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.'"

Comments

Threat to democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Threat to democracy? No.

Threat to scientifically illiterate politicians? Maybe.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[jcr]

But cute response

It's the standard pseudo-intellectual put-down. Ridiculing someone who disagrees is always easier than actually supporting a position with a rational argument. These days it's tossed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Al Gore. In earlier decades, it was tossed at people who disagreed with the presumed moral superiority of communism.

-jcr

Re:Threat to democracy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The reverse is also true- I know in several circles there is a "burn the witch" attitude towards anybody who mentions global warming.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[ShieldW0lf]

This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth.

He hit it precisely. That is exactly right.

Exploitative arrangements must be replaced with fair central planning.

The currently observed economic growth is the result of the wealth that is plentiful being converted to the poverty that is artificial scarcity to the detriment of us all.

Capitalists are an affront to life itself on this world and every one of us who lives here on this world.

They also own all the weapons of mass destruction, so we won't be able to just walk away and leave them shouting at an empty court.

We're going to have to go get them and take their weapons away from them.

Be ready.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[ichigo 2.0]

You forgot the quotes around "position", "it's", "Gore" and ",". You also misspelled "I am a banana".

Re:Threat to democracy?

[HanzoSpam]

Your share of the nebulous "money" that you can't eat or wear or take shelter under, that only has existence and value in that it gives you power over me and others around you?

No, dimwit, the object of money isn't that I can wear it or take shelter under it. Money is a voucher I can exchange for things I can wear or take shelter under. It beats having lug around things I've produced to trade directly for things other people have produced.

Burn your money, invest your money, makes no fucking difference. Money doesn't do anything except keep count of these predatory arrangements that give men power over each other.

What it keeps track of is how many things I've produced that other people find valuable. That's why other people give me money. Because I've given them something they value.

You cordoned off resources that were floating around out there and put them in your pocket. My house. My factory. My land. My good idea.

Sure thing - there have been iPods and HD-TV's and factories and houses floating around since the Pleistocene Era. And I've done gone and cordoned them off! Good deal, that!

They're only yours to administer because of the cops and guns.

In other words, they're mine because a civilized society will recognize and defend property rights.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[plover]

How can Consensus be a threat to Democracy? Aren't they one and the same?

A consensus of smart people who actually have a clue is still not a democracy. A consensus of all people is a democracy.

Historically, the people at the "low" end of the spectrum have never been fairly represented. Slaves have always been denied the right to vote. And slave-owners have kept the slaves deliberately ignorant to prevent them from both voting and learning that a democracy should include everyone. Jim Crow laws were another recent attempt to deny democracy to the illiterate. It's much easier to repress the ignorant.

But the ignorant have their rights, too. It's up to the scientific community to convince them of the truth, and to disabuse them of the bullshit that "there are two sides to every story." Scientifically sound theories are not "stories."

It's completely immoral and irresponsible for a politician to take the side opposing science (and the truth) simply for the political gain of the "ignorant vote." Unfortunately, it's not illegal.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[anaesthetica]

Perhaps he is scientifically illiterate. But he's not illiterate in the language used by totalitarians. It seems that no one here is actually commenting on who Vaclav Klaus is.

Klaus was chairman of Civic Forum, the Czech anti-totalitarian movement that was one of two leading groups during the 1989 Velvet Revolution against the Soviet Union's dominance over Czechoslovakia. He's a free market politician (predictably after decades of ruinous Soviet economic predominance) and quite naturally suspicious of totalitarian influence.

If Klaus sees a parallel between the way global warming alarmists and the Soviet totalitarians use language to browbeat their opponents, he at least merits a hearing-out rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[rastos1]

He's a free market politician

Let me extend that statement. A few weeks ago I saw him in news, where he basically expressed strong believe that "free market will solve it". He believes that environmentally unfriendly companies will not be successful in the market. And thus the problem will take care of itself.

Perhaps he knows a lot about economy - I don't argue that. But there are various schools in economy - with rather opposite opinions on some matters. And thus I'll prefer to believe climatologists rather than an economist on matters of global warming. Of course the proposed restrictions on greenhouse gases do influence economy. And the state should impose those restrictions. Because business is not interested in clean and healthy environment. It is interested in profit. If state does not do it, business won't do it either.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[Xyrus]

"If Klaus sees a parallel between the way global warming alarmists and the Soviet totalitarians use language to browbeat their opponents, he at least merits a hearing-out rather than an out-of-hand dismissal."

So I guess I should listen to my auto-mechanic about heart problems because he happens to have 30 years of experience dealing with carbuerators?

A scientific consesus is reached by peer-reviewed research, not because the scientist think "OOOO we have a new sugar daddy!".

In the political forum, I'm sure this guy is worth listening to. But only the political jackasses have made this particular area of science a haven for politics.

It's really absurd. People had no problms when it was found that we were causing the ozone hole. We reacted strongly when it was found that we were causing acid rain. Why is it now that people just can't accept the fact that we are AGAIN screwiing up the planet?

The science is there. The models NASA uses are open source. There is even a BOINC project to run model simulations.

Or better yet, those that decry the findings of the scientists should get a degree in the field and do their own research.

~X~

Finally, someone said it

[prometheon123]

Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics

Re:Finally, someone said it

[je ne sais quoi]

Yeah those pesky scientists with their "rules" and "laws" and "theories". I agree, I find that my own personal threat to democracy is the law of gravity. My innate right to remain upright is threatened by this so-called consensus about gravity. In fact, I find the whole thing completely politicized because who dissents against the idea that gravity exists is immediately labeled a wacko and there's no room for debate on the subject.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[zCyl]

Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics

I despise how global warming discussions focus so much on whether or not someone "believes", and heralding or ridiculing people for being in the right or wrong camp, rather than simply being discussions about straightforward facts.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[ArcherB]

Climate change is fact, and solid science.

Very true. A quick look at climate history will show that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with, well before the SUV was invented and Bush was elected. It will also show that we are actually in a cool period and global warming will get us back to where we need to be!

Only in countries where there is a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo has the issue been politicized.

Right, and the countries that are interested in changing the status quo are NOT politicizing the issue? I get it, since they are on YOUR side, it's not political, but those with different views are politicizing the issue.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[UbuntuDupe]

You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive. To justify your existence, you must provide not only knowledge, but concrete and profitable applications as well.

--CEO Nwabudike Morgan,
"The Ethics of Greed"

Re:Finally, someone said it

[prometheon123]

Would you say the "consensus" is that the world is round? No, because it would never occur to you to say that since the world being round is a verifiable fact. Global warming can't be precisely measured much less duplicated with all variables to make a long term prediction. Would you bet $100 what the temperature is going to be 2 weeks from now with a degree or two? Of course not. According to the fourth U.N. report, the environment is a coupled, chaotic, non-linear system and long term climate change is not predictable. That's what they (the U.N. IPCC) say.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[yali]

A physicist explains science to third graders:

We take a vote. I ask how we decide who is right, and then I do the experiment... I emphasize that science is not a democracy, it is not the majority but the experiment that decides what is correct.

Sums it up pretty nicely.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[aichpvee]

They use the argument about "believing" in global warming to get uncurious people with limited or no scientific education to question the reality. This is done because there is no credible case to make against the existence of global warming, and it's primarily or wholey man-made causes.

This passage from Why Do Some People Resist Science?, By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg, pretty much sums it up.

Some culture-specific information is not associated with any particular source. It is "common knowledge." As such, learning of this type of information generally bypasses critical analysis. A prototypical example is that of word meanings. Everyone uses the word "dog" to refer to dogs, so children easily learn that this is what they are called. Other examples include belief in germs and electricity. Their existence is generally assumed in day-to-day conversation and is not marked as uncertain; nobody says that they "believe in electricity." Hence even children and adults with little scientific background believe that these invisible entities really exist, a topic explored in detail by Paul Harris and his colleagues.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[doublegauss]

Nice troll fucktard. Global warming is real, it is not only man made but is specifically created by the USians. Why don't you think Shrub refuses to sign the Kyoto treaty? The fucktarded USians don't give a fuck about the rest of the world. The only sane ones are similar to Al Gore.

Real? yes

Anthropomorphic? Lets wait until this sunspot cycle dies down to find out Hmm. Suppose we have no time until then. What would you suggest we do, just say "Oops, sorry, you were right after all"?

Why not Kyoto? Maybe because China and India have no obligations under Kyoto So?

Dont care about the reset of the world? Ill put up us aid to poor regions against your rants any day That's not caring. That is charity. Charity reinforces subordination.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[sporkme]

President Bill Clinton refused to forward the protocol to Congress for ratification. Vice President Al Gore wanted language including developing nations in the accords, and when the language was not added he withdrew his support for the treaty. Only after President Bush was elected did Mr. Gore call for total adoption of the Kyoto treaty as it is. Before we lob accusations about what "Shrub" has or has not done, we should consider why we are in this situation. In the 90's, Vice President Al Gore knew that the most risky source of an increase in emissions came from developing nations, not "USians." That and the crippling restrictions on US business were all the justification he needed to kill the treaty in the United States. He was right.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[d34thm0nk3y]

Anthropomorphic? Lets wait until this sunspot cycle dies down to find out

Sunspot activity peaked several years ago.

Reference: here

I gues by citing my source I am engaging in consensus science too.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[locofungus]

Your example merely demonstrated that politicization of science and scientific consensus are indeed real problems by your assumption that the scientific proof for global warming is as substantial as it is for our theories on gravity. It's not, but many people believe it is because the media told them so.

You're right. With gravity we've done the experiment so when you jump off that 100 story building and say "I'm ok" as you pass the tenth floor we know that you're really in trouble.

With global warming its more a case of the scientists saying "I know we've got away with it so far but we're pretty sure it's really going to hurt once we actually reach the ground and we're rapidly approaching the point where there may be absolutely nothing we can do to mitigate the effects of that crash"

Scientists are saying "you'd better open that parachute pretty darn quick" while the global warming deniers are still arguing about whether they fell or they were pushed.

Tim.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[Danse]

And that global warming experiment is where. A simple view of the scientific method doesn't work so well with complex interconnected systems on a planetary scale.

Nobody's claiming that the scientists are correct without a doubt. Only that most scientists believe that the data shows that humans are having a significant impact on the rate of global climate change, and that we should do something about it. Granted that that's a difficult thing to accept for some people. It's not as easy to demonstrate as an apple falling from a tree. However, it seems more sensible to accept that the overwhelming acceptance of scientists of this theory should carry more weight than the political expediencies and fear of the expense of change that we get from politicians and the business world in general. After all, they are making their claims purely based on their own self-interest, and this is readily apparent, rather than on even an attempt at objective analysis of the evidence.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[Original Replica]

As much as everyone likes to talk about Kyoto. It is merely a gesture in the right direction. Kyoto only call for lowering the GHG emissions by 5% by 2008. In terms of actually slowing or reversing human influence on the climate Kyoto is a joke. The atmosphere is much more than 5% or 10% out of balance.

The measurements taken at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory showed CO2 levels had jumped 2.5 ppm from 2002 to 2003 to a level of 376 ppm. This increase went well past the annual increase that might have been anticipated from human energy emissions, land use change and deforestation. Normally CO2 levels increase about 1.5 ppm annually. http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/co2jump.shtm l

Maybe if there were a treaty to reduce GHG emissions by 50% I could feel it was a serious attempt to address the issue. But no one is going to want to make the necessary level of changes until Folrida and Calcutta are under water.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[good soldier svejk]

According to the fourth U.N. report, the environment is a coupled, chaotic, non-linear system and long term climate change is not predictable. That's what they (the U.N. IPCC) say.

Can you provide a citation? Because this is what I see in the report:

Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. Best estimate and assessed likelihood range for future temperature projections for first time. Broadly similar to the TAR [Third Assessment Report] but not directly comparable. For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected. Earlier IPCC projections of 0.15 to 0.3 oC per decade can now be compared with observed values of 0.2 oC. Best estimate for low scenario (B1) is 1.8C (likely range is 1.1C to 2.9C), and for high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0C (likely range is 2.4C to 6.4C). Broadly consistent with span quoted for SRES in TAR, but not directly comparable

There is now higher confidence in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation, and some aspects of extremes and of ice. Snow cover is projected to contract. Widespread increases in thaw depth most permafrost regions Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic. In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. Very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent Likely that future tropical cyclones will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation. Less confidence in decrease of total number. Extra-tropical storm tracks projected to move poleward with consequent changes in wind, precipitation, and temperature patterns. Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized. Temperatures in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C warmer than pre-industrial sustained for millennia...eventual melt of the Greenland ice sheet. Would raise sea level by 7 m., comparable to 125,000 years ago.

Those are bullet points from the IPCC Chairman's presentation on the current state of the Fourth Assessment Report. You can get it on the IPCC web site.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[Vancorps]

Are you also referring to the smog of NYC when it was all horse and buggy? Perhaps you're talking about people that can't go outside on certain days in LA because the smog will trigger an asthma attack instantly?

I'm sorry, perhaps you can explain to me why 30 years ago the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks didn't have an acid rain problem? You're theory doesn't hold water as that is not the only region experiencing the long term effects of smog. The acid of upstate New York is from the Ohio Valley, do you really think the smog of LA has had no contributing effects on say Arizona here which is experiencing one of the worst droughts on record? Perhaps the drought in Florida has nothing to do with anything either? This is all just the U.S. I'm talking about. 30 years ago people were flocking to Arizona because the air was cleaner than LA and older people could breathe easier. That is no longer the case. 30 years ago Houston had no smog problem either and now it is one of the worst cities in America.

No one said we could stop global warming, no one even proposed that we try. The only thing people are advocating is that we slow it down by not contributing so much. Something quite easily in our power if we can stop debating the need for it and start debating the best way to accomplish it.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[ArcherB]

Hmm. A method that yields completely different numbers than other methods. There is a word for that. It's called inorrect.

Really? How do you know? Maybe we should bring in some other sources. Here is a few:
Here's one from NASA, that goes back 800,000 years and shows that we are in a "Little Ice Age"
Here's one from SEED that goes back 140 years and shows that we are 0.4 degrees C above where we were in 1860 AD. SEED, btw, seems to be a biased source. Anyplace that is hawking a solar powered backback has something to gain from GW.

Here is something from the guys that did the first site I mentioned:

An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with a curious title "Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years." Wow, that's a mouthful! Imagine publishing a paper in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal in which you predict global cooling over the next few decades? Apparently, the authors were not moved by the 46.6 million websites found when doing a quick search of the internet for "global warming."

The article was produced by Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China (obviously, English is not their first language, if you couldn't tell from the title, and some of the following quotes from their article are a bit awkward). The work was funded by the Chinese National Science Foundation, and not by coal interests in China. We have no reason to suspect that Zhen-Shan and Xian are puppets of any group with any interest in denying global warming in the coming decades.

So who do you believe? I've shown three different sources with three different models. Which one do you go by? Who says your models are better? Scientists? Scientists made all three models. What makes one any better than the others?

Opinion vs. fact

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

[MoFoQ]

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.

Re:does that mean....

[JesseL]

First off, we have to realize that global warming is a problem Why? Because you heard someone say so? Because you feel it's true?

First off, we have to allow scientists to determine whether global warming is a problem, without political interference.

Re:does that mean....

[Mr2001]

Why? Because you heard someone say so? Because you feel it's true? Because that's what all the serious scientific organizations have concluded after examining the data. Because that's where all the scientific evidence points, and no better theories have been put forth to explain it.

First off, we have to allow scientists to determine whether global warming is a problem, without political interference. That's already been done. The only political interference now is coming from those who don't like the answer.

Re:does that mean....

[Goaway]

No, all the serious scientific organizations.

Really.

All of them.

Seriously, for real.

Yes.

All of them.

No, really.

It's true.

Did the message get through, yet? Look, here's a scientific study of the fact that all climate scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/ 5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&store d_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31 /2004

Believe it yet?

It's true.

Re:does that mean....

[jwiegley]

All evidence?? No other theories?? Really...

I have recently read a report that the energy output of the sun has risen recently and is the highest it has ever been. The source of that report is at least as credible to me as any that have put forth arguments for global warming. I have also ferreted out as many facts, numbers and theories denying global warming as I have seen thrust upon me by the media as are in favor of. Should I now just ignore the possibility that any delta in Earth's temperature is quite possibly the Sun's faults and not mankind's (If such a delta exists)? Yes, I guess that would be convenient for you. Maybe all the evidence *that you are aware of* points to a single conclusion. I on the other hand, like the original poster implies, would like to keep an open-mind about it and resist exactly the sort of political dominance of a unproven theory that you have succumb to.

This is certainly not a scientifically proven theory yet. The results are varied, the cause is not yet known, it cannot be repeated in the lab and predictive models do not appear accurate enough to base decisions about action on. But it sounds great: "Feed the babies", "Save the whales", "Protect the planet" that it has become the mantra of many politicians and political organizations because it is so easy to apply it like a club. What you don't want to feed babies? you MUST be evil and therefore I'm good and right. And their followers grow because nobody wants to be singled out.

What I hate the most about it is the extremism that cultures are taking on this. They are acting and spending vast resources without any proof that it will achieve the desired results. We've got a whole bag of known problems that could achieve a greater benefit at a far cheaper cost. But they're actual science or work so they're boring. Cure diabetes... (we're actually quite close, but because we have an effective treatment nobody listens or cares and so my friend gets to wear a mechanical insuline pump for the rest of his life). Why not address the civil rights atrocities occurring in many places? How about just literacy... 14% of US Americans aren't literate. Think about that, that's 1 out of every 7 people. Alzheimer's disease? Corporate corruption? How about fixing the medicare or social security system?

See all of that is hard, and boring. Impossible to rally people together to support you. But politicians can use "Global Warming" like an idiot beacon so that you'll ignore the other failures and actually believe that good things are being accomplished; when in fact we're just wasting resources.

Re:does that mean....

[rossz]

Because that's what all the serious scientific organizations have concluded after examining the data.

Notice how they always say "serious scientific organizations", then dismiss anyone who disagrees as being on the fringe. This is despite the fact that highly qualified scientists do disagree about the actual cause and level of global warming. The simple fact is, most of the hysteria is based on Gore's little movie, which is based on BAD science that can never pass peer review.

Absolutely.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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."

Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[rrohbeck]

Scientists listen to data, not what politicians/economists etc want.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[Detritus]

Yes, in Utopia. Back in the real world, scientists are human beings, and are vulnerable to fads, group-think, and politics.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[Trespass]

Like most people, scientists listen to whoever is paying them.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[ajs]

Scientists listen to data, not what politicians/economists etc want. Ideally, you are correct. In practice, I've yet to see a field of scientific pursuit that wasn't tainted by the expectations and desires of those doing the research.

Right now, in the United States, if you publish a paper that is referenced in support of an anti-global-warming political statement (doesn't matter if your data was neutral), you have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, and might want to consider a career change. That's unacceptable encroachment of politics on science. Worse, scientists who buck this system and lose their funding eventually turn to private funding, and are branded "sell outs," and ostracized by the scientific community.

The fate that befalls those who are genuine skeptics is even worse. They're literally treated as crackpots for expressing an agnostic view toward our current level of understanding of the climate and its forcers.

Why is it that we support people who try to disprove our most well established theories in physics? Aren't they bucking consensus? If an astronomer doesn't believe black holes exist, why is he able to keep working in the field when the consensus says they do? How do they get time on Hubble when they're obviously known to be crackpots? The reason is that attempting to assail established theory is what science is about. You only cross the line into crackpottery when you merely apply faulty logic or falsified data to your skepticism and proclaim it to be proof.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[goldspider]

Yes, because we all know that scientists are above the petty musings of mankind, like political ideologies and personal agendas. They would NEVER stoop to slant their research with preconceived notions, or tailor their reports to maximize future research grants. How DARE us plebeians question their superiority and accuse them of being mere mortals!

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[Goaway]

Who exactly do you think it is that is funding this global conspiracy of global warming supporters, then? The industry sure isn't.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[JM78]

That's a cynical perspective lumping all scientists into a category of corruption. It's not based in fact whatsoever and it's unclear to me how you managed to dupe /.ers into calling your comment insightful. I can only assume your hostility towards the scientific community comes from either having been beaten by a nerd with a beaker or you've got something to gain by discrediting nerds with beakers in general.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[wdr1]

At the end of the day, Scientists are just like every other human. They can make mistakes, have pre-conceived bias, etc.

I was tempted to copy/paste the whole of Fenyman's Cargo Cult Science essay, but I'll stick to the most relevant pieces:

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of -- this history -- because it's apparent that people did things like this: when they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong -- and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.

But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves -- of having utter scientific integrity -- is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.

-Bill

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[posterlogo]

Yes, because we all know that scientists are above the petty musings of mankind, like political ideologies and personal agendas. They would NEVER stoop to slant their research with preconceived notions, or tailor their reports to maximize future research grants. How DARE us plebeians question their superiority and accuse them of being mere mortals!

You know, some times I just have to say the hell with the mods. FUCK YOU. I don't go out and fucking belittle something you've dedicated your life to just because you don't agree with me. I am a Ph.D. working in biology...nothing related to global warming or climate change or whatever you "plebeian" wants to call it. Here's a thought, I won't clump you in with a group of stupid retards who can't add 2 + 2 if you won't characterize all scientists as "petty" or "ideological" or "superior" with their "preconceived notions" designed to "maximize future research grants". It's incredibly infuriating and insulting to hear you say that. As a postdoc I get paid barely enough to support a reasonably modest lifestyle in a relatively expensive area, all because I truly believe I can discover something that will enhance the collective knowledge of the human race (and maybe even contribute to human health concerns). How DARE YOU make such a broad statement about scientists. Try taking a stab at sports starts or celebrities... apparently you "plebeians" value them much more. Ever take a fucking aspirin you high-and-mighty ass? Know someone who's had cancer? Of all the professions, I can't believe you'd suggest people get into science to get rich or spend years of arduous training to push a personal ideology. Apparently its much easier just to subscribe to Slashdot and post flamebait. Nice work.

Translation for those who don't speak Czech

[jfengel]

"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."

Re:Translation for those who don't speak Czech

[Gorshkov]

"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."

No - he's saying that if you have an AGENDA, be open and up front about it so that people can determine for themselves if it's the data or the political beliefs speaking.

Most people - including the vast majority on slashdot, who tend to be much better educated and intelligent than "the great unwashed" (myself included), don't have the specific knowledge or background to be able to properly weigh the data presented in the debate.

Knowing people's biases will make it easier for them - US - to properly weigh what they've said.

When an Oil company exec says something about global warming, you're going to take that into account when you look at any data he presents. Likewise, when the president of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" gives HIS views on the subject, you should also take THAT into account when looking at data he presents.

It's got exactly ZERO to do with ad hominem arguments, and everything to do with wanting full disclosure so that biases can be weeded out - on BOTH sides.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me.

Bottom line: Global warming is *intensely* political. And before we can make any rational decisions about what to do about it, we need to separate the politics from the science. Disclosing biases - on BOTH sides - will at least give us a CHANCE to do so.

Re:Translation for those who don't speak Czech

[DragonWriter]

No - he's saying that if you have an AGENDA, be open and up front about it so that people can determine for themselves if it's the data or the political beliefs speaking.

If people are competent to understand the data, they can review the data and determine what is speaking. The objectivity of empirical facts and the repeatably of systematic testing of empirical hypotheses is rather the point of science.

Most people - including the vast majority on slashdot, who tend to be much better educated and intelligent than "the great unwashed" (myself included), don't have the specific knowledge or background to be able to properly weigh the data presented in the debate.

Asking that scientists disclose their biases and a litany of how they affected their results isn't going to acheive that, for several reasons. First, people aren't going to claim they are biased, either because they don't believe they are biased, or if they are biased and working deliberately from that bias, because they won't want to reveal it. Second, any publication of scientific results is a claim that the scientific method was applied, i.e., that agenda did not influence the results. So that's exactly what anyone currently publishing would claim if they followed the prescription offered.

Of course, the politician making the recommendation knows this isn't going anywhere, he is just trying to sell the idea that the scientific consensus is both not real and entirely the product of bias by acting as if that is an established conclusion from the outset and railing for a correction.

When an Oil company exec says something about global warming, you're going to take that into account when you look at any data he presents.

I've never seen an Oil company exec present data about global warming. I've seen oil company execs make bald, conclusory statements without presenting the supporting data. There is an important difference between the two things.

Likewise, when the president of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" gives HIS views on the subject, you should also take THAT into account when looking at data he presents.

Sure, if someone is presenting their views. Data != views.

It's got exactly ZERO to do with ad hominem arguments

Yes, arguing that someone's arguments should be evaluated based on personal affiliation is ad hominem argument, except where the argument is supported only by personal authority of the source and the challenge is to bias or credibility of that source. Where the argument is presented based on verifiable evidence, challenges of bias of the source remain ad hominem.

No!

[UbuntuDupe]

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.

he is clearly delusional

[wpegden]

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)

sickening

[wizardforce]

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.

Re:sickening

[SetupWeasel]

I feel that a healthy scientific community should always have scientists that thoughtfully oppose the general consensus. I often hear scientists who oppose the global warming consensus compared to Holocaust deniers. Scientific consensus in itself is not bad, but treating dissenters like evil morons is.

Ah, Scientists

[BlueMikey]

I wonder if anyone ever demanded that Newton talk about his political leanings while publishing the laws of motion.

Politics

[MontyApollo]

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.

Vaclav Klaus Only Cares about making money

[TalShiar00]

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.

Is there strict control in science? Duh.

[greg_barton]

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.

Negative externalities

[spun]

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.

Re:Negative externalities

[spun]

Fair is owning up to the fact that your actions have an impact on the rest of us, and therefore you cannot just do whatever you like. I feel fairly confident about the fact that we are contributing to global warming, but that is irrelevant. There is enough cause for concern that we should not take the default position of business as usual. If it is shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not, then we can go back to business as usual. Until then, we should act as if we are contributing. Now, that does not mean going back to the stone age and giving up all technology. It just means prioritizing, and starting to do something about the ways in which we are impacting the planet, now. We can do something without completely killing the economy.

Honestly, I think a lot of lay opposition to the idea of global warming comes from conservatives who can't stand the idea of hippies being right.

People like you are a threat to science & demo

[TodMinuit]

Someone has a viewpoint you don't like and instead of debating him on the facts, you slander him.

I believed AGW until I heard totallitarian tone

[Bongo]

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.

Re:I believed AGW until I heard totallitarian tone

[Donkey Trader]

...whereas greenhouse forcing is a rock solid experimentally proven phenomenon which does explain most current observations.
And I assume you've been able to experimentally reproduce the affects of greenhouse gases on climate change? When and on what planet did these experiments occur? Admit it, you cannot perform these kinds of experiments and have to rely on hypothesis, intuition and faith in potentially flawed computer model projections.

The critical difference

[rucs_hack]

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.

Not exactly

[TodMinuit]

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.

Define "fact"

[josquin9]

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.

Re:Wow you're a fucking genius ... NOT

[spacebird]

So... the SUVs the dinosaurs drove brought about their extinction, then?

Absolutely

[benhocking]

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.)

Re:Absolutely

[mikael]

Who is to say warmer won't be better?

Climatologists studying hurricanes. There is a direct correlation between the level of surface sea temperature near the equator and the intensity of hurricanes. Warmer sea water will mean more intense hurricanes.

Increase in Major Hurricanes Linked to Warmer Seas

Severe Hurricanes Increasing, Study Finds

Small increases in sea temperature, he added, can "exponentially provide more and more fuel for the hurricanes."

Re:Absolutely

[DiamondGeezer]

Except that they (and I assume you mean skeptics) have never denied that there has been warming over the 20th Century (and I bet you're never going to provide a statement by such a person because its doesn't exist, have never denied that human activities can affect local climate conditions and hence may have a measureable effect on "global climate" (whatever that means) and c) have never, ever denied that climate can, has and will change on all timescales.

But climate alarmists have: it's called the Mann Hockey Stick and its a scientific fraud whose sole purpose is to minimize historic natural climate change while maximizing the changes of the 20th Century.

In other words, just like in totalitarian regimes, history is being rewritten and Vaclav Klaus is wanting to ask the question as to why.

You have made statements regarding the statements of a certain group of people but I'm willing to bet you won't ever bother to produce a single quote from those dread people where they have made such statements. You simply repeat what you are told by alarmists with an extreme political agenda.

Oh and by the way, the people who were saying that warming is good? Those were the climatologists of the 1970s some of whome were claiming that we were about to go into another Ice Age. I have the quotes because I have the books.

Warming reduces the size of deserts and reduces storminess and extreme weather events. Cooling does the opposite. But you don't have to believe me - you can check those alarmist climatology books of the 1970s warning of impending mass starvation as the Earth continues to cool.

Vaclav Klaus is correct. The repeated claims of "scientific consensus" are matched only the by extreme denunciation of any scientist who dares question man-made global warming or the climate models on which it is based. Its the same totalitarianism because fundamentally it comes from the same source.

Re:Absolutely

[Maint_Pgmr_3]

Why wasn't last year more severe? That was what was predicted, guess they were wrong....darn

Re:Absolutely

[Danathar]

The issue is that there are politicians, special interest groups, and countries that are "riding" the global climate change issue (Al Gore, Greenpeace, Countries, etc) using it to enhance their position and power and prestige. Because these groups believe that the ends justifies the means they use cherry picked data, edited graphical charts and sound bites.

That is NOT to say that the underlying stuff about climate change is not there, it's just that the "hype" has gotten SO big that it's actually hurting the movement.

Climate change, Environmentalism, Animal Rights and other movements which at one point in the past had broader participation across a wider political spectrum have become essentially vehicles for people with far left leanings.

I agree with supporting those ideas above including the issue of addressing IF POSSIBLE climate change. I often DO NOT agree with the politics of those groups above.

It's not surprising that there are those in the former communist countries who now lean in a much more libertarian "let me make my own individual choice" as the author of the article seems to be. They saw what a far left dictatorial regime was like (and often if they were old enough saw the far right when the NAZI's were in control).

Re:Absolutely

[AdamKG]

You mean the billions pumped into climate modelling and the IPCC process? Absolutely.

(Step One: Incredulity)
Wait... you're kidding, right?

(Step Two: Make a point)
You seriously somehow got the illusion that the 'billions' poured into computer simulations even begins to approach the scale of money involved modern industrial production?

(Step Three: Condescension, with implication of lack of real-world knowledge)
I'm afraid you simply have a lot to learn about how money works in the real world.

(Step Four: ???)
Irish line dancing is the single largest cause of global climate change, after everything else.

(Step Five: Profit!)
You, sir, are just plain dead wrong. There is no "real" money in science research... if they were doing it for Profit!, they wouldn't be spending their days being ridiculed by the likes of you - they'd be out shorting stock for flood insurance companies.

Re:Absolutely

[pfedor]

(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics.

Not really. I have read several Richard Dawkins' books and I don't remember him even once appealing to the notion of "scientific consensus" - instead he explains the theory of evolution over and over and over again presenting you with reasonings and examples and computer simulations. And I have studied theoretical physics for five years and haven't once heard anyone invoking consensus to defend general relativity or quantum mechanics.

There is one physics-related field, however, when you can hear about the consensus. It is every now and then invoked by the proponents of nuclear energy, for example when they want to convince you that less than forty people died as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe. And who knows? Maybe it is true. But on the other hand, it's hard not to notice that, since the whole reason for existence of their field depends on the nuclear energy actually being a viable option, they might be somewhat biased. And, had there been no threat of climate change, probably the climate scientists would have to look for another occupation too? Which, of course, doesn't mean that the climate change couldn't be a real threat.

And I don't know about climate science, but of course with respect to the nuclear energy in reality there is no consensus among scientists. In stark contradistinction to evolution, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Related reading: "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Re:Absolutely

[UltraAyla]

Why wasn't last year more severe? That was what was predicted, guess they were wrong....darn

A single year does not make a trend. There are complex cycles on this planet and in given years they may act to dampen effects relative to the average and in others they act to intensify effects relative to the average (this goes for almost anything related to climate). They aren't saying EVERY year will be more intense, but that the average intensity of hurricanes will increase over time. We will still have calm years and intense years, but the center of them is going to move toward intensity.

I guess they weren't wrong. Yet (which isn't to say they will be, but that it's too early to say). Never base a conclusion off a single sample.

Re:Absolutely

[hateful monkey]

I think the point that many people are trying to make is that suppressing the minority view by shouting them down or dismissing them is crackpots is rarely a productive stance. No one cares if someone claims global warming can be stopped by wearing underwear on your head unless enough people begin to believe it. Some are beginning to make noise about stripping dissenting scientist of certification and awards if they publically denounce the concept of global warming. Why? Because each "anti-warming" voice gives a little extra support to people who would rather not address the issue because of greed, apathy, our political expediency. The dissenting voices may truly believe that global warming is not happening, or is not caused by humans, and in some cases they may have data to support their case, but their reasonable and well thought out ideas are used in broad and irresponsible ways to serve political ends. The debate is not being driven by opposing scientific opinion, it is being guided by self interest on both sides. Scientific consensus, like all consensus, is sometimes wrong and should not be allowed to protect itself from criticism by shutting down the debate. The same is just as true for evolution, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, as it was for the Earth-centric model of the Universe, Alchemy, abiogenesis and the hundreds of other "scientific" ideas that have fallen by the way side. Someone will always point out that many failed "scientific" models failed before rigorous use of the scientific method was common, and that is true, but the scientific method REQUIRES dissenting ideas to test against or it is nearly worthless.

Re:Absolutely

[erntheburn]

Climatologists studying hurricanes. There is a direct correlation between the level of surface sea temperature near the equator and the intensity of hurricanes. Warmer sea water will mean more intense hurricanes. Actually this is not entirely true. Potential hurricane strength has more to do with a difference in temperature between weather systems and/or sea temperature. In fact, the most powerful hurricanes on record actually happened during a relatively cold time of the year, with opposing storm systems that had a great differential in temperature.

Re:Absolutely

[Dun Malg]

There is one physics-related field, however, when you can hear about the consensus. It is every now and then invoked by the proponents of nuclear energy, for example when they want to convince you that less than forty people died as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe. Wow, I've never heard any rational pro-nuke power folks make that argument. Only an ignorant fool would argue that "nuke power is safe because Chernobyl was the worst accident and it wasn't all that bad". The proper argument is and has always been:
"Chernobyl doesn't prove nuke power is unsafe because only a bunch of fucktard Soviet blockheads would build a flammable graphite shielded reactor with a huge positive void coefficient and then run it with all the safety systems turned off. France generates 78% of its electricity with safe plants of a standardized design. The USSR is useful only as an example of exactly how to NOT be responsible and/or environmentally conscious."

Re:Absolutely

[Burnhard]

The Life Cycle of Junk Science

Genesis

1) Maverick Scientist has an Idea.
2) Other scientists deride the Idea.
3) SF Writers use Idea as image of bleak future.
4) Academics debate Idea.
5) Politicians begins to discuss the Idea, but don't understand it.
6) General Public ignores the Idea.

Growth

7) Champion arrives to actively promote and publicize Idea.
8) Scientists form a consensus that agrees with Idea.
9) Academics teach Idea as fact.
10) Fast Adapters change lifestyle, ridicule General Public.
11) Hollywood makes disaster movie, sometimes based on SF novel from 3.
12) General Public makes token lifestyle changes.
13) Politicians use Idea to attack political enemies.

Hysteria

14) Scientific consensus begins ruthlessly crushing dissent.
15) Champion is hailed as Messianic Leader.
16) Academics announce society is doomed.
17) General public accepts Idea.
18) Opponents of Idea are cast as wicked and immoral.
19) Music Industry holds benefit, sometimes using film name from 11.

Critical Mass

20) Dissenting Scientist proposes alternative theory to Idea.
21) Scientific consensus denounces Dissenting Scientist.
22) Messianic Leader begins making ludicrous claims unrelated to Idea.
23) Politicians propose massive social, fiscal, and moral changes to accommodate Idea.
24) Time Magazine puts Maverick Scientist, Messiah, Idea, or all 3 on cover.

Death and Rebirth

25) Dissenting Scientist is proven to be right, nothing happens.
26) Scientists form new consensus, claim they knew all along.
27) Fast Adapters are ridiculed by General Public.
28) Academics continue to teach Idea as "compelling theory".
29) Politicians raise taxes, just in case.
30) Messiah and Entertainment Industry find new Maverick Scientist.
31) Return to Step 1

Re:Absolutely

[Anspen]

erm.... Climate Change isn't supposed to simply cause much higher temperatures. It's supposed to upset the climate balance and result in an overall higher temperature. But that doesn't mean you can no longer have below average winters/years.

Western Europe, for example, could very well be on course for a long term significant drop in temperatures, if the climate change upsets the North Atlantic Drift.

Further: Climate change didn't begin with Kyoto. Kyoto was a response (by politicians, so you know it was quite a while after the problem manifested itself). It hasn't been 2,4 or 5 years. It has been decades.

Finally: what always confuses me about these discussions is that the CO2 level is hardly mentioned. The CO2 part of our atmosphere is undeniably far higher than it has been in millions of years. Given its properties, that must have an impact on our climate. Even if you really believe that impact hasn't shown up, it seems to me that this would be a good enough reason to cut down on CO2.

Re:Absolutely

[alienmole]

There is no "real" money in science research... if they were doing it for Profit!, they wouldn't be spending their days being ridiculed by the likes of you - they'd be out shorting stock for flood insurance companies.

It's funny you mention this. I was just in a meeting yesterday, where one of the topics related to catastrophe insurance. Insurers who are affected by this kind of stuff are running scared, because they see the actual loss numbers. But they won't come out in public and say "we're screwed", because of the impact on the stock price. So instead, the just adjust the kinds of things they'll cover, increase premiums, and business carries on as normal. I wonder whether people will start accepting global warming once they discover they can't get insurance for extreme weather events, at any price? As Steven Colbert puts it, the market has spoken: global warming is real.

Science: Is it just another narrative?

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

Here's a newsflash

[benhocking]

These days it's tossed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Al Gore.

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.

Politics in physics vs global warming

[jmorris42]

> 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.

Tuvalu, for one

[benhocking]

I'm pretty sure that Tuvalu thinks that warmer won't be better.

Re:Tuvalu, for one

[Hal_Porter]

Aren't they like the RIAA though? In the case of the RIAA, technological change has invalidated their old business model and they need to find a new one. There's no point spending tax dollars and taking away people's freedom to keep such a dinosaur alive. The RIAA needs to work on a new business model like "package stuff properly and upload it to Pirate Bay".

It's the same with Tuvalu. Americans have up to know been able to emit as much CO2 as they want. People in Tuvalu needs to experiment with new model like "Waterworld" or "Captain Nemo" rather than trying to restrict other countries lifestyles.

Wrong.

[NeutronCowboy]

Just because someone modded you up, I thought I'd pull up the first page of results of a quick google search. Lokiee there....

Re:Watermelons

[HBI]

Communism didn't work. Capitalism does. People are indeed motivated by selfishness. Any other view of the world ignores the true nature of humanity and it's ability to screw the other guy.

Yeah, there's climate change. No, i'm not going to do anything actively different about it. The earth will survive, and ultimately we'll find out that our activities had little or nothing to do with the current climate issues. Same as we had nothing to do with the cold snap that dominated the middle of the last century.

For all the frothing at the mouth about it, humanity is going to end up where it was going anyway. New energy sources were a foregone conclusion as early as 1950. It's taken this long to get things even close to economically competitive. The whinging and complaining about capitalism will come to nothing in the end, as it is the only system that is proven to work in real life.

And yes, the current crap is all politics. Idealists are being taken for a ride. Literally.

Watch this and then tell me there is concensus

[orichter]

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.

Age?

[benhocking]

Except that they (and I assume you mean skeptics) have never denied that there has been warming over the 20th Century...

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.

But climate alarmists have: it's called the Mann Hockey Stick and its a scientific fraud whose sole purpose is to minimize historic natural climate change while maximizing the changes of the 20th Century

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.

Those were the climatologists of the 1970s some of whome were claiming that we were about to go into another Ice Age. I have the quotes because I have the books.

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.)

Re:Age?

[Lars T.]

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.

Rush Limbaugh is dead from the neck up. And he is not a scientist.
Neither are most other sceptics.

As far as warming is concerned, yes there is definitely warming. The Earth has (generally) warmed since the trough of the Little Ice Age in the early 17th Century.
Yes. But more in the last 30 years than in the 300 before.

If you're referring to modern warming, the satellite record shows warming from 1979, but only in the Northern Hemisphere. The SH has not warmed at all, which sort of makes a mockery of the notion of "Global Warming"
Nope. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphic s/nhshgl.jpg. The guy you got that from probably isn't a scientist either.

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.

I have. Check out Climate Audit and spend some time asking questions about it. Stay away from UnRealClimate because its viciously skewed and you never know when or what has been deleted.
IOW you refuse to do it. Instead you go to the site of a (former) mining executive who refuses to admit that the "hockey stick" also shows on all other reconstructions but his own - and the fact why it doesn't show up with him is also well known: he kept ignoring data-sets until he got the result he wanted.

There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu

[benhocking]

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.

Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu

[DiamondGeezer]

You have produced yet another set of statements without proof that this has anything to do with man-made global warming. Sea-levelss have been rising for more than 10,000 years and somehow you've just noticed?

In any case,

a) living on a delta is a great way to see the sea rising relative to the land, but the sea-level has hardly changed while those deltas continue to sink. Ask the Mayor of New Orleans. If the deltas are not replenished then you get severe coastal erosion and deltaic islands sink into the water.

b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish.

Here's what the scientists say:

"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year." and

"The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."

So the sea-level rise is just barely measureable and shows no acceleration due to global warming, man-made or otherwise.

Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu

[s4m7]

your link went to a directory, where I found a pdf from a newer and more accurate sea level monitoring station at Tuvalu,
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60033/IDO60033.2004.p df Which puts the trend at +5.9mm/yr since 2003.

Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu

[quantaman]

You have produced yet another set of statements without proof that this has anything to do with man-made global warming. Sea-levelss have been rising for more than 10,000 years and somehow you've just noticed? Did you look at the article the poster cited? You seem to be rebutting an argument they never made.

a) living on a delta is a great way to see the sea rising relative to the land, but the sea-level has hardly changed while those deltas continue to sink. Ask the Mayor of New Orleans. If the deltas are not replenished then you get severe coastal erosion and deltaic islands sink into the water.

b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish. The Tuvalu embassador never said the sea levels had risen. Instead he noted that the ocean was warmer, and this, he believed, was part of the reason their coral was dying (probably a factor though it may not be the primary one). More importantly he noted that warmer ocean temperatures mean more severe weather (most climatologists seem to agree with this) and severe weather can be very destructive to an island that's only 4m above sea level.

Here's what the scientists say:

"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year." and

"The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."

So the sea-level rise is just barely measureable and shows no acceleration due to global warming, man-made or otherwise. Your link was broke but the points you mentioned miss the mark on two points. First I couldn't see anywhere where the Tuvlu embassador was talking about significant rises in the sea level, most of his worry was about the severe weather from warmer oceans.

More importantly those historical stats sidestep the fact that the sea level rise that people worry about comes from land based ice caps (like the one on Greenland) sliding into the ocean. Something that hasn't really happened yet so there wouldn't be any reason for the sea levels to have already risen.

Your argument there is a bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic just before it hit the iceburg and arguing that everyone is safe as the hull is still completely intact.

Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu

[EdMack]

The media has got all the issues completely wrong. By melting the ice caps (and permafrost, which is much greater in volume), sea level rise of only about 15m would ensure - which is nothing compared to the regular, cyclic 100-300m sea level changes from plate techtonics (ridge spreading rate changes, hotspots) which occur over 10^5 to 10^7 year cycles. What we do need to worry about is the release of the methane held in permafrost - high levels of methane (although there were other causes) resulted in the Permian/Triassic extinction event, wiping out 50% of animal life. As for CO2 levels being 'normal', if one looks at the past CO2 levels from sediment isotopes, it's very clear that the current level is about 5 times the level of all previous cyclic highs. It is completely abnormal.

Science and hype

[benhocking]

That is NOT to say that the underlying stuff about climate change is not there, it's just that the "hype" has gotten SO big that it's actually hurting the movement.

I agree.

I agree with supporting those ideas above including the issue of addressing IF POSSIBLE climate change. I often DO NOT agree with the politics of those groups above.

The beauty is that (as I'm sure you already realize), you don't have to agree with their politics. A lot of the things that we can do to help the environment will also help our pocketbooks. Of course, it does require looking out a few years sometimes to see the dividends - something that many people aren't willing to do.

Re:Science and hype

[Danathar]

"The beauty is that (as I'm sure you already realize), you don't have to agree with their politics. A lot of the things that we can do to help the environment will also help our pocketbooks. Of course, it does require looking out a few years sometimes to see the dividends - something that many people aren't willing to do."

Unfortunately that is not always true. In the case of some environmental groups and animal rights activists for instance there is a tendency to implement solutions that are strikingly anti-libertarian in nature, and I might add totally unrealistic about their chances of effectiveness. Using the fringe political spectrum's philosophical and political methods (on the right and left) for implementation of the groups primary mission constrains the range of solutions the group is willing to consider. Less willingness to listen and try new ideas usually results in less effectiveness.

Re:Science and hype

[Admiral Ag]

So what you seem to be saying is that you don't want to believe in climate change because the solution seems to be anti-libertarian (it need not necessarily be).

Yours are the ravings of a fanatic. The idea is to let the world determine your beliefs, not the other way around.

Two hands

[benhocking]

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.

Re:Two hands

[altoz]

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.

You obviously don't work in academia. Academia works off of grants. Grants are given to study specific things. Two huge sources of grants are AIDS and global warming. So, for instance, if you wanted to research herpes (not that well funded), the easiest way to get that money would be to go after an AIDS grant and research how herpes spread has been affected by AIDS. Similarly, if you want to study elephants in Africa, you would try to get a grant from a climate change group to study how global warming has affected the migration patterns of elephants in Africa. Those organizations that actually give the grants get THEIR funding based on the research that comes back. So if a research paper comes back and says "global warming is not much of a problem", the organization that gave the grant might not have as large a budget next year. It's essentially chopping off the branch you're standing on. Now, if you come back and say "global warming is a huge problem", you'll get more press, the organization that funded you gets more money, you get even more grants to do your research.

Now about your point that oil companies fund the anti-global warming research. The number I've heard on the money oil companies have contributed is in the tens of millions (this from an environmentalist group, I forget which). The actual global warming research being performed from grants in gov't agencies and whatnot? Billions. Now is it a surprise that the scientists on each side of the issue is proportionate to the amount of funding on each side? Let's just say I'm a little skeptical.

Re:Two hands

[ArcherB]

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.

I very respectfully disagree. It seems to me that scientists who question global warming tend to lose their jobs. Here is one example from the Wiki page on Richard Lindzen (emphasis mine):

Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.

He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists. He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in which he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."

Another quote from Lindzen:

Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.

Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology, had his educational credentials challenged for question GW.

Dr. Griffin, a NASA chief almost lost his job recently for questioning GW. Here's an example of the ridicule scientists face just for questioning GW:

The chorus of outrage over the NASA chief's global warming comments were led by a well-known climate scientist within NASA. James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "I almost fell off my chair," he told NPR's Morning Edition.

The statement "indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change," he added to ABC News. There's more, but it's late and this is a dead thread anyway.

Re:Watermelons

[Lemmy Caution]

Humans are "hardwired" for both altruism and selfishness, for rape and for courtesy, for monogamy and for promiscuity. What expressions these drives and instincts take is based on history, society and culture. "Selfishness" means something completely different in a nomadic livestock-herding society than it does in a pre-modern agricultural one, and both mean something very different in a modern, technological society in which you work for money which you spend on housing and manufactured goods.

Appeals to "human nature" fail when closely analyzed. We are all capable of acts of remarkable sacrifice and remarkable selfishness, and through various semantic games, we can interpret each through the lens of the other.

Also, describing a call for a worldwide regulatory system in response to climate change as "communism" is incorrect. "Capitalism" in modernity has, and has always had, an extensive governmental system to support it: to control borders (which keeps markets, especially labor markets, in place), to protect property, to print currency and enforce monetary and trade policy, and so forth. It is not as if there is currently a "Wild West"-like free market that policies against climate change is going to shut down: intelligent and responsive regulation is firmly established as a requirement for successful capitalism. (Just think what would happen if we didn't regulate, for example, the printing of currency.)

Re:So what?

[jfengel]

Or maybe we'd see nothing else.

Hrm, similarity?

[JoshJ]

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!"

Mann Hockey Stick

[benhocking]

Why do you keep calling it a fakery, when its the "debunkers" who were ultimately debunked?

Re:Mann Hockey Stick

[DiamondGeezer]

Because those fakers are still writing on RealClimate. The Hockey Stick has been debunked, but as with totalitarian regimes, repeating a Big Lie is much easier than telling the truth.

The debunkers (and I assume you're referring to McIntyre and McKitrick) have not been debunked. Every criticism of the Hockey Stick that they made has been upheld. Even the NRC Report (which bent over backwards to avoid throwing out the Hockey Stick altogether) upheld every single point made by Steve McIntyre.

When the Hockey Stick was investigated by an independent team of top-ranked statisticians, the Report was damning, calling the Hockey Stick simply "Bad Science" and noting that McIntyre's criticisms were "valid and compelling". They also noted that the so-called "independent" multiproxy studies used practically the same proxies and made the same statistical mistakes and that the peer review system had failed because of massive conflict of interest.

The question is of course, why you would believe RealClimate in the first place. Like Vaclav Klaus' totalitarian example, the blog is heavily censored and Mann pointedly does not answer questions about McIntyre's points or even more childishly even mention his name.

Re:Mann Hockey Stick

[crashfrog]

The debunkers (and I assume you're referring to McIntyre and McKitrick) have not been debunked. Every criticism of the Hockey Stick that they made has been upheld.

From what I can read it seems like the reverse is true. The only valid criticism M&M made was a methodological issue that, when corrected, had no effect on the outcome of the model.

There are more than a dozen climate reconstructions that uphold the original "Hockey Stick", and to my knowledge, M&M have offered no objections to any of them. For a "debunked model" it's been featured prominently in materials as recent as the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers, so the scientific consensus clearly has not come down on the side of M&M's objections.

Because those fakers are still writing on RealClimate.

It's really easy to toss around ad hominem attacks like they mean something in science, but that seems to be all the climate change deniers really have to offer.

Stop Reading

[mdsolar]

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.
--
Rent solar power and fix your electric rate for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Threat to democracy

[RomulusNR]

The largest threat to democracy is the promulgation of lies and falsehoods.

Re:Thank you for the source

[DiamondGeezer]

Actually I'm a liberal, and I'm afraid that climate is always changing and always will. Efforts to try to modify the Earth's climate are as futile as King Canute's edict on tidal erosion.

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. But climate change will happen because we live on a dynamic world.

Most here are missing the point

[Donkey Trader]

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.

Re:Most here are missing the point

[Hittite Creosote]

These people are largely getting so annoyed at statements which *aren't* providing logical evidence contrary to the theory. Winding people up until they get annoyed doesn't mean your argument is right. There's nothing in this FT.com article other than re-hashed old vague handwaving. For example the old "we don't have to do anything because the Earth changes temperature anyway" - if you insist on leaving your heating on all year round because it gets warm in summer anyway then I'd consider you to be rather eccentric. Scientists are getting annoyed at those who try to engage in debates on science in the public sphere by relying on debating tricks rather than science. Science isn't what feels right to you - evolution on the plains of Africa doesn't require the development of full and accurate intuition on how the universe works. Undergraduate science students can quite often be overheard complaining that something they've been taught is counter-intuitive, but it's their intuition that needs to change as reality isn't going to. As for squeaking wheels, the anti-global warming lobby appear to be squeaking far louder. Articles in the Financial Times get more attention than those in Nature.

hurricanes

[zogger]

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.

You failed to bring up the other side

[Squeezer]

Global Warming Increases Wind Shear, Reduces Hurricanes, Climate Model Shows

Weeding out bias

[promethean_spark]

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 proof is there for this consensus?

[Ticklemonster]

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.

But which action would be more economical?

[tepples]

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. Sure. This agenda is called saving money. How about "Given a budget of one trillion U.S. dollars, would extensive action against anthropogenic climate change produce a larger effect than extensive action against natural climate change?" As far as I can tell, some influential politicians would say yes.

Re:Ah, but

[lionheart1327]

You haven't had anything peer reviewed lately, have you?

Getting rid of bias is not that simple.

What does scientific consensus mean?

[freezingweasel]

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

Re:He's wrong from the second he says...

[SlappyBastard]

There is the spot-on proper response to this load of crap. I have nothing against the folks who want to offer opposition on the climate issue from the front that it may not be mankind's fault (the Michael Chrichton -- please don't hit me for mentioning him). But, to simply declare the scientific consensus automatically to be a loud minority is fallacy at best and lunacy at worst.

insert revenue at one end and propaganda comes out

[rs232]

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/

While I agree that AGW is real and I am

[Ogemaniac]

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.

It's Not Science, It's Politics

[YetAnotherBob]

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.

Scientific totalitarians ...

[afxgrin]

... 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.