Slashdot Mirror
Expert Wants to Decertify Global Warming Skeptics
Penguinisto writes "Apparently in the Senate, at least one scientist wants to put a permanent stop to any arguments over Global Warming. The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming."
No scientific discussion can be made without questioning theories. Censorship is no solution.
"You sir are a fucking nutjob!" is what I would say to that man if I ever met him.
People need to believe fictional things are real just as much as we need to believe the truth. While we may not like people pointing it out things only advance through ignorant, debate and insightful driven by these debates. With these debates we currently discuss if global warming is real, what's making it happen and how we fix it. If we get rid of the nay-says we end up with "It's real guys, humans did it, we must stop doing EVERYTHING because we're not sure what the hell is going on".
It may take a genius to invent the wheel, but it takes an idiot with a square wheelbarrow to inspire him.
I like muppets.
But what if they are right? Sure it seems unlikely, but if we ban offering an opposing opinions we trap ourselves. Besides shouldn't we be focusing on censoring intelligent design first? (note to stupid people: I am not serious about censoring intelligent design advocated). Oh yeah, and what about the Bill of Rights. It's so annoying sometimes.
Philosophy.
How can a scientist be al for censoring?? That said, all the manipulation, lobbying ,etc against known facts should be stopped. So I guess they want to fight corruption with censorship... only in the USA...
When global warming is outlawed, only outlaws will be warm...er, globally
The idea of doing this is just as ridiculous as Bush forcing all scientific papers produced by scientists employed by the government to go through political censors before being.
But, the linked to article is a horribly biased hatchet job that contains such gems as:
This is a ridiculous and disingenuous assertion, especially given the well documented policies of the Bush administration to do everything they can to supress research that doesn't support their view.
I find that entire site rather apalling. And the fact that it appears to be the website for a Senate committee concerned with the environment makes the blatant and obviously one-sided bias all the more awful.
But, the focus of this Slashdot article is on the person calling for decertification. And, as awfully disingenuous and biased as that site is, they have the guy dead to rights. That is not a reasonable thing to do. Calling for censorship of honest opinions is not something anybody of any political stripe should be doing and severely lowers the credibility of the person who asks that it be done.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Where exactly in the meterologist pecking order does the "Weather Channel's most prominent so-on and so-forth" go?
I cringe at behavior like this.
Why not just expose who the source of funding is for these critics, or who they're affiliated with? Quite often that's just as devastating, and it's far less chilling as far as free speech is concerned.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
2006 was the warmest year ever, and in Europe the snow level in ski stations is close to the lowest level (a.k.a. nada/nichts/nothing/rien!).
You can raise doubt about how much more degrees we will have in 2050, but I would certainly remove certification to people who still claim there is no problem with the evolution of climat.
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
The blog cited is in such extreme form that I wonder how much truth there is in the story. It looks like someone has set up this Heidi Cullen as a straw person to claim massive discrimination against anti-Global warming advocates. The blog gets more and more extreme as it goes on until Godwin's Law is invoked. I wonder what Cullen really said, in what context.
Pining for the fjords
I thought there still was quite a bit of legitimate controversy on this issue. My understanding is that, while it is generally accepted that global warming is real, it is not nearly as accepted that the warming is "manmade" as the article puts it. The other leading claim is that it is merely part of the normal warming and cooling cycle of the earth, similar to what takes place at the end of each ice age. To strip meteorologists of their certifications is irresponsible abuse of power, and moreover highly damaging to the very basic fundaments of science.
biologists, in the case of evolution, but to be honest even though the evidence towards man made global warming is very solid, the evidence is still new. Maybe after a decade or two, after global warming passed the rigor of time and the environmental effects are starting to stack up so noone denies it any more, maybe then these people should be decertified, but I think it is premature now.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The fact is, theories about global warming are just that, Theories. So when people start teaching manmade global warming as fact - they are in the wrong. It's not fact. Skeptics of manmade global warming are merely saying, "You can't promote manmade global warming as fact."
That's the issue here.
whoa whoa whoa, if anyone should be scolded its this guy. While I truly believe the evidence points towards man made global climate change it would be dumb o make skeptics into outcasts. This is science not religion, we shouldn't be excommunicating scientists, at best we should drown out "bad" research with more "good research". its the same argument of censorship of bad speech versus offering more good speech
Global warming, what bunkam.
Censorship is no solution.
Censorship is a solution, just not one you use in a free society. People define thoughtcrimes to make their jobs easier because it doesn't force them to debate items in question (from Holocaust denial to questioning state history to global warming).
It is alarming how many people object to diversity in thought. I do not understand where they think they have derived the right to force everyone to think the same way they do.
This guy loses. Global warming is obviously a lie.
887321 = 337*2633
He's right that people of all professions who do put across a dangerous view for personal gain from bribes or whatever should be stripped of any accreditation they have but you'll always have the problem of who decides what "right" is. Furthermore you'll always run the risk of people using it as a way of suppressing minority views, whilst I do not believe climate skeptics have a leg to stand on and they are mostly just corporate puppets being paid a fortune to shed doubt (or hoardes of uneducated muppets who enjoy rebelling against climate change proof in a dire attempt to make themselves look, well, rebellious) there are other places where this could be abused.
If we had a sure fire way of finding out people who are casting doubt abusing their accreditation for personal gain with no care of the consequences then I'd agree with this guy, but as we don't and likely never will then sadly, I have to disagree - still, it's good someone's bringing corrupt scientists into the spotlight again such that people are aware that it happens.
At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
Now pardon me while I go back to my ice bath.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
It's obviously wrong to stop anyone contributing to any side on the Global Climate Change debate but just because Weatherfolk aren't allowed to do forecasts on TV doesn't mean they can't contribute papers on the subject and join in the debate.
The aim here seems to be to stop Weather presenters pretending that Global Climate Change isn't happening, the consequence weather presenters putting forward this point of view is that the viewing public will most likely believe them rather than all the "boffins predicting climate chaos" with the result that the public may have a very skewed view of what the current real scientific thinking on the matter is.
If weather presenters claimed that rain was in fact Gods tears and this had been scientifically proven then you'd expect him or her to lose their job or at least be removed to doing something where they are not in contact with the public and this is similar to what seems to be going on here.
While this is not as extreme as the originally linked article makes it sound like, and while it is clear that this is being expressed as a personal opinion rather than as a serious proposal to be carried out by the American Meterological Society, is it reasonable for scientists or even television meterologists to tow the party line or else have one's "seal of approval" revoked?
There is a rather dangerous trend here, where people seem to want to force consensus by shutting down anyone who doesn't spout out the party line. This sort of shutting people down by going after their livelihoods (the AMS "Seal of Approval") in order to force a consensus does not help strengthen the competition in the arena of ideas--it only shuts people up by threatening their pocketbooks if they don't spout the desired group-think du-joir.
What's next? Memory Holes to erase all previous dissent from the party line of Global Warming as a man-made phenomina? Thought Police? Reworking the language to introduce Newspeak, so even the idea that mankind is not responsible or that Global Warming may not be happening is impossible to frame as a coherent sentence?
It's a bad idea.
But thank goodness it's just that--an idea, blithly suggested undoubtedly without a lot of reflection on a personal blog.
That pushes some of us towards more skepticism. I'm not a climatologist or anything like it so I've had little success with my own research. There's a lot of scientists that say it's a man made phenomena and its' dire, but then consensus means nothing and many of them are basing their research off of things that are not that empirically valid, overstating their conclusions, or both. Regardless, it's just something I can't disambiguate*. I have just said "screw it" and continue to support conservation for it's own sake (use less, have more).
However one thing that really makes me skeptical is the religious zeal with which it is pushed. In most science it seems to be that when you have a theory you know is right and plenty of proof, you've no need to shout down your skeptics. You welcome the skepticism, and welcome the chance to show it's wrong. After all, that's how we prove theories, is by thinking of every possible way they could be false and testing that. The more times the tests don't come out false, the more sure we are the theory is right. That's the whole doctrine of falsifiability and it's the cornerstone of modern empiricism.
But that's not how it goes with GW. If you are a skeptic you are shouted down as an idiot, an industry shill, someone not to be listened to, and now even threatened with stripping them of rank. It looks like a religious inquisition, not like science. That makes me worried. The reason religions do that is because there's NOT proof so it is dangerous to them when people start claiming something other than what they believe. That kind of attitude has absolutely no place in science.
More than any of the actual skeptical papers, this makes me wonder about the GW argument. If your position is so tenuous that it must be defended with ad hominem attacks and threats, I have to wonder about how correct it really can be.
* Please note: Don't bother posting some diatribe trying to convince me on GW. I've read plenty of papers, plenty of arguments by people who do it for a living. It's very unlikely you'd find something to change my mind, at least given the normal pro-GW post I see on Slashdot.
Seriously, this is business as usual in the scientific community.
I'm not a skeptic of global warming. I can't tell you every little detail, but my own personal view is that society does do things that really would make the planet hotter.
My personal views aside, science is full of competing ideas. Scientists disagree. That's what they do. They've always done this, and if they didn't, we'd have lost a lot of valuable research. Yeah, there are a lot of crackpots running around, but that is a real small price to pay for progress. After all, let the crackpots have their fun, as long as science continues.
It seems to me, as other posters have mentioned, that creating a standard by which to oust scientists who believe a certain thing is repressive to science itself. Don't forget also that people who believe crazy things still provide valuable data and research, or at the very least help motivate people who are less crazy to prove that the other guy really is crazy.
I once met a girl in college that tried to prove to me that evolution was false because not all scientists agreed on the same theory. That's crazy. I've seen people post on Slashdot just now that they didn't think global warming was happening because there were multiple theories. Phenomena such as light has multiple theories, but that doesn't stop it from being light.
Why the need of stripping titles. Simply put them on a melting iceberg :)
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
...or is anyone else uneasy that such a sarcastic, cynical, biased-sounding, unjournalistic writer is being published on the offical webpage of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment?
It seems to me that this is the first place we would like to see calm, rational debate and the last place we'd like to see partisan name-calling and rabble-baiting, which is what this writer seems to be doing.
There are extremists on both sides of the issue who have no understanding of the science behind it, and it shows in their writing. The scientists who actually do understand these subjects do not write like this to make their point, nor do they need to.
"Posted by Marc Morano"
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
then on the other hand the left wing exhibit totalitarianism. We have to be careful of both. One side wants to shut everyone up for the sake of business, the other for the sake of ideology. I had a feeling this was coming. There is a concept in social psychology called a matched reaction. Push a social group for long enough in one direction and you'll get a matched reaction. In this case, if you get a bunch of extremist politicians (fascist oil and war hungry neo-cons) pushing the political elites further and further to their limits you are going to get a matched reaction from the other side of the political spectrum (lunatic totalitarian leftists).
I love you babe. But seriously, have a sandwich or something; body fat above 2% is a good thing, you know?
So who the hell wrote that article? The knee-jerk totally uninformed spew driven by complete ignorance which shows up in my son's high school newspaper is less sensationalist and pejorative (as well as more fact-based) than that crap. Based purely on the language used I'd have to rate its veracity at just below OJ's intent to find the real killer.
Is this really what it's come to? Quote people out of context, paraphrase them in a manner which completely changes the actual meaning of what they said, all to drive an agenda which seems to consist entirely of a desire to make yourself seem important by disagreeing with people who actually have triple digit IQs... it's true, isn't it? We have to avoid learning about ourselves by studying chimpanzees not because it's an offense against God, but because we look so bad by comparison.
I so seriously fear for this country.
No one suggested a "permanent stop to any arguments over Global Warming" as the summary says.
The original article is JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE, posted a month ago actually.
I was incensed when I heard that a 24 year old political appointee was altering Nasa publications on the big bang.
I was incensed when global warming was dismissed as even a possible cause for climate change.
But any researcher or rational thinker should be equally as incensed at this attempt to arbitrarily close off an avenue of inquiry - it's the same tactic, only in the opposite direction, and it stinks just as much.
Seeking to politically silence ANY side of a scientific issue is a slippery slope. The above-mentioned examples are probably repulsive to most slashdotters. De-certifying climatologists would simply be turnabout - and equally as invalid as when the tactic was employed by the existing anti-science administration. Should we seek to eliminate a theory completely because it's not our theory? No. If we want to be sure that we're moving forward with a solid theoretical foundation, each theory must be tested and discarded based on merit and evidence alone. While the circumstantial evidence for global warming is strong, there will be a time in the future when we can either prove or disprove it. Should the improbable happen and human-influenced global warming be disproved, do we want to be seen as the proverbial church that silenced Galileo?
Apparently on Slashdot neither the Slashdotters, nor the editor, nor the submitter bother to actually RTFA. The only relation to the Senate is that the author of that BLOG entry is does PR work for the majority chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It's a paradigm shift that has to happen sooner or later. Everyone used to believe the Earth was flat but we all know today that the Earth is round/oval/star/hexagonal shaped just not flat! People saying that there isn't a climate problem to me are just like those same people saying the Earth is flat. There is plenty of hard scientific evidence to suggest major changes in our climate caused by the modern human race. Also, just to add, we all know prevention is the best cure. So to any nay sayer even if the climate issues do not exist, we should still take a moral stance to actively protect and monitor our planet's health and well being.
One last point for those who think that the earth is really 14,000 years old, I think you really need to look beyond your, lonely unreferenced, unscientific, fictional book for all your answers on what to accept and what to reject.
Science requires it. We have to accept that you can't prove a theory true in the same was things can be proved in mathematics. There's not a one step, now this is true and we know that, kind of thing. The way it works is scientific theories must be falsifiable, that is a proposition which is able to be proven false. If they aren't they are a hypothesis at best and just aren't scientific theories. That's why creationism isn't a theory, there's no way to falsify it.
Thus the very essence of doing science is entertaining ways your theory could be wrong, even if you don't believe them. If someone gives an alternate theory for your observations, you need to test it. You have to try and prove your theory false. That's how good science is done. You entertain all the ways you can come up with that your theory could be wrong.
Marc Morano (the Senate blog poster) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Mo rano , is an outspoken right wing aide to republican senator. He is complaining, clearly, about the anchor at the weather channel, certainly not encouraging her.
This is *not* coming from the Senate, but rather from the Weather Channel.
What we need is a fair and balanced weather channel. One where the photos of clouds and suns have smiley faces on them and wave to children. Also, the earth is in a perpetual state of donut rain showers, and for those that don't like donuts, you can subscribe to a 24/7 internet feed that gives you the shower, and food, of your choice. Severe weather like Tsunamis and hurricanes would never happen. In fact, they'd have to be renamed. Tsunamis would now be called an "Ocean Hug" because the ocean loves the earth so much that they run towards it and hug it. Hurricanes would be called "Mr Blowy" because this big happy rain cloud called Mr Blowy likes to travel the Earth blowing stuff like in imagery of those really old maps.
It's still the wrong way, because it's one more step towards blurring the distinction between science and bullshit in the minds of Jack Sixpack and Jane Housewife.
You can't say that proper science and skepticism should be limited to an ivory tower clique of chosen ones, and everyone else should just get dogma, because:
1. Even those scientists got there from being Joe Schoolkid and Cecilia Nerdygirl who liked to discover how things really worked, and apply critical thinking the quick fairy-tale explanations their parents gave them to "why is the sky blue?" or "what _is_ the rainbow?" The more you dumb society down and teach more people to not use their brains, the less of a recruiting pool you have for that chosen ones gang. If you actually managed to get everyone to stop using their brains, stop questioning the dogma, discourage everyone from being skeptics or debating anything unless they're a cardinal (or whatever other badge of "ok, now you can discuss the dogma" badge), and persecute everyone who dares step out of line, etc, well, you can already know how much scientific progress that produced in the middle ages.
2. Because those scientists will need funding and other support from the likes of Tom CEO, Dick Marketeer and Harry Journalist. Once you taught _those_ and their customers/readers/etc that science is just about enforcing a dogma, what's to stay in the way of them just funding pseudo-science by PR. Not that it doesn't already happen, but going that way full time is not an improvement.
If anything I'd remind more that you _can't_ do science by PR, or in the words of Feynman, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Teaching more people that science is just about who gets to set the official dogma, is just as step towards more thinking "fuck you, I have the money, so I'll set my own dogma by PR." And more down the pyramid accepting it, because if they're going to accept one dogma unthinkingly anyway, hey, they might as well go for the one with more marketting behind it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Sums it up nicely.
Interesting to see an article here discussing "global warming" when much of the United States (slashdot content is U.S.-centric) is in the deep-freeze.
... our collective actions may actually be staving off the next ice age; scientists should research that more.
Regardless of whether it's real or not, "global warming" sure beats "global cooling" based on data of past ice ages.
The billions of losses experienced by orange growers in California highlights all too well the immediate destructive effects of cooling to humankind.
Humans are part of nature
And finally, while many people worry about human-made pollutants and seek way to reduce the global temperature, a few massive volcanic eruptions will likely make much of that effort for naught; people will be wishing for "global warming".
Ron
We have always been at war with global warming.
Excuse my language, but what the fuck is that?
I have been working in the scientific community my whole professional life, and I have never heard of a "certified scientist" before. There are various academic degrees and awards you can have (like Ph.D or Nobel prize), and there are positions you can hold (like associate professor). You don't lose the first, and losing the second means you get fired. No "certification". And you don't need either to be considered a scientist by the community.
If you want to establish a pecking order among scientists, you look at how many publications he has, the rating of the journals the publications appear in, and how many other scientist quote your results.
And you don't have to agree with the consensus to be considered a scientist, take Fred Hoyle for example. He never accepted Big Bang, and had various controversial opinions on other areas as well, he won his last major scientific award in 1997, four years before his death.
Now, the part of her statement this controversy is about, which is making just speaking on the actual scientific work out there part of the requirements of the seal of approval, rather then spreading misinformation not based on peer reviewed science. But what is the purpose of this seal. Well, let's check their site: And they now have a specific certificate for broadcast meteorologists, which states its purpose as: Hey, how about that. It's about giving accurate information on the actual scientific understanding out there, and communicating this in an accurate and effective way. Not at all about "censoring", this call is merely suggesting that people who are certified under this hold themselves to the peer reviewed science out there on climate change. Which matches remarkably well with the stated purpose of the certification.
I'm not exactly sure if it is a good idea though, but this blogger linked by the
This is not about censorship.
This is about the American Meteorlogical Association de-certifying members who act unprofessionally, and is therefore just as valid as the medical professional associations de-certify doctors promoting quack cures - especially dangerous quack cures. Happens all the time.
Someone who acts unprofessionaly harm their clients *and* their fellow professionals. Unlike free speech, the benefits of professional recognition have to be earned and are not a basic right.
Even with that said, it is not censorship. Anyone de-certified would still be able to speak, just not (presumably) practice.
Nor would they have the benefit of the implied endorsement that comes with the phrase "certified member of the AMA"
I welcome global warming +10c, and freeing up of laws letting women be topless anywhere they like as per men, no 19century stupidity, if they have massive
jugs, then let them free, its not like their invisible clothed.
Rise up women, freedom to be topless, banish those old farts to the graves who dont like it.
"Why not just expose who the source of funding is for these critics, or who they're affiliated with? Quite often that's just as devastating, and it's far less chilling as far as free speech is concerned."
Umm. Let me explain how science works. It works by people examining data, proposing hypotheses for general laws which may explain this data, and then testing them.
It does not matter a whit whether the proposer is a woman, a racist, the head of a foreign country, a rapist and murderer, or whatever. It does not matter if the money which maintains the proposer was provided by a drug cartel, stolen, donated by Micro$oft or provided by Greenpeace with the proviso that it must be used to prove that black is white. It does not matter if 99% of the other scientists in their discipline disagree with them. What matters is whether the hypothesis fits the data and can be either proven or falsified.
Your proposal is that rather than ban someone with whom you disagree, you would prefer to smear them. I do not know what passes for liberalism where you come from, but it is not a label I would be proud to wear if this is an example of liberal thinking.
You may wish to recall a comment made by Herr Professor Einstein when the National Socialist party of Germany attempted to smear his work by issuing a booklet entitled '100 Scientists against Einstein'. He said: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough...."
"Medieval Warm Period" is just a few centuries back and the planet was so much warmer than is now. Even the Greenland was stripped off ice so the Vikings dwelt there without any problem. We are actually in very cold perior right now and some warming would be much appreciated at least for us who experience -30 degrees celsius in the winter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
If people weren't flying to far away destinations just to slide down a hillside, then perhaps there might still be snow on those hills. After all, the emissions from airlines are part of the cause of Global Warming, are they not?
Determining if Global Warming is man made or not is unlikely to be conclusive in own lifetime (due to geological time-scales).
....
So debating and researching, while important and should continue, is totally pointless regarding what we are going to do about it.
Temperatures are rising, there is a good chance that we are to blame. We need to act now or the consequences will be dire.
The sceptics need to get in line and we make the hard decisions, lowering pollutants is only going to have a good long term effect anyway.
But we may not be able to stop the increasingly extreme weather, we need to plan for sea rises, hi/lo temps, hurricanes, droughts and we need to do it now.
This is a worldwide problem, we have been possibly given a warning, even if it all turns out to be bunk there are loads of pluses to doing all the work anyway: cleaner environment, better worldwide disaster response, new clean techs, new markets for clean tech,
I am sick of all the back and forth, take the finger out bush, everyone sit down, decide what we are going to do and get on with it. You can bitch and moan during and after, just do something NOW!!!!
Science is the quest for truth.
Truth without question is no truth at all.
...broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification... TV weather people have scientific certification? How many proof of purchase stickers do I need before I can download my certificate?This just goes to show, the good guys can shoot themselves in the foot as effectively as the bad guys, and that power corrupts. There is no justification for censorship, not even the fact that the other side may be using any means they can to muddle the issue. Censorship is just not part of the scientific discourse.
I'm surprised by the reaction here. I'm not a climatolgist but I read the scientific press and from what I see there simply isn't any doubt that global warming is happening and what its primary drivers are. I'm sure there are nuances and feedbacks yet to be discovered that both accelerate and alleviate the warming effects that have been witnessed since the industrial revolution.
Yes there are fashions in science and paradigm shifts that supercede previous understanding. But science works. If you've ever been on a plane, you've flown because thousands of bits of science from fluid flow to metallurgy work together so that it gets from a to b with the occupants usually alive.
What strikes me as strange is that this person isn't saying "you can't voice opinions about global warming", they're saying "if you do not speak in scientific terms you lose you certification".
If you ran a plumbing firm and one of your engineers would go around chanting to fix people's heating systems, you'd kick them out.
This is not censorship. This is about single organisation, the American Meteorological Society, that apparently sometimes chooses to give their formal approval of a specific indivudual. Essentialy they're saying "we think this dude knows his shit, you can trust him". If any person who they have given this approval start sprouting complete gibberish (in their view), of course they can then say "nope, we were wrong, we don't think you can trust him".
What's the fucking problem here? They're not revoking his right to speak. They're just saying that they don't trust him any more. Are we under some damn obligation to approve of everybody's ideas, just because they're allowed to speak about them?
This is a non issue. Go get upset about the rights that are actually being taken away from you, not about this triviality.
May we live long and die out
It seems that somebody (opposed to the idea of a man-made impacy on climate) seems to have worked out how to evoke a popular (knee-jerk) response from Slashdot.
The secret is that ... most slashdotters simply don't read the article referred to, let alone the articles referred to by that article. They take the position that they can rely on whoever wrote the slashdot newsflash to do that for them. Instead they are happy to comment on the post and the previous comments (much more fun, and less work). So ... if you can insert any statement to excite slashdotters in your newsflash, you can pretty much lead them to endorse (or condemn) whatever orginal article you like.
So ... what is actually going on?
Q: Did those experts cited really propose to end scientific discussion by silencing those who oppose the idea of a man-made impact on global warning?
A: No! (see the original blog by Heidi Cullen at http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html )
Q: So if that wasn't the case, then where did the idea come from?
A: The idea came from a certain Marc Morano (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) who's blog was cited by slashdot. See the blog referenced by the slashdot newsflash at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23a d-440a-88824bb8e528)
Q: So if there was no question of the experts proposing to stifle discussion by de-certifying opponents then where does all the hoopla come from?
A :I think we are witnessing a rant by Marc Morano which received disproportionate attention by it's referral on slashdot. In case this referral was deliberate, we are witnessing a political mear campaign. Live and in colour
Sound like Soviet Union to Me... Our truth is the only truth.
Penn & Teller are great when it comes to con men, but on other subjects they fail it. Hard. They were wrong about glass recycling. They were wrong about second-hand smoke, using as their sole sources of information a "think tank" run by a woman whose reports echo whatever her tobacco and oil companies want them to as well as to a court case which was vacated by a higher court. They were also as wrong about global warming as Michael Crichton in his horrible passion play, State of Confusion which was wrong, wrong, wrong.
This doesn't mean that anyone challenging a popularly held idea or even accepted theory should be silenced. Far from it. Science needs theories questioned. However, when the questions are being raised by shills in order to confuse and are based in fallacy and reference already disproven works, that's when such "scientists" should have their credentials stripped.
Don t worry , the advent of Hydrogen Fuel Cell will stop the massive pouring of CO2 into the atmosphere ... and will start the massive sucking of its O2
It used to be the opposite you know. Global Warming scientists used to have a very hard time getting grants in the 80s and beginning og the 90s. The entrenched opinion at the time, especially in the US senate and commercial sector, was that anybody researching Global Warming was an environmental nutjob. The opinion in the leadership of USA (not population mind you) was so strong, they passed up on the Kyoto agreement and other global initiatives, claiming these measures would cost too much.
Its incredible how few people is able to look at something dispassionately, which is the only way to reach an objective conclusion. Scientists of all should know that, but fail, just as much as religious fanatics do sometimes.
Fact is, and native indians and aboriginals have mentioned this for the past hundred years: Our way of living is slowly suffocating this planet. Man has managed to survive for the past ten thousands of years, maybe millions, but now were reaching a critical point. We need to grow respect for the planet, for our environment, eachother and ourselves. We need to learn from those who are wise.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Global warming itself is a sad joke.
Inhofe is famous (infamous) for his extreme political conservatism, bordering on theocracy. He said that the 9/11 attacks were a form of "divine retribution" on the US for failing to defend Israel, and he voted against the McCain amendment banning torture. Despite no scientific training, he consistently characterizes global warming as a "massive hoax".
Naturally, Inhofe's political views are not a reason to summarily dismiss his statements here out of hand, but people should 1) know his background 2) fact-check everything he says and 3) read a summary of the evidence and a range of views on global warming, especially the scientific consensus, before deciding what weight to give Inhofe's remarks. Even the rapidly dwindling band of global warming skeptics within the scientific community have distanced themselves from Inhofe's statements.
Seems like parent actually checked some facts, something the writer of TFA can't be blamed for.
Trust me, I work for the government.
I agree. But I find hard to justify this point of view. If one thinks that the earth is 15000-years old, I wouldn't think of him as a good geologist, and I'd not want my house to be built following his advices.
there's a time to stop questioning without good evidence... Hard to say what could be good evidence, I admit.
No one mentions the benefits of Global Warming - Manmade or not. Life thrives in higher temperatures.
I don't buy the sea levels rising due to global warming theory since warmer = more water vapour plus melting ice doesn't raise water levels much if at all.
Plus last year 6000 people died in russia just from consuming liquids that were harmful to their health to try to keep warm.
Global Warming short term is probably good, and since we can fix it in the long run who friggen cares
Not sure about anywhere else in the world but at least here in the U.K. a Ph.D or University Degree can be revoked.
The qualification you receive can under exceptional circumstances be revoked by the University that handed it out. The final arbiter over whether you have the qualification or not resides with the educational institute - any scraps of paper with letters on that they handed you at some point don't count for anything. Not that I know of anyone that has gone back to a University to check on qualification, although it may happen.
I have only heard of one case where a Degree has been revoked and can't remember the details now, but I did find it quite interesting at the time that my University still has some control on one aspect of my life.
I, too was wondering how one achieves "scientific certification". Is there, perhaps, a Web site where we can sign up? Or maybe a form to fill out. I want to go get me some certified science credentials, too. Is a trash talking license included, or do you have to apply separately for it?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi
How nice! A modern secular Inquisition. Isn't progress wonderful?
It's a simple issue, either we're all going to die or we're not. All the biased idiots on either side just make me realise that I'm pretty satisfied with either alternative.
Is telling the truth a "smear campaign" ? Check out what happens to scientists who question Darwinism. Perhaps refer to articles criticizing String theory in physics and what happens to physicists who don't stick to the party line. Consensus is not science.
Trofim Lysenko
Nah! Couldn't happen here, could it?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
How about smoking? Should we decertify scientists that express skepticism about smoking is bad for your lung?
then comes to evolution advocates.
And round-earthers, don't think you're in the clear...
Look, I'm as opposed to censorship as the next guy, but when I'm watching you talk about the weather on TV, I want the mainstream scientific consensus, even if you think it might be wrong.
If you want to propose new ideas about global climate change, that's fine, but my TV is not the appropriate place to do that. That's what universities, scientific journals, mailing lists, conferences, and blogs are for.
If you're going to stand in front of a camera and blatantly mislead me and thousands of others about the dominant opinion of the experts in your field, then you are not worthy of my or anybody else's trust.
http://outcampaign.org/
David Irwine (hope I spelt his name right) the author recently served a spell in jail fin Austria for denying the holocaust. Now while not many people would support his views and frankly I think the guy is a few sandwiches short of a picnic , WTF is a supposedly democratic country doing JAILING someone simply because he holds a daft view?? Don't those idiot liberals who came up with the law that allowed it realise they're behaving in EXACTLY the same way as the nazis they supposedly so detest!
As I've noticed , theres no one with a more fascist approach to debate than liberals who have someone disagree with them.
... are just financed by the big oil business. It is not a scientific debate, but a massive campaign of distortion financed by corporate America. And the climate-septics are no scientists, but paid whores, who spell the lies of Exxon and co. Just take a look: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/busti ng-exxon-climate-crimina
The climate-skeptics are just a bunch of hired criminals.
Imhoffe is the one who should be "decertified" as a rational being and reclassified as a troll. That's what it comes down to. Trolls. Exxon-Mobil and their so-called experts are just trolling and people just can't resist a good troll. Just look at Slashdot. The story is a complete dead end waste of productive time. Has anybody noticed that there are very few references in the dissenting posts? Yet people reply to them rather than letting them get modded down and ignored.
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
"Your source explicitly excludes popular media,"
So your saying that if Lindsay Lohen says that Global Warming is not real then that counters scientific studies that say it's happening?
If todays popular media can't be used to counter todays scientific studies, then how does 1970's popular media counter todays scientific studies?
Is global warming not real because Brigitte Bardot said so in the 1970s???
Instead of censorship full disclosure should be made law, aka who do these scientists receive their livelyhood from. Then we can tell easly who to bother paying attention to.
Just take the time to check out the what really happened using the links I provided for you and you'll see that this affair is something between a rant or a smear campaign.
We trust scientists to tell us the truth (admittedly as they see it) while we expect politicians to speak whatever they'd like us to believe. Recently in the US your politicians have been deciding what your scientists can say and then, because scientists are saying it, people believe it.
This is very wrong. We already throw scientists out for inventing evidence to support their theories. We should throw them out for intentionally misleading the public. It's a shame we can't do this with politicians also but it seems to be the only profession where you're expected to lie for a living.
Is the weather changing? Here in the UK (London) and in the middle of January I still have fruit on my trees and flowers. Last week I saw bees and butterflies in my garden though at the moment the winds are blowing around 60 mph so I don't expect to see many butterflies today.
We now seem to be getting floods, droughts, tornadoes etc every year. At least it gives us British quite a lot to talk about even when we limit ourselves to just the weather.
The person writing that inflammatory straw man blog did PR work for Exxon.
p hp?id=1126
"2 November, 2002
Wrote an article entitled "Greens Praise ExxonMobil for Efforts to Save Tiger," which highlighted ExxonMobil's donations to tiger conservation efforts.
Source: CNSNews.com"
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
Exxon currently has a PR campaign going to refute global warming, they are worried that energy efficiency schemes will reduce their profits.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5642
So he's just a shill, trying to exaggerate statements made by a weather channel presenter in order to denigrate the science of climate change.
Check out what happens to scientists who question Darwinism.
Check out what happens to scientsits who question the Copernican solar system.
In both cases, they get laughed at because they are so demonstratably wrong.
Perhaps refer to articles criticizing String theory in physics and what happens to physicists who don't stick to the party line.
Nothing happens to them. Lots of physicists critize string theory, and work on alternate theories. The idea that there is some kind of "party line" in physics, or in science in general, is highly insulting to the entire profession.
How about, "I agree that the evidence strongly supports Global Climate change." or something like that. Just don't use "believe", please. I think it conveys to critics out there that Global Warming/Climate Change is a belief based on faith and not based on facts.
Just $0.015 from an AC.
Why do we have to strip their certifications from them?
I strongly disagree with censorship when they try to stop us from pointing out that global warming is happening.
I equally strongly disagree with censorship when we try to stop them from questioning the global warming hypothesis.
If a theory is strong enough it should stand on it's own merits.
Now, you are allowed to say all these things as a member of the public, and then you are merely wrong. And indeed, as a scientist this is only actually illegal if your distortions are gaining you funding. But if you want to be a member of a scientific body, and have the approval of that body, then you'd better be able to back up your argument with the scientific method.
Even if there is debate about whether global warming is real, or whether we are causing it or not, it really doesn't matter. All the indications of the theory point to "YES." and that should be enough for us to give it the benefit of the doubt. This is the single biggest issue facing the long-term viability of the human race. If there was even a 20% chance of it being correct we should be acting on it to guard against it happening! The hard science can continue, but the main trend is clear already.
I've worked with scientists, I have, God help me, tried to manage scientists, and its just like anything else; without a significant evangelistic tendency, scientists lack a major incentive to make progress.
However this may not be true in this case. People often write carelessly in blogs (I look back over some of my own postings and keep getting the urge to hide in a hole somewhere in Bhutan) and it is possible that what she actually meant was just something like "the scientific studies behind claims of global warming."
There is, however, definitely a case for any professional who has to present data to non-specialists - whether it be MDs, scientists or accountants - to require evidence of ongoing training in their field to retain certification. If that's what she is saying, I agree completely.
Pining for the fjords
Perhaps what we really need here is a gag order on bloggers posing as journalists.
The amount of misinformation spewed by domain-illiterate journalists is bad enough. Journalists are supposed to be trained to convey information to the public. Their profession has devolved into methods for creating controversy in order to grab attention and headlines.
I scoffed when popular media last year claimed that blogging is the future of journalism. Yes, we can look forward to a future of even less trained loud mouths spouting personal opinions in place of fact. Ironicly, this is what the blogger in this case is doing while accusing meterologists of the same.
* Facts are not subjective
* Opinions are for editorial pages, news stories should just convey the facts
* There are not always two equally valid sides to a story
* News has become infotainment and has undermined the informed electorate, which underpins stable domocracies
"You have liberated me from thought."
http://www.wmo.int/web/Press/PR_768_English.doc The year 2006 is currently estimated to be the sixth warmest year on record. Final figures will not be released until March 2007.
There is a double standard though.
I don't see people calling to revoke the credentials of those exagerating the short term effects of global warming.
This is just the thin edge of the wedge they want to use to shut up any opposition to global warming arguements. It's a lot easier to control the agenda when there is no opposition.
Many issues have been defeated or at least stalled by simply removing or interfering with ones right to free speech.
where is obligatory pirates and global warming quote?
Global Warming + Nuclear Winter = Problem Solved.
The fact is that the Slashdot newsflash is highly misleading in that totally misreports the expert in question.
This is because it simply parrots a blog/rant by a someone associated with the Senate, who got his facts wrong.
Don't take my word for it ... check it. This is something that you can check, from your seat, online ... if you would only take the trouble to do so. I read the blog and the blog that the Slashdot newsflash referes to and the blog by the expert referred to and posted both links so that you can check what I'm saying.
And please ... no amount of "But that bunch once did soandso" has any bearing on the matter at hand. So let's not get into that, shall we?
Let me remind you that this topic isn't about reminding Tom, Dick and Harry that their coffeetable (or slashdot) discussion isn't proper science, up to academic standards. It's about an idea as stupid as outright de-certifying anyone who dares think otherwise.
Pray tell, once that is achieved, _what_ value do peer reviews serve any more? Once you've decreed that the only peers are those who have complete faith in the dogma and know it's not their place to question it, peer-review becomes little more than a self-perpetuating system to ensure that future work toes the party line too.
"Peer review" just doesn't work in a closed dogmatic system. Remember Galileo being "reviewed" by the true believers of the Aristotelian system. Did they really prove him wrong or contributed anything to the progress of science.
_All_ that science is about at any level is accomodating a multitude of views, including that your pet theory might be false. Everything is and should be judged only by their experimental data and error bar. And if you think you've found new data, a better theory, or whatever, that invalidates it, please do say so. We'll judge your hypothesis too by the same standards.
Science is not religion, it's not about authority figures telling you what to believe and what's punishable heresy. That's the domain of religion. Science is just a _method_.
And this guy proposing to basically introduce heresy and excommunication in science (if you dare question the dogma, we'll de-certify you) is contrary to that whole method. It just shows that it's he who has no fucking clue what science is all about. Maybe someone should start by de-certifying him.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is exactly what a professional certification body should be doing.
If an aircraft engineer ups and ignores airflow theory, I want him out before he designs something that flys over me.
I want my dentist to understand the pathogen theory of disease *before* my root canal.
Electromagnetic theory should not be an optional extra for the guy designing the shielding in my microwave.
So they dissent from current scientific orthodoxy? Fine. Build a model plane. Test it on animal. Try it out in a lab.
So what about the climate? Don't think global climate change is happening? Right, get off your butt. Crunch the numbers, run the models, publish the papers. If you're on to something you've got a very nice career ahead of you. But if you're just sounding off without that backing you aren't acting professionally, so no professional certification for you. And the current state of the science is that anthropogenic climate change is far and away the most likely explaination for observation data, so any "professional" that discounts this out of hand isn't acting professionally.
Then again, what did you expect from weather girls chosen for their breast size???
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
I think this would be fine, so long as it swings both ways. If someone so much as mentions global warming during my forecast, strip their certification.
Really, I'm tired of hearing about it completely. It's fine to discuss such things, But I don't wanna hear it when I'm watching television. And scare-mongering will accomplish nothing. No one is gonna give up their easy daily life to give the planet ten or twenty more years.
Just tell me if it's gonna friggin rain tomorrow or not.
A much wiser solution would be to strip credentials from scientists playing politician and strip office from politicians playing scientist.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Are you sure about that?
From the TFA:
Excuse my language, but what the fuck is that?
That, sir, is the sound of surprised hot air coming from the mouth of a Slashdotter who did not RTFA and therefore has swallowed the hook of a political hack-job foisted by an experienced, well-paid shadowfigure who specializes in creating sensationalism from material much ado about nothing.
Let's see if I have this right: If a meteorologist does not subscribe to the "Global Warming is caused by Man" theory, then s/he should be stripped of scientific credentials, simply because it goes against the interpretation that seems "obvious" to a prominent climatologist.
That is pretty ridiculous, pompous even.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens (to one extent or another) in almost any given subject, though not at the say-so of the same climatologist.
Certain things are clearly a certain way (like Mathematics), but almost everything else, I think, is up for discussion.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Right. When you can't fight the arguments you shut people up.
We had quiet a lot of "Shutup!"-s in recent times didn't we??
As of now it is no longer safe to question or "badmouth" the government.
So with such a favorable climate towards oppression of opinion and
Free Speech all sorts of roaches are coming out of the woodwork.
Today we have "experts" like the Weather-Channel censor-du-jour
calling to have Global Warming debunkers silenced. Tomorrow we'll get
what?
Pat Robertson forcing his christian-flavored Teleevangelism
down our throats by law? North Korean kind of forced parades where
(starving!) people are made to march through the streets thanking their
"Great Leader" for the "plenty"???
I have always hated the increasing politics/science activism, and in reality it is just getting worse. I am a fan of science you know... But lately I have been annoyed how Scientist are wandering into politics and politics are wandering into science. When Scientists start using political tactics it will only backfire on them because what the supporters of the other idea will go... Hey look at these scientist they are so afraid of the other side they they are willing to Censor their view points, and they are using strong arm tactics against alternative views. So what will that do to the public. Make them less acceptive to Science because they figure they just have a political agenda and want to promote their "God Hating, Baby Killing, Communist, Tax Raising (so they can get more grants)" viewpoints. And with Scientist becoming more one sided in politics the other side of politics will be less receptive to their view points.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Last time a doctor said to me : "Lets get you started on **** drug and see how you feel after 3 weeks." I left and started to treat myself.
:)
When my mechanic says : "Lets try this new part from a Diesel engine on your Gasoline engine, and see how your pickup runs in 3 weeks." I will simply find a new mech, or spend the time and do it myself.
Seriously, if some "scientist" from the churchmen's time said "earth is FLAT! kill anyone who disgrees". The "scientists" of the time, those of the establishment school of thought, would have immediately gone ballistic in their attempts to prevent everyone from speaking and thinking outside their (typically fear driven) paradigm.
My suggestion is to let the Mavericks who say "the earth is round" have their say. It has always been the few, the pioneers who were right, and the "many" who were always lead along, with the proverbial carrot on a stick. Majorities are always stampeding herds of bovine creatures. In the case of humans, they're merely bipedal bovines
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I don't agree with the whole thing since this smells too much like censorship to me. BUT, trying to keep an open mind here I also have to admit that the guy has a point, if not little. Something drastic has to be done in the US unless they don't mind slowly to be considered the "garbage can of the free world". When looking at environment control its safe to say that where a lot of (Kyoto supporting) countries are on a 7 on a total scale of 10 the US would score approx. a 2 if not 1.
When it comes to global warming I'm a sceptic too. Not even scientificly based but just pick up a decent weather almanac which dates at least 200 years back, then try to find a pattern.. You won't really find a clear one but you'll see that the current situation isn't as drastic or strange as people try to picture it. And whats 200 years over a total timescale of thousands if not millions of years? I do agree that we need to be careful though, inventing cleaner engines, cleaner fuel and making the population aware that we cannot continue to just do as we please without any consent, but we shouldn't overdo it.
"The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" (Princess Leia - Star Wars ep. 3). Its just that; the more you keep hammering on environmental control and global warming and continue to hammer and repeat it while you also start to bring bad news to your people ("Price of gas will rise because the goverment won't invest in it to lower it") you have the perfect combination for denial, opposition, etc.
In the lights of that I can imagine that someone not too bright would come up with the brilliant idea that if you simply silence the discussion you're also silencing the muttering and such. Drastic situations like in the US which doesn't honor Kyoto like the rest of the civilised world while allowing cars on the road which consume an enourmous amount of gas while they can't even make it from one end of the city border to the other do call for a drastic approach. But I'd rather see them trying to make the people think about all this than resorting to censorship, even though such a plan would be awfully hard in a land as the US.
This is exactly the same as shouting someone down in an argument. Also, it smells of a logical fallacy - the ad baculum (Appeal to Force). In short: "I don't think you're right, and I can't seem to prove you're not right, so you'd better shut up, or it'll be the worst for you." - in threating scientists with professional disgrace if they won't toe the line. Personally, I feel that we are on the brink of an environmental catastrophe cuased by mankind, but of course, that's not the point - I do wonder, if the evidence for mankind causing global warming is so strong, why do we need to gag and discredit those brave (and in my opinion, misguided) souls who challenge the "accepted" view? As a friend of mine at school used to say, "If you can't get your point across, don't get mad, just hit them as hard as you can". Maybe we could strip Religious Instruction teachers of their Dip.Eds if they happen to support young-earth creationalism. Stop the Madness, without free scientific method and peer review, we wouldn't even know we're in trouble in the first place
... that greenies are totally nuts, this is it. can't put up with people with a descenting view? then clearly your arguments can't be that rock solid.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
If a lawyer were to pronounce that it was OK to rob convenience stores, do you think the law society might move to withdraw their seal of approval? What about a physician who advocated -- on a medical TV show -- leeches & bleeding?
It is not a censorship issue for an organization to decline to lend its approval to unsupportable opinions. Since meteorology aims to be a scientific discipline, it seems reasonable to me that it should avoid blessing the expression of opinions contrary to evidence as if they were fact.
Crackpots and demagogues may say what they wish but their freedom to say so is not accompanied by the right to demand seals of approval for their behaviour.
The line you boldfaced: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval." basically says:
"A Meteorologist should be knowledgeable about the evidence about climate change. It's his subject after all. If he isn't, he's incompetent and should be de-certified."
Well, that's something I agree with.
The fact that we are witnessing Climate Change in itself is pretty uncontroversial. What is controversial is to what extent this climate change we are witnessing was caused by man (specifically our carbon dioxide output as opposed tp e.g. an upwards cycle in the sun's energy output) and to what extent we can hope to halt or reverse climate change by reducing our carbon dioxide output.
Nowhere do I read anything about a proposed decertification of meteorologists who argue against climate change being caused by man. What I do read is a proposal to decertify people who call themselves Meteorologists and haven't kept up to date with evidence on climate change.
That's why I'm so certain that the issue of silencing opponents hasn't surfaced. Cullen's blog talks about de-certifying people who pose as experts but who are incompetent in their claimed area of expertise because they haven't kept up with the literature.
"Seeking to politically silence ANY side of a scientific issue is a slippery slope. "
That's not what's happened, the womans remarks were balanced and correct:
"And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy."
Isn't that correct, shouldn't all scientists do this?
Now, you are reacting to the misrepresentation of her views, taken out of context and given a sinister twist. The man doing this is Marc Morano, a PR man for Exxon. He's trying to twist "distinguishing between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy" into censorship.
Are you against scientists "distinguishing between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy",
My guess is NO.
Are you against censorship?
My guess is YES.
So it's clear what game he's playing here.
This is part of an ongoing Exxon PR campaign. Real nasty stuff done by cynical men.
He had mean parents
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
The link comes from the minoirity in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In other words, Sen. James Inhofe who's support comes from the coal and oil lobby. He as written some amazingly lapdogish stuff and this could be more of the same. Comments further down appear to bebunk what he's saying here. Better check those out before being stirred to outrage as he intends.
I want global warming. I'm in Florida and I hate it hear... I want nothing more than to have Florida weather in my hometown of Amherst, Massachusetts. Humans causing global warming? I say bring it on! :)
An advantage of my proposal is that it is even more deliciously ironic than the main proposal.
I'd imagine a degree could be revoked if it later turned out that you didn't wrote the thesis yourself, or that you bribed the evaluation committee, that is, that the degree was given on a false foundation. But not because of anything you do or say later in life.
The Weather Channel's most prominent man-made global warming evangelist is
advocating that broadcast meteorologists be excommunicated for heresy if
they express skepticism about the gospel of man-made catastrophic global warming.
They're all sorts of religions on the planet and only few deal with spiritual matters.
Anyway, people don't seem to understand the importance of scale. Both these issues -- short term global warming and longer-term return of an ice age -- are not mutually exclusive.
I agree with your post, but it leaves something highly important unsaid. None of the existing Global Climate Models can simulate the 100,000-year cycle of glaciations properly (ie. matching the fairly thorough geologic record): at best they deliver just small variations of global temperature mirroring one of the periodic components in the orbital cycles. Yet, those blatantly flawed GCMs represent the pinnacle of current scientific theories in climatology.
What this really means is that the science of climate change is unsound at its core. It's no good theorizing about small rises in temperature from manmade CO2 when you can't model the extremely large periodic rise and falls of temperature, CO2, and ice coverage that have been occurring like clockwork over the last million years. It's simply not scientific.
You have to understand your system's fundamental behaviour before you can predict 2nd-order effects. Since nobody knows what triggers glaciations with such regularity (plenty of attempts at explanations, but nothing approaching a GCM-run theory), a pragmatic approach to our lack of knowledge would take it for granted that we're about to drop into another glaciation (since it's time), and discuss the undoubted rise of manmade CO2 in the context of a geologically imminent freeze-up.
Just one thought before seeing my karma dumped to hell.
Manmade global warming is nowadays known as one scientific fact. This means it's been proven by a huge quantity of data and innumerable research papers point out it's really happening. The same huge quantity of data proves the Nazi killed almost 6 million Jews in their concentration camps during WWII.
Notwithstanding all this data, there are Holocaust deniers just as there are global warming deniers.
My question is, why denying the Holocaust is seen as immoral and possibly illegal while denying global warming isn't?
:(){
When it comes down to the climate we are still running probabilities and it is known that the sun-spot cycle has a considerable effect as well as various gases. Some cools the climate down others makes it warmer.
The current winter is (at least here in northern Europe so far) the warmest and wettest for a long time, but last winter was a rather cold one. What we actually are missing is reliable detailed weather data for the last million years, which we would need if we are to make a detailed prognosis. Unfortunately we don't have that so we will need to go for the second best alternative by doing estimations of trends of various curves.
Some analysis even estimates that if it weren't for the greenhouse gas emissions that we have today we would have had a new ice age. If that's the truth or not - hard to tell but it's an interesting thought.
So many factors are involved that it's not easy, and there is a difference between short-time trends, long-time trends and threshold switches. For example the El Niño is a typical threshold switch effect with considerable results in weather change.
By all means, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't cut down our emissions - of course we should, even it it's only for the reason that we are working on finite resources of uranium, oil and coal.
So in the end - let meteorologists have different views, this will keep the general public alert. A single-headed view will just cause disinterest in a question. Or maybe that's what the actual idea is? Let the general public be so disinterested in a question so that the question will self-die.
"Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.", quote claimed to be by Mark Twain. - This is still true.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Only totalitarian goverments force the scientific truth down our throats.If truth is proven and self-evident there is no need to enforce it.
-This post has not been approved by Minitrue
All isn't always as it seems. And if something seems too preposterous to be true, then it probably is. Before believing chicken little that the sky is falling, we should first look up and see for ourselves. So, to my mind, the weakest link in this chain of "the sky is falling, we are being censored" is the posting.
I would suggest that before any of us pile on to the discussion with knee-jerk agreement or disagreement, that we first do a little bit of cross-validation to see if the poster (and/or respondents) have given us enough information to respond intelligently. Most of us are saying perfectly reasonable things under one scenario or other. But here, there is only one scenario, the one that elicited the post. So let's restrict our comments only to what actually has happened and forget the rest. Let's break it down:
Here are the main claims:
Now let's dissect each claim:
That sounds dire indeed, and if true IS inflamatory! So, what certification would they lose? If we click through to one more line to the original comments by Dr. Cullen that elicited the accusation of censorship, we will find a link to the AMS certifcation page.
After reading from these two links, we learn from by Dr. Cullen on her blog that this is her opinion about certain meteorologists:
Furthermore by looking reading the AMS link we learn that their certification is only a positive affirmation of their qualifications. There is no indication at all that lacking a "Seal of Approval" will legally interfere with the abilities of anyone (you or me, for example) from broadcasting the weather on any station who will have them (or us!). So, right out of the gate, the headline is disingenuous.
I see no evidence that lacking a seal of approval will effectively silence anyone. But that's beside the point. This was merely an opinion by Dr. Cullen as to what standards the AMA should have. Notably, Dr. Cullen is not the AMA. Again, this implication (noted prominently with the censored icon) is dubious at the very least. Who is being censored and how will they be censored? Reading the source links provides no evidence whatsoever to answer either question.
This implication is more than merely disingenuous. It is at best hastily posted and poorly considered and at worst an outright lie. But by now, we already know that. Since we read the original post, we know that this is merely the comments made on a blog on a senate.gov server
It's similar to whether teachers should be teaching good current science.
To be honest, I don't know which side I hold on this issue. I believe that AMS has the right, but don't like to stifle debate. People shouldn't be presenting bad science and be endorsed, but it's not nice to be gagged if you want to keep your job, which doesn't, in itself, rely upon that opinion.
It would certainly be wrong to decertify scientists, for they have the knowledge, and should have the freedom to make their own decisions. But if your job is to communicate (the implications of) current science, that isn't the same thing as science research.
Wikileaks, no DNS
An old estimate system found that it was slightly warmer than 1998, but a newer estimate system, currently undergoing testing, finds that 1998 was slightly warmer. See this NCDC discussion.
In any case, average temperature for a single year doesn't prove anything, and it's not the sort of thing that scientists rely on. If we relied on single years, then we would've concluded that there was significant global cooling between the 1930s and the 1980s, because 1934 was warmer than any of the years of the 1980s.
I know people desperately hate the idea of analyzing data to separate trends from random fluctuations, but that's what scientists actually do. The pop-science version where you say "oh it was warm this winter---must be global warming!" is not science.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In most global warming studies its stated that global warming causes other things that can make places cooler. global warming can change the jet stream and cause other effects. This would make it seem like its getting colder when in reality global warming is changing things and changing the weather patterns.
Global warming affects more then just temperatures.
Why do people leave that out when arguing against global warming.
it is the fact that some "scientists" still come up with "but it was warmer in the middle ages" and don't care to see if that is still the idea. Or "but the hockey stick is uncertain" when the undertainty was solved AGES ago.
If someone espouses "MM change isn't true because of " and that theory isn't an obvious plant then it is genuine science. What this proposal would do is stop climate scinetists having to explain YET AGAIN that the argument has been made before and proven incorrect.
Silencing dissenting opinions is not scientific. We humans are imperfect. I don't think there is ANYTHING in the scientific realm that we understand perfectly. The science of "global warming" in particular. There is A LOT we still don't know.
Personally, I think if anyone claims to be speaking scientifically, but states that there is no room for dissent in the discussion about global warming, THEY should be de-certified.
Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
Consider a meteorologist who is a sincere member of the the Flat Earth Society. Occasionally during his presentations he'll mutter an interjection such as, "According to this satellite photo --- yeah right, like there are 'satellites' which are in 'orbit' --- we see clouds moving northward..."
Now, do we "censor" this individual? Is that really the right word? Because global warming is close to being on par with the "Round Earth" theory. Furthermore, the future of mankind more than possibly depends on achieving public consensus on this issue. One could even say that we have a moral obligation to oppose such disinformation.
Slashdotters complaining about censorship, oh that is rich.
Thanks guys, best piece of ironic humour I'm sure to see all day!
One google search brings us:
"Morano works under Senator James Inhofe, majority chairman of the committee."
Inhofe is the senator who called human influence on climate one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated, and used his former chairmanship to throw all sorts of unsubstantiated claims into the limelight. I would assume that his staff have just as much credibility.
______ This mind intentionally left blank.
n/t
Or else worldwide communications have improved to the point where we hear about it every time a butterfly flaps its wings.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
You know, in an argument, "I'm right, shut up" is not a valid postulate. In fact, in arguments, the more standoffish, brash, and assertive the person is in pushing their point with little or no evidence to back it up, the more often they are found to be completely in the wrong.
Seriously people, threatening to strip someone of their credentials if they disagree with you is the last act of a desperate man. The truth is, the global warming zealots know they don't have a leg to stand on, and the only thing they will actually come out and claim evidence for is that the earth is warming (which it is, due at least in part to a ~7W/m^2 increase in solar flux density that correlates very well with recent increases in global surface temperature). They still cannot produce any proof that global warming is a man-made problem. For a while there, I actually started to believe the hype, but the more and more outlandish the eco-movement has become, the less and less credibility they have earned.
DISCLAIMER (and I need to put this here because I know the global warming zealots are going to put words in my mouth): This post and the contents herein are not to be construed as an argument against sound environmental policy, clean air, clean water, nor as an argument for SUVs, burning down rain forests, funding terrorists by buying their oil, or clubbing baby seals. Furthermore, no one who drives a car may post any arguments about fossil fuels in response to this post, because the poster lives a mostly fossil-fuel-free lifestyle. The poster rides a bike to work, pays extra for 100% wind electricity, and uses B100 bioheating oil in his furnace, all at terrific expense to stay as much within the carbon cycle as possible.
His former jobs include producing the Rush Limbaugh show and writing fan fiction for the oil industry. Taking that with his complete misrepresentation of the original statements and you have at least a strong circumstantial case for an intentional smear campaign.
--MarkusQ
Ah yes there can be no argument that the leftest have won in the United States, force bloggers to register and now attempting to ban the expression of opposing view points...
If you didn't vote Libertarian then you are getting what you deserve.
There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism on any subject. There are many in the meteorological and climatological community who have some issues with the science behind "global warming." Some believe that it might not be human caused, or are skeptical of the nature of the change.
Your analogy is incorrect. "Leeches and bleeding" is a valid medical procedure for some diseases. I have a disease called hemochromatosis, where part of the accepted treatment program is exactly that (although leeches aren't used, I have heard of cases where leeches ARE used with people with circulatory issues).
It's more like some doctors saying "we've found that leeches might be an appropriate treatment in these cases, and we'd like some leeway to continue to research this." There's nothing about that statement, on it's face, that makes the doctor a crackpot.
Similarly, just because somebody is a skeptic doesn't make them a crackpot. Quite to the contrary: believing, wholesale, in a particular thing and NOT maintaining a small amount of skepticism is exactly what makes a crackpot.
I don't need advanced communications to see all this as it all happens within a few miles of me.
:)
Tornadoes in north london last month (?), drought accross whole of SE England, flooding just about every where (when it does finally rain). Currently typing in my loft and feeling rather vunerable as 60-70 mph gusts of wind is making the whole roof creak. I didn't go skiing at christmas as their wasn't any snow in the Alps.
But if you say it's normal and you're a scientist then I guess I have to believe you
The article in the link is clearly an opinion and attack on the global warming science. It includes sarcasm, which is a poor substitute for wit. And it doesn't belong on a .gov site, regardless of the debate. Cynicism and sarcasm about the greatest disaster facing this world is not welcomed by anyone.
I can't believe anyone in the government could post such a blog article in a time where countries that normally are buried in meters of snow are shutting down ski resorts (Finland, Switzerland, Sweden). Definitely anecdotal, but not a good year to call global warming hogwash.
You need only travel (which many people do not) to see the effects of global warming. But smart people have stopped debating and realized that change in behavior is not emminent. The call has been put out, and ignorant people have decided they'll fight any changes that might stop global warming. If you're smart, you'll start your own preparation for the coming catastrophes. Don't think just climate, think economic disaster. If you are in the middle class, don't get used to it because there will be 2 classes, rich and poor. Guess which class produces the majority of global warming skeptics come? If you said Rich, you win a prize.
If you read the "Expert's" blog in question http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html , she suggests that a meteorologist who is quoted as saying "I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but [its] complex..." should perhaps loose his certification. Not because he's skeptical of global warning, but because he's not taking the time to study up on it.
The "Expert" even goes on to write "I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political". Doesn't sound like someone wanting to silence skeptics. Sounds like someone who wants to stress informed open scientific debate.
The fact is that the Slashdot newsflash is highly misleading in that totally misreports the expert in question.
This is because it simply parrots a blog/rant by a someone associated with the Senate, who got his facts wrong.
Perhaps we should have Penguinisto, the submitter, and samzenpus, theAnd thank you for your posts. I was just about done reading the comments and was about to go read the article when I noticed your rebuttal. Now I don't have to bother reading the article.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Ten years ago, those who promoted the idea that Global warming didn't exist just said that, or "the jury is still out" or some such. Now, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that particular camp is saying "Human caused Global warming", and we're also starting to hear "We're past the point of no return, so why accept the huge economic impact". I'm sure there is a new spin in the works as science either shoots down, or supports some of these spins.
On the other hand, we hear the promotors of the idea that global warming is a real issue, and we CAN do something about it do some spinning too. Hurricane seasons (something we Floridians tend to keep an eye on) the 2004/2005 hurricane seasons saw a huge amount of Global Warming promotional spin. Yet the science does not support the idea that there will be more hurricanes. It does seem to support the idea that intensity could be affected due to warmer water, or the season could be longer, but that isn't anything more than a hypothesis at the moment. (Research the work by Dr. Grey and his team for a starter on this one.)
One should add that belief and truth are not the same thing. Your remark about Darwin is an excellent example:
There is zero credible science to refute the existence of evolution. Evolution is an observable phenomena. The "Theory" part involves the tweaking of the "Theory" to new data, in other words, it's an answer, just not a complete answer (which is a Law). When you hear "Evolution is just a 'Theory'" the speaker is either using the remark for spin or is truly ignorant of what a Theory is, my personal observation is that, in most cases it is the latter.
Let us compare to a different topic. The "Theory of Gravity"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity is just a theory. The observable effects are not the theory. There is no debate that gravity exists, the debate involves the details of how and why. If a physicist published a paper denying the existence of gravity, and promoting the idea that "God holds each of us to the ground, gravity is a myth." He'd be ridiculed, and it'd be a CLM (Career limiting move). That is the appropriate response from his peers. Not because he's wrong, but because it's bad science. His focus would is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics metaphysics, not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics physics and he is in the wrong line of work. Science doesn't care whether or not God uses gravity to hold you to your chair. Science cares about how and why gravity works. The mind and methods of God are for philosophers and theologians to mess with, not scientists.
Evolution is the same: there is no debate concerning IF things evolve, the theory involves the mechanics of the evolution. The theory, like all theories, has real hard data to back it up. It does, and will, undergo tweaking and review, but there is no debate as to whether or not it exists.
So, yes, telling the truth May very well be a smear campaign, when that truth is misrepresented, told as a partial truth, and phrased for "Spin". The article in question reeks of that kind of spin.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Play your fiddles while Rome burns...
The usual suspects will be burnt at the stake...
The problem is we spend too much time dealing with psychopaths bent on profiteering
and by the time we get the public on the bandwagon it's too late...
Remember that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warned about disaster way before
Katrina...From July 23-27, 2002, Reporters John McQuaid and Mark Schleifstein ran a five-part series called "Washing Away" in the New Orleans Times-Picayuneran with some quite convincing facts...the warnings were all there....didn't change a thing...start buying stocks in Bottled Water !
End of Line.
back in the 80s that were yelling about an ice age is on the way? What about the assertion that we havent seen teperatures like this SINCE... um Since? that means it happened before? what caused the Ice age, and the medieval warm period? are we warming up? probbably, though the people in Malibu may disagree at the moment. Is it man made? doubtful. Scientists are OFTEN wrong, and silenceing those that they do not agree with is not the answer, a scientists job is to PROVE them wrong.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
You're saying the position is valid. That's not what the thread is about. My point is that an organization has both the right and the moral obligation to decline to sanction that which it considers to be invalid and harmful.
He wrote the campaign for Exxon promoting their work in preserving Tigers and Exxon is believed to be the money behind both him and Senator Inhofe.
N 00005582&cycle=2004
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=
Top contributor: Oil and Gas $304,156
This sounds like a government organization is telling me what to think. I don't like it one bit. This "weatherman" is expressing communist views and trying to assert his "truth" over mine. The true meaing of this article is not too discuss global warming but to discuss people loss of free thinking and speach. Shame!
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
In some cases, the position IS valid. There is a small amount of good science that paints a lot less dire prediction than the mainstream "global warming" theories.
My only point is that skepticism, in healthy doses, is what makes a scientist a scientist. Sure there are crackpots in every profession. My point is, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Not everybody who has a small amount of skepticism on "global warming" is necessarily a crackpot.
Side note: it is worth noting that I started making changes to "reduce carbon output" a decade ago, mostly because I'm on the "even if global warming isn't caused by humans, we can't be making it any better" camp.
of rejection to breathless hyperbole. Find a way to forcibly silence all dissent. And now that Cindy Sheehan's party is in office, we'll go from a record number of pork projects to a record number of knee-jerk climate legislation proposals based on unsettled science and designed solely to hamstring American companies in the global marketplace. Meanwhile, India and China will continue to expand their economies at a record pace and will soon outpace us. Sadly, most of my countrymen are timid, whiny pussies, and we'll soon be paying the price by slipping from our perch atop the global marketplace. But then, that's always been the goal of the neo-libs since Vietnam. They're still trying to atone for the guilt of past mistakes. Seriously, it's a wonder we aren't paying reparations to descendants of slaves... Oh, wait... Affirmative action!
Did we stick a DUNCE cap on Einstein's head when he didn't go along with quantum physics?
Is the gestapo coming after me if I don't care much for string theory?
*sigh*
We've had quite a few unseasonably warm days this winter. What more proof do we need?
Of course, that fact that we're getting to the point where we compare Global Warming to the Holocaust speaks volumes in and of itself.
The original article here, and slashdot's summation, might have been intentionally provocative and not entire accurate, but people are so religious about Global Warming that they certainly wish people would stop saying it doesn't exist. For anyone who can step back and take an honest unbiased view of this debate, do you really think that proponents of the Global Warming theory really want to have a debate on the issue, or do they just want everyone to believe as they do and stop disagreeing?
Whatever beautiful word or phrases we say...the fact remains..global warming is there and we have to manage the crisis. Whether "today's" weather is an outcome of it or not doesn't really matter. And let me tell you, there are lots of things we can do to improve the situation but we never do that b'cos we never really feel the pinch and I think the metereologist comments about global warming will work good for the society.
It is unfortunate instead of focussing on real issue we are focussing on very cosmetic thing whether metereologist is justified or not....I think his/her intent is well justified.
Seriously, this is middle age thinking. Skepticism, even if it's politically motivated (and I'm not syaing it all is in this issue), is a good thing for science. Skepticism is what makes science work in the long run.
I'm currently listening to Jello Biafra's In the Grip of Official Treason, and it's chilling. He shouts very well, and he's very optimistic, but boy howdy does he paint a bleak picture. And well, too.
I'm at the part where he talks about the efforts of the Democrats to keep 3rd parties off the ballots, the concession of a rigged vote by the Democrats, the refusal to listen to the black caucus after the Florida 2000 thing.
If we could add an entry for "none of the above" to every election ballot, I bet that choice would win almost every race, because of the general level of disgust we have for our elected officials.
Yeah, see above. It's not going to happen. Instant run-off voting would work alarmingly well (it works for the Aussies), and people would feel less like slaves to a choice between Kerry (*hack*) or Bush (*spittle*). But again, it's not going to happen.
My voting policy, when I don't have a candidate, is to vote for 3rd parties. Failing that, vote for democrats. When there's no political affiliation, vote for the black person. If there are no black people, vote for the woman. If they're both women, don't vote. I feel mildly slimy about the democrat part.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Why is it ok to silence those who have opposing views to say evolution but it's not ok to silence those with opposing views to global warming?
Personally, I believe in evolution, however the last time the ID vs evolution debate came up, the slashdot community was pretty emphatic that the ID viewpoint should be silenced. Now, however, the same community feels silencing the a different view as compared to global warming is somehow wrong or unjust.
Assuming that the slashdot community's views on freedom of speech and expression are consistent with the population as a whole (or maybe even more open), I am just curious as to a rational explanation as to why the distaste for one group's view on a topic should lead to a move to censor while on a different topic it leads to an outcry against censorship?
When something is so overwhelmingly obviously true then debate should be criminalized.
Quickest way to get moderated up on Slashdot? Say "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..."
A bit further down on the list of ways to get modded up is to point out this fact. Good on ya!
And a preemptive strike: you might also get modded "plus-one Funny" if you posted this comment...
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Ok... This isn't quite the same because our scientific knowledge is much greater but...
Remember back in the day... Everybody thought the world was flat? And a few people disagreed and where "frowned" upon?
We know infinitely more about science, but doesn't our understanding of climate models still lack? I'm just saying...
My final opinion though, before people think I'm a witch or something: We are causing harm, we need to back off. Even if it isn't our fault, we should follow our understanding. Maybe at a later date will we truly understand, or we may be right now.(Which I hope we are)
I thought the article was quite informative until I got to "Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. "
At this point, it's time to stop reading; I'm sure you'll agree: "climate alarmists", "death trials", "compliant media" ?
I don't even see why this "Senate" would take a stand in this manner - the article looks more like propaganda / gossip than anything else.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
"It is alarming how many people object to diversity in thought. I do not understand where they think they have derived the right to force everyone to think the same way they do."
I'm gonna sit back and let you think about how incredibly ironic it is that you said that here on slashdot, which is an echo chamber 99.9% of the time, with dissenting voices being modded down as trolls.
I found this a couple of years ago and it still makes me nervous every fall. Moreso now that I've actually seen The Day After Tomorrow.
I hope he's wrong. I REALLY hope he's wrong.
Glaciation
Need Mercedes parts ?
And a preemptive strike: you might also get modded "plus-one Funny" if you posted this comment... And if I post this reply... uh.. only a great fool would the wine in front of me! But you must have known that I am not a great fool... Aaah, I think I got a stack overflow from the recursion.
It is even more political than you think. The blog is off of the minority portion of the senate committee web site. This is Sen. James Inhofe's stuff. Take a look at his campaign contributers: http://opensecrets.org/politicians/allsector.asp?C ID=N00005582, Oil, Gas and Coal have him in their pocket.
Sorry, science still doesn't work that way.
"Shut up or we're all doomed" is a prime example of a classic fallacy, namely the Appeal To Consequences fallacy: pretending that something is "proven" or "disproven" by how desirable or undesirable the consequences are. It, and the other many fallacies employed in the climate debate, however, don't "prove" or "disprove" anything: they're just bad pseudo-logic.
It's basically perfectly on par with (a few years back) saying "the dams near New Orleans are proven strong enough, because it would lead to so awful consequences if they aren't." Would such an argument actually have made the dams stronger? Nope. Would silencing critics have prevented the catastrophe? Nope.
And as if the existing handwaving, sophistry and fallacies weren't enough, now let's also add an unsubtle Argumentum Ad Baculum, a.k.a., appeal to force: I'm right because I can do nasty things to you if you say I'm not. Like get you de-certified. Nope, that still isn't actual scientific proof or disproof.
And censoring scientists is a stupid idea anyway. Science just builds a model and makes some predictions. How you act upon them, is the domain of engineering and/or politics. Go vote for someone else if you want action, not try to force scientists to start spouting dogma instead of science.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
A solution Messers Stalin & Lysenko would approve of.
IBM
No scientist worthy of the name would suggest any such thing. To stifle debate and dissension of opinion is the realm of religion, not science.
.
That's a quick thumbnail that may be wrong (I've only lived in three states, but I do have a sister with an insurance license and a father in the finance industry), but it gives you the idea of the US licensing standards. All of that assumes you're doing it for a profession. I can bandage your arm or wire a wall socket for you as a favor, but if I started doing it for profit, I'd have to get a license. People often represent themselves in minor courts of law (such as small claims), but are scrutinized before doing so for major or criminal cases. And again, it varies by state. Body piercing shops can set up and be done by anybody in some states, while other states license either the facility or individual piercers (usually strictly for health and safety issues, not technical qualification for procedures).
.
I'm sure I missed a few or got some slightly off, but the flames that follow this reply will correct me with the glee of the Marquis de Sade.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Honest skepticism is a good thing. Real questions, doubts and concerns deserve real answers. Shoving a sock in the mouth of a skeptic will only be a detriment to the one doing the shoving.
So even though there is no proof that talking on cell phones is related to cancer, we think it must be, so let's ban it to cure cancer, if only because talking on them is a traffic hazard.
Argumentum ad populum couples with non sequitur — film at 11.
sigs, as if you care.
What's being discussed here is the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist program. You don't need certification to be a scientist, but evidently you do in order to be a TV weatherperson. The original blog post merely said that if you're a certified TV weatherperson, you have a responsibility to be educated about climate change; evidently a lot of them spout off about it on the daily news when they have no training in the area.
I see a lot of debate as to whether or not global warming is man-made or not. Lots of science points towards it, but some people think that it's normal for it to get this hot this fast. Fine. Whatever. The main point is weather patterns all over the world are acting very erratically. Glaciers are disappearing, revealing new islands, record heat waves in the winter months followed by severe weather fluctuations. And it's not happening over 1 year or two, but decades. Regardless of whether or not you think humanity is at fault, stuff is happening, and it's getting worse.
What we should really be doing is preparing for dealing with these problems and investigating whether or not we can do anything about them. I suspect we can change our behaviors and do something about it rather then just sticking our collective heads in the sand and pretending like the problem doesn't exist.
You can pretend that maybe it's God turning up the thermostat or aliens shooting weather-control beams at the earth or whatever you like, but the fact is there appears to be a problem and we should be doing something about it.
This is ridiculous. Silence the debate?!?! Skepticism leads to debate, and ultimately leads to innovation and truth. Case: The world is flat. No it is not. Rabble Rabble. A journey is made to prove it. Truth is known.
Case: The heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. Really?! I think not! Rabble Rabble. Innovations are made; telescopes, physics....And guess what happens? The truth: That the heavenly bodies revolve around the sun.
These scientists are just an example of a problem with the scientific community being over run by zealots, as in religious zealots. Difference? I think not.
I have been working in the scientific community my whole professional life, and I have never heard of a "certified scientist" before.
In applied science fields where there are a large number of practitioners in the private sector, some professional organizations find it useful to develop a set of base-line standards for professional practice and certify that members of their community meet those standards. When people who claim to meet those standards (meaning "certified scientists") don't adhere to standard practices, the professional community can use exclusion from the list as a form of sanction. The purpose all of this serves is to give people in the lay community who need to hire applied scientists, but have neither the time nor expertise to evaluate their publication list, a standard way of determining whether or not they are hiring a lunatic. These registers don't do much more than that, but they do at least help weed out the crackpots.
An example of this is the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) If you represent yourself as a professional archaeologist and an RPA, then there are certain things you will or won't do. For instance, if an RPA member goes out and churns up a 12,000 year old bison kill site with a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer and then sells all the artifacts, you can be pretty sure that, whether the dig was legal or not, that archaeologist will be kicked off the RPA (and rightly so).
Now you can debate the idea of whether or not the American Meteorological Society ought to be using non-belief in anthropogenic global warming as a criterion for revoking their "seal of approval," but the idea that there is no such thing as a "certified scientist" is no longer valid outside the narrow world of academia. Whether you like it or not, certifications are here to stay. Moreover, they serve a purpose in applied science settings.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
There is a range in predictions of the consequences of global warming and one should look at the high end in assesing risk. Even the high end may not be an adequate guide in some cases. For example, the risk of more powerful storms is predicted generally to come late in the game yet there is some evidence that an incease in the number of catagory 4 and 5 storms is already occuring. Could be a problem with the models.
I think your second point is quite interesting. We are now adapting to global warming, and we a pretty good at it. Just as crop planting decisions are sometimes based on El Nino forecasts, we are in pretty good shape when it comes to making plans to adapt. The market is a help. Insurance companies are beginging to abandon coastal customers for example.
While we may adapt in our activites (we're the best species in that game), other species may not have the time to adapt becuase they rely on evolutionary timescales and we are running the environmental change much faster than that. Species that are adapted to polar or upland habitats will simply run out of room and face extinction. Now, here's the rub, we actually depend on functioning ecosystems for our survival. If we change the conditions so rapidly that ecosystems can no longer function, we could be in very deep trouble, of the sort where our ability to adapt ourselves does not really matter anymore.
Where I live, cherry trees were blooming in December. They usually do this in April. There were not a lot of bees out because they are a bit more sensible. So, the blooms were not pollenated. No matter, it is cold enough now that those blooms would not have born fruit anyway. But, will those trees bloom again in season? If they do, will the trees become diseased because they've expended too much energy and have become weakened. What about if this happens again next year?
The webs of ecosystems are very resiliant, but they are not unbreakable. One needs to think about the broader implications of adaptation to gloabal warming when discussing the merits of adaptation vrs. prevention.
----
Disclosure: I have a personal finacial interest in ending global warming (see my home page).
1. If you shut up every scientist who disagreed with conventional wisdom we would still be learning about the Ptolemaic solar system; we wouldn't know about these crazy forces that keep making things fall on our heads; and smelly grad students wouldn't be able to buy that picture of Einstein with his tongue sticking out; and possibly the worst Stephen Hawking wouldn't have that awesome mac voice that I use on my voice mail so people think I'm smart. You never know when some "crazy" guy who is a black sheep in his discipline will come up with the next mind blowing episode of nova.
/. have a dedicated global warming section yet? There always so many stories on the subject and so many people respond to them that global warming could easily make its own section.
2. Why doesn't
lose != loose
<sarcasm>Time and Newsweek have always been reliable presenters of science news.</sarcasm>
The question is, can you find a climatology journal article from the 70's that agrees with Time or Newsweek? If not, then one should be no more surprised that Time and Newsweek were wrong then about science as one should be surprised when they're wrong now.
(For the record, the Summer of the Shark did not see an increase in shark attacks. And no, I'm not holding up CNN as a good science source, either. Coincidentally enough, there was also a Summer of the Shark in 1975.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
...because some comments by James Burke on the first series of Connections (which I've been re-watching) have had the wheels in my brain turning for a few weeks now. Specifically, Burke says that it was warmer in England prior (as in within a generation prior) to the medieval ice-age then it was "now" ("now" being when the program was aired - 1979).
So, this has had me wondering - what proof do we have that the global warming is primarily caused by humans? Also, considering that humans have greatly reduced their emission of pollutants since the industrial revolution (or, for that matter, the 1970s), what effect has that had on global warming. From what all I've heard, despite our best efforts to scale back the use of greenhouse gasses in the US and Europe, things are still getting worse. This leads me to my three points.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
"Although you're right about the reversal in predictions, your conclusion (they were wrong before, so they're always wrong!) is flippant and ignores the real science being done in the field."
That comment shows why there are so many people that discount global warming. The parent poster did not say they were wrong before, so they are always wrong. He said, they were wrong before, so, I'm going to be more skeptical this time. There is a huge difference, and when he gets accused of being flippant for a very reasonable response, he gets pushed in exactly the opposite direction you want.
If the scientific community that believes in global warming wants to bring the more skeptical part of society over to their way of thinking, they need to expunge the radicals, and kooks from their camp. When you stand side by side with a raving lunatic, and together try to convince someone of your point of view, you don't get far.
That is why I have not seen, 'An Incontinent Truth', and would likely discount what it has to say if I do eventually get it off of Netflix. The way it was advertised, and the people who have said it is a great film, make it look like it is as honest a film as '30 Days' and 'Bowling for Columbine'. Which is to say not very honest.
...when no hurricanes hit the US last season, and it's currently freezing in Texas.
Watch now how the Slashdot Groupthink Geek Chorus begins to wail a moan that we should ignore that data.
Climate change is inevitable regardless of what Man does.
Want a laugh? Read the current issue of "Scientific American" and how they're falling all over themselves trying to explain away the unexpected production of methane from plants.
(Jessep) We drive hybrids or people die - it's that simple. You weep for Lindzen and curse the AMS. You can do that. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Lindzen's decertification, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, though annoying to you, saves lives. ...
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I do understand why intelligent, well-meaning, well-educated people (amongst others) will bring this up - especially if they lived through the 70's and were not involved with the climatology science itself (as very few were, of course). I would not be surprised, either, if you could find a small handful of climatologists (and possibly even journal articles) from the 70's who suggested this.
However, The difference is that it was never accepted by mainstream climatology. Therefore, the global cooling "alarmists" have more in common with the global warming "deniers" of today than with the global warming "alarmists" (and I use both words loosely). That makes this comparison invalid when arguing against "consensus science".
If you want to search journal articles form the 70's and 80's, you can always go here. You may not be able to pull up the entire article, but you should be able to find the abstracts. (You might want to be selective in your "Information types" - unless you want to get home pages, too.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Meteorology is the one profession where a scientist can be consistently wrong and yet still hold a job. Fire them for their views on global warming? I'd rather they get fired when they say it's not going to rain and it does.
Since it is an article of faith among the Neocon chorus that "dissent is being suppressed by politically motivated Global Warming fear-mongers" I'd guess the gentleman figures if he's going to be blamed for it, he may as well do it.
If some lying bastich that hates me claims I scratched his car, and I'm going to have to pay for his new paint job despite my innocence, I'm gonna go scratch that mother!
Peer review scientist certification would work far better than peer review politician certification.
....
... theory, facts, and discovery of ... sciences. Everything else is ....
... theoretical/applied science, then global socio-economic and environment problems would get fixed, we would all be one religion, and politics would not be a posh career for so many uncertified failures in law, Biz ... life, selfishly helping humanity into great devastations and poverty.
I guess that is why any politician, corporatist, and dogmatist is willing to certify anyone as a scientific authority, rather then the lying BS-Artist they are on most everything like Biz/economic science, theology/mythology design science, political science
Science is about Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology
applied tools for Medicine, Engineering, Materials, Organics
philosophy, humanities, fine-arts, mythology
If there were really Biz/economic, theology/mythology, political,
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
This isn't censorship. Censorship is when you say the president is a jerk and they haul you away and shoot you. Or dig up your old transcripts, or release your medical history to destroy you.
d er-Anyone-Who-Says-Otherwise are not always equal. The last 12 years of Republican truth-fucking has made everyone stupid about what's "fair and balanced." Fair doesn't mean you treat the guy with a duck on his head claiming Hillary Clinton is a lizard-goddess the same as Hillary herself. Grow the hell up already.
This is a professional society upholding professional standards and the time for saying the freakin' world is flat is over. It is not censorhip any more than you telling a programmer who said he could do a web storefront in COBOL to take a hike.
And both sides of any "controversy" like, say, evolution vs God-Cloud-Man-Made-Us-Out-of-Mud-and-I-Get-to-Mur
And I don't like Hillary. I just like the image of a duck on someone's head.
A bit further down on the list of ways to get modded up is to point out this fact. Good on ya!
Actually, it appears to be a way to get you modded down as an Overrated karma whore. Slashdot mods don't like to feel like suckers.
You do know that meteorologists are not climatologists?
We're not going to get wiped out by global warming. Nope, it's going to be a meteor and it will happen less than 10 years from now. You guys can keep arguing if you but I'm going to the bar!
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Just imagine what Murdoch can do with a new weather channel dedicated to "fair and balanced weather", free of that sneaky northeastern liberal weather bias.
1. impose prevailing theology on minority dissenters
2. launch Fox Weather Channel
3. profit!
BTW, since when is a TV weatherman considered a scientist anyway? Their business is applying the research of real climatologists to practical weather prediction. That's not research, just applied science.
I'm all for nuclear power, electric cars, and getting away from a petroleum economy, global warming or not. /. to say the sky is falling, so look:
But I know it's standard practice on
Breathing in the air is becomming like locking yourself in your garage and starting the car. It just isn't good for anyone.
Wherever it is that you live, move. It isn't healthy there. But where I live, it is. Smog is a local problem. Why should I quit driving my SUV (if I had an SUV, which I do not), or make any lifestyle change, just so you can live where you want, when it's the people around you who are causing you the problem, not me?
sigs, as if you care.
one only needs to look at the melting artic. I wonder what financial impact the costal real estate market will undergo as many beaches find themself under water?
The climatologist quoted is arguing for something that actually makes sense, sort of. But what they're arguing, and what the submitter implies they're arguing are two different things.
The climatologist is talking about climatologists and meteorologists in her profession of weather reporting. Like a science classroom, the Weather Channel is not the arena for scientific debate over global warming or anything else. The peer-reviewed science literature is the arena for debate, and as far as I can tell, the climatologist is not arguing for censorship there... at all.
Do I agree then with the idea that climatologists who present their personal opinions as fact against the consensus of the scientific community should be stripped of their credentials? Well, in some sense, yes. But it's not that simple...
If people in other professions repeatedly give false information in the routine of their job, they can be stripped of their certifications... so I don't think it's out of the question. Each incident requires a thorough case review to determine whether or not willful negligence was involved... which is to say that these instances should not be overlooked.
I'm extremely skeptical about any person or group that uses methods like "blackballing" to stifle dissent. If they were so sure of their cause, then why resort to such tactics? Hmmmm?
After much debate and research, the truth will come out. It will take more time than you like, but you will have your freedon of thought in the end, and.... we do have the time.
Intersting that UFO fanatics get better treatment than man-caused planetary warming skeptics.
BWilde
This neither fits the American nor the scientific ideal. Though perhaps, both realms have distanced themselves so far from their ideal that legislating dissent away, seems like a logical and productive measure. I think anyone seeking to decertify others based on disagreement with their own view on a theory shows themselves too partisan to be certified themselves.
Does anyone really want science that is based on popular opinion and that removes the credentials of qualified dissenters? This sounds a bit like how the followers of Aristotle sought to preserve their view in Renaissance Europe by taking care of those who disagreed.
1) It's "CO2", not C-zero-two
2) Cows. Volcanoes. Etc.
3) Earth has shown ANOTHER huge spike
Signed,
Insane
---You know, in an argument, "I'm right, shut up" is not a valid postulate. In fact, in arguments, the more standoffish, brash, and assertive the person is in pushing their point with little or no evidence to back it up, the more often they are found to be completely in the wrong.
;D
Heh, you tell them
---Seriously people, threatening to strip someone of their credentials if they disagree with you is the last act of a desperate man. The truth is, the global warming zealots know they don't have a leg to stand on, and the only thing they will actually come out and claim evidence for is that the earth is warming (which it is, due at least in part to a ~7W/m^2 increase in solar flux density that correlates very well with recent increases in global surface temperature). They still cannot produce any proof that global warming is a man-made problem. For a while there, I actually started to believe the hype, but the more and more outlandish the eco-movement has become, the less and less credibility they have earned.
Back in High School (96-00), I had a biologist that discussed this during class.. One of the ideas that were being tossed about was that if the earth became too tot, somehow the water in all the deep parts of the ocean would rise to the surface (via a known mechanism), and supercool the atmosphere. The base idea here was that the earth itself is in homeostasis with many unknown and few known mechanisms. Its become hot and cold before, without our influence. What makes humans think they did it this time?
". . . . OR YOU WILL BE SHOT!"
Hm; sounds familiar, like something out of the 1940s.
So much for scientific objectivity and dissent....
Regards;
as long as its our government certified thoughts!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Post your GPS coordinates. I dare you.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. It's their job.
--
You're calling into question the very Laws of Newton!
This could get us all decertified as scientists.
I'm sorry Mr. Einstein, but we can't publish this.
is stretching the definition of scientist
Repeat after me They are Journalists not scientists
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
> Sir, are you on crack or just plain stupid?
:-)
That's a TOTALLY unwarranted! Very, very wrong.
It's perfectly possible (and quite likely) they're on crack AND just plain stupid
Again, from TFA:
And that is in the context of her comments, just above that, talking about people who disagree with climate change being caused by man. The entire blog entry was about meteorologists who disagree with man being the cause.
This also, btw, ignores the fact that a meteorologist is NOT a climatologist.
Don't you think they also have a duty to point out that they're not talking about THEIR OWN specialty, before they start blathering on can?
The whole point, of course, is that we DON'T know that X amount of greenhouse gas emissions produces Y amount of warming. Not one of the zealots' papers makes such an assertion. The fact, however, is that surface temps follow solar output with a very stable time constant. People who know how control systems work realize that the Earth is just a giant multivariate PID loop in several orders, and that GHG emissions are just one variable in an equation with literally thousands of variables.
Here's an experiment you can try at home. You'll need a thermocouple with some kind of data logging device. You'll also need an open light fixture with no shade, reflector, or anything like that - just an incandescent bulb that shines approximately equally in all directions. Place this fixture 1 meter off the floor and 1 meter away from the wall. Close off all HVAC outlets in the room where you're doing this experiment. Soft-glue the termocouple to the wall abeam the light bulb. Log 24 hours of temp data w/o the light on and record the average temperature. Then, illuminate a 40w light bulb and record the temp data over a 24 hour period. Then change the 40w light bulb to a 60w light bulb and repeat, and measure the temperature increase.
Changing a 40w to a 100w light bulb increases the flux density 1 meter away by approximately 60/4pi, or 4.8 W/m^2 - which is a bit less than the actual increase in solar flux density in the past decade.
This is not meant to demonstrate a linear scaling factor of X degrees per Watt/m^2, but rather to demonstrate that it doesn't take a huge increase in incident radiation to cause a measurable increase in temperature.
Let's put it this way, with a radius of approximately 20Mm and an increase in solar flux density of 7W/m^2, that equates to nearly an extra 9 Trillon Watts of heating energy falling on the earth. In one day, that's 216 Trillion Watt-Hours of energy. Even considering albedo, that's going to cause significant heating with or without considering the composition of the atmosphere.
Heh. You'll notice that what I've _actually_ written there is about Galileo versus the dogmatism of the Aristotelian science ivory tower, _not_ about Galileo vs the church. Yes, Galileo vs the church was a different story, and it's the story of Galileo flaming the pope and putting the pope's words in the mouth of a character whose name sounds like "The Stupid." But that's not the story I'm talking about. So please spare me the faithful defenses of the church, since I'm not talking about that at all.
Do you even understand how the Aristotelian system worked, when you talk about evidence? Not needing much evidence was the whole point there. The doctrine was basically that you can just think about it, trust your higher intellect and common sense, and postulate how things obviously work, without needing any actual experiments. They had a ton of things that were as bogus as it gets, just because they looked "obvious" or "common sense." E.g., they actually believed that a cannonball twice as heavy falls twice as fast, because, duh, it's just common sense. E.g., they actually believed that dropping something from the mast of a moving ship would fall in a vertical straight line, thus lagging behind the ship. Again, duh, it's just common sense. E.g., they considered it only common sense that there's be only 7 planets and no satellites, because 7 is such a perfect number and reflected in so many things of God's creation, that it should be obvious to any educated man that satellites and extra planets would only ruin that perfection, thus God would never have created them. Don't laugh, an actual "scientist" from back then actually wrote exactly that idiocy as obvious disproof for that crazy new satellite idea.
To his defense, Aristotle himself did at least once say one should collect data before drawing conclusions... but then mostly ignored his own advice and proceeded to postulate whole sets of natural laws without _any_ evidence or measurement. He inferred that since all celestial bodies are made of the weightless element "fire", for example, it stood to reason that the Moon is populated by creatures of fire. Ok, maybe there he lacked the experimental data. But he also postulated such stuff as human males having more teeth than the females, when half a day of counting on a random sample would have provided all the proof to the contrary. He was more concerned with formalizing logic and logical thinking than with actually collecting evidence to apply it on. He was more concerned with doing a thoroughly correct "A => B, B => C, therefore on the basis of A we can state that C is true" kind of inferrence, than with bothering to actually measure or prove A. Medieval and renaissance "science" however, devolved even further in his name.
That's the whole point: it's not that they had some mountains of evidence to support the old "science", it's that it was a system that worked on _dogma_ instead of evidence. They had their set of dogmas and stuff that was considered "obvious" and "common sense", and the whole "science" was inferring stuff from those, not trying to disprove or refine them. The whole point is that the
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
From personal experience in a different field I question the religion of "Peer Review". I worked for a small company that published a thoroughly researched, valid career interest assessment. Unfortunately, we could not get our research published in the "peer reviewed" journal that represented the field. Why? because the editor of the journal (a very well respected professor from a large university) hated, yes hated with a passion, the founder and developer of our assessment. It all stemmed from a disagreement they had in graduate school 30 years in the past. The editor accepted all research from another large company that he worked very closely with, but would not even accept for review our research, much less publish any of it. He once went so far as to verbally harass me at a trade show in front of other academics and potential customers because our product was not published in any "peer reviewed" journals. The point is when those with a certain opinion become the gate keepers to the journals you can pretty much guess what gets published and what doesn't.
It contains a piece of misinformation that a later poster replied to with the information that debunks it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I would say your analogy is flawed - perhaps better would be if a surgeon didn't believe antibiotics prevented infection - they could get thru the procedure, only to later have problems. Thus it's appropriate that they lose their license.
..........FULL STOP.
Recently polar bears were put on the endangered species list. Humans aren't the only species we should protect. Also, look at what the crazy hurricane season did to Louisiana and smog causes health problems as well as deaths.
Can I bum a sig?
So...you have actual, CERTIFIABLE proof that global warming is a real and man-made phenomenon?
I don't suppose you can, y'know, show that proof to the rest of us, maybe? Share and convince the rest of us? You can't, because you DON'T have the proof.
The Earth's climate is cyclical. It gets warm, it gets cool. Then for kicks it gets warm again. Sometimes it gets warmer still. We manage. We survive. We continue. If all that ice that's melting away from the polar ice caps was going to raise water levels and drown costal cities, don't you think we'd have seen it START to happen by now?
Silencing your critics is CENSORSHIP. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so don't try.
One of the posters made the point that a meteorologist (concerned with short-term weather) isn't a climatologist (concerned with long-term weather). This is important as a meteorologist would be speaking outside his area of specialisation.
The blog you quote (you call it TFA) points out that the meteorologist in question doesn't seem to know that his statement
contains a hooter (highlighted).
Although the man tries to exercise due caution in what he says, he definitely gives the impression that the scientific consensus is that there is insufficient long-term data to decide whether we are seeing a climate shift or not. This is wrrong ... as you can see e.g. here http://www.capitalweather.com/2006/12/since-when-d o-weather-junkies-stick.php
Climate change in other words. The point is that this meteorologist ought to have known about it, or else stated clearly that he doesn't know. He waffled a bit, but he passed on the claim that "no scientific envidence exists for climate change" as a scientific fact. In that he was wrong, and that is what half of what Cullen's blog was about.
Now back to your response ...
You are right in saying that Cullen and the AMS go one step further and state that:
Now our Meteorologist states in his own words that he has no researched opinion about the impact of man on climate change. But he was asked a question, and he let slip a wrong answer and passed it off as "scientific". If he had wanted to be precise, he would have said something like:
"The AMS is of the opinion that there is convincing evidence for the role of Man's activities on climate change. However since my personal area of expertise is more forecasting short-term weather conditions, I don't really know." and left it at that.
He didn't, and that's what the second part of Cullen's blog is about. Read with me please ...
I can't get my mind to take that idea seriously: I grew up in L.A., where the weather is always the same and all the weathermen are out-of-work actors.
There's only one tiny, teensy little problem with it.
To re-highlight the part of my quote that you highlighted from the blog/TFA/whatever:
Now - maybe it's just me. But how does somebody saying "I don't know" imply anything about anything, other than his own admission of lack of knowledge? It sure as hell doesn't imply ANYTHING about a "lack of scientific concensus".
And since that assumption is the basis for your other comments, the rest of your reply - however well-written and reasoned - is kind of beside the point.
Just to make sure there's no doubt, a little further on, you say
And to reiterate:
Sounds pretty clear to me.
In my view, it would be much more appropriate to strip this meteorologist of his certification, as he obviously doesn't accept the sceintific method: question, postulate, prove.
It's all down to logic I think.
Logically speaking, the text: "I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data"
decomposes into (at least) two propositions:
(P1) : there is a lack of long-term scientific data
(P2) : because of P1, I don't know what generalisations can be made
Proposition (P2) is a proper admission of a lack of knowledge, but proposition (P1) is the problem.
The words "I don't know" only relate to the inference process, and not to the question of evidence. Therefore they don't provide sufficient cover for our meteorologist when he talked about climate change. He wrongly denied the existence of evidence for climate change.
that whole cold snap that the nation is in wher epower lines are down and people are running into ditches .... in southern california....
that is a global warming?
Is this snow storm Hot Hot Hot..... or cold.
jason
> It doesn't matter what "religion" they represent, millenialists seem to share a lot in common. And
:)
> one of the things they share is a desire to silence those voices of reason who would urge caution.
Because they are always preaching about the end of the world as part of a call for "revival" or conversion. You aren't supposed to question the details of the warnings because the message is about the call to faith. It is more of a "stop all this sinning before [deity] smotes yer sorry butts."
The Global Warming crowd is hollering about the world ending because they want to scare people to repent of their wickedness and adopt their religion. Same as any fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. The only difference is what sins the unbelievers are supposed to adstain from. But all three sects seem to agree that the enlightenment was a bad idea and that western civilization and capitalism have to go. Of course I say screw em all.
Democrat delenda est
Know your sources:
.... hmmmm .... tough one ... weasel vs. expert .... hmmmm ....
o fe_s_pet_weasel&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
o rano
On the one hand we have a climatologist (a real live PHD) saying that people who try to pass off political controveries as science should not be doing so while enjoying the certification of a scientific organization. Seems reasonable.
On the other hand, a guy described by slashdot as a scientist but who is really a conservative attack dog slagging the climatologist by making all sorts of unjustified remarks about censorship. This guy used to work for Rush Limbaugh as his Washington Correspondent. This guy was one of the first to break the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" story. Now he is a climate expert?
Hmmmm. Which person should I trust on climate
Sources:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=senator_inh
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_M
But this is exactly what happens with global warming, kooks get quoted as dissenting voices. So the public thinks there's lots of "problems" with it.
I don't know why the parent post is modded funny.
What was known in the 1970s is quite different than what is known today. 40 years has greatly matured the field.
Its winter in the US now, global warming are weak until summer (spring and autumn are breaks to take turns, nice polite......political debate). Its cold, really cold in S. California when Santa Clara is snowing and water pipes in Los Angeles metro area are frozen. BTW if a coating of matter have the power to trap somthing in, it also have shell that somthing out of it, chemical property is not a door that could only be opened in one single way(you could at lease open it inward, outward, slide left/right, flip, turn......etc).
They're still free to propagate their theories and say, mail every physics department why they think Newton is wrong. But they're still kooks. They shouldn't get quoted in popular media as a dissenting opinion.
Every reputable climate scientist believes global warming is real.
The worst aspect of the global warming "policy" discussion is that we have a lot of crackpots involved. There are numerous people in this world that will tell you global warming is going to kill everyone or destroy the earth. I see it actually in local interviews with children, you see it in reply's to this article and you see it in the zealotry of the people involved.
Lets be clear about something, global warming, global climate change, whatever you want to call it isn't going to kill everyone, in fact even in the worst predictions it's not going to kill anyone directly. Sure we may have some violent storms that could potentially kill people, but weather does that anyway. Sure it might move food production zones around, it might cause some extinctions and it might trigger some wars (and even the loss of entire nations and peoples), or it could even cause massive population relocations, but it's not going to kill humanity as a whole. The planet being 6^ warmer isn't going to wipe out humanity, in fact how little we know about what it could do is the most worrying part of these predictions. For all we really know global warming could in fact make the planet MORE habitable to humans, not only improving food production but creating better climates or even eliminating deserts. The reality is we don't know what will happen, scientists like normal are reacting out of fear and saying don't change the mold until we know precisely what will happen. But lets deal with the other side, if we react too quickly we could destroy our only means of trying to stop the human initiated change, namely severe harm to economies world wide.
Second, global warming isn't going to kill all life on earth or destroy the ecosystem. What it's going to do is cause specific pressure on species that may then evolve or go extinct. The earth has had a much warmer climate, than even the worst predictions make, in the past and life on this planet will go happily along it's merry way. Really humanity doesn't have the ability to destroy life on earth, unless by some miracle we could toss the earth into the sun or split the planet in half. And short of burning the planet in the sun I doubt it would extinguish all life anyway. Anyone that says all life on earth will ever end (short of the sun going red giant and burning the planet up) doesn't have the foggiest idea how resilient life really is. Lets not forget this planet has undergone at least 5 major extinctions that wiped out in one incident 85% of all life.
I'm more worried that we could be trying to restrain natural climate change. This planet has cycles, is humanity going to try to stop the next ice age? Heck maybe we just did. But I have a feeling that if we were looking at disadvantageous natural climate change we would try to stop it. There is one thing I'm very sure of, we simply don't have enough understanding of climatology, the effects of more energy in the system or even how we can fix it not to mention how to actually control climate. We are having policy discussions about something that although we understand what is probably happening, we don't know what the consequences are nor can we say with 100% certainty that we are even correct. Climate is simply too large of a problem with too many variables to really address with our science in it's infancy.
IMO there is a much more serious problem facing this planet that has been around 60 years or more, namely overpopulation. This is the one that could cause the most global destruction, as at some point it's going to involve war. They will be large wars with the most destructive armaments in history, and we just might try that final solution again, either deliberately or accidentally.
People die all the time. Perhaps some DIFFERENT people will die, but that's life. Overall though, this isn't going to be a killer.
Suppose the sea is rising. Places become less valuable as they get more and more frequent flooding. If a place gets flooded a few times a year, soon enough it will be abandoned. It doesn't even take that much usually.
If life gets hard in some country, people spend more time working and less time fucking. The population drops. Meanwhile, in some other country, things are going great.
Perhaps some day Canada will be inhabited, and Mexico will not be. We can all move north by 2000 miles. It will happen over many years. Heck, it's happening right now. Life is hard in Mexico and the people are moving north.
Since population shifts happen over time, by both migration and via birth/death rates, it may be that very few people actually have to move. To somebody in the middle of the population shift, it may be that you know a few friends or relatives who moved north by a few hundred miles. It need not be a big deal.
Kansas can ship tropical fruit up to huge cities in Canada's Northern Territories.
So what if creationists are right? No one will care. Someone could produce solid irrefutable proof that life was created and very few scientists would even look at the data. The truth very rarely matters as much as what can be labeled 'scientific,' some exceptions being gravity and inertia, both quite unscientific truths. Yet, go to any quack who thinks that just because his ideas have the word quantum in front of them and LOOK OUT! Its gotta be true because it looks scientific. That's how we end up with a butt load of alternate dimensions and 'I'm not really here right now' crap that's about as directly provable as creationism, yet is still viewed as real science.
On a side note, say a creationist finds a flaw in evolution (Dawkin's Holy Order of Let's Turn Atheism Into A Religion faithful out there, chill). Maybe this flaw is shot down after some research. Maybe evolution can't explain it. Either way, doesn't this dissenting voice better science? And yes, I realize it works both ways. The point is, a single group's view real science does not make.
You DID say we should think of ways not to die from it, not that we should think of ways to save the polar bears. That was either a wild sensationalist statement, or you think there is some clear demonstrated way that we will die from global warming.
And was followed the immediate next year by an unusually calm hurricane season.
Yes it does, but smog is not caused by global warming. Smog is the direct result of localized emissions, and many cities have successfully managed this problem by changes in local policy.
Are scientists stripped of their certification for other thoughtcrimes, such as believing that the Earth is flat; that the universe revolves around the Earth; that quantum physics, being probabilistic, is a bunch of bull given that we know all other physical events in the world behave in a deterministic fashion (only the depth of complexity prevents full knowledge and thus, perfect modeling); that too much washing of foods, clothes, and building interiors is a bad idea, because it reduces human contact with disease, reducing human immune system strength; and so forth?
(Disclaimer: I agree with some of the above (too much washing), and disagree with others (the astrophysics assertions), and am undecided out of lack of education and knowledge regarding quantum physics (though the assertion certainly makes sense to me).)
If scientists are not decertified for such things, then why global warming? Since when is it good science to prevent questioning and hypothesis-testing? Isn't such censorship *really* less about science than it is about politics by those pushing the global warming agenda before the science was sufficiently-agreed-upon to be worth pursuing policy action, such that those in the position (like this meteorologist) wish to serve up revenge towards those who have disagreed with them?
The most fundamental element of science is theory-testing -- even if the theory seems far-beyond needing any further proof (e.g. gravity). If anyone is to be decertified, perhaps it should be the meteorologist who suggested this nonsense.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Thank-you for your digging. Being an early fan of RealClimate I saw the name "James Inhofe" in your post and recognised him as the guy who introduced a science fiction writer as a climate expert to a senate enviromental commitee that for some inexplicable reason features him as it's chairman. Your links have confirmed a strong feeling I had but did not want to voice without evidence.
TFA is a politically inspired, anti-science character assasination dressed up as news. Josef Goebbels would have been proud to put his name to such an insidious propoganda stunt.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Wasn't this tried with those who thought the earth revolved around the sun crowd - Galieo and Cupericus? Or was it the smoking crowd that smoking was good for you? Or was it the Agent Orange isn't dangerous crowd? I forget. But it is interesting that when ideas cannot win approval, force is considered as the appropriate action :-)
How freaky was that farmers almanac tip!!!!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.