Slashdot Mirror
BBC Wants Evidence of Climate Science Bias
Amtiskaw writes "Discussion of climate change is rife with claims and counter-claims of partisanship and bias. Some of the most serious of which being that the scientific community is smothering more skeptical research in the field. Now the BBC is asking for evidence of this self-censorship. From the article:
'Journals are meant to publish the best research irrespective of whether it accepts that the sky is blue, or finds it could really be green ... So the accusations that all is not well at the heart of climate science, and that censorship is rife in organisations which award research grants, the editorial boards of journals and the committees of the IPCC, should be examined seriously.
Readers are asked to submit evidence of bias, which the the BBC will then investigate.'" Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.
*THUNK*
* AKAImBatman's forehead has hit the desk
Hemos, the entire point of an investigation like this is to uncover if such counter-claims actually exist. If they are being stifled, then you probably wouldn't know about them. Why? Because they're being stifiled.
If such an investigation finds no hidden counter-claims, then we will know for a fact that the claims of stifling are overblown. In that case you may freely state that Lomborg is leading the charge against the current scientific position, and that no other counter-claims exist. But by making presupositions in the story, you are biasing your readership to the outcome. Which could have negative effects on getting the truth out should the BBC find evidence that climatologists are self-censoring their own.
I realize you were trying to be helpful by sharing the information you do know, but journalistic integrity requires that you not make judgements until such an investigation is done. In other words, there are times that it's best to just report the news.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Why ask readers to submit evidence of bias? Why would they be more likely to find such evidence than scientists making counter-claims? This will probably result in nothing more than readers submitting every article on climate change that they disagree with.
Some attitudes replaced or by cgi optimizes
Best according to what criteria?
echo $SIGNATURE
It seems to me that modern news outlets are far too obsessed with presenting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Sometimes information doesn't have to be presented with a neat and comprehensive list of counter arguments.
As I argued here, you don't know if there's bias until you see scientists making valid predictions and still being shut out. What counts as a valid prediction in climate sciences? No one is going to say that "next year, global temp. readings will increase by 1 degree". No one will even predict the *sign* of the change next year. What they will predict is trends over e.g., the next five years. But then, you have to gather a statistically significant number of these to rule out luck. So, you'd need to get those right several times to validate your model. Accounting for varing CO2 emissions, of course, complicates it. I doubt there's enough evidence time-history (following a previous prediction) to falsify anyone's theory. That's the problem.
Btw, the summary implies Lomborg denies that climate change is real. That's not true. In The Skeptical Environmentalist, his claim is that the media misrepresent the various probabilities of the different scenarios, and that the costs of significant changes (like Kyoto, and by extension, anything more stringent than Kyoto) are not justified by the benefits they would yield. That's not the same as denying the existence of climate change.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
He never really did, just that the evidence was inconclusive. Now he believe global warming to be real (the evidence has become stronger), Lomborg just claim that adapting to a changing climate makes more economic sense than trying to control the climate.
Comparing the cost of trying to adapt to a changing climate with the cost of trying to prevent climate change is certainly a worthwhile, especially as global warming based on past actions is already inevitable.
Climate is an always-changing parameter, and it's difficult to say if the actual climate is abnormal or if it just is between the normal parameters, seeing it in a long period of thousands of years. This is because we have so little *rigurous* information about how the exact temperatures, etc were 400 years ago in some point of the map.
That said, it's imposible for us to know if the earth experimented the same changes than today many years ago. On the other hand, there is no doubd about the destructive action of the human hand in the climate, so where is the truth? Of course, the media will always prefer the apocalyptical view, because it sells best.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Of course, evidence will be provided. Bias will be shown. And then the Office of Officious Stifling of Problematic Counter-Claims will whip into action, after tea, and promptly stifle the case. Unless, of course, no evidence of bias is presented.
Should no evidence be provided, the Bureau of Studious Demogoguery will fly into the thick of it, again, after tea, and immediately claim that lack of evidence is proof that the OOSPCC pre-stifled the evidence. At which point, the Ministry of Moderated Judgementalism will, uncharacteristically before tea, issue a statement that they will review, ponder, and further investigate the possiblity of a need to issue a further statement at some future date, as yet unspecified, as to whether or not to take the BSD's statement at face value, or have tea.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Many who suggest that western nations are not the primary cause of climate change are described as if they deny there is any climate change. Thay is unfair and inaccurate, and often what happens when Bjørn Lomborg is mentioned. You may want to look at the call by (un)Scientific American magazine for articles that "debunked" Bjørn Lomborg conclusions in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". If they were interested in science the call would have been for articles about the research involved, for or against.
No brain, no pain.
Look, I happen to lean more towards believing in human/industry induced global warming than not, but I really want to see more of this type of open-minded thinking which presumably (hopefully) will permeate the BBC studies. It's the only way we're ever going to get a handle on this issue. Despite what Al Gore would have you think it is not a black-and-white issue.
why? forty-two.
So the BBC wants evidence of changing climates between Microsoft and Google? Oh, boy. I used to remember predicting the weather was a simple affair: stick your head out the door and determine if it will rain or not. Now you have to worry about whether it's raining Microsofts and Googles.
Not!
the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real
That's scarcely the issue. The stuff that generates the most friction are the discussions over who exactly, if anyone, is responsible for what part of things that may or may not have any bearing on anything that will amount to actual problems, and what policy/economic changes are or aren't worth the cost, heartache, investment, and so on. Or, is the human component of this lost in the noise, or enough so that crippling economies isn't the right way to look at changing it, etc. Of course climate changes. It always has and will. This whole topic will be a lot easier to discuss if folks don't use the phrase "climate change" to mean the same thing as "damaging global warming that some people in certain countries with certain habits are causing more than others and could change if they only switched to hydrogen which we'll all pretend doesn't require other energy sources to put to work blah blah."
People project whatever they want to see associated with "climate change," to the point where it's a useless phrase. What part of climate change? Which part that would or wouldn't be happening in much the same way anyway, or which does or doesn't have some benefit for one group that outweighs something happening elsewhere? It doesn't matter what the answers to those things are, just that they are way more complex than "accepting" or not that the climate changes.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Love the wiki.i c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skept
"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686/
Lomborg does not claim that anthropogenic global warming does not exist. He claims that we should be using a different strategy to overcome it, or rather not overcome but live with it.
At least, that's what he said in the Skeptical Environmentalist. He may have changed his mind since then.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
> Best according to what criteria?
Duh! Best according to it is GoodFact or BadFact. Remember, debate on the issue is now closed so any fact that doesn't support the Official State Truth is sedition against the State and blasphemy against Mother Gaia's wishes as She has revealed them to Al Gore. Any DoublePlus Ungood traitors trying to undermine the State must be hunted down, marked on a list to be shunned and defunded and if that doesn't solve the problem we will put em in reeducation camps after we decide it is Hatespeech.
Democrat delenda est
This is mostly a copy and paste from another of my earlier posts with a few edits
The overwhelming majority of scientists (who would describe themselves as working scientists versus simple degree holders in the field) are academics working in academic university environments, or even in the case of goverment or corporate research labs, are in the academic revolving door. It is no secret that major universities are basically immersed in left-wing culture both at the official level (such as having ethnic or women's studies departments, speech codes, etc) and at the unofficial level (such as student protest groups). So, these guys are working and living in what amounts to a left-wing echo chamber and anti-industrial environmentalism is a core tenet of modern leftist orthodoxy. People working in that enviornment can not help but have a certain amount of cultural bias. As in most social environments, there is great pressure to conform. I do not doubt that in some cases, non-conforming academics have been ostracized as cretins or kooks, denied tenure, and passed up for promotion. So it is not surprising that a "majority of scientists" would land of the left-wing side of any particular debate, given the implications of being on the "wrong" side.
Also, without accusing anybody of consciously cooking the data, its easy to see what you want to see in data when you have pre-conceived notions. I would say that even the questions researchers ask or don't ask (i.e. what they choose to subject to a study or ignore) is influenced by their preconceived cultural notions.
When somebody says "science is on our side", I basically evaluate it the same as if they said "the statistics are on our side" (especially if its based on statistical or computer models instead of "hard science" that is reproducable in the lab). When somebody says, "the majority of scientists" are on our side, they are just using a logical fallacy - appeal to authority.
As much as we would all like to believe that scientists are selflessly searching for the "truth", they have motivations similar to everybody else (greed, fame, power, money, personel vendettas, etc). They also are capable of political bias. These motivations and bias can color the "truth".Throw in grant money and the prestige of getting published in well-respected journals and the results can be toxic to "truth".
I personally believe that the warming trend itself is undeniable. The extent of it that can be blamed on man versus natural climatic cycles is debatable. There probably is an anti-industrial environmental bias built into most climatic studies conducted at any university or government institutions. All claims should be filtered and evaluated with that in mind.
BTW, this is one of the funniest links around that pokes fun at politicized Science They are from some radio ads that a lobbyist group ran in the Washington, DC market. Obviously biased themselves, but very funny.
There are two main problems I see with climate change science, one is that there is a belief that scientific consensus is the same as scientific proof (if this were true the world would have been flat in the 1400's) and the other problem is that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence.
." In many cases you could replace "Increase in Man made greenhouse gasses" with "Reduction in Pirates" and conclude that the world is warming because we lack pirates.
The fact is that even the evidence that shows we are undergoing a warming trend fails to demonstrate that this is a long term warming trend, that the warming trend is man-made, or that green-house gasses have had an impact on the temperature change. The argument is usually along the lines "We have demonstrated that the Earth's temperature has risen 1 degree in the past 100 years, and at the same time man-made green house gasses have increased 10 times so the impact from man made greenhouse gasses is
What really bothers me is that whenever anyone attacks a study that makes questionable claims people automatically question their motives; all good science can withstand attacks from anyone regardless of their motives. The fact that these studies are treated like they're glass really makes me doubt how valid they are.
Born Lomborg, the author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, that Hemos mentioned certainly does NOT deny that global warming is real. The best I can sum up his points are:
* The level of anthropogenic heating is unclear.
* Climate predictions routinely exaggerate changes or use worst case scenarios
* Cost calculations of warming frequently omit: benefits of warming (fewer people dying of cold weather, better crop yields), technological improvements, and behavior adaptation
* Given that the mechanisms driving warming (and there for the effectiveness of proposed solutions) is unclear, and the cost usually exagerated, it would be unwise to devote huge sums to this problem. Instead look for problems where the benefit is clear and a solution is available (such as providing clean water to the worlds poor) to spend this money on.
Anyone who is interested in this and other environmental issues must read his book. He set out years ago to debunk the claims of Julian Simon, and found himself changing his mind the more statistics he researched.
He does claim that everything is hunky dorry, or that there are no problems. What he advocates is a rational examination of problems and their costs so that we can evaluate the best course of action.
Spencer Ogden
Now we need to see if we can figure out what's causing global warming on Mars. Maybe it's got the same cycle, which in turn might be based on, oh, I don't know,... What do the Earth and Mars have in common that might affect temperatures... the SUN?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Part of that was a turf war going on, with an economist moving in on the area covered by scientists. It is no surprise that Scientific American and The Economist took opposing sides in that discussion, each defending their own trade.
Risking the obligatory down-moderation for being "off-topic", even a quick trip to Wikipedia would show that there are a few more folks out there who have stated their opposition to the current 'consensus' on Global Warming, including those who doubt there is a global rise in temperatures, those who believe that there may be a rise in temperature but the cause is not properly explained, and those who have a problem with the current governmental frameworks (such as the Kyoto accord) that have been proposed or enacted to combat Global Warming.
The biggest problem I personally have with the whole Global Warming thing is that the whole thing has been simplified to "Man's carelessness and wanton capitalist greed is destroying the Earth, and we must rebuild or remake all of society now before the fuzzy bunny rabbits and cute black and white penguins all die." Nothing good ever comes from reducing something this complicated to a political bumper sticker--and while this is just one bumper sticker, the whole popular approach to Global Warming has been reduced to a political bumper sticker mentality.
I think the key problem with climate change reporting is that it's portrayed as a "you're with us or with them" point of view and if you don't believe the popular dogma, you're one of "them". The problem is, there isn't only one question. Besides the "is it real?" and "are we responsible?" questions, there's also:
* If it is real, is it permanent and not just an earth/solar cycle?
* If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), is it due to greenhouse gases? (i.e. not deforestation, urban heat islands, the hole in the ozone, or other causes or even a combination of these causes)
* If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), what is the real impact if nothing is done? (Even if the cause is greenhouse gases, it may make more sense to grow the necessary number of forests to absorb the gas as our gas output increases or find some other way to solidify/trap greenhouse gases.)
* If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), can anything be done to reverse it? (If not, then while it's common sense to try to reduce the impact, it makes a lot of sense to either invest in technologies to either live with it or leave earth).
Unfortunately, the issue has become so politicized that these other more important questions are being drowned out or viewed as "avoiding the real issue" by the dogmatists.
What I found shocking is that some of the same scientists who had funding ties to big tobacco and were saying that there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer are now the same scientists with funding ties to big oil and are claiming there is no proof of global warming.
It's the "man made" climate change that's disputed.
"Censorship" means literally "evaluation"; Roman Censors used to watch over the Republic's morals and had a few other duties (including the census). Of course we usually we refer to the case when speech, art or other forms of expression are evaluated and denied publication. This is bad as everybody has a right to speak, and evaluating cases in which this should not apply leads rapidly to those in charge abusing their power and silencing those who contest them.
However, in science there are serious evaluation guidelines. If claims are cooked up or not backed by data, they are just that. Can't take the heat, don't play the game.
As a side note, Lomborg is a cook.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
First of all, I"m a fan of Lomborg's work: I think a lot of resources are misspent in poor attempts to improve the environment, when those resources could be much better spent in if they carefully targeted the most critical environmental problems. But Lomborg's not a climate scientist. He doesn't do research on global warming. The BBC is asking about suppressing global warming research, which is an issue irrelevant to Lomborg. Calling Lomborg a "counter-claimant" in this context makes it look like he does research showing that there isn't global warming, which might be being suppressed. That isn't the case at all. He doesn't do climate research. He evaluates the state of the environment and makes economic arguments about where and how we should direct resources to acheive the biggest envionmental improvements for our efforts.
Even as an economist, he's not a "global warming counter-claimant," as he believes in global warming. As he says right up front in this Telegraph opinion piece, "Global warming is real and caused by CO2."
Lomborg's arguments don't attempt to be, and are not, relevant to the scientific debate about global warming. (The debate being exactly how much there is and what all is contributing to it in what ways, not whether there is any, which is pretty well settled.) He just argues about the costs and benefits of various scenarios for attempting to counter global warming. For example, his argument in the linked article is:
1. Climate scientists think that even worldwide adherence to Kyoto would make a tiny difference in the speed of global warming.
2. Kyoto adherence would be fabulously expensive.
3. For less than the costs of adhering to Kyoto, we could provide clean water, sanitation, and basic health care to every poor person in the world.
If those three statements are provably true, I think they would make a lot of people rethink what actions should be taken regarding global warming.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
"Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of."
e ws/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml. Don't just glance at the head; download the PDF and see what he's saying. Are there dissenters to this point of view? Sure there are. Did the United Nations cook the books on the evidence here? Yes, they did, and THAT ought to be a serious warning bell to anyone. Don't ignore this. WHY did the UN CHANGE the data to make global warming look worse than it is? This is a smoking gun. Even if you push it under the rug it's going to make an ugly lump.
Thus providing a perfect example of what the BBC is talking about. Even if you never take your eyeballs off slashdot itself, there is ample evidence to the contrary, including the very detailed analysis by Moncton: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
The issue here is not so much whether global warming is true. After all, we're coming off an ice age. At some level of course it's true. The issue is, Why does there seem to be a concerted push to make this a 'done deal' by people whose political interests would suggest they very nuch want it to be for their own agenda. The backlash to Moncton is interesting. It's similar to the Christian church demonizing Pan into Satan simply to gain control of he largely ignorant populace. A lot of the counter claims amount to argumentum ad hominem, an argument against the person, not the evidence. For all you folks who bristle every time someone calls Stallman a big fat smelly boy, well, this is the same thing.
If there are no alarm bells going off in your head over at least some of the issues raised by the dissenters, then you are already converted. If you believe the world was created on October 29, 4004 BC at 10:00 in the morning, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. For the rest, you owe it to yourselves to take a dispassionate and serious look at what the dissenters are saying without letting your SUV-loathing get in the way. Let us all see what the issues are here without jumping on either extremist side.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
So, Hemos, how's that degree in climatology coming along?
For myself, I'm a bystander who's not really noticed much climate change during the 20+ years I've lived in the Southeast of the US (Atlanta, to be specific). Since all I have are my observations, and they seem to indicate a steady state, I refuse to be stampeded by appeals to authority or common practice, or by bandwagons.
The treatment Bjorn Lomborg received reminds me of Galileo before the inquisition. Taking that a little further, please enjoy your religion, but please keep it out of my face.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
That's the largest fallacy continually presented in any climate-change (or otherwise controversial topics involving science) that "consensus" is necessary. Hint: it is NOT necessary. If 99.9% of reports say one thing, but only ONE says the opposite, but the SINGLE report is verifiable, and has no flaws, it INVALIDATES the rest of the body of knowledge. Usually it also has to address WHY the previous work was incorrect, what errors they made, etc, but the whole premise of the Scientific Method is of reproducibility, and verifiable results. The doctors who figured out that most stomach ulcers were the result of bacteria that could be easily treated with antibiotics was a discovery that flew in the face of 100s of years of data and "proof" that stress caused ulcers... but the bacterial cause hypothesis was proven right. It took a bit of time, but they were right.
I'll say it again: Science has nothing to do with consensus. All that is required to resolve different viewpoints is to find who's ignoring evidence, has bad evidence-gathering, or who's not following correct processes for analysis. Where there's conflict you have to address it head-on and find out who's right. You can't both be right, so conflict only means that somebody (or both) are not trying to find out WHY somebody has reached a conclusion, not just saying "well I have more people that agree with me, therefore I'm right." That's opinion, not science. If anybody EVER uses that argument, it proves that they are no longer using science. The ONLY place where there can be two viewpoints held scientifically that remain in conflict is where there remains significant uncertainty over the evidence itself, in which case the 3rd point of view "I don't know what's actually happening" is actually the most scientifically correct.
Insitutional Bias is a fine thing to claim in say, Literary studies, or philosophy (a continental philosopher you say.. there's the door I say), but science generally (and this includes climatology) is a field where on earns street credit by conducting experiments which challange (and defeat) your own hypothosies.
Remember, Stephen Hawking's bet over whether one could trace the path of matter through a black hole? Steve said you couldn't track matter's course through the singularity, a competing physicist said you could.. fast foward a few years to Hawking hosting a big press event to report that he was wrong, and this other guy was able to prove it mathematically.
Granted, this is based on the assumption that climatology is a measurable and testable science - to which I reply: Sure, we cannot play with the atmosphere like we do with rocketry and electronics - but we can't play with passing matter through a black hole either. Mathematical models are very nearly the limit of our experimentation with the speed of light, string theory, macro-economics, and a hundred other fields. We cannot say that because we can't experiment "in the dirt" that you cannot conduct scientific investigations of climatology. Einstien (who some say was a pretty decent scientist) did almost all of his work in his head and on chalk boards. He came up with e=mc2 using mental models. He proved it with mathematics. It wasn't until years later that any of his hair-brained ideas could be verified in the dirt. Getting your hands dirty isn't science, thurough going investigative research is the bread and butter of advancing human knowledge, from Descartes to us, with love.
-GiH
Nuclear power splits the atom. The judicial system determines the fate of men. Medicine tries to repair (and even restore) life to the patient. Farmers have hacked the geneome for millenia and geneticist have started making it serious. Engineers dam rivers and even make them flow backwards. All-seeing satellites monitor the globe. The Internet itself has become a sort of gigantic tower of Babel, pooling together the knowledge of humankind and making it instantly available to the masses.
Accusing someone of "playing god" is just a euphanism for saying that you're frightened or threatened by whatever new thing someone else is undertaking. Now fear is good--all of my examples above have had their catastrophic failures--but wrapping it up in a theological prohibition won't actually stop people from attempting it. When you're tempted to use the "playing god" argument, consider instead using your voice to encourage caution and research into the possible dangers.
Teenage pregnancy is always happening; therefore teenage pregancy is normal, not bad. Ditto for "genocide", "extinction", and "chronic disease".
I have no control over how flames dance around in a fire, but I can dowse the fire. If we influenced the climate negatively, then we might be able to influence it positively.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Parent is -1 offtopic at the moment and is directly related to the topic of how the scientific community reacts to climate change skeptics.
Lindzen, by the way, is a climate scientist who thinks that negative feedback loops will win, so it's not just Lomborg and Gray.
Some people note the existence of just one or two pseudoscientists that abuse a theory, and decide that the entire field is crap. Like the losers that criticize evolution and anthropology because of Piltdown man. But I guess you're skeptical there too ... after all, biologists lied to us, right?
Thanks for the great link.
Multiply this experience with that of his like-minded colleagues and you clear evidence that the politicization of global warming is a self-sustaining and corrupt.
an ill wind that blows no good
The only thing I find unsubstantiated is your assertion that the facts were fabricated. Accusing Prof Rowland and Molina of using fabricated evidence is a serious charge that must be backed up by solid evidence.
Otherwise, I will assume that you are engaged in politically motivated slander.
OTOH, Einstein's Nobel Prize was for his work on quanta, ironically enough (specically, the photoelectric effect). In fact, the Nobel Prize committee is rumored to have been initially against giving him the prize on the basis that it might provide support to that crazy relativity theory of his.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
A virgin, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man, whatever works. There is enough evidence to suggest to a reasonable and intelligent person that human-generated global warming may exist. There is also sufficient evidence to suggest to the same reasonable and intelligent person that human-generated global warming does not exist. I can't imagine that the Climate Gods enjoy such a balanced argument. Given the potential outcomes I've suggested, why are we not taking every reasonable step to solve this problem (even if it's not really a problem)?
Besides, if you sacrificed all the virgins, then who would post to /.?
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
Afraid of a 6 billon year old world? Creationists. Afraid of space miliarization/the future? Moon landing deniers. Afraid of the free market? Communists. Afraid of disease? Homeopathy. Afraid of secular education? Home Schoolers.
This is just a pet peeve of mine, but fear of secular education isn't the only reason anybody home schools. That is, not all home schoolers are religious nuts trying to indoctrinate their children and keep them from some kind of "bad thoughts" out there. I was home taught for entirely different reasons (social troubles in big, lowest-common-denominator, shut-up-sit-still-and-memorize-this public schools, and the inability to pay for smaller, more progressive private schools that could cater to gifted students) and I'm about the most anti-dogmatic person I know. And I'm now almost through with university, with very good grades, so I can't complain about the quality of the education either.
That's all, just wanted to harp on that. Home school != religious indoctrination.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.
Others have pointed out that Lomborg isn't disputing global warming but have failed to point out why. He can't! He's not a scientist, well, at least not physical science.
As his bio points out, he is a political scientist. His area of expertise is public policy and since 1998 his major focus has been on public policy surrounding global warming. If it wasn't in the original post, I'd probably have modded (yes, I'm sitting on mod points but decided to respond directly) comments regarding Lomborg as off-topic; the BBC is looking for evidence of scientific bias not of political dissension.
It's probably too late into the discussion for anyone to notice this, but I thought that I'd provide a little context for the Global Warming debate that is generally overlooked.
Up front, I have right leaning tendencies. I'm not going to advocate the position here, but I will share with you some of the thinking that's taking place on the right that causes this to be such a contentious issue, because I think that might lead to a more constructive discussion with the left (which I think the majority of Slashdot is more inclined towards).
Recently, there has been a term that's been gaining popularity - Watermelon Environmentalism. That is, green on the outside, red on the inside. It's a common belief that the environmentalist cause has become deeply integrated with the socialist cause. When the right looks at what the environmentalist movement advocates, it looks an awful lot like centralized control of the economy. That freaks out the right a little bit. For an analogy that might be comparable on the left - consider the use of the term "terrorism" to expand the reach of government. The right is having roughly the same reaction to the claims of global warming.
Now, toss in the fact that those warning of doom are frequently coming from areas sympathetic to socialist ideas, and you begin to understand the reticence by the right to buy the science. And let's face it, scientists are human beings too, and certainly not above having ideology (intentionally or not) influence their work. If you press someone on the right, I'm positive they're far more hostile to the corrective action being suggested than the actual concept of global warming.
So if only bonafide experts in the climate science can dispute global warming, the do you accept that only bonafide experts in climate science can *advocate* global warming, etc.?
From the Global Warming Petition:
"During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition."
So...that's 2/3, or, 5610 of them we can cross off. No advanced degree, not a scientist, so not a climate scientist.
"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists..."
Whoever in this list is not a "climate scientist" is also not allowed to advocate. Too bad they don't break it out. Wait...did I see there were meteorologists in that list? They CERTIANLY, can't advocate for global warming.
"Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences..."
Puleeze...Chemistry? What do they know about Global Warming....BUUUZZZZ another 5K advocates gone.
"approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science..."
Must be the polititicians, "activists" and Slashdotterts....cross them off.
So we start with 17k, less 5000, less 2400, less another 5k. So that leaves us with about 4000. And in reality, I bet quite a few of them are not "climate scientists".
So be careful when you start discounting someone's opinions and/or work just because they don't have the title that you want to see after their name.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Planck of course, like Einstein, fully accepted quantum mechanics as the theory and especially convincing experimental progress evolved.
Planck was involved in modern physics of the time throughout his life.
(Also Einstein didn't reject quantum mechanics in itself---he rejected the Copenhagen Interpretation
as inconsistent mumbo-jumbo. Modern physics actually says the same {"decoherence" is currently the preferred option}, even though Copenhagen makes the right predictions in most experimentally relevant cases. The specific proposals Einstein made in QM turned out to not be true, but the experimental evidence was not available until after Einstein's death. Had Einstein lived, he surely would have changed his theories.)
I know he didn't even believe in quantum mechanics and tried for the remainder of his life to somehow reconcile his discoveries with classical mechanics, which turned out to be impossible.
Except for that wee little thing called the Bohr correspondence principle?
The reality of the physics was that quantum mechanics and classical mechanics were successfully reconciled; large quantum number limits go to known classical mechanics.
Maxwell's equations remain fully valid in their regimes and the eventual successful unification of electromagnetic fields as a quantum-mechanical phenomenon as quantum optics and later quantum electrodynamics was successfully accomplished. So, contrary to Planck's initial fear, Maxwell was not thrown out at all.
Notice that in 1905 this theory was not fully available. By the 1930's most of it was. There were both photons (excitation of the creation operator on vacuum E&M fields) and Maxwell's equations in it in their own way.
We may be talking about different things with polar bears. It's not just that populations are declining or underweight, it's -how- they're dying. Drowning, esp., is uncharacteristic in a species that can easily swim tens of miles in arctic water. Something profound is going on.
An analogy that came to mind is lung cancer. In the 19th Century lung cancer was so rare that a doctor may only see it a few times in his career, and always the topic of discussion in the local community when it occurred.
A century later lifespans were significantly longer, overall health is significantly higher... and lung disease has remained the #1 or #2 killer for decades. It's worthwhile to look at what's changed in the environment, even if it appears to be unrelated.
The answer (we believe now) was the commercialization and social acceptance of cigarette smoking and industrial/vehicular air pollution. The latter was effectively handled by the "clean air act" (which the republicans have been trying to repeal, btw), but the tobacco industry managed to create an illusion of controversy over the impact of cigarette smoke for decades.
Even though lung cancer rates were clearly linked to cummulative usage... and there was a significant drop-off once people kicked the habit.
That's why it's not important whether it's one bear or three, it's the overall nature of the bears. It's a problem when all of the bears are underweight, when infant mortality skyrockets (from lack of nutritional resources), when bears are drowning because they're too weak or the ice pack has gotten too thin. Something's going on.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
this one
Sort of this one
this one
this one
this one
this one
there are a lot more. I'm not saying religion in totality is trying to spread FUD I'm sayign certain religious groups are stirring opposition for no other reason then to undermine certain scientific corner stones and theories they find inconvienant. Like parts of geology, astronomy, genetics, immunology, ect..
I am myself a moderate catholic. I find the exstremists and fundementalsist distasteful.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337
Here are two Democratic Senators urging Exxon to not support any contrary research in the area of global warming.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
1. The CS Monitor article is talking about the effects of global warming, not denying it. In any case, the Christian Science Monitor isn't a religious publication and doesn't represent any religion - despite the name.
2. The second article is about evangelicals talking about how important it is to fight global warming. Yeah, they're real skeptics.
3. The website called "Answers in Genesis" does not represent the position of any church - which is what I specified, remember? In any case, it's an editorial complaining that Christianity Today - which does represent a national christian organization - wants Christians to do more to fight global warming.
4. An article in "Grist" - which turns out to be another editorial complaining about Christians, but not actually representing the position of any Christian organization.
5. You cite a blog about films!?! as evidence that Christians don't believe in global warming?
6. A timeline quoting headlines related to environmental news. Okay. Topics include Pat Robertson announcing that he believes in global-warming.
Holy Shit, dude. This is your evidence that mainstream Christian organizations don't believe in global warming?!?
Clear, Dark Skies
So you, with absolutely no references and a head full of conspiracy theories, know better than NASA, the ESA, the NOAA, the WMO, and the EPA -- all of whom believe in the theory of anthropogenic ozone depletion caused by CFCs, and publish research that supports that theory?
Seriously, here in reality, science supports the theory of anthropenic ozone depletion. It supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It supports almost all the theories that scientists and environmentalists endorse, and that paranoid antigovernment sociopaths bitterly decry as attempts to destroy the US economy.
The ESA's research has found ozone-depleting clouds containing CFC-derived radicals. But Europeans are automatically wrong since they try not to fight unwinnable $500 billion dollar wars of attrition in the middle east anymore, right?
The NOAA is pretty sure that ozone depletion is caused by Humans. Are your tax dollars being used as part of a grand conspiracy to destroy America? Better start writing more threatening letters to the government.
NASA's ozone depletion FAQ. But everyone knows that NASA is a liberal conspiracy developed by socialists to undermine industrialism in all its forms.
To summarize: don't be such a fucking idiot. Anthropogenic ozone depletion is completely real.
I say this in another post, but I'll say it here since you cite him: Pat Micheals is a fraud who misrepresents other scientists work. He has lied under oath to the US congress, and he takes payment directly from the coal industry. If you are trying to find people who have legitimate claims against Climate Change look elsewhere.