a well-documented conspiracy to debase science and muddy the waters on behalf of said industry. (There's an analogue for creationism as well.)

You're welcome to question global warming, just as you're welcome to question the theory of evolution. It gets old when the same tired crap is thrown out time and again, designed not to advance anyone's understanding of anything, but to sow public confusion and doubt.

Re:You forgot "industry shill".

[derubergeek]

Hi -

I understand your point and agree with it and would love to expound on my thoughts about the equivalent on the environmental industry side [imagine how they'd react if they were constantly referred to as "Big Ecology"]. Unfortunately, slashdot is not a forum for intelligent debate due to the deficiencies in the moderation system and I don't have a workable method to take this offline [grendel.dyndns.org doesn't connect for me]. I'd honestly like to discuss it with you further.

Cheers

Re:Do Environmentalists Really Believe in Evolutio

[FhnuZoag]

Believing in gravity doesn't mean you should jump off a cliff, idiot.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[WhiplashII]

Especially when those that research it at all finally get down to the nitty-gritty: a 1 degree change measured so far.

What?!?! Those global warming guys keep telling me how it is global warming every time we hit a record temperature, and the real event is one degree?!? You can't even feel the difference!

"Environmental movement" and nuclear power

[benhocking]

I'm glad to see the environmental movement has rethought its position on nuclear power.

I never said that. I said that I thought that nuclear power is possibly the best option for dealing with greenhouse gases. Al Gore agrees with me, of course, as does at least one founder of the Sierra Club, IIRC. However, there are still several people in the "environmental movement" who are anti-nuclear power. And, I'll admit, there are a few wackos in the "environmental movement", but find me a movement without nuts... (pun intended).

Advertisement, shocked, shocked I am!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science
> can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?"

Science is one thing. Science portrayed by a power hungry politician blatantly and obviously using it to try to gain the presidency is quite another. We won't even bother getting into left-wing politicians in the late '60's onwards getting into ecology^H^H^H^H^H^H^H environmentalism because it gives them a secondary argument to massively control business when the usual class warfare rhetoric starts to fail (accurate description regardless of the science, which is what most people put on blinders about).

I support not putting this ad for Al Gore to school children.

Mod parent up

[saltydogdesign]

Holy cow! A clear thinking, rational human on Slashdot! Must be a sign of the end times!

Re:Mod parent up

[Doc Ruby]

No, it's a sign that a horde of TrollMods are about to descend and anonmyously mod me down.

It's always end times here at the leading edge of all the "nows" that have ever been. Some of us like it here :).

Damn right there's a difference.

[Grendel Drago]

Do you think that industry-created "think tank" fronts are in any way comparable to scientists working on grants? Have you considered that a scientist who fakes evidence and fudges numbers to garner reputation is taking a tremendous risk of being utterly discredited and never trusted again, while these "think tanks" can do so with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the funds will keep rolling in?

Your attempts at drawing a moral equivalence are feeble, and were I a working scientist, I'd probably be offended.

Re:Damn right there's a difference.

[Pentavirate]

I never drew a moral equivalence. You did. Just because you can cite someone else that may be more dishonest doesn't negate my statement.

I just threw out a thought I had that our expectations that all science should be apolitical is naive. Scientists have to pay the bills just like everyone else. My father-in-law was a scientist at a government lab. If you couldn't justify your research, you could find yourself out of funding and out of a job.

I'm not saying that these scientists are being dishonest. I'm just saying that they would probably support any kind of film or propoganda that will help bring in research money.

Re:Damn right there's a difference.

[buhatkj]

i agree its not the same thing. although i will tell you that most working scientists DO have a PERSONAL agenda in what they choose to research, and what they try to prove. most of them if asked will not even be too shy to tell you about it. I know that my wife has a vested interest in the well being of animals, and so she chooses to take her career in the direction of being a vet, to see to their care. she insisted we donate as much to animal rescue after Katrina as the red cross.
so don't try to tell me scientists are wholly objective (not that YOU necessarily did, but i was afraid the argument might head that way...). they are still human, so no, they aren't.

Re:Damn right there's a difference.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Do you think that industry-created "think tank" fronts are in any way comparable to scientists working on grants? Have you considered that a scientist who fakes evidence and fudges numbers to garner reputation is taking a tremendous risk of being utterly discredited and never trusted again...

Yes, but those scientists are mostly working to get grants, and fudging numbers can do that for them. My girlfriend works in a bookstore. Up until about a year ago, however, she was a biochemist. She quit the field entirely after years of job after job where she was constantly asked to make up numbers, change numbers, sign her name to grant requests and papers that conveniently failed to mention the obviously biased and nonstandard methodologies used, etc. She delivered a photocopied page of her lab journal to the dean of the department at a major research university. On that page, her boss had written "add 20% to all these numbers" for some cancer research that was ongoing. The dean was more concerned she might talk to the press than in doing anything about correcting the situation. He still runs the lab and was not punished in any way. A friend in the next lab commented to her a few weeks after she quit that "They hired a chinese woman who can hardly speak English and needs work to stay in the country. She won't make any noise like you did."

What does my anecdote prove? Nothing. Nonetheless, you might want to rethink your faith in researchers' concern over their reputations as compared to their desire to get that grant funding.

Re:Damn right there's a difference.

[famebait]

I'm just saying that they would probably support any kind of film or propoganda that will help bring in research money. Just about any state of affairs can be used to argue that more research is necessary. It never ceases to amaze me that there are poeple who will take the output of fora owned by corporations (whose leaders are legally obliged to maximise shareholder interest in all legal ways) at face value, and yet consider the output of independent scientists inherently suspect, i.e. they are all lying and faking their research in a concerted effort and never being ratted out by their bitterest rivals. Sure, it can be fun to play with exotic conspiracy theories, but at the same time ignoring the influence of oil companies that we know are conspiring to support thier own agenda and unlike independent researchers have enormous financial clout to do it with, that is just plain silly.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[fotoflojoe]

Most science videos shown in schools have some celeb host who is irrelevant to the field.
Hello, I'm Troy MacLure.
You may remember me from such science film classics as:
Don't eat that Uranium!
And:
Honey, I shrunk the Amazon.

Let me save you some time

[Pentavirate]

Summary of discussion:

Blah blah blah Global Warming is true and you're stupid blah blah blah

Blah blah blah Global Warming is not true and you're stupid blah blah blah

Utter bullshit

[snowwrestler]

I've pointed this out before, but I have yet to see any rigorous evidence for the assertion that scientists gain anything by somehow promoting a theory they do not believe is true.

It's classic FUD--an unfounded, unsupported ad hominem attack that draws attention from the substantive issue--the science itself. I could understand it if there were some evidence that scientists had anything to gain by promoting a movie they agree with. For example there is no question that oil companies have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo usage of fossil fuels, just like tobacco companies have a financial stake in the number of people who start smoking every year. But there's no evidence that all the climate scientists will be super-rich in a couple years if only the public would learn about global warming.

Do you think that scientists that have a vested interest in global warming (ie reputations, grant money, etc.) might support a film that furthers their cause?

Do you think you can get away with totally unfounded assertions just because you used a question mark?

Re:Utter bullshit

[Pentavirate]

I can't believe how venomous the responses I've received on this post have been. Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs that you can't see any kind of logical questioning without such hostility?

There was no attack. There was no implication that any scientist was being untruthful. I didn't even make a statement on whether global warming is true or not. Isn't it still ok to take information with a grain of salt? Or is this too holy of a cause for that to be allowed now?

The question mark was meant to make people think about the proposition and not make it a statement of fact. If you're saying that I can't even make an hypothesis based off of logical thought, where does that leave your belief in science? It is unfounded in this instance because I have made no study on it and so I wouldn't dream of asserting it as fact. I believe I was being up front in how I framed the post.

Re:Utter bullshit

[WrongMonkey]

Albert Einstein himself introduced a "cosmological constant" to support his (false) belief. That's a big example, small ones happen all the time, you just don't want to know about them.

Super Cereal!

[fernandoh26]

The producer wants everyone to know that she is SUPER SERIAL about her film. No matter what she tries, no one is taking her SERIALLY!

I don't know about the rest of you, but this is a SERIAL matter.

Troll Alert!

[dentar]

The entire story is a biased troll!!!

The two cannot be seperated

[Chode2235]

Science and scientific diciplines are simply avenues to help create knowledge by explaining the world. Knowledge is used and distributed through societies to help shape opinion and world view. Politics is the backbone and organizing structure of all societies, therefore science is simply at its root a tool of politics. The two can never be disjoined, nor is is necessary or benificial. We should be conducting scientific research in areas that have some tangiable benifit for humanity.

Re:High School level, temperature and "Fuel is Coo

[bogjobber]

I think that was exactly his point. The movie itself was a political movie. He is not saying the claims in the movie aren't backed up by science. Why would he want to show the movie, when he can just talk about all the numbers and make the same point himself? If they wanted to make a scientific argument, then they would've included actual numbers and figures in the movie. It's not a scientific movie, it's a political one. The fact that they slapped Al Gore's name all over it proves that.

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[NMerriam]

Why would you laugh? An oil slick really will evaporate over time. It happens every day in the Gulf of Mexico where oil literally rises to the surface from the sea floor.

Yes, and every day on the Gulf of Mexico beaches are covered with natural tar. All the components do not just vanish.

DDT

[argoff]

It's estimated that 50 million people have died that wouldn't have otherwise if DDT was still in common use.
DDT would need to be pretty goddam harmfull to justify those kinds of numbers, it isn't. The DDT story is the epitome of
the EPA their junk science. DDT

Re:DDT

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I can't believe you're actually linking to junkscience.com. It just goes to show some people never bother to research their sources. Are you sure there is not a Fox news article you can cite as well? First, DDT is a dangerous pesticide that was horribly overused. It can be applied in beneficial ways, but is rarely the best option. The 50 million people number you cite is pure crap from a source so lacking in credibility they have been used as an example or the dangers of corporate sponsored propaganda in numerous studies. Now tell me again how this in any way indicates humans are not responsible for global warming?

Michael Crichton is an anti-science hack

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe anybody would cite Crichton as some kind of authority on science and policy. He's an opportunistic pulp fiction writer at best and a disingenuous propagandist at worst. Biotechnologists have had to defend their work from the unreal dangers portrayed in Jurassic Park. Nanotechnologists have had to defend their careers from the falsehoods of Prey. Non-xenophobes were stuck defending the Japanese in Rising Sun. And now, climatologists are forced to defend their science from the spin and outright lies in State of Fear. Crichton is a one man show in overhyped doom-mongering and crap pseudoscience. Serious people ignore him.

Re:Michael Crichton is an anti-science hack

[Cerebus]

Which speaks volumes about the President's meetings with the Crichton where they discussed _State of Fear_, global warming conspiracy, and were in "near total agreement."

Re:Do Environmentalists Really Believe in Evolutio

[polar red]

When saying "preserve the environment", we say : don't actively wipe out species. Bio-diversity is the crucial term here.
"Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and climate change."
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

Apolitical Science? Wrong question.

[Soong]

is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?

The question should be:
Can Politics remain Scientific?

Shouldn't our elected officials look at the available data and make the best decision possible?
Oh, or maybe the problem is best for whom?.

Re:Apolitical Science? Wrong question.

[SeaDuck79]

I'm totally with you, but I think we both know how Quixotic that dream is. An objective look at all of the scientific data surrounding global warming would show that even the position that the Earth is warming could not be proven in court, using ALL of the evidence at hand. And yet some people want it "taught" like it was a given fact.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Ironsides]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?

That's easy. Political Science.

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[Elwood P Dowd]

My photo teacher in high school brought in a wall calendar that was sent to her for free in the mail. The twelve photos were excellent commercial nature photography, macro shots of rusty bulkheads, and the last one was a pier lit by moonlight. The moonlit waves were contrasty enough that the ocean was jet black, and it kindof looked like oil.

Everyone in her town got one of those calendars for free in the mail, and on the back in tiny print it said "(c) 1997 Exxon Mobile Corp" or whatever. Exxon Mobile was attempting to open a refinery nearby.

Those fuckers are sharp.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[SatanicPuppy]

Sure, because that's exactly what I said.

Jackass.

I think the whole point of my little rant was A) people who live in rural areas are as bad, if not worse for the environment as city dwellers and B) animals like living where people aren't. I'm not making a value judgment on any of it.

So while killing off the entire human race would be pretty good for a lot of animals, as an actual member of the human race rather than a troll like you, I'm kinda partial to the whole humanity thing.

What would really be good for the environment is stopping the eternal suburban sprawl. I think there are better ways to do that than mass suicide, but if you really believe that's the way to go, I'm not going to talk you out of it. Try not to land on anyone cool.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[greenbird]

Natural variability allowed excessive dust from Africa and the el niño effect to kill the ability of hurricanes to grow this year. Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming. What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.

Hmmm... Let me see if I have this straight. If there is an above average number of hurricanes it's caused by Global Warming. And if there is a below average number of hurricanes it's caused by Global Warming. So by your logic all weather, good or bad, is caused by Global Warming. So I'm guessing if I fart, since that causes a temporary localized weather change, that too is caused by Global Warming. You can't make this shit up... Wait... Hmmm... I guess you can.

Check the attribution of both pieces...

[kenh]

Not to say it is anything other than above-board, but the producer of "An Inconvienient Truth" wrote BOTH pieces cited - they are not separate sources that reinforce each other, they are the same argument repeated. There is nothing wrong with the producer sharing her thoughts/opinions as widely as possible, but the original poster seems to have missed they are both by the same author (and the latter is on the Op/Ed pages, not the "news" section.

For those unfamiliar with edited, printed newspapers - there is a difference between the two sections.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[sycodon]

If your idea of paradise is where everyone is warehoused in cities and the majority of the land is left to the animals, then many people would no doubt choose to kill themselves.

Fortunately, that will never happen because we are not a nation where self-important, so-called enlightened individuals can dictate where people can live. Not that they don't try.

So you go ahead and live in the city and be pissed that some of us choose suburbs. All you will accomplish is to raise your blood pressure and confirm our opinion that some people think waay too highly of themselves.

Another inconvenient post full of falsehoods

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, everything you wrote was wrong except for the bit about the Greenpeace founder.

1. There is no global warming on Mars

2. DDT is dangerous to the environment

3. The Kyoto Treaty exemptions are based on CUMULATIVE emissions, not annual emissions. The US and Western Europe have released the most CO2 into the atmosphere by far. That's not even when you factor equity into account on a per capita basis.

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[kenh]

I saw a film by the CA power concern PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) where they showed linemen running high-tension wires up the side of a mountain and across a forest using dynamite - they seemed to marvel at blowing the trees away in the name of Electrical Transmission Lines...

PG&E was the producer of the film, and was not hiding behind anything - but this was back in the '70s - things have changed since then.

Stupid Question: "Is it even possible that ....

[OldHawk777]

Stupid Question: "Is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?"

FACT: It is Science (matter). It is politics (Antimatter). They are mutually exclusive where one exist the other cannot possibly coexist.

FACT: It is Science (matter). It is religion (Antimatter). They are mutually exclusive where one exist the other cannot possibly coexist.

FACT: It is politics (antimatter). It is religion (Antimatter). They are symbiotic-parasitic cist-cyst entombing the immortal soul of humanity. When one is inflicting exploitive harm on humanity, the other is oppressively infecting truth and values with Myth, Lies, Allegory (at best) ....

NOTE: Corporatist can be political and/or religious, profits dependent; However, none of these UnterMenschen (corporatist, televangelist, politicians) are Scientist.

FACT: Many Business managers/leaders, local/community religious leaders, Leaders in Public Service are not UnterMenschen, but far too many are globally UnterMenschen scumbags.

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[kindbud]

Well, then it would have been aired on a different channel, right?

It hasn't been aired on any TV channel.

Improvments in materials and course work ???

[RighteousRaven]

I was intrigued, so I read the linked article on how politics is "derailing attempts to get anything done about improvments in materials and course work."

The linked article is about altering the school curriculum to be more heavily science and math based, while sacrificing studies in arts, languages, and health. If you feel that such a change is undeniably an improvement, then I do not think that you are seeing both sides of the issue.

My understanding of the proposal is that Algebra II will be required for students to attend any publicly funded post-secondary institution (even in an arts program)... which in my opinion is a bad idea. I know people who have been incredibly successful in science at a graduate level, but could not have completed algebra II.

I encourage you to speak your mind *here*.

[Grendel Drago]

Yeah, that hasn't been active in a couple of years. I really should do something with that address.

I do encourage you to follow up here. Many people browse with the moderation off, and it's not like we Slashdotters will put down the Cheetos, leave our mom's basement and come after you.

Re:I encourage you to speak your mind *here*.

[derubergeek]

Okay - groovy. Then I'm going to treat this more like an email discussion (I almost typed USENET and cringed at the implications) and moderation be damned.

So - slashdot moderation is a perfect example of what I perceive as a wider problem. And it comes down to people being dogmatic. Now, I understand dogmatism and I'm fine with the fact that it happens. In some ways, it has a bit to do with the way we're wired, in some ways it has a bit to do with how we're raised, who we hang with - and I don't view it as some massively evil thing. What drives me nuts is when someone is dogmatic and is incapable of seeing that they're being dogmatic. It makes it impossible to have a conversation with them. And my perception is that, over time, there actually do seem to be more people on slashdot who are dogmatic in their views but are pretty darned certain that they're the most open minded people in the world. Who knows - maybe I'm massively suffering from the same affliction and don't see it. Anyway - that's were moderation comes into play. I find it stunningly annoying that just because somebody has a dogmatic problem with me, they'll mod me down or [and this is always choice] respond from some lofty pseudo-intellectial standpoint as an AC.

I just don't find that this is nearly the forum for open, free discussion of ideas that I had hoped it would be. Granted, I think it has deteriorated over time [not like I'm some ancient magus here nor that I post massively - but I do come here many times a day on a nearly daily basis]. And it seems to me that it's almost worse than USENET from the standpoint that, rather than ganging up on people you disagree with via ad hominem attacks and flamewars, people seem to be ganging up on people with ad hominem moderation. And, since the people doing the moderation are the same people that do the meta-moderation, it's not like it's really self correcting.

I could easily go spew a bunch of crap that I don't even remotely think is correct on any of the global warming or intelligent design articles and quite easily get modded +5 Insightful, +5 Informative or +5 Funny. Just so long as I toe the party line, life is good. The minute I have the temerity to disagree with someone, I get flamed or -modded. To the point that I don't have much of a voice here at all. All of the global warmingests [yes - the zealots have actually gotten me referring to them as such] and the people who are (ir)rationally afraid of philosophy/religion [I see both rational and irrational fear of religion in people] seem to knee jerk react whenever I step out of line.

Granted, I can be very dry and/or sarcastic in some of my posts and those are frequently difficult for people to distinguish. I find you to be quite funny and appreciate what I perceive to be your intellect showing [might want to check that zipper]. And there was a prior response to my post by someone that was most likely meant to get a [+1 - Funny] mod but that could also be taken as being a flame. I figured it was meant to be funny and responded with something I thought was funny and yet to the point.

Wow. I've taken this well of topic, but the preceding has at least been cathartic for me.

<class id="topic.on">

Where I'm at in the global warming debate is still in the realm of skepticism. Not about the idea that observed global average temperatures have increased. I don't doubt that. It would be somewhat difficult to screw up that type of empirical data given the advances we've made in remote sensing technology. And I don't doubt that we have an impact on the weather due to our activities. I'm just not convinced that scientists are yet in a position to say with much certainty what exactly the results of our impact are going to be given the massive complexity of the system and the enormous number of unknowns. And even more so, I really don't see that they're in a position to assign good/bad to those results even if they are correct. To be fair, I suspect that the good/bad portion of this is something being jumped on

Re:I encourage you to speak your mind *here*.

[DerangedAlchemist]

Being skeptical of global warming is somewhat legit. The science isn't very well established yet. With weather being a chaotic system, basically what's been proved is that it cannot be predicted. You are right that this is being over-hyped.

A few things to note though:

Ten years ago the debate was wether global warming existed or not. Now its wether the global warming is man-made or not. Many more climate scientists believe in global warming now, than did ten years ago.

There has basically been one very drastic change in the variables that effect climate. That is CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels.

For a sane view of enviromental issues check out Patrick Moore's page www.greenspirit.com. Remember that this is one of the founders of Greenpeace who is now so critical of it.

As for debating evolution - that's just crap. Almost no theory in science has had that level of predictive ability or evidence backing it up. It is one of the BEST estabilished theories in science. There has never been a serious bias against creationism (or ID as it evolved into once micro-evolution became too obviously established). The problem is creationism never contributes any real science.

Re:I encourage you to speak your mind *here*.

[derubergeek]

Cool. Thanks for the link. As I said, I don't doubt that we're warming. I'm unsure of whether it's a short term or long term trend. And it is a complicated system. One of the issues I have with evolution is that people seem to get confused by nomenclature. Evolution, as I see it, is a proven fact. The currently accepted theory [natural selection] certainly makes sense but it's possible that there is more to it than that. I'm not saying I have any inkling of what that would be, it's just that trying to discuss alternatives to natural selection also gets the reaction of "oh great - you're one of those stupid creationists". Basically because, as I've said, people think natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Anyway - again - thanks for the info.

A lack of numbers?

[Grendel Drago]

Did you miss the hockey-stick graph? The bit about how temperature changes are distributed more towards the poles? Why melting polar ice is such a problem because it reduces the albedo by rougly a factor of nine?

What sort of hard numbers were you looking for that were not provided? You can't really read tables in a documentary; that's why there's a website and a book that go along with it. What the documentary does do is summarize the data, which you're free to look up yourself.

Naw, you? Sound like a hippy?

[benhocking]

I hate to sound like a hippy here...
Or maybe further in history we can look at the misleading "research" on Marijuana, and the production of 'Reefer Madness'. These were financed by companies who were going to lose money if Marijuana were legalized.

Why in the world do you think you would sound like a hippy? :D

Perspective

[Yvanhoe]

is it even possible that science can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?

Has it ever be otherwise ? Right now you are talking about a film director and politicians. Science is humankind's tool to find a truth independant of politics, religion and points of view of any form. Politicians and journalists have always talked about science subject, but what they do is politics and journalism, both useful and needed job, but their goal is not to make science. Why do people get so easily confuse ?

And why, oh god, WHY do people think that they can't do science by themselves and rely on some "elite" scientists to have an opinion on something ?

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[Oligonicella]

Well, that was loaded with a bunch of assertions backed up with... nothing.

For your information, the number one pesticide problem is -- cities. That's where golf courses are and where the unlicensed users are (farmers using over certain amounts must take courses and be licensed and inspected). The older ones are less educated, but most of the younger ones have degrees in agriculture. Something I doubt you have. They use the latest techniques.

Given that, yes cities are the place to stack lots of people. The country is the place to put people who know how to interface and grow the stuff you need. Just get off the redneck rant. It belies your environmental ignorance.

Yes, I am a degreed biologist living amongst the rurals.

Milloy and Junk Science

[geek2k5]

One of the problems I have with Milloy's Junk Science is the fact that he uses rhetoric as opposed to hard science to 'prove' many of his points. I occasionally check his stuff out and do a ballpark rating of 'numbers' versus 'spin' to determine what I call a 'Junque Science' rating. If the 'numbers' are lacking and the 'spin' dominates (i.e. use of the word 'enviros') then I consider HIS comments to be 'junque' and not worth considering.

Re:Milloy and Junk Science

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Oh and the other side doesn't lie and use rhetoric??

Any time you don't agree with someone, it's rhetoric. Anytime you can't remove your filter....your bias....the person who's against you is using rhetoric. Yet in the subject of global warming where there's not just Milloy but many many other respected climatologists that will refute what has been seen in Inconvenient Truth, you refuse to change your mind as well. Spin huh? Don't accuse Milloy of using it when the otherside is even more guilty of the rhetoric and the falsehoods to further their agenda.

All I say is look a the hard numbers. Look at other sites. Don't just keep saying the other side is spinning. Those are the things that libs will say when they don't have the guts to publically debate this and they don't have the proper data to say he's wrong. They'll say he's using rhetoric rather then trying to give a resonable arguement.

Re:High School level, temperature and "Fuel is Coo

[AK Marc]

I saw a rerun of Commando the other day. It must be a political movie, since they kept talking about Schwarzenegger all the time in the previews.

Well, what were you saying, then?

[Grendel Drago]

You were replying to a poster who claimed that while An Inconvenient Truth is backed by an overwhelming consensus of scientists, the industry films that the NSTA has accepted in the past are nothing more than propaganda. You claimed that scientists have just as much of an axe to grind as industry shills, and would support their own form of propaganda in order to acquire, as you said, "reputations, grant money, etc.".

If your purpose wasn't to discredit the scientists who have endorsed An Inconvenient Truth as just as biased, and therefore morally equivalent, to the fake "science" groups who have been donating to NSTA, what on earth were you saying?

Re:Well, what were you saying, then?

[Pentavirate]

I was hypothesizing. I was throwing out the question as to whether things like reputation and grant money and livelihood have an influence as to whether they would back a big money production supporting their research. Perhaps they'd be willing to overlook parts because of the "overall message." Is it a legitimate question? If not, just go back to your dogma and give it no more credence.

How conveniently offended you are.

[Grendel Drago]

You handwave into existence a vast conspiracy of commie scientists bent on the destruction of western civilization, all for some temporary gain of money or power, demeaning and debasing the actual work that these people do, and when called on it, you whine about how "venomous" the responses you get are?

Well, imagine that. Maybe you should go to Free Republic if you're such a shrinking violet that you can't stand having people disagreeing with you--not to mention that it conveniently prevents you from actually responding to them.

Re:How conveniently offended you are.

[Pentavirate]

I have no problem with the responses being venomous, it's just a telling observation. You seem to be able to read a lot more into my posts than intended. Personal attacks never an argument make.

Re:apolitical...

[criscooil]

...nearly everyone reading this will take exception to some specific thing that I said...

I don't agree with that.

How much money did that make him?

[snowwrestler]

And how long did it fly with the rest of scientific community?

Not long in fact, and Einstein himself referred to it as his biggest blunder. (Although in fact there is now renewed interest in it because of new observations.)

Your example supports the view that the scientific community cares first and foremost about being correct--not about "fitting in," not kowtowing to famous people, not getting rich.

Re:How much money did that make him?

[WrongMonkey]

GR was published in 1915. Hubble's work that debunked the constant was from 1929 to 1931, so about 15 years. That's about the same time scale that global warming as been debated. Further, the cosmological constant is an example of "fitting in" and kowtowing to concensus. There are plenty more in the history of science, global warming could be one of them.

Re:apolitical...

[zxnos]

dont try to force your unpatriotic, satanic, wiccan ways upon me! i only recognize the latin alphabet and will not recognize your demonic, anti-latin agenda.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[devnull17]

Yes, people are definitely overreacting and jumping to false conclusions. It's bound to happen when you put so much public focus on a very complicated scientific subject.

That doesn't mean global warming isn't a serious concern. Considering the age of the Earth, if temperatures are rising at the rate of one degree every thirty years, that's a significant change. One degree might not make that much of a difference (or it might; I'm not a climate scientist), but the effect is cumulative, and eventually, these proclamations of gloom and doom will come true. Not overnight or anything, but let's just say our great-grandchildren will probably miss the eastern seaboard.

The reason it's such a big deal now is that most scientists believe that the effect is currently reversible. If the status quo remains, however, that won't be the case for very long.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[SatanicPuppy]

It goes both ways. There are some good farmers out there, and some of the worst pollution comes out of factory farms. But, though I am not a "degreed biologist living amongst the rustics" I am married to a nationally recognized environmental journalist, and I do have more than a little environmental background as well. Farms use a hell of a lot of fertilizer and a hell of a lot of pesticides, and though both vary depending on the crop, neither one is remotely environmentally friendly, and there are always issues with estuaries and water table runoff. Don't believe me? Believe the American Chemical Society

And to blame fricking golf courses for the majority of pesticide pollution in this country is laughable. Fertilizer? Maybe. They're up there. But they cover such a small amount of space compared to the amount of land in this country that is under cultivation. Now, home users, with their nice green lawns, again, possible point, but that's not cities, that's the goddamn suburbs.

I've lived quite a lot of my life around farms and farmers...Mostly eastern, so Tobacco, Cattle, Chickens, Pigs, Tomatoes, Tree crops, and Cotton, so I'm not quite as ignorant as you seem to think. And, since I'm sure you have better sources for statistics than I do, I'd really like to see some numbers on "latest techniques" especially where water use and soil conservation come into play. My numbers basically say that water sources are drying up and becoming contaminated and that soil loss (in indiana in 1997) hit a 50 year low...with a mere 2.9 tons per acre.

Frankly, and I've seen it pretty often, I think you're suffering from some serious arrogance. You're completely right, and I'm completely wrong. My points have no merit (drawing down the aquifers? Hello? This is a no brainer.), and yours do, but not because you backed up your assertions (you didn't) and not because you didn't lay out some outlandish assertions (you did), but because you're all educated, and I'm just a dummy from Georgia who should just back off what'n all I don understand...Speaking of "redneck" stereotypes.

So get off it and prove me wrong, or shut the hell up.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[WhiplashII]

Well, perhaps. But the maximum, worst case prediction (if we go completely Venus) is a 10 degree rise in temperature. I'm not certain that is something to go bonkers about - I mean, you say our children will miss the eastern seaboard... I'm sure the New York dikes will hold up just fine (baring the odd flooding disaster), and the midwest will love the oceanfront propperty. We are talking about change, not disaster. The argument so far is merely one that is against change.

(As long as you are not in Europe. If you are in Europe, I can see why you don't want change - you'll freeze or burn, because Europe's weather is not natural. Add in your slow economic growth [and its effects on your future discount rate], and I completely understand why you are concerned. I just don't understand why you expect me to bail you out, at my expense?)

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Then why does half the eco papers in nature claim to have found the "final proof" -> a good sign that this is not proven yet

Second, scientists may (mostly) agree that some things are warming up, relative to the last 1000 years (but not to the last 10000 years, and even less compared to the last 100 000 or million years, we're scarcily a blip on those temperature graphs), BUT the connection between CO2 and warming is defineately not proven, nor is there consensus about it.

The BBC is another story. For them it is proven, which is what's confusing you.

Science as Relgion

[alexhmit01]

I remember reading about the "victory" of the pro-science anti-religion crowd, where they got a school board to not only fight back the religious assault on evolution, but to actually prohibit any questioning of evolution in the classroom... I wanted to cry...

Science REQUIRES questioning. Elevating scientific theories to dogma isn't science, it's religion. Prohibiting the questioning of a scientific theory undermines the whole point of science.

While I'm not terribly approving of the Church's historical stands on research that contradicted their religious views, I think that the anti-religion crowd has adopted scientific evidence that undermines a fundamentalist reading. Interesting, in Genesis and the Big Bang Theory and MIT educated scientist and Orthodox Jew, has been working to reconcile the teachings of the Torah with scientific knowledge, based upon the assumption that the two are in-sync, and whenever you think that they aren't, one is being misinterpreted.

The fact is, the religious world isn't as one-sided as Slashdot portrays it, but the anti-religious crowd is risking turning themselves into what they hate, a close-minded society that is as dogmatic as the medieval Church.

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[Billly Gates]

All that is needed to sufficate a fish is to have a very thin film of oil on the surface that could coat its gills. Most evaporates overtime but it does alot of damage while this happens and again like another poster pointed out, alot of the heavy compounds do not evaporate and sink to the bottom. There are heavy metals and poisons also found in oil that leak. Also the Valdez spill was huge and evaporation alone could not qwell the damage to the environment.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[FaustIN]

Errr... at what point in your mechanism Europe will be QUICK frozen?

(I want to prepare some "tender green vegetation" for the final INSTANT desert!...)

Broad Generalizations

[a4r6]

Where do you get off lumping together environmentalists and animal rights activists? Oh wait, you are really just talking about "liberals", and treating them as one thing, aren't you? I happen to believe that our geo-engineering is part of our future, and is necessary because of huge imbalance we have created. Global warming is a problem. Science enabled us to do it and will give us the power to "fix" it. I am strongly against wasteful use of resources, SUV's as single-passenger daily drivers, and disposable-everything. I am not scared of nuclear energy. I am the opposite of terrified regarding research. I think that we should be throwing several times the resources we do at alternative energy, regardless of what it does to our precious economy. I don't like the fur trade, or cruel experimentation on animals. I enjoy meat. I consider myself a liberal, but that doesn't make me all things liberal.

Wrong argument.

[Kadin2048]

I think you're wrong in illustrating the global warming / climate change argument in 'right or wrong' terms.

We can't tell, right now, for certain, whether the scientists are right or wrong. We'll only know that in hindsight. The question is "is there a significant chance that they're right?" and if so "what are the consequences?"

You don't have to be 100% convinced that man-made emissions are causing global warming to believe in reducing them. Heck, I'd say you don't even have to be 10% convinced. If you think there's even a significant chance that the current body of literature and science is right, and that there is any further significant chance of these changes causing catastrophic problems down the road, then you would have to be totally daft to say that it's a good idea to just keep burning coal and petroleum at the rate we are (and moreover, increasing the rate of increase of the rate of consumption).

We're talking about the possibility of whole cities and coastal areas being flooded. If there is any chance at all that we can prevent that, we would be silly not to try. This is not the sort of thing that we need to wait to be 100% sure about before we modify our behavior. All we need to do is look at the worst possible consequences of continuing on our current path, and the worst possible consequences of reducing emissions. If we move away from petroleum and it turns out that the climate scientists were wrong, then the worst thing that happens is we spent some money, effectively diverting some funding from one thing to another, on alternative energy, and probably also reduced our demand for petroleum in geopolitically inconvenient areas. But if we do nothing, and the worst of the models turn out to be correct, we could have massive drought, famine, and refugee problems in many parts of the developed world, leading to severe economic and social disruption.

If the consequences are severe enough, you don't need to be sure that a bad thing is going to happen, you just don't take the chance in the first place.

Re:Wrong argument.

[jmorris42]

> We can't tell, right now, for certain, whether the scientists are right or wrong. We'll only know that in hindsight.

No, we won't even have hindsight. If we destroy western civilization fighting manbearpig we still won't know what would have happened had we done absolutely nothing or done something different. Only IF we do nothing AND manbearpig destroys us THEN we will know, in hindsight, that that Al Gore was right.

> You don't have to be 100% convinced that man-made emissions are causing global warming to believe in reducing them.

Wrong argument. It is a question of risk management.

> Heck, I'd say you don't even have to be 10% convinced.

Ok, lets run with your 10% risk factor. If manbearpig attacks we lose several coastal cities and assorted other assets. Lets go really high and rate it a 100 trillion loss spread over fifty years starting in fifty years. Now all we have to do is look at the cost of the proposed mitigation program and compare the cost over the same 100 year time horizon, factoring in the time value of money, etc and come up with an assessment. Anything that is going to cost hundreds of billions per year starting NOW isn't going to be cost effective unless that 10% risk factor goes up.

And yes, that is THE only rational way to approach the problem.

Example: We know that the odds of a civilization ending asteroid collision with the Earth approximate 100% given a long enough time horizon. So why aren't we bending every available resource in constructing a defense? But we are expending a few resources to locate potential threats, conduct conferences to discuss the problem, etc. In other words, sensible risk management.

Example: We know a pandemic could kill millions, even billions. AIDS is already killing millions. Are we stopping everything and working on that problem? No, but we are expending resources approximately equal to the threat.

> If the consequences are severe enough, you don't need to be sure that a bad thing is going to happen,
> you just don't take the chance in the first place.

Yes, sometimes you do. Or close to it. It all depends on the odds.

Your definition of "propaganda" is wrong.

[Samrobb]

Asking Google to define:propaganda turns up:

• information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
• Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.
• Any media text which seeks openly to persuade an audience of the validity of particular beliefs.
• The promotion of specific ideas or views, often political in nature.

And dictionary.com says that propaganda is:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

So, really, by definition, propaganda is any deliberate attempt at advocacy. The format and genre of "An Inconvenient Truth" may be that of a documentary, but it is definitely a piece of propaganda.

Re:Your definition of "propaganda" is wrong.

[thatguywhoiam]

You are completely correct. I was under the mistaken idea that propaganda was strictly government-related. Perhaps this used to be the case, but certainly is not now.

So, really, by definition, propaganda is any deliberate attempt at advocacy. The format and genre of "An Inconvenient Truth" may be that of a documentary, but it is definitely a piece of propaganda.

Again, I cannot argue, although it begs the question; what use is the term 'propaganda' anymore if it means nothing more than to espouse an opinion or advance an agenda? This runs the gamut from advertising to art.

Re:Your definition of "propaganda" is wrong.

[bill_mcgonigle]

what use is the term 'propaganda' anymore if it means nothing more than to espouse an opinion or advance an agenda?

General usage is to do the above while representing it as 'fair and balanced'. So, An Inconvenient Truth, by leaving out many inconvenient facts, qualifies (making its title a luscious example of spin). Typically a documentary on NOVA on PBS about global warming would talk about things like global warming on Mars, water vapor causing 95% of the greenhouse effect, vikings growing grapes in Greenland, etc., and so would not be a propaganda piece. Good science is another way to describe it. On the other side, Rush Limbaugh is bound to talk about the sheering winds of the hurricanes and completely dismiss human-created CO2 as having any effect on the greenhouse effect.

Unfortunately, due to the structure of our society, we're left in the position of mostly having to listen to propaganda from both sides and filling in the blanks in the middle where reality most likely lies. For the typical citizen to get a good, balanced, idea about the reality of global warming is really, really hard (left to mostly review and critique the volumes of scientific literature himself). In other words, propaganda sells advertising. See also religion.

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[umbrellasd]

More movie revenue = more lobbying power.

No, the best thing to do is not to eschew all the trappings of a system that you hate. The best thing to do is to blend with it and then subvert it.

The "give it to the people" idea is very noble, but only from the perspective of people that make absolutely no difference whatsoever insofar as what really occurs in the world. This is because you are one of the powerless. Therefore, you find it noble if someone with access to power does not use it or gives it up. This, you think, is a voluntary choice to embrace the truth: the idealistic notion that people are equal.

But people are not equal. And that is why you think equality is noble. Because you are on the side of the powerless, and being too weak to take power and achieve your goals, you glorify the renunciation of power by the powerful as a way to reach equality with the powerful.

This of course, will never work.

True nobility is stepping up to the responsibility of obtaining and using power beneficently. A noble act would be to effectively market a movie within the parameters of our society and use the proceeds (power) to support programs that have the potential for positive change (beneficence).

Feel free to send me piles of cash for elucidating this topic!

It's just not an apt comparison

[snowwrestler]

...so about 15 years. That's about the same time scale that global warming as been debated.

Global warming was first proposed in the 1950's and first seriously considered in the 1970's, so you're off by a factor of at least two. http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatechange.html

Einstein's constant was proposed in 1915 in support of his assumption, based on a philosophical disposition and a paucity of data on star velocities, that the universe was on average static. As you noted it lasted until 1931, but the key point in its topple from grace is not the length of time, but the availability of data to measure against. Once a bare minimum of good data was available, it became it obvious that it was not supported, and even Einstein recanted it.

In contrast, global warming has been under serious study for well over 3 decades, during which time the amounts of directly observed and proxy data available (not to mention the tools for modeling and analysis) have improved by orders of magnitude. Yet today the scientific community considers it even better supported than when it was first proposed.

Re:It's just not an apt comparison

[letxa2000]

And the scaremongering has meandered from gloom and doom about the next ice age, to destructive global warming, to predictions that seem to have smaller and smaller significance as perceived "accuracy" is improved. I'm not impressed.

Re:It's just not an apt comparison

[snowwrestler]

Slam the scaremongering all you want, but at least have the intelligence to distinguish the popular-press scaremongering (the "imminent ice age" story from the 70's) from the actual science (anthrogenic-forced global warming today).

The Washington Post?

[derubergeek]

I really like the hand waving the editors use in saying "The Washington Post" when in fact the author of "The Washington Post" article is one of the DVD's producers. I'm not saying there isn't a story here, but how would you react if the CEO of Exxon Mobil wrote a piece complaining about the producers of An Inconvenient Truth, got it published in "The Washington Post" and then had it not only referenced as a TWP article, but got posted on slashdot as being some authoritative opinion on the whole issue.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[HiThere]

Step 10. (You did say "Quick frozen", and that requires a blizzard of sub-Siberian temperature.)

OTOH, if you just mean the Thames freezing in autumn and thawing late in spring, that's step "The great conveyor shuts down".

Still, do remember that I said I didn't know how long any step took. I can't rule out several of them happening within the same year. (OTOH, the ocean temperatures change rather slower than air and land temperatures. Allow at least a few decades for most of these. The great conveyor shutting down would likely be due to Greenland shedding lots of fresh water, which would decrease the salinity of the surface, resulting in the surface water not being denser than the deeper water even when it was colder. [So floating buoys measuring temperature would be much use. Instead they need to measure BOTH temperature and salinity.])

N.B.: Current results indicate that ice sheets can "melt" a lot faster than previously supposed, due to surface water tunneling down to the base rock and lubricating the ice flow. I haven't heard of any good current estimates of the maximum expectable rate of "ice shedding" that include this effect in the models. I also don't know just how much ice needs to be shed the shut down the great conveyor. It's happened before, however. (But WE weren't around then, so we didn't care.) The last time it's reported to have happened was towards the end of the last ice age...but then the ocean was already cool, and so water wasn't being evaporated.

P.S.: If I'm remembering things correctly, the great conveyor shutting down would, indeed, make Europe VERY cold, but since the ocean wouldn't be circulating warm water up along the coast there wouldn't be much precipitation. Thus you wouldn't get an ice age, because the winter would be too dry. Perhaps summer would be also...in which case Europe would, instead, turn into a cold desert...think steppes. (Why do the models focus on Europe instead of the US? My guess: Europe is simpler to model.) If this should be correct, then could I point you to the recent development of a wave powered desalinization device? It's not yet ready for engineering trials, but perhaps someone should invest in it? (Sorry, I forget the source. Check New Scientist for the last couple of months.)

The final solution

[aevans]

Let's kill off half the earth's population and revert to a stone age level of civilization before a catastrophe of algorean proportions kills off half the earth's population and reverts us to a stone age level of civilization.

Re:The final solution

[Zaphod2016]

Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Nice spin

[bitspotter]

"The entire situation is turning into a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' yelling match. "

Haha, nice try. The problem with divisive rhetoric is that the actual person attempting to make such a division, in this case, is the person making the accusation.

The question posed by An Inconvenient Truth is not whether science should be political, but whether politics should be scientific. Even so, trying to drag politics into a matter of environmental science is a distraction - Al Gore is a politician, but the SCIENCE is the star of the show. Any attempt to shame the film for "politicizing" the issues is either missing the point, or trying to distract you from it.

The question posed by David here is also not whether science education should be political, but whether it should be a BUSINESS.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[devnull17]

It looks like neither of us are experts in this field. But among those who are, a vast majority agree with the conclusion that a rise in temperature is a very big deal.

You say you don't mind change, but remember that the human race is, like all life on Earth, dependent on a strict set of circumstances for its very survival. The world's ecosystems are very complex, and it wouldn't take a whole lot to send them spiraling out of equilibrium. Further, the human race has become, by both natural and artificial selection, acclimated to the world as it is. The specific results of radical change are virtually unpredictable, but I think it's a near certainty that a changed world would be less accommodating to humanity.

You say we could erect levees to keep a hundred foot-tall wall of ocean from leveling New York. That's pretty much a textbook case of hubris. Ask the residents of New Orleans how that worked out. And besides, if your primary concern is financial, that sounds a hell of a lot more expensive in the long run than implementing pollution controls.

What?

[RexRhino]

Since when is a movie designed to promote the political career of a politician proper viewing material in schools? What next, force kids to watch campaign commercials? Why not require them to "volunteer" to support Al Gore's next political campaign (or whoever he endorces) in order to get full credit?

Sorry, even if your propoganda is being pushed out of schools by the oil companies, just because the oil companies are doing it for their own selfish reasons doesn't mean that keeping propoganda out of schools is a bad thing.

Unforseen events

[CrazedWalrus]

I believe the crux of the argument is that, if something as well understood as an El Nino escaped prediction a year in advance, how can we make policy and sacrifice based on models that clearly don't take enough into account?

The planet has been around for millenia, survived catastrophic events, and has somehow remained habitable since it was first habitable. There are mechanisms in place that we don't know about, or don't know *enough* about, that may or may not kick in in the event of significant warming.

Alarmists continually fail to see their predictions realized. It's the equivalent of the religious guys on the corner with their bells and their signs proclaiming that The End is Nigh! ... but somehow it never really is, somehow we just continue on, and somehow things always turn out okay. After hearing that the Sky Is Falling for so many years, people tend to discount it when it stubbornly remains overhead.

All I'm saying is that the alarmists among us are doing grave harm to a science that may have an important point to make. That's what alarmists do. If you want to be taken seriously, develop your models to be able to *consistently* and *accurately* predict the weather and climate for a single decade. THEN ask people to look at your extrapolations, backing them up with a proven track record.

People don't want to hear excuses why the model failed. It just points to an inadequate or flawed model that people will instinctually disregard.

Re:Unforseen events

[letxa2000]

WELL SAID!

What bugs the hell out of me is that when people will try to present this research that, time and time again, is shown to be flawed or incomplete, but then fall back to the cop-out of, "Well even if we're wrong we should cut CO2 just in case." Hogwash! Do your homework like everyone else and get it right, and then present me with your case. If it takes 30 years, so be it. But I am not going to entertain alarmist scaremongering as serious political or scientific debate on which to take immediate action.

I might as well say, "Everyone, repent, be Christian because I have proof that the Bible is right. Do it now, just in case, while I work on the details of my proof." Yeah, that'd fly.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[WhiplashII]

OK, pray tell me the worst case rise in ocean level. 1 meter? Wow, I guess we better go back to canoes! If all the ice on the planet melts (hint - that hasn't happened even when it was much hotter than the 10 degrees maximum CO2 warming can provide), you see a 7 meter rise. The most likely scenario is that runaway global warming would cause a 1 meter increase in ocean levels.

There is no 100 ft wall of ocean doom! 7 meters maximum, all stop. New Orleans was lower than that, for goodness sake - and the only reason they had problems is because they skimped on the dikes that they were told that they needed!

It's true oil companies are against it.

[PermanentMarker]

Well it's true oil companies want to do one thing, that is sell oil.
Dont be mistaken they dont like to change their main bussines.
They do give the public the idea they are working on alternative feul.

And hydrogen motors and storage designs have been and real efficient cars have been build.
But then they say each time "the infra structure isn't ready for it."
And they are right on that as they dont do anything on that field.
There by effectively killing this market, and protecting their own oil monopoly.

You might say thats not true but it is.
Ive been in Iceland, a country with lots of free natural energy or rather to much..
There is a shell hydrogen pump, its running as an expirment for years now.
The technology is there, but its not realy used, or exported.
The main car feul is still oil there, thats strange.
As iceland has so much green energy they even use it in aluminium refinment
(electricly melting aluminium requires enormous amounts of energy).
So lots of energy but not much of push there to use it.
Or for example to export the hydrogen.
There exist ships who are made for exporting gas.
But they dont travel from iceland, why is that ???

A breaktrough will come (they know that) as price of oil goes slowly upwards.
most of you will remember the oil crisis in the seventies.
Suddenly we got a popup of all kind of alternative feuls and engines.
It's verry close to that, better bateries are invented all the time it seams
But the only ones who can massivly change this 'energy' market.
Wil not like to change their monopoly money.
So this infrastructure wil not soon be rebuild by them.

What i wonder is we in Europe saw how in America lawsuits started agains tabacao industries.
Is that going to happen also for the oil companies, as a force to change them?
Will they be blamed for their lack of actions on infra structural changes.
Or for poisoning the air of my children, and making a climate disaster?.
Perhaps such lawsuits could be used to force them to create such infrastructures.
The car industry has got limitations on feul, but the main oil industry still lacks any kiind of responsebiliy or regulations on this.

While most people would like to change our world in a bit more green world.
And be less dependent of those mid east 'dangerous oil nations'
If we wouldnt use their oil, they would have less money to fund their warr machinery
And perhaps as a by product, there might come some peace also.
I wonder why we dont follow this path, as we can design our own future.
We design our future all the time, but on this subject we often act like kids.

Re:Question about 'inconvenient truth' marketing..

[doug141]

True nobility is stepping up to the responsibility of obtaining and using power beneficently. A noble act would be to effectively market a movie within the parameters of our society and use the proceeds (power) to support programs that have the potential for positive change (beneficence).

I thought the message of the film is that each of us needs to have concern for the environment. This knowledge, when each of us acts on it, creates the 'beneficence'. The way you tell it, Gore could have made Mission Impossible 4, and used the enormous proceeds to lobby for beneficent environmental policies. While this would jive with your idea of 'true nobility' it has the ironic effect of not only failing to educate, but also using the force of power to institute programs the environmentally uneducated don't support. Nice personal attacks, BTW.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Ash Vince]

Whether or not Exxon would actually withdraw their funding is a pointless argument.

But they would undoubtably threaten to and anyone who thinks anything else is just living in cloud cuckoo land.

Any company with as much to lose as Exxon will do anything legal (and a illeagal if they will get away with it) to keep making money. If they did anything else there shareholders (fund managers) would go elsewhere with their money. Actually its probably your pension, but they are looking after it for you so its theirs until you retire.

science != collection of facts

[dsdtzero]

Global warming is a complicated conglomeration of troubling evidence that is based in sound science (I am a physicist so I at least know what that means). However, I do not believe it is appropriate, to "teach" global warming in the context of an elementary school science class anymore than I think it makes sense to show movies on super-fluidity of liquid helium.
          Elementary school science education should be squarely focused on teaching the process of science so that they will have to tools to make the sometimes fine distinctions between what is bulls***, what is possible, what is believable, what is reasonable and what has been firmly established to the best of humankind's abilities. Before children can understand the power and limitations of our most advanced ideas, they must first learn them. They must learn the power of objective measurement, the quantification of error and the consistent framework upon which our most prized beacons of understanding are built. This will prepare them to learn quantum field theory, or search for the justification of a political viewpoint, or supply them with tractable rage to motivate them to change the status quo of smoke-and-mirror obfuscation.
        The process of science is NOT political. If teaching the process of science were the true focus of elementary school education, the scouring of politics from science would not be needed. Based on the assumptions underlying Ms. David's plea, the problem with the public perception of science is that it is a collection of "facts" or "truths". There are many facts out there, limited time forces a choice to be made. It is at this stage that result based science education becomes inextricably linked to politics.
        If, by funding an initiative to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" Exxon Mobil gets to define the standards there is obviously a conflict of interest. However, if we prepare children in school to see science as collections of "facts" we are opening the door for such abuses. Unless we change the fundamental premise of what science IS, the person/corporation with the largest influence, slickest website and smoothest talkers wins the battle of "facts". In this sense, by begging to be a part of it, Ms. David is further entrenching a deeply flawed system of education, ensuring the battle for the real estate of children's minds is one of power and influence.
        The inconvenient truth here is that if the public has the science = collection-of-truths view we are failing miserably at educating our public about science and the increasingly horrible consequences of global warming may be but one of many serious problems we will face in our future.

PS
        Of course a career in science is rife with politics of all sorts. Grants get awarded and papers get published that are not consistent with the ideals we should be teaching to elementary school students. Over time the constant fear of being shown to be scientifically incompetent and the constant influx of idealistic youngsters keeps science honest on long time scales.

What's the motivation?

[benhocking]

Are you trying to be an apologist for the fossil fuel industry, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? If that latter, I can respect that, but if the former, why?

Are you totally unwilling to look beyond what is said and investigate their motive? Whether or not one can be cool without fuel, one can definitely be cool without fossil fuels (although I suspect you and I disagree about what's "cool"). However, I strongly suspect that this movie suggests otherwise. I'll admit I haven't seen it, so correct me if I'm wrong. (Assuming you have seen it.) Still, even it were true that one can't be "cool" without fossil fuels, what's the point? If it's so obvious, as you seem to believe, why does it need to be stated? What's the motivation?

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[letxa2000]

Kind of like Al Gore.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[vought]

And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?


Bono's not a sociologist. What's your point? Angelina Jolie isn't a social worker. What's your point?

How many scientists working on issues of critical importance are household names? And how much weight does a well-known name give to scientific or social crises?

While every politician has his shortcomings Gore's interest in and message about global worming is not a political one - though it does have repercussions in the political arena.

I fuckin' hate when people use Gore's political career as a cloak to cast doubt on the facts about global warming - it shows how well the right wing noise machine in this country has done at convincing otherwise intelligent people to disbelieve experts and those who speak for experts about real facts.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[letxa2000]

Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming

So on one side we have people saying that global warming is causing stronger and more frequent hurricanes, but then global warming is also supposedly creating the El Nino and dust effect which effectively subdued the hurricanes. Net effect? Sometimes we have more hurricanes, sometimes we have fewer. I'll leave calculating the average effect as an exercise for the reader.

It seems entirely probable that, more than global warming, hurricane intensity and frequency is more a function of the longer decade-long cycles. Just like "global warming" is more likely a function of a general rise in temperatures from the Little Ice Age than a function of trivial human activity on the planet.

When you're looking for every flimsy piece of evidence to support the theory that global warming is all the justification we need for global socialism, all the sudden everything looks like it's caused by global warming. These people need a lesson on the difference between correlations and relations.

with karma to burn...

[Shivetya]

and I got loads...

You can't read can you?

For someone supposedly with multiple degrees you certainly parrot the atypical responses commoningly found in those who cannot think for themselves, or worse refuse to think as it would bring doubt into their world.

We don't know the magnitude.

Yes I know what the word means, the key is, why use it? If you have to toss out catch phrases using big words it usually means you have nothing to say yourself. Look, we know man alters the equation, we just don't know how. When one day's fact is tomorrows fallacy, especially in the world of environmental science I can't believe how many people become such rabid supporters.

Then again this is /. Home to the nut jobs. Always easy to get modded down going after global warming nuts, bush haters, gore haters, etc...

Sometimes I think /. is truly run by those who hate anyone more successful than themselves. Dreamers all, but sore losers.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Lars T.]

Here is the link btw: Accuweather

Natural variability allowed excessive dust from Africa and the el niño effect to kill the ability of hurricanes to grow this year. Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming.

If they could not predict the dust and el niño effects over a period of less than a year, why should I respect their predictions 10 years out?

What exactly is your point? That you don't believe the predictions of Accuweather, a private forecaster group that is more or less leaning on the "GW is man made"-denier side, and that proves GW doesn't exist?

Didn't mean to offend you so much

[benhocking]

I was making a joke (which the smiley face should have suggested) at the fact that you wrote:

I know there is little debate that anthropogenic global warming occurs, the real debate which you gloss over is that no one agrees on just how much is being contributed by man.

Obviously, man is responsible for 100% of the anthropogenic global warming, which was my joke on your choice of phrasing - which it appears I read more carefully than you did, or else you might have caught the humor. (OTOH, to be fair, it's often difficult to catch our own mistakes.)

Yes I know what the word means, the key is, why use it?

The reason it's useful is because it cuts to the chase. A lot of people like to argue "oh, we don't deny global warming, we just don't think man is responsible for it". The adjective "anthropogenic" thereby allows one to point out that all non-ExxonMobil funded climatologists will tell you that man's contribution to global warming is significant and a problem.

If you have to toss out catch phrases using big words it usually means you have nothing to say yourself.

It's neither a "catch phrase" nor that particularly big of a word. If you think that, you probably haven't been paying much attention to the debate - which is probably why you think there's still any reasonable doubt as to man's contribution to global warming.

Dreamers all, but sore losers.

I'm desperately trying to avoid making another joke here that might offend you, but I'm afraid I've already failed... :D

Re:Reminds me of a film about Oil spills from Exxo

[Brandybuck]

While the spill certainly had a short term damaging effect, it wasn't the permanent destruction everyone said it would be at the time. Go to the bay now and it's a thriving ecosystem. It did less damage than a forest fire over an equivalent area inland would have done.

I am not defending the drunken piloting of the Exxon Valdez, rather I am attacking the absolutist black/white world of the environmentalists.

"Supposedly" multiple degrees

[benhocking]

Btw, since you seem to be doubting that statement, I'll provide a nice link to my thesis for my Master's in Astrophysics (from Georgia State) as well as a link to my project for my Master's in Computer Science. Naturally, I also have a BS in Physics (from Georgia Tech), and I'm working on a Ph.D. in Computer Science. If you like, you can also read my dissertation proposal for the dissertation I'm currently working on.

This is not meant to impress you - just to point out that your skepticism is ill-founded.

Re:apolitical...

[Gilmoure]

Why do you hate Rome? You didn't capitalize 'Latin'!

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[i_finally_got_an_acc]

As someone who has lived in both rural areas and in towns for good portions of my life, I can generally guess that towns are waaaaay more environmentally friendly. Cities easily produce less pollution per person. Air in towns is generally cleaner to breathe since people in rural areas like to burn everything from trash to trees to grass and love to keep livestock in a confined space under poor conditions (which produces some pretty awesome odors that can even trigger asthma). Farmers love to spray pesticides everywhere too. Also take into consideration that they drive their cars (often gas-guzzling trucks) 15 miles to town and back every day. Rural just produce disproportionately large amounts of pollution. In cities, especially densely populated ones, people don't drive nearly as much because they don't need to travel nearly as far. Some use public transport. I used to bike whenever possible. Great effort is made to recycle glass, plastics, metals, and human waste. And you can't just randomly burn crap on your lawn like rural people seem to love doing as there are laws against it. Much less pollution per person.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[whoop]

It's really quite simple to figure out what things have their root cause as global warming. Take any issue. Append to it, "is the result of global warming." There, now you have the absolute inconvenient, anti-big corporation, truth!

Hurricanes? No hurricanes? Snow? No Snow? Taxes? Rutabagas? The noisy neighbor dog?

Global warming is everywhere!! Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh.

We really gotta stop it or something. I'm serial!

Greenpeace founder agrees with you.

[DerangedAlchemist]

www.greenspirit.com

Different sciences

[Glass Lizard]

You say that it is in their interest to suppress or interfere with certain fields. However from my reading of the linked opinion piece and other sources I could find, it looks like the DVD offer was intended for K-12 teachers to use in their classrooms. My experience in public school was that all students took the same science courses until high school. In high school the students divided themselves into two groups; one which took every science course available (in varying orders and with some students taking AP courses) and one which took the bare minimum required to graduate. The latter group isn't relevant to the point we are discussing, because they likely won't be scientists anyway. Therefore, which courses are required would not be very important to these companies. The segregation of scientists into different fields didn't really take place until students were ending high school and beginning college.

It would seem to me that if they wanted to divert the career paths of scientists away from disciplines which threaten their profits, one of their best bets would be to pump a lot of money into general science programs allowing for a better variety of science courses (and more opportunities to divert potential climatologists). Or they could give donations that allow for more interesting classes (which would probably be easier in physics, chemistry or biology than ecology or climatology due to the abilities to hold demonstrations and allow students to conduct simple experiments). If they are pumping money into science education and it significantly increases the total number of students who pursue scientific careers at the expense of a decrease in climatologists, I don't think I would get angry about that. Especially since it would be nearly impossible to use high school donations to prevent scientists from pursuing careers in alternative energy research.

Besides, if a teacher is angry that the NSTA rejected these DVDs, couldn't that teacher cancel membership and use the saved dues to purchase the DVD?

Please, have mercy!

[alienmole]

I hope I get to meta-moderate your ass.

Oooh, threatening to meta-moderate someone. Now that's badass.

Re:Please, have mercy!

[MightyYar]

An' I'll do it, too. I'm serial. Look at you, all up in the clouds with your sky-high karma... you make me sick. Let's see how that karma looks after I meta-moderate your ass.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[linuxmop]

First of all, I find it amusing that you compare a natural science like climatology to an academic pursuit (loosely a social science, if there is such a thing to begin with) and a profession. I find it even more amusing that you think that Bono is behaving like a sociologist and that Jolie is behaving like a social worker. They're not.

Gore, on the other hand, is behaving like the politician that he is, like it or not. I don't care whether the movie presents legitimate science or not. It is not science. It is politics. It is a "cause." The title tells you that. It's not "A Truth" or "The Truth" or "Science at Work!". It's "An Inconvenient Truth". Science does not term things as inconvenient. Science does not make value judgements. Science terms things as testable, falsifiable hypotheses, makes predictions, and tests them.

You don't have to be a scientist to be credible. You don't have to be a scientist to tell people about "real facts." But you should certainly not be a politician playing a political game for a pet cause. Science and politics don't mix.

New title for the movie:

[SonicSpike]

"An Inconsistent Truth"

Like to see them take the challenge

[dammy]

Sure would like to see all these Global Warming folks take this challenge: http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm/.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

maybe you should actually look into some climate research.
Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes.

That's not exactly unequivocal language... Believe...could be...

This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including :
* more drought
* more floods
* desertification
* loss of productive farm land
* more extreme weather changes in local areas

So basically, no matter what happens, more or less moisture, any weather out of the "ordinary" (for a suitably loose definition of "ordinary") you can blame it on global warming and use it to support the theory? That's great, if you can get people to buy into it. Reminds me of tossing a coin - heads I win, tails you lose.

You also forgot to mention that some studies suggest that more C02 and warmer temperatures result in longer and more productive growing seasons and a net increase in food production. Oh wait, a plus side to "global warming?" We can't publicize that... ;-)

All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.

Simulations cannot prove anything. You know and can predict that putting X amount of energy into a given mass of water will raise its temperature by some amount. You know that from empirical tests and real science. Simulations of complex systems such as the global climate models can't even accurately predict the next El Nino event or two or three, let alone complex interactions of all the elements and factors that go into climate over the next 100 years. Different models predict different outcomes, and all are sensitive to a number of input criteria, weighting factors, etc. What you end up with is an educated guess, running monte-carlo simulations and taking what looks like the best or most likely outcome. But it is an estimate of what could happen, not a proof of what will happen. The real "inconvenient truth" is that we simply don't know enough to know what is going on - yet.

but what is OBVIOUS is that
1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
2. CO2 is a green house gas
3. Global temperatures are starting to go up

Yes, but man's output of C02 into the atmosphere accounts for something like just under 2% of the total CO2 put into the atmosphere. Even if we stopped all our emissions, it wouldn't be but a drop in the bucket.

Global temperatures are not starting to go up, they have been going up for 6000 years - since the last ice age. There is some debate on if the global temps are really going up. You see, most of the temperature reporting stations have upgraded equipment over the last century - no longer Uncle Joe reading the mercury every day and writing it in his notebook. Unfortunately, many of the stations have been overtaken by rural land use changes (farm fields are hotter than forest), or urbanization (cities are hotter than country). So in order to "back out" these localized effects on the temp data "corrections" are applied to the data based on land use, population densities, etc. The problem is, these corrections are typically more than an order of magnitude greater than the "trend" we're looking for in the data! So how do you know there is a 0.3 degree trend/rise over the last 50 years if you've applied a graduated -6.0 degree correction? What if the correction is wrong or off just a little, or the graduation scale is off? You can adjust your corrections and "prove" to yourself we're going to bake-out in a decade, or that we're heading into another ice-age. Finally, if global warming really is happening, and is a global phenomenon,

An Inconvenient truth

[teach-science]

Perhaps if the producers of the movie offered to pay for shipping to all NSTA members there would have been no discussion. Instead of fretting about the injustice of it all, maybe they should offer the movie free ( you pay for shipping and handling) to all teachers. I know that NSTA SciGuides has a guide that is balanced and fair in the treatment of oil, coal and alternative power sources. It is called Energy Resources. No editorial influence was exerted by ExxonMobil in its production.

Re:apolitical...

[famebait]

Nothing is ever apolitical, and neither should it. If it has no impact on politics, it probably doesn't matter at all.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[devnull17]

According to a link in the article that you linked to, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet alone would raise ocean levels by 7 meters.

Beyond that, ocean currents and weather patterns would be affected in ways that we flat-out can't predict. Not to mention that entire ecosystems could conceivably collapse. They're pretty fragile.

No one can prove that any of this will happen. But it's likely, and the stakes are pretty damned high. It's not a gamble most people are willing to take.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[famebait]

what is the world coming to' To a very hot and uncomfortable end, apparently.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[WhiplashII]

Well, if you look at other sites you will see that if all the ice melts that is at low enough altitude to melt (as in the worst case global warming predictions come true), you have, at most, a 1 meter change in the sea level this millenia. There are places with tides larger than that! Really, the end of the world scenarios are just silly. You say that the ecosystem is fragile - BS! The ecosystem has survived catastrophes you cannot imagine!

Admit it, you are just anti change. Save the polar bears that are dying to make room for a more resilient polar bear species - what rot! People like you caused the massive public park fires of prior years by your "protectionism", and this is no different. The only constant in this world is change, deal with it.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[hswerdfe]

You also forgot to mention that some studies suggest that more C02 and warmer temperatures result in longer and more productive growing seasons and a net increase in food production. Oh wait, a plus side to "global warming?" We can't publicize that... ;-)

you want another one, melting icecaps in the north could open up the north west passage, it would be a boon for the shipping industry. opening up a competing link (Panama canal) between Asia an Europe.

Simulations cannot prove anything. You know and can predict that putting X amount of energy into a given mass of water will raise its temperature by some amount.

I am aware of the problems with simulations, I run them all the time, and even developed a few (not global warming ones). You are quite correct they prove nothing but a well calibrated simulation can be a good indicator of what might happen in a system.

You know that from empirical tests and real science. Simulations of complex systems such as the global climate models can't even accurately predict the next El Nino event or two or three, let alone complex interactions of all the elements and factors that go into climate over the next 100 years.

There is a real difference between long term trends and short term variation or noise. My Weather man it very accurate in my area for 2 sometimes 3 days in advance, but past that there is little point even looking at the predictions. But that doesn't mean I don't know that the month of February 2007 will average in the -20C range. on the scale of one year seasonal changes 1 days scale is noise but 1 month average is something that can be filtered out. The same concept applies to global climate change models, you need to ignore (skip over) noise in the system that you don't think will matter in the long term analysis.

The problem is, these corrections are typically more than an order of magnitude greater than the "trend" we're looking for in the data! So how do you know there is a 0.3 degree trend/rise over the last 50 years if you've applied a graduated -6.0 degree correction?

I honestly can't say I am fully knowledgeable on what correction was done for urban areas. Or what statistical method was used to average global temperatures from a non uniform distribution of temperature gages.
I do know the problem you speak of in the general dealing with data sense, Where you apply some form of "Normalization", or "Filter" you think is needed, and via this method can convince yourself that almost anything is true. My main comment is that I have faith in the "Peer review" process, to pick up these errors.

I also believe many ships are equipped with temperature equipment and taking readings every now and again in the middle of this pacific helps.

There is far far too much "spin" on both sides of the global warming issue.

I agree I try to be anti spin pro fact, however I honestly believe I was being fair in my original post, (note: most of the words you highlighted).
"believe"
"Might be"
"could be"
"might happen".

in addition to these words I would like to add some more
"Strong Likelihood"
"Weight of Evidence"
"Probable"
"Most likely"
I think, maybe I should have used these words in my original post more.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[devnull17]

I don't consider myself to be afraid of change. I'm not an endangered species protectionist or anything like that. That said, temperature changes affect everything. Habitats, weather patterns, ocean currents, etc. There's no way to know the extent of what could happen. It seems intuitively obvious to me that playing with these variables entails an enormous risk, and offers very little in the way of return for anyone who's not an Exxon shareholder.

I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that one meter figure, but suffice it to say that it's definitely not a number that the scientific community agrees upon.

I view what you see as "protectionism" in the exact opposite light. The aforementioned fires occurred because people overstepped their boundaries, and attempted to intervene in the workings of nature without fully considering the consequences, which were drastic. It's not altogether dissimilar to global warming in that respect.

The bottom line is that it's a big risk to take. We're the product of millions of years of evolution that have finely tuned us to live on this planet in its current condition. I may be underestimating the resilience of the human race, but willfully running headfirst into something that may irrevocably alter the entire world is idiotic.

God, I wish I didn't have to explain myself

[FhnuZoag]

And in this case attempts to preserve the ecosystem can and will result in stagnation.

But who the hell cares?

That's the problem here - you are combining evolution, which is an observation of things happening as they are, with a strict brand of naturalist moralism, which contends that things that are 'natural' are good. But intrinsicly, evolution works against that because it firmly places us as part of nature, and so implies that there is no division between natural and artificial. Animals can change the environment to favour themselves. And if the environment already favours itself, they can make sure things stay the same.

Evolution works by finding high survivability dna datasets with respect to the present environmental factors. There is no concept of 'stagnation', because that idea implies a global desirability measurement that is independent of the environment. What evolution is about is animals matching up to the environment that they live in, and changing the environment merely changes the target criteria that evolution is trying to meet. It isn't inherently good or bad. Stagnation is only 'bad' because a faster evolving creature can outcompete a slow evolving one, in some situation. It's meaningless to say that the planet is itself stagnating, because it isn't competing with anything.

The only good and bad in the whole scenario is with respect to us. We know that we have an impact on the environment, and that we definitely have an impact on the selection criteria for evolution. If we believe that a certain scenario, a certain mix of environment and environmentally matched organisms are bad for us, then we can to a degree control it - if we think that things are actually pretty good the way they are, then the rational thing to do is to preserve the environmental factors that made it this way.

coal is a fossil fuel

[wilec]

"What I think we should be serious about is sequestering a percentage of fossil fuel production and make sure it is set aside for those industries that produce secondary products that are not possible without petroleum - e.g. pharmaceuticals, plastics, various advanced materials.

You might be able to build a clean-burning coal-fired automobile, given the NECESSITY of doing so (in the not-so-distant future), but can you imagine the difficulty of doing so with no plastics?"

Not to dispute most of your post but coal is a fossil fuel itself and very similar in composition to oil. If you look about you will find that pharmaceuticals, plastics and many industrial base products can be and have been manufactured from coal as well. I seem to remember that high sulfur coal is the preferred raw material for some pharmaceuticals. My father was a coal miner for most his life, the last company he worked for (Mapco) at one time gave its employees a set of outdoor furniture made from a combination of unburnt coal products and fly ash - a burnt coal product. It looked very much like plastic to me and was extremely tough and durable. The practice of using coal as a replacement for oil is mostly a question of economics. It rests not only on the question of which is cheapest at any specific time, but also on infrastructure costs and the old "who gets to make the money issue". All these questions today favor oil. Two, ten or twenty years from now that might not be the case especially considering the US and Canada have huge coal and oil shale/sand reserves. Despite these facts I do agree that the preservation of certain oil reserves might be a good idea.

Wabi Sabi
Matthew

Some quickly Googled links on this topic:

http://www.heritageresearch.com/manufactured_gas_I .htm

http://acswebcontent.acs.org/landmarks/industrial_ t1.html

http://chemicalland21.com/specialtychem/finechem/P HENANTHRAQUINONE.htm

How did that end up for her?

[Grendel Drago]

I'm a bit surprised she didn't go public with that. Now that she's in another field, it's not like she really cares what her previous boss thinks of her, and clear-cut evidence of wrongdoing like that seems tailor-made for the press. What was her reason for not going to the press? Accountability is how we're kept honest; if that breaks down, we get the situation you described. (It's not surprising that the dean didn't punish the fudger; they have the same vested interest. Accountability comes from people with a different angle on the situation.)

And, of course, I didn't say that researchers motivated by grant money never fudge numbers or fake data; I just said that their motivation to do so is hardly comparable to that of a "think tank".

Well, that's a lot of ad hominem.

[Grendel Drago]

Did you respond to anything I said? You appear to have simply flung out a bunch of assertions which you're predicting will have some resonance with my political beliefs, about which you know nothing.

You did make the mistake of making an easily falsifiable claim ("If you say something even remotely positive about anything listed above, you are on the fast-track to being labeled a Troll or Flamebate. It is absolutely predictable and enternaining to watch this phenomenon."), and so I'll do you the courtesy of falsifying it for you, by picking something random from your list.

Non-free software has a purpose. I wouldn't tell a professional photographer to switch from their custom tools to using free software. One uses different tools for different reasons. As I am (a) not a professional photographer, (b) cheap, and (c) inclined to tweak and fiddle with things, I use free software for image editing, stitching and so forth. I can understand why a professional would rather use professional tools. While it's not my choice, I certainly don't hate the concept, and the idea that everyone should be forced to use the same tools is repugnant to me.

We'll see if the firestorm of troll/"flamebate" moderations that you predicted come to pass. I should also point out that you got modded up for your whining about the moderation system and the Slashdot Cabal that hates you.

Not this crap again.

[Grendel Drago]

I should get a damned nickel every time I point this out.

There were no warnings put out by the scientific press on an impending ice age in the 1970s. Stop claiming that there were. It's about as clever as that one about "we can't predict whether it will rain next week; how can we predict the climate in twenty years?".

Being offended isn't a response.

[Grendel Drago]

You didn't respond to anyone's arguments. You put out an assertion, then disclaimed responsibility for it because you phrased it as a question. You avoided responding to any counterarguments (such as requests for you to back up your claims), and whined about being insulted. Here, I'll reenact it with a different claim, and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.

A: Is Pentavirate a baby-eating Furry?
B: You're an idiot. Do you have any evidence to back that up? You're just talking smack.
A: How dare you call me an idiot? Why, my delicate sensibilities are overwhelmed. I may faint. All I did was ask a simple question. What a savage place.

Re:I'm SHOCKED

[Psykosys]

Let's review what the parent wrote: "This movie presents scientific facts in a understandable matter."

Did he claim or in any way imply that Al Gore was a scientist or needed to play the role of one? Gore's film presents the current scientific consensus to the public. This does not constitute original research, and no one is arguing it does.

Re:Is this about science being apolitical

[Trogre]

I don't know what bible you've been reading, but in the Christian one people are encouraged to practise better-than-unsustainable farming.

From Exodus:
"You may plant your land for six years and gather its crops. But during the seventh year, you must leave it alone and withdraw from it. The needy among you will then be able to eat just as you do, and whatever is left over can be eaten by wild animals."

And Leviticus:
"When you come to the land that I am giving you, the land must be given a rest period, a sabbath to God. For six years you may plant your fields, prune your vineyards, and harvest your crops, but the seventh year is a sabbath of sabbaths for the land."