BBC Wants Evidence of Climate Science Bias

Amtiskaw writes "Discussion of climate change is rife with claims and counter-claims of partisanship and bias. Some of the most serious of which being that the scientific community is smothering more skeptical research in the field. Now the BBC is asking for evidence of this self-censorship. From the article: 'Journals are meant to publish the best research irrespective of whether it accepts that the sky is blue, or finds it could really be green ... So the accusations that all is not well at the heart of climate science, and that censorship is rife in organisations which award research grants, the editorial boards of journals and the committees of the IPCC, should be examined seriously. Readers are asked to submit evidence of bias, which the the BBC will then investigate.'" Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.

Journalism?

[AKAImBatman]

Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.

*THUNK*

* AKAImBatman's forehead has hit the desk

Hemos, the entire point of an investigation like this is to uncover if such counter-claims actually exist. If they are being stifled, then you probably wouldn't know about them. Why? Because they're being stifiled.

If such an investigation finds no hidden counter-claims, then we will know for a fact that the claims of stifling are overblown. In that case you may freely state that Lomborg is leading the charge against the current scientific position, and that no other counter-claims exist. But by making presupositions in the story, you are biasing your readership to the outcome. Which could have negative effects on getting the truth out should the BBC find evidence that climatologists are self-censoring their own.

I realize you were trying to be helpful by sharing the information you do know, but journalistic integrity requires that you not make judgements until such an investigation is done. In other words, there are times that it's best to just report the news.

Readers

[The Zon]

Why ask readers to submit evidence of bias? Why would they be more likely to find such evidence than scientists making counter-claims? This will probably result in nothing more than readers submitting every article on climate change that they disagree with.

best?

[aristolochene]

"publish the best research irrespective of whether it accepts that the sky is blue"

Best according to what criteria?

What does bias mean?

[UbuntuDupe]

As I argued here [slashdot.org], you don't know if there's bias until you see scientists making valid predictions and still being shut out. What counts as a valid prediction in climate sciences? No one is going to say that "next year, global temp. readings will increase by 1 degree". No one will even predict the *sign* of the change next year. What they will predict is trends over e.g., the next five years. But then, you have to gather a statistically significant number of these to rule out luck. So, you'd need to get those right several times to validate your model. Accounting for varing CO2 emissions, of course, complicates it. I doubt there's enough evidence time-history (following a previous prediction) to falsify anyone's theory. That's the problem.

Btw, the summary implies Lomborg denies that climate change is real. That's not true. In The Skeptical Environmentalist, his claim is that the media misrepresent the various probabilities of the different scenarios, and that the costs of significant changes (like Kyoto, and by extension, anything more stringent than Kyoto) are not justified by the benefits they would yield. That's not the same as denying the existence of climate change.

Causation is the issue.

[drainbramage]

Many who suggest that western nations are not the primary cause of climate change are described as if they deny there is any climate change. Thay is unfair and inaccurate, and often what happens when Bjørn Lomborg is mentioned. You may want to look at the call by (un)Scientific American magazine for articles that "debunked" Bjørn Lomborg conclusions in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". If they were interested in science the call would have been for articles about the research involved, for or against.

Re:Journalism?

[AKAImBatman]

attempting to give equal space for climate change skepticism is unrepresentative of the scientific community, and in my opinion it creates an illusion of controversy when there really isn't controversy.

That's the entire point of an investigation like this. If no serious dissenting opinions exist, then the noise about counter-claims will be exposed as overblown hearsay. Or the investigation could go all X-Files on us and find that "the truth is really out there". We'll see when the reporters get back with their findings. :)

Come on, man

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.

That's a bunch of bull and you know it. The whole friggin point of this study is to dispel crap like this. There seem to be several scientists with reasonably good credentials [wikipedia.org] that question the hows and whys of climate change. The fact that you're implying they're a bunch of fruitcakes, even though you (nor I) are not scientists and have done no research of your own on the subject, is ludicrous.

Look, I happen to lean more towards believing in human/industry induced global warming than not, but I really want to see more of this type of open-minded thinking which presumably (hopefully) will permeate the BBC studies. It's the only way we're ever going to get a handle on this issue. Despite what Al Gore would have you think it is not a black-and-white issue.

Well, this IS a new topic, so cut Hemos some slack

[ScentCone]

Not!

the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real

That's scarcely the issue. The stuff that generates the most friction are the discussions over who exactly, if anyone, is responsible for what part of things that may or may not have any bearing on anything that will amount to actual problems, and what policy/economic changes are or aren't worth the cost, heartache, investment, and so on. Or, is the human component of this lost in the noise, or enough so that crippling economies isn't the right way to look at changing it, etc. Of course climate changes. It always has and will. This whole topic will be a lot easier to discuss if folks don't use the phrase "climate change" to mean the same thing as "damaging global warming that some people in certain countries with certain habits are causing more than others and could change if they only switched to hydrogen which we'll all pretend doesn't require other energy sources to put to work blah blah."

People project whatever they want to see associated with "climate change," to the point where it's a useless phrase. What part of climate change? Which part that would or wouldn't be happening in much the same way anyway, or which does or doesn't have some benefit for one group that outweighs something happening elsewhere? It doesn't matter what the answers to those things are, just that they are way more complex than "accepting" or not that the climate changes.

list of skeptics

[buddyglass]

Love the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skepti c [wikipedia.org]

Re:Journalism?

[plover]

The point is not whether counterclaims are being stifled or not. The point is that in reporting the facts, you don't "pick a side". Especially when you're trying to ferret out other quiet cases of science that may be supporting the "other side."

Saying that there's only one serious opposition researcher is almost implying "so everybody else thinks he's wrong." That's hardly the way to give isolated researchers the courage to stand up and say "and I agree with him."

Re:Journalism?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

LOL, you are new at this internet thing, right? Exactly how far do you think you have to go to find claims that global [frontpagemag.com] warming [americasfuture.net] is [enterstageright.com] a [capmag.com] hoax [chronwatch.com]?

Pointing out that the overwhelming majority of such articles in the popular press have zero scientific credibility is merely a public service, and it has NOTHING to do with what the BBC is looking for. The BCC are looking for real, scientific arguments against global warming that have been suppressed by the scientific establishment. You won't find it on some internet tabloid, if it exists at all. It is more likely to be on the homepage of some fringe university researcher in danger of getting fired.

Of course Scientists are biased

[HighOrbit]

This is mostly a copy and paste from another of my earlier posts [slashdot.org] with a few edits

The overwhelming majority of scientists (who would describe themselves as working scientists versus simple degree holders in the field) are academics working in academic university environments, or even in the case of goverment or corporate research labs, are in the academic revolving door. It is no secret that major universities are basically immersed in left-wing culture both at the official level (such as having ethnic or women's studies departments, speech codes, etc) and at the unofficial level (such as student protest groups). So, these guys are working and living in what amounts to a left-wing echo chamber and anti-industrial environmentalism is a core tenet of modern leftist orthodoxy. People working in that enviornment can not help but have a certain amount of cultural bias. As in most social environments, there is great pressure to conform. I do not doubt that in some cases, non-conforming academics have been ostracized as cretins or kooks, denied tenure, and passed up for promotion. So it is not surprising that a "majority of scientists" would land of the left-wing side of any particular debate, given the implications of being on the "wrong" side.

Also, without accusing anybody of consciously cooking the data, its easy to see what you want to see in data when you have pre-conceived notions. I would say that even the questions researchers ask or don't ask (i.e. what they choose to subject to a study or ignore) is influenced by their preconceived cultural notions.

When somebody says "science is on our side", I basically evaluate it the same as if they said "the statistics are on our side" (especially if its based on statistical or computer models instead of "hard science" that is reproducable in the lab). When somebody says, "the majority of scientists" are on our side, they are just using a logical fallacy - appeal to authority.

As much as we would all like to believe that scientists are selflessly searching for the "truth", they have motivations similar to everybody else (greed, fame, power, money, personel vendettas, etc). They also are capable of political bias. These motivations and bias can color the "truth".Throw in grant money and the prestige of getting published in well-respected journals and the results can be toxic to "truth".

I personally believe that the warming trend itself is undeniable. The extent of it that can be blamed on man versus natural climatic cycles is debatable. There probably is an anti-industrial environmental bias built into most climatic studies conducted at any university or government institutions. All claims should be filtered and evaluated with that in mind.

BTW, this is one of the funniest links around that pokes fun at politicized Science [consumerfreedom.com] They are from some radio ads that a lobbyist group ran in the Washington, DC market. Obviously biased themselves, but very funny.

Re:Global climate has never been static

[Sv-Manowar]

I don't think that many people are saying the climate doesn't change over time and that us as humans are affecting it greatly, but one of the main claims is that by creating more greenhouse gases and contributing to 'global warming', we are slowing down the process of glaciation. (after the Devensian/Wisconsinan period, the holocene epoch (interglacial period) has lasted longer than usual, and this is what a lot of people are pointing to, despite glacial periods being known for their fluctations in length. Another good theory on it can be found here [reason.com], where it is claimed that he observed warming actually reflects the Urban Heat Island effect, as most readings are done in heavily populated areas which are expanding with growing population (which of course will be hotter due to roads/buildings/people etc trapping heat).

I definitely think it is a good time for people to start investigating the possible bias on this issue, as those who are lobbying government for changes in policy on industry are going to start having serious economic effects (on both companies and the country as a whole) without the majority of the public being aware that global warming is a theory, and not fact, but hey - if global warming is the accepted theory, i'm happy to reduce the methane levels in the atmosphere by eating more steak, heh.

The World is Flat

[HappySqurriel]

There are two main problems I see with climate change science, one is that there is a belief that scientific consensus is the same as scientific proof (if this were true the world would have been flat in the 1400's) and the other problem is that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence.

The fact is that even the evidence that shows we are undergoing a warming trend fails to demonstrate that this is a long term warming trend, that the warming trend is man-made, or that green-house gasses have had an impact on the temperature change. The argument is usually along the lines "We have demonstrated that the Earth's temperature has risen 1 degree in the past 100 years, and at the same time man-made green house gasses have increased 10 times so the impact from man made greenhouse gasses is ." In many cases you could replace "Increase in Man made greenhouse gasses" with "Reduction in Pirates" and conclude that the world is warming because we lack pirates.

What really bothers me is that whenever anyone attacks a study that makes questionable claims people automatically question their motives; all good science can withstand attacks from anyone regardless of their motives. The fact that these studies are treated like they're glass really makes me doubt how valid they are.

Re:What does bias mean?

[shilly]

Not for grandma. And in this case, grandma = our current biosphere. Beetles will be doubtless be fine, come what may. It may be a bit tougher for most of the rest of us.

Um, there is more opposition than that.

[w3woody]

Risking the obligatory down-moderation for being "off-topic", even a quick trip to Wikipedia would show that there are a few more folks out there who have stated their opposition to the current 'consensus' on Global Warming, including those who doubt there is a global rise in temperatures, those who believe that there may be a rise in temperature but the cause is not properly explained, and those who have a problem with the current governmental frameworks (such as the Kyoto accord) that have been proposed or enacted to combat Global Warming.

The biggest problem I personally have with the whole Global Warming thing is that the whole thing has been simplified to "Man's carelessness and wanton capitalist greed is destroying the Earth, and we must rebuild or remake all of society now before the fuzzy bunny rabbits and cute black and white penguins all die." Nothing good ever comes from reducing something this complicated to a political bumper sticker [stampandshout.com]--and while this is just one bumper sticker, the whole popular approach to Global Warming has been reduced to a political bumper sticker mentality.

Re:Global climate has never been static

[thrillseeker]

because they are conservative and because they are focused on economics and because they have a different conclusion than he wants in advance. Look at the complete instant dismissal of that unrecognized great under appreciated scientifically backed conclusion by Hemos in the summary ... "the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are" ... does anyone think that any conclusion other than the popular one is going to be evaluated on its merits?

The key problem

[g2devi]

I think the key problem with climate change reporting is that it's portrayed as a "you're with us or with them" point of view and if you don't believe the popular dogma, you're one of "them". The problem is, there isn't only one question. Besides the "is it real?" and "are we responsible?" questions, there's also:

* If it is real, is it permanent and not just an earth/solar cycle?

* If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), is it due to greenhouse gases? (i.e. not deforestation, urban heat islands, the hole in the ozone, or other causes or even a combination of these causes)

* If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), what is the real impact if nothing is done? (Even if the cause is greenhouse gases, it may make more sense to grow the necessary number of forests to absorb the gas as our gas output increases or find some other way to solidify/trap greenhouse gases.)

* If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), can anything be done to reverse it? (If not, then while it's common sense to try to reduce the impact, it makes a lot of sense to either invest in technologies to either live with it or leave earth).

Unfortunately, the issue has become so politicized that these other more important questions are being drowned out or viewed as "avoiding the real issue" by the dogmatists.

Re:Journalism?

[Mr. Underbridge]

That's the entire point of an investigation like this. If no serious dissenting opinions exist, then the noise about counter-claims will be exposed as overblown hearsay.

Ah, but academia is more subtle than that. First, there's the word "serious" you use. How does one determine if it's serious? Tenure-track professors? Well, what if it's rather difficult to get a tenure-track job as a climatologist if you don't advocate the consensus view? One would need a rather good publication record as a grad student/postdoc to do that. What happens, then, if it's difficult to get a contrarian article into a peer-reviewed journal? That's often the case, as it happens. For someone with results that cut against the grain, it can take years to break through the peer review wall, assuming you're able to keep going that long.

This isn't unique to climatology - I've seen other situations in which a highly charged issue that has many believers on one side can squeeze out any last dissent. At best, the standard for publishing a contrarian view is much higher - at worst, reviewers can reject these articles out of hand. This makes it extremely difficult for a budding researcher to get established in a tenure-track position, and then to get tenure.

This is bad enough in purely academic fields - but in something like this that's as much politics as anything, forget it. Right or wrong, there's a serious problem when no one is even taking a serious Devil's Advocate position on things, and I've not seen that.

Re:Journalism?

[PFI_Optix]

If the BBC is looking for evidence that the world isn't getting warmer, they won't find it. It is. No one is arguing that.

If the BBC is looking for legitimate scientific arguments that there are more explanations to the warming than "omg it's all our fault", then I think they'll dig up some good researh, even if they don't find the smoking gun they're looking for.

Re: Journalism?

[Black Parrot]

> The point is not whether counterclaims are being stifled or not. The point is that in reporting the facts, you don't "pick a side".

The bigger point is that you shouldn't mistake Slashdot for journalism.

Re:Journalism?

[slughead]

The BBC doesn't have to go very far to find repression in reporting.

Didn't I hear This Skeptical Piece [bbc.co.uk] on BBC Radio? (The piece points out that only the most sensationalist theories from the papers are actually reported by the media, and that the real data is almost never reported. Furthermore, there is a push by global warming scientists to publish irresponsibly the most outlandish theories in their 'abstracts' (which is all the media ever reads) so they can get publicity and therefore grants.).

It is more likely to be on the homepage of some fringe university researcher in danger of getting fired.

Don't forget the corporate tie-ins! That whole 6-degree of separation thing jumps into play real quick when dealing with these arguments.

Extreme example: I read about (in the WSJ) a skeptical climatologist whose sister had a mutual fund that was partially vested in an energy company. Somehow, that alone was enough to have his opinions shouted down in a flurry of group-think and FUD. Of course, this was the WSJ so you can choose to cherry-pick your facts as you please.

Personally (and for the sake of disclaiming this post), I don't think we'll get an accurate idea of what global warming is all about until it stops being a political issue. That won't happen until it is proven wrong (if it's never proven wrong, I don't think we'll ever see an end to it). I trust no one's opinion on the subject, and many of the biggest and most respected global warming studies either concluded next-to-nothing or had SERIOUS issues in data collection, methodology, or interpretation.

One thing all climatologists do agree on is that global warming is FAR from proven and any clue as to cause and consequence is mere conjecture, the reliability of which is anybody's guess.

Re:The key problem

[tgd]

I am not a climatologist, but one of my mother is, so I've got a bit more than a passing understanding of the field...

* If it is real, is it permanent and not just an earth/solar cycle?

Thats the wrong question. Is it permanent is "no", unquestionably. Its known it is not a solar cycle, because there are pretty good records of solar output. Ice core samples show pretty definitively that if its a natural earth cycle it is a VERY long cycle. And from the standpoint of us dealing with the problem, it really doesn't matter. Reducing carbon in the atmosphere WILL cool things, even if it wasn't what originally started heating things up. It also will help prevent really disastrous scenarios like thawing of methane ice fields.

  If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), is it due to greenhouse gases? (i.e. not deforestation, urban heat islands, the hole in the ozone, or other causes or even a combination of these causes)

There is no debate about this. Its known that greenhouses gases are what is causing the heating. Even among people who are publishing against the establishment purely to get notice in the field, that is not a debated point. UHIs for example can cause localized climatic changes, but aren't changing ocean temperatures. It takes a lot more energy than we're producing to make a change in a sink the size of the ocean.

If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), what is the real impact if nothing is done? (Even if the cause is greenhouse gases, it may make more sense to grow the necessary number of forests to absorb the gas as our gas output increases or find some other way to solidify/trap greenhouse gases.)

Get rid of the first clause there. Its real, there really is no debate. The second question is a good one, however. In my opinion, the point has come that climate models need to be run in fields other than climatology. How will it really impact water sources, farming, disease spread, species distribution, etc. This sort of research is starting to really pick up.


* If it is real (whether or not it is caused by us), can anything be done to reverse it? (If not, then while it's common sense to try to reduce the impact, it makes a lot of sense to either invest in technologies to either live with it or leave earth).

And thats the key question. It is real, and it doesn't matter if we caused it when it comes to answering THIS question. We know CO levels are too high and growing higher. Its pretty damn likely that we're doing it, but it sort of doesn't matter since we don't have a way to really stop people from emitting them at this point in time.

I think you're being a bit too dramatic for the sake of being modded up, though. Dropping the word dogma tends to work well on here. That said, the important points ARE being debated and researched. The politicization and debate is a media thing, it is NOT happening in the field. Even what the BBC is doing stinks more of a readership move than anything truly scientific. These questions were all basically answered years ago and the field really is focused more on the "what do we do now" questions than "what is going on" questions.

I don't think a lot of people really think about how bad and biased the media really is. If you're not a climatologist, think about a field you are an expert in. Say, technology, since its Slashdot. Do the "experts" on TV know what they're talking about? No. Its the same in every other field, climatology included. The people on TV are there because they're pushing an agenda, trying to push themselves up, trying to get laid, whatever. Its never about really presenting an expert's real position.

Re:What does bias mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, Enowyn, why should we look at the issues, when it's so much funnier to paint all of society in an entirely black-white fashion?

Now go back to that tree you've been hugging.

Re:Journalism?

[Kohath]

The point is that in reporting the facts, you don't "pick a side".

"Reporting" hasn't been about "facts" in a long time. No one cares about "facts" any more. You're out of step with the times.

Re:The key problem

[nine-times]

I agree very much with you, and fear that, unfortunately, this is the way most political issues are being presented by the media, by politicians, and by private individuals. Either you're a Republican or you're a Democrat. Either you're in favor of every kind of affirmative action, or you're a minority-hating bigot. Either you want the US to cede sovereignty to the UN, or you think the US shouldn't work with other countries. Either you wanted the US to invade Iraq or you think Saddam was a good leader. Either your a tree-hugger or you drive and H3.

It's a divisive and disingenuous method of argumentation, and shame on us for falling for it. Even worse, it pushes people towards extreme positions, one way or the other, when moderate positions would often bring about better results.

Back to global warming-- it seems there are lots of questions here, but it seems to me that global warming distracts from the larger issue: pollution is real, and the scarcity of energy resources is real. When there were a couple of large civilizations on earth, these were problems, but as the whole world industrializes, the scale of these problems seems unmanageable. Therefore, we must become more efficient and try to minimize our waste, regardless of global warming.

Re:Of course Scientists are biased

[HighOrbit]

You actually bring up a good point and I had to think about that for a minute, but your comparison is false and here is why. Walk down any non-residential street. You'll see many tens of businesses and likely a half-dozen churches. If you go to any town of any size over 100 people, you'll likely find a chamber of commerce and several churches. You'll see that business and religious groups are the "norm" in the culture (i.e. - The are not remarkable). Now how many gender-rights, ethnic-rights, gay-rights, or enviromental groups did you find during your stroll through town? Likely none. The prominence of such groups (typically identified as leftist) at universities is a good indication that university culture is different from the larger culture. So, I'll have to say that the existance of a Buisness department or a student religous club is not indicative of unusually right-wing culture given the context of the larger society.

Hemos and "the vast body of the evidence".

[PHAEDRU5]

So, Hemos, how's that degree in climatology coming along?

For myself, I'm a bystander who's not really noticed much climate change during the 20+ years I've lived in the Southeast of the US (Atlanta, to be specific). Since all I have are my observations, and they seem to indicate a steady state, I refuse to be stampeded by appeals to authority or common practice, or by bandwagons.

The treatment Bjorn Lomborg received reminds me of Galileo before the inquisition. Taking that a little further, please enjoy your religion, but please keep it out of my face.

Re:The key problem

[Kohath]

You don't understand.

The response to this is:

"We need socialism right now or it'll be too late. [insert exclamation points] We can't afford to wait for a conclusion based on facts. There will be droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Most of Florida will be underwater. In fact, everywhere will be underwater except a few miles around Denver. There will be hurricanes bigger than the Sun every day, and they'll be twice as big at night.

Etc. Etc. Etc. Be really scared so you do what we tell you without thinking about what's in your best interests."

But Science isn't about consensus

[Erioll]

That's the largest fallacy continually presented in any climate-change (or otherwise controversial topics involving science) that "consensus" is necessary. Hint: it is NOT necessary. If 99.9% of reports say one thing, but only ONE says the opposite, but the SINGLE report is verifiable, and has no flaws, it INVALIDATES the rest of the body of knowledge. Usually it also has to address WHY the previous work was incorrect, what errors they made, etc, but the whole premise of the Scientific Method is of reproducibility, and verifiable results. The doctors who figured out that most stomach ulcers were the result of bacteria that could be easily treated with antibiotics was a discovery that flew in the face of 100s of years of data and "proof" that stress caused ulcers... but the bacterial cause hypothesis was proven right. It took a bit of time, but they were right.

I'll say it again: Science has nothing to do with consensus. All that is required to resolve different viewpoints is to find who's ignoring evidence, has bad evidence-gathering, or who's not following correct processes for analysis. Where there's conflict you have to address it head-on and find out who's right. You can't both be right, so conflict only means that somebody (or both) are not trying to find out WHY somebody has reached a conclusion, not just saying "well I have more people that agree with me, therefore I'm right." That's opinion, not science. If anybody EVER uses that argument, it proves that they are no longer using science. The ONLY place where there can be two viewpoints held scientifically that remain in conflict is where there remains significant uncertainty over the evidence itself, in which case the 3rd point of view "I don't know what's actually happening" is actually the most scientifically correct.

Re:Journalism?

[kmac06]

Excellent point. In fact, Einstein's claims of relativity and quantized 'packets' of light (photons) were considered controversial for well over a decade after he published the papers concerning them in 1905. It is certainly not inconceivable that the 'right' position is not accepted as such in the professional scientific community.

Institutional Bias

[GodInHell]

Insitutional Bias is a fine thing to claim in say, Literary studies, or philosophy (a continental philosopher you say.. there's the door I say), but science generally (and this includes climatology) is a field where on earns street credit by conducting experiments which challange (and defeat) your own hypothosies.

Remember, Stephen Hawking's bet over whether one could trace the path of matter through a black hole? Steve said you couldn't track matter's course through the singularity, a competing physicist said you could.. fast foward a few years to Hawking hosting a big press event to report that he was wrong, and this other guy was able to prove it mathematically.

Granted, this is based on the assumption that climatology is a measurable and testable science - to which I reply: Sure, we cannot play with the atmosphere like we do with rocketry and electronics - but we can't play with passing matter through a black hole either. Mathematical models are very nearly the limit of our experimentation with the speed of light, string theory, macro-economics, and a hundred other fields. We cannot say that because we can't experiment "in the dirt" that you cannot conduct scientific investigations of climatology. Einstien (who some say was a pretty decent scientist) did almost all of his work in his head and on chalk boards. He came up with e=mc2 using mental models. He proved it with mathematics. It wasn't until years later that any of his hair-brained ideas could be verified in the dirt. Getting your hands dirty isn't science, thurough going investigative research is the bread and butter of advancing human knowledge, from Descartes to us, with love.

-GiH

Re:Lomborg no longer deny that global warming is r

[firewrought]

Playing god is a dicey thing at best.

Nuclear power splits the atom. The judicial system determines the fate of men. Medicine tries to repair (and even restore) life to the patient. Farmers have hacked the geneome for millenia and geneticist have started making it serious. Engineers dam rivers and even make them flow backwards. All-seeing satellites monitor the globe. The Internet itself has become a sort of gigantic tower of Babel, pooling together the knowledge of humankind and making it instantly available to the masses.

Accusing someone of "playing god" is just a euphanism for saying that you're frightened or threatened by whatever new thing someone else is undertaking. Now fear is good--all of my examples above have had their catastrophic failures--but wrapping it up in a theological prohibition won't actually stop people from attempting it. When you're tempted to use the "playing god" argument, consider instead using your voice to encourage caution and research into the possible dangers.

Change is always happening; therefore change is normal, not bad.

Teenage pregnancy is always happening; therefore teenage pregancy is normal, not bad. Ditto for "genocide", "extinction", and "chronic disease".

We can't control the weather; what makes us think we can control the climate?

I have no control over how flames dance around in a fire, but I can dowse the fire. If we influenced the climate negatively, then we might be able to influence it positively.

Re:The Media

[Decaff]

It seems to me that modern news outlets are far too obsessed with presenting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Sometimes information doesn't have to be presented with a neat and comprehensive list of counter arguments.

I don't know why this was modded 'funny' - it is very insightful. The media (including the BBC) has long misunderstood how science works; perhaps because so many journalists have no scientific background. So, when they report science, they often like to indicate that there is a debate where little or none exists. They present head-to-head arguments between someone with an extreme view and a mainstream researcher as if both views were of equal merit.

The fact that the BBC are looking for bias shows how little they really understand things. Peer review does shut out minority views to some extent. But that is what it is supposed to do - almost all minority views in science are wrong! There is nothing wrong with putting minority views to the test and expecting them to have to convince a lot of people.

From many posts on Slashdot, one would almost expect that minority views about climate are right simply because they are minority views.

Re:Institutional Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for giving us the naive, idealized view of how science should work. Having had the personal experience of an intellectually dishonest "mafia" suppressing my work, I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I think you're missing the point.

Hawking has nothing to lose at this stage of his career by being magnanimous in admitting error (or by advocating space colonization, or probably even by being caught with a dead girl or a live boy, such is his stature). You'll have to look for a better example. It might be tough to find. On the other hand, stories of good ideas being ridiculed and suppressed for years are not hard to come by. And I'm not talking about crackpots. (Bacteria causing ulcers? It is to laugh! Ho! Ho!)

Re:Journalism?

[Keebler71]

Although it is entirely possible they are escaping my notice, I've not heard of cover-ups or censorship happening.

Your perception of "bias" is the same that the BBC is looking for proof of... that of some giant "left-wing/environmentalist consipiracy" against global warming. They will of course uncover no such proof as there obviously isn't any large scale overt censorship going on. However, let me offer my own (biased) right-wing view of what may be happening.

I believe that there is indeed a form of censorship going on - but that it is much more subtle - almost at the unconscious level. On the contrary I believe the bias is almost one of (for lack of a better word) inaction/agnostic. Let me give a hypothetical example [I am not claiming that any of the following is true...simply trying to demonstrate my belief in the type of bias that may be occurring]:

Let's say Al Gore goes out and make the claim that the if sea ice is melting then global warming may be occurring. He then states that melting sea ice would endgandger polar bears and then gives an example of a study that indeed shows polar bear populations decreasing. Now aside from the fact that even if all true - we still have the ever-persistent correlation vs. causality issue, we are left with a very wide interdisciplinary problem. It is highly unlikely that experts in climatology are also experts in polar bear populations.

And this is where my (completely unsubstantiated) suspicion of bias comes in. I can visualize polar bear experts all over the world watching this research unfold and thinking to themselves "odd, the population of polar bears that I am studying is not dwindling." However - and this is my key point - I also can envision them simply shrugging this off because I highly doubt that there are any neo-conservative global warming denier polar bear researchers in the field. They aren't actively supressing this hypothetical contrary data - they simply don't think their piece of the puzzle is relevant, since they probably agree with the global warming concensus.

Without getting too off-topic and in keeping within my right-wing paranoia paradigm, I see this bias functioning via exactly the same mechanism that I believe the media is biased. Neither the media, nor the global warming researchers are unethical or part of any conspiracy... they are simply sympathetic to "their" side of the argument and evidence to the contrary (however small) simply doesn't set off alarm bells like it would to someone with an axe to grind.

That said, I feel compelled to point out something very disturbing I found while researching this reply. While I only skimmed it, this [biologicaldiversity.org] petition for adding polar bears to the endangered species list contains a few egregious examples of very biased presentation of scientific results. The introduction states

"Absent substantial reductions in reductions of greenhouse gasses, by century's end average temperatures in the Arctic will likey rise upwards of 7 deg C (13.6 F)."(p. 3)

I am by no means a climatologist, but I have been following the debate and I am pretty sure that this value (14 deg F) is at the extreme side of the end of century prediction. They use the word "likely" which to me as a scientist/engineer would interpret to be at least a 1-sigma case.

Later, on page 20, 1st paragraph they note that of 20 polar bear populations, 7 were given as "declining or unknown". What the heck is this? How many are "declining" (answer == 2 but have to actually look at the table bleow) and how many are unknown (5)? By grouping the unknowns with the delcining the author is (deliberately?) attempting to make the situation look worse for the polar bears. In the next paragraph they do the same thing again, this time grouping "poor certainty" with "unknown certainty".

Yes, I am not a climatologist nor an expert in polar bear populations. But I am a scientist and engineer and I can still read research and know when someone is using shody methodology - even when I know nothing of the subject.

Re:Journalism?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

It might be true that much of journalism has lost its way, to some extent, in ignoring facts in preference to some imagined 'balance' (which usually amounts to equal time: someone explains the real facts, then equal time is given to someone else who is lying through their teeth). But accepting this situation with a defeatest attitude is not going to help. If this continues, in the long term objective reality simply won't exist anymore - it is obvious that some important decisions are being made by our leaders on the basis of flawed logic. Do you really want that? Can you imagine what the future will look like?

Re:Journalism?

[gad_zuki!]

>f no serious dissenting opinions exist, then the noise about counter-claims will be exposed as overblown hearsay.

Or it would simply legitimize the "best of the worst" the way the Republicans have legitmized Creationism with their similiar attempts at "equal time." Creationism to millions of people never got exposed as 'overblown hearsay' because of faux-skeptical attempts like the one we're seeing.

Why is it everytime there's a consensus about something we don't like to accept, there are the usual gang of usual suspects out there catering to our fears? Afraid of a 6 billon year old world? Creationists. Afraid of space miliarization/the future? Moon landing deniers. Afraid of the free market? Communists. Afraid of disease? Homeopathy. Afraid of secular education? Home Schoolers.

Painting these chracters as a dismissed victims by the big consensus is bordering on silliness. Sometimes an authority has to say "You know, this is bullshit."

Re:Journalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's out of his area of expertise, what about the "vast majority of scientists" that supposedly are on board the global warming train? These geneticists, herpetologists, ichtheologists, nuclear physicists, petroleum engineers, etc. If they've actually weighed in at all, they're certainly out of their areas of expertise.

Claims

[Mark_MF-WN]

Those are some rather large claims. A few references would be nice, before people start calling you a conspiracy-theory nutjob. The ozone hole is very real. Global warming and the exponential rise in atmospheric CO_2 levels are both real as is the connection between atmospheric CO_2 levels and global mean temperature.

Some people note the existence of just one or two pseudoscientists that abuse a theory, and decide that the entire field is crap. Like the losers that criticize evolution and anthropology because of Piltdown man. But I guess you're skeptical there too ... after all, biologists lied to us, right?

Re:Institutional Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the GP posted logged in, and gave a concrete example to support his views. Yet you're posting AC (as am I, but hey), and give no more example than "stories of good ideas being suppressed are not hard to come by". Stories aren't hard to come by? Golly gee, neither are stories of UFOs. Shall we start taking all urban legends seriously, or just the ones you want us to?

Really, why should we take you seriously, when you neither provide compelling evidence, nor your username?

Inconvenient proposals

[amightywind]

Thanks for the great link.

I can't be sure, but I think that's a lot of the reason. I have been around 50 years, so my views on this are well known. I had NOAA money for 30 some years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn't get any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.

Multiply this experience with that of his like-minded colleagues and you clear evidence that the politicization of global warming is a self-sustaining and corrupt.

Re:Journalism?

[king-manic]

The point is that in reporting the facts, you don't "pick a side".

"Reporting" hasn't been about "facts" in a long time. No one cares about "facts" any more. You're out of step with the times.

s/any more/ever/g

Journalism has always been about 2nd/3rd hand information heavily mixed with the reporters bias and dumb down to the point where the arts degree or no degree journalists can comprehend. It has always been this way and nay 1st hand or accurate news is just an accident. Just ask anyone who has been invoved with a news story of any signifigance and they'll tell you the reporters were wrong on a lot of facts.

Re:Journalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

he's also way out of his area of expertise

You do understand that a fundamental part of hurricane prediction science is the science of climate change, right? (that was a rhetorical question, as you obviously don't)

Re:Journalism?

[Angostura]

Writing as an ex-journalist you're falling into the trap set by your own bias. While there have always been cases of "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story", there were, in my opinion far more examples of journalists slogging their guts out to find facts first hand. There were also numerous examples of editors challenging the premise of stories, and stories getting spiked simply because of insufficient sources or cast-iron evidence.

There are always lazy people in any walk of life, and it is true that subject experts are sometimes exasperated by the removal of nuances that are important.

However, the slack-jawed assertion that "Journalism has always been about 2nd/3rd hand information..." is the assertion would have any editor putting a big red line through it with comments such as ' rewrite/rethink - this opinion is clearly unfounded since there are numerous examples of good first hand reportage'.

Here's a decent example [bbc.co.uk]of a reporter gathering info first hand. It's the first example I came across.

Re:Journalism?

[Keebler71]

Gray is a hurricane meteorologist, not a climate scientist. He is definitely a contrarian when it comes to anthropomorphic global warming, but he's also way out of his area of expertise.

I'll submit to you that he is less out of his area of expertise (hurricane meteorology vs. climate scientist) than many of the climate scientists who are using polar bear population data to make their case for global warming. To be clear, I am not trying to discredit anyone - simply point out that this debate is (or should be) very interdisciplinary and that no one group will be experts in everything.

Re:I Agree! Let's Sacrifice Some Virgins Too....

[misfit815]

A virgin, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man [wikipedia.org], whatever works. There is enough evidence to suggest to a reasonable and intelligent person that human-generated global warming may exist. There is also sufficient evidence to suggest to the same reasonable and intelligent person that human-generated global warming does not exist. I can't imagine that the Climate Gods enjoy such a balanced argument. Given the potential outcomes I've suggested, why are we not taking every reasonable step to solve this problem (even if it's not really a problem)?

Besides, if you sacrificed all the virgins, then who would post to /.?

Re:Journalism?

[fdicostanzo]

I think you are confusing "lied to" with "wasn't (exactly) correct". People read facts and make predictions. They are sometimes wrong, sometimes right, but often somewhere in between. I don't believe there is the huge, evil environmentalist conspiracy that I see in your post.

I don't know about the specific Al Gore canoe trip you are talking about but I do know that dams are frequently and regularly opened for mysterious dam operational reasons that I am not privy too. Canoe and raft people know about these openings and take advantage of them. I have many times.

My low-flow toilette works fine. Try eating more fibre

A little context

[Belisarivs]

It's probably too late into the discussion for anyone to notice this, but I thought that I'd provide a little context for the Global Warming debate that is generally overlooked.

Up front, I have right leaning tendencies. I'm not going to advocate the position here, but I will share with you some of the thinking that's taking place on the right that causes this to be such a contentious issue, because I think that might lead to a more constructive discussion with the left (which I think the majority of Slashdot is more inclined towards).

Recently, there has been a term that's been gaining popularity - Watermelon Environmentalism. That is, green on the outside, red on the inside. It's a common belief that the environmentalist cause has become deeply integrated with the socialist cause. When the right looks at what the environmentalist movement advocates, it looks an awful lot like centralized control of the economy. That freaks out the right a little bit. For an analogy that might be comparable on the left - consider the use of the term "terrorism" to expand the reach of government. The right is having roughly the same reaction to the claims of global warming.

Now, toss in the fact that those warning of doom are frequently coming from areas sympathetic to socialist ideas, and you begin to understand the reticence by the right to buy the science. And let's face it, scientists are human beings too, and certainly not above having ideology (intentionally or not) influence their work. If you press someone on the right, I'm positive they're far more hostile to the corrective action being suggested than the actual concept of global warming.

Only Experts in the field then?

[sycodon]

So if only bonafide experts in the climate science can dispute global warming, the do you accept that only bonafide experts in climate science can *advocate* global warming, etc.?

From the Global Warming Petition:

"During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition."

So...that's 2/3, or, 5610 of them we can cross off. No advanced degree, not a scientist, so not a climate scientist.

"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists..."

Whoever in this list is not a "climate scientist" is also not allowed to advocate. Too bad they don't break it out. Wait...did I see there were meteorologists in that list? They CERTIANLY, can't advocate for global warming.

"Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences..."

Puleeze...Chemistry? What do they know about Global Warming....BUUUZZZZ another 5K advocates gone.

"approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science..."

Must be the polititicians, "activists" and Slashdotterts....cross them off.

So we start with 17k, less 5000, less 2400, less another 5k. So that leaves us with about 4000. And in reality, I bet quite a few of them are not "climate scientists".

So be careful when you start discounting someone's opinions and/or work just because they don't have the title that you want to see after their name.

Re:Oh, give me a break.

[king-manic]

this one [csmonitor.com]
Sort of this one [nytimes.com]

this one [answersingenesis.org]

this one [grist.org]
this one [blogspot.com]
this one [religioustolerance.org]

there are a lot more. I'm not saying religion in totality is trying to spread FUD I'm sayign certain religious groups are stirring opposition for no other reason then to undermine certain scientific corner stones and theories they find inconvienant. Like parts of geology, astronomy, genetics, immunology, ect..

I am myself a moderate catholic. I find the exstremists and fundementalsist distasteful.

Re:Institutional Bias

[Irish_Samurai]

Logged vs Ac - neither lends nor removes any actual legitimacy from an argument. The statements made in the argument do that.

If you require a user log in to present an argument as a measure of legitimacy, you're paying attention to the wrong part of the story.

Re:Journalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

The discipline of 'Climate Science' didn't exist until a few years ago. Most of the top 'Climate Scientist' today came from different disciplines initially. What I have observed is that the only way to get into the club and be call a 'climate scientist' is to swear allegiance to the religious dogma of human-caused global warming. If you don't ascribe to the flood myth of the religious left, then you are labeled 'not a Climate Scientist'. It's a bit like saying 'your not a real Catholic if you don't believe in the virgin birth'. I think this is a effective way to enforce religious alignment and stifle dissent. It's worked for various religions for centuries.

Re:Journalism?

[elmo1618]

The overwhelming consensus of scientists agreed that Wegner's theory of plate tectonics was wrong when he first proposed it. Their consensus ruined his career. Since when is science dependent on a majority vote ?

How about pressure from the US Senate?

[Tangential]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337 [opinionjournal.com]

Here are two Democratic Senators urging Exxon to not support any contrary research in the area of global warming.

Re:Journalism?

[Decaff]

Excellent point. In fact, Einstein's claims of relativity and quantized 'packets' of light (photons) were considered controversial for well over a decade after he published the papers concerning them in 1905. It is certainly not inconceivable that the 'right' position is not accepted as such in the professional scientific community.

This is irrelevant. Einstein's claims were published and were published enthusiastically. There was no attempt to censor them.

Also, I am afraid that we have to face the fact that there are few Einsteins. Just because Einstein had a minority view and he was right does mean mean that all holders of minority views are right, or are Einsteins. This logical mistake is made surprisingly often.

Conspiracy Theories

[Mark_MF-WN]

So you, with absolutely no references and a head full of conspiracy theories, know better than NASA, the ESA, the NOAA, the WMO, and the EPA -- all of whom believe in the theory of anthropogenic ozone depletion caused by CFCs, and publish research that supports that theory?

Seriously, here in reality, science supports the theory of anthropenic ozone depletion. It supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It supports almost all the theories that scientists and environmentalists endorse, and that paranoid antigovernment sociopaths bitterly decry as attempts to destroy the US economy.

The ESA's research has found ozone-depleting clouds containing CFC-derived radicals. [esa.int] But Europeans are automatically wrong since they try not to fight unwinnable $500 billion dollar wars of attrition in the middle east anymore, right?

The NOAA is pretty sure that ozone depletion is caused by Humans. [noaa.gov] Are your tax dollars being used as part of a grand conspiracy to destroy America? Better start writing more threatening letters to the government.

NASA's ozone depletion FAQ. [nasa.gov] But everyone knows that NASA is a liberal conspiracy developed by socialists to undermine industrialism in all its forms.

To summarize: don't be such a fucking idiot. Anthropogenic ozone depletion is completely real.

Re:Institutional Bias

[TapeCutter]

To be fair to both the hockey stick and Mann you could at least provide a link to Mann and co's rebuttals [realclimate.org]. Also the IPCC is not solely based on computer models, it's available on the net and is chock full of observastions and predictions. So far the most serious complaint about the IPCC is that it predictions for methane levels do not reflect what has been observed. I urge you to read it rather than assume it's contents are guesswork.

"For example, until recently the use of aerosols was believed to contribute to the greenhouse effect"

Different aerosols have different effects, they are covered by the IPCC and climate models.

The basic question of AGW existance is over, even Bush, Murdoch and Howard now argree for the need to curb our emmisions (mind you they are not shouting from the rooftops). The current political and scientific question is now How much CO2 is too much? [realclimate.org]

To my mind the BBC article is as much a waste of time as it would be if the subject were creationisim. It has taken three decades for the AGW theory to become mainstream science, it has fought and won aginst powerfull vested interests and gullible journalists using nothing more than logic and observation. Now the luddites and vested interests are claiming science is rotten to the core and journalisim is going to be the judge and jury. Give me a fucking break!

Re:Journalism?

[Decaff]

Yeah, but if the BBC covered that like they covered climate change they'd say "the overwhelming consensus is that the old theory is mostly correct, and can be fixed with a few minor changes. Only a small minority of scientists believe in so called quantum theory, which is a much more radical revision"

Why is there this continued assumption that minority views are always right? Sure, quantum mechanics was once a minority view, but so was the belief that the earth is hollow. Not all minority views turn out right - in fact almost none of them do.

You don't get to pick the minority view you want simply to support your political or economic beliefs.

A better example, as Michael Crichton pointed out, would be the consensus on eugenics or Lysenkoism, which was used to justify some very evil actions.

Those examples help back the case I am trying to make. Lysenkoism was a disreputable minority view, but was pushed into mass adoption for political reasons. Exactly the same applies to climate change denial.

In fact it's worth quoting his comments on that.

No, it really isn't. Crichton is not an expert in this field. He has extremely minor scientific qualifications. Writing bad science fiction does not qualify someone to discuss these matters.

"If we don't take drastic action, the planet is doomed, only a few people have been paid by Big Oil to question this truth"

The planet isn't doomed, but there could be nasty wars over land and water, and the migration of hundreds of millions.

As for the Big Oil comment, that isn't too far from the truth. Take the case of Philip Cooney's editing of climate change reports to tone them down, and then left to work for ExxonMobil.

And finally, there's something implicitly totalitarian about the idea that we know the absolute truth.

No-one is claiming that.

So relying on the consensus is unreliable

No, relying on the consensus is the only sensible thing to do. Trying to equate Lomborg with Galileo is outrageous.

and using the scientific consensus to justify radically altering the world economy is the road to serfdom quite frankly, no matter how altruistic the people doing it think they are.

It isn't a matter of reducing the world economy to serfdom. Examples of what can be done is to develop hybrid or far better milage cars (something the USA is hopeless at) and switch to wider use of nuclear power. There is no serfdom in that at all.