BBC Wants Evidence of Climate Science Bias 678
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
*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.
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Einstein's Nobel Prize (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. Planck pointed out that the blackbody radiation law can be derived, on the assumption that the permissible energies of radiation are not continuous, but discrete. (if you have some basic math, the idea is to replace the integral, which diverges in the high frequency limit, with a discrete summation over integral multiples of the basic frequency unit (Planck's constant), and it no longer diverges). Although it was enough to get him a well-deserved Nobel prize, Planck didn't give any explanati
wrong criticism of Planck. (Score:3, Interesting)
Planck was involved in modern physics of the time throughout his life.
(Also Einstein didn't reject quantum mechanics in itself---he rejected the Copenhagen Interpretation
as inconsistent mumbo-jumbo. Modern physics actually says the same {"decoherence" is currently the preferred option}, even though Copenhagen makes the right predictions in most experimentally relevant cas
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course. Not believing that a theory is ultimately correct is a quite different thing to denying overwhelming experimental evidence.
But that has very little meaning. It just says what is observationally obvious: that at macroscopic scales the laws of physics become indistinguishable from clas
Re:Journalism? (Score:4, Funny)
For some local definitions of 'basic'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Institutional Bias (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think we should classify the IPCC's (or others) results as evidence from conducted experiments, nor conclusions developed from sound mathematical and scientific theory. Indeed, the overwhelming bulk of conclusions have been drawn from regressions and computer models. As a fellow /.er I tend to put a great deal of faith in these methods, but the level of uncertainty surrounding the parameters used in these models and regressions is staggering. For example, until recently the use of aerosols was be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"For example, until recently the use of aerosols was believed to contri
Re:Institutional Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, why should we take you seriously, when you neither provide compelling evidence, nor your username?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is not why people don't get into peer reviewed journals. Good peer reviewed journals publish 'against the grain' papers all the time. What prevents publications getting into good journals is if their analyses are questionable or their results aren't repeatable. In most areas of science, journals are hungry for interesting papers. Research that simply repeats existing findings gets boring and of no interest.
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.
Again, that is not why people get squeezed out. It is not a matter of 'believers', it is about the quality of research.
At best, the standard for publishing a contrarian view is much higher
And that is as things should be. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary views require extraordinary evidence. Contrary views should require out-of-the-ordinary evidence.
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.
In quality journals, editors don't accept such out-of-hand rejections. There are much-used appeal processes, and the opinion of a reviewer who simply rejected an article 'out-of-hand' would not last long. Reviewers have to justify their rejections in the same way as the authors of papers have to justify their findings.
I know this because I have worked to get controversial papers through review processes, and I have also acted as a peer reviewer.
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.
This is just not true. The entire peer review process is a Devil's Advocate process. The phrase 'peer review' explains it - papers aren't being reviewed by friends of the author, but almost always the reviewing panel includes those who are competitors of the author, often competing in the same country for the same funding!
The peer review process works because it is so much a Devil's Advocate process, and publications have to pass through that.
Re: Journalism? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, the scientists will kidnap the reporters and brainwash them to report that they didn't find a conspiracy.
Re:Journalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Very OT: Home schooling (Score:5, Informative)
This is just a pet peeve of mine, but fear of secular education isn't the only reason anybody home schools. That is, not all home schoolers are religious nuts trying to indoctrinate their children and keep them from some kind of "bad thoughts" out there. I was home taught for entirely different reasons (social troubles in big, lowest-common-denominator, shut-up-sit-still-and-memorize-this public schools, and the inability to pay for smaller, more progressive private schools that could cater to gifted students) and I'm about the most anti-dogmatic person I know. And I'm now almost through with university, with very good grades, so I can't complain about the quality of the education either.
That's all, just wanted to harp on that. Home school != religious indoctrination.
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bigger point is that you shouldn't mistake Slashdot for journalism.
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments
Just another contrarian viewpoint because he's too stuck to see it? Or someone whose experience provides the nuances required to see that global warming is a house of cards?
Inconvenient proposals (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for the great link.
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? (Score:4, Informative)
He "concedes that he hasn't published [his theory of how thermohaline circulation has caused recent warming of the planet] in any peer-reviewed journal. He's working on it, he says."
The impression I get from RealClimate and the Washington Post is that Gray is not capable of doing numerical modeling, or even, necessarily, understanding the models which dominate the field.
About the only scientifically respectable semi-skeptic, Richard Lindzen, says of Gray: "His knowledge of theory is frustratingly poor, but he knows more about hurricanes than anyone in the world. I regard him in his own peculiar way as a national resource."
That's a very complimentary way of saying he should be put out to pasture.
See the following articles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 /04/gray-on-agw/ [realclimate.org]
Attention metamoderators (Score:3, Informative)
Lindzen, by the way, is a climate scientist who thinks that negative feedback loops will win, so it's not just Lomborg and Gray.
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Only Experts in the field then? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:Journalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 invove
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are always lazy people in any walk of life, and it is tru
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Polar bears and smoking (Score:3, Interesting)
An analogy that came to mind is lung cancer. In the 19th Century lung cancer was so rare that a doctor may only see it a few times in his career, and always the topic of discussion in the local community when it occurred.
A century
Re:Journalism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
That is really interesting. In which field did you work? In my field (theoretical condensed matter physics) claims that something is not so important are very hard to judge. It tends to be either testable via an experiment (and therefore right or wrong, in which case the importance is obvious), or untestable, in which case the importance is indeterminate but needs to be judged on its theoretical usefulness.
But I can imagine that a field of researchers, as a collective group, would be rather hostile to a claim that their entire field of study is not important. If you have built your career on a particular study, and it turns out that that study doesn't mean what you originally thought it did, then it is a life-changing moment. Did you plan for it? ie. were you planning to then move into some related (or unrelated) field? If not, how were you going to avoid going down with the sinking ship?
I know that there have been many examples of this in the past, but I am struggling to remember even a single instance just now: science is very harsh in that research that does not end up forming the body of work upon which future research depends, is very quickly forgotten.
There is of course a very large potential catastrophe looming, if it turns out in the end that string theory is a dead end. That would account for almost an entire generation of particle physicists!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But the problem with painting a slippery slope picture is that it's not true. Certainly in law, precedents make a big difference. But in science, popular opinion and politics don't determine true or false, any more than you can make a law that Pi = 3.0.
The opinion that climate scientists are in it for the money to justify their jobs and get grants has very little basis in reality. This was p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except you missed out the important bit: the thorough debunking [realclimate.org] of Monckton's article on realclimate.org.
Even a non-expert can see that there are real problems with Monckton's article. The `smoking gun' Battle of the Graphs compares global average temperatures versus with temperatures in Europe alone, for example. It is known that the European `little ice age' was caused by slowing of the Gulf Stream current [nzherald.co.nz] (although why the current slowed down is still a mystery), which makes this effect very specifi
Re:Journalism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well done, that post is a masterpiece of exactly the kind of disinformation that is causing all the problems in this debate!
You overplayed you hand slightly though, in the last paragraph. Until that point, it was the perfect troll: biased, but factually correct and completely plausible. But then you blew it with a statement that is simply wrong! The opposite is true: there is an overwhelming concensus among climatologists that global warming is real, and humans are contributing to it. There is some debate as to whether there are other factors that are contributing (solar output etc), but that is just window dressing on the main result.
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who went to grad school in climatology, I have to say, in a word: No. Most of us have personally read the actual scientific studies and not the media "report", and our findings are that climate change really is happening. We also don't disagree with the finding that this is due to humans more than doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 150 years. This work has been supported by studies in climate science and geology, so it's not just one field of science. These are settled matters within the climate science community, and any efforts to stir up that there's a "debate" is sensationalist media misrepresenting science. What is up for debate is the outcome of climate change and what should (and can) be done. Clearly things are changing, but the picture of how things will change is just beginning to become clear, and so most scientists choose to voice caution: we don't know for certain what is going to happen, but we might want to think about what we're doing because rapid change is likely to be bad (and expensive).
I'll give you the sensationalism on the part of the media, as far as the rest I'm going to kindly ask you to stop talking out of your ass. Calling the character of climate scientists into question is the most common hack for people who can't produce any valid scientific counter-arguments. A great deal of scientific "reporting" in this area does little justice to the actual science they're reporting on. I'm going to call FUD on the "push by global warming scientists". We go through the same peer review process as any other branch of science, we don't publish our most "outlandish" theories, we publish what we find. Actually, a great deal of restraint is exercised by most scientists due to the political nature of the field. There are of course a couple of people who will do something sensational (i.e. the man who claimed a link between hurricanes and global warming), but this happens in other fields too. When it does, the community usually self-polices: i.e. this man took a lot of flak for inside the community precisely because his work was a little too speculative and did some hard to his credibility with the rest of the community.
The key problem (Score:5, Insightful)
* 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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The key problem (Score:5, Insightful)
* 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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this science? 'Cause my CO2 meter doesn't have a "too high" marker on it. Personally I think any realistic Ice Age scenario is far more disasterous for the human race than any warming scenario. So the real question is whether CO2 levels should be higher or lower, and science will not address it. The politicians say it should be lower, and the scientists do studies to show all the posible harmful effects of CO
Re:The key problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The key problem (Score:4, Informative)
- If it is real, is it permanent and not just an earth/solar cycle?
Source [epa.gov]- 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)
Source [epa.gov]- 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).
See these pages:Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re:The key problem (Score:4, Informative)
It is real. Nothing is permanent. It is not due to solar forcing.
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)
The primary forcing is greenhouse gas emissions, notably CO2 but also methane. Water vapor provides the strongest greenhouse forcing - and a warmer atmosphere will have more water vapor, which will lead to a warmer earth due to its greenhouse forcing, rinse, lather, repeat. This is known as a positive feedback. If it was the only game in town (it is not) we would probably end up like Venus.
Deforesteation and other messing with the carbon cycle may play a role which may go in either direction. One must look at the albedo effect as well.
Do not - ever - talk about ozone depletion and global warming in the same sentence. They are entirely unrelated. Thank you.
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.)
"Business as usual" will lead to a much different world in 100-200 years.
You can't just "grow more forests" to take up the extra CO2. Does not work that way. Even if it did: trees decompose. Guess what a product of decomposition is?
Some people are beginning to seriously consider carbon sequestering. This is a horrible situation we have set up for ourselves. I wonder where the energy is going to come from to power this sequestering technology? Fossil fuels?
And just wait until a reservoir of CO2 that didn't manage to form other compounds when you sequestered it manages to burp itself into the lower troposphere and suffocate life in low-lying areas.
I repeat: business as usual will lead to extremely different conditions across the planet in a couple hundred years.
Earth's climate system is nonlinear. This means a focring of A does not necessarily lead to a response of some fraction of A. If you push the climate system far enough it may (and indeed has in the past) flip into another very different regime. Once you reach this so-called tipping point you cannot get back to the original state.
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).
Transition out of fossil fuel dependence. Pure and simple. Even then we may reach the tipping point. But it is thought we can turn things around if we begin to act now.
Seriously folks - educate yourselves. Learn some physics, raditive transfer, etc. Get an introductory meteorology textbook at the very least. This is about science, pure and simple, and in order to be taken seriously in this discussion you need to understand the science beneath it. Armchair climatologists are a dime a dozen and are mostly making fools of themselves simply because they don't understand the basic fundamentals. Unfortunately most people are not educated enough to realize this and think there is some sort of big debate on the causes of recent climate change. There isn't. It's all about how much, and when.
Re:Journalism? (Score:5, Informative)
In his case the reaction to his work was unfavourable and he was censured initially by FUD and personal attacks. IPCC are responsible but he was vilified for pointing out WWF errors and inaccuracy.
How can you make correct policy decisions if the information you are getting has been deliberately distorted? It's the same problem whether it's environmentalists or Big Energy.
If they're both allowed to fire lies at each other then the debate is stifled and confusing as people can't trust either side. By separating what he calls the Litany which is pseudoscience apart from credible peer reviewed science he's done a service to the global warming debate.
Lomborg set out an economic case based on the costs of mitigation that showed that flaws in the way Kyoto work will make it very ineffective and excessively expensive.
Kyoto has damaged the environment by diverting resources and mindshare away from efforts which would have been more effective at reducing global warming.
Even the Stern report contains such admissions. Certain mitigation strategies (carbon sequestration in biomass) will not be discussed for years because they are not covered within the scope of Kyoto and the barriers against implementing them were primarily political and not technical.
By that I mean that more effort to save rainforests wasn't made despite interest in the method because participants in the treaty couldn't agree on how to count the reduction and who should get credit for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wish I could laugh when I see statements like this: "X has proven that Y will cause Z" when Y and Z are an incredibly complex solution and a poorly understood problem, respectively. The world is just a hell of a lot less controallable and predictable than we would like, but a willingness to experiment with imperfect solutions is one of the
Claims (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Conspiracy Theories (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Fabricated? Show proof (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing I find unsubstantiated is your assertion that the facts were fabricated. Accusing Prof Rowland and Molina of using fabricated evidence is a serious charge that must be backed up by solid evidence.
Otherwise, I will assume that you are engaged in politically motivated slander.
Re:Journalism? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about the rest of your post but this is definitely a lie [splcenter.org], Mr. Pot.
Global climate has never been static (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/ [ncpa.org]
Re:Global climate has never been static (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I should elaborate. I'm fiscally conservative, not this so called conservative BS that is going on today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Readers (Score:4, Insightful)
What does bias mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lomborg no longer deny that global warming is real (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparing the cost of trying to adapt to a changing climate with the cost of trying to prevent climate change is certainly a worthwhile, especially as global warming based on past actions is already inevitable.
Evidence Will Be Stifled. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, evidence will be provided. Bias will be shown. And then the Office of Officious Stifling of Problematic Counter-Claims will whip into action, after tea, and promptly stifle the case. Unless, of course, no evidence of bias is presented.
Should no evidence be provided, the Bureau of Studious Demogoguery will fly into the thick of it, again, after tea, and immediately claim that lack of evidence is proof that the OOSPCC pre-stifled the evidence. At which point, the Ministry of Moderated Judgementalism will, uncharacteristically before tea, issue a statement that they will review, ponder, and further investigate the possiblity of a need to issue a further statement at some future date, as yet unspecified, as to whether or not to take the BSD's statement at face value, or have tea.
Causation is the issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
Turf war (Score:3, Interesting)
Come on, man (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
BBC + Microsoft + Google = Confusing Weather (Score:4, Funny)
Well, this IS a new topic, so cut Hemos some slack (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skept
Peer-reviewed literature on global warming/climate (Score:4, Informative)
"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686/ [sciencemag.org]
But Science isn't about consensus (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Wrong about Lomborg (Score:4, Informative)
At least, that's what he said in the Skeptical Environmentalist. He may have changed his mind since then.
Of course Scientists are biased (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or were you saying that people in Academia are more likely to be Democrats and thus you have an irrational belief that their science is wrong and biased?
In modern politics "Conservative" and "Liberal" have very little to do with the beliefs of the parties which claim those names (or are associated with those views). I can
The World is Flat (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Lomborg (Score:5, Informative)
* The level of anthropogenic heating is unclear.
* Climate predictions routinely exaggerate changes or use worst case scenarios
* Cost calculations of warming frequently omit: benefits of warming (fewer people dying of cold weather, better crop yields), technological improvements, and behavior adaptation
* Given that the mechanisms driving warming (and there for the effectiveness of proposed solutions) is unclear, and the cost usually exagerated, it would be unwise to devote huge sums to this problem. Instead look for problems where the benefit is clear and a solution is available (such as providing clean water to the worlds poor) to spend this money on.
Anyone who is interested in this and other environmental issues must read his book. He set out years ago to debunk the claims of Julian Simon, and found himself changing his mind the more statistics he researched.
He does claim that everything is hunky dorry, or that there are no problems. What he advocates is a rational examination of problems and their costs so that we can evaluate the best course of action.
Um, there is more opposition than that. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Denial Machine (Score:4, Interesting)
What I found shocking is that some of the same scientists who had funding ties to big tobacco and were saying that there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer are now the same scientists with funding ties to big oil and are claiming there is no proof of global warming.
Meaning of "censorship" (Score:3, Informative)
"Censorship" means literally "evaluation"; Roman Censors [wikipedia.org] used to watch over the Republic's morals and had a few other duties (including the census). Of course we usually we refer to the case when speech, art or other forms of expression are evaluated and denied publication. This is bad as everybody has a right to speak, and evaluating cases in which this should not apply leads rapidly to those in charge abusing their power and silencing those who contest them.
However, in science there are serious evaluation guidelines. If claims are cooked up or not backed by data, they are just that. Can't take the heat, don't play the game.
As a side note, Lomborg is a cook [lomborg-errors.dk].
Lomborg isn't a counter-claimaint (Score:3, Interesting)
Even as an economist, he's not a "global warming counter-claimant," as he believes in global warming. As he says right up front in this Telegraph opinion piece [telegraph.co.uk], "Global warming is real and caused by CO2."
Lomborg's arguments don't attempt to be, and are not, relevant to the scientific debate about global warming. (The debate being exactly how much there is and what all is contributing to it in what ways, not whether there is any, which is pretty well settled.) He just argues about the costs and benefits of various scenarios for attempting to counter global warming. For example, his argument in the linked article is:
1. Climate scientists think that even worldwide adherence to Kyoto would make a tiny difference in the speed of global warming.
2. Kyoto adherence would be fabulously expensive.
3. For less than the costs of adhering to Kyoto, we could provide clean water, sanitation, and basic health care to every poor person in the world.
If those three statements are provably true, I think they would make a lot of people rethink what actions should be taken regarding global warming.
And one example of this is. (Score:4, Interesting)
Thus providing a perfect example of what the BBC is talking about. Even if you never take your eyeballs off slashdot itself, there is ample evidence to the contrary, including the very detailed analysis by Moncton: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
The issue here is not so much whether global warming is true. After all, we're coming off an ice age. At some level of course it's true. The issue is, Why does there seem to be a concerted push to make this a 'done deal' by people whose political interests would suggest they very nuch want it to be for their own agenda. The backlash to Moncton is interesting. It's similar to the Christian church demonizing Pan into Satan simply to gain control of he largely ignorant populace. A lot of the counter claims amount to argumentum ad hominem, an argument against the person, not the evidence. For all you folks who bristle every time someone calls Stallman a big fat smelly boy, well, this is the same thing.
If there are no alarm bells going off in your head over at least some of the issues raised by the dissenters, then you are already converted. If you believe the world was created on October 29, 4004 BC at 10:00 in the morning, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. For the rest, you owe it to yourselves to take a dispassionate and serious look at what the dissenters are saying without letting your SUV-loathing get in the way. Let us all see what the issues are here without jumping on either extremist side.
Hemos and "the vast body of the evidence". (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Lomborg is not a scientist (Score:3, Informative)
Others have pointed out that Lomborg isn't disputing global warming but have failed to point out why. He can't! He's not a scientist, well, at least not physical science.
As his bio [lomborg.com] points out, he is a political scientist. His area of expertise is public policy and since 1998 his major focus has been on public policy surrounding global warming. If it wasn't in the original post, I'd probably have modded (yes, I'm sitting on mod points but decided to respond directly) comments regarding Lomborg as off-topic; the BBC is looking for evidence of scientific bias not of political dissension.
A little context (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:A little context (Score:4, Interesting)
Pollution has "economic externalities" --- meaning that general people end up paying for the cost for something that benefits a few, and this cost is not included in the financial explicit cost.
To be blunt, having to do something about global warming gets in the way of a few people making lots of money at the expense of many others and future generations of them.
This is known as "selfishness".
How can this obvious self-serving ideology be ignored when pointing out the "watermelon environmentalist" ideology?
Economic externalities cannot be resolved without some collective decision to do so, because otherwise there is a tremendous "free-rider" problem.
The right may dislike this, but it is the truth.
When the right looks at what the environmentalist movement advocates, it looks an awful lot like centralized control of the economy.
When it comes to alleviating environmental externalities, some is inevitable and impossible otherwise. The environmentalists were right about other forms of pollution---human health in cities is significantly improved as a consequence of their actions, which were bitterly opposed by the right at the time, using identical arguments.
Why not cut off the catalytic converters and put lead back into the gasoline?
How is it different from centralized control of law and order? The task then is to monitor the collective decisions to ensure they are the best available mechanisms to solve the relevant problems.
How about pressure from the US Senate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are two Democratic Senators urging Exxon to not support any contrary research in the area of global warming.
NewSpeak (Score:4, Funny)
Duh! Best according to it is GoodFact or BadFact. Remember, debate on the issue is now closed so any fact that doesn't support the Official State Truth is sedition against the State and blasphemy against Mother Gaia's wishes as She has revealed them to Al Gore. Any DoublePlus Ungood traitors trying to undermine the State must be hunted down, marked on a list to be shunned and defunded and if that doesn't solve the problem we will put em in reeducation camps after we decide it is Hatespeech.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
You didn't read those articles, did you? (Score:3, Informative)
2. The second article is about evangelicals talking about how important it is to fight global warming. Yeah, they're real skeptics.
3. The website called "Answers in Genesis" does not represent the position of any church - which is what I specified, remember? In any case, it's an editorial compl