Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"
dtjohnson writes "The National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during
the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led
to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square
kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received
emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered
regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns
out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking
sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it
is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice
extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so
the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."
From the summary:'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.'
What's the point of being consistent with a flawed methodology? I would have thought the thing to do would be to collect the new data, base newer model off that and then perform a statistically weighted correction to the older dater. Both data sets can be maintained if required.
Am not sure I see a point in consistency for consistency's sake, when you in the light of newer information you now know the original measurements are flawed.
Cheers,
Ian
FTA, "Some people might ask why we don't simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions
OK, I can see their point, but using the EOS sensor may have given pause to researchers doing a comparison to current conditions using the traditional sensor, i.e. cross-reference current conditions to be more confident that your data is correct. Nothing like screaming "the sky is falling" due to bad data. Any science experiment, especially one that can produce sensationalist news, should not just rely on one piece of data.
Am I to understand that they will continue to measure (and predict) ice conditions based on less accurate sensors simply because these measurements tally better with older measurements, which themselves are less accurate?
Or have I missed something?
Both the AMSR_E and SSM/I data are satellite derived products.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/ssmi/ssmiproducts.html
http://www.aqua.nasa.gov/about/instrument_amsr.php
The biggest problem is that you NEVER know whether any study published is done this way or not.
I am an advocate of scientific methods, and yet I am someone who is in doubt about this whole "The earth is warming up because of us" spiel.
Now why is that? Even though I'm going to get modded troll or flamebait again, I'm going to repeat myself: Without checking procedures and facts that went into a study, you can never be sure about the results.
Face it, people, the time when scientists did their thing to broaden humankind's knowledge is over (or probably has never happened in the first place). Too many 'scientists' have been given deadlines by their institutes (or the fact that they cannot survive on air and sunshine) and must produce results that people will acknowledge one way or another.
I am not saying the earth isn't warming up. I am also not saying that we are innocent if it does. All I'm saying is that most of the 'studies' I've seen floating around the press smell fishy to me. And unless that changes, I'm rather inclined to label this stuff as simple FUD.
I'd rather we follow simple common sense and watch out for our planet because it's the frickin' right thing to do instead of running around like headless chicken being afraid of our children being cooked alive by the sun. Mindless impulsive actionism never helped anybody.
Oh yeah: Modding me down because you don't like my opinion doesn't make your opinion anymore right just as it doesn't make mine any more wrong, okay?
Science isn't an exact science, people are involved and people make mistakes. Scientist need to remember that they are human too and they will make mistakes. Data can be off or altered, I remember a local weather channel use to use a point for the local temperature until they built a Dunin Donuts next to it, and heat escaping the building or cars or something (it was a long time ago) raised the temperature 5 or 6 degrees warmer then the actual weather.
Climate Scientists are trying to make very accurate predictions where they don't have the data to do so. We can probably say global warming is real, however that is a very broad statement. But to say The Polar caps will be gone in 2008 or by 2012 NYC will be flooded, is grossly misunderstanding the complexity of the earths environment.
Granted that most of the fear mongering worst case scenarios stuff isn't from the people doing the real science but from activists groups who pick and choose data to make people afraid so they do what they want. But still the Scientists don't like saying to people Hey I could be wrong, but thats OK because with the scientific process being wrong takes us the next step closer to the real answer. They want to in general portrait themselves like the Sci-Fi scientist who know what is going on and is always right.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You mean besides the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
By calling them "deniers" what you're saying is that science should be thrown out the window. You do realise that science is about collecting evidence, forming a theory and then trying to disprove it.
What "alarmists" do which is the kind of science you support is to cherry pick unrelated events from around the world and scare people into agreeing with them for the purposes of making money off such schemes as carbon off setting.
This is one of those things that grabbed by the neck and whipped around like a dog shaking a dead squirrel by the "It ain't warming up" folks.
Maybe it's because we are tired of people (read: activists and politicians) trying to take away our rights based on bunk data.
Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data."
And our historical data shows terrible calamity awaiting us at every turn, and even if reality doesn't bear this out, it makes sense that we should continue to sound the alarm because if we do decide to face reality people may not take us and our hysterical blatherings seriously.
We'd rather just keep on using outdated modes of measurement and forecasting that give incorrect results every year because the results fit our hypothesis better. And what better to support a hypothesis than data that will back it up?
Right! If the data doesn't back our conclusions, use different data!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
No, the point is that no matter which data set you look at, the trend is downwards. "Deniers" are those who completely ignore all of that data and say it's not happening at all. And trust me, they're out there.
"n May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' "
No they didn't.
They said it was a remote possibility.
This was taken up by the anti global climate change, altered, and then used to "prove" that global warming wasn't happening when it didn't happen.
The fact it is presented that way by the story submitter shows which way they think, and thus how reliable the overall story is.
This error relates to Jan/Feb 2009 only. The problem has been identified quickly. It will be fixed quickly. No big deal.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Now, I understand that scientists can be wrong. That's perfectly acceptable. We are all human, after all. However, based on the fact that scientists can be wrong, and in this case and many like it they are, I'm not willing to give up rights, like the ability to regulate the temperature in my own home or drive myself to work, based on data that can be, and in this case is, flawed.
There is a British "science writer" named Nigel Calder who claims that AGW is a huge fraud by the scientific establishment, and that counter-evidence is always suppressed. This little episode shows that Calder is speaking out of his anus, which means it may serve some useful purpose.
If this revelation were made in 2008, you'd have a point, but to make a prediction as dire as this one and then come out a year later and say "oops, the data was bad" a year after your prediction has been proved false proves Calder's point, not the other way around.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
When a new sensor is thought to have greater accuracy or reliabilty than an old one, but produces data which are not entirely consistent with the older one, it does NOT prevent use of the new sensor or meaningful use of data from both sensors. One standard technique is to employ both sensors simultaneously for some time - in other words, the two data series would overlap for that time. If both series show a downward trend in ice cover, then the trend probably real, even if they always disagree about the level of ice cover or the rate of decline. Over a sufficiently long time, it should be possible to build a model to quantitatively explain the difference in readings.
Come on, guys. There must be a few PhD theses waiting to be written on how to reconcile these instruments...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
A lot of them infect techy websites like dailytech for no apparent reason apart from one of "their kind" posts carefully selected anti-global-climate-change stuff. Mostly single data points, rather than overall trends of course. They don't have science on their side.
Of course it is good if they exist to ensure that the science is rigourous. Sadly they go beyond that, to actually trying to recruit believers to their cause - all too easy in a world addicted to cars - like a religion. They come up with alternate theories which the science doesn't support, much like intelligent design, creationism, etc. Considering the eventual outcome of being wrong in all this, it is highly irresponsible of them, and I hope that if things do go tits up in a pear shaped bowl that they are the ones made to pay.
Not that the extremists on the other side help. Doom-mongering damages your cause, all in the name of sensationalism. Just let the science speak for itself.
Look who's talking. BadAnalogyGuy, the reason why scientists sometimes prefer inaccurate but precise and historically consistent data over data sources which are more accurate but have not been around for long is that they are interested in trends, not absolute values.
However you feel about this issue, I think it is a bit weak to try and claim a change over 4 years constitutes a 'trend' when it comes to global climate data.
they are interested in trends, not absolute values
Climate scientists are the mental equivalent of teenagers and shallow women. Thanks for the clarification.
My father is an environmental engineer. He cleans up some of the stupid crap we have done over the past hundred years. We were having a talk about global warming years ago, before it was a big buzzword. He said to me: "Be careful listening to the global warming experts. If they have devoted their career to global warming and if it turns out not to be true, they don't just lose their job they lose their field of expertise."
Please allow me to comment (ignoring all the obvious grammatical mistakes ):
There is a lot of people interested in denying climate change whatever it takes.
I think the word is skepticism, not denial.
Taking a single error from a single study about climate change as proof of a non-existent climate problem is obtuse.
Hmm, that mentality always works fine for the Global Warming camp, why can't skeptics use it too ?
The global warming shows itself in so many ways that no one can tell it isn't happening at all.
Climate change does not equal Anthropomorphic Global Warming, see, we're skeptical
Do you mean climate change Of course we can sit to discuss how are we responsible for this change and how much of the change will occur as part of a natural process. But there is no such discussion.
Not from the Global Warming camp anyway, from where I sit, those who are skeptical keep insisting this is required, but the Global Warming camp insists it's not a question of 'If' any more.
Instead you see a bunch of corporations claiming "there is no such climate change, let us keep burning oil"
Can you name one of these corporations ?.
While I respect your skepticism of the scientific press, I think this reasoning suffers from two flaws. First
All I'm saying is that most of the 'studies' I've seen floating around the press smell fishy to me.
Relying on the press to get your scientific information is going to be incomplete. The press reports particularly sensationalistic doom & gloom stuff, whereas most science goes out of its way to take a neutral tone. It is too much to ask a non-scientist to pay attention to the leading journals (I'm thinking of Science and Nature here), but we are also at a point in our history where science needs to inform our politics. This is obviously troublesome for democracy, and why I sympathize with your skepticism of science.
Second,
I'd rather we follow simple common sense and watch out for our planet because it's the frickin' right thing to do instead of running around like headless chicken being afraid of our children being cooked alive by the sun
This reasoning is suspect because, aside from global warming effects, green house gas emissions aren't very harmful. It is relatively easy to see the pollutant effects of particulate emissions: they make things dirty and also hard to breathe. GHG emissions, on the other hand, are fairly clean and only have a mediated effect on human health (through climate change). Your strategy would have us fix only the easy to see problems even if there are more important environmental matters that require advanced scientific techniques to understand.
Fuck. Yes.
Any other questions?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
There is no question that data analysis and prediction is subject to errors, sometimes quite large ones. The real question is whether these errors are due to researcher bias. Unfortunately climate data and predictions are apparently more motivated by political beliefs and biases than hard facts.
Many people have strong feelings that disaster is about to occur. Perhaps this comes from childhood recollections of maternal warnings about running with scissors or touching hot stoves. These fears can be reinforced by religious beliefs that portend the end of the world. Because this psychological factor is so prevalent we need to be especially skeptical of predictions of future disasters.
In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,'
Er, no, they said it was possible and later quote "a 59% chance of a new record minimum this year". How the media chose to report this is another matter... Oh yes, note the date: May 2008.
Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers.
And if you read TFA, the sensor drift started in January 2009, was spotted within a few weeks and only affected their daily images which are effectively "live" and hence haven't gone through QA.
So how exactly does an error which occurred in Jan/Feb 09, was almost immediately spotted and declared affect a (misreported) prediction made last May?
<irony>Meanwhile, I'm sure the little fairies are hard at work ensuring that the geological era's worth of sequestered CO2 we're in the process of releasing back into the atmosphere magically changes its physical properties. After all, it is made from special carbon that God put there in 4004BC for us to burn, unlike that nasty communist CO2 that exhibits the greenhouse effect in godless laboratories.</irony>
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
The biggest problem is that you NEVER know whether any study published is done this way or not.
Spoken like someone who has never actually read a scientific paper. Any paper I've seen will give you: (1) the historical context for why they are doing a study, (2) the assumptions made in doing the study, (3) details on the observational data and model used in completing the study, and (4) a RANGE of possible results. It is true that the media typically doesn't do a good job of reporting uncertainties, but don't accuse the scientists of sloppiness when you're completely unaware of what goes into a scientific paper.
I once worked with an environmental professor who could put the harshest fire-and-brimstone preacher to shame in her millennialist proclamations of doom (her grad students could too). All she was after was grant money, and she wasn't above going to the press and using the Chicken Little routine in order to drum up support for her latest grant proposal. I frequently had to write press releases for her that I was ashamed of (if you even hinted to her that she should tone it down and stick to reasonable statements she would literally freak out like a madwoman). From that moment I met her, I adopted a very skeptical view of the whole global warming "crisis" and its proponents.
Science is nowhere near as "hard" as people think. Too many scientists are way more interested in grant money and in their personal reputations than in the validity of their conclusions.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
[citation needed]. Oh, wait, you just invented those doom mongers yourself, bravely defeating a horrible strawman.
Clearly some oil company executives have been to the Arctic and moved the sensors, just to discredit the campaigners.
Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards",
Err... no. What I see looking at the data is two very low years: 2007 and to a lesser extent 2008. Calling that a "pretty obvious trend" nicely reveals your bias, but not much else. I could as easily say it is a "pretty obvious oscillation", as 2008 is "clearly" recovering from the 2007 perturbation.
I can see why the guys doing this aren't using the new data, as there is no way that there is adequate statistical power here to make a judgement about trends. Unfortunately, now that the old data have been shown to be badly flawed, the dire predictions of an imminently ice-free Arctic no longer have any very robust empirical support.
THIS is the way science works: you look at the evidence, squeeze it hard and see if it breaks. There is no doubt that the evidence for a soon-to-be-ice-free Arctic is broken. Ergo, the plausibility of dramatic climate change effects in our near future has gone down, no matter what anyone's politics drives them to prefer.
The only robust signal for global climate change I'm aware of is global ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing. However, given the number of reversals of supposedly robust results in the field of climate science I want to take a much closer look at those data before being convinced by them.
I used to be very concerned about global climate change, and in open-minded arguing with "deniers" I took a hard, critical look at the data and the models, because I wanted to find a compelling, unproblematic argument to convince my opponents, whom I credit with being able to change their minds when faced with the evidence. What I found was that neither the data nor especially the models stood up to professional scrutiny. There is good science being done, but it is not the kind of stuff you'd want to base public policy on.
There are good arguments for environmental policy that do not depend on the risk of global climate change, and the environmental movement is doing itself no good by linking policy and science together they way they have, so that people think "if there is no risk of global climate change then driving my SUV must be ok."
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
It's always a very good idea to take single quotes from a summary out of context, and make sweeping statements about that. This is especially true for science. Science really isn't one of those topics that require some in-depth knowledge to understand what's going on.
Taking off the sarcasm tag for a moment, this is one of the worst "science" pieces I've seen on slashdot in perhaps the last year. Cobbling together some serious accusations of scientific incompetence from a series of links doesn't really show anything. How the hell do I know how to interpret these statements in context? The links are all taken OUT of context and put into an entirely new argument without any further analysis or explanation. I'm left with what amounts to some hand waving and ranting about "scientific bias". Without a real analysis by someone qualified to make it this "story" is best left ignored.
AccountKiller
I think it goes back to the showing the DDT is a harmful chemical (other then the old commercial "DDT its good for you and good for me!") it was widely used and was considered safe and effective a marvel in scientific advancement. Then it was shown to have effect on the eagle population and perhaps humans as well. So we had to stop using the chemical, but that opened peoples minds to think other things will have such problems, and to question every advancement and study the effects of it. In general it is a positive thing but it has lead to fear mongering and a belief that we should stop advancements as every advancement has some cost to it (however in my opinion they usually forget to factor in the benefits). Such as the immunization and the possible link to autism, lets say it creates a 1% increase in autism how ever it saves 25% from death, the benefits out weigh the risks and the parents who avoid this are poor judges on risk assessment.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No, I've heard lots about Global Warming. As you can see by the threading, I was replying to parent (comment 26915303) - now GGP - which stated 'Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards", there was about 2 million square kilometers less ice in September 2007 than in September 2003.'
There is evidence to back up global warming. Of course there is. But saying that there is less ice in 2007 than there was in 2003 constitutes a downward trend is like saying climate has had a downward temperature trend here because we've had a colder winter this year here than in the last five years. It just isn't enough to constitute a 'trend'.
If they want to be seen as scifi scientists, they need to offer solutions, not just point out problems. When was the last time a climate scientists suggested rerouting the goo-on particle stream through the deflector dish using just the right frequency to reverse global warming? I WANT ANSWERS, DAMN IT.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
So, to be clear, this issue has arisen over the last 4-6 weeks. The records for the last decade, clearly showing a significant trend towards less sea-ice, are unaffected.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
'Climate Change' is a politically hot topic, and plenty of governments give grants into this kind of research.
"The overwhelming majority* of the world's climate scientists" know what side their bread is buttered on. It's on the side of giving governments more excuses to tax and define their citizens activities ever more closely.
Follow the money. Isn't that what you'd say about the report of any climate scientist who is a global warming 'denier'?
(*I don't know how many climate scientists there are, but hundreds have signed on to papers with adverse positions.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I think it goes back to the showing the DDT is a harmful chemical ... So we had to stop using the chemical
It's too bad that DDT helped to eradicate Malaria in places where it was used. DDT Needed to Control Malaria Perhaps the answer wasn't to eliminate its use but to manage it to limit the harm it could do. Certain countries in the world could use some mosquito control.
How so?
Because it suggests the world is more than 6000 years old.
/duh
But to say The Polar caps will be gone in 2008 or by 2012 NYC will be flooded, is grossly misunderstanding the complexity of the earths environment.
Yeah, but climatologists don't suffer from that misunderstanding. They're the ones who have to actually slog through that complexity.
Granted that most of the fear mongering worst case scenarios stuff isn't from the people doing the real science but from activists groups who pick and choose data to make people afraid so they do what they want.
An astute point, and really it was both the activists and the -- well, whatever the opposite of an activist is, someone who wants to do nothing is called -- who with the help of the media took the scientists claims of a chance for a minimum and an ice free north pole (just the pole, btw, not all arctic ice gone entirely) and run with it as if the scientists are saying it's a sure thing. The activists to cry doom and gloom, and the inactivists to pounce on as proof the whole thing is bunk if the results come out on the "wrong" side of the scientist's claimed 60:40 odds.
But still the Scientists don't like saying to people Hey I could be wrong, but thats OK because with the scientific process being wrong takes us the next step closer to the real answer. They want to in general portrait themselves like the Sci-Fi scientist who know what is going on and is always right.
They didn't just say "Hey I could be wrong", they attempted to quantify the chances of them being wrong. Then they voluntarily report on censor errors that briefly screwed up their data, while I'm sure knowing that this would be blown way out of proportion and used to "prove" that they never know what they're talking about at all. In other words, the opposite of trying to appear like they can't be wrong. So I'm not buying it at all.
Just because news headlines omit the qualifiers does not mean they do not exist.
The enemies of Democracy are
Because this psychological factor is so prevalent we need to be especially skeptical of predictions of future disasters.
Or, arguably, because the danger is greater if we're wrong, we need to be especially sceptical of attempts to downplay predictions of future disasters.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Congratulations. You appear to have been the first person here to read beyond the flamebait summary and respond to the actual content. On a site full of people conditioned by years of rickrolling (and worse) to never RTFA, you sir, are a member of a rare and vanishing breed.
Keep up the good work.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I used to be skeptical of global warming myself (years ago), until I realized that the best the anti-HCGW crowd could offer as counter case was crap like this--the scientific analog of "Marty look, your shoe's untied."
On the one hand, tons of data, much of which is easily checked, and all of which hangs together to form a consistent picture, and on the other a hodge podge of nonsense that doesn't stand up to a moments scrutiny glued together with this sort of BS. They've gotten as bad as the anti-evolution people.
Coming up next, I fear:
GLOBAL WARMING WEBSITE ISN'T W3C COMPLIANT
How can we trust their climate data when
they can't even get their HTML/CSS right?
You mean besides the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists?
You mean the people whose livelihood and considerable private and government grants depend on making waves about the climate and increasing their self-importance?
Not to mention the fact that a lot of them got into climatology because of past climate fear-mongering and "environmental awareness" advocates who beat on the drum that the Earth is doomed. A lot of the current crop of climatologists are the product of the 60's and of the environmental movement spawned back then, a movement which isn't exactly known for its calm, collected analysis and immersion in reality.
This doesn't mean that all climatologists are delusional or that there is no warming occurring. All I'm saying is that there are a whole lot of people, including professionals, that have an overly-emotional connection to the issues. This results in a lot of bad science and bad policy decisions.
Sapere aude!
If you ever watched a friend with Dengue Fever, you tend to be a DDT controlled use supporter.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
The number of similarities between global warming and the older, more traditional religions have been documented numerous times and places: The high priesthood for whom the sins don't apply, the levied guilt, prophets of doom, attack on science by a faithful flock, the purchase of indulgences (carbon credits), concerted attempts to control the secular leadership as a means to bring the general population into line, etc., etc.
The only non-similarity -- and it's a shame, really -- is that the medieval inquisition had those really cool hooded robes. The modern Global Warming Cult has no fashion sense whatsoever, as best as I can make out.
It's been interesting to track the Global Warming/Climate Change drift over the years on Slashdot. A couple years ago, it seemed prevailing opinion (measured by high moderation scores and # of comments) favored the "consensus" Anthropogenic Global Warming view of the scientific community.
However, looking at the more recent global warming related threads, the posts moderated with 5's seem to be more and more in the "Open-minded but skeptical" camp regarding the "consensus" view.
Is this due to a miscalibration in the sensors, or are we talking about a real opinion shift here?!?
Such as the immunization and the possible link to autism, lets say it creates a 1% increase in autism how ever it saves 25% from death, the benefits out weigh the risks and the parents who avoid this are poor judges on risk assessment.
Arrgh!
Speaking of fear mongering, it has been repeatedly shown that there is absolutely no link between autism and vaccines.
Please, can't this FUD just die already? It's already caused deaths in the UK from a loss of herd immunity!
You might want to read TFA. The sensor drift only started in Jan 2009, and it was spotted within a few weeks.
Some of us tend to target the methods and data used as being the weakness in the arguments for climate change. We will point to the fact that they have been using faulty data at all no matter how hard people say "Nothing to see here, move along!". Logic dictates: If their data was wrong under their nose once in a ridiculous manner, it could have been wrong all along or in different ways. We (rightfully) will want a further look at the data used all along regardless.
I don't know of very many people who would openly deny that any climate change has happened over the last millennium in general. However, I know plenty of people who are (rightfully) skeptical of a bunch of "scientists" claiming "end of the world as we know it" apocalyptic scenarios. This is about the sixth major time in 40 years? Humanity has had to deal with everything from disease, insects, plague, war, famine, and politicians/lawyers. We want to know why this requires special attention. Having a major controversy surrounding it just polarizes people and brings into doubt the validity of the claims as stories like this come out.
After all, we have had a lot of these sorts of openly public fears about the end of the world throughout human history. And without concrete and testable data that our fears are founded on fact (as was shown with things like DDT, Mercury, Lead, etc.) there are a lot of people tired of living in an open ended state of panic about shit we don't feel we have too much direct control over let alone shit we have to "believe in" in order to support. Especially if we can't be sure that it is happening as people say it is because the data keeps coming into question in what outwardly appears to be ridiculous oversights.
As a person who is relatively concerned about their own energy usage and relative impact on the Earth in a more basic "because I want to be a good custodian of the earth" sort of way, I want to know really whats going on and really what I can do about it which will really make a lick of difference. I'm tired of the fact that even basic descriptions of localized problems which should be easy to demonstrate are awash in arm waiving and proselytizing instead of actual demonstrations of proof (note I didn't say making up facts). People like me just want confidence that what we are "believing in" is going to be actually functional for a greater good and won't make us part of a hysterical crowd when it's not warranted.
- Toast
P.S. The fact that there are "Denialists", "Believers", "Supporters" and "Followers" makes this area of science look a lot like religion. The fact that it also includes politicians, corporations, lawyers, and lots of appeals to emotion ("Someone think of the cuddly polar bears!") makes it look a lot like pork. Those two things alone removes much of it's potential appeal to me as I heavily devalue things of that nature as a waste of my time.
The phase of scientific research going on now, where the data is still under heavy scrutiny and the methods untested or unverified really should be taking place outside of the mainstream media involving every last person who watches the 6:00 news. The general populace would be much less polarized if the hypothesis was better tested before becoming politicized as it was. At least we would have less of a panic approach and look a bit less like the boy who cried wolf for the umpteenth time.
And quite reasonably; it's almost exclusively utter bullshit. And not taking *real medicine* when you have a serious condition is a very fucking bad thing. Moreover, some of this 'medicine' is itself harmful.
These two 'analogies' are just plain wrong. The relationship between "climate" and "climate scientists" is "thing" and "experts on thing", and same with "medicine" and "doctors". For these two, however, the relationship is "thing" and "people affected by thing". Less nonsensical analogies would instead use "copyright experts" and "economists". Unfortunately, this, while more correct, doesn't induce nearly as much rage (and thus indirectly support for your position) in the average Slashdotter, so I suppose it's reasonable you didn't use them instead. Not that it would've mattered anyway; you don't really have any sort of solid argument, just blatant anti-intellectualism.
Yeah, overall I'd say it's a mixed bag. I was highly skeptical myself until recently when I started reading more about it. I wanted to see the evidence that the Earth was in fact warming. I wanted to see the evidence that said warming was Anthropogenic. And I wanted to see the evidence that this was going to be a bad thing if true. Most of what you see in the mainstream media is how we produce CO2, and how CO2 can heat the planet. But they don't link the two to show that the amount we produce does and has heated the planet and they don't talk specifically about how even a small increase can be disastrous other than a rise in ocean levels. I've read a few books on it, and I'm no longer skeptical and accept that we are causing a rise in temperature on Earth, and that this is generally very very bad.
Despite what this article says, Arctic ice has decreased significantly in recent years. Satellite imagery from as recent as 1979 shows enormously more ice than we see today.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Saying every time "those ignorant buffoons who don't understand squat about climatology but feel like they are entitled to contest world-leading researchers because the latter ones' conclusions threaten the former ones' god-given right to $1/gal. gasoline" is kind of cumbersome. "Deniers" is a good description, which also captures the irrationality of climate-change deniers: you are yourself a good example of that:
I guess you're right. Stereotyping and dismissing your critics is much easier if you can use 1 word instead of a run-on sentence. But you can include multiple assaults on their character and motivations with a long description, as you have clearly demonstrated. Using that many words, though, you should have been able to mention something about SUVs and killing kittens.
That's quite some cloak-and-dagger Illuminati conspiracy theory you have there. If climatologists were that greedy, they would:
The OP said the kind of science you support, not that any large group supports. You are the one trying to put everybody into either the "altruistic brilliant scientists and supporters" or the "ignorant greedy superstitious hick" group.
The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
Clearly, that's just wrong. There seems to be a consensus that:
The rest is up for debate. In fact, in recent months many studies have demonstrated that it is likely that the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is methane from animals (primarily livestock like cows, pigs, sheep). Sure, that's because of human activity, too, but would you advocate cutting back on our food supply to (maybe) slow global warming? Because carbon taxes won't reduce methane.
This whole thing really has gotten too much like a religious debate (or a political debate, or abortion debate, whatever). It's really very frustrating. And it seems the two sides either want to stop burning fossil fuels or just do nothing. Since the prevalent opinion seems to be that warming is happening, maybe we should be thinking about how to prepare for that inevitability. I mean, isn't that a more reasonable approach than to undertake a massive effort to try to change the climate (or stop it from changing). Nobody is even sure if it can be done. But we can prepare. Humans have adjusted to changing climates before, and can again.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This reminds me of the Gilliganâ(TM)s Island episode where the professor thought that the island was sinking. It turned out that Gilligan was just moving the marker to deeper water to catch bigger lobsters.
OK, here you go, have fun. All the data in modern climate science is freely available in massive quantities. (The GISS datasets are just one example.) It's certainly true that there's a lot of crap journalism around climate change; please don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Go read RealClimate, or Scientific American (hell, even New Scientist if you like comics) or (better yet) search out the specialist journals.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
The Earth is getting warmer and our ice is melting, and that's not in dispute. If the warming trend continues, all of the ice will melt eventually, this is dictated by physics.
Your implication of overwhelming political bias in climate science is simply contrary to the facts. The fact that these researchers seem to have been biased is not relevant to the science as a whole.
The "think tanks" who criticize climate science don't do any actual science. They cherry pick data from scientific papers, and attempt to refute CO2 vs warming trends with typical logical fallacies, but they do no research, make no predictions, and advance no falsifiable claims.
Science is about making better predictions from the data. Climate scientists projected a 1-degree rise in temperature, and a 1-foot ocean level rise, many decades ago. Overall, they were pretty close. Anti science people said there was no such thing as global warming until recently when it became too clear to ignore.
So what does your idea of caution boil down to? Doing nothing? How can that be considered erring on the side of caution?
Your argument is nonsensical on its face. Belief in the inevitability of end of the world leads people to sit on their respective asses and do nothing about it, not for them to write specious science papers predicting the end of the world. The very opposite is true, there is a very strong correlation between belief that climate science is a hoax, and being a religious American.
This is a prime example of the sort of rationalization that passes for denialist reasoning. When confronted with a huge mass of evidence supporting an unpalatable conclusion, they cherry-pick any error, no matter how small or irrelevant to the conclusion, and insist "if this is wrong, then maybe it is all wrong." Since in any human endeavor, there are always errors, it is always possible to rationalize away any conclusion that you prefer not to confront.
This is of course quite typical. The data in question is real-time, raw data. In most scientific enterprises, such data is kept private by the researchers until it can be cross-checked and validated. But in climate research there is a level of openness and public access that is almost unparalleled in science, with even preliminary data publicly available. Of course, the actual scientists know that such data is subject to revision and do not base important conclusions upon it. So the error has no impact on the conclusion that there is a long-term decrease in Arctic ice due to global warming. But that won't stop denialists from talking about it as though it invalidates everything.
And your argument is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on the poster, which is equally worthless.
Let me argue his point from a logical perspective.
Let's assume that a certain political party makes its hay by promising things to the underclass. They make promises to those who have very little and so the promises don't have to be very big to make them happy.
Now assume that this party wants to stay in power and have a greater number of votes for them in future elections. This party would therefore welcome the idea of a larger underclass. They would potentially do things that would weaken the middle class so that there is a larger lower class and and smaller middle class. If they can put things in place like cap & trade systems for energy emissions, where the wealthy will remain wealthy, but the middle class will suffer, they come out ahead.
It's not so much paranoia in my opinion, but a shrewd understanding of how politicians love power and want to stay in power. In this case, I am referring to democrats as they (to me), seem to want to enact policies that hurt the middle class. Global warming is something they have championed because it helps to further their agenda, not because it necessarily is good for the environment.
I'm a climate scientist--a modeler, in fact. I know C, C++, Fortran, Python, Java, bits of Perl and PHP. I figure I could get a job at Amazon on Google or Microsoft or some other big software shop and be making over $100k. I could certainly do better than what my salary has been: $25k for 2000-2006 (grad school), and for 2007-8 it was $40k (postdoc). Let's say I got a job for $50k/yr--that would be an extra $170k I would have made over the last 8 years.
Let me tell you buddy, I'm not in this for the money.
And if someone could find compelling evidence that indicated global warming wasn't happening, that would be welcomed by the climate science community. New evidence that overturns an old understanding is the holy grail of science.
To quote TFA:
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The science of climate change, by contrast, is on very solid theoretical footing; but sometimes every science has to deal with bad data, as in this case
The problem with climate science is ironically the same as the problem with economics. Chaos theory says pretty plainly that you will never have enough data to make an accurate prediction and for that reason, you have lost the ability to have a control.
I mean, the whole idea is that you can take a sort of an average of events and call that climate - like, sorta look at lorenz attractor and say "well, the average is this". But the thing is, that average is still pretty unstable and you can jigger it pretty easily, which is really where all the global warming alarm comes from.
In fact, the thing is, that economics cannot make accurate predictions should be the canary in the coal mine for climate science. Economic modelling is based on trying to understand coupled dynamic systems in the same kind of math that climate science is. Economics is just about people, and its continually wrong, so, how could climate ever really be right, when it considers not only the effect of people, but of the planet as a whole, and all the organisms responding to, and influencing climate, plus any number of celestial and geological unknowns.
This is my sig.
That's an empty assertion, apparently motivated by the conflict between the conclusions from overwhelming climate data and the writer's ideology.
Where is the sociological data to support it? All these claims about "political beliefs and biases" among climate scientists are working backwards from a desire to reject the conclusions of science to ad hominem attacks on the scientists themselves - attacks which make presumptions about the politics of scientists which are naive in the extreme. A great many - perhaps most - scientists are not political at all. They're too busy with their science to worry about politics outside of their own university departments, and anyway consider most politicians and commentators a bit too stupid to concern themselves with one way or the other.
So where's your data on "political beliefs and biases" among climate scientists? As most of them are funded by governments, can you show an example from any scientific community of a pronounced pattern of biting the hand that feeds it? Consider the scientists funded by drug companies. Do their results cut against their funders?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
OK, here you go, have fun. All the data in modern climate science is freely available in massive quantities. (The GISS datasets are just one example.)
It's certainly true that there's a lot of crap journalism around climate change; please don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Go read RealClimate, or Scientific American (hell, even New Scientist if you like comics) or (better yet) search out the specialist journals.
I used the term "we" in that sentence a bit loosely.
While I appreciate your directing me to an FTP directory full of stuff more fit for someone who actually is working in the field, or can make meaningful use of, you missed the entire perspective from which a person like myself stands. Like much of the public at large, I don't give a shit what sensor 102.WG-72 says. I don't really feel the need to be an individual detective either. It's not a big enough part of the "big picture" and I don't have enough experience to really know if I'm looking at faulty data or not. Hell, the Oxygen sensor in my car has been telling me my engine is messed up since I bought it even though the engine is working fine. What people like myself want is a credible and non-hysterical overview of the problem at hand.
Wanting a factually correct summary of the problem and the possible solutions once the scientific community reaches a relatively common understanding can't be bad. Having an apparently sound method of getting to that summary is better. Pointing me (someone untrained in the use of it) at individual data points is next to useless.
- Toast
P.S. If you want I could go read a whole pile of journals, make my own theories up, and come back in here and start screaming about my own (uneducated) views about how the system works based on information I barely understand, to people I hardly know. Seems to be common practice for people to fail to acknowledge that they, in fact, know shit about what they speak and do not qualify as even remotely knowledgeable experts (this would be the public polarization I'm in reference to).
Those would be called 'engineers'.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Actually, that last bit is in dispute, if you RTFS.
If you feel comfortable doing linear extrapolations on a highly nonlinear system, anyway.
You make it sound like people are getting rich by doing science that reinforces climate change. I'm pretty sure any of these scientists could make a few bucks more if they tweaked their numbers to show climate change isn't a big deal.
The fact is, scientists get grants to research a certain area. They don't get grants for the results of that research. In fact, science is based on trying really really hard to disprove their findings. If the researcher can't disprove his own findings, he opens it up to the rest of the scientific community in hopes that they can find something wrong with it.
Science is open... which on one hand is awesome because it forces scientists to do things right but on the other hand sucks because every idiot can weigh in with their "expert" opinions.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
because the danger is greater if we're wrong
That is far from certain. Our attempts to fix something we don't really understand could cause far more damage.
This is how ideas like blood letting became fashionable in medicine.
1. Someone is sick.
2. We only vaguely understand how people work.
3. We have to "do something".
4. Conclusion: let's drain their blood.
Then, if they don't die, then the doctor must have saved their life.
This reminds me of the stimulus bill.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Except global warming is NOT a disaster. The earth has had periods without icecaps in the past, and the animals that lived through that time survived just fine. In fact it wasn't that long ago... our ancestors (homo erectus) lived in a tropical age.
It's not a disaster. It's a warmer climate. Instead of barren cold places, we'll be able to grow crops in Siberia and Northern Canada. We'll have more food than ever before. I don't see the drawback.
Yeah I know: New York City will get flooded. ;-)
Like I said: I don't see the drawback.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
to say The Polar caps will be gone in 2008 or by 2012 NYC will be flooded, is grossly misunderstanding the complexity of the earths environment.
We climate scientists try to give a sense of the certainty of our predictions, but our discussions of certainty are almost always deleted when the news is presented to the public. The two predictions you mention are vastly different -- we're pretty sure about ice, but flooding New York has a gigantic pile of "ifs" in front of it.
Scientists don't like saying to people Hey I could be wrong, but thats OK because with the scientific process being wrong takes us the next step closer to the real answer. They want to in general portrait themselves like the Sci-Fi scientist who know what is going on and is always right.
Real scientists *do* say "I could be wrong" all the time, and try to estimate the odds of being wrong. We're happy with greater certainty, but we know that 100% guarantees don't exist.
The confident, absolutely certain authoritarian scientists you see on TV are just talking heads: they may have PhDs, but they're not acting as true scientists.
The decision not to vaccinate puts more people besides yourself at risk. For one thing, vaccines are not 100% effective. This isn't a problem when there are enough vaccinated people to stop the diseases from spreading enough to infect those whose vaccines aren't fully effective, but when enough people refuse the vaccines it puts even those who have been vaccinated at risk.
Also keep in mind that there are those who cannot get vaccinated for various reasons. Besides obvious examples such as newborns, it is my understanding that certain types of childhood diseases such as some forms of cancer prevent those children from receiving normal vaccines. When people who are able to get the vaccines refuse them, it also puts at risk those who do not have the option to vaccinate themselves.
RealClimate, and their FAQs as well, are accessible to a motivated person (it's easier if you've got some sort of grasp of science and "how she is spoke", of course.)
Many workers in the field have published books for the general reader; again, RC has some good pointers. Finally, the IPCC assessment reports are reasonably accessible (the summaries in particular.)
Now, you could say that getting into this level of research is a non-trivial thing to do, and you'd be right. There's jargon and shorthands for concepts and acronyms that mean little to the outsider. Climate is also, fundamentally, a very complicated phenomena; work in the field covers a multitude of specialist disciplines, an understanding of statistical methods, chemistry, biology, emergent phenomena, atmospheric physics, paleoclimatology (ice and sediment cores and the like), and so on and so forth. Fair enough, if you don't want to put that amount of effort in, you get to *take their word for it*.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
My karma for some mod points.
People just need to admit to themselves that it is OK to want to make changes to make their environment better for themselves and their fellow members of the species. It's not some selfish, evil desire. You don't have to hide behind the banner of "SAVING THE PLANET!".
Controlling pollution could lead to a better standard of living and lower health care costs.
Slowing the hemorrhaging loss of money to foreign countries that don't have our best interests in mind is a good thing.
Understanding that renewable resources are actually *gasp* renewable allows for more efficient and economical use of those resources. Understanding that there really is no such thing as a free lunch will let us choose which resources to make use of in a more logical and economical manner.
Also that conservation and stewardship (something which most "environmentalists" don't really understand) do not mean locking an environment into a state of stasis. All those brush fires in California? Well, if you don't burn off or clear out the little stuff before it accumulates you're going to get the big fires that have enough fuel to burn hot and long enough that the system can't withstand it and it gets wiped out. Even though you were "protecting" by not allowing anything to change.
And if someone could find compelling evidence that indicated global warming wasn't happening, that would be welcomed by the climate science community. New evidence that overturns an old understanding is the holy grail of science.
I'll grant you for a moment that the climate is warming.
If so, considering that the climate has been both significantly warmer and colder in recorded human history than it is now, why panic? Why the apocolyptic talk?
Past that, what are the upsides of global warming? A longer growing season would certainly be an asset. Rising ocean levels- if they occur- can be managed (ref: Netherlands).
What the true believers of AGW suffer from is a lack of faith in human invention, and an unbridled fear of change. I have seen proposals for trillion dollar projects to 'turn back the clock', when several billion in dikes and relocations would manage the problem.
Now, back to my point...
Even if you are as pure as the driven snow, AGW has been forever tainted by demands for control and taxation by those who think themselves our betters.
I will consider treating it as a crisis when AGWs biggest proponents treat it as a crisis. As long as UN AGW conferences are plagued by a shortage of private jet parking and Al Gore buys carbon credit indulgences from his own companies in order to 'justify' his rich lifestyle*, I'm pretty sure I'm being bullshitted somewhere down the line.
Your science and research, pure as the driven snow as it might be, is represented by these sorts of clowns. It is a stench you will never escape.
*I have no problem with his lifestyle, per se. It's the whole preaching-doom-and-gloom-to-us while-excusing-himself thing I have a problem with.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
At the heart of the issue is usually the measurements themselves. Bias should never be part of a measurement, but failure to completely understand the system being measured often is. Since many measurement systems today are not direct measurements but indirect, and many are "remote sensing", it is often a failure to understand both the system being measured AND the proxy for the desired measurement that causes failure.
For example, several years ago it was determined that the satellite-based sensing of ocean surface temperature was off by several degrees, because the atmospheric effects on the IR radiation being used to measure the temperature weren't being correctly corrected. It is no surprise to hear that any proxy measurement has been found to be off with a biased error.
What? Bias? Well, "biased error" is the technical term for an error in measurement that is wrong in a consistent manner. For example, a thermometer that has been miscalibrated so that it always reads high. But please do not mention this possibility of measurement error to anyone involved in global warming research. They are right, everyone else is wrong.
Don't EVER ask why they assume that CO2, a gas that is soluble in water to a great extent, cannot diffuse out of air bubbles in ice that have been trapped for millenia. It is the measurement of CO2 in those bubbles that global warming scientists use to tell us what the level of CO2 was ten thousand years ago -- even though there is no recorded measurement from then, and only the proxy of "trapped bubbles" to rely on.
Many people have strong feelings that disaster is about to occur. Perhaps this comes from childhood recollections of maternal warnings about running with scissors or touching hot stoves.
Today's strong feelings of disaster are prompted by catastrophe-based science and the scientists who are paid to find solutions to catastrophes. Scientists who warn us that a stray comet could obliterate life on this planet don't get paid to deal with comets that don't come anywhere near us. Scientists who predict gloom and doom from global warming don't get paid if they report that there really isn't a problem. I am repeatedly fascinated by global warming scientists who dismiss studies that contradict their cries of alarm as the product of people who are being paid to say there is no problem. Why would the only scientists who lack ethics be the ones on one side of an issue? (The state of Oregon just created a group to deal with global warming issues. Do you think that the head of this group is someone who doesn't toe the line regarding the causes and results of global warming? He's getting paid, so why aren't his ethics questioned?)
Nonsense. The data from this particular survey are in dispute, and people here are conflating this to all of climate science. That the earth is warming, and that globally, ice is melting at an alarming rate, is not even disputed by the oil industry any more.
If the atmosphere heats up, physics predicts that the ground will heat up as well, and that ice will melt.
You're correct that the system is more complex than that, because, for example, melting ice can trigger other mechanisms that are too complex to model, currently. This doesn't refute the very basic fact that adding global heat to the atmosphere tends to melt ice.
I'd also point out that we know all of this because we've studied it scientifically, just the same way that we know that CO2 tends to heat the atmosphere, and ice tends to melt with warmer air.
And unless you have kids yourself, you'll never understand why we need to filter porn on the Internet.
Look I agree with you on the limited use of DDT for disease control. And unlike the grandparent post, I know that such use is still allowed.
I'm not a big fan of emotional manipulation though. My wife barely survived a bout with malaria in Madagascar (plus 2 relapses). But I know that doesn't make me informed on all the various aspects of DDT regulation.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
For example, several years ago it was determined that the satellite-based sensing of ocean surface temperature was off by several degrees, because the atmospheric effects on the IR radiation being used to measure the temperature weren't being correctly corrected. It is no surprise to hear that any proxy measurement has been found to be off with a biased error.
What? Bias? Well, "biased error" is the technical term for an error in measurement that is wrong in a consistent manner. For example, a thermometer that has been miscalibrated so that it always reads high.
But please do not mention this possibility of measurement error to anyone involved in global warming research. They are right, everyone else is wrong.
I am unaware of the experiment and controversy surrounding it, have a link to a peer reviewed journal article?
Really, even if a bias is discovered later in an experiment and if that bias can be estimated, whether the added error is constant or variable, corrections to the old data can be made and the corrected data would be accurate. This assumes the supposed error is actually an error and not some global warming denier's fantasy. One correctable error does not mean that all of the data from the experiment is useless, and the same conclusion from the experiment can still hold.
Even if the data from an experiment has uncorrectable errors and the data is faulty, GW deniers have one experiment discredited, and only have a whole truck load more valid experiments showing Global Warming to discredit. GW deniers still have still shown no credible alternate to explain the trends in the world's climate. Thus, GW deniers are just that, in denial, they are not advocating their own hypothesis by using accepted scientific practices and existing data.
Don't EVER ask why they assume that CO2, a gas that is soluble in water to a great extent, cannot diffuse out of air bubbles in ice that have been trapped for millenia. It is the measurement of CO2 in those bubbles that global warming scientists use to tell us what the level of CO2 was ten thousand years ago -- even though there is no recorded measurement from then, and only the proxy of "trapped bubbles" to rely on.
Water, in its solid crystalline form, ice, has no capability to hold CO2 in solution, only liquid water can hold CO2 in solution. It would seem to follow that when trapped in a gas bubble in ice, CO2 does not diffuse because water ice is not permeable to CO2 at any of the temperatures or pressures that the ice has been at since it formed.
Many people have strong feelings that disaster is about to occur. Perhaps this comes from childhood recollections of maternal warnings about running with scissors or touching hot stoves.
Today's strong feelings of disaster are prompted by catastrophe-based science and the scientists who are paid to find solutions to catastrophes. Scientists who warn us that a stray comet could obliterate life on this planet don't get paid to deal with comets that don't come anywhere near us. Scientists who predict gloom and doom from global warming don't get paid if they report that there really isn't a problem. I am repeatedly fascinated by global warming scientists who dismiss studies that contradict their cries of alarm as the product of people who are being paid to say there is no problem. Why would the only scientists who lack ethics be the ones on one side of an issue? (The state of Oregon just created a group to deal with global warming issues. Do you think that the head of this group is someone who doesn't toe the line regarding the causes and results of global warming? He's getting paid, so why aren't his ethics questioned?)
I'm not sure how to respond, I am nearly certain that over many the years as corporations like Phillip Morris, Exxon, and alike sponsored anti-GW groups, that at least some research was done at least one sound and valid published study should still be available. No
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.