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.'"

Comments

Governor Appointed

[Yahooti]

How do we keep politics out of this?

Re:Governor Appointed

[0123456]

How do we keep politics out of this?

By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.

As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Anonymous Coward]

the politicized environment this topic is stuck in.

oil companies make trillions each year, THAT's the source of the politicization (with the help of some media networks, funded by said corps of course.)

Re:Governor Appointed

[Microlith]

Indeed, it should be entirely privately funded. Thus we can focus on the research that matters: only that which can be monetized within the next 4 quarters or sooner!

Re:Governor Appointed

[YoungManKlaus]

I Disagree. Publically funded research is essential because there are many fields that private companies would not research (ironically, like climate change) and where monetary interests influence the results. The main problem here is that it seems that there are no checks in place to prevent (obvious) influence from eg. lobbying groups, or prevent bogus research from being funded (like the "only cyclic" climate change that is the topic here)

Re:Governor Appointed

[MacDork]

No way! Government funding is better. It's solid and dependable funding that never ever left projects in Antarctica unfunded due to government shut downs in DC.

Re:Governor Appointed

[newcastlejon]

How do we keep politics out of this?

By keeping politics out of it. Set aside a portion of the national budget to research that will be overseen by an independent trust, then release all the fruits of the same into the public domain.

Sorry, we were talking pies in the sky, weren't we?

Re:Governor Appointed

[hey!]

Taxpayer funding of science has *not* produced politicized science; not during the period, say, from the end of WW2 to the end of the 20th C. Yeah, it *sounds* plausible that federal funding should produce politicized research, but if you ever worked in a science lab or with researchers on Federal grants you'd know that it just didn't happen.

So what has changed? Thus far, for the majority of researchers, not much. But there have been two big issues. One is the rise of political concern over climate change research. The second is the shift of the Republican party from a industrial state based, business-oriented party to a Southern regional party driven by social and religious issues. 52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking). Having a majority membership of a major political party has given religious ideologues political influence they haven't enjoyed since the 1920s.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Bob9113]

By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.

As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:

Using Eisenhower's warning about the influence of politics on science to reach the conclusion that all taxpayer funded scientific research should be eliminated is about as sensible as taking his warning about the military industrial complex to conclude there should be no taxpayer funded military.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxpayer money is necessary in research; otherwise the only research that gets done is the one that can be monetized quickly (this of course barring cool-guys like Elon Musk and the old Bell Laboratories who have (or had) taken seriously the long-term benefits of general R&D).

But I think Eisenhower is somewhat right in that "task-force" studies are conducted at the political whims of Congress. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a system in which the government simply funds *research* in the most general sense of the word. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are good examples of the kind of involvement the government should have in research: the government funds these programs and is generally laissez-faire beyond that; the only politics involved are in Congress (like the Congress' ban on CDC researching gun violence).

Re:Governor Appointed

[Nyder]

Indeed, it should be entirely privately funded. Thus we can focus on the research that matters: only that which can be monetized within the next 4 quarters or sooner!

Privately funded by who, Corporations? They only care about making money, not saving the planet.

Re:Governor Appointed

[AlphaWolf_HK]

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.

Then you've also got the insurance industry who always has to have their ear to the ground when it comes to determining how much it should bill for premiums - a big chunk of their profit model comes from forecasting the climate.

Of course, doing this kind of research costs money. And why on earth would you spend any money on that when it's pretty easy to just get the government to do it for you? All you have to do is whisper into some politician's ear, and they'll eat it up because it makes their constituents feel good about themselves.

Re:Governor Appointed

[overshoot]

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

Not only that, but there are glaring counterexamples. Koch money, for instance, funded BEST.

All sorts of comments possible on that one, but I'll leave them for another day.

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

Wow, you have a quite bizarre notion of the influence of religion over the GOP. No, there is far less influence now. Most of the religious right would like to see a small government: that's the old basis for the coalition of "social conservative" and "fiscal conservative". But that was mostly finished by 2000: the religious crazies are aging out, and there is simply no "fiscal conservative" left in the traditional Republican party, and the grassroots power of the religious right has dissolved.

It used to be, under Reagan and for about a decade after, that the campaign "ground game" for the GOP --- the folks who staff the campaign offices, knock on doors, man the telephone banks, and so on -- was dominated by the religious right. The was nearly gone by 2000. Karl Rove tried to revive it with some of his tactics, but had very limited success (and we can see how he totally misjudged 2010).

Plus, if you really believe that 34% of Democrats believe in creationism, you seriously need to stop eating what the press is feeding you. The press is nothing but scare-mongering, and whether it's ginning up fears that the terrorists will kill you, or that the creationists will take over, the press is mostly fiction.

Get out there and talk to people - talk to people who believe different things than you do! You'll find that very few people on either side of the political spectrum are crazy or stupid, but that they just don't care about stuff like "creation vs evolution", it's not important to them, one way or the other, and so you can craft a poll question that will produce whatever results you desire. (Much like if someone asked me about a Kardashian,- I'd likely be easily led to whatever answer the pollster wanted, unless they meant the Star Trek kind).

Re:Governor Appointed

[mbkennel]

There's also a few aimless fantasizing billionaire dilletantes, but government funding pushes 99% of basic science progress forward.

Re:Governor Appointed

[bondsbw]

Well, it could be "Forcibly take a portion of my personal property (taxes) and hand it over to some lazy people who don't want to work who aren't beholden in any way whatsoever to me, the taxpayer."

Oh, wait.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Ash Vince]

So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.

Just because something is funded by government does not mean politicians should be able to influence it. It is perfectly possible to have government funding for universities but done in such a way that individual politicians have no influence over the research that is done.

If you remove government funding completely from research though you end up with utterly biased research towards big business. There is precious little money to be made in climate science compared to the huge amounts being made by the oil industry so without government funding of climate research nobody would do it as the oil industry or car industry would simply be able to buy universities off doing it. This would result in the only research being done being friendly to whoever made the most cash or purely a source of R&D for companies where the results were never made public (If a company does research they have not interest most of the time in the results being put in the public domain).

Most other countries in the world manage to have government funded research without if being so political. I think the real problem here is not research being funded by government it is that your political system is utterly dysfunctional and bent. The whole way your politicians in the US are bought and sold by campaign donations is a huge problem as it combines with your lack of enforceable limits on how much money can be spent on election campaigns to give the rich and corporations to much power.

This is then made even worse by the lack of any requirement to be truthful in political advertising to the american public. Most other systems have at least some element of there being rules that force you to be able justify any statements made but in the US it is perfectly legal to call you opponent out as being a child murderer without so much as a shred of proof. There is a an expression that if you throw enough shit then some of it will stick and this is certainly what seems to result in your political system.

Combine this with a lack of any requirements for news media to be in anyway balanced and you end up with a system that favours whoever can spend the most.

Re:Governor Appointed

[TapeCutter]

Take a look at the world around you, 100yrs of taxpayer research built that. Eisenhower warned about the MI complex because it can slide into fascism without anyone noticing until it's too late (eg: 1930's Germany). He went on to say the US can not survive without the MI complex.

Re:Governor Appointed

[mcgrew]

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

I see that as a good thing. Some research is incredibly expensive, and I'd like to see everything studied.

Re:Governor Appointed

[mspohr]

Great! Then we only get science that our corporate overlords want to know... and they would never have any bias.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Required Snark]

So where did the internet come from? Was it a untapped natural resource that was just lying around, unused until somebody figured out how to make it work?

In case you forgot, the internet started as ARPANET, which was funded by the federal government. It was a research project, which is the R in ARPA. Research means experimentation, which is what scientists do. That this funding came out of the DOD is irrelevant. Quibbling about it not being "science" is also nonsense. The academic field that includes computer networking is called computer science. I don't think anyone has plans to change the name anytime soon.

You are dumber then a box of rocks. You live in an environment created by a huge effort on the part of countless people, many of whom worked for various governments. Jet engines, nuclear energy, computers, all resulted from government initialed efforts.

You're ignorant and ungrateful. I wish there was some way you could be stripped of all the benefits that have accrued from government research. You'd be sitting miserable in some decrepit hovel, which is all you deserve.

Re:Governor Appointed

[mcgrew]

Think about that for a second, Sheldon.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Ash Vince]

First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.

That is utter crap. Solar panel manufacturing is not that profitable, if it was why is BP winding down its solar division:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9025019&contentId=7046515

Recycling is also not exactly a sure fire route to buckets of cash. Somethings it is cost effective to recycle like aluminium and maybe steel but most stuff is cheaper to just throw in a hole in the ground. The problem is that nobody wants a landfill next to their house and so the only money is in making rubbish go away as nobody wants to deal with it. Most stuff is simply too damn hard to split out into its raw materials in order to recycle it without serious government grants.

As to electric vehicles it might be trendy but it is nowhere near as profitable as making good old fashioned gas guzzlers. The US auto industry did not need to be bailed out due to everyone buying electric cars, they needed a bailout because labour costs were too high and because more and more people were choosing to buy foreign cars. Most other countries auto industries have done ok.

The reality is that without government funded research coming out of other countries the huge corporations and oil companies would have just out spent everyone else trying their damnedest to sweep climate change under the table.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Yahooti]

Better to a science panel than a professional welfare recipient.

Re:Governor Appointed

[mcgrew]

52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking). Having a majority membership of a major political party has given religious ideologues political influence they haven't enjoyed since the 1920s.

Any numbers about "creationism" are meaningless because nobody agrees what "creationism" is. 2/3rds of the world's population believe in a creator, so what? Are they all "creationists"?

Your atheistic troll is offtopic and offensive. However, I do forgive you for it.

Re:Governor Appointed

[mcgrew]

Bullshit.

[citation needed]

</shooting fish in a barrel>

Re:Governor Appointed

[mcgrew]

I'm fine with that, you selfish prick.

Re:Governor Appointed

[ttucker]

How do we keep politics out of this?

If the scientists doing the research did not have an ambition to change public policy, that would probably help.

Re:Governor Appointed

[newcastlejon]

Forcibly take a portion of my personal property (taxes) and it over to some elite board of intellectuals who aren't beholden in any way whatsoever to me, they taxpayer?

That's how taxes work. People often forget just how much power is wielded by unelected officials; by and large, they are the ones really running things. No sane government would entrust its infrastructure to a person with no qualifications who would, on average, only be in the job for a couple of years.

By the by, one would have expected someone who took the name of a Mahatma to be more concerned with the public good... and to have a better idea of how nations actually work.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

You're ignoring the decades of work that came before all of your objections. Science isn't always predictable... an insurance company funding a study of sea-level rise off California is one thing once all of the big studies are done and the much of the dynamics are starting to be figured out, but are you going to get an insurance company funding research of ice-cores in Antarctica, or drilling cores in the seabed, or studying tree rings in the Andes? I didn't think so.

Re:Governor Appointed

[TapeCutter]

Government funds the research that private enterprise can't or won't. Private enterprise not only funds research in self-interest often funds research with "no strings attached", the institutions set up by Gates, Gore, Clinton and others are all excellent examples if you can see past the politics of the front man. As much as I hate the anti-science FF lobbyist, the $50M spent on them by corporations over 20yrs is a drop in the ocean, I find it bizarre how what amounts to a "rounding error" spent on anti-science propaganda can so effectively whip up an army of useful idiots.

Re:Governor Appointed

[riverat1]

If science is done correctly it shouldn't matter what the funding source is. All of the money in the world can't change reality. You can try to put whatever spin you want on science but ultimately the real world will trump it.

Re:Governor Appointed

[hey!]

Well, I used "creationism" as shorthand for the result. 52% of Republicans believe that the world was created by God some time in the last 10,000 years. 34% of *Democrats* took that position in the Gallup survey. It is possible that not all of the people who believed that call themselves "creationists"; but generally people reject "-ist" labels put on them by others.

Re:Governor Appointed

[BitZtream]

That is utter crap. Solar panel manufacturing is not that profitable, if it was why is BP winding down its solar division:

Because petroleum is far more profitable and a better way for them to make money ... and solar will still be there when the oil runs out.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Zak3056]

The post he responded to referenced Elon Musk and Bell Labs. Going a bit further afield the old xerox PARC and IBM of of did plenty of research. Microsoft spends a bunch on pie in the sky stuff. John Carmack plowed plenty of money into building rockets.

Has government funded research produced absolutely incredible results that we're all better off for? Abso-freaking-lutely! Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!

Re: Governor Appointed

[modmans2ndcoming]

Jesus is an invention of the Romans.

Re:Governor Appointed

[hey!]

Plus, if you really believe that 34% of Democrats believe in creationism, you seriously need to stop eating what the press is feeding you. The press is nothing but scare-mongering, and whether it's ginning up fears that the terrorists will kill you, or that the creationists will take over, the press is mostly fiction.

I'm just going by what the Gallup poll said. There may be methological flaws, of course, such as relying upon self-reported party affiliation.

As for the power of the religious right in the Republican party, I think the poll's estimate is probably high if you look at people *highly* involved in Republican politics, such as people who volunteer on campaigns or run for office. But if I'm right, that doesn't mean that the religious right isn't influential. Political power is dependent upon your ability to swing results. You don't need to be a majority in the party to have influence; you need to be necessary to forming a winning coalition.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Dcnjoe60]

By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.

So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.

I'm not sure private business would put the common good in their business model for funding research. Besides, politicians don't fund science. The special interest groups pulling the strings of politicians fund science with taxpayer's money. Which really means that somebody with lots of money, somewhere, doesn't like what the research is pointing to because it will impact what they want to do or their bottom line or both and they pay politicians to vote a certain way on spending bills (obviously not directly paying them but through the campaign process).

If you want to get the politics out of scientific research, you first have to get the big money out of politics.

Re:Governor Appointed

[pixelpusher220]

Why would any company invest in climate research? The size you'd need limits your choice of companies pretty dramatically. Which of the major international corporations would be funding climate change that won't directly benefit them for quite literally decades?

Corporations don't pay for things that far in advance. Hell just look at pensions for their employees. Things they are legally *required* to provide and how often those pensions are underfunded. (Hint we have an entire GOVERNMENT organization to deal with exactly this problem...PBGC).

Re:Governor Appointed

[JustOK]

They're close with the sharks with lasers on their heads. I've heard they've got it working on mutated sea bass.

Re:Governor Appointed

[kf6auf]

Ok, as long as you agree not to partake of any of the derived benefits which definitely includes the Internet. So GTFO.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Capsaicin]

Not only that, but there are glaring counterexamples. Koch money, for instance, funded BEST.

Which was a review of extant climate science and would not have been funded but for government funding of science. So perhaps not as good an example as it appears on first appearances.

Re:Governor Appointed

[BitZtream]

You do realize that Mahatma is not the only Gandhi right? And that Gandhi is a rather common last name in India .... right?

Re:Governor Appointed

[Capsaicin]

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research?

Let's rephrase to remove that objection.

Publicly funded research is essential because there are many fields where private funding would be somewhere between insufficient to non-existent, especially those with low potential for obvious commercial application (ironically, like climate change). Additionally there are many fields where monetary interest raises questions about the reliability of industry based research (eg. the efficacy of glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis), which reliability can be assessed only by comparison with publicly funded (as close as we can practically get to independent) research.

To blame the nature of government funded research itself, for the gross attempt at state intervention described in the present article, is not only to misunderstand the nature and ignore the importance of public research, it is to underestimate the transgression contemplated by this intervention. Instead of attacking science funding we ought attack the administrator who fails in their duty to respect independence in publicly funded research. With pitchforks if necessary.

Re:Governor Appointed

[qeveren]

This, exactly. Business has no interest in pure research - it has no direct, monetizable goal - and it certainly isn't interested in sharing any results if it bothered.

Re:Governor Appointed

[ArbitraryName]

Elon Musk

Musk put about $100 million of his own money into SpaceX. $4-500 million has come from NASA.

Bell Labs

They closed up shop specifically because it was becoming impractical for private companies to make those big gains anymore.

xerox PARC

Up util the mid 70's received huge amounts of funding from DARPA.

Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!

While this is technically still true, this isn't the mid-20th century anymore. That's the exception, not the rule. Keep in mind that that research funding came from an environment of high taxation leading to research being the best way to at least keep some benefit in house.

Re:Governor Appointed

[przemekklosowski]

You clearly have no idea how the current, very successful public funding of science works. The model that we had since WWII is based on public funding via competitive, peer-reviewed grants. This review function is crucial and indispensable in order to insulate research from political and even social pressure. Again, the idea is that the public funding goes into a pool, and the researchers compete by submitting their proposals to an independent body of their peers who select most promising projects based on their expertise in the field. The problem with the Nebraska situation is that apparently their legislature ignored the independent review phase and directly allocated money for a custom-made proposal that fits their preconceived notions.

Re:Governor Appointed

[riverat1]

Sort of like the National Science Foundation?

Re:Governor Appointed

[microbox]

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

The university system is the USA's last beacon of exceptionalism, and is systematically being eroded by turning professors into professional grant writers. Momentum is mostly what is really keeping it going. The public funding of research also supports education of the entire population. Only a radical would propose undoing such a successful system based on some intellectual theory on how societies and economies work. A theory that most academics disagree with. See Hayek's Fatal Conceit.

Re:Governor Appointed

[microbox]

Haha, yeah, we should get rid of government military. I mean, government anything is bogus, right? The Tea Party isn't about opposition to government, it's about opposition to particular government programs, that will create "dependence", and the "dependents" will in turn vote for more "benefits", and exclude the Tea Party from power. It's junk thinking, of course. Most Tea Party members suck on the teat of medicare and social security, and support the military, but for some reason they themselves don't feel the overwhelming desire to vote democrat.

Re:Governor Appointed

[WaywardGeek]

I guess I'll point out the obvious flaw in dork-tard's assertion that business should do the research and the government should stay out of it. Businesses may indeed fund research into things like climate change and even do a better job, but they wont *share* their results. Businesses are not in the business of improving our country or the world. If they pay for research, they almost always keep the results as a trade secret just in case it might give them a slight competitive advantage. It's not evil, it's simply business.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Tom]

52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking).

This is what really changed: You've become a country of idiots, morons, fools and imbeciles.

If the USA had had that attitude towards rocket science, it would still try to put a man on the moon, today.

Re:Governor Appointed

[bennomatic]

"The free university." Hm. I wonder how that magical beast ever existed. Did it really run without funds?

(Hint: No. the historical fountainheads of free ideas and scientific discovery have, for the most part, survived on significant amounts of government--i.e. taxpayer--funding in most civilized societies.)

Re:Governor Appointed

[rtb61]

That is totally wrong. You can fund science and ask a stupid question and then get a stupid answer, then twist that stupid answer into something it is not.

In this case earth cyclic weather change. Well that is utterly meaningless, as it can only really occur due to external circumstance ie solar output and orbital mechanics. Catch is both of those do not explain major ice ages. Which look to be driven by probability based co-incidental major geological events (a series of major earthquakes and major volcanoes at near the same time, which due to probability can be hundreds of thousands or millions of years apart, basically random through extreme complexity) or dust clouds driven by spacial events, as well as major celestial impacts.

Life can of course have an impact, as a result of run away species explosion but these of course are again not cyclic. So here the stupid question is, are there cyclic weather events, the answer yes, stellar output and orbital mechanics. This well then be trotted out as the reason for the current event, even though science has already substantiated that it is not.

Reality is of course we house billions in coastal cities, even if this where a cyclic event we logically should take every means possible to circumvent it and sustain the current sea over the full life of our human society, else those billions will be seeking what is the apparent social cyclic event, of the public execution of those who caused and or allowed the problems to occur.

Re:Governor Appointed

[fluffy99]

Indeed, it should be entirely privately funded. Thus we can focus on the research that matters: only that which can be monetized within the next 4 quarters or sooner!

Define privately funded. By the oil industry? It's pretty hard to find finding from unbiased sources, much less sources who will fund you in the future if you produce results contrary to what they expects. Certainly politicians and the govt are hardly unbiased, as they want to fund studies that side with their campaign contributors.

A grant to investigate the sources of the observed cyclical changes in the global climate is not unreasonable given some of the conflicting evidence and studies. I don't see that it's in direct conflict with evidence suggesting that man-made pollution is a driver of climate change. The real crime is that both sides of the argument want an all-or-nothing answer, saying either man is entirely responsible or man has no influence. The real answer is that climate change is driven by many factors including elevated CO2 levels because we are pumping carbon of the the ground and putting it in the air (burning fossil fuels), cyclical changes in solar output, etc.

Re:Governor Appointed

[sjames]

Any research from big oil OR alternative energy would immediately be dismissed as biased by the source of funding. Where insurance has done any research, the discussion right here on /. showed that their results will be questioned for bias as well.

At least with government research, we can hope that opposing influences can potentially balance or that the necessary appearance of neutrality is cionstraining enough to produce something approaching actual neutrality.

Re:Governor Appointed

[amck]

How do we keep politics out of this?

How do we keep politics out of this?

By keeping science funding at arms length, funded by agencies like NIH and NSF, with politicians setting overarching policy only.
This works most of the time, and elsewhere around the world. The case being quoted is the exception, not the norm, and should be called out
(as it is being) as interference.

Arguing that government shouldn't be involved in science is ignoring that most science is publicly funded, and nearly all privately-funded
science depends on publicly-funded fundamental science that has no immediate applied value (and hence won't be corporately funded)
but is still needed.

Re:Governor Appointed

[mysidia]

How do we keep politics out of this?

Fire the state scientists, and recast the study as a lucrative grant program, for local research universities to take on.

Re:Governor Appointed

[shutdown -p now]

If all you say is so true, then why all Republican candidates in the 2012 primaries were pandering to extreme social conservative wing so much?

Re:Governor Appointed

[gtall]

So, you are saying that we should be awash in industry funded research on climate change. Okay, where is it?

Re:Governor Appointed

[gtall]

More to the point, Republicans and to a lessor extent, Democrats, have become post-Science believers in the sense that they treat Science as just another form of politics. Neither side is interested in Scientific results, they are only interested in outcomes that bolster whatever opinion they have this week.

Both sides have decided that since Science produces few truths in the mathematical sense, it can all be made suspect. Scientific theories are only verifiable up to a certain epsilon. That gap has been deemed wide enough for both political parties to drive trucks of manure through. It is disingenuous at the least and downright stupid at the worst. It's somewhat like denying Einstein's relativity. Sure you can argue a lacuna here or there (not yet unified with quantum theory), yet there's no escaping gravity. To put it bluntly, they've invented their own G-d of the Gaps.

I concur that taxpayer funding has not produced politicized science, politicians did that to that thin veneer of science for which they have minimal intellectual capacity to understand.

Re: Governor Appointed

[MickLinux]

Just a comment, we are already at peak everything. That doesn't mean that oil is unavailable, it means that our higher quality, easier sources are tapped. As we go to lower quality sources, our prices MUST rise, and the purchasing power of the dollar must fall. Change your policy to hold inflation steady, and you'll get a crash in wages, followed by a crash in husing defaults... but that's a different story.

Anyhow, as materials get harder to find, the ore value of recycling increases. NOT a surefire way to buckets of money? I agree. But every bit of trash you canesort isa refinement on the raw materials. For any one product, it is hugely expensive. But just like networking theory, the value of sorting goes up by the fourth power IIRC of the number of items you can recycle.

So there is a definite goldmine there.It's just a question of how long some companies take to get there.

Re:Governor Appointed

[daem0n1x]

You Americans keep mistaking two different concepts: Government and State. Those are not the same, you know? There's a deliberate effort by the Corporate Media Propaganda Machine to keep that fallacy in your minds. By what I can read here, it's working perfectly.

Re:Governor Appointed

[jandersen]

By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'. ...
So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.

Nonsense. Firstly, it is wrong to say that "politicians fund science with tax-payers' money" - the state does, and in a modern democracy, that is an entity separate from the politicians; state is government, politicians are legislature - separation of powers and all that. If it doesn't work that way, it isn't because state funding is wrong, it is because you have a corrupt system. State funded research works in many countries, certainly in Europe, so it is possible to get it right.

The way to keep politics out of science is by improving the system and enforcing the rules. If you privatise all research, what you get is not better quality, but a free-for-all, where wealthy churces and organisations like Scientology can say "This is the truth", and nobody will know how to argue against them. In fact, a situation where science becomes impossible.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Hognoxious]

Jet engines, nuclear energy, computers, all resulted from government initialed efforts.

The Jet Engine didn't.

And it's not American, either.

Re:Governor Appointed

[budgenator]

Actually if the science was being done correctly, these Scientists should be salivating like Pavolv's dog at the oppertunity to be able to factor out natural cyclical climatic changes so that human contributions would be obvious.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Anonymous Coward]

The natural cyclical climatic changes have already been measured, and are factored into current climate models. A study which explicitly *excludes* a known factor (human-induced pollution) is going to provide junk data on the output. The scientists are objecting to being *required* to produce said junk data.

Re:Governor Appointed

[saihung]

Why would they be salivating at doing something that wouldn't produce valid results? They are being ordered to do junk science to promote a political agenda. No scientist worth his salt would be interested in something like that.

"I direct you to conduct a scientific study of where babies come from, with specific references to storks and the "baby store." But no mention of sex, please, because that's icky."

Re:Governor Appointed

[Rich0]

Politicians are there to ask questions, scientists are there to answer them. Politicians have no business telling scientists how to do their job, which is what they are doing here.

Tend to agree. I don't see any problem with the public commissioning a study to be designed with the goal of supporting or refuting a particular cyclical climate change hypothesis. Pre-ordaining the conclusion on the other hand is a waste of money, and just a really expensive form of propaganda.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Dixie_Flatline]

Additional data point: WiFi networking hinges on a patent based on research done at CSIRO (in Australia) that was looking into miniature black holes.

So-called blue sky research is of incredible importance, and you can't predict what will come out of it. What private corporation would ever fund that sort of black hole research? You can't know what's going to create a winner before you start--if we knew that, we'd only start the projects that we knew were winners ahead of time, obviously.

Governments need to fund things that have no obvious profit end-goal or endeavours where profit is antithetical to the end-goal. Governments should generally fund and run health care because a healthy population would put the health care industry out of business--the health care industry makes more money when it does a bad job than when it does a good one. Roads have no obvious profitable end-goal, by and large. And so it is with speculative research.

This is, incidentally, why corporations also need to pay taxes. They benefit from healthy workers and an infrastructure that allows them to move their products and employees.

As usual, espousing one extreme or the other (pure corporatism vs. pure government control) is basically disaster. There IS a happy middle ground.

Re:Governor Appointed

[SleazyRidr]

a) Who said that the only government capable of funding research was that of the US?
b) The idea of the jet engine may not have come from the government, but it was military research that turned it from an interesting toy to the modern basis of international travel. So, unless you think Boeing or Airbus would develop a new type of engine we still need the government to fund research for the quality of life we enjoy today.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Gripp]

By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.

Absolutely not. That is a horrible idea. It would nearly eliminate basic science research. Anything that lacks a direct and immediate application would simply not get researched, or have minimal research at best. Consider things like the LHC. A multi-billion dollar investment, funded by multiple governments. Nothing coming out of there will have applications in the next several decades. What company, or even group of companies, would pay for something like that? It's basically throwing away money! Yet... it is among the most important research being done at present. All because the government isn't interested in immediate profit.

I think what you meant to say is that government officials shouldn't be allowed to make money off of their political influence. Get rid of campaign funding and the likes and it solves the problems of politicians trying to push fake/corporate agendas.

Re:Governor Appointed

[riverat1]

What makes you think that isn't being done already? In the new IPCC AR5 Working Group I report there are two chapters that address this, "Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing" and "Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional". The attribution of climate change to it's various causes is an important part of the field already.

Re:Governor Appointed

[dave420]

Reaction Engines Ltd. have been working on a hybrid rocket/jet engine which uses only hydrogen and oxygen as fuels. It's capable of space flight, or just simply going really fast in the atmosphere. They have recently secured funding from various EU governments and agencies, but they started their work on their own. The way I see it, it's wonderful to have a lone genius forge a path towards some measurable success, then have governments step in and help him on his way to his vision. It also helps to have dispassionate government research into fields which society simply needs to better. The two aren't mutually exclusive, so why not have both?

Re:Governor Appointed

[aestrivex]

I don't think you understand much about how science works. Science not funded by taxpayer money, entails very little science indeed that is not directly related to the production of new computing technology, pharmaceuticals, or nuclear warheads.

Re:Governor Appointed

[dave420]

Mahatma wasn't even his name. That simply means "great soul" or similar. His real name was Mohandas Gandhi. But close.

Re:Governor Appointed

[IndieVoter]

Obvious solution- Get political oriented funding out. There is no 'independent' research if Politicians are involved, period.

Re:Governor Appointed

[SleazyRidr]

Why not have both, indeed. Instead of the government wasting all its resources chasing dead ends, let the "lone inventors" show that an idea has some merit and then the government can back it until it's a viable product.

Also, the lone inventor will be a lot more successful if there is a bank of fundamental research he can use to develop his inventions.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Ol Olsoc]

Indeed, it should be entirely privately funded. Thus we can focus on the research that matters: only that which can be monetized within the next 4 quarters or sooner!

Are you crazy? The Stockholders will never accept long timelines like that.

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

Each side has it's crazies, in about equal proportion, and neither is dominated by them. They get thrown a bone, now and then, but nothing of substance.

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

Check out the age of most of those guys. The crazy was strong in the "greatest generation", and somewhat there in the baby boomers.

And thanks to the internet they can live in there own bubble devoid of any actual facts they disagree with.

If you don't see how that applies equally to both sides, you're living in an internet bubble devoid of any actual facts that you disagree with.

Re:Governor Appointed

[MooseMiester]

You are absolutely correct, and people look stupid when they use the term "global warming" given that no warming has occurred over the last several years despite significant increases in CO2.

I was alive in the 70's when the great ice age was coming, but you never hear about that either :-)

Re:Governor Appointed

[microbox]

Each side has it's crazies, in about equal proportion,

This is true, except that liberal crazies (and they are CRAZY) do not participate in the political system, where-as conservative crazies are controlling their party since the rise of the tea party.

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

Sure, just believe the media hype about the Tea Party. It's the one group who still advocates for smaller government, so they must be a bunch of crazy racists, right? This is why I fear the government spending bubble is not going to have a soft landing.

Re:Governor Appointed

[micahraleigh]

Which is why it doesn't waste money any where near the way the government does, and its investiments lead to things people will willingly choose to buy.

Re:Governor Appointed

[notonthegrid]

So, it's looking more and more and more like the political science is
settled. AGW is purely a political conclusion, not fact.

Re: Governor Appointed

[gzuckier]

Yeah eliminate public funding of research because politicians have opinions and might attach strings. Because of course corporations like GM or BP or IBM are not only dying to spend shareholders' profits to investigate the process of ribosomal assembly in facultative anaerobes, for instance, but also their executives are known for having no preconceived opinions or ever linking payment to achieving particular results. As we all know, anything a for profit entity says is true, that's why you should believe anything you see in an ad.

Eliminate all government undertakings! End creeping socialism now! As our national motto says, "E pluribus unum", meaning "Every man for himself!"

Re:Governor Appointed

[microbox]

Sure, just believe the media hype about the Tea Party.

I subscribe to freedomworks, newbusters, redstate, "impeach obama", Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Fox News, Limbhaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity, and probably more (I'm a bit of a junkie), and actually read and analyze the discourse. If by "media type" you mean the media that the grass-roots right-wing produce, then yes I believe it is the real opinions and beliefs of the other subscribers.

It is mostly incoherent nonsense -- transparently untrue. (It seems a lie doesn't have to have any depth to it, it just has to sound good to the ear of the true believers.) I do this for professional interest -- in cognitive science. How that relates to cognitive science is a very interesting story, but you'll have to wait for my book.

But sure, you can think of me as an "ideologue" that has been brain-washed by the "liberal media". That has to be true, because you are "right", and fighting the good fight.

btw, most of the economics profession believes that the Tea Party is out to lunch as well, and that government budgets could be brought under control with modest incremental changes. If the Tea Party were really interested in bringing down debt then we'd already be well on the way, but the debt continues to rise, and the intransigence continues.

There is a reason why the Tea Party is reviled by most of America and the world. But sure, the problem is with the other guy.

Re:Governor Appointed

[pixelpusher220]

show me something, anything, along the same lines as above, the left wing 'crazies' say that is provably false?

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

What does "provably false" mean? I'm going on with life as if "evolution is lies from the pit of hell' is false, but I can't prove it. However, some of my favorite theories are: human CO2 emission will cause Earth to become like Venus; nuclear power kills more people than coal; the government can print an unlimited amount of money and not cause inflation; the "truth" about 911; organic foods have no chemicals; we spend too much money in space; the only reason you could oppose Obama's policies is racism; Saddam Hussein never had WMDs; using logic to judge the correctness of an argument is a tool of the Patriarchy and thus invalid. The last one especially isn't provably false, but it's my favorite.

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

My only strong belief here is that any party or coalition that tries to reduce government spending will be treated by the press (and most economics professors) exactly like the Tea Party is: called a bunch of crazy racists with no credibility,

It makes me sad that we didn't make those "modest incremental changes" to bring the budget under control back when we still could. Now it's going to get very ugly when the next economic downturn comes, and much needless suffering will ensue.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Peaceful_Patriot]

Twenty years ago this was not as controversial a subject. There were politicians in both parties concerned, but the topic was too new and the public wasn't sure. Then one of the political parties decided that things like facts and science are more like suggestions to be taken or not. They bought their own research, called 98% of scientists liberal liars and spent millions of (Koch) dollars confusing the public.

How do we get politics out of this? Get rid of those politicians whom ignorance is considered a plus. Get off your couch, away from your computer and vote. Quit complaining about the damn system and do something about it. I'm so tired of listening to the whining of people who don't vote, don't participate and then are angry when the crazies (who go to the polls) dominate the conversation.

Where have all the idealists gone? Us old fogies who stood up a generation ago are dying off and there doesn't seem to be anyone replacing us. Get mad. Get loud. Make your voices heard above the crazy din. That's how we get politics out of this.

Re:Governor Appointed

[BasilBrush]

Get out there and talk to people - talk to people who believe different things than you do! You'll find that very few people on either side of the political spectrum are crazy or stupid, but that they just don't care about stuff like "creation vs evolution", it's not important to them, one way or the other, and so you can craft a poll question that will produce whatever results you desire.

Going out and talking to people around you gets anecdotes biased towards your own location and social group. It doesn't get you data.

Whilst there are dangers of polls being biased in various ways, that's a fraction of the way your suggested method is guaranteed to be biased.

Re:Governor Appointed

[BasilBrush]

It's not media hype that the Tea Party are a rag-tag of easily manipulated right wingers, financed by money from the Koch Brothers, and propagandised by Fox News.

Amongst their ranks we have see racists, evangelicals and all sorts of others. A real mixed bag. But being easily manipulated is their main thing in common.

Re:Governor Appointed

[microbox]

My only strong belief here is that any party or coalition that tries to reduce government spending

The Dems tried to reduce the size of government in the 2011 budget "fight". The media didn't call them a bunch of crazy racists with no credibility. The GOP establishment was ready for a big win, but the Tea Party base couldn't take yes for an answer, because Obama is a slick conman, and as soon as he supports something (statistically) that is its death.

Academics think the tea party has no credibility because what they say is incoherent to those who actually study the issues involved.

If you are /really/ interested in reducing the size of government, then I recommend paying closer attention to all angles of the political debate, both in the USA and overseas. It might surprise you to find that liberals are, on average, better at keeping the books in order, and conservatives are huge advocates of increasing the size of government for programs that they like. The political branding is just that: branding. In the case of politics, the maximum "nothing is as it seems" is true for the ideologue, and "everything is as it seems" is true for the outside observer.

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

It's clear that neither "side" is interested in decreasing government spending per se, each side wants more for their own supporters, and is indifferent to the supporters of the other side, inevitably resulting in compromises where supporters of both sides get at least a little. Oh well, that will continue until it can't, and ugly as that moment will be it won't be the collapse of civilization that the bunker-dwellers fear.

Re:Governor Appointed

[lgw]

Well, I can see from your other posts that you categorically reject any information contrary to your established views, so I'm hardly surprised by your rejection of the idea of talking to people with opposing views.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Anonymous Coward]

each side wants more for their own supporters

That's an interesting perspective that is often repeated in particular by the right wing. It cuts to the heart of a right-wing fear that people will vote only for their best interests. (People actually vote along ideological lines, and will predictably vote against their own self-interest.) People have opinions on how society works, and that is related to their ideas on human nature, and this in turn informs notions of what is moral, and how society should be constructed or changed.

This notion of what is moral or right for society is far more potent then "giving away goodies" and "getting people addicted to sugar". Time and again you will see societies tightening their belt, because it is seen as necessary. I think pretty much everybody hates paying taxes and hates government waste. If you go to modern day eastern europe you will see how socialism has poisoned peoples work ethic, and that change is very slow. Most western democracies champion mixed capitalism for precisely that reason. Modern day conservative market ideology grew out of "neo-liberalism", which is a liberal point of view.

I think you're correct that society won't "collapse" -- although there may be a return to more war in the future.

Re:Governor Appointed

[BasilBrush]

The only idea I'm rejecting is your ill thought out one. Again, anecdotes aren't data.

Re: Governor Appointed

[kenh]

If you want to 'keep politics out' don't asleep politicians to fund your research...

Re:Governor Appointed

[newcastlejon]

I said "a Mahatma", not "the Mahatma". If you're going to try and be picky at least read what you're criticising.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Uberbah]

I was alive in the 70's when the great ice age was coming, but you never hear about that either :-)

You mean when you started making shit up? Repeating Big Lies - in this case the global cooling myth - doesn't make them true. It just makes you a bigger liar.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Uberbah]

The US auto industry did not need to be bailed out due to everyone buying electric cars, they needed a bailout because labour costs were too high

Right. Which is why Germany produces twice as many cars as the U.S. while paying their workers twice as much.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Uberbah]

Each side has it's crazies, in about equal proportion, and neither is dominated by them.

On some planet where OWS has successfully primaried a dozen left-leaning Democrats the way the teabaggers have successfully primaried a dozen conservative Republicans?

Re:Governor Appointed

[Tom]

Those percentages are certainly lower than what they were when the US put a man on the moon.

Show me the numbers, because I doubt it.

Re:Governor Appointed

[Anonymous Coward]

However, some of my favorite theories are: human CO2 emission will cause Earth to become like Venus;

Said by nobody with real power.

nuclear power kills more people than coal;

Said by nobody with real power.

the government can print an unlimited amount of money and not cause inflation;

Said by nobody with real power, and also pretty much a right-wing paranoid fantasy about its opposition (I don't think I've ever heard anybody, not even the most hardcore leftist, assert this).

the "truth" about 911;

Said by nobody with real power, and 9/11 "truthers" span the ideological spectrum. There is a weird wraparound, a shared ground between far-left and far-right loonies. Both are willing to believe grand conspiracy theories, albeit for different assumed reasons.

organic foods have no chemicals;

Another view that is actually not really left or right. There are plenty of low-knowledge right-wingers who buy into all sorts of alt-med and food belief systems. I know a hardcore right winger (thinks that the Republicans are pinko lefties who have sold out America) who believes that magic noni/acai berry juice cures disease, grants extended youth, etc. And the entire "dietary supplement" boondoggle (in which if you call a drug a "supplement" you are freed from FDA regulation as well as nearly all expectations of scientific proof of efficacy and freedom from harm) was and is the darling of one of America's most prominent right-wing Senators, Orrin Hatch.

we spend too much money in space;

Hey, I like space exploration too, but it doesn't take a genius to see that so much of our money spent on it has been a waste.

And the theory that we need to spend lots more on it -- particularly manned spaceflight -- is not actually all that well supported. I used to be a true believer in this stuff but as I've aged, I've slowly realized that doing much beyond robotic scientific missions, comm / weather sats, and so forth is irrelevant to 99.999% of humanity, and would continue to be so even if we spent 100x as much for 100 years. Does it put food on the table? Nope. Takes it off, instead, if for no reason other than opportunity cost (the energy sources and chemical feedstocks used for rocket launches can instead be used to manufacture nitrate fertilizer). Are far-flung ideas like asteroid mining or manufacturing in orbit even remotely likely to be viable? Nope. The delta-V required to move mass to and from orbit is astonishing (hence the comment on the cost of rocket launches), and now you're talking about moving major fractions of the mass of an asteroid into Earth orbit and then landing same? Holy shit. (Never mind the impact risks...)

the only reason you could oppose Obama's policies is racism;

Said by nobody, ever. This smells suspiciously like a self-serving exaggeration of the true observation that much of the opposition to Obama's policies boils down to racism.

(And please don't deny that. We just got done with your side, the Tea Party you're simultaneously trying to minimize and defend, flying the Confederate Flag outside the White House during a Tea Party "protest". Despite the subsequent apologia claiming it was merely a lone nut, the notable thing is that there was nary a peep from his fellow "protestors", who seemed all too happy to line up next to one of the most potent symbols of those who wished to oppress and enslave black Americans, traitorously secede from the Union, and so on. They were fine with it being waved around in front of the home of the nation's most prominent black man.)

Saddam Hussein never had WMDs;

Said by nobody.

using logic to judge the correctness of an argument is a tool of the Patriarchy and thus invalid. The last one especiall

Re:Governor Appointed

[jwhitener]

Or we could eliminate all corporate and private funding of 'politicians'.

Re: Governor Appointed

[modmans2ndcoming]

except Obama is a real person and Jesus is a work of fiction created by Titus Flavius. The stories in the gospels are allegory for the the Emperor's conquest of Palestine, taking it back from the militant Jews.

Really?

[kramerd]

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.

Re:Really?

[Brett Buck]

Because it's HERESY, pure and simple! My indignation that someone might not believe is beyond description. Burn them at the stake!

Re:Really?

[ericloewe]

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*.

Of course, open-minded studies are always needed, but this specific one reeks of political interference.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "cyclical climate change" is voodoo. It doesn't explain WHY it changes, it's just curve fitting.

Moreover, if you'd ever bothered to read ANY of the IPCC reports, you'd see that in the Attributions section it goes into the non-anthropogenic forcings.

However, it's just much easier for you to go "Derpy derp derp!".

Re:Really?

[Carewolf]

There are studies of it, plenty. What we don't need is politically motivated research with predefined results. That has also been done several times, and they all ended up agreeing with the scientific consensus (though sometimes only after being called out on fabricated numbers and bad science).

Re:Really?

[icebike]

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.

Mod parent insightful.

If you don't have any understanding of the noise, how can you detect the signal?
Real signal can be masked by noise just as well as fake signal could be induced by noise.
Fear of knowing what part of a trend is noise vs signal is simply intellectually dishonest.

Many claim that the recent leveling off of global warming is because we just happen to be in a period where solar output is lower.
If true, as soon as that solar output ramps up we are in for double trouble.

If you refuse to study cyclical warming trends, specifically in this case solar output, you have no idea how much trouble
or how soon.

In fact, if you refuse to quantify the noise, you have to totally toss out the solar output argument and accept that the leveling off
is real signal, and the new norm.

Fear of knowledge, and acceptance of dogma defines a religion, not a science.

Re:Really?

[shentino]

Because lopsided focus causes bias.

Re:Really?

[Alef]

If you don't have any understanding of the noise, how can you detect the signal?

You can't, which is of course why that is pretty much all climate research consists of -- separating and modelling different forcings and interactions, some of them caused by human activity, most of them natural. Really, how did you figure climate researchers arrived to the conclusions there are today? Have you even looked at any research?

I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change". There are multiple factors affecting the average energy in the climate system, greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) and solar irradiation being the most important ones. You need both to explain temperature trends, not only the current ones but historical. It has been studied by many researchers to great detail, and it is being studied still more.

By telling the researchers to "look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion, that climate changes cyclically, instead of studying and understanding the mechanisms that causes change. It is probably one of the most blatant and ignorant attempt and controlling science for political motives I have seen.

Re:Really?

[Sqr(twg)]

I couldn't agree more. As an analogy, there have been tons of studies looking for a link between cellphones and cancer. Even before those studies were made, anyone who had an understainng of how electromagnetic radiation works would have said that cellphones can't cause cancer. Still, the studies were made, showed no link, and gave empiric support to something that was previously just a theoretical argument.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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*."

Yes, it is the problem.

Science is science, regardless of any political reasons for doing it. There is ample reason to study cyclical climate change, which unlike AGW we know beyond doubt does happen.

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

You do know that absolutely all serious climate research do this already? That is take into account natural causes in addition to human influenced causes. The "baseline" people keep talking about here is part of every major study on this. It is interesting how easily people seem to think that their own "common sense" trumps science. "Stupid scientists, weather changes, why didn't they think of that!" It explains how people can so readily dismiss science in various areas, like evolution for intelligent design, alternative medicine for medicine etc.

Re:Really?

[icebike]

look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion,

Wrong.

All you are telling them to do is to quantify the noise: Separate natural changes from their claims of AGW.
Some of this has been studied, most of it has simply been denied.

Re:Really?

[tepples]

I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change".

My first guess at what they mean is identifying those forcings and interactions that are periodic.

Re:Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

That's "El Nino" and "La Nina". Slashdot still does not properly support some characters, it seems.

Re:Really?

[fritsd]

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.

Yeah, I don't get that either--what Milankovich discovered in the 1940's is fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Let's hope the experiments don't have to run for 25 000 - 100 000 years though.

Re:Really?

[sumdumass]

Then let the science speak for itself. I mean seriously, if it is already being done then it will independently verify the know results and strengthen the argument fot AGW. If the science shows something different, then the models can be improved but at least it will be science driving it regardless of the motivation for the science. Iff the science doesn't happen because of politics, we will know it is politics.

I simply do not understand how a group can claim something is scietifically true and refuse to do svcience because the results might favor people who do not trust the svientific accuracy of that truth. Its like saying this lock id unpickable and never letting anyone try to pick it.

Re:Really?

[stenvar]

It's as *wink* independent *wink* as all the other government funded climate change studies, like, for example, the federally funded ones.

Re:Really?

[sg_oneill]

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.

This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.

Re:Really?

[sumdumass]

Its called a hypothesis and the science will either support it or refute it. That is how science works even if you do not like the hypothesis or the people wanting it tested.

Re:Really?

[jjohnson]

To paraphrase you: you "should be taken out and shot". They're already studying "cyclical" climate events as a normal part of studying climate change. They're not ignoring anything. The fact that a legislative body is trying to force them to study something that they're already studying, under a label so hilariously inaccurate as to be useless, is evidence of just two things: 1) they have no fucking clue what they're talking/legislating about; 2) they want "science" backing up the conclusion with which they started.

And 3) you're a useful idiot for them.

Re:Really?

[gandhi_2]

If you aren't worried about the results, then just do the study and follow the data where it goes. If AGW really is the ONE TRUE WAY then I'm sure one more study won't change that.
You aren't worried are you?

Re:Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.

Um... no, it didn't. TFA doesn't say that, nor does the article that TFA links to.

The ONLY thing even remotely related to that was mention that the word "cyclical" was put in. There is no indication that the study calls for any pre-determined conclusions. It only stipulates that certain parts of the climate equation be studied. Why do you have a problem with that?

I think you've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid.

Re:Really?

[nadaou]

This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity.

That could be considered apostrofal.

Re:Really?

[bondsbw]

Every hypothesis has a focus. Are you suggesting that all science is biased?

Well, if you are, you'd be somewhat correct. It may not be an evil or self-serving bias, but it exists. The best you can do is eliminate as much as possible, but sometimes we need to recognize our bias instead of simply dismissing it.

Re:Really?

[mvdw]

alternative medicine for medicine etc.

Reminds me of the Tim Minchin line: "You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine."

Re:Really?

[AmiMoJo]

When a politician with openly stated biases comes to you and asks for evidence to support his existing point of view you should be suspicious. No matter how good your study they will at best use one or two data points out of context and ignore your conclusions.

It's a trap.

Re:Really?

[iamhigh]

It sounds like a case of "begging the question".

Re: Really?

[sumdumass]

Right, because when it is impossible to attack the message, attacking the messenger is all that is needed to discredit the message. Well, that only works in your ignorant circles.

Either the science speaks for itself or it is not science. Either way, It will be obvious. Let science happen and stop pretending it is a religion.

Re:Really?

[mcgrew]

They should be taken out and shot.

Rational much?

Re:Really?

[SuperKendall]

You do know that absolutely all serious climate research do this already?

Yes, that's how i could tell these were not serious climate scientists.

Re:Really?

[jjohnson]

If the bill said "Here's more money for you to keep doing the science that you're doing," I'd be perfectly happy with that. If it said "here's money to study only the anthropogenic portion of climate change," I would find that as idiotic as what they did. Any presumption of the conclusion, or restriction on the funding based on their faulty understanding of the field, is idiotic and political.

That said, this particular case has an extra layer of idiocy because the legislature isn't just trying to fund a study to come to its pet conclusion, it's trying to fund a study to come to a rejected minority viewpoint. It's an attack on science itself, trying to force scientists in a particular field to deny their own conclusions because those conclusions are politically troublesome to a certain segment.

Re:Really?

[Alef]

There are a multitude of cyclical climate events that make up part of the models used in AGW theory.

Yes! They are so intimately part of climate change models that it would be impossible to not study cyclical properties. That is why the statement doesn't make sense to me -- it would be like saying "we want you to study climate and focus on molecules", or some other completely generic and inseparable property abundant in every aspect it. And then they call it "cyclical climate change", as if there existed some kind of separate theory of the climate that is purely cyclical. As opposed to what? Linear climate change? Like you said yourself: "You simply can't even begin to have a valid theory if you do not take them into account".

The only plausible reason I can see why they would give that kind of directive to the researchers, is that they have read a claim from someone that "it could all be cyclical" (insinuating somehow not caused by the huge increase in greenhouse gases), and instead of actually trying to understand some of the science, or even the scientific process in general, they buy into those kind of vague, unspecified myths, and now want the scientists on "their" payroll to "investigate" them, nonsensical as they may be.

Either that or pure malice, but since I firmly subscribe to Hanlon's razor, I'm going for scientific illiteracy over malice.

Re:Really?

[mcgrew]

If AGW really is the ONE TRUE WAY then I'm sure one more study won't change that.
You aren't worried are you?

No, I doubt I'll be alive 50 years from now, it won't bother me. But "me" is the least of my worries.

Re:Really?

[quantaman]

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.

This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.

It's actually worse than that. The topic of study is on the impact of climate change on Nebraska, but the bill says they're only supposed to look at "cyclical" changes.

I think it's more like asking biologists to study the effects of antibiotic resistance, but they're not allowed to use evolution and must assume that the DNA of the bacteria doesn't significantly change over time.

Not only is it a nonsense question studying a fictitious universe. It's a completely useless question since there isn't any such thing as antibiotic resistance without evolution.

What's the effect of climate change on Nebraska if you assume all the climate changes are cyclical? Well nothing, because if the changes are cyclical there is no climate change.

Re:Really?

[quantaman]

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.

I just saw someone explain this quite succinctly.

Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change?

Re:Really?

[Alef]

But that's what they are already doing! It's all about quantifying -- the primary mechanism has been known for some 150 years, the rest of it has been a long history of quantifying things, with increasing precision.

I challenge you to name a single credible objection relating to "natural changes" that hasn't been, or isn't being studied.

Re:Really?

[Zak3056]

This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.

Why, exactly, is this not science? Science is a method, not a tucking religion! Our understanding of the universe is imperfect at best and it's certainly POSSIBLE that there is another explanation. Not at ALL likely, but possible.

If everyone had your hostility toward retesting what we already know, we'd still think the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.

Re:Really?

[BitZtream]

Ironically, you're pretty much pulling a Derp Derp Derp yourself by ignoring scientific facts ... like climate cycles. The point of a study about those changes would probably be to ... determine what causes those changes, don't you think?

Why is it AGW fanboys get so upset about someone just doing research to try and disprove their theories. If you're so sure you are right, why are you concerned with what this study might result in.

Re:Really?

[Bite The Pillow]

We have had cool periods and warm periods, not caused by people. Do we know enough about why they happened that research is not needed? If so, that should be all the explanation anyone needs. If not, it sounds like it should be studied.

That is not locking in a conclusion, as we have had ice ages. This is what people referring to cyclical change mean, since the ice age is the primary evidence given for the idea that it must have warming followed by cooling, and repeating.

In context, though, what the bill is asking for is essentially nonsense. Link and text follows, though it is a PDF hatchet job that I don't feel like cleaning up. Scientists should really object that the request is nonsense. Knowing if Nebraska will be slightly cooler in 1000 years due to a theoretical cooling trend does not say what will actually happen. The word cyclical was apparently inserted by a denier nut job, and without the word this would be valid.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=18336

" Provide the Governor and other interested persons1with information and research on the impacts of cyclical climate2change in Nebraska, including impacts on physical, ecological, and3economic areas, and attempt to anticipate the unintended consequences4of climate adaptation and mitigation;5(9) Facilitate communication between stakeholders and the6state about cyclical climate change impacts and response strategies;7(10)(a) By September 1, 2014, prepare an initial report8on cyclical climate change in Nebraska which includes a synthesis and9assessment of the state of knowledge on: Historical climate10variability and change; climate projections; and possible impacts to11key sectors of the state such as agriculture, water, wildlife,12ecosystems, forests, and outdoor recreation. The report shall include13key points and a summary of the findings; and14(b) By December 1, 2014, review such initial report and15provide a final report to the Governor and electronically to the16Legislature which includes key points, overarching recommendations,17and options that emerge from the initial report; and18(8) (11) Perform such other climate-related assessment19and response functions as are desired by the Governor "

Re:Really?

[riverat1]

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science.

You think it's better for politicians to dictate scientific truth? It's sort of reminiscent of the Indiana Pi Bill.

Re:Really?

[jrumney]

We need to do a study on cyclical climate change. But it needs to be done without the obvious outcome that its political backers will attempt to use the results, which will include the foregone conclusion that "cyclical climate change exists", to "disprove" other sources of climate change that were explicitly excluded from the study.

Re:Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

If the bill said "Here's more money for you to keep doing the science that you're doing," I'd be perfectly happy with that. Any presumption of the conclusion, or restriction on the funding based on their faulty understanding of the field, is idiotic and political.

Do you see what you did there? You presumed the conclusion that the bill presumed a conclusion. But we have exactly zero evidence that is the case. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

The bill to require the study was already written. Therefore, if simply adding the word "cyclical" presumes a conclusion, then the bill already presumed a conclusion. You can't have that both ways. One word was added, which changed it from the study of one aspect of climate science to the study of another aspect of climate science. But they are both aspects of climate science, and if a conclusion was "presumed" then it was already presumed.

I think your argument is pretty amusing, actually, because in order for it to be true, then "your side" must have presumed a conclusion.

Re:Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

Hilarious. The fact that my comment above was modded "troll" is simply more evidence that the people on one "side" of this argument are being political rather than scientific.

Re:Really?

[riverat1]

I think it's more like asking biologists to study the effects of antibiotic resistance, but they're not allowed to use evolution and must assume that the DNA of the bacteria doesn't significantly change over time.

Excellent analogy! If I could still use my mod points you'd get an Insightful.

Re:Really?

[turning in circles]

OK, well the other major problems with the request for funding is the total amount funded is $44,000. That is not enough money, after the university gets its cut, to do anything. OK, second problem, they have to complete the study in 1 year. Omaha.com article.

So, it's really a joke all the way around. Warming is cyclical, and prove it without spending enough money to even pay a postdoc for a year.

Re:Really?

[tompaulco]

No, the good book says that all global warming is caused by man, and it would be sacrilegious to perform a study that proves otherwise. Anyone who suggests that global warming could occur without man's influence is lacking in faith.

Re:Really?

[riverat1]

Mod parent insightful.

And mod you "Sadly Uninformed" since you don't know that the study of what you call "noise" is already a fundamental part of climatology.

Re:Really?

[riverat1]

I'm trying to figure out what makes you think climate scientists are ignoring those factors. The reason the World Meteorological Organization defines the classical climate period as 30 years is that it smooths out the short term variability of cycles such as ENSO and solar cycles. The reason that the confidence ranges spread out as projections extend into the future is the uncertainty around those things. Long term variations such as Milankovitch cycles can be ignored for projections on time scales of a few centuries.

It brings to mind a quote from Charles Babbage:

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Re:Really?

[sumdumass]

If there is no cure, then what difference will more science make? I mean what problem do you foresee that would cause you to want to prevent science from happening or possible existing science challenged?

If the science happens, then we have one of several outcomes. It either A: strengthens the current understanding and positions, B: weakens it, C:, does both and shows we need to do more science in order to truly understand what we think we understand.

There are more possible outcomes then that. I personally see A happening even though I don't agree with the political fixes being slopped around. Of course we could be wrong on the connections to AGW and understanding the cyclical influences could point to better crop management which would help mitigate any increased weather phenomenon from AGW whether it exists or not. Knowing that the 100 year flood is due within the next 10 years can be a life saver to some degree but it could also predict crop failure and allow proper planning for it. Recently, we have discovered atmospheric patterns that could predict heat waves in the eastern two thirds of the US up to three weeks in advance. What if the science was never done on that because AGW deniers might benefit from it? This could save lives.

Re:Really?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I guess the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation aren't worth considering, being natural cycles that influence weather patterns over large swaths of the US...

Re:Really?

[fluffy99]

It's actually worse than that. The topic of study is on the impact of climate change on Nebraska, but the bill says they're only supposed to look at "cyclical" changes.

I think it's more like asking biologists to study the effects of antibiotic resistance, but they're not allowed to use evolution and must assume that the DNA of the bacteria doesn't significantly change over time.

I'd agree with that analogy. Except I see this as commissioning a study to focus on other possible causes of antibiotic resistance outside of DNA changes. Or are you assuming that evolution of DNA is the only possible means of acquiring resistance to antibiotics? That perhaps the host environment plays no role?

The politics here should not be discounted. The group that's refusing is a politically appointed commission, and they taking a political position before they've even read the study proposal. They've gone to the media claiming that the study proposal is rigged because it contains the single word "cyclical". I would think this is not exactly the unbiased group that should be doing this research.

Re:Really?

[jjohnson]

Thanks for the word salad.

Re:Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

It is interesting that you see a description of your own argument as a "salad". If you think that is meaningful, perhaps you ought to contemplate what it actually means.

Re:Really?

[quantaman]

It's actually worse than that. The topic of study is on the impact of climate change on Nebraska, but the bill says they're only supposed to look at "cyclical" changes.

I think it's more like asking biologists to study the effects of antibiotic resistance, but they're not allowed to use evolution and must assume that the DNA of the bacteria doesn't significantly change over time.

I'd agree with that analogy. Except I see this as commissioning a study to focus on other possible causes of antibiotic resistance outside of DNA changes. Or are you assuming that evolution of DNA is the only possible means of acquiring resistance to antibiotics? That perhaps the host environment plays no role?

The politics here should not be discounted. The group that's refusing is a politically appointed commission, and they taking a political position before they've even read the study proposal. They've gone to the media claiming that the study proposal is rigged because it contains the single word "cyclical". I would think this is not exactly the unbiased group that should be doing this research.

I thought I explained it clearly but I believe you still misunderstand the purpose of the study. It isn't analogous to "commissioning a study to focus on other possible causes of antibiotic resistance outside of DNA changes" because that's a question of basic science and the Nebraska legislature has neither the expertise nor the motive to ask basic science questions.

The original study isn't about finding evidence to re-affirm AGW any more than the modified study is about finding evidence to deny it. The studies are because the Nebraska legislature wants to know what's going to happen to Nebraska.

The modified study wants to know what will climate change do to Nebraska if there is no climate change. The motive of this pointless study is so the legislator can wave the study around and say "See! We commissioned a study to ask what global warming would do to Nebraska and even the scientists said it wouldn't do anything!"

By refusing to do the study the scientists are protecting the integrity of government funded science and are absolutely doing the right thing.

Re:Really?

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter what they think or how smart or idiotic you think they are, the science will speak for itself. Either it will support current theory or it will find issues with it and in the end, we will have a much more complete understanding of something.

Its like all the sudden, people are threatened that actual science might happen. You say it is because they are idiots, but from my perspective, it seems as if you are threatened by those idiots wanting science done somehow. As long as the scientists doing the science are honest in their work or honest about their work being manipulated, the outcome will be nothing less then the science speaking for itself.

Re:Really?

[Hognoxious]

My indignation that someone might not believe is beyond description. Burn them at the stake!

Just make sure the firewood is sourced from a renewable forest, man.

Re:Really?

[Vermonter]

Just because it doesn't explain why, but merely predicts that how it will, doesn't make it "voodoo". Newton's law of universal gravitation doesn't explain *why* gravity happens, it merely shows that you can predict *what* is going to happen.

Re:Really?

[intermodal]

The problem with a study that doesn't explicitly seek to blame mankind is that anything indicating less possibility of human responsibility might jeopardize future grants intended to research how man can "undo the damage" they have done (if the results go that direction; indeed, that is why you have a study).

Re:Really?

[dave420]

Actual science has happened. I guess biologists should accept grant money to work on studies on how evolution is nonsense? Or how germ theory is some sort of fantasy? The best they can demonstrate is what we already know - they can't improve our understanding of the current theories. There are better things to be spending money on.

Re:Really?

[dave420]

If they were the only things which affected the climate, you might have a point... Being told to focus only on them, and ignore the vast system in which they exist, is not science, but wishful thinking.

Re:Really?

[Magius_AR]

By telling the researchers to "look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion, that climate changes cyclically, instead of studying and understanding the mechanisms that causes change.

lol, you mean like claiming a "consensus" on a specific conclusion and then continually changing your models to ensure all the non-matching data continues to match your chosen conclusion?

It is probably one of the most blatant and ignorant attempt and controlling science for political motives I have seen.

I agree.

Re:Really?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Question: what is driving the current pause (16 years, 11 months so far) in global warming? Is it these very oscillations? Note that not a single IPCC model matches the current conditions; of course, most IPCC models are heavily driven by CO2 and significantly downplay the natural oscillations of our climate. Perhaps we should study the oscillations themselves to determine what IS "normal" and expected, so we can then identify what is man-made... You know, identify the background spectra before trying to isolate your signal.

Re:Really?

[sumdumass]

But biologist should accept money to test evolution even if it does lead to it being nonesense. They should take money to determine if germ theory is understod incorectly.

You see, when science stops becoming testable and repeatable, we either learn something new or it stops being science. If science cannot stand to scrutiny, it is not good science.

You see what is hapening here, you are against the scientific method because it might challenge some of your sacred cows.

Re:Really?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Ironically, you're pretty much pulling a Derp Derp Derp yourself by ignoring scientific facts ... like climate cycles. The point of a study about those changes would probably be to ... determine what causes those changes, don't you think?

Why is it AGW fanboys get so upset about someone just doing research to try and disprove their theories. If you're so sure you are right, why are you concerned with what this study might result in.

Too bad this "study" isn't about causes, but about effects. And by only looking at "cyclical" changes, it becomes a waste of tax payer money. Because its denialism in its purest form. The fact that you can't even tell is , well, telling.

Re:Really?

[Uberbah]

lol, you mean like claiming a "consensus" on a specific conclusion and then continually changing your models to ensure all the non-matching data continues to match your chosen conclusion?

Lol, you mean any excuse to whip out that confirmation bias. The recent skull fragments found in Georgia are having anthropologists re-examine theories on when human species moved out of Africa and diverged. I'm sure there are some creationists who are seizing on that as the latest reason why evolution is a hoax and the scientists are crackpots for revising models based on new data.

Cuz that's what denialist crackpots do.

Re:Really?

[Uberbah]

We have had cool periods and warm periods, not caused by people. Do we know enough about why they happened that research is not needed? If so, that should be all the explanation anyone needs. If not, it sounds like it should be studied.

Should we also ask if physicists have studied algebra, or if electrical engineers have studied alternating current?

Re: Really?

[sumdumass]

Please explain this concept a bit more. Is junk science all which chalenges your sacrrd cows? It sounds like maybe you shouldn't trod the sacred cows out making claims about them if you cannot tollorate someone questioning if the creature is evrn bovine at all.

If the science is junk, it will show . Don't be afraid.

Re: Really?

[Meski]

We'll stop pretending science isn't a religion, when we stop pretending scientists aren't human, with a human need for food and shelter, IOW a need for money. And at that point politics / religion comes into it, with their requests for studies / reports with predetermined outcomes. (this goes for both sides of the climate argument, IMO)

Only in America

[Billly Gates]

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.

Re:Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm..... seen the idiots in power in Australia lately?

Re:Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada. Look up Steven Harper and muzzling scientists.

Re:Only in America

[nbauman]

Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money?

Nigeria?

Re:Only in America

[gtall]

Please try to keep up. The current crop of "conservative" (read libertarian) Republicans have no allegiance to Wall Street. Hell, during the banking crisis, they were the ones telling Wall Street to go to hell. They didn't want to bail out the banks, or AIG, or the GM or Chrysler. When they shut down the government, it was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street telling the Republicans to knock it off. Now, the corporate interests are interested in running candidates against the Tea Party.

Re:Only in America

[gmuslera]

If the effects of what they are doing would only hit US, then would be the laughing stock. But you don't laugh at the mad driver that is pulling all of the world to a cliff.

Re:Only in America

[mevets]

There is a saying that you get the government you vote for. It is obvious that existing parties have permitted too many special interests (from oil companies to deficits) dictate their priorities. The citizens are supposed to take a participatory role in selecting government and driving its priorities. They have chosen the backseat, or more properly have sold their control for a handful of shiny beads. Blaming your government is blaming yourselves.

This isnâ(TM)t an America only problem; variants of it play out everywhere (except probably in Norway, the bastards). It may be more acute in America, but there is a lot more at stake there.

Re:Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money?

Pakistan and similar (eg. Turkey), where facts like Evolution are supposedly "against God" and therefore banned as heresy.

Re:Only in America

[Billly Gates]

I would like to believe the voters in Nebraska would like to keep growing corn rather than pleasing the man in the sky by voting republican and thinking they will be blessed by voting for corrupt right wing politicians.

The midwest should be the most rapid end climate change group as all the farms are there. The deniers I can see would be in Alaska, Lousiana, and Texas where the enegery industry benefits from de-regulation.

Re:Only in America

[quacking duck]

Canada. Look up Steven Harper and muzzling scientists.

And under the banner of a Conservative government.

Re:Only in America

[Attila Dimedici]

You claim to be upset about a party purposely allying itself with corporate interests, THEN propose that we should all vote for that Party?

Re:Only in America

[cascadingstylesheet]

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?

For a minute there I thought you were talking about Obamacare.

Re:Only in America

[shitdrummer]

Australia, sadly.

It isn't country specific, it's specific of conservatives.

Unfortunately modern conservatism is anti-science the world over.

Re:Only in America

[Tom]

Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money?

China under Mao.

Every country has its crazy times. It's not a positive thing, but it's not unique to the USA, except that due to technology and society (China was much more closed-up about what was going on) we know a lot more about this case then all the others.

I do, however, agree that the inmates are running the asylum.

Re:Only in America

[Billly Gates]

Are there any in Australia who deny global warming and make fun of others who believe in that as well as support creationism? It seems just the American right prides in ignorance as keeping the truth and changing opinion as a form of weakness.

I do admit some on the right in Europe are clear racists that does not seem to permeate with the American right.

Re:Only in America

[evil_aaronm]

Under Harper, isn't Canada actually "America Lite"? So it would, in essence, still be only America, right?

Re:Only in America

[Uberbah]

Problem: you could have 100% voter turnout and very little would change, because the game is rigged.

So they are unwilling to establish baseline change

[Crashmarik]

without human involvement and they think they aren't being political as well ?

denier scientists

[MightyMartian]

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.

In unrelated news . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . 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."

Re:In unrelated news . . .

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Why would the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes commission a study like that?

Skepticism is a scientific virtue.

[mc6809e]

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.

Misguided.

[RightSaidFred99]

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.

Re:Misguided.

[artor3]

The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them. Jumping through hoops to satisfy them accomplishes nothing, and only lends credibility to the false notion that this is still being debated by scientists. It's not.

They need to be minimized, ignored, shoved aside. Lives depend on it, and only a fool would think that another study would satisfy them.

Re:Misguided.

[RightSaidFred99]

Science - that word doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not a body of knowledge, it's a process. _Everything_ should be debated by scientists. Sure, it's pretty clear that we are contributing to global warming but there are always more facts to be found.

And I don't think you do the study because it would satisfy them. If anything, these scientists are the ones not ignoring them - they are explicitly saying that the reason they don't want to do it is because they will be used by the deniers. That's anything but ignoring them.

If the study will provide useful data, then do it. If not, then don't. But don't say you won't do it "because POLITICS".

Re:Misguided.

[artor3]

We have mountains of evidence supporting AGW, and we know that AGW will result in widespread suffering and death if left unchecked. We do not, and cannot, have "mountains of evidence" against religion in general, and religion in general doesn't kill people.

We do have mountains of evidence against certain religious beliefs, such as faith healing, and in those cases we DO intervene, e.g. by forcing parents to take their kids to a doctor.

People can believe what they want, but when we as a society are making life-and-death policy decisions, we should rely on evidence and scientific consensus.

Re:Misguided.

[wisnoskij]

The scientists can refuse any study they want to. And if they had reason to believe that the same people asking them to do the study would turn around, and hold up their study as still more proof that GW does not exist, than that in my mind is a decent reason to refuse.

Re:Misguided.

[RightSaidFred99]

That's one definition, but it's a complete fail. It's the definition that lets morons and dim-wits blather about "science doesn't know everything! Science is proved wrong all the time!".

Re:Misguided.

[BitZtream]

we know that AGW will result in widespread suffering and death if left unchecked

No, you don't. Thats a theory, not a fact. If you think you 'know' this, you're just another religion.

The world has in fact been hotter, and colder and we still exist.

Re:Misguided.

[gl4ss]

well it's just hard for them to do a study on cyclical change where affects of human has been counted out, so since they already have their jobs they just didn't do it.

had it been about man made they could just have taken other studies and published a paper about that without having to worry about studying about any new information sources(dunno, like moving tree coverage in nebraska.. which could probably, and if I guess right has, be used to build models about the climate there going back hundreds of years).

Re:Misguided.

[Sockatume]

There already is a great deal of research in natural climate variability. None of it is in the form of "please provide a report in the climate of region X, omitting all man-made impacts".

Re:Misguided.

[Uberbah]

As I understand it, the word "deniers" in this context means "anyone who questions the official 'consensus' position on CAGW".

It means people who deny the science. So called "skeptics" aren't offering their own peer-reviewed models or data, they are denying the peer revewied models and data because it conflicts with their pre-concieved ideas.

And I doubt it is a coincidence that "deniers" is part of the famous phrase "Holocaust Deniers"... it's a great way to tar the opposition subtly and, pardon the pun, deniably.

It's great pass-aggressive shitbaggery, you mean, since this Holocaust link only exists in denailists minds so they can pretend to be insulted.

Well, with my ground prepared, I am now ready to explain my counter-position to you. It is: Fuck you, you fucking douchebag. Science is a debate of ideas, and you just outright said that you want to crush part of the debate and not let it be heard.

Or, go fuck yourself, since the rest of your post is nothing more than denalist canards that have been debunked over and over again.

Re:Misguided.

[Uberbah]

No, you don't.

Yeah, we do. Drought makes for famine. Hot wet air makes for more powerful tornadoes and tropical storms. That means death.

The world has in fact been hotter, and colder and we still exist.

And people still live in Europe, despite the Bubonic Plague wiping out half the population hundreds of years ago. Therefore, the Bubonic Plague was no big deal, and would be no big deal if it happens again.

Could we get a smarter denialist troll to aisle 6, please?

Re:Misguided.

[jwhitener]

They are being asked to do research like this: "Conduct a study explaining why Newton's apple falls from the tree, but without using Gravity as part of the explanation". And there is 100 years of Gravity research already, and 40 years specifically about the apple and the Gravity that conclusively links the two together.

circular logic

[kcmastrpc]

by virtue of leaving out the human impact on earths climate you would be including it. amirite?

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[polar red]

here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY are 2 ways falsify the co2 heating effect. go ahead, falsify.

Re: Science, or sinecure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good lord, what the fuck is wrong with the commenters here? It's for the same reason that biologists wouldn't consent to researching intelligent design as a 'falsifiable alternative' to evolution, without evolution being a part of the study. The study is framed in a way that ignores the overwhelming weight of the evidence and lends credibility to crackpots.

Re:Science isn't just confirming what you know

[Austrian Anarchy]

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.

If the existing data used to base the current conclusions were open to all, you might have more independent scientists investigating this too.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[DAldredge]

So should government fund Young Earth Creationism "Research" / Intelligent Design research?

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Anonymous Coward]

the point of public funding is that there isn't supposed to be any "paymasters"

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha

[ericloewe]

You can't selectively investigate one possibility while completely ignoring the other.

Re: Science, or sinecure?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's directly absurd. So directly absurd, it's difficult for me to believe you aren't simply bold-faced lying.

Some variance to climate change we observe is unquestionably due to non-human factors. Charts detailing this over tens of thousands of years can be called up by anyone at will with a google search.

The relative effects of human-created change cannot be evaluated apart from that historical pattern, and there is nothing the least unscientific about this fact, nor the quite-measurable, quite-quantifiable, quite-studyable, quite-scientific sources of change that are not of human origin.

How are the two not inherently related?

[perpenso]

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.

Re:How are the two not inherently related?

[0123456]

How do you determine 'human influence' without first knowing how the climate changes naturally?

OK, the Climate Change Deniers have their 'Hockey Stick', where the temperature was perfectly flat until EVIL SUVS appeared, but no sensible scientist should take them seriously. Earth's climate has been changing ever since it reached the point where it could sensibly be said to have one.

"Climate change denying" - LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Scientific Method

[Guppy06]

> 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.

Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point, especially when there is every indication that the person defining something as ephemeral as "cyclical climate change" will simply claim the study didn't add enough epicycles.

Past all the heiressy

[smittyoneeach]

Atlantic Hurricane Season Quietest in 45 Years
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.

Re:Past all the heiressy

[smittyoneeach]

Well, Noah, better get back on that there ark project, then.

Re:Past all the heiressy

[mcgrew]

I think you've misunderstood the GP. And, uh, I think the GP did, too.

You don't really get science, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You don't really get science, do you?

[dasunt]

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!

What if it went instead like this?

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've done the research, and have concluded that intelligent design is a poor explanation for biodiversity due to...
Idiot Slashdot Commenters: Why did we waste money studying this?

:p

But as you admit, cyclical climate change is a real phenomenon. If we understand it better, we can also understand how much we're forcing AGW due to our emissions.

So the real conversation goes something like this:

Politician: Investigate the cyclical reasons behind climate change.
Scientist: We find that, on average, cyclical reasons can only explain 5% of the observed climate change. Here's a detailed breakdown of the data...

Of course

[Stumbles]

To quote in part; " ... National Weather Service, pointed out that âoecyclicalâ isnâ(TM)t even a scientific term."

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.

No, they've already done that.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sweden

[Jakosa]

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.

Aye lass

[Stumbles]

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.

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha

[MatthiasF]

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.

The study is about the effects of climate change

[Xolotl]

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

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you can. Does smoking cause cancer? That doesn't deny that radiation causes cancer, it just looks at whether smoking causes cancer.

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha

[shentino]

More like they know the human involvement angle is going to be blatantly suppressed.

Re:Here is a hint:

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[perpenso]

Conservative Americans might be mad at my post ...

Only because you assume that conservatives are anti-science.

... or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, ...

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.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[sI4shd0rk]

Wow. It's pretty pathetic when the only 'good' thing you have to say about something is that it's not quite as bad as something else.

Both main parties are almost entirely corrupt; people shouldn't vote for either.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Hmmm...

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -- George Washington's farewell address, in regard to political parties. 1796.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[Black Parrot]

Wow. It's pretty pathetic when the only 'good' thing you have to say about something is that it's not quite as bad as something else.

Unfortunately, that's the way of it when the topic is major US political parties.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[perpenso]

To be clear, I am not against membership in political parties. I am merely against loyalty to a party. One should strive to see that your party fields the best candidate but if it fails to do so one should vote for the other candidate. Only through voting for candidates irrespective of party can one make political parties work for your vote. It would also seem better for the country, having the better candidate win regardless of party.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[Billly Gates]

Subsidizing un-employment slows re-entry to the work force.

So your solution is to vote for teapartiers who ignore facts and focus on gut feelings and core ideologies instead decide the future?

Democrats do not deny that. They prefer to not see children starve and economic damage as it takes awhile to get another white collar job after a loss. I can see a conservative might feel less is better in this situation but there is no make up facts on liberal versions of rush.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[Billly Gates]

In a story about science it has to turn to politics unfortunately as politics is the reason for the attack on science.

For the grand parent yes both parites are corrupt and it is a sad state of less evil. However, I would rather vote for someone to increase taxes who can somewhat believe and discern facts rather than ideology or listening to Rush first before making an opinion.

Blind faith can be a truly frightening thing.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[Jane Q. Public]

To be clear, I am not against membership in political parties. I am merely against loyalty to a party.

That's fine. But I am. My personal opinion is that people who subscribe to ideology over independent thinking probably have insecurity and daddy issues.

Only through voting for candidates irrespective of party can one make political parties work for your vote.

Doesn't this imply that there was a problem with the party to start with? If you have to use a lever to get it to move, doesn't that prove that it's in your way?

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[perpenso]

One particular party may support general principals that a person agrees with far better than others, and hence motivate a person to join. However a particular candidate may not represent those principals well or may be flawed in areas outside of those principals. The problem may be with the candidate selected not the general principles that the party represents.

So the problem is in the candidate selection process? I tend to think so. Both parties seem to be selecting candidates that represent their extremes, unfortunately the extremes seem to have a higher level of participation. So the problem may actually be with a lack of participation from the more moderate majority of the parties.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[Jane Q. Public]

Both parties seem to be selecting candidates that represent their extremes,

I don't disagree with you, but again you are pointing out problems that seem to be inherent in political parties. To me, that's just more evidence that parties in general are a problem.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[mcgrew]

Both main parties are almost entirely corrupt; people shouldn't vote for either.

Either? In the last election there were 5 parties on enough ballots to win. You have friends and relatives who smoke pot, why are you voting for people who want them in jail?

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[mcgrew]

Where are the moderators?? You are SO offtopic. STFU and GTFO.

And mod me down, too.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[sI4shd0rk]

What?

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[Chirs]

Conservative Americans might be mad at my post ...

Only because you assume that conservatives are anti-science.

I'm in Canada. The Conservative party here (currently in power) certainly seems to be anti-science. I know of formerly pure-science government labs that are being hired out to industry and anyone that can't get industry funding is getting the boot.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[perpenso]

Conservative Americans might be mad at my post ...

Only because you assume that conservatives are anti-science.

I'm in Canada. The Conservative party here (currently in power) certainly seems to be anti-science. I know of formerly pure-science government labs that are being hired out to industry and anyone that can't get industry funding is getting the boot.

I was referring to those who deny scientific discoveries, not those who think science should be funded by the private sector. Two different problems.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[mcgrew]

Yep, the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Constitution party were on enough ballots to win. The are about fifty more parties who mathematically have no chance, but those 3 could win if the corporate media let them.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ...

[sI4shd0rk]

Well, I do think that people should vote for third parties (which I do, and I tell others to do), and I don't vote for people who don't support drug legalization. Your reply confused me.

Re: Science, or sinecure?

[physicsphairy]

Methodology is supposed to override objective in science. It doesn't matter whether my hypothesis is that the world is round or flat, in the former case it should be upheld and the latter case it should be invalidated, but in either case science should produce the correct result. What "lends credibility to crackpots" is if scientists are specifically avoiding doing science because of how they feel the results will be cited, because frankly at that point the crackpots are right, there *is* a conspiracy against their views.

You think that government is apolitical?

[xmark]

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.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[polar red]

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

I disagree. Look into the funding of elections.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[PopeRatzo]

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

That stopped being true thirty years ago.

If by "powerful" you mean the ability to influence society, it's not even close. If you mean, "the ability to put armies in the field", corporations are catching up fast. If you mean, "the ability to exert their will on individuals, corporations are way ahead of governments.

With the rise of corporate sovereignty, corporations are now saying, "We don't need governments, so we plan to ignore them".

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[MightyYar]

If you consider that he said "big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction", then the problems we have with corporate money in politics makes more sense.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[lgw]

Why does that make you want to disagree? Oh, I see. You're still clinging to some outdated notion that there's some difference between government and corporations. How quaint.

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society precisely because it's the "end boss" of all the large corporate entities.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Ash Vince]

Why does that make you want to disagree? Oh, I see. You're still clinging to some outdated notion that there's some difference between government and corporations. How quaint.

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society precisely because it's the "end boss" of all the large corporate entities.

I think it is the other way around. Due to the huge amount of funding needed to get elected it is those who donate the most to political campaigns who ultimately are in charge, that is the corporations. Politicians simply do what their corporate backers tell them unless they know it will cause them too many problems with their electorate to get re-elected.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Okay, so two thought experiments:

1) big corporations don't exist - politicians exert control over small businesses, extorting money out of them for election funding, and giving favorable treatment to those who pay up, and penalties to those who don't

2) overwhelming government power doesn't exist - big corporations don't throw money at politicians, since they can make better investments that have better returns.

I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Dcnjoe60]

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

I disagree. Look into the funding of elections.

Well, in a plutocracy, those funding the elections are the government.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Dcnjoe60]

I think it is the other way around. Due to the huge amount of funding needed to get elected it is those who donate the most to political campaigns who ultimately are in charge, that is the corporations. Politicians simply do what their corporate backers tell them unless they know it will cause them too many problems with their electorate to get re-elected.

The only reason it takes a large amount of money to get elected is because the government has created a system that requires it. There are other alternatives. If you outlaw the corporate donations and limit campaign spending then it won't take a huge amount of funding.

Of course, the SCOTUS has declared that corporations are people and can make campaign contributions. I wonder then, how come they aren't limited to $2,500 like human people and don't have to pay individual income taxes like other people? If the government can tell churches if they get too involved in politics they lose their tax exempt status and become taxable, maybe they should tell corporations that if they want to be involved in politics like an individual, they need to give up their corporate status, too. Just saying.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[diamondmagic]

Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

That's an interesting opinion. Completely wrong, of course. You're fooling yourself if you think any government is more powerful than NewsCorp, to pick one example.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[dpilot]

Actually, I fear the real problem is this: "Homo Sapiens is an oxymoron." Both corporations and government are composed of people, and all-too-often people embrace and extend their flaws, rather than trying to be better people.

As for option 1, you're right. As for option 2, you're nuts. Corporations would do away with regulations, our air would be like China's, The Cuyahoga River would still be burning, and things like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire would be regular occurrances, except "tort reform" would be used to make sure corrective action couldn't be taken.

IMHO the power hierarchy should be:
1 - The voters
2 - The government, but that government should be wise enough to know that that power should be used sparingly.
3 - The rest.

Nifty experiment... Imagine that we could all designate how our tax dollars were to be spent. You can't change the amount, just the distribution. I have this ugly feeling that by the time everyone had stated their wishes, with perhaps a few rounds of iteration on the process, the budget would wind up pretty close to where it is now.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

You're still clinging to some outdated notion that there's some difference between government and corporations. How quaint.

There is a difference. These institutions involve people working under different incentive structures. Lawmaking is complex, and includes the ideologies of the actors involved. It's not a purely corrupt process by a long stretch. Read "Private Rights in Public Resources" for a real-life breakdown of lawmaking in process. You got to study these things to work out how things happen in real life.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies

This is a radical idea, and premised on the notion that government is systemically corrupt, and will /always/ act toward cronism. Interestingly, people who believe this usually read websites that are directly payed for by a handful of crony capitalists. Just one of many ironies in our political system.

If you look at history, you'll see that the government can be a huge advocate for people against the corporate excess. All the countries which are nice to live in have governments that are about 30% of GDP. There are plenty of countries with smaller governments: all of the 2nd and 3rd world. The USA stands apart in that it has a government that is the size of other OECD countries, (poorly run in comparison), and only collects as much tax revenue as a 2nd world country.

By nature I am a conservative, which means I'm skeptical of radical ideas. Change should be incremental whenever possible. See Hayek's "Fatal Conceit". Just one more irony of our system.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Delusion_]

> Firstly, corporate sovereignty has been decreasing for decades.

I am interested in your alternate history novel. Please tell me more.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[PopeRatzo]

Firstly, corporate sovereignty has been decreasing for decades.

I'm glad I clipped this article from the day before yesterday:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/11560725004/what-does-isds-mean-corporate-sovereignty-pure-simple.shtml

"Decreasing for decades"? Absolutely not. Each international trade agreement brings an enormous increase in corporate sovereignty. And we're about to ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is the Big Kahuna of international trade agreements.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[philip.paradis]

Blackwater changed their name quite some time ago, first to another variant of Blackwater, then to Xe Services, and most recently to Academi. Their security forces are largely comprised of prior special forces operatives, and they are some of the best on the planet in terms of military operations. I'd wager if push came to shove, they'd be more effective than you think against any single army out of the lower 2/3 standing forces on the planet.

In reality, the favored approach is simply to find a force that doesn't like the force you oppose (for whatever reason), and send in folks from Academi to manage their combat operations and make financial deals with them. You lose a whole lot fewer operatives that way, and all it takes is money to make your goals a reality. Large "strategic risk management" firms are better poised than ever to conduct such operations, and those capabilities are indeed growing over time.

I'm former Navy, and I know guys doing these gigs. This is the modern expression and expansion of the age-old mercenary concept, only with more corporate boardrooms involved.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

If you look at history, you'll see that the government can be a huge advocate for people against the corporate excess.

Damn, you majorly missed the sarc tags there :)

Corporations are *created* by governments, and *controlled* by governments - if there's any action against "excess", make no doubt, it's in order to increase government control of private enterprise :)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

That stopped being true thirty years ago.

Corporations can dictate what is and what isn't allowed, in your own personal life and in how you choose to conduct it? Corporations can choose to arrest or detain or kill whomever they want, without repercussion? Corporations can force you to buy their product, or ban possession of another's product?

Corporations are light-years behind Government in terms of power. Sometimes they play together (witness Obamacare), but the real power is Government. It, literally, has the power to take everything you have (eminent domain, drug forfeiture laws), and even execute you without trial. The kind of power that corporations can only dream of.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Corporations would do away with regulations, our air would be like China's,

Wait, you're saying that China is controlled by corporations, not by the Communist party, or other political figures?

As for the role of government, Bastiat got it right - the use of force in the defense of private property rights. Keep it to the bare minimum, with carefully circumscribed powers and responsibilities, and corruption is minimized.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Government can revoke NewsCorp's charter and thus terminate it - lock, stock and barrel. Can NewsCorp do the same to the Government?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[c0lo]

I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

You are right, but for the wrong reasons.
You see, if big business are not limited by anything but themselves (the "free market fairy" hypothesis), then there would be no election process - the big corps don't need it because they don't need democracy to function.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[davester666]

More like

We don't need governments, but they can do things for us, so we plan to use them to make even more money.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[shutdown -p now]

The only reason why corporations don't have army of their own to buy with all that money is because we don't let them through our government.

(In fact, even that's not quite true, as there are numerous examples of corporate mercenary armies in Third World countries.)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so two thought experiments:

1) big corporations don't exist - politicians exert control over small businesses, extorting money out of them for election funding, and giving favorable treatment to those who pay up, and penalties to those who don't

2) overwhelming government power doesn't exist - big corporations don't throw money at politicians, since they can make better investments that have better returns.

I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

A government that isn't big enough to have any power isn't really a government, is it?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[dpilot]

No, I would say that in China the corporate/government line is even more blurred than in the US, except that in China the power flow is in the other direction. The net result is the same.

There are starry-eyed types on both sides, the side that says government can solve problems, and the side that says government is the problem. You obviously appear to be in the latter camp.

Given the government that you describe, I'll ask my 3 questions again:
1 - What keeps our air cleaner than China's?
2 - What keeps the Cuyahoga river from burning?
3 - What keeps Triangle Shirtwaist factories from burning?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[darkonc]

It's something of a chicken and egg problem. The presumption of Capitalism is that, as a company or business works to maximize it's profits, it will benefit society. -- The job of the government is to ensure that the rules are set such that, as a company's striving to maximize profit, it will necessarily benefit society. this was enforced by the principle of "one man, one vote".

The problem now, is that companies and their money are the primary contributor to election campaigns .. and this means that the politicians who control government are now beholden to the companies that they're supposed to be regulating. We've gone from one man one vote to one dollar one vote. This now puts the inmates in charge of the asylum of society.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[coinreturn]

Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Ash Vince]

I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

Actually, the big reason that businesses engage with politicians is not to unbalance the market, it is to make sure they have a nice friendly environment to do business in. They lobby government to pay less tax, be allowed to hire and fire at will, and also get new laws onto the statute book that benefit them like the DMCA.

I know this is going to be a wasted breath, but anyone in the US vaguely interested in how governments work should actually take a look at a few political systems in modern Europe and see how they prevent thing like corruption and use government and regulation as a method of restricting the power of large corporations instead of enhancing it. That might involve looking beyond the news reported by US news networks though as they generally have a serious vested interest in government being weaker so the rich and the corporations that own them gain even more power to push the pro-capitalist propaganda that so many of them are so fond of.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Actually, the big reason that businesses engage with politicians is not to unbalance the market, it is to make sure they have a nice friendly environment to do business in.

Look, libertarians look for nice friendly environments - big businesses on the other hand, don't just want a level playing field, they want a direct conduit into the halls of government to give themselves breaks, while giving their competition penalties. Make no doubt about it, in all your socialist european governments, big solar and big wind have been about market manipulation, destroying the natural petroleum sector while subsidizing their "renewable" sector, all at the cost of efficiency, value, and the taxpayer.

To imagine the bankrupt modern Europe as a model for the US is funny, but sad, since in fact there are many in the halls of power today in the US that honestly believe that we should go in that direction.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Big business is limited by people - in fact, if you consider dollars == votes, left to their own devices they're the most democratic systems that exist in the world.

Now, if you want to talk about anti trust and anti monopoly positions, perhaps there are reasonable arguments for those, but the idea that governments can do a better job than millions upon billions of individual making free choices on how to spend their resources is silly.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

I'd assert that our air is cleaner than China's because we are per capita wealthier, and have the resources to "waste" on technology like catalytic converters, or other noxious emissions controls. The same can probably be said of the Cuyahoga, although unfortunately the noble impetus to clean the river expanded into an EPA used to punish the enemies of the state, while rewarding its cronies. As for the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, while certainly there were injustices, again, government overreach used the crisis to expand beyond the point of helping.

Like Clinton's abortion quip, government should be safe, legal and rare.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[JoeDuncan]

...big solar and big wind...

LOL - how can you say that with a straight face? You must be trying to be funny. Admit it, you chuckled a bit as you typed that didn't you?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

Corporations are *created* by governments, and *controlled* by governments - if there's any action against "excess", make no doubt, it's in order to increase government control of private enterprise :)

Yeah I get it. I just think you're wrong. Like the earth is 10k years old wrong.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

Government can revoke NewsCorp's charter and thus terminate it - lock, stock and barrel.

According to the rules the government can indeed to that. According to the law, not a chance. See Hayek's distinction between rule and law in the political order. NewsCorp, on the other hand, can and does intimidate politicians.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Can you spell, S-O-L-Y-N-D-R-A? :)

Government interventions into free markets come without any accountability, and therefore create perverse incentives that destroy wealth.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

People who claim the earth is 10k years old have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Any observation can be explained by their hypothesis - up, down, left, right, more, less, black, white, they're all simply consistent with their hypothesis.

People who claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic climate change at some unknown point in the future (but soon!), have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Any observation can be explained by their hypothesis - up, down, left, right, more, less, black, white, they're all simply consistent with their hypothesis.

Recognizing the similarity between these claims is left as an exercise for the reader :)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Jason Levine]

Unfortunately, the other end of that is: If government was limited too much, it would not be able to stop abusive practices of big businesses. Some government rules and regulations might be garbage, but others are the result of businesses in the past trying to get away with anything and everything. Minimum wage laws and limits on worker hours or child labor? Because big business used to work people (including children) to the bone for virtually nothing. Workplace safety laws? Look at the garment district in NYC around the 1910's for why these were in place. (Tons of people on the 2nd floor of a building with only one exit - which was blocked off until quitting time - and then a fire started. You can guess the result.)

If we had a truly small federal government, businesses might not lobby the government to do what they want done but only because they would just do it on their own knowing that nobody could stop them. Imagine if Wal-Mart decided that all employees had to work for $3 an hour and needed to work 15 hour days, 7 days a week. Yes, some would quit, but others would likely be in such a bad financial position that they wouldn't be able to leave their jobs. (Especially if other big businesses copied these policies.) Now, imagine the federal government's only recourse was to ask nicely if they would pretty please with a cherry on top stop it. If Wal-Mart said no and the federal government's only available action was wagging their finger at Wal-Mart, it would send a clear signal to all other businesses: Open season on your employees. Do what you like and nobody will stop you.

No, a large, overly powerful federal government isn't good. However, neither is too small of a federal government. The key is getting the federal government *just* the right size and keeping it there. Of course, if you figure out how to do this, you're likely to win a Nobel Prize. If you figure it out AND get it put into action, you're a miracle worker!

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Jason Levine]

I'm reminded of an incident that happened a century ago. Short story: Workers at a big company (Colorado Fuel & Iron Company) weren't happy with wages/working conditions/living conditions (company town setup)/etc. so they went on strike. The company called in the national guard. The national guard (along with some company guards) went through the company town and shot a lot of workers (and their families) dead. Now I know this company didn't have its own army, but this was the company using the government as its own personal army.

More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Who enforces the law? Government or Corporations?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[JoeDuncan]

That's a yes. Good joke.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

People who claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic climate change at some unknown point in the future (but soon!), have no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Any observation can be explained by their hypothesis - up, down, left, right, more, less, black, white, they're all simply consistent with their hypothesis.

This same charge is made be creationists. Evolution theorists joke that every fossil discovery creates two new gaps in the fossil record (one on each side), because when you listen to creationists, that's how they carry on. When creationists say that evolution cannot be falsified, and specific examples are _given_, they are _ignored_. Because, every creationists is too wedded to their ignorance, of course.

There are numerous way to falsify the AGW hypothesis. Richard Muller recently (and famously) tried and failed to do so. Gee, perhaps he's incompetent. In fact perhaps all those career scientists and other academic experts are so incompetent that they don't know that they are incompetent. Or maybe that's you.

Your argument is typical for what "skeptics" carry on about. Devoid of content, and simply wrong.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[TheCarp]

Personally I would like to not be responsible for murderous adventures around the globe more; would gladly give those up to not be part of an abusive empire.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

When creationists say that evolution cannot be falsified...

...they're lying. Find a modern rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian, done.

There are numerous way to falsify the AGW hypothesis

Really? Name any observation of CO2 and temperature that would falsify it. Perhaps 17 years of ever increasing CO2, but no statistically significant warming?

Go ahead, state your falsifiable hypothesis...or continue hand waving if you prefer :)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Minimum wage laws and limits on worker hours or child labor?

I'm probably for the limits on worker hours, but minimum wage laws and child labor laws are economically destructive in the ways they've been implemented. Minimum wage only serves to destroy employment, and the lack of employment opportunities for children who are not cut out for academia means they spend years penned up in ersatz schools that are really just extended babysitting facilities.

I'll again go back to Clinton and his abortion quip, government should be safe, legal and rare.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[dave420]

CO2 and temperature are not the only two players in the game. There are a whole host of different factors which cause the Earth's temperature to change. Just saying what you did and expecting it to carry any weight and not be just a testimony to how woefully ignorant you are of this situation is incredible. You should read what "forcing" and "sensitivity" mean, and what forces exist, and how they and sensitivity can vary over time. Then read what you wrote. Then feel embarrassed. Very, very embarrassed.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Magius_AR]

I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.

Hello straw man.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Jason Levine]

Children (and by children I don't mean teens but kids under 12 years old) shouldn't be working. They should be in school getting an education. No, they might not wind up in academia, but they should have some level of schooling. Otherwise you wind up with the poor remaining poor because their kids need to work to help the family survive. Since the kids don't get an education, they have no chance of having a better life and stay poor and their children will need to work to help the family survive.

Child labor also gets into tricky issues like "how can a child agree to an employment contract" or "what is a safe job for children to perform." (Children were once used for certain jobs because their fingers could reach into the little areas of machines. Don't mind the fact that those "little areas" were dangerous to reach into. Kids were disposable.)

If you are talking something small like a paper route (part time, not interfering with school work(, I see no problem with it. If you are talking having an 8 year old hold down a full time job and stop going to school because they've been deemed "not cut out for academia", I have a big problem with it.

Re: You think that government is apolitical?

[kenh]

And government can't intimidate Fox News?

Seriously?

The White House has had active, public campaigns trying to intimidate, shutout, and marginalize Fox News to a degree I've not seen in prior administrations.

The key here is the administration's willingness to intimidate PUBLICLY - I'm sure prior administrations have intimidated news organizations, just not publicly.

Re: You think that government is apolitical?

[kenh]

Shareholders do, in the case of public corporations.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[tbannist]

Government can revoke NewsCorp's charter and thus terminate it - lock, stock and barrel.

Which government? NewsCorp is a powerful force in at least Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. I sincerely doubt any of those governments can actually shut down all of NewsCorp on their own. Maybe if all three ganged up on them, they could destroy the entirety of NewsCorp.

Can NewsCorp do the same to the Government?

I'm sure NewsCorp could actually afford to hire a (small) mercenary army to commit a military coup in Washington. Heck, their reporters already have access to all of the top chain of command in the United States, they could, in theory, assassinate the President and Vice-president nearly simulatenously if they really, really wanted to. So, I'm going to give the point to NewsCorp. The American government can severely inconvenience NewsCorp on their own, but NewsCorp could actually topple the American government.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

Perhaps 17 years of ever increasing CO2, but no statistically significant warming?

That does falsify some weak hypothesis of AGW, such as monotonically increasing temperatures. There are numerous problems with this line of reasoning... such as cherry-picking the time-range, as well as the measures. if you were an "expert" on the subject, then you'd already be familiar with the counter-arguments. Even at an elementary level, do you know what the different measures I'm talking about could be? I'm going to guess as say you have no idea what I'm talking about, but you still think you're an "expert".

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[lgw]

I notice you ignore the question of a falsifiable hypothesis. The quantitative models from 1990 were wrong, wrong by more than their error bars, so IMO they've been falsified. The quantitative models from 2000 aren't looking so hot. That doesn't mean the qualitative idea is wrong, and the models from 2010 might finally be right, but if you assume they're right at this point, that has become faith and religion.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[coinreturn]

I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.

Hello straw man.

Not a straw man. DiamondMagic says he'll take the corporation over government ANY day. Corporations will not be paving roads or inspecting food any time soon (without government involvement).

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[lgw]

Or maybe you're just wrong? It's bad for every modern nation in the world to do things the same way - that way there will never be growth, because growth requires change. Let Europe do it's thing. Let the US do something very different. Live in the place you think does it right. Let others live the way they think is right.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[MooseMiester]

Plus pad their own pockets, or the parties pockets while making these deals. A LOT of that funding money is money laundering. I call it THEFT. They are stealing from ME, the taxpayer, to pay BRIBES back to the politician or the party....

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[lgw]

Running a company is complex, and includes the ideologies of the actors involved. It's not a purely corrupt process by a long stretch. You got to study these things to work out how things happen in real life.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I'll let your fanatical "NewsCorp topples America" hypothesis stand on its own merits. Thank you for proving my point that Government trumps corporations, in terms of power.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

It's people that are the problem. The private sector has shown itself to be every bit as capable of corruption as the Guvmint.

It's why I'm always amused at "private sector solutions". It doesn't change a thing, Because the end game of Laissez-faire capitalism is the same as totalitarian government. It's just who controls you.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[microbox]

I worked in both the government and private industry, small and big. Government very similar to a large consulting firm, but quite different from small business. The fundamental difference in government is that there are rules that you follow, and every government department I was in took that seriously. I could go on at length. I used to run my own small consulting business once upon a time (five employees). But I suppose you think the government is all powerful, because that's the "church" you attend. You really do have to study things to understand them in real life.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

If CO2 and temperature aren't sufficient, please, add as many variables as you like, and clearly state what observations would cause you to question your belief.

My bet is that you can't even *enumerate* all the factors, forcings, sensitivities, or emergent phenomena that affect the earth's temperature, but if you'd like to bear that burden, please feel free - state your falsifiable hypothesis as complexly as you require.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Children (and by children I don't mean teens but kids under 12 years old) shouldn't be working. They should be in school getting an education.

I respectfully disagree. Not only is working at a young age good practice, but you can't treat all children as some monolithic demographic - different children have different needs, and some of those children simply aren't cut out for schooling much past basic numeracy and literacy (and some not even for that). If you've got some retarded kid who is never going to do more than bag groceries and do manual labor their entire life, why waste their time in an academic environment? Wither thou vocational schools?

As I mentioned before, I can certainly see some basic limitations on hours, and I could even see some of that based on age (or height/weight, or some other standard), but child labor laws have gone way past the reasonable stage. Case in point:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/08/5-legal-issues-with-your-kids-lemonade-stand.html

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

I'd go with something more radical - appoint people to political office by lottery, and have people serve one term and then out.

The problem I have with public funding of elections is that it simply isn't realistic - how do you allocate public funding when say, 1 million citizens want to run for the office of Governor of California? You may change the point at which money is influential, but it still will be.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

That does falsify some weak hypothesis of AGW, such as monotonically increasing temperatures.

So...you're asserting some more complex hypothesis of AGW that is hind cast onto observations by tweaking hard coded parameters? Isn't that curve fitting just an extended ad hoc special pleading?

Come up with *any* set of observations that you believe would falsify your central conceit - use as many variables as you'd like, but be sure to enumerate them, and of course, don't forget, connect the logical dots such that in the *absence* of such observations, the only explanation left is your favored belief.

The continual appeal to unnamed authorities, unspecified hypothesis statements, and general claims of doom make the Cult of Global Warming more obvious by the day :)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[tbannist]

I'll let your fanatical "NewsCorp topples America" hypothesis stand on its own merits.

It's fantastical, not fanatical. It would be fanatical if I were proposing that NewCorp should or would do it. You didn't ask that though, you asked if they could do it, and with enough money it's certainly possible. And any company were to try it, I wouldn't bet on them being able to control the country after they toppled the government. A much more likely scenario is NewsCorp providing favourable media coverage to try and influence elections so that the government works for them. But, of course, that would never happen.

Thank you for proving my point that Government trumps corporations, in terms of power.

It helps if you actually show how an argument supports your position rather than just claiming victory empty-handed. You might want to read up on NewsCorp's assets, for starters. I don't think you give corporations enough credit for the soft power that they wield.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

There is not a single necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement in any of the IPCC reports.

If you disagree, please quote it, chapter and page. /crickets

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, fanatical was what I wanted to use. It's fanatical on your part in an effort to force the concept of "Corps trump Governments".

And as far as the assets of NewsCorp, they pale in comparison of the US Federal Government. How many divisions does NewsCorp have? How many naval battlegroups? How much tax can it levy, and how much money can it borrow (even a trillion)?

Corporations can influence Government; so can individuals (see Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, and others). But Government ultimately wins in the war of power. Government can take everything you want, and you have no recourse - other than Government. Government can execute you, and your family has no recourse - other than Government. Government can (and has) nationalize - take over by fiat - corporations. In the battle of power, Government wins, hands down.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[PopeRatzo]

Corporations can dictate what is and what isn't allowed, in your own personal life and in how you choose to conduct it?

Can you do what you want with the products you buy?

Corporations can choose to arrest or detain or kill whomever they want, without repercussion?

Bhopal, BP Gulf oil spill, West Texas fertilizer plant. Of course corporations can detain and kill whomever they want without repercussion. And if there are any repercussions at all, they are puny compared to their profit from the same activity. So, if you're a Wall Street bank, you can steal half a trillion, tank the world economy, and get a fine that represents .0001 of your profits.

The kind of power that corporations can only dream of.

They don't have to just dream about what they can readily buy.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[catprog]

One observation would be nearly every trend except CO2 indicating cooling and it actually cooling instead of just reaming stable.

And both 18 and 16 years show an upward trend.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2013/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/to:2013/trend

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[dpilot]

Regulation happens because:
1 - It's a response to abuse, and an attempt to prevent it from happening again.
2 - Someone woke up one day and said, "Wouldn't it be really FUN to create some obnoxious regulations to annoy people?"

Regulations become complex because:
1 - The entities being regulated find innovative ways to avoid those regulations, the regulators try to close those loopholes. Lather, rinse, repeat.
2 - The entites being regulated participate in the regulatory process, trying to make it easier for themselves and optionally harder for their competitors.
3 - Someone woke up one day and said, "Those regulations are too simple, today's joyous job will be complicating them so that nobody can understand them or properly comply with them."

Government serves its constituents. When the whole thing isn't working, two prime possibilities come to mind:
1 - Only a small subset of the population is the "real constituents". Think of the Communist Party in the old USSR or China.
2 - Different portions of the constituents have different needs/wishes, and they are not being well or effectively balanced.

I almost see your "safe, legal, and rare." but because human nature these days just isn't that hot, I'll substitute, "enough, but not more" for that last one.

Having some background in semiconductor testing, there are 2 philosophies to it:
1 - Quality design and quality production, so test is needed to get rid of the fliers and exceptions.
2 - Test the quality in.

#1 would be nice, I suspect it's what you're advocating, and to be honest, it's the world I'd rather live in. #2 is the world we actually do live in.

Proof: Look at all of those successful nations run on Libertarian principles.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Proof: Look at all of those successful nations run on Libertarian principles.

Well, Bastiat believed that the shining example of that was the US in the 1800s (slavery being the one particular violation of that ideal), and we ended up on the top of the heap...whether or not we can keep that exalted position, given the general tendency of statists, is an open question, but if you wanted to compare and contrast say, individual states on libertarian principles, I think the comparison likely bodes well for libertarian principles. The problem always ends up that the liberal wing wants to play nanny state, and the religious right wing always wants to poke into people's bedrooms - both are trying to legislate morality of a sort, even though they're diametrically opposed.

I'd argue overregulation happens because there is no accountability of government bureaucrats. It's a symptom of checks and balances gone awry, with say, an executive branch that arbitrarily modifies legislation by fiat, a congress afraid to hold that executive accountable, and a judiciary unwilling to rein in that power.

There's some hope, to be sure, but because human nature these days just isn't that hot, and government bureaucrats are always humans, I'd prefer to keep their powers to the bare minimum.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Omg, you're going to cherry pick *four* points, and try and deny that CO2 continues to rise while temperatures have had no statistically significant warming? :)

Try looking at all the data:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2013/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/to:2013/normalise

Nice try :)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[catprog]

First let's normalize both graphs

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2013/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/to:2013/normalise

Lets remove some of the noise and look at a longer term graph

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1970/to:2013/mean:30/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/to:2013/normalise

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[catprog]

And if we add in some sun for the variation from the co2 line

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1970/to:2013/mean:30/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/to:2013/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/to:2013/normalise

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Funny, your graph shows no CO2 effect at all, and a relationship with sunspots that flips from in sync to out of sync.

I guess the other question you've also got to answer, is what if, as per our ice core records, temperature actually drives CO2 rather than the other way around?

The fact of the matter is this - the closest to a statement of falsification I've ever seen is 2008 NOAA:

"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”"

As with any falsification, it is *asking* you to find a cherry pick that proves the whole shebang wrong (if you're proving that all swans are white, you can't claim that someone's black swan to disprove you is a "cherry pick").

Now, the defense of this can be ad hoc special pleading ("oh we were wrong about this small fudge factor, and it all works out when we add it in"), or misdirection ("yeah, but all these other 15 year trends match! Look at the millions of white swans!"), but neither of them are persuasive arguments.

Here's the challenge to you - what observations, of CO2, sunspots, temperature, and whatever else you'd like, would cause you to abandon your central conceit? Are you reading tea leaves, or are you doing science?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[catprog]

The thing I most notice is when the temperature is below the co2 line the sunspots are also low.

For temperature driving CO2 I would point out a chemical reaction Nitrogen dioxide and Dinitrogen tetroxide. Those two gases are in equilibrium. If you change the concentration of one the other will follow. Proving A follows B does not disprove B follows A.

On that graph a temperature reading below CO2 levels that could not be explained by the sunspots would cause me to look for another explanation.

Another thing that would cause me to question the science would be a explanation for the less IR radiated by the earth in the bands that CO2 absorbs.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[catprog]

on your black swan theory.

If I was trying to prove a dice was fair and I got 8 ones in a row from 1,679,616 trails would the dice be fair?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Well, by fairly simple calculation, it should happen once on a fair dice in 1679616 trials, so you would never have a dice fairness model that said "if you find eight rolls of one in a row in 1679616 trials, I'm falsified". You'd state falsification criteria like "if you find 9 rolls of one in a row for 1679616 trials, I'm falsified", or "if you find two instances of eight rolls of one in a row in 1679616 trials, I'm falsified."

NOAA 2008 didn't say, "if you find 15 years of stagnant temperatures with rising CO2, only once in a million years, I'm falsified".

If you were trying to prove a dice had six sides, and only once out of 1,679,616 trials, you got a 7, does the dice have six sides?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

The thing I most notice is when the temperature is below the co2 line the sunspots are also low.

You sound like you're reading an astrological chart :)

For temperature driving CO2 I would point out a chemical reaction Nitrogen dioxide and Dinitrogen tetroxide. Those two gases are in equilibrium. If you change the concentration of one the other will follow. Proving A follows B does not disprove B follows A.

So you're asserting that CO2 and temperature follow each other? Isn't that trivially falsified by any observation of CO2 going down and temp going up, or vice versa?

If you want to imagine this in terms of chemistry, have you ever considered perhaps the ocean, as a CO2 source and sink, mediates the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere based on its temperature, regardless of other sources and sinks of CO2? Imagine a buffer solution, as it were, that will neutralize both bases and acids...food for thought.

Re: You think that government is apolitical?

[gzuckier]

You need to state your criteria a priori. Scientists don't do experiments so that kibitzers can look at the results a posteriori and state solemnly "nope, I'm still not convinced" as though that meant something. In this case your qualifier of "statistically significant" warming lacks anyiindication of what level of significance you are using.

It is quite easy to calculate the variance of the measurement and predict a priori that warming of the estimated amount would not reach the commonly accepted value of p (.05) over a period of 17 years. Thirty years is a commonly cited time frame for warming to be statistically significant at this level; so your failed prediction is a straw creation of your own mind. Meanwhile, you can see quite the positive trend over the 17 years of your interest, just as with the previous years, despite the yearly noise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Realists.gif
In fact, statistics works against you in this matter. Your hypothesis would be that the temperature had been rising but had stopped recently (unless you are dropping back to the "the warming isn't real" that was once so popular). I.e. that the current flat spot is significant, in that it literally signifies a change in the process which is generating these temperature measurements, while the CO2 process has not changed. To disprove this hypothesis it is sufficient to demonstrate that the current flat spot is not statistically significantly different from the measurements seen in the past, and that is trivially easy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Magius_AR]

Not a straw man. DiamondMagic says he'll take the corporation over government ANY day.

It is a straw man. Because the OP was clearly being hyperbolic. Moreover, the context of the post was clearly focused on the federal government. Of all your example, only the EPA fits that category.

Corporations will not be paving roads or inspecting food any time soon (without government involvement).

This kind of blanket assumption is ridiculous -- why do people believe these things in the face of obvious counterexamples? Why do software companies (ala Microsoft) patch their operating systems after they've already sold them? Why do companies have hardware/software assurance or testing departments? Companies have a vested interest in keeping customers happy (and additionally, in not being sued). Whereas greed may cause them to occasionally make decisions that push for lower costs, that doesn't mean they'd be willfully negligent in the face of no government regulation. That said, I certainly believe some level of regulation is necessary to maintain things like food safety. But it's crazy to make the claim that they're not even going to try to put out or maintain a good/safe product without mother govt telling them to.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[tbannist]

No, fanatical was what I wanted to use. It's fanatical on your part in an effort to force the concept of "Corps trump Governments".

I think you should be more careful when throwing accusations of fatanticism around.

Corporations can influence Government; so can individuals (see Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, and others). But Government ultimately wins in the war of power. Government can take everything you want, and you have no recourse - other than Government. Government can execute you, and your family has no recourse - other than Government. Government can (and has) nationalize - take over by fiat - corporations. In the battle of power, Government wins, hands down.

I think you failed to comprehend the points I was making, however, as long as you are happy with the idea that a corporation which controlled a government would be less powerful than the government it controlled, I will accept your argument. I think two people can disagree civily over who's more powerful, the horse or the rider, and both can even be correct according to the value they place on the various types of power.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[coinreturn]

Moreover, the context of the post was clearly focused on the federal government. Of all your example, only the EPA fits that category.

Oh Really? So the federal government doesn't pay for interstate highways? Or reimburse states for fire-fighting wildfires?

Companies have a vested interest in keeping customers happy (and additionally, in not being sued).

Yes, but the judicial system is a government system, so we're back there.

But it's crazy to make the claim that they're not even going to try to put out or maintain a good/safe product without mother govt telling them to.

I never made the claim that they wouldn't do ANY product safety, only that it would be inadequate.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Kavafy]

This is all very interesting but you keep citing falsifiability as if AGW were a scientific theory rather than a scientific prediction.

Re: You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

You need to state your criteria a priori.

That's *exactly* my complaint about warmists. They have never stated any sort of necessary and sufficient falsification criteria - that set of observations that if observed would make them discard their central conceit, and that logically if not observed must mean that their explanation and only their explanation is true (i.e., it excludes all others).

The fact that you defend NOAA 2008 by moving the bars from 15 to 17 to even 30 years is *laughable* - they purportedly stated concrete falsification criteria, right? But the response to the observation of that falsification criteria is just what, another appeal to the god of the gaps? :)

  From NOAA 2008:

"“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”"

There's your cite, I'm sure SS has some canned response on that one too :)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

It is not scientific unless it has falsifiability.

You can have an astrological prediction. You can have a theological theory. But to have something scientific requires falsifiability.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Kavafy]

Unfortunately for you, it's a bit more complicated than that. Hilary Putnam's critique of falsifiability as a demarcation criterion is relevant. Briefly, any experimental or observational test of a theory requires you to believe certain auxiliary hypotheses. That is one of the main reasons why a single anomalous observation is rarely enough to bring down a whole theory. The predictions produced by climate science that we collectively refer to as AGW require a number of different scientific theories for their production, so of course the problem of auxiliary hypotheses increases. Your whole line of argument is unrealistic when we look at the way science has actually been done.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

The problem with Hilary Putnam's critique is that it opens up astrology, phrenology, and things like "paranormal research" into the veneer of science. I mean, you can go ahead and make the claim that falsifiability isn't a cornerstone of the scientific method, but the result is a massively subjective moral relativism that gives you no effective demarcation at all.

As for single anomalous observations and CAGW, nobody has even identified a *set* of anomalous observations that would falsify the central conceit. I'll grant that for something as complex as CAGW, the amount of leg work to reach the level of science is significant, but for all the billions of dollars poured into research, shouldn't that have been first on the list?

I suppose in the end, I find the abandonment of falsifiability has no rational alternative method of discerning pseudo-science from science, and thus far no one has made any really persuasive argument to the contrary.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Kavafy]

The problem with Hilary Putnam's critique is that it opens up astrology, phrenology, and things like "paranormal research" into the veneer of science. I mean, you can go ahead and make the claim that falsifiability isn't a cornerstone of the scientific method, but the result is a massively subjective moral relativism that gives you no effective demarcation at all.

Well, maybe, and maybe not, but you have just made an appeal to consequences. That is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the critique.

As for single anomalous observations and CAGW, nobody has even identified a *set* of anomalous observations that would falsify the central conceit.

AGW as a prediction depends on a number of theories. Anomalous observations could be explained by problems in any one of them, or a combination. I still don't get your point.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Well, maybe, and maybe not, but you have just made an appeal to consequences. That is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the critique.

Agreed, either there is an answer, and there is such a thing as science that can be demarcated, or there is no answer, and there is no such thing as science.

However, if Hilary Putnam is correct (and I'll argue that she isn't), that's hardly a defense of CAGW being scientific - it's only really an affirmation of the assertion that we can never *tell* if CAGW is scientific.

AGW as a prediction depends on a number of theories.

AGW is a theory that posits vague and prophetic like predictions with error bars that encompass nearly any possible scenario and ad hoc special pleadings for any excursions outside of those boundaries.

The problem here is that AGW (and the implication of CAGW which is what drives the political machine behind activity to "combat" AGW), isn't nearly scientific. None of its predictions are inconsistent with naturally driven global warming (or cooling for that matter). It's like saying, "I predict that this house was built by a cadre of midgets - even though the exact same house can be, and has been built by non-midgets elsewhere."

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[diamondmagic]

It is a straw man, you misrepresent the position. I say I don't want people who can knock down my front door in a SWAT raid just to test the quality of my water. Corporations, though it happens far less frequently, have also been known to force their ways into people's property. (Arguably at that point they are no longer a corporation but a state. That's a matter of definition.)

But nonetheless, just because you cannot imagine a time when these services were funded without taxes, doesn't mean it's impossible.

The government doesn't provide us "safe food". They do far less than you actually think, and for much of history, there was none. Yet we had refrigeration standards for produce, and the government doesn't have a very good history identifying actual injuries (among other things, claiming that ketchup was poisonous and Coca-Cola somehow dangerous, though I guess NYC still does, for different reasons). It's still unlikely that we'd have a rash of poisoned food, if the insurance companies have anything to say about it (they're ultimately picking up the bill). Some industries aren't regulated by the Federal government at all, like electronics (except for RF requirements, and even that is tested by private labs). Those big fancy warning labels aren't added to hairdryers because some government agency mandates it.

Likewise for roads, for much of history, the government did not pave or maintain roads. The first government funded transportation in the US was actually water canals.

Nor did they provide firemen. To this day there's still private firefighting services and private roads - covering rather large geographical regions. Until just a few years ago, paramedics here were privately operated (the fire department bought most of the providers out, and while the quality didn't significantly change, though it's a tad bit more expensive - government monopoly, what a shocker).

But apparently this is all impossible, you say?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[coinreturn]

But apparently this is all impossible, you say?

Never said it was impossible. Sure government didn't pave roads at one time - I'd like to see the commute on a muddy ditch into the city. There were a HELL of a lot fewer cars then! If the roads and bridges were not maintained by the government, they would be in such shitty shape as to be virtually unusable, except for perhaps some in Las Vegas or other areas where business would realize that no roads meant no business (homeowners and renters would be shit out of luck except in neighborhoods of the wealthy). Are you seriously suggesting no government-funded roads?

The first government funded transportation in the US was actually water canals.

Non-sequitur.

And the hair dryer tags are only there because the GOVERNMENT provides the courts and force of law for lawsuits.

If there is a straw man - you own it. You said you would take the corporation to get things done, ANY day. Sure, you listed the things you don't like about government, but your statement stands alone.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Kavafy]

However, if Hilary Putnam is correct (and I'll argue that she isn't)

Sounds like you should find out a little more about him first.

that's hardly a defense of CAGW being scientific - it's only really an affirmation of the assertion that we can never *tell* if CAGW is scientific.

If, for the sake of argument, we can't tell, then it's clearly not fair to call it unscientific. The fact that you don't like that as a consequence doesn't make it any more or less true.

AGW is a theory that

It's a prediction. As in, "if we do X, Y will happen". Why is this so hard to understand? Seriously, it doesn't seem at all wise to complain about things being unscientific without being more familiar with arguments about demarcation criteria and the history of science.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Magius_AR]

I never made the claim that they wouldn't do ANY product safety, only that it would be inadequate.

Actually, you did -- you said that corporation "will not be doing" those things without government involvement. Basically, your statement was just as hyperbolic as the OP you jumped on. So how about we give people some slack before building up these ridiculous straw men next time? We're not anarchists, you're not a socialist. Middle ground.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Sounds like you should find out a little more about him first.

Ah, the tricky world of names - my apologies to the dear fellow :)

If, for the sake of argument, we can't tell, then it's clearly not fair to call it unscientific.

If, for the sake of argument, we can't tell, then it's clearly not fair to call it scientific either :)

It's a prediction. As in, "if we do X, Y will happen".

That's like saying the theory of gravity is just a prediction, as in, "if we have mass A and mass B ad distance C, force X will happen".

AGW (and it's implied brother CAGW) are unfalsifiable hypotheses. If you can at least admit that, you're getting somewhere.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Kavafy]

If, for the sake of argument, we can't tell, then it's clearly not fair to call it unscientific.

If, for the sake of argument, we can't tell, then it's clearly not fair to call it scientific either :)

Not on the basis you've set out, which is exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along. Your criterion is unrealistic and unreflective of the way science is actually done.

It's a prediction. As in, "if we do X, Y will happen".

That's like saying the theory of gravity is just a prediction, as in, "if we have mass A and mass B ad distance C, force X will happen".

What? No! The theory of gravity can be used to make an infinite (in principle) number of predictions, of which you've just given one example. See the difference?

AGW (and it's implied brother CAGW) are unfalsifiable hypotheses.

I really think it is better to get your terminology straight and read up a bit on epistemology before making judgements about what does and does not qualify as science. One might think that scientists actually working in the relevant field would be in a better position to determine what is legitimate, and if you're going to contradict them then you need a solid grasp of what you are talking about.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[dpilot]

Actually the 1800s aren't a particularly good example. The "Robber Baron" era started somewhere in there, illustrating a key point. Businessmen like the free market when it lets them jump into some marketplace. But once they become incumbents they do pretty much everything they can to close down that free market and turn it into their own private marketplace. Maybe in time the marketplace could correct their behavior, but it would likely be quite a long time and a lot of collateral damage - in the case of the Robber Barons perhaps nearly irreperable damage to the country. Anyway, noted conservative Republicant Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts.

Theoretically every element of government is accountable - that's what the voting booth is for.

Theoretically business is accountable too, that's what the free market is for.

Government gets corrupted, and accountability lost, but that's considered a malfunction.

Business attempts to corner the marketplace, and as a (frequently desired) side-effect eliminates its own accountability. That's actually considered part of its mission. Business is supposed to try, it's just that the free market is supposed to prevent it from succeeding. But there's no safety/backup mechanism, other than trust-busting.

It's kind of like what C. Everett Koop once said, "The only product on the market, that when used according to directions, kills." The goal of pretty much every business is ultimately to destabilize/disable the free market.

Which is easier to correct? I don't know. It gets even uglier when the line between business and government blurs.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

Not on the basis you've set out, which is exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along.

Are you arguing, or agreeing? Your critique against my demarcation of science and pseudo-science is that no such demarcation exists, and yet you want me to believe that CAGW is somehow scientific without any objective criteria by which to judge that quality?

Or are you simply saying that science is like the pornography that the Supreme Court knows when they see it? :)

The theory of gravity can be used to make an infinite (in principle) number of predictions, of which you've just given one example. See the difference?

No, actually, I don't. Although, it is interesting that the theory of gravity makes definite predictions for starting conditions, whereas AGW makes an infinite (in principle) number of predictions for any given starting conditions :)

Or are you trying to assert that AGW has one and only one prediction to make? Or are you separating out the AGW of 2.0C versus 1.5C as completely separate and different from each other?

One might think that scientists actually working in the relevant field would be in a better position to determine what is legitimate,

One might think that, but one would be relying on an inappropriate appeal to unnamed authorities, wouldn't one? :)

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

The "Robber Baron" era started somewhere in there, illustrating a key point.

Note that that era began with the increased government intervention into markets, particularly railroads :)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Robber-Barons-Business/dp/0963020315

"The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. "

Theoretically every element of government is accountable - that's what the voting booth is for.

How is an unelected bureaucrat held accountable?

But there's no safety/backup mechanism, other than trust-busting.

And there may very well be an argument that that is a legitimate, safe, legal, and rare implementation of government.

But in the end, I can't help but agree with Bastiat - the more government you have, the less freedom individuals have. One might argue there is some sort of local optimum you can strive for, a balance we might agree to, but the modern US is heavily skewed in the direction of statists. The real question is going to be what kind of sea change is going to tip the scales back to the side of freedom...perhaps something that will happen in our lifetimes, perhaps several generations away, who can tell.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[Kavafy]

Are you arguing, or agreeing? Your critique against my demarcation of science and pseudo-science is that no such demarcation exists, and yet you want me to believe that CAGW is somehow scientific without any objective criteria by which to judge that quality?

I'm telling you your criterion is wrong. That's not the same as saying there is no possible criterion, is it?

No, actually, I don't.

You may not, but theory vs prediction is a totally standard and well-understood distinction in the philosophy of science. If you're going to be stubborn then I'll have to leave you to do your research and take it from here.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[hsthompson69]

I'm telling you your criterion is wrong. That's not the same as saying there is no possible criterion, is it?

It effectively is the same thing, if you're not going to propose an alternative criterion.

Do you have one?

You may not, but theory vs prediction is a totally standard and well-understood distinction in the philosophy of science.

And you're inappropriately using it in this case. Asserting that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming isn't a hypothesis, but rather simply a prediction of say, the greenhouse effect, is to gloss over the fundamental claims of the CAGW "prediction".

Put another way, yes, the orbital mechanics of the heavens are fairly well understood, and we can specify when someone is an astrological Leo or Cancer - you seem to want to call that the "theory" of astrology, and insist that any astrological claim that Leos get along with Cancers is simply a "prediction" of the underlying "theory" of an at-a-distance effect of planets and stars to our personality types.

AGW is no more a "prediction" than BBGW (butterfly based global warming) - from your point of view, one can argue that the greenhouse theory (the fairly tame claim that holding all other things equal, an increase in greenhouse gases will lead to some increase in temperature) is somehow sufficient for us to make claims about *any* greenhouse gas source, while blithely ignoring any sinks or buffering phenomena. We could worry about WBGW (worm based global warming), or OBGW (ocean based global warming), or even GBGW (ground based global warming), simply by asserting that anything that emits CO2 must drive global CO2 levels up, and then relying on the greenhouse theory to do the rest after we gloss over everything else.

Not to mention the real problem is GW (of any kind) is being touted as catastrophic - a wonderfully weasely word if there ever was one in science :)

But hey, let's take your distinction for the moment, and ask you a question - if an AGW prediction is false, what theory is falsified?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[flaming error]

How did you get to "not overwhelming" == 0?

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[diamondmagic]

Never said it was impossible.

Specifically, I'm referring to "Corporations will not be inspecting food or paving roads anytime soon."

It seemed more likely that you mean "private corporations are incapable of providing these services".

Literally, yes, this is probably correct. But that's because the government, as I demonstrated, has completely monopolized the industries you refer to, not due to any lack of interest from businesses.

If the government took over the letter shipping industry, we'd make the same remark "I don't see private corporations sending letters to people's doorsteps anytime soon." Oh, wait. That's what we have now: Sending letters is illegal.

Different example: If the government took over the airline industry, we'd make the same remark, "I don't see private corporations flying passengers any time soon." Wait, isn't that exactly what British Airways is?

Sure government didn't pave roads at one time - I'd like to see the commute on a muddy ditch into the city. There were a HELL of a lot fewer cars then! If the roads and bridges were not maintained by the government, they would be in such shitty shape as to be virtually unusable, except for perhaps some in Las Vegas or other areas where business would realize that no roads meant no business (homeowners and renters would be shit out of luck except in neighborhoods of the wealthy). Are you seriously suggesting no government-funded roads?

No, I mean actual paved roads going from major city to city. Commercially, they're known as turnpikes.

Non-sequitur.

It's just a comment, not a conclusion, so there's nothing to non sequitur' (your remark that government not paving roads would mean private dirt roads for a commute is an example of a non sequitur). I'm just backing up my point that historically, government has not funded transportation, and there's plenty of examples of long-distance private transit.

And the hair dryer tags are only there because the GOVERNMENT provides the courts and force of law for lawsuits.

Rule of law is very well and good. I never disagreed.

If there is a straw man - you own it. You said you would take the corporation to get things done, ANY day. Sure, you listed the things you don't like about government, but your statement stands alone.

I didn't mean to imply I want corporations busting down my door in a SWAT raid. At that point, there is no distinction between the two. Government is the entity that has monopoly on use of force, or authority to assert a monopoly at its choosing; corporations are voluntary. I explicitly referred to use of force.

Re:You think that government is apolitical?

[coinreturn]

your remark that government not paving roads would mean private dirt roads for a commute is an example of a non sequitur

No it isn't. I say if governments didn't pave roads, there wouldn't be paved roads, with the possible exception of wealthy neighborhoods and some major commuter routes with tolls that most people could not afford (they'd be using the dirt paths). Note that turnpike tolls are regulated by the government. Private companies are most certainly capable of paving roads - that's not the point. They don't have incentive to pave enough roads to make it worth owning a car.

Also, I see your previous citation of ketchup and Coca-cola, and raise you mercury in fish, melamine, lead paint, asbestos, and Love Canal.

Re: Science, or sinecure?

[Anonymous Coward]

"They excluded it because it suits their political goals to reach a certain conclusion, which is about as unscientific as you can get."

Do you have any actual evidence of this, beyond the obvious slant of the Slashdot headline? Do you have an "ignore human factors" citation to offer?

"The word “cyclical” was added to the legislation by State Sen. Beau McCoy, a Republican who represents western Douglas County and is a candidate for governor. McCoy could not be reached late Wednesday.

Last April, during debate on the bill, McCoy said: “I don't subscribe to global warming. I think there are normal, cyclical changes.”"

From this article: http://www.omaha.com/article/20131024/NEWS/131029338/1707#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists

Great opportunity.

[mevets]

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.....

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

go ahead, falsify.

Well, since you asked me...

A bit of gas in a small glass container cannot be said to have any direct relationship to the thermodynamics of a global-scale dynamic system, which is subject to rotation, daily heating and cooling, convection, conduction, and other forms of latent heat exchange.

There. Falsified. Have a nice day.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

So should government fund Young Earth Creationism "Research" / Intelligent Design research?

If it would actually serve to prove them wrong, then yes, they probably should. I don't see why some people have such trouble with this concept.

Re:Scientific Method

[Jane Q. Public]

Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point

Um... sorry. But cyclical climate events are KNOWN to exist. This isn't some harebrained theory somebody "pulled out of their ass". They are known and legitimate phenomena that are great subjects for further research.

There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...

You simply can't properly understand anthropogenic warming (if such truly exists), without understanding these known cycles as well. It isn't possible.

great

[superwiz]

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.

Sounds like a repeat of BEST

[BergZ]

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

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha

[ericloewe]

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.

Re:A Salon article? Really?

[masonc]

Actually, Salon is quoting this article
http://www.omaha.com/article/20131024/NEWS/131029338/1707#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists

So much for "grant whoring"

[overshoot]

Wait a minute -- I thought all those climate scientists were just echoing the party line to keep getting rich on grant money?

Re:So much for "grant whoring"

[FishOuttaWater]

Yes, we all know Nebraska state grants are a never ending gravy train, so they need never again worry about pissing off the powers that be at the federal level. ;-)

Re:But the IPCC is SCIENCE

[BergZ]

The IPCC creates reports based on the scientific studies of Climatologists.
These reports include both natural and human contributions to climate change.
The IPCC could not have come to the conclusion that human activity is partly responsible for the current period of warming if they hadn't looked at natural contributions.

NASA's Earth Observatory has a great article on the topic:
"Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans."
Source (emphasis mine).

Re:Scientific Method

[Guppy06]

There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...

And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."

Not including is different than denying ...

[perpenso]

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.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

No they should not, because such things do not meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis.

Horseshit. "Young Earth ideology is false" is a perfectly valid, verifiable null hypothesis, quite suitable for study. People can study it scientifically and have done so. Further, reproducing the results of others is a valuable scientific undertaking.

Re:0% clue and holding...

[Jane Q. Public]

They are PERIODIC. Not cyclic. A cycle restarts from its original location to repeat the cycle again.

You are playing semantic games. I am pretty sure the average reader understood what was meant.

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.

So... you would support more study of the anthropogenic component of climate variability, but not the periodic components? Even though currently, separating the AGW signal from the periodic noise is already so difficult that there is debate about whether it even exists?

Why would that be? And do you somehow think that isn't a political stance?

Easy

[Al Al Cool J]

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.

Re:Scientific Method

[Jane Q. Public]

And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."

Says who? TFA doesn't say that. The article that was TFA's source doesn't say anything that would lead to that conclusion.

I think this whole situation is a gigantic example of "the pot calling the kettle black."

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[ArbitraryName]

You have zero fucking idea what you're talking about. "The Earth was created in situ 6,000 years ago" is not a falsifiable hypothesis. Here is an elementary school explanation that might not go over your head.

You cannot demonstrate that the entire Universe (let alone the Earth) was not created exactly as is just ten minutes ago. There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

You cannot demonstrate that the entire Universe (let alone the Earth) was not created exactly as is just ten minutes ago. There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.

And you say I am the one who has no clue? Really? Apparently you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.

There is quite a lot of evidence that the Earth was not created 6,000 years (or 10 minutes) ago, which would be accepted by most reasonable people. No proof, to be sure, but there is ample evidence.

Radioactive decay, for instance, is evidence. The fossil record is evidence. Geologic strata are evidence. Plate tectonics is evidence.

Can I prove it wasn't created 10 minutes ago? No. But the idea that some creator put all those things in place just to mess with our heads is rather outrageous, and is not accepted by most reasonable people.

Regardless, your ridiculous conflation of evidence and proof is evidence that you don't know much about evidence.

Re:Scientific Method

[mutube]

Grant money is grant money, and publications are publications.

That couldn't be less true if it tried. A PhD/post-doc spent outputting useless intentionally-crippled research is not the basis of a successful career.

I am sure there are many grad students / post docs willing to take on this research.

Find one. I hear Nebraska has some money to spend.

Re: Science, or sinecure?

[mutube]

The majority disagreeing with you |= a conspiracy.

The scientists are free to study what they like (in so far as permitted by their funding). This is a deliberately scuppered study on the effects of climate change on Nebraska. By ignoring the elephant in the room the results become next to useless, even dangerous. Since scientific careers are built on usefulness of research taking this on = ~ 3yr of career down the pan for nothing. "They should study it anyway! Scientific curiosity! Every angle!" Yes, and they should also study whether there are fairies on the moon and whether the solution to this whole climate change thing is copper bracelets or setting fire to icebergs. Nobody has checked that right?! Right!

There are an infinite amount of things to study. Scientists have to use their judgement, based on evidence and experience to determine the validity of a line of investigation.

Your boss comes in tomorrow and says "Hey 'phairy, we've got a problem with the network think we're getting hacked." All the evidence points to Chinese hackers, there are even posts all over Netcraft confirming it. "But," your boss continues, "my new business partner is Chinese so don't bring them into it". "I want the report on my desk pronto - and if it doesn't help fix the problem you're fired!*"

I guess you'll just buckle down and write that report?

*fudged to fit the analogy. Feel free to replace with "you can spend the next 3 years upgrading our network to block everything (except Chinese hackers). If it doesn't solve the problem you're fired!"

Yes, really

[Frosty Piss]

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".

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[ArbitraryName]

And you say I am the one who has no clue? Really?

Yes. And now you're posting this long stream of bullshit to reinforce and prove it. That's great though. The more people are exposed to your unhinged ranting the faster you'll be recognized as a loon to be ignored or mocked.

Can I prove it wasn't created 10 minutes ago? No.

Exactly. No one can. Therefore it is not a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It doesn't have to be falsifiable by you right now. A condition simply has to exist in which it could be. It is a very simple concept, yet tauntingly out of your grasp.

I was kind of hoping a grade school science class explanation would be simple enough for you.

Re:Greenpeace members stand up and say 'no'

[PPH]

I wonder how many of those scientists are greenpeace, siera club or WWF

Wait! What does the World Wrestling Federation have to do with climate change?

Pure Science

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Perhaps they're afraid...

[hsthompson69]

...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.

Re:Perhaps they're afraid...

[the eric conspiracy]

The purpose of the study is SUPPOSED to be on the effect of climate change on Nebraska.

If they are restricted to studying the cyclical climate change they aren't going to be able to do a comprehensive evaluation.

It's quite clear here that the parameters of the study are being set by politicians with the hopes that it will support their particular biases rather than provide a useful technical conclusion.

The scientists are quite right to refuse to participate in this hooey.

Re:Perhaps they're afraid...

[hsthompson69]

If they are restricted to studying the cyclical climate change they aren't going to be able to do a comprehensive evaluation.

Sure they can - all they have to do is show is that after accounting for all possible cycles, there's no way of explaining observations - they can *exclude* cyclical climate change as a driver...at least theoretically. Enumerating all the possible cycles is quite possibly an impossible task.

The really interesting point is that you can also see the shoe on the other foot - when grants are only given to people studying anthropogenic climate change, and they ignore natural climate change, aren't they also completely unable to do a comprehensive evaluation?

But again, that all being said, you can effectively squash the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming trope by simply insisting that scientific studies begin with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.

My bet is that the scientists refusing to participate haven't written a single climate change paper that ever stated a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement...although, I'm more than happy to be shown that I'm wrong by someone actually quoting their falsifiable hypothesis or hypotheses :)

Re:Perhaps they're afraid...

[the eric conspiracy]

> all they have to do is show is that after accounting for all possible cycles, there's no way of explaining observations

Do you have problems with reading comprehension?

The goal of the study is not explaining climate change. The goal is determining the EFFECTS of climate change on NEBRASKA. If you eliminate non-cyclical effects from that study (whether or not they are anthropogenic) you eliminate some types of climate change from the study.

It should be OBVIOUS that this makes the goal of the study impossible to perform in a useful fashion.

Re:Perhaps they're afraid...

[hsthompson69]

The goal is determining the EFFECTS of climate change on NEBRASKA. If you eliminate non-cyclical effects from that study (whether or not they are anthropogenic) you eliminate some types of climate change from the study.

Wait wait, you're saying that warming temperatures say, caused by a sunspot cycle, are somehow different than warming temperatures due to some one-time, non-cyclical magnetic change in the sun?

Climate change is climate change. The assertion that somehow it has stopped being natural, and is now driven primarily by humans, much less that this influence is going to be catastrophic, is a political position, not a scientific one.

Re:Scientific Method

[Guppy06]

Says who? TFA doesn't say that.

It also doesn't not say that. When asked for clarification what exactly "cyclical" meant in the bill, everyone with any authority avoided touching that question with a ten-foot pole, saying nothing more to the scientists beyond "Look at the floor debate," where the word "cyclical" was added by someone who first wanted to eliminate the study outright.

Nobody is saying anything. Everybody is making a point of not saying anything. And even if Han had knocked out those shield generators Lando would at least be detecting something...

How is this controversial?

[FishOuttaWater]

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."

Wrong!

[King_TJ]

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.

Re:Wrong!

[PopeRatzo]

Government is supposed to play the role of the impartial referee in the game of "Capitalism".

Absolutely not. No less an expert than Thomas Jefferson believed that government's role was to act in opposition to corporate power. Not impartial, but as a counterforce that could bring some measure of moral accountability to the amoral golem of the corporation, with it's shields from personal liability.

Outside of unions and governments, there are no other such forces. And before you say, "Free Market", that only works as long as there is some measure of moral accountability, such as social pressure on corporate leaders. With the rise of the multinational, there is no person to be held accountable. So, you end up where a corporation that has stolen $10billion being given a fine of $1million. I think a 1000:1 ratio between profit and cost is no counterforce at all.

Further, with the enormous consolidation that has occurred in the corporate sector, it is no longer possible for consumers to enforce moral accountability. That's why we're in a post-free market era. There's no free market because there cannot be a free market. Free markets are the LAST thing powerful corporations want.

Re:Wrong!

[King_TJ]

Jefferson truly was an expert in many ways, but his beliefs didn't always dictate the ultimate direction the nation went.... He wasn't a fan of Central Banking either.

“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin." - Jefferson

I'm not sure the Founding Fathers really grasped the idea of today's multinational corporations in the first place? With the technology of the day, it wasn't nearly as feasible for a business to successfully grow that large. Regardless, I don't necessarily see a problem with an "impartial" government if one takes it to mean a government that doesn't allow itself to be bought by special interests, and which enforces the laws of the land in a fair manner. There are MORE than enough laws on the books to enforce "moral accountability" for corporations; environmental regulations, limits on the number of hours employees are allowed to work without receiving overtime pay, minimum wage laws, etc. etc.

Re:Wrong!

[PopeRatzo]

Jefferson was an expert on capitalism?

Not capitalism, corporatism.

In fact here's one of his quotes on the subject:

âoeI hope we shall crush⦠in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

And I'll bet you didn't know that Jefferson and Madison wanted the Bill of Rights to contain an 11th Amendment.

"The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of âoeserving the public good.â Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of âoeartificial persons.â

It sounds like Jefferson and Madison (the Father of Conservativism) had a pretty damn good idea of what was coming. But even then, there were large and powerful corporations who worked to defeat the vision that Jefferson and Madison had to make government a counterbalance to corporate power.

What's up with /.?

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

And now you're posting this long stream of bullshit to reinforce and prove it. That's great though. The more people are exposed to your unhinged ranting the faster you'll be recognized as a loon to be ignored or mocked.

Excuse me? I'm not the one who confused evidence with proof. They are not the same things. You wrote "there is no evidence", which is 100% false.

A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It doesn't have to be falsifiable by you right now. A condition simply has to exist in which it could be.

True, but you are still getting your standards of "proof" confused. Nearly all of the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the idea of a young earth is false. There is far more evidence for an old Earth than there is for the Higgs Boson or even the Standard Model.

No, that's not absolute "proof". But it's still a scientific "fact", to the extent that science shows us the existence of facts, which is not absolute. You are simply demonstrating your ignorance of science.

Because NOTHING is ever "proven". Things can only be disproven. This is a fundamental feature of the way science works. Instead, we go by the preponderance of the evidence. When the evidence is overwhelming, we accept it as fact, even though it was never "proved". Nobody has been able to PROVE the existence of gravity, for fuck's sake. It just fits our current understanding and the preponderance of the evidence.

Re:Absolutely Impossible

[riverat1]

It's not like some politicians are trying to force scientists to ignore what they think it relevant information now, isn't it? /sarc

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

AND, if you dispute my claim that nobody has been able to prove gravity, I'll just turn it around to your own argument and say that what looks like gravity is really just some "creator" fucking with your head.

You can't have it both ways, man. Your "grade school" interpretation is only good for just that... grade school.

Re:Scientific Method

[Jane Q. Public]

It also doesn't not say that.

Right. And it also didn't NOT say that white is black, or that pink smells itchy. You can attempt to justify any argument whatsoever with a statement like that. Sheesh.

This is inherently a political issue. One faction wanted to study one aspect of "climate change". Another faction changed it to require study of another aspect of climate change. But either way, it's still study of climate change. You don't seem to like the politics of it. Too bad. That's the way Congresses work.

Natural Climate Change

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[ArbitraryName]

Excuse me? I'm not the one who confused evidence with proof. They are not the same things. You wrote "there is no evidence", which is 100% false.

You are fundamentally confused about the topic at hand. I said there is no evidence that could falsify the hypothesis, which is true. There is plenty of evidence that, taken together makes the hypothesis incredibly unlikely, but that's not good enough and that's not the point. You've moved right past the hypothesis into testing. That's not how a hypothesis works. They must always be phrase in a falsifiable manner. We're still working on the first step, don't jumo ahead.

True, but you are still getting your standards of "proof" confused.

Umm, no. Standards of proof are irrelevant to anything I'm saying. I will explain this simply. When a hypothesis is formed, it must be formed in such a way there some circumstance could theoretically come to pass that would demonstrate it as false. "There is no other life in the universe" is a valid hypothesis. Finding other life would falsify it. "There is other life in the universe" is not a falsifiable hypothesis because you could never prove that no life existed anywhere in any form.

Re:Here is a hint:

[riverat1]

I'd bet he as thinking of Al Gore. After all, isn't he the leader of the worldwide conspiracy? {wink}{wink}

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[ArbitraryName]

Now you're confusing the phenomenon of gravity with the Theory of Gravity. Gravity (the phenomenon) undeniably exists. It can be observed. The Theory of Gravity is based on falsifiable statements that could, some day no matter how incredibly unlikely, be demonstrated incorrect. Saying that "gravity is a creator fucking with us" is not valid because it could never be demonstrated to be incorrect.

Am I missing something

[Crypto Gnome]

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).

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

You are fundamentally confused about the topic at hand.

Laughable. "There is no evidence" is a very clear statement. If there was a misunderstanding, it sure as hell wasn't on my end.

I said there is no evidence that could falsify the hypothesis, which is true.

And I explained that your standard of evidence is complete horseshit, which is also true.

There is plenty of evidence that, taken together makes the hypothesis incredibly unlikely, but that's not good enough and that's not the point.

Yes, it is the point. You want PROOF. There is none. Get fucking used to it. Case in point:

Standards of proof are irrelevant to anything I'm saying.

Hahahaha! This is the most hilarious thing you've written yet. In ALL of science, there is a level of evidence that a reasonable person would accept as indicating truth, even though it is not "proof".

When a hypothesis is formed, it must be formed in such a way there some circumstance could theoretically come to pass that would demonstrate it as false.

No shit, Sherlock. And it only takes one counter-example to disprove a hypothesis. However, you are begging the question... you will only accept absolutes as "proof". Therefore you are insisting on a level of "proof" that does not exist in science.

What you are doing here is a particular kind of logical fallacy known as "shifting the goalposts". You originally wrote "there is no evidence", but now you're demanding "proof". I have already explained why this is nonsense but you're blathering on, as though you hadn't made that mistake.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[ArbitraryName]

Is this some sort of performance art piece? Like you're making a political statement about how ignorant "Jane Q Public" is in science and critical thinking? If so, bravo.

Re:academic redundancy

[pixelpusher220]

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.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[Jane Q. Public]

There is not a single piece of evidence that could falsity that hypothesis.

You know what? I concede this argument, because I went back to refer to your original comments, and I had mis-read what you wrote (quoted above). I had it in my head that you had written "There is not a single piece of evidence to that effect."

Mea culpa. Misunderstanding. You are correct that there is nothing that can disprove the hypothesis of a "young earth". I had simply not read your comment correctly, and thought you were claiming something you did not, in fact, claim. :(

Re:Here is a hint:

[tompaulco]

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.

Re:Scientific Method

[Guppy06]

You don't seem to like the politics of it.

A politician who first tried to get the broad study shut down entirely managed to instead add a qualifier where there was none before (i.e. not "this vs. that" but "all vs. some"), hamstringing the project by basing it on a faulty premise (that "cyclical" change merits such a large impact study) and a loaded question (presupposing that there is no other significant source of climate change impacting the state).

You're right, it is politics and I don't like how it's played out. But more importantly it's also a horrible hypothesis.

Re:The study is about the effects of climate chang

[skine]

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.

Re:Scientific Method

[Jane Q. Public]

A politician who first tried to get the broad study shut down entirely managed to instead add a qualifier where there was none before (i.e. not "this vs. that" but "all vs. some"), hamstringing the project by basing it on a faulty premise (that "cyclical" change merits such a large impact study) and a loaded question (presupposing that there is no other significant source of climate change impacting the state).

You are demonstrating your bias by arguing that one part of the science merits study but another part does not.

Do you realize that the "cyclical" (as one person mentioned, the proper word is probably "periodic") factors in climate science are so strong, and the AGW factors so weak, that it is still a matter of debate whether the latter even exists?

BOTH are valid subjects of study, and by studying one, you are going to shed light on the other. Your choice of which to support is entirely political, not scientific. Because if you understood the science, you would be supporting further study of the periodic factors that influence climate.

Sorry, man, but like others here you're trying to have it both ways. You can't understand the one without the other, and by fighting the study of the one, you are trying to lessen our understanding of the other. It simply won't wash.

Re:Scientific Method

[Jane Q. Public]

Ah, hell. Tonight is my night for mis-reading what other people wrote.

What you stated above is not unreasonable, except for the part about the faulty premise. It is not faulty at all. if we don't understand one, we will never understand the other. It's that simple.

Re:academic redundancy

[LynnwoodRooster]

Hmmm, which prediction in the 80s and 90s included record Antarctic ice cover and a stalled temperature for 17 years?

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[riverat1]

You have stated your hypothesis. Now go do the work to provide empirical evidence for it.

Mendacious lie

[sternlight]

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

Re: Mendacious lie

[sternlight]

All one has to do is look at the long- term climate record to see the vast swings long before man was a tiny pimple on the globe to understand that a massive fraud is being perpetrated by the anthropogenic crowd and their proposed solutions, which are as likely to make a difference as spitting into the wind. Most of these so-called scientists rely on computer models, often refuted but never in doubt. Each time they fail to replicate reality they simply add the equivalent of another Ptolomaic epicycle. As an MIT-trained expert in the field, I recall the first rule of model building: "Give me a free hand with the assumptions and I'll produce any result you wish."

Re: Mendacious lie

[sternlight]

If one looks at recent so-called science, it was global warming. When that didn't work it became global cooling. When that didn't work, it became climate change. Some even twisted themselves into a pretzel to try to claim in some cases it was volcanic particulates causing cooling in some locations and volcanic CO2 causing warming in other places. Somehow the CO2 migrated to the warming sites while the particulates migrated to the entirely different cooling sites. Pretty convenient of emission circulation to oblige that way. But with the right model assumptions, emissions can get a PhD.

Re: Mendacious lie

[celle]

"it was global warming. When that didn't work it became global cooling. When that didn't work, it became climate change"

      They've also been studying this since the seventies. The data didn't change, just the name calling. To the rest of your BS, I'll use the common denier excuse.(weather denier, science denier, etc)
It's a complex world.

Re: Mendacious lie

[sternlight]

Hand waving by saying its just a name fails to recognize that up, down, and 'up and down' are separate and distinct, the first two are mutually exclusive, and the third is CYA for getting it wrong twice. It is false that the data has not changed. Over time it accumulates, proving the true believers wrong twice, finally causing them to fall back on a tautology: change, which has always been obvious to the meanest intelligence. Reminds me of the guy who woke up to "discover" he'd been speaking Prose all his life.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[riverat1]

It's impossible to scientifically prove them wrong because they presuppose an intelligent being that has started/guided the evolution of life on Earth. The supernatural is outside the purview of science.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[riverat1]

Further, reproducing the results of others is a valuable scientific undertaking.

At some point reproducing the results of others becomes a waste of resources on an already well studied area. Besides, building on the results of others (rather than simply repeating them) is a validation of the results (or could cause them to be reexamined if you get unexpected results). That's the way science advances.

Sad day

[lapm]

Sad day indeed when politics try to dictate scientific truth. My thumps up for scientist that refuses to be puppet and sell the truth.

Re:Science isn't just confirming what you know

[riverat1]

There's more data available over this thing we call the internet than you could analyze in a lifetime. There are links to some of the major data sets and climate model code on this page. The IPCC lists references to all of the work it uses to make its conclusions. All it takes is a few clicks of the mouse to start looking at the data.

Re:Scientific Method

[riverat1]

I am sure there are many grad students / post docs willing to take on this research.

Publishing stuff that ignores the elephant in the room wouldn't help their careers.

Ill-informed

[sternlight]

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/

Re:Ill-informed

[xenobyte]

Actually - denying that there is a cyclic component is madness. We are quite certain about the ice ages being a recurring (cyclic) phenomena and we know that the (cyclic) sunspot activity also affect the terrestrial climate, so there's two cycles for you, and there's certainly more than that. We do not know what else might affect the climate except there's been significant fluctuations in historical times that cannot be attributed to human activity or geological events, and thus are unexplained.

It is therefore madness to attribute all recent climate changes to human activity only, when you have significant historical changes that cannot possibly be attributed to human activity. The only way to move forward is to first explain the historical changes and then scientifically exclude these explanations from the recent activity, and then - and only then - to look at human activity as an explanation. You need to exclude everything else before you can attribute human activity as the primary cause of the recent changes with any degree of certainty.

Re:Ill-informed

[bluefoxlucid]

This. I was more thinking that there are enough government pawns producing papers on human-made global warming (if you dissent, we pull your funding). Studying cyclical climate change will either provide evidence that the government mouthpiece speaks lies; or it will provide a baseline and show a major deviation in recent times that cannot be readily explained by a cyclical climate. Either way, it's valuable research.

Re: Ill-informed

[sternlight]

As a famous MIT professor dissenter reported, two other MIT scientists whose work dissented had their funding pulled by the (non-MIT) establishment. Chaos theory teaches that when an anthropogenic climate change scientist flaps his wings a gust of hot air is created as far away as Washington, D.C.

Re:Science, or sinecure?

[polar red]

falsified ? it looks like the average temperature has raised : http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
and the global sealevel has raised : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png
(i am posting links to REAL Data here btw)

Re: Mr English Language person interrupts

[MickLinux]

My hard drive is systematically corrupt, and will always act towards cronism. The word you want actually refers to rule by old ladies, CRONEISM.

Re: Science, or sinecure?

[bluegutang]

I don't understand the difficulty. If you have to study creationism as a "'falsifiable alternative", then study it, and falsify it. Oh, so the crackpots won't give you any more grants after producing a result they don't like? So what - you were going to turn down their grant money anyway.

Re:A Salon article? Really?

[bluefoxlucid]

Salon isn't considered a credible source, but I can't figure out why. Usually the fact trail behind their articles is there if you look. Sure there's a lot of lunatic ranting and all; but what part is actually untrue?

There's an article on Salon about "warrior cops", with the SWAT team being used to run all kinds of basic shit. Checking your liquor license? SWAT team raid. One guy got shot hosting a gambling game with friends in his basement, $50 in the pot... it's like a $25 fine in his state, he's had the cops knock on his door like a dozen times and fine him and break up his parties. This time the SWAT team showed up and he got shot and died. The back story was right there in the salon article--he's been told a hell of a lot of times by the police to not do this--but that doesn't really explain why a fucking paramilitary force was sent to his house.

That's what I've come to expect from Salon: politically charged raving with all the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed. I'm still trying to figure out why people don't find Salon to be a high-quality editorial source (it's not really news). Seems on par with WSJ and Chicago Times (?.. I forget if it was CT, I remember Chicago did have a higher-end editorial piece I found very readable like WSJ). Rolling Stone has a few gems but mostly bores me with content.

Europe?!

[WebCowboy]

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.

Re:academic redundancy

[pixelpusher220]

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?

Nebraska AG lambasted economist for honest results

[Jameson Burt]

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.

Re:academic redundancy

[LynnwoodRooster]

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?

Do the study, with unintended consequences

[Ioldanach]

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."

Re:academic redundancy

[pixelpusher220]

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.

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha

[ericloewe]

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.

Re:Science isn't just confirming what you know

[riverat1]

The raw data is just as available as the processed data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

Arguing for 'better' science? Really?

[kenh]

"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.'

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').

Re:They have made themselves political pawns

[dave420]

This proposed study was not scientific. They would have been nuts to accept it. How can you study one thing in a vacuum? Even worse - how can you make up something, then ask people to study it and only it? That's not science. It's positions like yours which are junk - you've ignored what's actually happened because you like the sound of what you think has happened enough to get upset and righteous.

Re:academic redundancy

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

This is about growing corn, not "climate change"

[hardwarefreak]

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.

Re:academic redundancy

[pixelpusher220]

keep dreaming. The 'observed' temperature increases are above the predicted at a particular time. That's 'sooner than predicted'.

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.....

Re:academic redundancy

[pixelpusher220]

and, you may not quite grasp this. Upward 'curves' become vertical and that is very very very bad.

The Human Component?

[hunzana]

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.

Re:academic redundancy

[BasilBrush]

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.

science?

[um... Lucas]

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.

Re:Already in models

[um... Lucas]

why is that so bad? What happens if they drop all human variables from the models and discover that the change would not be nearly as severe as is now claimed? Wouldn't that bolster the theory that they're so adamant on protecting that they won't even do research that doesn't involve it?

Like, what if a politician said "i don't believe in dark matter. do a study and demonstrate what the universe would be like if there wasn't any dark matter in it". Would scientists simply refuse to even broach the subject? Of course, dark matter is not at all politicized, so they wouldn't be afraid of their names appearing on a study that disputes that, even if the result of it is that dark matter must exist of the universe to behave as it does...

Re:academic redundancy

[harvey the nerd]

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

Re:...if government was limited...

[hsthompson69]

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.

Re:academic redundancy

[pixelpusher220]

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.