Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed? 928

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the come-see-the-violence-inherent-in-the-system dept.
sycodon writes "Global Warming has become more than just a scientific issue and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Hollywood, Politicians and Science Bureaucrats, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to Richard Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. From the article: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Crowhead (577505) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:43PM (#15116300)
    Slashdot's financial situation has become more than just a mess and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Zonk, Malda and Scuttle Monkey, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to various Slashdot denizens. From the article: 'Slashbots who dissent from the alarmism have seen their karma disappear, their posts derided, and themselves libeled as Evangelicals, Republicans, or worse. Consequently, lies about Slashdot's impending death gain credence even when they fly in the face of the truth that supposedly is their basis.'
  • by pHatidic (163975) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:44PM (#15116303)
    Anyone notice how when everyone was saying global warming was seven or eight years ago, Slashdot was all for the Kyoto protocol. And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?

    Hint: Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it right. This is why people dislike nerds.
    • by ktappe (747125) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:03PM (#15116492)
      And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?
      No, Slashdot is merely reporting that one single individual's opinion column is saying global warming is fake. Slashdot is not a source, it is an amalgamation of sources. In this particular case, the source appears to be biased, as the author cites only three data points for his claim, one of which occurred 14 years ago and another which he himself wrote. As a result, I personally am taking this article with a serious grain of salt.

      -Kurt

    • I have no doubt that global warming is real. However, there is a serious set of questions regarding what the threat actually is.

      For those who say "it has been happening since the last ice age" this is demonstrably false. We know that the climate changed for the *colder* in places like Greenland over the last thousand years or so.

      The real issue is this: In any contentious or important subject (like global warming or heart disease), the minority viewpoints are often supressed. What? you mean that feeding
    • Anyone notice how when everyone was saying global warming was seven or eight years ago, Slashdot was all for the Kyoto protocol. And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?

      The Slashdot 'community' contains many story submitters with differing opinions. Those stories are judged by multiple editors who also have differing opinions. Furthermore, the topic of global warming has a multitude of fac

  • Y'know... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Otter (3800) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:45PM (#15116312) Journal
    My first thought was that it would be great if some fake field of "science" could be created, and used as a sandbox for all the people for whom science is just one more bit of fuel for inane flamewars.

    Then it occurred to me that we do have such a thing. Thank heavens for science fiction -- otherwise all the energy channeled into arguing about whether Kirk is better than Piccard would be pouring into real science, as well.

  • by Toby The Economist (811138) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:45PM (#15116320)
    This is why it's important not to have State control over funding; anything unacceptable - which is of course entirely orthagonal to truth or falsehood - naturally, to a lesser or greater extent, tends to be suppressed.

    Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?

    The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.

    The State inherently holds political power; to give the State economic power is to provide it with a forceful means to implement its own ends. This is one of the reasons why its so vital to keep the State out of economic activity; because of the danger of the abuse of that economic power.
    • by pHatidic (163975) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:52PM (#15116391)
      What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming? Is everyone on Slashdot insane?
      • > What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming?

        It will also incur a great deal of political unpopularity to actually *do* something. I suspect the incumbents, who are on a knife's edge for re-election, would be best pleased if this hot potato could be defered for a few more years.

        More generally of course there is always a reluctance to do something which is painful in the short term and only provides rewards in the long term.

      • Is everyone on Slashdot insane?

        You're new here, aren't you?
      • by Jerf (17166) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:25PM (#15116699) Journal
        What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming? Is everyone on Slashdot insane?

        Wha? You can't see any political reason to get people all riled up and in an irrational panic?

        It's possible to overdo the cynicism, but you need to bulk up.

        In actuality, "the state" is too broad a classification. There are many forces in play here. There are people who genuinely believe the worst-case scenarios, and are just trying to help. There are people who see the worst-case scenarios as an opportunity to increase their power; you'll find some of these people in the EPA, or driving anything where "environmentalism" and "money" collide. There are people who may or may not care about global warming per se, but see it as the perfect tool to block industry, because they believe industrialization is instrinsically evil. (These people can be identified by asking them whether they'd support the use of a perfectly clean power source that enables us all to use ten times the power; there are people who will say "no" to this, because they really do think we should all go back to living as "noble savages".)

        Also, for every accusation leveled at a global warming skeptic impugning the person, there is a corresponding motive on the global warming side. For instance, "you're in the pocket of the oil companies" corresponds to the anti-industrialists above, who will fight industry in any form.

        And that's not even a complete list.

        The issue has become extremely politicized, and I personally am not at all confident the science has survived the process. Science may be impersonal and rational, but the actual scientists are all political animals themselves and not immune to any of this, or even especially resistant.
      • by Stradivarius (7490) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @06:00PM (#15117016)
        It's not so much the state as an entity that gains, it's the individual people who are in positions of state power. And since these folks are often either politicians, or political appointees, they have lots at stake. If they, or their political allies, get proven wrong on an issue, it may affect their chances of future employment/prestige/election/etc. If they support research that undermines their political party's message (or their party's special interest group allies), they may be seen as "caving in" to the "enemy" and won't get the same campaign contributions.

        Especially in Washington these days, every issue is a seen not as an opportunity to find the truth or fix a problem but as a club with which to attack the opposition. So if some research looks more likely to be compatible with one's views than others, guess which is more likely to be funded?

        It's not just global warming - it's any issue. The science is simply another weapon in the political arsenal, to be discarded when it's inconvenient.
    • Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

      by squiggleslash (241428) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:01PM (#15116480) Homepage Journal
      The BBC was a radio broadcaster, quasi-independent from government, in the nineteen thirties. I don't think they've ever been a telecom anything, let alone a monopoly.

      I'm pretty sure the Post Office, which ran the telephone system back then, didn't ban Churchill from anything. As for the BBC, I can't find a reference to anything about Churchill not being allowed to speak upon it, so without further information, I'm going to chalk this down to typical pseudo-libertarian misleading given the term could mean "He was considered irrelevent to politics back then and thus never got airtime", or it could mean "Neville Chamberlain personally called up Reith, and told him if the BBC ever gave Churchill airtime, he'd personally revoke their charter."

      I'm guessing the former explanation is more likely, knowing the historic spirit of independence of the BBC.

    • by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:13PM (#15116588)
      Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?

      Did you know that the Bush administration has barred climate researchers working for the government from speaking directly to the press? And that press releases, statements, or publicly released research on any climate matter must pass through the White House first, where they are essentially rewritten?

      Maybe you should tune into 60 minutes more often [cbsnews.com].

      ---Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet." Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

      Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality." Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney." Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

      Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes "may be undergoing change." "Uncertainty" becomes "significant remaining uncertainty." One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

      "He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout." ----

  • by Jim in Buffalo (939861) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:46PM (#15116327)
    From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away.
    • From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away

      Compeltely ignoring what he has to say and dismissing his claims as false based on your reason is, by definition, ad hominem [wikipedia.org], and maybe even worse, guilt-by-association. It has no place in a rational discussion. It's a useful tool to question the credibility before investing intellectual energy in learning about an
  • Political science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vanyel (28049) * on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:47PM (#15116331) Journal
    First we hear the science supporting global warming is being suppressed, now we hear that science opposing global warming is being suppressed. The only clear conclusion is to get politics out of science, but I don't think anyone's ever succeeded at that in its entire history.
    • They have, it's just been suppressed.
    • Re:Political science (Score:5, Interesting)

      by penguin-collective (932038) on Thursday April 13, 2006 @03:56AM (#15119405)
      The science supporting global warming is suppressed by the politicians.

      The science opposing global warming is "suppressed" by peer review in prestigious journals.

      You can easily figure out from that one where the scientific community stands on the issue.

      (Note that his complaint isn't even that these people can't publish their work at all, it's that it's hard to publish these results in the most prestigious journals. That's kind of like saying that your human rights are being violated because Britney Spears refuses to date you.)
  • by wealthychef (584778) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:47PM (#15116333)
    The article tells the truth that there is dissent around whether global warming will cause more storms, which is very debatable. But it implies with that the falsehood that global warming does not pose a significant risk to the future in many ways. Climate change is more than weather. I'm not saying there isn't hype about global warming on both sides, but this article is not really that helpful in understanding the broad issues involved. The discussion needs to be very broad, because that is the scope of the problem. Increased global temperatures have many effects...
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:53PM (#15116396) Homepage Journal
    Richard Lindzen is a well known Greenhouse denier. Don't suppress him or the other deniers - just read more about their Greenhouse denial industry [risingtide.org.uk], and the Greenhouse producers they cover for. Will you be surprised when you learn how their network is funded by polluters and petrofuel corporations?
    • by ajs (35943) <ajs@ a j s . com> on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:46PM (#15116894) Homepage Journal
      We were saying about labeling people as corporate stooges?

      Here's the way it works:

      1. You say "hey, this thing is more complex than we thought, let's try to understand it"
      2. Your are labeled an "enemy of the planet" by those who review grant money
      3. You get no further funding
      4. You go to the sources that WILL fund your research
      5. Because you are now backed by evil corporations your are branded a stooge
      6. Your peers ignore your data and input

      Isn't it great how we're not surpressing anyone's research?

      PS: "enemy of the planet" is a direct quote from those reviewing funding for a friend of mine who was in solar astrophysics at the time. His lab had dared to propose a model by which the sun could power observed warming.
    • Bzzzt!

      Logical Fallacy # 1: Poisoning the Well

      linky:

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisonin g -the-well.html [nizkor.org]

      Logical Fallacy # 2: Guilt By Association

      linky:

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- association.html [nizkor.org]

      Both are particularly amusing due to your choice of link to "prove" your point.

      ...

      Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

      Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473 [atf.gov], show your ID [aclu.org], and the poll worker will check with the FBI database [fbi.gov] t

    • If an industry funds research it must be false? What about agencies perpetuating their own existance by delivering research which supports their existance? Your link is exactly what the issue is all about. Just as much as their is a "Greenhouse Denial Industry" there is a "Greenhouse support at all cost industry". Neither side is completely wrong, just some sides are much more virulent at denouncing the other.

      Considering the track record of some of the Global Warming advocates and their actions I have
  • by stonedown (44508) * on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @04:54PM (#15116410) Homepage
    According to a 1995 Harper's Magazine article [sierraclub.org], Lindzen had no trouble securing funding from fossil fuel interests.
    Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
    Also, the Wall Street Journal opinion section is not exactly the place to go to find genuine scientific analysis. It's a propaganda mill for the same business interests which support Richard Lindzen. There is plenty of money for scientists willing to speak on behalf of big business, despite Lindzen's contrary and alarmist claims. It takes a special kind of courage to speak out on behalf of the downtrodden coal and oil industries.
    • This is EXACTLY the type of ad hominem attacks that hurt scientific debate rather than help it.

      Instead of rebutting the facts of their science, climatogogists that don't hold global warming alarmist views are critisized for their funding. Where else is a climatologist supposed to get funding if they don't stand with the majority on this?

      Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack ag

      • by disappear (21915) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:19PM (#15116639) Homepage
        We were discussing an article whose claim was "These scientists are denied funding, skewing the debate."

        Parent post said, this information is not accurate; these supposed pariah scientists are quite well-compensated for their research.

        This post says parent post does not rebut the science, but engages in ad hominem attacks. Then it says, "Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded."

        Of course, all of this was a discussion on funding, and discussing the science is (strangely) an attempt to distract from the issue actually at hand. Real opponents of global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refuse those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded. (In this case, against their government funding.)
        • No, that's not quite right. The problem is that their theories and data are ignored because funding is slashed, and they must resort to gaining funding from intrests which are not neutral. This brings their research into question, and they are easily dismissed.

          This cycle perpetuates itself, and we only end up hearing half of the story.
          • by disappear (21915) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @06:10PM (#15117082) Homepage
            Right, let's teach the debate.

            So, I'm afraid that I'm not receiving adequate government research dollars for my proposal on demonstrating that babies are delivered by storks.

            As far as I can tell, any of the arguments used to defend anti-Global-Warming scientists can apply equally well to my babies-come-from-storks argument. Saying that the discussion isn't "balanced" and that we need to "teach the debate" or "show both sides" is what you say when you don't have arguments that are strong enough to convince your opponents in debate.

            I'd like to keep an open mind on the issue of climate change, but the proponents of no-climate-crisis have failed to convince me, or pretty much anyone else. I'm not sure why we should continue to fund them. Saying that they're not getting their fair say isn't much of an argument.
        • TFA lists two areas of concern: 1) the denying of grants and funds for non-alarmist climatologists, 2) the double standard meted out to submitted papers. Alarmist papers are accepted readily and non-alarmist papers are rejected as being "not interesting". When non-alarmist papers are accepted they are not given the same opportunities for dissenting response.

          Therefore, the poster you are attempting to discredit is quite right. The issue is not necessarily the funding of Lindzen, but the issues he raises

    • by HoneyBeeSpace (724189) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:19PM (#15116633) Homepage
      If you don't trust Lindzen, you can run your own global climate model at home and check the outputs yourself!

      EdGCM [columbia.edu] is a NASA GCM that has been ported to run on Mac and Windows, and given a GUI interface. Want to turn the sun down by 2% or add some CO2? Just point and click and drag. Then, hit play, wait a day or two, and you'll have your own GCM outputs, complete with a visualization utility to view them with.
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:05PM (#15116516)
    Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

    First off, it's not professional to call peers "alarmists", especially if you want respect from them. Scientists are usually if anything very reserved about stating an opinion, so I'm highly skeptical of scientists willing to immediately and simply label a broad class of their peers as "alarmists". It might explain why these guys are getting their funding yanked and such. Second, just like "Darwinism" isn't a theory but proven fact- global warming, the fact that humans are causing it, and that we had better do something very quickly or we'll be fucked- is all widely accepted. We have decades of research and evidence, like glacial "records" going back more than long enough to show the planet has never seen anything like us humans, climate-wise. Or evidence that on September 11th, when the FAA grounded planes across the country, the weather patterns changed dramatically.

    It's widely accepted that pretending we're not having a massive effect on our planet's climate is the exact opposite of "alarmism"- it's sticking your head in the sand and hoping the lion's gone away.

    We have an administration which forbids government scientists from speaking with press, and requires all climate-related press releases to be routed directly through the whitehouse, where they are absolutely gutted? (really. 60 minutes got photocopies of the press releases and reports, after they'd been scribbled all over by white house staff.)

    So in one corner, we have a bunch of disgruntled scientists claiming they're being marginalized for taking an unpopular view. And on the other hand, we have scientists being gagged and censored by the Bush administration for presenting valid evidence that the climate is seriously fucked up.

    Yeah, I'm really going to loose sleep over the head-in-the-sand people getting to be "unpopular"...

  • Bad Article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Unsus (901072) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:07PM (#15116530)
    "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes." I really hated that sentence in the beginning of the article. Many gov'ts have signed the Kyoto agreement, and many reputable scientists have urged us to lower CO2 emissions. While I admit there is always a chance that so many people were wrong, it is still retarded to think it's better to take a "wait and see" approach. We need to lower CO2 levels now and then see if it helps, not wait until it is too late.
  • Who Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grumpygrodyguy (603716) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @05:09PM (#15116553)
    Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

    I don't lose sleep knowing corporate advocates are being suppressed. I wish every corporate advocate would drown in a lake of their own vomit actually.

    As far as legitimate scientists being falsely labelled as corporate stooges, there's really no justification for claiming that global warming isn't a sound theory. Flatly dismissing the impact of human polutants on global warming is like driving the Titanic into icebergs because some tool labelled her 'unsinkable'.
  • by greppling (601175) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @06:03PM (#15117035)
    You know, the author mentions three claims (paraphrased by me): 1. Global warming is happening (significantly so) 2. CO2 level is increasing 3. CO2 contributes to future warming.

    He actually agrees with all of them.

    The only thing he disagrees with is whether this is caused by civilization.

    Now, in the last IPCC report (THE source for the scientific consensus, at least of the one attacked by Lindzen in this article), it is said that human activities are "likely" the cause of global warming. Not "certainly", but "likely". Even on an earth that is getting hot, I can't see how this is suppressing the view that humans may not be the cause of global warming.

    In fact, the only thing he is attacking with any substance are the casual, frequently overheard claims that the recent increase in storms, tornados etc. is caused by global warming. Well, that's a straw-man as far as I am concerned. I have never heard this a scientific claim, just as an informal "could well be" answer e.g. by meteorologist in reply to question by journalists.

  • by penguin-collective (932038) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @06:13PM (#15117107)
    Lindzen gets his papers rejected by Science and Nature, has a bunch of grants not come through, and then whines about having his views being "suppressed". Well, if we take those criteria, 99% of all scientists are being "suppressed" because that's the rule rather than the exception.

    I applaud Nature and Science in "suppressing" people like Lindzen--they simply don't have anything to say that I care about anymore, and I suspect that's true for the majority of readers of those journals. As far as I'm concerned, reducing CO2 emissions has so many other economic, political, and environmental benefits that this is simply not an interesting debate anymore; arguments like Lindzen's should be relegated to obscure journals.
  • by jellisky (211018) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @06:15PM (#15117123) Journal
    ... is irrelevant to this discussion.

    There is something that he points out (in a roundabout way) that needs to be said: There is a lot of bad science going on in this debate. Both sides.

    Now, granted, I'm a lowly Ph.D. student in Atmospheric Sciences studying hurricanes... what would I know about this, right? (Yes, that's slightly sarcastic.)

    "Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now. (I speak mainly for atmospheric science articles in those journals. Other articles may be fine... I don't know.)

    The real science happens in the less-public journals. And, believe it or not, the actual science always leads to more questions than answers. There are details that aren't covered in science news coverage that are vital to making valid conclusions in these issues. But, the nature of the "publish-or-perish" funding makes careful science difficult to do.

    So, we're left with more questions than answers. Look at Dr. Denning's carbon cycle findings ( http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/globalcarboncy cle.html [colostate.edu] ) as a prime example of what happens when we begin looking more closely at these problems. Many scientists are tossing out potential hypotheses in a science that is very difficult to easily test these hypotheses properly. There's a rush to put out results of any type by the P-or-P philosophy... easiest is verification of previous results in a slightly different regime.

    I'm not claiming that the scientists in this debate are bad scientists... I'm claiming that they're getting caught up in a problem that is so incredibly complex that we're far from having a more-than-cursory handle on. A lot of this is pioneering work... and even pioneers in sciences can get things wrong or not understand everything (how many refinements of Einstein's relativity theory have there been in the last couple decades, for example?).

    It's not just about politics or philosophy or science or anything like that. It's seeing the maturation of a whole discipline of science. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that alarmists may be taking things too far. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that there are politics involved here. He may be off-base in a number of points, but cooler heads will prevail eventually. This is an exciting time to watch all this... it's like our generation's relativity (20's and 30's) or nuclear chemistry (late-40's to 60's).

    Those who are getting up in arms about all this... settle down. Seriously. Your hyperventilations are only speeding up the global warming process! ;) Cooler heads will prevail eventually.

    -Jellisky
    • by aldheorte (162967) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @08:50PM (#15117950)
      ""Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now."

      If YOU have significant holes to poke, publish them! Don't worry about an academic journal, get a blog. If you are worried about it affecting your own chances for funding and positions, then create an anonymous blog. Get the word out, make them responsible for their holes. If you don't, you are just as culpable as they in letting incorrect findings stand for future generations of research to assume and thus come to incorrect or irreconcilable findings.

      You might think that's someone else's job because you are "just" a Ph.D. student, but because of your specialist knowledge, there probably isn't hardly anyone else. The number of people with your knowledge of climatology is probably a few thousand worldwide or less. If you don't do it, no one will, and the rest of us will just be taken for fools because we don't have the knowledge to rebut.
      • by jonniesmokes (323978) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @09:15PM (#15118083)
        Unfortunately, taking out a blog and talking about holes in science isn't much of a route. Real science takes place in peer reviewed journals. There are simply too many people without education on blogs; which makes blogs a popularity contest (see slashdot.org) instead of the scientific process.

        The thing about global warming is that the theory is sound, even if unprovable. The consequences are huge. And there are other consequences to the large amount of CO2 production like the death of all molluscs which we might consider (see ocean acidification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification [wikipedia.org]). When the results of an event are immense, they should impact your planning even if your not sure that the event will happen. I could also tie in the insecurity of our nation as a reason to cut down on oil consumption and the massive amounts of mercury released into the oceans as a reason to cut down on coal use. Really, how many reasons do we need?

        People get all caught up in defending their lifestyle, by poking holes in another's argument. They're so caught up in defending themselves that they forget they're just dead wrong. I call these people apologists.

        Sorta like the guy who slept with my wife back before she and I split up. I of course didn't know about it (gettin' played is no fun at all). But what irked me is that he kept telling me to my face how great he thought my relationship was and then when it fell apart said it was doomed to failure from the start. He was one of the reasons it failed, but denied it. Sorta like all the people driving SUV's sitting in gridlock traffic on the highway. In 20 years they'll say it was all inevitable. People are so funny I could cry.
  • by cscalfani (222387) on Wednesday April 12, 2006 @06:27PM (#15117202)
    The earth has supposedly been warming over some period of very, very recent history. So with over 4 billion years of weather, we humans in our infinite wisdom are choosing about 100 years of data and trying to extrapolate where the earth is heading.

    Let's face it, religious zealots have been calling for the End of the World since the beginning of time and now Scientific zealots are getting into the act.

    What's really funny is that when I was a kid the real weather scare was the coming Ice Age. What happen to those Ice Age zealots anyway? Probably driven underground by the latest "Sky is Falling" group known as the Global Warming evangelists.

    I'm so sick of the press reporting on predictions of idiots from idiot scientists to idiot psychics as if they were fact and then never following up when most of these nutballs are wrong.

    I guess the press doesn't want to report on the failings of these wackjobs since the press was the ones who gave them credence in the first damn place.

    We had Y2K in our industry and look how many billions were spent on something that we all knew was a bunch of BS. Many people post rationalized that the reason nothing bad happened was because something was done. But these people were part of the problem and don't want to admit to their bosses that huge amounts of money didn't need to be spent. And if you don't believe me, just look at the countries that didn't spend the money we did. No doomsday for them even though very little was done.

    Global warming is going to follow the same stupid path. Tomorrow there will be a new threat and billions will be spent on that problem, meanwhile we'll be paying $10.00 / gallon for gas and no one will be solving the real problems.

"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" -- the artificial person, from _Aliens_

Working...