Slashdot Mirror
Nebraska Scientists Refuse To Carry Out Climate Change-Denying Study
Lasrick writes "Nebraska researchers say they refuse to be used as political pawns: 'The problem, according to members of the governor-appointed Climate Assessment and Response Committee, is that the bill behind the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change. In so doing, it completely leaves out human contributions to global warming.'"
How do we keep politics out of this?
Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.
Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money? Name one other country who will purposedly ally themselves with corporate interests agaisn't the will of the people to do such silly things like publish these studies?
America is turning into the laughing stock of the world. It is truly embarrasing. Conservative Americans might be mad at my post or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.
http://saveie6.com/
I thought that one of the things that made something a "science" was that it could be falsifiable. However, when so-called researchers refuse to try to find alternative explanations for a prevailing theory, it seems to me that they are more intent on building a cathedral than on discovering the truth. If the researchers are self-funded, then what they do is their business, but if they are dependent on the public purse, then they cannot thumb their noses at their paymasters and still expected to be paid.
without human involvement and they think they aren't being political as well ?
Surely some of the AGW denying researchers like Roy Spencer will take up the invitation. Funny thing about Spencer and his ilk, though. They're quick to take Koch money to attack AGW, but seem reticent to do actual research to back up their frequent public skepticism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
More proof that the AGW movement is a cult. Real scientists would do the investigation o learn more about climate change, not shrink away from it just because it upsets their insular worldview.
I would have a lot more respect for "not wanting to be political pawns" if they had not already chosen a side of the board.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the study and its methods are not invalid and the only reason not to do it is that it does not fit their agenda then they are not real scientists. Just tools for one side or the other. Of course that is all science these days. As complately corrupt as the fourth estate.
. . . Scientists refuse to carry out a pedophile-glorifying study for NAMBLA.
In forums all across America, pedophiles complain about "Damn scientists, damn eddekashun, and their political biases."
> the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change
It's almost as if someone has proposed a hypothesis to be either validated or rejected by examination.
If they're so confident in their (pre-formed) conclusions, they should have no issues with doing this study, rejecting the hypothesis (based on evidence), and proving the opposite hypothesis. Grant money is grant money, and publications are publications. I am sure there are many grad students / post docs willing to take on this research.
K. Bring on the ad-hominem now please.
What's next, are we going to start including articles from the National Enquirer?
One of the few things we don't understand that well about climate change is precisely how much of it is happening because of natural causes and how frequently this happens (the most accurate data we have only goes back a few hundred years, the rest is extrapolation from known factors with large error bars). While it won't impact the climate change debate all that much, this research would also have important implications for astronomy, which is still fighting to figure out how climate change worked on Mars for instance.
The liberal MSM scientists have been attacking it in their worldwide Apology Tour against America.
But only if that skepticism is also applied to one's own ideas.
Vanity makes it easy to be skeptical of others' theories but it's leaving open the possibility that one's own theories could be mistaken that makes one a scientist.
These scientists are misguided, to put it kindly. I don't think they've really thought out their positions.
First, science is science. There is value in studying the natural climatic progressions of the planet.
Most importantly, by refusing they are doing far more to help deniers than they would be by doing the study. Just makes them look like they have something to hide to the typical conspiracy minded denier dolt.
"Climate change" offers scientists a level of "stop everything you're doing, and do what we say instead, forever" authority that your average fascist-wannabe could only dream of.
If the study wouldn't move the bar toward that, why would they be interested? It's not like studying the non-human factors would be of politico-scientific value in itself. It'd be only of actual scientific benefit.
by virtue of leaving out the human impact on earths climate you would be including it. amirite?
Refusing to look at alternative hypotheses speaks volumes of these "scientists". The reaction would be the same if a Catholic priest was asked to attempt to verify the existence of Vishnu.
AGW continues to be junk science by excluding itself from the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, when you conjure up a hypotheses that is not, you're not longer dealing in science, you're dealing in religion.
Thank you! If humans are the leading cause for what's going on today they'll find evidence to support it. The question doesn't matter as much as the answer in this case. If the theory being put out there is based on junk science the evidence will point the way.
Why are these "scientists" afraid of science?
You can't selectively investigate one possibility while completely ignoring the other.
Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.
How are the two not inherently related? Doesn't determining one determine the other? If p is the percentage due to human influence then 1.0 - p is the percentage due to non-human influence.
Nobody is denying the climate is changing, we're questioning whether MANKIND is responsible for it.
These criminal fraudsters (man made global warming alarmists), so-called 'scientists', should all be arrested and tried for defrauding the taxpayer, worthless parasites.
Seems like the relevant question is how other public-funded studies are phrased by comparison.
If other studies focus specifically on human-caused warning, without mention of cyclical or other non-human causes, that strikes me as the same sort of bias but in the other direction. The Salon article, of course, makes no mention of how other such bills and laws are worded; if they (or some of them) are, there is no mention of whether scientists have a problem with them for the same reason .
How about showing a correlation between terrorism and global warming? Then global warming is a warning sign that we need to invest in more eavesdropping, since nothing thwarts terrorism like an autocratic surveillance regime.
Recalls Ace of Spades:
"If only there were some. . .natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature.
It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun."
The idea that, just because I find the "Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change" club is tantamount to a religious cult armed with a computer model means that
I am automatically contending that "climate is constant", is more than a little silly. The idea of nature conservation is as conservative as conservare.
If the last decade of ManBearPiggery has taught anything, it is the imperative to reject categorically all appeals to guilt & fear. Make the argument, put the raw data and the model out there for calm reflection, or understand that you've completely undercut your point.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Politician: We're commissioning a study on biodiversity. But this study strictly focuses on intelligent design, so don't include anything about evolution. After all, we should explore alternative explanations for a prevailing theory.
Biologist: We refuse to participate in your misleading, artificially limited study.
Idiot Slashdot Commenters: The biologists are an evolutionist cult! They're... they're building a cathedral! Science isn't just confirming what you know! Real scientists would do the investigation to learn more about intelligent design!
And yes, before, you say it, cyclical climate change is a real phenomenon while intelligent design is not. But the idea is the same. You can't analyze an effect and pretend one of its primary causes just doesn't exist.
So they do not or will not recognize that weather is or can be cyclical. No surprise since on longer time scales than a generation or two of human activity becomes said activity becomes immeasurably minute compared to geological, solar influences and things on a much more macro level. Those "scientists" insisting on including human activity is like a scientist looking at a grain of sand in an ant hill and declaring the whole of the earth is a desert.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
IPCC WG1 Section 7, IIRC. Attribution of climate change.
Already done.
Moreover "cyclic climate change" *by definition* will not "establish baseline change" since it only does a fourier transform of the data, not describe what makes it do that.
In Sweden the radical-feminist ideology has made similar intrusions in the free scientific research. This is not an American-only problem. Watch from ca. 1:39:00 or thereabout. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn3cHsHnUPM The program was made by Swedens state television by a Iraqi-Swedish female journalist and she came close to leading Swedish politicians and feminist lobbyists only because of their overly positive PR stance towards women from third-world countries.
But she is more than willing to be a political pawn for the pro-humans-are-causing-climate-change-fanatics.
She is shallower than a puddle of water in the Sahara.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Oh? Why not? It's done all the time. People seem to think studies require bias, when in fact you should be trying to avoid it.
No one has RTFA it seems ... (I know, I know, /.)
The scientists are being asked to study the effects of climate change on Nebraska, not climate change itself.
in that context restricting them to studying the effects of cyclical changes only is stupid, and the reason for their protest.
See also the longer article here http://www.omaha.com/article/20131024/NEWS/131029338/1707#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists
Of course you can. Does smoking cause cancer? That doesn't deny that radiation causes cancer, it just looks at whether smoking causes cancer.
More like they know the human involvement angle is going to be blatantly suppressed.
The "president" of the IPCC is the guy that owns the worlds biggest trading company of "carbon credits".
This claim would be more interesting with a citation. The chair of IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri (since 2002). What is the name of the carbon credit trading company he owns?
Conservative Americans might be mad at my post ...
Only because you assume that conservatives are anti-science.
That is a truly foolish thing to do. Voting for a party, being loyal to a party, makes oneself irrelevant. The party you favor can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.
... but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.
You are absolutely wrong. They are believers or deniers of science and reality depending upon the issue. Both parties have core beliefs that are held as articles of faith that can not be disputed.
The EPA is mandating fuel efficiency standards on the grounds that CO2 is a pullutant (sp) , and is causing global warming. You know what else causes C02? Human beings. So if the EPA can regulate fuel efficiency standards, wont it also be able to regulate the USA's fertility rates. Maybe we can have a .7 child per household standard to ensure C02 levels don't rise. The bible thumping crowd is against this kind of governmental mandated population controll, so the call into question any kind of global warming science.
The honest to god truth of the matter is that with 7 billion people on the planet it is inconceivable that we could not have an effect on the planet. My problem with the global warming crowd is that in order to have zero affect on the climat (sp) it is necessary that you curtail the population. My belief is that rather that spending billions of dollars 'studying' global warming, we should be spending billions trying to figure how to get people off the planet and colonizing other planets. This would be the humane solution. Of coarse you will all call me a faggot because I disagree with you. So be it.
Bunch of hypocrit scientists should just be canned like anybody else would be for not doing there job.
But the IPCC is only required to study human-caused climate change... why is the IPCC's work considered science when they can ignore natural climate?
The AGW folks expect a rational thinking human to just accept the fact that humans have more influence on GW than volcanoes, CO2 sources in the Oceans(71% of the earths Surface FFS), forest fires the world over etc.. Human beings are ants. This planet had multiple ice ages before humans even walked erect and many glacial periods before we even had fire. Poltical tools posing as scientists need to get over themselves and go find another line of work.
wow
Everyone has an agenda. Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society. It is (and has amply proven itself to be) capable of corruption, graft, and political pursuit of goals contrary to the interests of those who are taxed to fund it.
Concentration of power is the problem. Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction. They both pursue their own agendas in service to the elites who are stakeholders, and then use propaganda to claim otherwise.
If you want the raw data produced by a country, however, you don't pay taxes in, then why the hell should you get free stuff without paying?
Alternate headline: Nebraska publicly employed scientist refuses to do his job and establish a baseline for scientific comparison.
The scientist is quoted as saying, "Waah. I don't want to have to do the rigorous sciencey parts. Mommy please make them let me do what I want."
And she said, "Ok dear, I'll submit this to the news, and they'll run a hatchet piece on your boss."
Creationism propaganda. I fully support the Nebraskan researchers on this. To limit the scope of climate change research to 'cyclical' climate change is like forcing them to just accept Creationism at flat value. It also does an extreme dis-service to the community when understanding how AGW will effect future crops, livestock, water supplies, and other vital functions of society. What do they mean "Cyclical" climate change anyway? Does that mean yearly? cyclical weather as in seasons?
The deniers much believe in something if they see seasons as something worthy of researchers time and tax payers money. Yeap the scientist are being made pawns in republican wingnut AGW denier crap.
Method:
1. Collect data on pre-inhabited Nebraska [ say 1CE - 1700 CE - soil samples, tree rings, etc.. ]
2. Take earliest modern measurements [ say 1890 - 1900 ].
3. Superimpose #2 measurements upon #1 curves.
4. Announce expected weather for 1950 - 2050; ignoring actual measurements made during this period.
5. Conclude that the difference between measured, 1950..2013, and expected is human caused.
6. Spend rest of budget on beer + pizza.
It might actually be interesting.....
It's absolutely impossible that Nebraska, a state that derives much of its income from agriculture, has an interest in studying cyclical variations in climate. It couldn't possibly be important to them. Nope, not at all, must completely be a political hack job. I'm pretty damn sure there are cyclical and human caused changes in the climate. Why not study part of it.
You can't selectively investigate one possibility while completely ignoring the other.
I investigate the possibility of the Earth being roughly spherical, whilst completely ignoring the possibility of the Earth being flat.
It is a problem of our modern thinking that all sides in an argument deserve equal time, even when some of the sides are jolly fucking insane.
I don't think you have a SINGLE CLUE what you're talking about.
So they won't study answer a scientific question which was asked and which they were paid to answer unless they also get to answer a different question. As if eliminating some of the variables from a scientific inquiry were a legitimate method of inquiry. They are not refusing to political pawns. They are acting as political operatives in that they are putting their politics above answering a legitimate scientific question.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
They're mad because it's Republicans funding the study. They're giddy as schoolgirls when the Democrats fund them. That's because they already agree with the Democrats.
All science funded by government is political. All of it. ALL OF IT. If you believe otherwise, then you're a fool.
The description of the project: An attempt to explain the current period of warming without considering human contributions sounds like a repeat of the Koch brothers funded project "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" (BEST).
I'll let the founder of BEST, Richard Muller, summarize their findings:
"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Richard Muller
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Your point does not follow from your last sentence. In any case...
Sure, in some cases you can have enough control to allow for a more selective approach. When you're talking about a system where you can't guarantee the independence of the small portion you're examining, you're inviting misinterpretations that would've been avoided by keeping the rest of the system in mind.
Wait a minute -- I thought all those climate scientists were just echoing the party line to keep getting rich on grant money?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The problem is economics, at a macro level, and more importantly for some a personal level, are wrapped up in this debate. People want more power and money.
What both side of the argument want is to influence or control the debate as to what, if anything, we do about it. So really it is how the controllers of the debate can profit. Pretty simple. Nebraska is a "red" state, the University of Nebraska is extremely liberal (I worked there), the Omaha World Herald (commonly called the weird herald) is owned by Warren Buffet, who is a big democratic supporter. So you have the conservatives controlling the politics in the area going up against liberals in the Universities and the media.
Everyone knows that climate change is real, everyone knows that even a butterfly passing gas would have an impact, albeit very very small. The masses in the US these days need to be told what to think by 'experts' to feel good about something.
The reality is nobody conservative or liberal wants to pollute unnecessarily, but when it comes down to a purchasing decision, we're not going to bankrupt ourselves to move to green energy. If the scientists feel that have a problem and we're polluting it, then they should propose a reasonable alternative....there like...smart and all....right? :)
Right now there is a religious belief in the man made global warming research circle where everything must be attributed to man, and man must change. Just like christianity with angels and satan.
I wonder how many of those scientists are greenpeace, siera club or WWF members of statue who need to say 'no' to save face in their professional circles and continue on the path of group think to no answer at all.
Sadly the article did not mention if those who rejected the refocus of their work onto just nature are upset. They might find themselves stubling upon evidence which continues to prove that its the sun, stupid.
and run?
They are PERIODIC. Not cyclic.
A cycle restarts from its original location to repeat the cycle again.
Periodic is not cyclic.
PMO/AMO are already studied and there was no need to study they as "cyclic" entities. They were studied for the physical causes and results of them.
So what would this "study" bring up? That you can do a fourier transform on a dataset vs time and come up with a lot of sin curve frequencies and amplitude? That's 19thC. We already passed that 120 years ago. You, however, seem to be stuck two centuries ago.
I am not addressing the details of how to perform such a study. I am merely arguing against the notion that narrowing the scope to only the non-human influences, q, somehow denies the human influences, p. Knowing the percentage of one gives us the other, p = 1.0 - q.
There seems to be politics on both sides. Yes, a crackpot narrowed the scope of the study. However the statements from the scientists seem to go beyond that. The impression they give is that if it had been narrowed for non-crackpot reasons it would still somehow be wrong. It seems that they feel it harmful to their careers to participate in a climate change study that does not support a particular narrative. They fear that not including human influences somehow puts them into the same camp as those who deny human influences in the eyes of politicians and political activists.
Not including is different than denying. Its sad to see science politicized. Lets scientists do science. Narrow, broad, focused, all-inlusive, whatever.
What many folks on here don't seem to know (probably because their overlords haven't told them) is that the "natural" causes of climate change are already in the models!! The "natural" causes are not being ignored. What the Nebraska legislature is asking for is that scientist drop all the human variables from the models and see what happens. This is not how proper science is conducted and so real scientists (unlike the political hacks many of the posters on here apparently listen to) refuse to do it. Good for them!
Ever see the "N" on the football team's helmets? Stands for "nowledge."
It is more like that they refused to even consider research that might not vilify western civilization. Even if there are cyclic changes in the environment it would not necessarily rule out human caused changes. It might even further implicate mankind but they are too afraid that cyclic change might be the real cause of the small changes that we have measured.
Technological civilisation rises,
which eventually causes climate change,
which eventually causes technological civilisation to crumble,
which eventually allows the climate to recover,
which eventually allows technological civilisation to rise again,
etc.
There's your cycle. Study that.
Theres nothing dogmatic about that, surely!
The original mandate of the IPCC, very hard to find now, was not to determine IF there was any anthropogenic climate change but to PROVE there was anthropogenic climate change and how much damage it would cause. With that mandate they set up a peer review board that reviewed each other's papers, threatened to change the way peer review was done globally and caused enough of a political stir that scientists whose research was not agreeing with the IPCC found their funding cut off.
It's no wonder that a new crop of climate scientists do not want to take part in any study that might contradict what so much energy, political wrangling and just plain dishonesty have created. They'll already have been inducted into the "man is evil because he's causing all the climate change" camp and to contradict that would be, as someone already mentioned, akin to blasphemy.
Sure you can, and that's good science. Once upon a time negative results were considered science also. In fact, no theory is worth a crap unless it is falsifiable, and logically you need to try to falsify it it every way imaginable to prove it is likely correct.
That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*.
And if they did this study and published results that didn't support the ideas of 'cyclical' climate change, would they be fired? Would the study be censored? why shouldn't they consider an alternative view and possibly (probably) disprove it?
Sounds to me like the "scientists" are playing "politics".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Everybody knows Anthrocentric Climate Change is real! And if you naysayers would just shut up and accept that there's a consensus, we wouldn't have to keep shouting you down all the time!
The article is not terribly useful. The actual language of the study would be more useful, but assuming it is more or less correct your post makes no sense.
As you say, they are being asked to study the effects of climate change on Nebraska, not climate change itself. If that is the case, who cares what the cause is? It simply doesn't matter and it makes no sense for the scientists to refuse.
They are being asked to answer question B, not question A, not question C. When I was in University you would fail a test when you answered the wrong question (likewise if you refused to answer at all).
OBTW, comparisons to creationism are preposterous. When AGW has survived 144 years of scrutiny give me a call.
They teach us that good science involves both trying to prove theories as well as trying to disprove them. Both are equally important. Both should be applied to climate change theories. Unfortunately, one of those approaches is not politically acceptable, and that is bad no matter what you believe.
...that their study won't exclude natural climate change?
I mean, this just doesn't make sense from any other perspective - if they believe that they'll be vindicated, they'll do a bunch of studies on cyclical climate change, and find that modern climate excludes all cycles, and therefore must be driven by some "factor X".
What they really should do is this - insist that any study on climate change start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. At that point it won't matter what political bent the scientists have, it'll simply stand or fall on its merits instead of on the basis of publicity, politics and press releases.
You study whether there are period inputs into global temperature, identify the most prominent, if any, and report what you find be it good, bad, or ugly. Are they seriously saying *every* study that examines inputs besides man-made warming is biased and political? This sounds like a much more slanted perspective than "please take my money to consider other inputs as well."
My father was the chairman of the University of Nebraska Dept. of Physics for many years (until 1962), and dealing with the state legislature was probably his biggest annual headache, and the main reason (other than an inadequate salary) he moved to a university in Colorado (with a 50% salary increase). I think that if he were still alive, he would be ripping these idiots a new rear orifice... FWIW, he was a Guggenheim fellowship winner, a director of the National Science Foundation, a director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and other "minor" national scientific positions...
The title could read, "Nebraska scientists refuse to undertake research which challenges their underlying assumptions" and still be true. Valid principles should never fear a challenge, and any successful challenges only serve to strengthen humanity's knowledge of the physical world.
Corporations are saying, "We're powerful and wealthy enough so we can use governments to our advantage!"
Government is still plenty big and powerful enough so corporate entities can't ignore it. Rather, corporations simply buy some govt. collusion so a preferred status is granted.
That's the "rub" with the whole system. Government is supposed to play the role of the impartial referee in the game of "Capitalism". But instead, the most successful "teams" keep paying them off.
I see from today's stories ... according to slashmind, the biggest problem is the Koch brothers and climate change "deniers".
Meanwhile, the Slashdot savior turned a recession into a depression, created a real surveillance state, and took over the biggest economic sector in the US (literally during an Orwellian "shutdown").
You aren't as smart as you think you are. You are "denying" the reality that is unfolding all around you. Good luck with that. Keep throwing stones at the approved targets; you'll have plenty of time without jobs or anything to distract you.
They LIE, if they think their opinion about proper research is anything BUT political. They are as abusive and head up their ass ball-less wonders as the deniers, afraid to admit what they REALLY believe. Some believe in liberty and some in community. Some believe in safety and some in gambling. Some believe in equality and some believe in excellence. THAT is what we argue over.
AND THOSE ARE VALUES.
AND VALUES SHOULD BE PROHIBITTED IN POLITICS. Values are an irrational emotional thing whose purpose is to allow nearly instant decisions in the small groups and environment that we are adapted to live in. Which are not the groups and environments we DO live in. EVERYONE's values are wrong, the very concept of values is wrong. It's like believing in ghosts demons and the like. Served a purpose, once. Not now.
Might as well study cyclical climate change. There IS such a thing. There may or may not be a consistent explanation different from the workings out of chance, but there sure is proof that things go from cooler to warmer wetter to drier regionally and globally. That's a different thing from the so-far unidirectional impact of industrial civilization. Whether that's important to you depends mostly on your harm vs. freedom scale, and on whether we compare it to the more extreme values in geological history or to what would with no action taken wreck or seriously inconvenience large parts of human civilization. WHICH PARTS of the globe are affected probably matters too - I don't care what happens in Bangladesh for example, and I figure New York City and San Francisco can take care of themselves, or drop dead lol.
Well anyway, I'm as qualified to spew on the REAL issues as a NFL Stadium full of Climatologist PhD's. And so is anybody.
So... for political reasons Nebraska's government wants a study which assesses only that portion of climate change which has resulted / is resulting from non-human factors. They aren't asking for a directed finding. They won't suppress the resulting report. They just insist on knowing what's happening on the climate change front that *isn't* human-caused.
'Cause, you know, the earth endured massive climate change for millions of years before humans evolved. It'd be hubris to think that human activity is solely responsible for current climate change patterns. As politicians consider how to respond, it'd be nice to be able to separate the factors under human control from the factors which are not.
And no climate change scientist will research this. Am I the only one who has a problem with the scientists' behavior here? This is scientists playing politician. Scientists should play scientist instead -- they're far better at it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I'd bet he as thinking of Al Gore. After all, isn't he the leader of the worldwide conspiracy? {wink}{wink}
No, they are NOT word games.
They are periodic. But that is solely because they are caused by things that are periodic.
They are not cyclic "because climate has cycles".
Milankovich cycles are only cycles as long as the earth does the same thing elsewhere. I.e. we were going into a cooling phase on the "cycle" out from the warm interglacial to the glacial.
However, we pumped out lots of CO2 and ruined that "cycle".
If the earth were kicked from its orbit, those milankovich cycles would stop being cyclic.
Therefore the causes are investigated.
Looking for cycles in climate is not science, it's curve fitting.
What preventing the researchers from focussing on 'cyclic change' and discovering (and publishing that) "clearly that is not what is going on here" (if that is actually, provably the case).
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
except that pretty much all the predictions made in the 80s and 90s are coming true...earlier than predicted. There is no 'debate' about man made climate change. it's real and it's happening. Keep screaming though, it helps rational people identify you as crazy.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Cue the nut jobs who don't accept the evidence to bring on the usual denialists rubbish.
Lost in this discussion seems to be one crucial distinction.
Science, as a field, does not start with a conclusion and seek to insert data that reinforce the conclusion. Science seeks to understand the natural world. It goes in the direction that the data alone suggests, and it's conclusions are peer reviewed and always subject to scrutiny. I do not believe that any business should be doing science. Businesses are doing what they are doing not for understanding but for profit, and that is a terrible motivation to have when doing science. Government has no such motivation. Government is motivated by self preservation.. of us and of the country. That's not an ideal motivation either, but it's better than profit. If money must be spent in the furtherance of science, I'd rather it come from our pockets in the form of taxes than from businesses interested in it only so long as the ROI is good.
Some politicians choose to align themselves with science. This is both a blessing and a curse, but one that scientists must learn to work within. The refusal of these scientists to conduct research that reinforces a predefined conclusion is understandable and honorable and I support it.
Are fricking psycho
The "president" of the IPCC is the guy that owns the worlds biggest trading company of "carbon credits".
I'd trust a study funded by a carbon credits trading company about as much as I would trust a weight loss company that sells food.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
So, this is really just an example of what we all (should have) learned when taught logic:
False premises lead to whatever conclusion you want.
In order for the statement "If only cyclical changes influence climate, then the effect on the climate of Nebraska will be ________," to even be worth asking, there has to be a good reason to assume that only cyclical changes influence climate, or a good reason not to assume other influences.
Hmmm, which prediction in the 80s and 90s included record Antarctic ice cover and a stalled temperature for 17 years?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The headline is a mendacious lie. They were asked to look at cyclical climate change, caused by massive natural drivers including volcanoes, the solar cycle, etc, all well-documented phenomena, to see if recent data could be explained without the anthropogenic fantasy. They refused because such a study would refute all the neo-Malthusian, nonsense, regularly refuted since Malthus first proposed it, and reveal the true believers for the fools and charlatans I think they are. It would also stop the deliberate economic destruction being fomented by the evil cabal of those who hate the US and those who want to live the "small is beautiful" pathetic fallacy. David Sternlight, PhD
Sad day indeed when politics try to dictate scientific truth. My thumps up for scientist that refuses to be puppet and sell the truth.
Those who claim existing studies include significant cyclical components are simply ill informed. One went so far as to challenge"cite even one" or words to that effect. Very well then, a widely respected Midwestern professor attacked the latest IPCC report as ignoring the solar cycle, which he asserted could explain much attributed to anthropogenic climate change. This is doubly odd since in 2007 the IPCC thought the opposite. For a critical discussion of this point see the deservedly sarcastic critique at http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/
So how is this different from the funding to the IPCC which was founded to prove all climate change was caused by human activities? It stated purpose is in paragraph 2 at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf.
All climate change is man made.
It's nice to know the state grew up and still live in(uh, family) is still heading straight from the gutter via the toilet to the sewer in the most politically anal way possible. Other states take note, this is what you get with a unicameral government. A system that passes bills no other state would touch. Bills that often have one partisan(republican) often cooked/crooked result. It's also nice the local scientists have some balls to go with their brains, now if just some of the rest of the public in this state had either one or both. The public works hard, very head to the grindstone with a take it and move on attitude but with self-serving viewpoints and little interest in government challenges. The scary part is that most of them know more of the scores for the Osborne era football games than basic STEM/anything given the colleges per capita in this agricultural/research/business state. As for several of the politicians, some are just plain self-serving crooks. My guess this bill was introduced by that nutter that keeps introducing religion-oriented bills and arguments every few weeks. This in a state with a governor that's all for business while hanging the public with the costs. And the abuse from the political ladder has just been getting worse. After watching for 40 years, getting involved and consistently being run over, it's just numbing. The place is republican heaven.
My hard drive is systematically corrupt, and will always act towards cronism. The word you want actually refers to rule by old ladies, CRONEISM.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Oh, come ON!!! Your intentionally acting stupid!!
A 'baseline' is not a climatolgical study!!
And limiting a climatological study to a 'baseline' is of course ideal of climate change deniers: "Hey here these renown climatists say that it's all cyclically!!" (whatever that may be, is it a real word even??)
Score 3, Insightful????
Science is science. That's true. But if you are only alowed to study the background noise and not the phenomenon itself then it's no longer science.
And if you can study anything but it must be 'cyclically' (??) then what are you commiting to?? You are commiting to an OUTCOME. That is certainly no science!
This is about a study on climate change. The biggest driver of climate change known today cannot be taken into account. Is that science??
This is nothing more than a scam for money. A volcano produces as much CO2 as man did since year one. Plus the core will cool and stop so we need to get off this planet or die. Instead, they want to steal your money with carbon credits (nothing more than snake oil).
Hypocrits. They already are pawns to their own ideology. So seriously checking out contrary evidence to their theories is not acceptable to these pseudo scientists??? Its like that scientific moron algore declaring 'the debate is over' when it never is in real science.
These fake and unqualified scientists need to be defrocked and reviled for their conspiracy against real science, all for their sick political agenda.
oppose or study any opposing views. Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption or whatever you want to call it this week is junk science. Clean the air, reduce emissions, that's great, but Global Climate Disruption is pure garbage.
We should do k to EUROPE?
Yeah, those big governments in places like Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal have been stellar examples of responsible and capable government. Perhaps you should take your own advice about the news.
Big intrusive government that actually works well in Europe has been the exception not the rule.
The temperature predictions perhaps? The faster glacier movement in Antarctica and everywhere else? The predictions that Glacier National Park would be wildly misnamed in less than a generation?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
A few years ago, Kansas sued Nebraska, whose 100,000 plus wells left some Kansas towns with zero water, especially near the Republican River (named after a Pawnee subtribe of Indians known as the Republicans). A Nebraska agricultural economist investigated, publishing a research paper that revealed over several years that Nebraska's increasing wells decreased water before it reached Nebraska. With his defense ruined, the Nebraska attorney general denounced the economist to his department head in Lincoln, Nebraska. The attorney general valued loyalty to himself more than honesty to truth, while the economist valued loyalty to honesty.
Haha, I've got a bit of cronism on the go too, on my computer. Croneism is a good word. Will have to keep that one filed away. Suppose I should at least read through my posts before submitting them, but this is slashdot.
They are being asked to study the effects of climate change on Nebraska while ignoring the effects of human influence on said climate.
It's like being asked to study the process of pollination on plants, while ignoring insects.
Current climate science looks at *both* human and non-human factors, because both are known to influence the results. Specifically ignoring a variable known to influence the results is *intentionally* doing junk 'science'.
The temperature predictions would be sufficient. Which prediction made in the 80s and 90s related to a stalled global temperature for the entire 21st century, so far?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Since the language of the law (page 3) requires the task force to plan for "unintended consequences of climate adaptation and mitigation," the study should be completed as requested, and the effect of human activity against the baseline ebb and flow of regional climate should be included on the chart as an "unintended consequence."
Why not to take it ? It could prove that denial is wrong. There are many science studies that prove the negative. The scientists seem to have agenda of their own too.
this one? By none other than Mr. Hansen who is wonderfully derided by the deniers.
And you know what? It even shows a shallowing of the temperate rise during your so called 'stalled global temp' growth. So yes he predicted something quite similar to what we're seeing.
There may be a short term slowing of temperature rise going on...but you're still flatly ignoring the rapid increase in the previous 30 years, just blindly assuming it won't resume going up. Scientists don't claim to know everything, but decades of consistent pattern followed by a few years of slightly less than predicted results don't change the overall situation.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
That's different, you're talking about an abstract case.
Can you take a person who has lung cancer and say: "Smoking definitely caused this. There is no way in hell that this was caused by radiation exposure or other some other thing." Of course not. And that's a question that is better understood than the intricacies of climate change.
Besides, let me illustrate why your reasoning is flawed with an analogy - let's assume that smoking is inevitable (cyclical climate change) but radiation isn't (climate change due to human actions).
If you look only at smoking, you'll see that 100% of cancer cases happened after smoking - you've learned nothing, since smoke is inevitable in our scenario. If you stick to this line of investigation, you'll quickly find scientific evidence that smoking does cause cancer.If no other possibilities are allowed, you might conclude that all cases of cancer were caused by smoking. This is nonsense.
However, if you don't ignore the other possibilities, you'll notice that they too can cause cancer.
By focusing on a single possibility that does contribute to the problem, but is not the only cause, you have now reached an implicit false conclusion that cancer is caused by smoking only - the matter is treated as understood. Meanwhile, radiation is still causing cancer.
Back to the matter at hand, if you focus on a single factor that may cause climate change and ignore the others, you'll reach the conclusion is caused by that factor, period. While not strictly untrue, it is incomplete. It's essentially a political trick to get favorable "science" by restricting it to the issues that are convenient for whoever is in charge.
Because they have to ignore 'cyclical climate change' to practice 'real' science?
I fail to see how the inclusion of 'cyclical climate change' in the study makes for flawed science - are these scientists 'cyclical climate change' deniers? It sounds like they are afraid that a study including 'cyclical climate change' would disprove heir own hand-selected outcome for their climate study...
Seems to me any reasonable scientist could incorporate almost anything into their study, and all they need to do is either prove or disprove the effect of the required factors (in this case 'cyclical climate change' - if it isn't a factor, prove it isn't, if you're afraid you can't, then YOU are the problem, not the folks requiring the inclusion of 'cyclic climate change').
Ken
Sack them ...
Its simple
Besides the biggest driver of climate change, apart from the sun, is money....
They don't call it global warming any more because for the last 15 years the world average temp hasn't changed.
This article contains actual measured temperatures, and show the pause. Your link shows nice, continuous upward curves. In other words - your refutation is not what you think it is.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
10 million words wasted on a non-story out of Omaha, which BTW is 70 miles from my keyboard.
The purpose of this bill is helping to figure out how to grow corn, and thus sustain the state's economy, in the face of "cyclical" weather events such as this year's drought. It has nothing to do with the left vs right "global warming" nonsense. People are motivated first and foremost by their wallets. Nebraska's wallet is filled by corn sales. The liberals (very few Democrats) in the Unicameral wanted a study about "humans ruining the climate". The conservatives, all the Rebublicans and most of the Democrats, simply want to keep the corn industry healthy. Which is why the word "cyclical" was added, to keep the study on point. This story didn't come out of California folks, where the liberals want to shut down all power plants but still demand their lights stay on. This is Nebraska, filled with conservative farmers. Most Democrats in Nebraska are conservatives, not liberals. This is one of the "fly over" states filled with "bumpkins", remember?
They don't give a rip about climate change. They just want to keep the corn growing. Again, a non-story ginned up by the "man is destroying the earth" religion of the far left environmentalist whackos.
A MANDATE to look only at discredited pseudoscience of Koch Brother's Paid Denier?
Seriously, keep it up. Thank you for passing up money in favor of truth
Or perhaps a direct quote:
They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%
or
easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends
Yeah, nothing to see here..at...all.....
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
and, you may not quite grasp this. Upward 'curves' become vertical and that is very very very bad.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Heaven forbid that we'd look at ALL sides of the issue. The hysterical left can't stand balanced approaches. It doesn't fit their narrative. They like to decide what's happening first and then look for the evidence to bolster their hypothesis. It's this kind of blind intellectual obedience to the left that allows an ignorant playground supervisor to be elected President and fail at every significant metric.
In the scheme of things, the human component to GW is hardly worth noting. When you consider the human contribution is .00054%, most science would call that statistically insignificant. The Climate is changing - as it always has. Live with it. If you think you can change that, then you are suffering illusions of grandeur. The Global Warming movement was nothing more than an attempt to create a global currency based on carbon. It failed. Live with it. The era of carbon based fuels will eventually pass. When you look an TIME on the Andex charts, you can see that the age of oil is but a sliver. And CO2 (plant food) is mostly affected by the rise or fall in ocean temperatures. Maurice Strong, George Soros, Agenda 21 --> You're all going nowhere.
You should learn the difference between a trend and noise. Your cherry picked 17 years is noise.
Noise is by definition unpredictable. The trend is predictable. And the trend WAS predicted correctly as being upwards.
Climate is weather over a LONG period of time. 30 years being the usual minimum. 17 years is not a climate trend. It's noise.
You of course will never accept this because your beliefs are political, not scientific.
I have often questioned the IPCC's looking myopicly at "human causes" as I find that limiting so only looking at cyclical patterns is similar. Why not look at all causes and see which weighting works best to match reality?
Funny thing is one of the oldest predictions is also one of the best.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
Maybe they should start by reviewing the existing literature? That newspaper article is about work done by Dr Libby and Dr Pandolfi in the mid 1970s. Cold until the mid 80s, warming until 2000, stops warming .... and god I hope they are wrong about the next part. A 1-2 degree drop with a 3-4 degree drop being a possibility.
So, scientists refuse to conduct research that might call into question their own previous findings and presumptions? What if "scientists" refused to conduct any studies or research into weather systems because the research could be used to overturn their own beliefs that the weather is controlled by the gods?
I'm sorry, I just don't agree; it's a complex issue and every angle needs to be explored, if nothing else than to quantify the effect of natural vs. unnatural causes. To refuse to do research because it concentrates only on the natural side of climate change seems, well, unscientific. This shows just how bad it is for society as a whole that science is as politicized as it is; scientists are now refusing to conduct research that goes against the community consensus.
Helps identify people like you as illiterate and innumerate.
There is no 'debate' about man made climate change.
I can clearly see you and your ilk try to shut debate down
A government is the entity that controls and makes decisions for a country. If you limit the scope of an elected government then some control and decisions will be made by unelected bodies.
Democracy is what we want not oligarchy.
Government should be safe, legal, and rare. Decisions should be made by individuals whenever possible and practicable, not representative bodies.
If you limit the scope of government, you maximize the freedom of individuals.
When it's been debated and found true? Sure. Just because you don't like the outcome of the settled argument doesn't mean we have to continue to grant you a forum.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people