Slashdot Mirror
Is Scientific Consensus a Threat to Democracy?
chance_encounter writes "President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus has published an article in the Financial Times in which he seems to equate the current global warming debate with totalitarian thought control: 'The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced ... The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.' At the end of the article he proposes several suggestions to improve the global climate debate, including this point: 'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.'"
Threat to democracy? No.
Threat to scientifically illiterate politicians? Maybe.
Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics
Well, it all comes down to opinion (which is open to having many sides) vs. fact (which only has one valid side). Is democracy more important than truth? Can truth be found without democratic and open inquiry?
In the end, isn't democracy little more than a means to the end of finding out what the best path to take is?
does that mean that there should be a democratic process to decide on what "1 + 1" is?
First off, we have to realize that global warming is a problem. Next step, reduce, reduce, reduce while scientists, engineers, and inventors come up with a more permanent solution to help rid ourselves of well....not so eco-friendly "things" (everything from transportation, energy, manufacturing, etc.)
and damn...it's hot today.
Really?
So... only a minority of scientists think the earth revolves around the sun or dna carries genetic material?
One could argue for full disclosure regarding scientists publishing politically loaded papers.
But it's science for a reason. It's there because it's the truth - scientific consensus is not just another opinion, it's our best bet for making an informed decision.
You wouldn't ask an oil exec for advice on global warming, would you? No, you'd ask a scientist who knows about the environment.
The threat of science to freedom is a classic theme of Feyerabend's, for example. I don't have anything to say better than what he does, so go read up. (For those of you too lazy to read actualy books, try this or this.)
Note that this does not mean "science is an evil that we must eradicate"; it means "science is not the panacea that its most ardent supporters would like us to believe."
Are you adequate?
Scientists listen to data, not what politicians/economists etc want.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
"They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence."
That is:
"You need to tell me if you have any political thoughts that I can turn into an ad hominem argument rather than discuss your data or your methods because I'm not a physicist and I can't follow the math."
Scientists say global warming is real and countries have to mandate reductions in CO2 emission because that's where the science points! If you have a better theory, submit it to a journal, but all other explanations have LOST in the market place of ideas, and only through willful ignorance do people continue to ignore the rigorous scientific methodology.
Oh, sorry, I was just channeling Chris Burke's bias-pandering populism for a second there.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
In order for democracy to function properly, an educated electorate is fundamental. Anything else is mob rule that fuels demagoguery.
It is interesting that the point of view is that of someone raised under authoritarianism. He is mistrustful of central control, so he sees it as an overlay to plain old scientific methodology.
Everyone always assumes they know the motives of those that disagree with them. This case is no different, from my secular-humanist, nerdy POV.
this is just sad, just plain sad. How could the FT publish such drivel?
He is clearly delusional: he has said "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so." (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCate gory=33&idsub=128&id=8342&t=Czech+president%3A+Env ironmentalism+is+a+religion)
His perspective on science makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.
So really what he is saying is that, as scientists, we should be more vocal as a minority and join together as group that will change the dictates of the majority (as said through yet another minority)?
Scientific Consensus is not a threat to democracy, selfishness and stupidity are. You can not ignore a problem [global warming] and vote that it "doesnt exist" and expect that it somehow has an effect on whether or not it exists. you can be democratic on the issue and claim we are not the cause but it is still going to do the damage regardless of your ideology.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
And there was me thinking consensus and discussion within the scientific community was an essential part in the making of a theory. Scientists shouldn't be held accountable if some politician takes his theory and messes it up for his own political gain, is the author suggesting that we tone down radical ideas as to not scare the unthinking masses or upset the people in charge of our grants?
"Oh boy"
I remember reading a textbook Written long ago where the author said: "While it is commonly accepted that radio is transmitted through aether the serious student..."
The book went on to discuss the principals of radio, but never once challanged the concensus that radio travels on aethr.
Remember, todays concensus is often tomorrow's heresy.
The title for the article is questionable. It's extremely debatable if, regarding the topic in question, there exists any positive scientific consensus when it comes to global warming. It also contradicts the last line of the story and source article itself, "'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.'"
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
If scientific consensus caused politicians to frame public policies, religious organizations would not be receiving tax breaks
I bet he considers that questionalble too.
Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is called that for a reason. This truth is very inconvenient.
A whole lot of people will need to experience famine for themselves before they finally believe that not only is it possible, but that maybe we might be causing it.
The scientific facts are that CO has a very strong infrared spectrum. It is a scientific fact that it will act like a greenhouse around the earth. The only question is the extent. Everything else is simple scientific fact that anyone could verify for themselves in a college chemistry spectroscopy class. Maybe even high school.
So, with that established and the only issue being the extent, that, is also pretty easily calculated based on concentration and pathlength, sun radiance, the earth's reflectivity, etc. It's also backed up, amazingly, byt the grounding of all aircraft over the USA for the days following the 9/11 attacks.
Convincing the skeptics who refuse to try to understand and only regurgitate and babble the talking points their vocal minority misleaders hand them is a waste of time. They refuse to listen. they refuse to learn. And in fact, most of them are too stupid to even understand. It's not just a rufusal to understand. They just don't have the scientific background to understand.
Sigh.
I wonder if anyone ever demanded that Newton talk about his political leanings while publishing the laws of motion.
The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions.
And doctors should take into consideration the financial effects of their work before they operate. After they balance your checkbook for you, if it's not financially acceptable, they should let you die.
Or, here's a better idea. Leave politics to the politicians, and let the guys in the lab coats get back to work.
Facts are just that - facts. Scientists work to uncover them. Doesn't matter if they are convenient or politically correct or anything else. The truth stands alone. It's the job of the politicians to (hopefully) take that truth and do something useful with it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Sure, we can change facts throught majority rule. Sure we can.
I think the bigger threat to science and democracy is when the government re-writes scientific reports to say whatever they want like the Bush administration has. I think "scientific consensus" is important to policy decisions. The science itself will work itself out in the long run (and maybe the current consensus will be proven wrong), and politicians should stay out of the scientific debate. The only the reason the author is commenting on this is because he has a policy agenda and wants to try and undermine the other side.
Look who is Bush's new best friend. Czech republic has some beautiful places but alot of it has been exploited and destroyed; mostly by communism. Their economy is not doing well and they have a high unemployment rate, of the 8 mil czechs in the world 1 mil live in the US. Klaus is just another short sighted politician who only concern is how much money he and his friends can make in the short term. If he can destroy the environment and get paid to put a foreign missle defence system in the country, that is fine with him.
Of course science is under strict control. Of course it's undemocratic.
In a democratic society you are free to state that the world is flat. The people are free to elect someone who says the world is flat. In science you've actually got to prove that the world is flat. Does that mean you're "not free" in science to assert whatever you want as reality. Sure. Personally I like those restrictions. Without them we'd be back in the middle ages.
We don't elect reality. We discover it. Discovery requires that one thing is paramount: observation, and the unbiased interpretation of that observation. So, in essence you are restricted by reality because you want you perception (your model of reality) to conform with reality as much as possible. So you lose the freedom to say that reality is anything you damn well please.
I for one welcome our reality overlords.
No, it is about negative externalities. We don't want the rest of you fucking up a shared resource, projecting the cost of your actions onto us. Global warming is not about "consensus science," whatever the hell that is supposed to be. Is the theory of gravity "consensus science?" No. Will you be ridiculed for rejecting it? Probably, unless you come up with something better. The global warming deniers haven't come up with better science.
I'm sorry if all that hurts your feelings. Science doesn't care about your feelings. No matter how much you are personally inconvenienced by the truth, it is still true. The fact is, the rancor comes from the global warming deniers, in that type's typical projection of their own motivations onto others. The global warming believers are merely responding in kind.
No one gets anything out of believing in global warming. There are no huge grants. There would be scientific fame, and real world wealth beyond counting for anyone that could prove it wrong. Almost everyone would have to change their lifestyle, yet some of us still care more about justice and not making others pay for our actions.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It seems like science has been replaced by sloganeering. Global warming can mean many things to many people. To some it means man-made climate change. For others it means we are between ice ages. Even in the different camps, there is debate. It is perfectly viable to believe that there is man-made warming and to also believe that this is not a bad thing on the whole.
-SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC-
And before any of you accuse me of being a flat earther, be advised that the theory that our ancestors ever really believed in a flat earth has been discredited. I think the 'flat earth' comment is a corrolary to Godwins law, with the added caveat that the person is not only the loser but also very likely ignorant.
Along those same lines, Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution. He did come up with the theory of natural selection, a worthy accomplishment which should be noted correctly.
-END-
You took a pretty wide leap there from "1+1" to deciding to "reduce" "things".
After all, we ourselves have defined the concept of "1", and even "+" so it's easy to say what "1+1" is because we designed every part of that system. The environment does what it does, and all we can do is propose models that might explain what it does, or might explain what it does when changes are introduced. But these models will never be entirely accurate, and so there should be real debate over what the models mean, and what "changes" to "things" will actually have an impact if in fact we see a result from a prediction that is very likley and we also agree that the changes are likley to have the effect we want.
Sure some things are obvious, like trying to cut down on emissions and so forth. But I had read recently of a proposal for a ship that was to go into the ocean and drop a huge amount of some material, I think iron dust, to feed algae and help scrub CO2. Well doesn't this kind of large-scale change without much detailed thought kind of scare the hell out of you? Introducing wild changes into an already chaotic system seems like a good way to insure nothing is predictable, and the cause of nothing is known.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Anyone remember the Flat Earth scientific consensus? Times were much simplier then, you could carry a map of the world in your pocket, and they were about as inexpensive as the paper they were printed on. Now compare that to the high price, and bulky size, of carrying one of those new-fangled globes around.
"You need to tell me if you have any political thoughts that I can turn into an ad hominem argument rather than discuss your data or your methods because I'm not a physicist and I can't follow the math."
Yes, and? If everyone does this it would be a hell of a lot better than trying to figure out the currently hidden motivations that every scientific group seems to have - for or against global warming.
If everyone can easily use ad-hominem against everyone else, perhaps we'd see less of it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Someone has a viewpoint you don't like and instead of debating him on the facts, you slander him.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
What? ... Wait, what?
So do scientists now have to declare themselves politically pro-Einstein in order to discuss relativity? And what the heck does "silent majority" mean? In the scientific community, if you're not talking (publishing), you're not even there. A silent majority is impossible!
This is a very depressing piece for a normally useful outlet.
FACT is a matter of Opinion.
As opposed to replacing the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by global starvation, catastrophe, and deprivation?
It is lucky that not all sciences can be politicised like economics and climatology. I saw a quote from a mathematician once saying that if maths was politically useful we would still be debating whether 2 + 2 = 4.
Me.. I like voting on stuff like if the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the earth. I mean.. it's all just who believes what that matters, and not what's real, right?
I've been trying for YEARS to convince people of my geo-centric model of the universe. But these damn "establishment scientists" and their "consensus reality" are always keeping me and my superior theories down. Gravity... pshaw. That's just want they tell people to keep 'ol "Big Space Exploration" in business. They want all the crystal spheres for themselves.
I mean.. it's perfectly obvious that the SUN revolves around the earth! You can prove it yourself. Sit down for a moment. Do you feel like you're moving? I sure don't. Well that's what these damn scientists keep telling you! It's perfectly obvious everything ELSE is moving, not the earth. Everyone has seen the sun move across the sky, and the stars move at night. If we were moving, we're all be constantly dizzy!
Even great scientists like Aristotle and Ptolemy agree with me! One day we'll all wonder why we didn't listen to these great men, and ignore the biased fools like Galileo.
AccountKiller
There is one blaringly huge difference with "scientific concensus" vs. other forms of "one permitted truth". EVIDENCE.
It's amazing what leaps in logic people will use to justify ignorance.
I was very worried about AGW, but statements like, "neuremberg style trials for denialists" made me think something's not right. Add in character assasination, the way any "contrarian evidence" is assumed to be funded by oil companies, and debating tactics that throw the principle of falsifiability out of the window, made me distrust the whole damnded thing.
The science needs to be free to operate carefully and efficiently, regardless of whether it's finding evidence for or against AGW. The business of science is to discover the truth of the matter, regardless of whether that truth happens to agree with our beliefs and values.
I suspect that the notion of what "good science" is has changed subtly. Good science is science that finds the truth. But scientists who want to be good people, may come to believe that being a good person means creating science that "does good things", such as save the planet. If you want to save the planet because saving the planet is a good thing to do, then there may be a bias towards only studying subjects that offer an opportunity to become an important scientist who makes discoveries about dangers and remedies for the planet.
Good science is purely about the truth. What you do with that knowledge is a different affair altogether. Good science is simply being dispassionately interested in facts. It's not the scientist's job to be a good person. Just give us the facts. We, the people, will worry about the rest.
Remind me not to invite this Vaclav guy over to a pool party.
If he thinks that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a matter of personal freedom then I'd rather not experience his views on pissing in the swimming pool.
And what do YOU> think when skepticism is shown towards global warming?
Why do I think it's nowhere near, "There's a scientific thought".
And the Slashtwits modded you "Insightful". There's nothing like Slashdot to demonstrate herd thinking....
Politics and science are, so it seems, bumping considerably of late.
I'm speaking here as a scientist of several years experience (most of which I should state has been in the 'oh fuck I am never going to prove my hypothesis' catagory).
Scientists and politicians caan never see eye to eye. The simple reason for this, which I will explain over a couple of sentances, is that science requires evidence with is proveable by the current state of the art, in the full and contented knowledge that the state of the art can be disproved/advanced at any point. Politians do not live in the same world. Their opinions can and must change to reflect the mean (or is it modal?) view of that sector of the population which is most likely to votw for them.
This may sound as if I think they are not as good as scientists, but this is an erronious view. The role of the politician has evolved for over 2000 yeras, starting when the citizens of Athens firs decided that a singler point of faliure what a bit shit, and moving forward to the most mobile of all democracies, that of the United States. In all that time (in my opinion) the scientist has been following a different path to that of the scientist.
A scientist, with what may perhaps be superior knowledge in his domain may cry foul regarding some aspect of current policy. In response, the politician, who lacks the domain knowledge, but has superior knowledge of the political climate, and, one assumes in the general case, is subject to an external optimisation system (voting) that removes the candidates which differ by too much from the required state, either agrees or seeks to discredit the findings of the scientist.
This does, on the face of it, seem to be an insane system, but it has advantages.
Could scientists run the world? Fuck no, I know many, am one myself, and frankly I would run screaming from any mob that claimed this.
Fancy a ruler that would happily spend years persuing a single aspect of a problem? Cos I don't
The principle point is that the world can only work if the extremists, be they political, religious or scientific are not allowed to be in charge. I'm biased, I think that scientific extremism (which is more or less the default state, since specialisation is required), is not that bad, but my own logic requirs that I exclude myself from the set of people allowed to rule.
Actually, science currently points that the world is getting (slightly) warmer, and that CO2 levels have risen. These are not necessarily related. We have models and whatnot that show the world will continue to warm, but these are not evidence.
The point the writer of the article was trying to make is that environmentalists want us to spend billions of dollars doing things which may or may not have any impact on something which may or may not exist.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
The man took the words out of my mouth. The world needs more Vaclavs and far fewer AlGores.
Can you count the equivocations -- not in Klaus' article, but right here in the comments?
Here are the main ones you need to know to get a clearer picture:
1. Democracy != Freedom
2. Consensus != Fact (even if there were a consensus)
3. Environmentalism != Caring about the Environment
4. *Anthropogenic* Climate Change != Consensus (let alone Fact)
5. Climate Change != A Bad Thing (it's a given of a dynamic planet)
#2 alone tells you that environmentalism is primarily a political movement, for science is concerned with facts, not consensus; reality is not determined by polls.
I looked at the graph you point to ... and oh, boy, that's interesting, last time climate was warmer than now, dinosaurs were the dominant species.
Then climate changed. Care to remind us what happened to them? Oh yeah, that's right, THEY DIED.
Freaking genius.
Any system based on "believe whatever you want" is threatened by consensus. Is democracy that system? Plato says yes, Arendt says no, I say have a great weekend and let's figure it out Monday.
technical writing / development
I mean Consensus Science == Common $en$e!
The big bucks are made by arranging conferences, and selling pop science books, magazine articles, and documentaries. The occasional TV appearance is always irritating.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Let's say that the G8 countries develop new technologies and reduce emissions and make substantially less pollution. Then let's say that global warming is a complete myth. Let's say that humanity isn't doing anything to the temperature of the Earth. So what? What's the downside? If we stop polluting, and it doesn't do anything to help the temperature of the Earth, so what? Except for taking a chunk out of the oil company's profit what would be the bad side of developed countries polluting less?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
> which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.
Oh, and what about other minorities, who don't care for minorities? Like politicians?
cb
Please tell me this is the work of a deranged spokesperson and not really the thoughts of an elected chief of state.
He seems to equate "climate changes" to "temperature". There are other aspects to climate change (e.g., CO2 levels) that, if the data is to be believed, have been far from "small" over the past several million years.
Those concerned about this issue are pursuing political means in democracies to have the issue addressed. How exactly is this "suppression"? Or do you prefer governments where citizens have no say?
Even libertarians, who are big on "everyone to live as he wants", recognize that one individual's rights end at the point where they infringe upon the rights of others (e.g., survival).
"Never". I do not believe that word means what he thinks it does.
By, um, not talking about it? Uh, OK. You go first.
I have no problem with the first sentence. In the abstract, I have no problem with the second sentence either, so long as he agrees that if society decides to take steps to deal with the perceived problem of global warming, that is society's prerogative (in democracies) and therefore does not represent an attempt to "slow...down" or "divert" human society.
I have this vision of him with fingers in his ears, saying loudly, "I CAN'T HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAR YOU!"...
I mean, c'mon. The Wikipedia article on global warming has 66 citations, mostly scientific journals and reports, mostly in agreement with the "consensus", and the Wikipedia article on those in opposition to the "consensus" has 53 citations. All the President of the Czech Republic can do is one professor from MIT and...Michael Crichton? Even if the FT.com article isn't the place for such citations, couldn't he have gotten StopStoppingGlobalWarming.cz or something and put better arguments up there?
I'm all for debate on global warming. I'm opposed to mindless drivel from politicians.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
The problem I have with both sides of this argument is people bandying around the words "fact" and "truth" when all we have are theories.
Scientists don't say gravity is a fact, it's a theory. Evolution is not called a fact, it's a theory. Heck, trickle-down economics is a theory. I happen to believe fervently in at least two of the theories I just mentioned. The other seemed to work for a time. The point is that there's a broad range of things for which we have some level of understanding regarding their causes and the effects. It doesn't mean that you don't act on the best information that you have, but you have to be willing to admit that you can't know and that someone who disagrees with you could be closer to right than you.
The hallmark of science is that it doesn't assume that what currently seems like the most likely reason for something is unquestionably true.
My personal opinion is that global warming is a risk for which we should be preparing, whether it's caused by CO2 emissions or sunspot activity. If it comes to pass, it will involve enormous transfers of wealth, particularly in terms of agricultural economics. I don't know whether it will come to pass or not. I haven't seen anything that proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the temperature fluctuations of the last century are unusual relative to planetary history, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to mitigate against the possibility that they were. Just because I don't expect to get into a car wreck on the way home doesn't mean I don't think I should have to have insurance.
People who claim to know absolute truth are rarely scientists.
Wasn't too long ago that scientific consensus was that the world was flat....
There is credible evidence that global warming is caused more by solar activity and cow farts than the exhaust of my SUV.
Global warming is fact, nobody I know is arguing that. It's cause is up for debate....
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
So, is this a bit of quid pro quo for Bush's use of the star wars program to counter Russia's influence in "New Europe"? If the president of the Czech Republic can make accusations about scientist's ability to do proper science, then surely an Anonymous Coward like myself can make accusations about a politicians ability to do proper politics.
They get a lot out of global warming. Their theories of how humans behave are discredited, but this is one surefire way to kick capitalism in the shins.
You're casting a blind eye to that angle, entirely. You are also failing to understand what Vaclav Klaus is trying to accomplish here. He's discrediting scientific consensus in the same way you would discredit an opposition candidate. It's mud slinging. And it's how politics really works, muddying up your opponent.
Vaclav Klaus said circa 1991, "Ecology is the whipped cream on a piece of cake". That's an actual quote (Google it). I happen to agree with him, but i'm pointing this out so that you will understand that he is an ideologue on this issue. His agenda is clear, as is the agenda of the ex-Communists who have a significant representation in the environmental movement.
The (up higher in the thread) poster who said this was all politics is quite right.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Global Warming as Religion and not Science
The only reason anyone ever goes to the scientific consensus argument is because either (a) the person making the argument doesn't understand the science, or (b) the person being argued to doesn't understand the science. In the case of (a), that person typically is assuming that the scientific question is solved, and it's now time to address the complicated political questions. In the case of (b), how else do you try to convince someone incapable of (or unwilling to) understanding the science behind global warming? The strongest scientific critics you will find against global warming (Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen) argue that they're not sure if humans are the primary cause of global warming, but that they acknowledge that humans are a factor in global warming - and even these critics are a small minority of climate scientists.
There are lots of places that address the basic science behind global warming, but if you're unwilling to try to understand that basic science, then it makes more sense to accept the wisdom of the majority than the wisdom of the minority under the theory that sometimes the minority is right. (Sometimes they are, but that's the exception and not the rule.)
Heck, there's already been a shift in certain circles towards the next "stage" in avoiding responsibility for global warming. First, they denied the warming. Then, they denied that humans were responsible. Now, they've moved on to the coup de grâce: who's to say warmer won't be better?
(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics. No, it's not a threat to democracy.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Congratulations whoever you are. You've just set the all time /. record for proving the OP correct through vulgarity and ignorance. FYI, Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol on behalf of the United States in 1998. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have declined to submit the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
"Let us resist the politicization of science" ...writes a professional politician in an article about a scientific subject.
Cripes.
Please show me this "silent majority" of scientists qualified to make scientific claims about the climate. The dissenting minority is pretty damn vocal and well-funded, by the way.
I wish I could be amazed at how much effort countries and politicians are putting into reducing pollution. Reducing pollution is never bad. Really.
One of the popular claims, for instance, is that curbing pollution will "cost jobs." How, exactly? Do you honestly think businesses will suddenly stop operating because they have to reduce pollution by 1% each year?
And the argument that GDP will suffer is baseless, too. The first country to show substantial gains in pollution reduction will have a sizable lead over other countries in brining those technologies to market in other countries, earning potentially vast profits for their parent organization, and thus the parent country. I'd rather that technology come to fruition in the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc than, say, China, wouldn't you?
I think a lot of people are completely missing the point of the article. The hysteria around the Human-Influence Global Warming THEORY (and it IS ONLY a theory at this point), has a huge problem: people are getting so emotional, and so politicized that they are not entertaining the views and opinions of others. String theory in physics is another area science where this is occurring. People become so convinced, so enamored with an idea or concept they lose sight of the fact that it is only a *theory*, and not a proven fact/law. In doing so (as in the case of string theory), we run the risk of going many years/decades without any real progress in solving the problems in the knowledge domain.
That is to say, IF humans didn't influence global warming and we cut emissions back to the cave man days, and the temperature STILL goes up....we have really just shot ourselves in the foot. If however, we foster more opinions, and theories; possibly disproving competing ones we can then be either more certain or more doubtful of the current leading theory in the area of interest. Competing theories in science are a must, and shame on us all for not allowing them in the global warming debate.
Personally, the hysteria around Global Warming has me highly dubious of the entire movement, as many scientists and individuals are being attacked and discredited merely for doing what they are supposed to be doing. Being scientists and looking at the world in a variety of different ways, each applying their life experience and individual creativity to learn/hypothesize about the problem at hand. I really do hope our kids won't be laughing at us or worse yet angry at us (for screwing them over because we chose to buy into the WRONG theory) in the future.
Rich...
Seems the only difference is who pays them.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
That's the postmodernist claim anyway - science is just another narrative that is the result of it's context (male, western, capitalist, etc.) and it is no more valid than any other such narrative. Science is just an expression of the culture that spawned it.
Other belief systems (alternative medicine, for example) embrace this viewpoint. Science after all is based on inductive reasoning rather than rigorous proof of truth.
The concept of this article is that science must be relative to political necessity. This is in line with the view of science as just another narrative. The problem is that this has been a miserable failure whenever attempted - Lysenkoism, Creationism, etc. are sad examples of this, and it is fair to say that the correctness of a scientific theory can only be influenced by politics for a short period of time before the error is revealed.
Global warming seems to be a fact out to a ridiculous level of statistical certainty. Some effects are predictable to a high degree of certainty. The impact of human endeavors is less ceertain, BUT the potential consequences of ignoring that impact are astronomical. Any prudent person would act to avoid of those consequences.
When government leaders are resisting that action you know that these leaders are not serving their people, but rather other interests.
War on Science!
Science and logic do not always point to truth. People once believed that the earth is flat. It was the logical assumption because the earth looks flat. If you had a better theory you were called a heretic and were probably killed. Today, if you have a better theory, you can publish in a journal and be completely ignored. There are perfectly sound arguments that have potential to defeat this "theory", but nobody who works on them get enough funding. Thus the "fact" of global warming remains in the heads of the uneducated people. Don't get me wrong, I can not say that global warming is not a fact, but i can say that, due to these political pressures, there is no valid reason to so whole heartedly believe in it at this time. oh! and only through willful ignorance do people continue to ignore the rigorous political methodology.
"Just the facts, mam."
Which is also what journalists/reporters should be concerned with.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I think a huge problem with the climate change debate is people consistently conflate the existence and quantification of anthropogenic climate change with various non-scientific normative values. That is, for instance, the existence of AGW is automatically scientific proof that industrial society is evil and must be rolled back. Or the non-existence of AGW is automatically scientific proof that our activities are good and hence should be encouraged.
The existence of AGW says nothing to whether its good, bad, or indifferent. We attach certain values to facts (e.g. human interference with the climate is bad), but there is nothing scientific about these values questions. All science can tell us is what we're doing to the planet, and what the likely effects will be. It cannot tell us if this is "bad." It cannot tell us what we should do about it. At most, science can tell us whether certain interventions will do anything, and how much those interventions will cost. Deciding how much we're willing to pay, and what effects we're willing to accept is a matter of politics and ultimately a question of values. Unfortunately, because people insist on attaching the first kinds of questions (does AGW exist? what are the effects? what are the effects if we reduce CO2 by x%? etc) to the second set of questions (do we care? how much are we willing to spend to mitigate? how much change, such as displaced populations, degraded ecosystems, etc are we willing to accept? and so on), the debate is almost completely intractable. My biggest worry is that conservative and libertarian voices are ceding the battlefield by attacking the facts (and looking rather delusional in the process) instead of attacking the automatic attachment of certain values to those facts.
There are no climate scientists who take their cue from Al Gore. Just thought you should know. Al Gore is just reporting the science (and might occasionally get it wrong), he's not the one actually doing the science. It must be convenient to have an easy target now, though.
You know it's possible to accept the science behind global warming without having to like Al Gore. My father's done that, and I'm sure you can, too.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
The people "politicizing" science are people like Klaus. I mean, come on, "scientific consensus is never achieved by a silent majority"? What bullshit is that?
In fact, whether the majority is silent or not doesn't make any difference for scientific consensus: when people say that "scientific consensus is...", they are talking about national academies, metastudies, and panels, where "loudness" doesn't make a difference.
I don't even really care much about climate change at this point: it's going to happen and we're going to have to live with it. What I do care about is that people like Klaus are pulling science through the mud in the process for self-serving petty political points.
where this guy get his campaign $ from before figuring out whether he's bias or not.
A threat to economic growth, if anything, but hardly a threat to Democracy. Democracy requires people have access to facts so they can make reasoned choices. When facts are in short supply things get really out of whack, as we're finding out in the good ol' US of A.
A better question might be, does scientific 'consensus' carry the same weight as the results of scientific experiments? The latter is objective truth while the former is an educated guess from people who have been highly educated. Not the same thing.
> Why is it that we support people who try to disprove our most well established theories in physics?
Because whether or not a cherished theory in physics gets confirmed or flames out doesn't involve trillions of dollars, the rise and fall of political dynasties and the great political question of our times. Yes physics depts have politics too, but in the end they are all physics geeks. Global warming got caught up in so much larger political movements that it is no longer possible to say ANYTHING on the subject without it being perceived in mzany quarters as more of a political argument than a scientific one. Worse, politicians, journalists, authors and pundits now have careers riding on the question, not just scientists. Doubt many Senators have anything riding on the question of black holes being disproved or validated.
Democrat delenda est
'Let us resist the politicization of science...
You first. Shut the hell up, you stupid politician. It's not the scientists who are acting politically here, it's the politicians. Like yourself.
Some spout off a bunch of ignorant opinions and calls them facts. How the hell do you debate that?
There are invisible pink ponies that live on the moon. Sometimes they come to earth to tell me things only I can hear.
How do you debate that? You can't debate crazy or liars.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm pretty sure that Tuvalu thinks that warmer won't be better.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Just because someone modded you up, I thought I'd pull up the first page of results of a quick google search. Lokiee there....
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Now, what is meant by science, anyway? Science is about deriving a consensual reality by means of observation. Consensus is achieved by means of Athenian democratic techniques - that is to say, all have a voice and a vote in what the consensus is. It is not representational, nor is it senatorial. It is democracy in its purest, most ancient form.
Huh? Isn't science about absolutes? No, science has been beating up - errr, replacing antiquated, pre-science notions of absolutism over the millennia. Any theory is only good for the range of conditions for which it is defined, and even then is subject to being replaced without notice the moment an exception is discovered or a simpler proposal is advanced. Science is assumed to be repeatable from a near-identical perspective under near-identical conditions nearly anywhere, but you have to be wary about those "near" elements. When systems are sensitive to initial conditions (and a great many are), how near-identical must the conditions be? And what is "repeatable", in a chaotic system, anyway?
How can perspective or location affect things? Well, you need to reduce the system to two groups of entities - known quantities, and the parameters you wish to observe - but you can't always do this. It depends on how complete an understanding you have. A trivial example would be that ultra-precise measurements of space and time are going to be influenced by fluctuations in gravitational field and frame-dragging (ie: locational issues), how you model space and time (quantized or continuous, subject to quantum foam, etc) and whether your calculations are based on particles or waves.
Nonetheless, through a process of debate within conferences and the scientific press, and "voting" through the peer-review and citation mechanisms, a consensus is generally established as to how to view some aspect of the universe and the bounds in which that view shall be regarded as valid. This view may be wildly wrong - that has happened - and that is the consequence of rule by the demos (loosely translated as the governed or the majority) that is the heart and soul of democracy.
Were science an ogliarchy (rule by the rich and powerful), then science would be dictated by a few powerful organizations or governments. Independent research, experimental science and independent observations would be impossible. This is obviously not the case, so clearly this is not the system by which science is governed.
Ah, but aren't there certain Governments and politicians who WANT that level of control? Sure. THEY are the ogliarchies, the tyrannizers and the dictators. They have no interest in rule by consensus, because consensus says that those Governments are full of bovine scatological constructs. They accuse science of dictating what is, when in truth it is the politicians who are trying to demand the authority to say what is, without review, without critique and without consequence.
Sadly, there are enough people who do not understand science and definitely do not want anyone else to either, that such people will get listened to. It is to these politicians and their supporters that the phrase "the fox in charge of the hen-house" should be applied.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
One doesn't really have much to do with the other. The USSR had great science, not much democracy.
A long time ago scientists thought there were these things you couldn't see, hear, smell, feel or taste that caused disease. Parasites, bacteria, germs, and viruses are all well accepted now. Public health policy is against personal freedom. Forcing people to vaccinate their children, health departments and extreme measures like quarantine are certainly not democratic. They are examples of the state being paternalistic (totalitarian if you like) and forcing the population and businesses to do something they otherwise wouldn't for their own long term good. This is a good thing, and its not about freedom. Its about saving people's lives and the society as a whole.
Scientists were ridiculed for their belief in germs, it went against common sense. Doctors debated for ages whether washing their hands made any difference... It does.
Common sense is absurd to mention in a scientific debate. Vaclav Havel is a writer and politician. I don't tell him how to write. Why is he telling me how to do science? Could it have something to do with helping out Bush and his oil buddies now that Bush is putting missiles in the Czech Republic to defend against Russia? I can't help but notice the convenient timing.
Global warming is real, and the cause is most likely human. The proposed fixes aren't trying to roll back the industrial age. They proposed fixes are trying to avoid some really dangerous scenarios (like flooding all the worlds coastal cities and acidification of the oceans). If it turns out that the theories are incorrect, you can certainly go ahead and burn all that fuel. It'll still be in the ground in 20 years.
I could give a fuck about what people think about me. I just don't want you bastards shitting all over the planet I have to live on.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There is little doubt that the climate has warmed up a tad lately. Even the article up above mentions this. However, the change has been tiny and again, as mentioned in the article above, the climate has been much warmer than it is now. It has also been much colder.
...nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2...
There is more to the whole global warming fiasco than CO2, though. In fact, it is kind of minor compared to some of these other things.
I would just like to point out a few things:
An Erupting Solar Prominence from SOHO
Plants revealed as methane source
Love sees no species.
OH GEE, just like LINUX HUGGERS do??
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism".
"(It's only 0.6%)".
We are before all else, living human beings.
If we create an environment that is harmful to us, democracy, money and prosperity matter very little.
If human health is at odds with unlimited growth, I would choose human health.
Of course, a corporation is mandated to choose unlimited growth.
Corn Farmers.
The problem is that consensus is the only thing that will convince politicians to act. Once on Real Time with Bill Maher a Republican Congressman pulled out a letter from 5 scientists saying that there was no global warning. 5 our of (however many) was enough for him to justify inaction.
Just because it requires courage to oppose the current consensus doesn't mean you are right. It takes courage to believe in young earth creationism as well. Courage without reason or justification is not a virtue.
As I expected I was disgusted by the implicit suggestion in this article that laymen should be in the business of evaluating the convincingness of scientific arguments they won't even bother to read. Ultimately if you have the evidence it shouldn't matter if the whole world is against you. Truth isn't determined by a vote. However, on the flip side, unless you decide to actually put in the time to look at and understand the evidence your opinion about the matter means squat. If you haven't even read a smattering of the journal articles on climate change it's pretty damn ridiculous to think you know better than the experts how good the arguments are.
However, I was surprised to find that there was definitely a kernel of truth in what President Klaus was saying. Not about a threat to liberty or the reality of climate change but the unfortunate confusion of value judgements and political views with scientific judgements. Certainly scientists have just as much (if not more) right to have political views and make policy recommendations as the next guy but they have a responsibility to distinguish these from their scientific findings. The fact that the world is warming from human causes is a scientific fact. The idea that we need to burn less fossil fuels, conserve energy, and behave more environmentally responsibly are value judgements.
I was nearly a scientist myself (I'm a mathematician) so I wasn't as worried that the value judgements and biases that I object to in many environmentalists were polluting the results. Also I could penetrate the technical talk well enough to tell that the studies weren't being horrible misrepresented. However, the average person can't tell this or distinguish between what the science proved and the calls from climate scientists for certain policy objectives.
As a practical matter it may be in the interests of scientists to avoid the appearance of the conflict of interest by publicly affiliating themselves with any particular policy solutions or advocacy group. The same way we require certain government employees (election monitors) to avoid overtly affiliating themselves with political parties it might actually help the trustworthiness of the scientific community if there was a clear delineation between public and private roles.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
There's absolutely a deeper understanding to be had of global warming. Much more so than for gravity even. There's also a deeper understanding to be had of evolution and of gravity. For the latter two cases, that deeper understanding is extremely unlikely to overturn previous results in any meaningful way, just as Newton's theory of gravity is still a pretty darn good approximation even though we know it's not exactly right. Global warming is very likely to be in the same camp, albeit with more room for increased understanding, since it's a newer field than gravity or evolutionary biology.
So, are you advocating that we do nothing until we have the deepest possible understanding of global warming, or are you just pointing out that it's a field that should be researched further? I doubt anyone would disagree with the latter sentiment.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
1) Is the earth getting warmer?
Sure looks that way.
2) Are humans doing anything that could be causing this?
Probably.
3) So is what we're doing causing the warming?
I'll have to give that a firm "maybe". Causation ain't correlation, y'know.
4) Would more data, over a longer timespan, help.
Yep.
5) So we should wait for more, better data?
Snag is, if the "hunch" that we're the cause is right, then that'll be *way* to late.
6) So we've got to make a really important decision based on insufficient data?
Sucks, don't it?
7) If we just carry on regardless, how bad will it get?
Probably not too bad. Scare stories sell papers, that's all.
8) So just carry on then?
Economic analysis of the situation says that the best estimate is that it's in our
common, long term, best interest to avoid the warming.
9) "Common"??? "Long term"??? So nothing's going to get done?
Nope. Remember, Holland=bad retirement area.
10) And finally, why are ther always ten questions?
And why do they all have nothing to do with the article???
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Falling back on cynicism when the great majority of experts declare Nature isn't doing what you want Her to just causes democracy to devolve into demagogy. The government's job is to insure that you are able to say and think what you want to, not to make you feel better when you are wrong. This article comes across as very whiny to me.
Since when is established science and "opinion"? It's become the battle cry of those that don't like the established science and want to spin it into just an opinion. Science is often revised and updated but established science is not based on opinion it's based on facts. Even theories aren't opinion but an extrapolation of facts that needs to be supported with testing and additional data. We should stop using the word opinion when we deal with the sciences. We aren't talking about social issues where there can be multiple opinions science is about the nature of the universe and isn't subject to opinion.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a BBC Documentary (notorious right wing Oil loving company there) featuring many people whom I consider credible people within the scientific community, including the Co-Founder of Greenepeace Patrick Moore who show that the Global Warming movement is primarily political in nature, and is more about being anti-corporate than pro-environment. This is largely the reason why Patric Moore resigned from the organization he confounded in disgust. Regarding the so called consensus, regarding global warming, they have an interview in there with a scientist who was on a list of 2500 climate scientists who contributed to a paper regarding the human origin of global warming who had to sue to get his name removed from the paper. They told him he'd contributed, so his name would be listed, but he told them they didn't listen to anything he was trying to tell them. If you don't thing people get anything out of believing in global warming, that is just flat wrong. If you try to do science suggesting global warming is caused by anything other than man, your funding tends to get pulled real quick. Now I'm not saying global warming is not occurring. You're right, the data clearly shows that. The degree to which it is human caused is widely debated, however. It seems obvious to me that anyone with even a cursory training in science should see that climate is an unbelievably complex field, and we aren't even close to understanding how it works. Occam's Razor tells us that variations in solar output are of far greater importance that anything man is doing. Currently, global warming is also occurring on mars as well as Jupiter. Now before you set out to write your flaming response that I am a shill for the Oil Companies, or I am just selfish, or have my head up my ass, thing to yourself, "Is that a scientific response?". After doing thorough research, I have come to several informed conclusions:
1) Global warming is occurring.
2) Humans are contributing to global warming (how could we not be, again, Occam's Razor)
3) The amount by which we are contributing to global warming is vastly overstated by the Global Warming Movement.
4) The Global Warming movement is primarily an anti corporate movement which uses the scare of global warming to motivate change which is ultimately good, but when taken too far, can cripple economies not only here in the first world, but with even more tragic consequences in the third world.
5) The Global Warming scare is like telling someone that for every Big Mac they eat, they will lose one day off of their life. It may motivate people to make changes which would be good for them, but it does so by telling a lie which may have drastic consequences for third parties.
6) The illusion that environmentalism doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore we should do anything possible to that goal is plain wrong. There is no sense of balance in the debate over what to do about it, and people who don't mouth the party line are branded a heretics.
Most of this is covered quite well in the first link I provided. Watch it, it may just change your mind. Assuming your mind is open to change.
So what the hell is this guy talking about, and why is it on Slashdot?
In the past year, Al Gore's so-called "documentary" film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain's - more or less Tony Blair's - Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
Hmmm:
Al Gore - politician.
Tony Blair - politician.
UN Intergovernmental Panel - politicians.
G8 - politicians.
The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda".
Yegads, I hope he's not holding Crichton up as a paragon of scientific virtue.
He rails against against politicized scientists. And yet...
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
Yah - no political bent in this guy at all.
Who gave this yahoo permission to use the word "science" anyway? He should have his toungue cut out, not get a page on FT.
Not that I'm saying global warming is known to be caused by human activity - it is not. But this guy's view is about as meaningful as Crichton's or Gore's, from a scientific perspective. That is; not.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The parent inappropriately obfuscates the original quote: It is absolutely critical that, when a scientist interprets findings and speaks with authority, they must acknowledge any preconceived biases they might have.
Data are data - they are what they are. But the process of interpreting data is always subjective and may be affected by a person's biases.
Scientific consensus is a threat to democracy in the same way that a jury verdict is a threat to kittens.
Democracy is a form of government intended to be steered by the prevailing opinion of the citizens. Science is a quest for fact, using rational explanation for natural phenomena.
Fact and opinion cannot be compared in this way.
Science has no agenda. A scientific consensus means that a large portion of scientists agree on a given explanation of a phenomenon.
Scientific consensus is a threat to superstition and ignorance. Corporate fascism is a threat to democracy.
Then I read ShieldW0lf's reply to you in turn.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Really? How old are you? I remember Rush Limbaugh, for one, making exactly those comments in the early 90's. To wit, he brought up these new satellite results that were able to measure the effect of the full moon on temperatures and then claimed that it was funny that with such sophisticated techniques they still weren't able to measure global warming. There were plenty of ditto-heads who took that statement and ran with it.
Why don't you do a little personal research on the Mann Hockey Stick? Try to go to sites that cover actual science and not just politics though, okay? Also avoid sites that admit to being junkscience.
Please provide the book title and such a quote. Also, don't confuse "a climatologist from the 1970s" with "the climatologists of the 1970s". A lot of people who bring up "global cooling" seem to do that. (I do see, however, that you were good enough to qualify that only "some" were claiming that.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Since they obviously see no problem with that, I see no problem in assuming their science to be automatically suspect.
Not all scientists are good scientists, at least as far as applying scientific method and rejecting "pet" hypotheses or projects. Probably a lot of scientists are scientists in name only.
Actually, that's only partially true. A great deal of the Soviet war R&D (and let's not pretend that there was any real science going on outside the military in the USSR) was the result of the products of espionage. Yes, the Sov's did produce some neat things, but they straight jacked a lot of it from nations like the US and the UK.
But you _do_ tell him how to make policy. Or, if not you, your ideological compatriots. The implicit assertion behind your beliefs RE: global warming is that there are X Y and Z policy solutions to these problems. Pretending as though scientists aren't human, have no desires or pre-conceptions is silly. Yes, they are in a field where objective truth must eventually win out over political, philosophical, and other non-scientific concerns, but there's a lot of time between hypothesis and proof where those considerations _do_ take place. Look at quantum mechanics, or the cosmological constant, or the "global cooling" movement of the mid-70's. Or, for an even better example, look at some of the reactions to the work that's being done in biology today. Try to study the relationships between gender/race and brain development, and watch how quickly even scientists will react.
Furthermore, your position seems to be "keep a wall between the scientists and the politicians/writers", but do you criticize Gore or any of the other global warming alarmists when they attack the science of scientists who don't buy into the global warming Chicken Little scenario? You may, but that would make you an abnormally consistent person, and I know that many people who align themselves with your beliefs do not. And from the tone of your post, it seems to me that what you _really_ mean to say is "If you disagree with me, then you have to shut up", which is kind of the point he's making.
Oh, so now you're trying to tell the policy makers and economists how to do their job? It seems as though your wall between science and policy has become a door that only opens in one direction. Do you _actually_ know what would happen if we imposed the kind of restrictions that mainstream climate alarmists are talking about? Do you really conceive the kind of damage it would do to our quality of life, to our technological and medical development, and to our future? You can't just take a 20 year time out in a global economy, we would stagnate to the point where we'd never be able to recover.
This is constantly the point that I come back to in climate debates. It's silly to declare that the science is done, because it's just not. You can't study a massively chaotic system like the climate of the Earth for 20 years and then declare that, without any possible dissent, dispute, or disagreement, you are Right, and everyone else is Wrong. It seems to me that the great scientific discoveries of humanity have been as a result of people declaring that no, the Asserted Doctrinal Truth is not, in fact, correct, that there's an alternate reason for things we observe. Is humanity drastically increasin
I regard anthropogenic global warming as an established fact, and find the minority opposition to be opposed on political grounds. It is a political conundrum, but one with an interesting possible solution from this Canadian.
The essence of his proposal is that an agreed upon yardstick that can measure anthropogenic warming be used as a tool to levy Carbon taxes on C02 emissions. He suggests that warming in the tropical troposphere is a good standard. The obviates all debate, and answers Michael Crichton's challenge. If anthropogenic warming goes up, we tax it and use the proceeds for counter measures, if it does not, there are no taxes. Everybody wins!
First of all, without documentation, I'm not going to accept your claim at face value (no offense intended, but that's an easy statement to make without evidence). Secondly, there's more than one way to destroy Tuvalu.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This Claus fellow doesn't seem to understand that science is objective. Sure, nothing is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, scientific theories aren't to be argued subjectively. They are supported or refuted on the basis of physical evidence. "Scientific consensus" merely refers to the fact that any logical human being who has studied the evidence for global warming will agree that historically there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that the CO2 levels have been rising (for example). There is a very good recent article in New Scientist that clears up a lot of confusion. I agree with spun that it isn't fruitful to "argue" about global warming to ensure that "both sides of the argument" are equally represented. Those who don't "believe" in global warming must present a theory supported by evidence. A funny example of the press feeling it has to present both sides of a scientific theory (as if there are simply 2 sides): A Time magazine said "Was Darwin Wrong?" on the front cover. The first page of the article said "NO!" in huge letters. LOL!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The way I read those parts of what Klaus wrote is that the interpretation of the observation can often become biased, especially where so much is still unknown, and scientists should be stating their bias. In other words, the assumptions made about the unknown variables should be made explicit in scientific findings, and that is already a requirement, albeit not very strictly enforced, perhaps. And maybe not understood very well by the general public, politicians included.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
This Claus fellow doesn't seem to understand that science is objective. Scientific theories aren't to be argued subjectively. They are supported or refuted on the basis of physical evidence. No theory is the absolute truth, so much as the most accurate description we currently have available. "Scientific consensus" merely refers to the fact that any logical human being who has studied the evidence for global warming will agree that historically there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that the CO2 levels have been rising (for example). There is a very good recent article in New Scientist that clears up a lot of confusion on global warming. I agree with spun that it isn't fruitful to "argue" about global warming to ensure that "both sides of the argument" are equally represented. Those who don't "believe" in global warming must present a theory supported by evidence. A funny example of the press feeling it has to present both sides of a scientific theory (as if there are simply 2 sides): A Time magazine said "Was Darwin Wrong?" on the front cover. The first page of the article said "NO!" in huge letters. LOL!
Why does it matter what Gore says? He's not a climatologist. I don't go to Gore for my science, and neither should you. Don't use him to point out any perceived fallacies in global warming. He's not a climatologist. I enjoyed his movie, and I thought it brought some much needed attention to the subject. Yes, he's not perfect, but you know what? He's not a climatologist.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There bias can easily be found out when other scientists evaluate it.
So I can make some bias statement, but when someone else looks at the data, i will be called on my bias.
The scientific community has know for 100s of years a person will have a bias, and that can intentionally or unintentionally influence there conclusions.
Hence peer review.
After peer review, the paper is published and anybody can point out flaws in the data or conclusions.
For your scenario to be true, every scientist within' a given specialty would have to be in some grand conspiracy.
The scientific method works very well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You're saying this to a slashdot crowd. Who is under the mistaken impression that we can force the entire world to comply with massive expensive investment that may or may not be futile (in fact the "scientific consensus" according to the U.N. is that we can't).
...
... plastics. It means redesigning EVERY plastic product. And I mean every last one.
And we're talking about China here. They're essentially reasonable people, they're a bit caught up in a disfunctional ideology, but at least they're reasonable.
Then you have Iran. And the oil nations (I'll be kind and not point to a certain religion that just really really seems to have something to do with what is happening there). They'll be real glad that we decide that their only export product is bad. They're known for being very cooperative with their own populations, so they'll listen to us, right ? Oh publicly beheading dissidents you say ? Euhm well I'm sure they'll be reasonable, after all our own religious nuts are reasonable, right ? Bombing abortion clinics you say ? Well euhm
Furthermore. Climate models currently have (at best) 20% error margin PER YEAR. That means that we can predict what global warming is going to do next year, but after that the error is bigger than the measurement. After 5 years there is no signal left.
Furthermore the cost of these adjustments. These costs are absent from all discussions and are non-trivial to say the least. Replacing all non-nuclear power plants (and all nuclear plants according to most "discussions" about this topic). Alternative fuels basically require us to replace every car, truck, and generator in the developed (and the developing) world. Dozens of power plants, mostly based upon unproven technology (and that's being nice), that has very non-trivial problems are to replace what is currently the backbone of power generation. And then there's the real petroleum industry
So, really
1) are we causing global warming ? Good question, we're not actually sure, and we don't understand the mechanism behind it (if so, please point to an accurate climate model, we can maybe tolerate 1% error margin, but certainly no more than that)
2) if we are causing it can we help it ? Provided our current (20% off per year) guess of the mechanism is correct, we can't stop it. We may be able to lower some of the very long term effects (although this can't be confirmed since we can't reliably predict what will happen in 5 years, so predictions about stuff happening in 100 years should be taken with an ocean of salt)
3) even if there is a method to stop it, what is the cost ? Probably it more than the economy produces in a single year, and that is, just too high, maybe by amortizing the costs over 20-30 years we can do this. But not faster than that, and even over 20-30 years it means taking big risks
From his article:
in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent
and with this, he instantly disqualifies himself from any discussion about science, politicized or otherwise. The "percent" change in temperature is meaningless because it depends on the chosen "zero point" in the temperature scale (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin, Roentgen, whatever.) I mean really! He's as clueless as Spinal Tap's Nigel ("Our amps go up to eleven.")
Sounds petty? Well, consider that he's in no qualified position to dismiss the rise in temperature as "only" a certain amount, no matter how he expresses it.
The rest of his article is the usual ranting and fact-picking we see from the global-warming nay-sayers, with a heavy dose of libertarian bias which (in contrast to the challenge he aims at scientists) he doesn't bother to disclose, does he?
No doubt the only reason Klaus' article got into the Financial Times in the first place is his by-line value as a head of state.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
On one hand, you have scientists paid to do research by the government and other public organizations, with no instructions on what they can and cannot publish. These scientists are not paid more if they find that global warming is anthropogenic than if they find that it's not. If you think otherwise, you're drinking the Crichton kool-aid, and are subscribing to the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.
On the other hand, you have scientists paid to do research (sometimes out of their field) by fossil-fuel companies who are not allowed to publish their data without first passing it through those doing the funding. Interestingly enough, these scientists don't find evidence that global warming is non-anthropogenic. No, they only seem to be able to show that it's not necessarily primarily anthropogenic. Two key terms there: "not necessarily" and "primarily". That is, they know that humans contribute to global warming, there's no way to interpret the science otherwise, even when being funded by fossil fuel companies. They also know that it's possible that humans are the primary contributors to global warming. However, if they do their research just right they find that there's not enough evidence to say that humans are definitely primary responsible. Of course, it's not to hard to find a lack of evidence.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
atmostpheric heat = f( atmospheric carbon quantity)
What is f()? Right now we just now that f() seems to be a monotoically increasing function. If we can spend billions playing smash the particle , we can surely spend a few billion and get a very good approximation of what f() is using computer modeling.
After that we will have near perfect information to decide climate change policly. If burning all oil reserves only results in a 5' change in temperature we might not care too much. If burning all oil reserves results in a 20' increase in temperature, then we have a very good economic arguement to stop carbon emmisions as soon as possible.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Considering that the global warming swindle was in fact a channel4 production I seriously doubt your ability to understand the situation to any degree.
Not all scientists are good scientists
Are you then saying that all climate scientists are bad scientists? Because they are unanimous in declaring global warming to be real and man-made. That's the "consensus".
It would be quite an extraordinary claim. Do you have proof to back up the accusation?
...is that science wants to get as close to the truth as possible - a true scientist has no preference on whether there's global warming or how much is man-made. Politicians on the other hand are are both industry-influenced and people want them to make their problems go away. Whether it's crime, education, healthcare, high taxes, terr-uh-rists or whatever, they just want it fixed somehow. Anyone who says "Don't worry, it's a natural cycle and you can keep on driving your SUVs and use all your disposable junk" gets votes as opposed to "My fellow Americans, it's time everyone started helping the environment, including you". That's not doing what the people wnat, that's telling them they have a problem instead of "fixing" it. Nobody likes a problem finder.
On top of that, the politicans know that people won't believe it or won't care. First of all you have the plain out deniers, because global warming isn't something you can easily observe with your own eyes. Just look at how many don't believe in evolution, and we got several hundred years of scientific evidence to back that up. Then there's the "who cares" people who think it means it'll get 2C warmer on average. Well, maybe the planet but it could fuck around every ecosystem on the planet because of shifting weather patterns. Winds and currents and climate could change drastically around the world. Finally there's the "hey, great... maybe we'll have it as warm as Florida here up north". Needless to say those that think the planet can be turned up and down like a giant space heater should be deported to a third world country in exchange for people with sense.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm sure you've heard the difference between climate and weather, so maybe you're not making that mistake - but it sure seems like you are. Of course, in your defense, it sounds like Dr. Renwick isn't helping matters.
Anyways, if you want to read up on prediction verification, here's an interesting article.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You know what this guy sounds like? "Science is a threat"?
Sounds like a religious crusader to me. It's the exact same thing: "the majority must be right, nevermind that the experts who have spent years studying the subject specifically say the majority is wrong!"
Care about privacy? Read this!
Pity that...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Why do you keep calling it a fakery, when its the "debunkers" who were ultimately debunked?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
5 degree would be disastrous.
pretty much anything over 3 is bad. 20 degrees and we would be dead. Seriously, we would die out.
remember we are talking global average. hell 5 degrees more and we won't be able to grow food in the central US.
"After that we will have near perfect information to decide climate change policly. "
I can only conclude you have no idea what the complexity of climatology are. Because you fail to take into account the feedback loop. The less snow Alaska has, the more heat is absorbed by the earth. So not only is it carbon, but it is all the side effect. Let say carbon release allowed for 2% of formerly ice covered land to be exposed. Now the sun is heating the earth more, so it moves up to 3%..then 5% and so on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can't take the sky from me...
I agree completely. First of all, not all appropriate solutions will necessarily save money. However, many solutions are unnecessarily expensive and/or difficult to implement - especially considering their effectiveness.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
gravity is a theory.
Which makes your point even better.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
His expertise in economics does not help the fact that in his first paragraph he expresses the warming in per cent, something completely meaningless. He is out of his depth on this.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power and fix your electric rate for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I appreciate the reference, and I do believe you (about the numbers, not the general sentiment). However, that link is broken. I tried finding where it moved to, but unsuccessfully.
Personally, it really boils down to the fact that I'm a conservative (in the truest sense). I believe that change is usually bad, and that swift change is usually worse. On geological time-scales we're looking at a swift change in temperatures. It won't be good.
Anyways, I'm signing off for the night, and I do want to compliment you on keeping it civil. It's sad that I feel the need to compliment someone for that, but it seems more the exception than the rule in these parts.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
1) let people vote about whether global warming is happening and what the causes are. While we are at it, let them vote about what pi should be. 2) his view is just as valid as the views of the scientific community because ... well because ... just so.
What is bizarre is that of course it is the likes of him who do what he supposedly rejects: politicise science.
Another conservative who has no clue but happens to get heard because he is a high-ranked politician.
The practice of science is very democratic. If you want to start publishing an Annals of Modern Phrenology, help yourself. Just don't think you're entitled to a government grant or a regular readership. People deserve to think what they choose to think. That doesn't mean however that the science bureaucracy in the western world, which is primarily to overwhelmingly government funded, is either particularly democratic, egalitarian, or infallible.
The largest threat to democracy is the promulgation of lies and falsehoods.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Vaclav Havel is a writer and politician. I don't tell him how to write. Why is he telling me how to do science?
Please don't confuse a great man like Václav Havel with this jerk, whose background is economics.
The answer is simple: he's an extreme free marketeer. State intervention is always bad. If the science appears to show otherwise, then it must be wrong. Climatologists can be mistaken but not economists, apparently.
Sorry but people who devote their lives to the study of climate are better informed than those who don't. Their opinion is more valuble because they are the experts. These are scientists, not environmentalists.
Try another example, the vast majority automotive engineers have a consensus that a particular car design is a death trap prone to explosion. The company that makes the car, the media and a small number of automotive engineers say otherwise. The population at large is undecided. Which opinion do you trust?
What if the majority is wrong? Well the scientific method was specifically designed to prevent an established majority belief from preventing an unpopular but true idea from emerging. Dogma is in direct opposition to the entire philosophy of science. If this was not the case, quantum mechanics would not be a scientific theory today. Neither would wave-particle duality. There is no giant, world-wide cross cultural conspiracy of scientists working against the very basic philosophical principles of science to crush opposing theories. Opposing theories merely require better evidence to become a 'consensus' view.
Let's compare media with scientists. The media reacted to the global cooling/coming ice-age theory similarly to global warming today. The climate scientists did not take it seriously, because there was little evidence. All that hype was based a single, first publication of one scientist. This same scientist published a new paper within several years suggesting that global warming would actually occur instead because he had under-estimated the effects of carbon-dioxide. Yet this crap is still spouted by skeptics today.
What about the dangers of a small group of self-appointed experts with an agenda distorting the truth? Oh wait, that's what the IPCC was created to prevent! But they're still not giving the answer we want.
What about the Skeptical Environmentalist? From the man who repeatedly slammed environmentalists for distorting facts and data, states Kyoto would incredibly expensive and ineffective and yet stated that evidence for man-made climate change was so over-whelming that it was strange the issue was even debated. This was back in 2001. There has been a great deal of evidence since.
'Climate-change skeptics' are the faith based believers.
This 'doubt' propaganda they are spreading is not helping their cause either. Because it's such obvious bullshit to anyone who bases belief on well researched evidence, their opinions are being ignored by knowledgeable people. Unfortunately, legitimate concerns about the cost and effectiveness of proposed climate change prevention policies are not taken seriously because it is assumed they come from this same group who are invulnerable to evidence based trends and obsessed with the details of noise involved in any large data set.
Great Article !!
Respectable Scientific Publication: Financial Times - Check
Quote From Authority on the Subject: Michael Crichton - Check
Authors with credential: Czech President - Check
Come on everybody, please be reasonable and listen to him !!
C.S. Lewis once said that the intelligentsia seem to be unable to disbelieve what they read. The common man is much more prone to it because he's used to being lied to. This fellow is obviously of the second group and so am I.
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
Bet you don't think gays should be able to get married, think the 10 Commandments should be posted in every government building, are in favor of ending social security and Medicare, and believe that if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over here.
MIRITE?
While I agree there is more evidence that global-warming is a man-made problem than not, I don't think there is enough proof for it to be actionable. I see no reason to make significant and costly changes on a such a weak theory (even if it is the prevailing consensus theory at the moment, that doesn't mean it is a strong theory, just means it is the best one out there right now). The bulk of the hype over global warming is taking a weak consensus and turning it into a political panic.
For example take the Kyoto protocol. It wasn't about reducing green-house gasses, it was about a socialist agenda to transfer money from the rich to the poor. Rich industrialized countries were over the limit the protocol allowed and poor unindustrialized countries were below the limit. The rich countries weren't going to reduce their emissions, the plan was that they would PAY the poor countries for the right to use their extra emission credits.
This is sort of like Al Gore claiming his energy gobbling mansion is carbon nuetral because he also owns a small rain-forest that is offsetting his usage. As the most industrialized nation, the US was more heavily penalized than any other country (that's right, we emit more gasses than anybody), meaning it would cost a fortune for the US to buy the credits from the poor countries, effectively making our industries less competitive, costing jobs. Is is any wonder that the US Senate almost unanimously rejected the Kyoto protocol (that's right even the liberal Democrats thought it was little more than an anti-US treaty dreamed up by the Europeans).
We need less discussion of politics and politicians and dogma, and more science: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
I believe the major point of disagreeing scientists is that, although it is clear that global climate change occurs, it has not been proven that we humans have been the cause.
There have been alternating ice ages and long spans of warm climates for eons. How did the last ice age end? Were there enough stone-age men to add so much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere? Did they forget to hunt adequate wooly mammoths to prevent their belches and flatulence from inundating that air with methane?
I agree there is good circumstantial evidence to support that global warming is caused by mankind. It has not been proven. Let us assume for a moment that it is significantly cause by man. It would still be very difficult to prove empirically, because there are so many things that affect climate.
My local meteorologist cannot reliably tell me what the weather will be 48 hours out.
So, it is clear that the global climate changes radically over time without human involvement. There is empirical botanical, zoological, and geological evidence of rapid climate change.
This does not prove nor disprove that this period of global warming is man-made.
Even still, it always makes good sense not to pollute, to tread lightly on the Earth. Still, there are peoples who are not yet willing to sacrifice their freedoms, their cultures, or the food on their table to the dogma of global warming... And be ruled be an unaccountable oligarchy somewhere far away.
Dissention here requires the heart of Galileo.
There is enormous political motivation to push global warming as truth, and then, enforceable international law. It is no small power for weaker competitors to be able to turn the screws down on the U.S...
The following is true for all sovereign nations (I'll use Canada as an example):
All of the nations and leaders outside of the Canada are not elected by the Citizens of Canada. They are not accountable to the people of Canada, and do not necessarily have the interests of the Canadian people at heart. In fact, it is likely that leaders in other nations despise some nations, even Canada.
The people of the world are woefully inadequately represented in international bodies. Nations can gang up on nations and inflict great harm on a powerless people. If you are free, any international treaty should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. For good or for ill, the goal of that treaty is to restrict or regulate you.
I digress.
This case is not ready to be closed. I'm open to the theory that we are causing the climate problem. But if you tell me I'm an idiot for questioning you, then I will assume you are hiding something, or that you lack the confidence to have your work reviewed by dissenting scientists.
You can be sure that we will mostly see dissenting lunatics get the airtime, but that does not mean that there are not competent dissenters.
if you don't have people who are willing and able to question it, then the quality of your science will suffer. if you have people on the pro side yelling and swearing at people on the con side, and trying to silence any critics, then how is it any different than groupthink?
i often hear the accusation that people on the anti-global warming side don't understand the science of the global warming argument, but i have some doubts about whether people on the pro-global warming side really understand it, either. i wonder how many people can actually wrap their minds around the science, both the pro- and the anti- arguments, and how many just agreed with al gore.
i'm not trying to spread fud, or take an anti-global warming position. i just like to stir up trouble. when i buy something from amazon, i like to see some negative reviews, too.
The majority of posters here have missed the point made by President Klaus of the Czech Republic. Even the title of the initial post is misleading, basically pitting the term "Scientific Consensus" against democracy. But this was only one point brought up by Klaus and was really just rephrasing the old line "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
What is startling is how defensive anthropogenic global warming believers (many of whom apparently frequent slashdot) get when anything is said or written which might provide logical evidence contrary to their belief system. It truly does have the look and feel of religion when you begin to rely more on faith than facts, and actually attempt to stifle free speech and debate on the subject. How many times have you heard something like "the debate is over, let's do something about it"? Who has the right to say that the debate is over? Does the UN IPCC have this right? And if so, who gave the UN the right?
This talk and behavior leads to a totalitarian mindset which does threaten freedom and democracy. And that was the main point of Klaus' article.
If reality were relative, truth would be false.
If it's a false myth wouldn't than make it true?
We had an el nino last year which tends to reduce the number and severity of hurricanes.
Or so this "they" guy says...read it on the intartubes
The deal with hurricanes isn't so much they are stronger or more of them as hundreds or thousands of years ago as much as we have much better news reporting and data keeping now and even moreso, hoo-mannz have been on a coastal area expensive building spree for the past few decades in the US, so when hurricanes *do* strike, it causes a lot more damage. Example, a little cottage I used to live it on the beach in florida, back when that was still possible at ridiculous cheap joe construction worker wage levels is now a big high rise. Where a few people used to live (and I went through a hurricane there actually) and a structure worth x-dollars might have been damaged, (it wasn't, 'cane that didn't hit directly but was sure *exciting* for yours truly)now a lot more people and x times 500 (whatever, big number) dollars worth of stuff is there that could be damaged. I don't know a technical term for it, but the event impact potential threshold is now way higher than it used to be, given the same exact size hurricane.
Scientific Consensus is a threat to democracy. Scientists are people and therefore, like any other body of people, is corruptible. The general population is not part of the Scientific Consensus and cannot hope to understand that "scientists" who would rule them. The ruling class will not be striving for a scientifically-competent populace because it would reduce the need for the ruling class to "take care of them." The ruling class will insist that there is just no way you could understand why they had to dictate every aspect of your existence, and you must simply trust that "science is right." So, the Scientific Consensus is THE MOST dangerous thing to democracy, because it has exactly nothing to do with the will of the people. It is antithetical to democracy. This -might- have been a good thing, but the would-be-tyrants of the world will harness Science, as they do everything else, and twist it to suite their needs. Oh, and who are you to disagree? You are not qualified to argue with me unless you have a doctorate from (insert dogmatic establishment university here).
Is denouncing people who deny the holocaust a threat to democracy? I don't see why it is a threat to democracy when there is a scientific consensus on the issue. For politicians, who aren't themselves scientists, to deny the scientific consensus is just plainly obvious as looking out for their own interests. Thats why people denounce opposition.
Give us this day our garlic bread and lead us not into vegetarianism but deliver us some pizza.
The real question is whether 'scientific consensus' is a threat to science. Good science, should after all, never be a popularity contest. Can you say 'luminescent ether'?
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic..." - Eric Hoffer
You're kidding, right? You want a 99% accurate prediction of the entire planet's climate? And you want that before we take any action?
You're about 20x-500x off, according to the most credible estimates. 100% GDP? Please.
Poland repeals the law of gravity!
(Video at 11)
Global Warming Increases Wind Shear, Reduces Hurricanes, Climate Model Shows
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Does anyone else find it strange that Libertarians are willing to put full faith and credit in the rationality of people and corporations when it comes to the "free market," but when it comes to global warming they think everyone's off their rocker? Come on. Which it it, are people rational decision makers (and thus the fundamental precept of capitalism is true), or are people ignorant sheep who frequently go off on wild irrational tangents with the herd (in which case the market isn't ruled by rationality)? You only get to pick one.
Scientists go where the facts are, not where the opinion lies. If any significant number of scientists reach the same conclusion independently, then yes, that's a "consensus". It should be a warning sign; instead, many right-wing radio talk-show hosts are conflating it with simple agreement: "we have decided that global warming exists, and that's how it will be."
These guys need desperately to get a grip on how science works. Scientists don't dictate, they report.
There's a very simple way to weed out bias in this debate - ask: "Do we need to take extensive action against anthropogenic climate change?" and "Do we need to take extensive action against natural climate change?" If there is a difference between the two answers the person has an agenda beyond the climate. We should not expend trillions of dollars in averting anthropogenic climate effects only to see that investment wiped out by natural events - as is very likely within the multi-hundred year time frame needed for climate control measures to pay for themselves. Fighting only human-caused effects is simply misanthropic self-flagellation.
What if man were ruled by science instead of democracy? Would that really be a terrible thing?
I was wonder how we could use Hitler to denounce climate change. Problem solved! Godwin's law upheld again!
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
The first definition reads, "majority of opinion". It is not ALL of the opinion or even fact for that matter. It is just that, opinion, or more accurately scientific theory.
Another definition on the same page reads, "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". By this definition a scientific consensus has not been reached. These guys need desperately to get a grip on how science works. You need a better grip of the definition of "consensus".
What you *really* want to do is assess someone's health accurately enough so that you can offer them insurance at closer to the actuarially right price than any of your competitors. Plus a sliver of profit.
Those who charge more for assuming these risks will lose customers to you. Those who charge significantly less will go broke. Life is good.
Or, you can do what Nixon did for the first oil crisis, and fix prices.
Lots of y'all actually understand systems. For reasons that escape me the positive feedback loop embodied in politically driven wealth redistribution doesn't terrify you. Why not?
I mean, I know that *you* would never vote yourself unearned goodies, but one, maybe two, of your fellow citizens could, maybe. Now, how *much* unearned goodies do you think those guys think is enough?
--
phunctor
Take away the sun's effect on the earth, and is there any proof whatsoever that these manmade global catastrophe gases cause any warming? Not evidence, but proof? Which is my way of saying, "Good one!!!" to jcr (53032)'s response up there.
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
Look you non scientific folk had your run for the last million years. Science has been suppressed long enough ... If it wasn't for people like this guy I would have my flying car by now.
.. if you don't like it we are going to send the sniper scientists after you.
No matter what company you exist in today, 100% guaranteed it exists because of science. So unless you want your own damn island where you live in a straw hut.. you can go to hell. God! somebody set fire to his house and when the firemen come let him tell them not to put out the fire because they got their to quickly in their 'high tech' fire engines. LOL
Everything you do today for the most part you do because science brought it into reality... running water, a flushing toilet, your fridge... we earned the right to dictate everything
GOT IT?
I remember hearing stories of fist fights out in the halls after the first sea floor spreading papers started coming out. The story of continental drift in addition to being a great example of bad consensus is eerily similar to global warming.
Sorry editor, you have it backwards.
"Is democratic consensus a threat to science?"
I think we all know the answer to that one!
The "people with money" are exactly the ones who would prefer global warming to be false.
Then why it is only pro global warming science is getting funding?
Three's more money around for all sides than you think.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The truth has a way of threatening a plurality of different opinions.
A-Bomb
Let's make a couple of campaign donations and see whether or not we can write out that pesky law of gravity. Damn that partisan, Newton!
As for the mechanism of global warming, yes it is complex. Yes, both natural and "human" influences are at play. But it is not impossible to sort out. First, you have a naive understanding of error analysis (with random error you don't simply multiply uncertainty by the number of sequential measurements; I am most familiar with this in a chemical context, so I refer you to, e.g., Quantitative Chemical Analysis by Daniel C. Harris, paying special attention to the difference between error propagation for discrete measurements [random error] and error propagation for molecular weights from isotopic masses [non-random error]). Second, where are you getting this 20% number? I'll accept peer-reviewed Communications, Articles, or Reviews in journals including, but not limited to, Science, Nature, Environmental Science & Technology, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (or appropriate international counterpart). Be sure that you do not conflate "climate model" with "weather model" (note that the former does not provide annual predictions).
Let's be serious. Twenty years ago the snowmobiling season where I live started in November and ran until at least March. Now the only people who own snowmobiles around here also own trailers, or they don't get to use them except for a few weeks out of the year
Say it with me mentally challenged doubters of Global Warming
1, 2, 3,
I knew you could
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I'm an academic economist. It was the "scientific consensus" of my profession until the 1970s that high inflation and unemployment couldn't occur simultaneously. We had quite a bit of empirical evidence and theory to back that position up, and it was categorically wrong.
Obviously I'm not a climatologist, but I do know a thing or two about statistics and mathematical modeling. The studies that many claim to be evidence of global warming, particularly the "hockey-stick" graphs of Mann et. al (1998) and the subsequent UN Report (2001) are categorically wrong. In short, the UN itself in its 1996 report had recommended against using bristlecone pines as proxies for reconstructing temperature because 20th-century carbon-dioxide fertilization accelerated annual growth and caused a false appearance of recent warming. The model Mann et. al. and 2001 report used gave those exact bristlecone-pine datasets 390 times more prominence than the other datasets they had included. Critics, most notably McIntyre et al. (2003) have shown conclusively that this model is a sham. An independent report of statisticians to the Senate in 2005 and the US National Academy of Sciences have both called this "evidence" flatly defective. The UN continues to use the "hockey-stick" graph, journalists and readers take the "scientific consensus" on global warming as religious doctrine, and life goes on.
Don't misunderstand: it's not a matter of contention among anyone whether or not global temperatures have been rising in recent history -- they have. However, proponents of global warming have unequivocally failed to prove that it is a man-made phenomenon rather than a natural one. That said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Global warming way may well be primarily human induced, but no one has yet to prove it, and some of us don't take these things on faith.
There is a lot of dissent if you actually look for it. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ http://www.co2science.org/
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
...the single dumbest fucking argument in the world.
-- Cerebus
It's important to note that Vaclav Klaus is the longtime rival and opponent of Vaclav Havel, who has written some famous essays and at least one play on the subject of scientific thought and what it means for democracy. Klaus's essay, while wholly wrong, doesn't really make complete sense when read outside the context of Havel's Temptation and "Thriller," which cast science in a very different relationship to truth and democracy.
Which is to say, it's a bad idea to read this as though it were an American politician. The context is very, very different.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Postmodernism was a kind of philosophical disintegration in which philosophers and lit majors realized that they could reinterpret texts to mean practically anything. Unfortunately, many, many folks would like that slipperiness to extend to all knowledge.
Science is the effort to determine facts -- the subset of truths about the world around us that hold regardless of belief or mental state. Scientific facts are not subject to consensus, they are only subject to disproof by experiment (or ridicule by folks who point out that they are not even wrong).
Scientists speak of "scientific consensus" almost interchangeably with "fact", but strictly speaking they aren't the same -- consensus among qualified researchers who trust one anothers' opinion is an indicator that research results might be becoming trustworthy as facts. But that consensus is only a tool - a sort of yardstick - for the working scientist or the outside user of knowledge, not something that is subject to open debate as in the political process. For a political leader, a political party, or a vested interest (like an otherwise uninformed oil executive) to call for a voice in the scientific consensus is folly.
One might as well say: "Hey, before deciding whether there's a waterfall ahead on the river, we should consider the ramifications and effort required to portage our canoes around one." Well, that's one way to view the world -- but the waterfall is going to be there (or not) regardless of how hard it is to portage one's stuff. A conscientious guide should call out his best opinion on whether there is a waterfall or not, regardless of sentiments in the party he is guiding.
You still haven't answered the question: what is f(carbon content)?
Effects of Climate Change Eventually May Cause Hundreds of Millions to Migrate. Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes. http://www.google.com/search?q=environmental+refug ees
The midwest US in the 1930's, I think it was referred to as the Dust Bowl.
'The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced ... The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.'
Its high time we got back to teaching Aristotle in physics and Genesis in biology - these modern consensuses drawn up using experimental evidence get in the way of a good debate. Forwards to a glorious Ptolomaic Universe!
This is odd. It is also both odd and suspicious that sentiments appear very strongly held. A religious fervor. I doubt science is being used to find truth. More likely being selectively abused to support emotionally-derived positions.
You're dumb as a box of rocks. And I just insulted the rocks.
Wow, a few thousand years after the end of an ice age, the Earth warms 0.6 degrees at the same time as Mars also warms.
Those are FACTS.
And somehow you think that because some untested, unverified, and uncontrolled (in the sense of an experimental control) computer simulations with probably hundreds of not thousands of guessed-at tunables have concluded that the Earth has warmed because of human activity, anthropogenic global warming deserves the same credence as theories of gravity with literally hundreds of years of experience and actual experimental support?
You can't have been told what to think - because it's really obvious you CAN'T think.
All you got is what you've been told to believe - on faith.
And you thought you were so clever with that little one-liner, didn't you?
You dumbass waste of protoplasm.
There was a lot of real science going on before big oil started paying people to produce junk science.
Alarmism is not a good stance, but business as usual is far worse. Big corporations have a lot of inertia, and they've fought every rightful instance of ecological science in the past. Just like the MPAA and RIAA fought casettes, saying they would ruin their businesses, bigoil is fighting environmentalism, saying it'll kill their business.
You can't take the sky from me...
I believed the climate change advocates, prepared to make the the lifestyle sacrifices necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and preached my view to others, but all the while hoping irrationally that the whole thing was a big mistake. Thanks to you, I've now been disillusioned. I don't know whether to hug you or to strangle you.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The second he says that "scientific consensus" must designate the minority position he is wrong. Under his logic the Earth must not be round, since nearly every scientist would announce loudly that it is if asked.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Scientific consensus means that several scientists working on the same problem agree with each other. If there's no reasonable majority behind any one theory, you can safely consider the theory to be mostly conjecture.
The kicker on global warming is that we seem to have the majority of scientists saying one thing, while the majority of politicians say something else.
The scientists have nothing to gain/lose other than their reputations / employability. It won't look good to doggedly predict the climate will change year after year as it doesn't, or predict it won't as it does. Scientists don't work in a vacuum though. The researchers for tobacco repeatedly found no serious problems from smoking, so merely being a scientist doesn't give you a halo.
Politicians don't need to be right to keep being employed. Oftentimes, being on the right team is enough. (Republican vs Democrat, while the country swings, many regions do not.) All a politician needs to do is to keep their bosses happy. The bosses are the people who pay the politician on a per issue basis.
Scientists and politicians can both be bought. It could be argued that many scientists are willing to be bought because of trouble finding employment. It could be argued that politicians solicit being bought. That said, why would you buy a scientist or a politician for this issue?
First, if you were an individual, you wouldn't. You could try, but you (unless you were quite rich) wouldn't have the money to throw at buying a large number of people.
Buy a scientist / politician to tell the world global warming is real:
You would do this if your company would profit from increased environmental regulations. Companies that produce alternative fuels might do this. Also, if your business is inherently polluting, but you have much better emissions control than your competition, this would be a short-term advantage over them. How many companies are in one of these two positions? Did I miss situations here? How many startup alternative fuel companies can out lobby established fuel companies raking in obscene profits? Perhaps there's a secret lobby of corn farmers... even if so I doubt they could compete with oil's lobbying power.
Buy a scientist / politician to tell the world global warming is wrong:
Your business is inherently polluting, cleaning equipment and changing production methods is expensive. If you convince people there is no problem, there's no need to change.
Why would you buy a scientist?
If unbiased scientific data pointed one way, you almost have to buy a handful of scientists to disagree so you can claim that you didn't "know" the truth. Think cigarette companies. Once you have a handful of reports, you're good.
Why would you buy a politician?
Politicians make laws, which could force expensive changes. Paying off a few scientists isn't going to change the views of many people, especially if most scientists disagree. Buying a politician guarentees favorable results no matter what the public thinks. Consider how many people hate out-sourcing. Consider that both parties support it, despite the public's obvious hatred of the idea. (Also consider how few people actually make the effort to buy American)
An additional benefit to buying politicians. People are pack animals with a gang mentality. Once you choose your gangs (Yankees / Braves! Democrats / Republicans! Toilet seat up / down!) you tend to blindly follow them, no matter how divorced from reality they may get. (Will the Cubs do well? They finally did, but the loyalty well before that point was amazing) No matter how many scientists say X is bad, if Bush says X is good a disturbing number of people will follow Bush because they take politics as us vs them. If Bush is on one side, the other side is wrong. The same was true with Clinton. People selectively (and I'm convinced, unconciously) filter their perceptions to fit the view of the world they want to have. Political lines are sad
The subtext here is that political freedom is founded on the principal that one individual cannot claim superior access to truth over another individual. As soon as you admit superiority of knowledge, there is no room for freedom -- the superior person (or group) should rule. In a free society, it follows that Democracy is predicated that the people are free to choose their government. They will choose poorly at times, but they are responsible for it.
Environmentalists that want to curtail freedoms globally because they somehow "know better" than others introduces major problems. There's a risk here, given the levels of extremism out there, to push an agenda that's far beyond what's necessary to curtail the threat of global warming.
For example, California, Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe are aiming to ban incandescent light-bulbs by 2012. is it really the government's place to dictate how people should light their homes? Wouldn't the economic efficiency of better bulbs lead consumers towards them over time? Or does the government require coercion to force change on a lazy populace, that neither cares about the cost savings nor the environmental impact?
After this, what's next on the banning list?
A pluralistic society requires strong government and social sector to look out for the common good, as few others will... but it carries risks in defining that which is "common" and "good".
-Stu
The problem is the global warming folks continue to say that it isn't important that we know, just that we do something to make it stop. What? Well, certainly stop the US from throwing all those gasses into the atmosphere. Beyond that, it gets a little sketchy.
The key is if you believe that (a) Man is in control of the environment and if we all pull together we can make things right again and (b) anything we do that will put the planet closer to a prisine state (without humans) the better, you can easily see that by focusing on (b) you don't need any additional knowledge. Just get rid of Man's influence and everything will be good again.
Problem is, the planet has had long periods where it was completely uninhabitable by air-breathing mammals. It was this way without any human influence because we weren't here yet. So the "pristine Earth" idea falls apart pretty quickly. When it does it is absolutely necessary that we know what is cause, what is effect and how our actions are going to change things.
But right now the "pristine Earth" folks are winning out. Too bad this is as much of a religion as the Moonies are.
Correlation is not causality. Sure, CO2 appears connected with temperature, but how?
Does a rise in temperature result in higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Yes, easily proven with high school chemistry.
Do increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere result in increased temperatures? Yes, again easily proven.
So which is happening. We don't know. Could be either or both.
SLashDot - that shit was insightful? Fuck you and fuck everyone of your trolls who constantly label democrat psychobabble as insightful. Fuck Off.
Right, we can't pay attention to Vaclav Klaus because he's not a scientist. But we should pay attention to Al Gore, because he is.
Wait a minute, Al Gore isn't a scientist either!
As you could find out easily if you just read some basic work on the history or the sociology of science.
Are you adequate?
I see only two possible explantions for this.
A. Since you haven't cited a source for what kind of energy Gore spent that 30k on, I'm going to assume that he spent it to send a rocketship to the sun to retrieve Hydrogen for his own personal fuel cell. Al Gore, the king of the climate friendly! Hail!
B. Al Gore hates freedom, the free market and America. He wants to see America back in the middle ages so that he can bring Osama over on his Coalfired superyacht so they can eat curry and wipe their mouthes on the American flag. Al Gore, the #1 terrorist threat to America! Boourns!
The point of this? You can run rings around the issues and take meaningless potshots at the messengers all day. Provide some real, peer reviewed science, funded by unbiased agencies that can't profit from the results, that actually supports the view that global warming is not man made. Until you do, why bother wasting your time arguing with us?? Our camp has all the evidence we need to refute you at every turn.
...it's about factual correctness.
But nevermind, let's just keep doing everything that all respectable science has shown to cause global warming until the privileged few that feel their pocketbooks are threatened by devious environmentalists can no longer deny that it's humankind's fault.
Note that his concern is about protecting a narrow minded and unimaginative conception of economics, something fanciful called a "free market"-- something that is itself fundamentally opposed to democracy.
"...people who can't reliably tell me whether it will rain three days from now..."
I used to fly with an FAA instructor in Springfield, MO who would sit in on the weather forecast group at the airport. He told me that when forecasts are developed/predicted it amounted to 3 out of 10 guys looking at the data said it would rain, then the forecast would predict a 30% of rain.
Basically a consensus of the available meteorologists giving odds on what would happen.
Disclaimer:
1. this was explained to me when I was 9 years old
2. the FAA guy was a practical joker
3. this all happened in the mid-late 1960's
Would that 'bridge for sale' be in Oklahoma? If so, maybe I can help you sell it...local dupes^W^contacts are available....some with money left over from the oil boom!
I'll only ask 20% of the proceeds!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Hell we're still trying to find scientific consensus on "weather is hard to predict". We barely have it on "it's getting hotter", let's not get into the quagmire of is human kind actually changing the weather, or what the proper response should be. I'd just like to start by saying Global warming hardly has a consensus, except the consensus that there's no consensus, and even that is denied by zealots who claim something must be done today with out showing true proof. But I don't want to get into another pissing contest, enough of our denizens are involved in the daily global warming one already.
Democracy is about the people getting a true say in government however. So if the public believes the scientists then the consensus will apply to the government's policies in a true democracy (in reality it's different, but let's not go applying theory today, that's a hotbed of annoyance). However if there is a scientific consensus and popular opinion doesn't agree with it, democracy will move away from applying the theory or decisions to the policies of the government.
It's the same as all war mongers. Anyone can show the Palestinians that both them and the Israeli's have a right to the Gaza Strip. It's obvious. Hell let's even say Hamas and Fatah both have a right to exist, but it doesn't mean that the people in the country are going to follow that ideology. There have been plans for peace in the area multiple times, some of them relatively simplistic and yet something screws it up. Peace is good, peace is nice, but peace as a policy doesn't work unless everyone agrees to it.
So in a TRUE democracy it is public opinion that guides the will of the government, NOT scientific consensus. That being said in reality, "scientific consensus" as it currently stand can lead the public around by their nose, to the point where it can change democratic policy of any type. No other example needs be pointed out than the Nazi government's supposed consensus that they were superior to all other races. So I believe Klaus has a very valid and interesting point, and I agree with him about the current scientific/political environment.
But in a perfect world this would not be, however the sooner we, the people, realize the difference between our governments (more of a representative republic) than a true democracy, the better.
I remember some politician telling Oliver North at the Iran-Contra hearings, "Colonel North, the American people have a constitutional right to be wrong"
That means people have the human right to believe the world is flat, etc, if that's what they want to believe. Hell, there are famous scientists who have advocated killing mentally retarded babies, etc. So arguments on Global Warming aside, scientific reality is not always going to be humane and ethical. When it comes right down to it, is any one of us more than just an assembly of molecules whose neurochemical reactions have programmed us to believe in the illusion that we're alive? That can be scientific reality, too. One can scientifically argue that a green tree is no more noble or valuable than a lump of coal.
Science just tells us how the world works. It doesn't tell us which way the world ought to be. How it ought to be is just subjective opinion.
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. Ones standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to." -- Theodore Dalrymple
Political correctness is evil. It is the enemy of good, the enemy of truth, the enemy of intellecutal freedom and therefore the enemy of political freedom. That which is politically free can not be politically correct. Those who espose and promote it are the servants of evil and should be treated accordingly.
My mind is a PC-free zone.
I refuse to accept lies.
My conscience is a PC-free zone.
I refuse to live with lies.
My sphere of influence is a PC-free zone.
I refuse to permit lies in my presence.
My life is a PC-free zone.
I keep the light of intellectual honesty burning.
I hold off the darkness of ignorance and deceit.
Our world is a better place because I do this.
Can you say the same?
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
It's ironic that he want to resist the politicization of science as meanwhile his good buddy George W. is doing everything he can to suppress debate on the issue. The Us 'invests' in the Czech Republic, moves missiles in and now Vaclav Klaus is rubbishing Global Warming. Nothing to see here, move along. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_go_pr_wh /global_warming_satellites
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/20/cheney%E2%80%9 9s-office-involved-in-global-warming-manipulation/
davecb5620@gmail.com
It's not the biggest by any means, but 15,240 barrels a day is hardly insignificant, and that might pose a conflict of interest. (Of course, you could say the same thing about the way the US government deals with environmental issues too.)
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Where is Vaclav Havel when you need him ? (Fortunately, I understand he has largely recovered from his health problems.)
If Klaus was really concerned about Climate Science, the Czech Republic has a strong scientific establishment, he is the President of the Republic, he could do something about it. No, he is just another right wing concern troll.
Climate research is mostly not big bucks (except for some NASA or ESA projects to launch stuff); there are plenty of people in climate research who are basically independent of grants, and there has been a robust scientific debate. Science is not in trouble; it is politics that has been poisoned by specious arguments masquerading as thought.
personally doing things about it, the hurricane excuse is the wrong one to justify action with. Simply put, we do not know what kind of effect global warming will have on hurricanes. It is not unlikely that warmer temperatures will result in in more or stronger hurricanes, but the models are all over the place on this issue. The reason is that any gains in hurricane strength predicted by warmer waters is offset by decreases in hurricane strength caused by wind shear (the difference in wind speeds/direction at different heights above the water). It is not at all clear what the net effect would be, and in any case, is likely to be fairly minor.
There are many virtually certain, much more costly effects of global warming (ecosystem changes, sea level rise, reduced crop yields, species extinction, increased drought, etc). You should be using those as your justification.
Give this man some Foucault so he can understand what discourse means. At the same time he might be helped with Kuhn too, the man who defined the paradigm in scientific revolutions. He needs to understand that without a the dichotomic thinking process, there wouldn't be much science to talk about at all.
All you got is what you've been told to believe - on faith.
No, I have an entire field of science backing me up.
You have a bunch of people pushing an agenda, and an ideology that for some reason is making them disregard science in favor of dogma.
But no, obviously you're far smarter than thousands of people who have dedicated their entire careers to finding out the truth. You can see right through them, they're all liars.
From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits
Is Global Warming a Sin?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then, as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide.
Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica by offering a "plenary" indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.
I met Dr. Martin Hertzberg, the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001. He remarked that while he shared many of the Nation's editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the issue of supposed human contributions to global warming, as outlined in columns I wrote at that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy, an occupation which gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he's retired now in Copper Mountain, Colorado, still consulting from time to time.
Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on
There is not enough non-anecdotal evidence to warrant any type of action on our part; aside from cleaning up OUR environment in general. For example we have evidence that plastic and other chemicals (yes plastic is a chemical that leaches into YOUR food) are damaging our bodies yet they are still rolling out of the factory. No one is getting all hopped up about those! In America over 90% of our crops are Genetically Modified (GM Crops) meaning that they make their own pesticides! We still dump thousands of pounds per field of pesticides on top of GM crops that MAKE their OWN pesticides. No one plows anymore, the crops, seeds, are modified to grow without water or hospitable soil.
1 8134159.htm
I have witnessed this with my own eyes thousands of times; I live in farm country.
Each year:
1st: Spray Roundup, yes Round Up (41% Glyphosate), every year on every field before planting and other chemical applications.
2nd: Spray more chemicals, whatever is thought to be needed
3rd: Jam the GM seeds into the ground (No plowing, no discing, nothing)
4th: watch them sprout with no applcation of water and otherwise completely inhospitable chemical laden soil
5th: spray more chemicals as needed (remember this is all done on old equiptment by un-educated people, spills go unreported since they would be in extreme trouble and bakrupt from fines and cleanup fees should the authorities find out. Insteaed it flows into th water )
Its called Chemical Farming. You are eating it everyday and you cannot help it or do anything about it. When you kill a Deer in the country to eat you are eating GM pesticide laden meat.
ALL that "healthy" Soy and Corn that is fed to animals including you are drenched in chmicals you would would not even be able to get around without a haz-mat suit.
Mercury is much bigger problem but it doesn't make anyone any money to deal with it. Just like our discusting agricultural practices.
If you think farmers know what is best or have a choice about this stuff you are living in a dream world. Most "farmers" just rent out the fields they inherited to Crop Production Services Inc. (CPS) the largest "farmer" in the US. When I was a kid I rememnber when the people used to farm, those men are dead now.
Another thing about Round Up, they say it is safe becasue it breaks down and doesn't enter the ground water (where YOU get your water) as Glyphosate. But then you look out to see a state vehical filled with Mexicans (low wage, uneducated) stop by the bridge at the foot of MY hill over MY stream and they spray Glyphosate (Round Up) from a wand while sitting in the truck, right at the guardrail and into the stream! This is happening in thousands of locations every single day. They are spraying so weeds don't grow on the bridge.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
A few things for consideration:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/0704
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
Google Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Google Video: Scam of the Great Global Warming Swindle
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
This article seems to ask you to take up sides ultimately. ,who aren't watched nearly as closely as the former two and less morally disciplined,can tell us anything that will further them,financially,politically and personally,yet we rely on their word despite findings that conflict year to year ,month to month and even week to week.
Let's examine this.....
Democracy:government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.(translation:Tyranny by the majority.)
Science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.(addendum:Unfortunately this is all performed by humans who not only err,but display greed,selfishness and have a vested interest in producing results that furthers their livelihood or personal beliefs.)
When science meets art,free interpretation occurs.
When science meets religion,friction occurs.
When science meets politics,bullshit occurs.
Our problem is one of perception.For example,we know there are bad cops,yet we trust them and their judgment.We know there are bad politicians,yet we continue to let them run things.We know scientists
Are you getting this yet? Step back without prejudice and take a look at the big picture and timeline.
Kind of like the "Big Red Button" that says"Do Not Push".It's not a question of whether or not it will be pushed,but when.
The opportunity for fraud in science is the same as politics.Both are watched closely by a public that trusts despite conflicts.If we believe politicians are self serving and wrongfully manipulative of information,what more could we believe of scientists whose hierarchy,motives and social importance are similar?
Before you go proselytizing for your favorite candidate or scientific cause,you could ask yourself "am I just a chump being used as a tool to give more validity to my candidates/scientists cause/findings"
Be angry,be very angry!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Simple fucktard, you are a fucktarded USian liar. I have been reading the weather and it show the US having not record lows, but record highs every day. Ths happens every year. The only time the US has record lows is in the winter, and that is even getting more rare as time goes on while the record highs are getting more numerous even in the winter.
The evidence still remains the US is the cause of global warming and the fucktarded USians don't give a fuck about the rest of the world.
Not to start a flame war or anything, but I find it very interesting that your post embodies the opposite ideal of what is happening in the world today. It also is the opposite of Aristotle's Socrates, in "The Republic", where Socrates, (the scientist of his time - a philosopher), gave his cave analogy and set-up his 'perfect' society under a philosopher (scientist) king, who is required to lie to the populace about the world and their existence. You see, the 'king' would say something is necessary to fix a 'problem' that threatens the society, when in actuality it doesn't threaten anything but may be the direction the king wants the society to go. The people, however, wouldn't change or act accordingly to the kings wishes unless it threatened something they held dear. Thus the 'need' for a lie. What is interesting is that this politician has identified science as starting down that political path that started 2000 years ago. Are they? I am not sure.
Regardless of whether science is beginning to be a political faction, or they already are, or not, the point of the article is that science is kind of in that position at the moment. If all scientists speak with the same voice and say the same thing, they essentially are acting as one person/king/dictator over the scientific society.
Whether Global Warming is man-made or dangerous or a bad thing or not, doesn't matter right now, because Science is claiming that it is. Never mind that science has been wrong in the past, what matters is that the scientific community is considering banishment and expulsion of any of its members if they voice a dissenting opinion.
The salient portion of TFA raises this question; is this behavior of the scientific community dangerous to the political structure we currently favor. The rest of TFA is political posturing and propaganda... but even a fool and a political pundit can have a grain of truth in his ramblings. Let's not ignore the pertinent question.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
That's irrelevant to the rest of your comment.
Efforts to try to modify the Earth's climate are as futile as King Canute's edict on tidal erosion.Do you have any numbers to back that up?
I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other.On what data do you base that opinion?
http://outcampaign.org/
Ah yes, the dictatorship of a few scientists who "believe" in gravity, a spherical Earth, and the insane notion that the Earth circles the sun when you can SEE that it doesn't. How we all suffer.
Memo to V. Klaus: you're not entitled to your own facts. And when reality has a politically inconvenient bias, that's just tough, you know?
Man, what a step down from Vaclav Havel. Possibly if the goofball took up smoking it would realign his little grey cells.
Scientific conclusions necessitate scientific thinking. Not understanding how to think scientifically is much like any other ignorance of good thinking skills: it leads to all types of faulty reasoning. My hypothesis is that while consensus is proposed to address this problem, it will not as it doesn't change the fact that thinking skills are not being applied. Perhaps it would be best if all posters, and citizens in general, practiced critical thinking skills: www.criticalthinking.org. (http://www.criticalthinking.org/page.cfm?Category ID=55)
An excelent article, if you bother to go to where you find what the man actually said.
When active ridicule and suppression are used as the tools of 'concensus' you don't have real science. that is a good summary of global warming today. And that is the Authors problem with the Global Warming movement. It isn't science, it is a political power grab. A propoganda machine that has produced lots of really scary predictions, none of which have proven true. Like any propoganda machine, the failure of these predictions means only that more and scarier predictions are made. Never any admission of error.
The Author is not a scientist, he is a politician with a lot of experience dealing with totalitarian dictatorships and wanna be's. This is an area on which he is a real expert. He is talking here about the politics, not the Science. The things he says make sense. That means that he will be reviled by the liberal college kids who usually post on Slashdot.
Does anyone here remember the Dutch statistician who analysed the data selection for global warming 5 or 6 years ago, intending to prove that it was rigorous and accurate, and ended up proving it was mostly hoax. He published a book around 700 pages detailing what he found, and how he got the results he did. The climate groups loved to hate him for about 2 years, then ignored it. He was actually a global warming believer. All he really wanted to do was get them to fix the data problem. They never did. Their problem was he documented everything and used the same algorithms used to identify hoaxes in other areas of Science.
The poster above who said that in 25 years this whole Global Warming thing will be pointed to as THE classic example of 'junk science' may be right. It beats out pyrimid power, crystal power, magnetic medicine, maybe even UFO's ESP and Creation Science.
Lots of emotion, evidence that requires a lot of adjustment to get favorable results, pushed by
'scientists' whose jobs and incomes depend on reaching the predetermined conclusion, sharply devisive, never a real prediction that can be tested, no wonder Al Gore loves it.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
"Consensus" is the opposite of science. It's a word thrown around by certain environmentalist politicians who are out making money off of speaking engagements. You know, certain politicians who were in the White House for eight years but did nothing about the very warming they claim increased during that period.
I very seriously believe that the current global warming hysteria will die down by next year and be looked back on with laughter, just like the various political hysterias of the past such as global cooling, losing the rainforests, running out of landfill space, and all the other very public environmentalist trends that didn't turn out to be the doom-and-gloom they claimed it to be at the time. There's just something bizarre about, for instance, Denver planning several environmentalist initiatives to allow the government to run your life at the very same time it's hitting record low snow temperatures.
The global averaged temperature record shows a rise of less than a tenth of a degree. I find it very sad that so many people sit around the water cooler talking about "carbon credits," hybrid cars, mercury bulbs, and other completely ineffective but expensive solutions to a problem that hasn't been proven to exist. It's a trend they've had shoved down their throats due to a non-skeptical news media that always follows a template of impending natural disaster, since news media is a business and needs ratings.
But perhaps saddest of all is the way "scientific consensus"--which isn't true--is the excuse used to run Al Gore's political and inaccurate documentary in schools. There was a report about how one kid had seen it a total of four times in various classes at his school. Many of these kids are being scared into believing what the extreme environmentalists are saying, and they will grow up with an incorrect and non-questioning worldview about the environment. I should know, I was indoctrinated to believe we were losing all our trees, landfill space, and that recycling was the only way to save our planet. I even watched "Captain Planet" on Saturday mornings. Then I grew up and saw that none of what I believed was true, there was no impending danger, and our planet will keep on truckin' like it always has.
Environmental fears are, therefore, a tool used by some folks to make people 1.) feel guilty for the successes of their country and for their own existence, and 2.) make people accept higher taxes and expensive environmental programs that make the government larger and more powerful.
"Sufferin' succotash."
... don't exist today. The reality of this is rather obvious, because if they did exist, the change required to stunt the progression of global warming would have already happened. The scientists are still trying to convince everyone, and they're just being ignored. I didn't know telling people THE TRUTH or at least - perceived truth - is totalitarian. It's our politicians, who are backed by giant industries that create this pollution, and consistently stop any project that would help individuals alleviate this problem (the electric car), that are the totalitarians. The scientific community has been telling them this over and over and over again, and yet nothing is fucking done about it. They just sit on their hands, and keep making excuses because there are some problems in the current hypothesis, yet the marked increase in global temperature is quite evident from the beginning of the industrial revolution.
When an business dumps toxic chemicals into a river, where people get their water supply, but also work at this same business, and are making lots of money, no one cares until someone gets awfully sick or dies. They just don't see the problem until it personally effects them. By that point it's too late, the damage has been done, the community is poisoned, cancer rates increase, etc etc
Do we really want to let the same thing happen to the whole planet? People need to take a fucking chance that the people who specialize in this field are correct, and let them do their job, instead of wanting to nail them to a fucking cross. These scientists have been sticking their necks out for a long time trying to get their point across. Maybe these scientists should be looking into the weapons industry for future employment, people with guns and bombs are not ignored. Then the totalitarian labels would be fair at least.
I love how Michael Crichton holds all sorts of credibility, just cause he wrote a FICTIONAL novel that challenges global warming. If he wanted to be held as a bastion of truth and justice, he would have wrote a book about global warming. Too bad most people don't have the patience to learn years of climatology and physics, just so they can understand a book. They might as well just flip to the last chapter, and read the conclusion - because they'll be all proud anyway they read a book that told them what to think. The same goes for Al Gore's movie.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Sure, but if you want to limit it to scientists (in the appropriate fields), who does that leave? Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels? Both of them admit that humans contribute to global warming, but they're not sure that humans are the dominant cause. Note how that's worded: they're not sure humans aren't the dominant cause, either. It's really easy to construct experiments that yield no conclusive results either way.
As for cooling, four things. First, kudos for finding three climatologists who stated that in the 1970's. (Seriously.) Secondly, I'm sure you will acknowledge that these scientists were not the consensus view. Thirdly, this demonstrates another example where the consensus view was the correct one (unfortunately, it's usually easier to point to the exceptions where that's not the case, than examples of the "rule" where it is). Finally, part of the reason global warming was not significant during the era prior to the 70's was because of the enormous amounts of truly vile air pollution (aerosols, etc.) we were putting into the air. When we fixed that pollution problem, the signal from this other problem (greenhouse gases) became clearer.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I agree 100% with what you're saying, and I don't think anybody (in science) thinks we should close the book on global warming. However, when you have people like Inhofe and Crichton bringing up global conspiracy theories, that's counterproductive.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Those submitting grant proposals to fossil fuel companies are going to be influenced by the demands of those fossil fuel companies. However, those submitting grants to the government, etc., do not need to do so (as Richard Lindzen can attest).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I see you idea working for public policy makers, but not for scientists. They need to be free to study controversial ideas, even if they seem as silly as Big Foot. (Here at UVA, home of Pat Michaels, we also have an Anthropology Professor studying Big Foot.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
But, wait a minute, in your view, and the director of NASA's view, possible Global Warming due to extreme release of CO2 is not anthropogenic, but, however, cutting back on CO2 release is anthropogenic.
This is like when Fox News showed Mark Foley and printed under him "Mark Foley (D) Florida". They're just blatantly changing the reality. It's that crazy.
KLAATU, BORADA, NIh*ahem*
There's nothing that requires that natural causes have an effect that is of the same magnitude as Man-made causes. This is like claiming that you can protect the earth from a supernova by cutting CO2 emissions. In general, it is more feasible to be able to reverse the effects of man-made behavior, than to take on nature.
The use of the consensus talking point is the very essence of democracy, just reaching for that tyranny of the majority any possible way. Democracy is "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat." The only way for the sheep to survive is to trick the wolves into thinking that it too is a wolf. All they need to do is fool enough of the population into thinking that a large majority shares their interpretations of the scientific data and also shares their preferred policy presciptions. Then we will see "sheep donning wolves' clothing." No, the idol worship of Scientific Consensus and the constant use of the phrase to shout down the unfaithful is a threat to SCIENCE. It's a threat to PROGRESS.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that, in his statement, Klaus denounces the politicizing of science, while at the same time calling for science to be politicized in his party's favor? It's intellectual dishonesty at its most base, very much like Bush & Co.'s attempts to vet and censure science to suit its own needs. Lysenko would be proud, I'm sure.
You won't ever have a runaway situation like in water world. Remember, there isn't enough water to flood the earth.
But on another note. These changes will happen over centuries not decades. How have the people dealt with them in the past? Many ancient ports which were thriving cities are almost extinct and not very useful as a port any more. How did the brave people in the past work it out? This isn't a day after tomorrow scenario.
The fact that the Silent Majority never disagrees with anything should be a hint.
And what about Lindzen? He receives funding from at least 3 different government or other public (non fossil-fuel sources). On one hand, he proves the point that it's quite possible to receive funding from non fossil-fuel sources without "preaching" the AGW gospel. On the other hand, he also proves that it's possible to receive no funding from fossil-fuel companies (as I understand it, he no longer receives any money from fossil-fuel companies) and still come to the conclusion that AGW might not be as serious as most believe. (Granted, his most damning "evidence" seems to demonstrate a lack of proof either way, and not proof that some other source is responsible for global warming.)
Also, keep in mind the source of the comments you've posted. Not to pick on Lindzen too much as we all have biases, but clearly he's biased towards believing that those firings were because he questioned "the scientific underpinnings of global warming" and not merely because he was incompetent (or even for other political reasons).
Finally, I doubt very much that Griffin was in any danger of losing his jobs due to the beliefs of a subordinate of his. Rather, I suspect it's very much the other way around.
Agreed, and no doubt we won't see eye-to-eye for at least another decade, and probably more. :) Still, it's great to keep the conversation civil.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Absolutely, breakthroughs are pretty much always caused by a minority, if not a lone individual. However, in this case, non-AGW is not exactly a "breakthrough" - it's more reactionary. Furthermore, for every genius who produces a breakthrough, there are probably well over a thousand cranks. I'm not saying the science should be discounted, but if you're incapable (or unwilling) to understand the science the safer bet is almost always to go with the majority. Please note that I'm advocating two different approaches based on one's ability (or willingness) to understand the science. The scientific community (including serious laypersons) should investigate most (if not all) new approaches. Uneducated policy makers (and I don't mean this in a mean way) should use the best science of the time, even if that means acting as if phlogiston exists.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
One should never trust the popular media's presentation on anything. You can use it to help guide you in where to get primary source information, but even that can be dangerous. The serious layperson should look into the specialist publications and make up his or her own mind. The uneducated policy maker should have on his staff a serious scientist that he or she trusts to be reasonably unbiased and do that type of research.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
First of all, I've written two grants (i.e., as PI), and helped author several more, so I know what's involved with grants (although I'll admit I'm no "expert", either). I've had a few articles published that are not "conventional wisdom" (although they weren't exactly controversial, either) and am familiar with how to do so.
If you think that articles won't be published in climatology journals simply because they don't support AGW, then I would argue that it's probably your own bias leading you to that belief. First of all, Lindzen publishes articles from time to time. Secondly, accept the possibility that the reason those articles don't get published is because they're not using sound methodologies.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Obviously, you don't understand it. Saying the majority [of scientists] is usually right is not the same thing as saying something is right merely because the majority agrees with it. Do you understand the difference?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
It's a fairly general argument, and you're absolutely right that, just like evolution, there's a spectrum of varying theories. The publications that show a low or minimal interaction, really just show that there's at least a low or minimal interaction, but they make no attempt to rule out a stronger interaction (to the best of my knowledge). They say the evidence for a stronger interaction is inconclusive, which certain people in the industry take to mean that AGW isn't real. On the other hand, a relatively recent article in Science demonstrates the validity of some of the previous predictions made using an AGW model.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Great post, thanks.
Are you then saying that all climate scientists are bad scientists? Because they are unanimous in declaring global warming to be real and man-made.
Actually, they aren't really quite unanimous. While there is general agreement that the observed warming has a large "man-made" component, the estimates of the fraction attributable to human activity ranges from around 40% to as much as 120% (i.e., without humans the planet would be cooling slightly right now). There is also a lot of discussion of the error bars in the various climate models, and agreement that we need to improve the models to get more accuracy.
Some time back, a few scientists proposed an interesting scenario in which, despite continued warming, the rise in ocean levels slows or stops. This possibility comes from looking at Antarctica, which currently is a "desert" with extremely low precipitation. What little water falls, falls as ice, of course, and in many areas can take millions of years to reach the sea and melt. The suggestion was that as atmospheric water load rises due to increased evaporation at higher temperatures, more water vapor will reach Antarctica and fall as ice. Antarctica becomes a sinkhole to atmospheric water vapor.
These writers were careful to point out that they weren't predicting the magnitude or significance of this. They were merely presenting it as a possibility that current climate models can't exclude or predict accurately. Part of the reason is that Antarctica is meteorologically rather isolated from the rest of the planet. Current models do predict a rise in atmospheric water vapor, but they can't predict how much of this water vapor will reach Antarctica and stay there.
To my knowledge, the guys who wrote this haven't been attacked as any sort of blasphemers by other climate researchers. The main reaction has probably been "Hmmm...." followed by "further research is needed".
In general, there really isn't any lock-step consensus among climate researchers. Such consensus as exists is in the rough outline saying that we've entered a period of anomalous warming;, there is good evidence that most of this warming is due to human activity, and it's gonna continue unless we change our ways. Some of the results (further desertification of some areas, stronger storm systems, rising sea levels, loss of Arctic ice) are highly likely, though the exact size of the changes can't be predicted to many (or > 1) decimal places.
And further research is needed. ("Send money.")
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I'll grant you that it's a higher bar if you're going against the grain, and the harder you go against the grain, the higher that bar is. Still, if you have compelling evidence and present it in a precise way, it will get published. Carl Sagan's statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is obviously *more* true if that extraordinary claim goes against conventional wisdom. Some might say this is a feature, not a bug. Conventional wisdom, although it can definitely be flawed, has a lot more people gunning for it than various novel theories. The bigger the prey, the bigger the trophy. That said, this does not transfer completely to climate science where politics seem to have broken it down into two different camps, as opposed to the n >> 1 camps that exist in most disciplines.
I say this as someone who feels like he usually has very good evidence, but is not always good at presenting it in a clear and precise way (for scientific journals).
How often are papers rejected outright instead of sent back for revision? I don't think I've ever had a paper rejected outright, although I have heard it happen to people (actually only 1 person first hand) who have published a lot more. I.e., if the "outright rejection" rate is 1 out of 500 papers, then you'll probably have to have published more than I have before one would expect such a rejection, even under the assumption that younger authors are more likely to be rejected.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well, perhaps it's partly that some people pre-reject themselves, too. I.e., you don't submit to a journal that has a 1 in 5 rejection rate unless you feel very comfortable about what you've written. In my case, perhaps my adviser does that for me, although I suspect the rejection rate just isn't as high in our field (hippocampal research and/or computational neuroscience). Although I respect Science and Nature, I think that much of our research is a little esoteric for their typical reader. Perhaps that could be said of many of their articles, however.
No problem, and thanks. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"However, the study does identify other regions, such as the western tropical Pacific, where global warming does cause the environment to become more favorable for hurricanes."
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And should be moderated as such.
There are plenty of studies in Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and many other countries that haves usbtantial amounts of forests. We also have satellite pictures for several decades.
Claiming that worrying about the destruction of rain forests is "alarmist" is irresponsible, ignorant and can't be understood as anything but as an intentional attempt to mislead.
In other words, you are vulgar liar.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You frankly are trying to pull a fast one on us.
Greenpeace powerful? Really? And what is their ultimate ends in this little conspiracy theory of yours?
Or Al Gore? Fur bunnies sakes, he could not even beat Bush. If he wanted power he would be campaigning for the White House, where the real power is, not for an issue that so many people have problems with because it will affect the way they do things.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This guy cites no sources. There is no merit, scientific or otherwise in this article. "A few tenths of a degree" is wildly inaccurate. This kind of politicized crap shouldnt be posted. Zonk, again, you suck.