Chilling Effects: Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared
from the now-you-see-it dept
Let me let you in on a little fantasy of mine: every once in a while, I like to imagine finding myself meeting the person who came up with the term “global warming.” Why? So I can punish that person. Severely. See, what a term like “global warming” does is allow the guy in the cubicle next to me to point out of the window in Chicago and say, “If global warming is true, why is it snowing out again?” And that, friends, is something nobody should have to deal with.
Climate change is the better term, of course, and the majority of the scientific community firmly believes that there is such a thing as man-made climate change. From there, we could have a discussion about how profound the effects of climate change are, whether they’re actually better or worse, what other contributing factors might be in play in impacting climate, and all the rest, and those would be worthy conversations to have. What we shouldn’t do is try to use the law to silence dissenting opinions, particularly if those opinions come in the form of scientific research. Yet, that is exactly what one scientific journal has allowed to happen after publishing an article on the link between those who deny climate change and those who believe in a more wide-ranging array of conspiracy theories. Frontiers originally published the piece last year, but took it down once the legal threats started rolling in. After an internal investigation found the peer-reviewed study to be sound, you’d have thought they’d re-publish it. You’d be wrong. Here’s the statement about the retraction from the journal itself.
In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.
In other words, a study that was judged by peers to be scientifically sound, has been disappeared over the murky threats of possible legal action. Let that sink in for a moment: science is undone because some people didn’t like it. The author of the study resided at the time in the UK, where libel laws used to be of a construction specifically designed to fill the courthouses with all manner of craziness. Just recently, the UK has improved its libel laws to lessen the chilling effect of lawsuits from harming the progression of science. On top of that, the internal review at the journal found no issues with the study after making some minor alterations to appease the angry. Frontiers didn’t see fit to re-publish, however.
It is hard to imagine a set of outcomes that would have better remedied each issue flagged by Frontiers as a matter of concern. So it came as quite a shock to hear that the journal had decided to retract the paper ostensibly because “the legal context is insufficiently clear”.
Look, if you’re a climate change denier, that’s cool. I don’t agree with you, but feel free to write up your own research, publish any compelling information you can come up with, and all the rest. Consensus is never something I’ve been much interested in; I’d rather have multiple ideas to choose from and study. And, hey, if you think we never landed on the moon, Hitler was actually fighting the lizard-people now running world government, and 9/11 was all a holographic light-show designed to allow George Bush to fulfill his childhood dream of landing on an aircraft carrier in a flightsuit, have at it. I want you to let me know you believe in that stuff, because that’s how I’ll know to keep my future children away from you.
But the other side of the coin is that we shouldn’t be allowing your side to silence science, either. Fair is fair, after all.
Filed Under: chilling effects, climate change, legal threats, scientific research, uk
Comments on “Chilling Effects: Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared”
You could always go find Al Gore...
And ask him who came up with it, he won the Nobel Peace Prize (which should have gone to the lady who risked her life to save Jews in WW2 by getting them out of Germany and other places in Europe).
But, regardless how one thinks of this, the basic ideas of getting off fossil fuels (we’ll run out within our lifetimes) and finding better, alternative fuels is something I think that should be pushed.
So… Have we mastered Cold Fusion yet?
Re: It was around in the 80's
Megadeth’s bizarre intro track to the awesome song Rust In Peace…Polaris is Dawn Patrol, and the lyrics go “with the warming in effect, our environment was wrecked!” and it goes on saying humanity is now living underground reduced as moles and only coming up at night. hehe
It’s from 1990.
Re: You could always go find Al Gore...
It was a scientist named Wally Broecker: http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/bergen_county_scientist_who_co.html
Re: You could always go find Al Gore...
If you think we will run out of fossil fuels in our lifetime your greatly mistaken, what we will run out of is the $5 per gallon gas but there is shit tons of $10 per gallon and $20 per gallon and $30 per gallon fuel available, just right now it would cost to much to get to it, but once the cheap stuff is gone will will just have to pay more for the next deposit and so on and so on.
Just think of it this way the alberta oil sands are about the size of texas and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Re: Re: You could always go find Al Gore...
If it gets too expensive, it will stop being a viable source of energy for many applications. Once it gets too expensive to be a power source for commercial electricity and transportation, we might as well have run out of it.
I haven’t read the paper but I do think that climate change is a myriad of factors and the “warming” itself is largely overrated. Still, climate change induced by human activity, specially in focused, local areas (sometimes more wide as the case of the oceans that carry stuff from some douche country to other places), is very real.
That said, extremism like that is very harmful. Even if the article as some wacky ideas it should be allowed to be published. It’s up to the authors to provide sound argument to convince the reader and it’s up to the reader to make sure the methodology is reasonable. Even if you disagree with the conclusion there may be tidbits of information inside that are accurate and may even help in further developing the issue.
We are in the age of extremes. Religious zealotry, moral crusade, ethnic ‘purity’, political fundamentalism…. Humanity has to sort it out before engaging in further real development.
Re: Re:
I could not agree with you more.
I won’t deny that humans have an impact on the environment. I want to know realistically how much we do, but because I don’t buy into this religion part of the garbage I get labeled a denier. I just have gotten so sick of the stupidity of the default “your a stupid fundie” if you don’t drink my cool-aid. And believe me, this is on both sides, but the pitch from the left on this is shrill.
Re: Re: Re:
and now we have ‘science’ done by popular proclamation…
excellent, i’m sure that will turn out well:
let’s just all decide gravity is a myth ! ! !
gosh, that sciencey stuff sure is hard, let’s just agree to disagree with it, h’okay ? ? ?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and now we have ‘science’ done by popular proclamation…
That’s an awful lot to read into what the last poster said.
Re: Re:
With this new cold war on the way, with the hypocrite NATO claiming they want to de-escalate something they have started way back in the 90’s by using a drunk tool like Yelstin and stomp on the promise to Gorbachev that ex-ssr’s wouldn’t become NATO countries and paranoia from Europe about Little Russia being in the sphere of friends of Russia forever….I don’t even know if we’ll see the end of the month at given moments sometimes when I let the media overwhelm me (canadian media, especially the normally very neutral CBC is being really close to become what it has never been, a state controlled media, except for the 2 investigative journalism shows on cbc radio…you can bet Herr Harper just loves to keep us in fear. The guy is really out of touch and I don’t know how he manages to be mega belligerent against Russia first and his message always come out after NATO meetings/G7 meetings etc.
I was sick of the joke that was pervasive to the internet from 99 to maybe 2008, but Blame Canada seems like a real slogan to be used for humanity’s progress. Don’t worry though, if we make it to 2015, they are so out of power (the CONservatives), they got in 2006 with talks of transparency and real conservatism, lolnope. I saw it ahead of everyone, as usual. (we are one of the douchest country when it comes to localized environment damaging activities, hope Obama says no to keystone XL and that the cataclysm in northern Alberta is aborted).
Re: Re:
Hm, I have to disagree on extremism being bad – extremism are just extreme poles of distributed data.
It’s the centers shifting that’s worrying me – there are no radical liberals in US, I think. At least comparing to Denmark, for example.
Re: Re: Re:
There are radical liberals in the US, just none in positions of power in government. In fact, there are very few liberals at all, radical or otherwise, in positions of power in government.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, dat.
While I don’t agree with either pole position, I do think that having a roughly equal number of extreme liberals to that of extreme conservatives in power in government would create a middle as people strove to create an equilibrium. It’d be a long and messy journey, but that’d happen in the end. As it is, the whole political spectrum of those in power appears to have lurched sharply to the right with few efforts made to pull it back to anywhere near the center.
I am, perhaps, a little right of center and while I’ve often said I can’t abide right-wingers because they scare the hell out of me I’m not fond of liberals or lefties either because they tend to want to band-aid the problem instead of getting to the root of it and encouraging/enabling people to take personal responsibility. Plus the ones I argue with tend to adopt the polar opposite position of whatever the Right’s is.
What I’m saying is, we need an actual middle, and this needs to be the middle between Left/Liberal and Right, not the middle of the Right.
Re: Re: Re:
Extremism is bad not because you are completely opposed to the other side. It is bad because it usually comes equipped with intolerance. If you are the most religious person but you agree to disagree with others and don’t try to impose your own beliefs on everybody then it’s not extremism, it’s just a polar opinion. Same with politics and other topics.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about extremism in defense of liberty? It’s been said that it’s no vice.
Oh dear ...
What if it is all a big hoax and we make the planet a better place for nothing?
Re: Oh dear ...
understoodthereference.jpg
Re: Oh dear ...
Well, we’ll bulldoze it and start again, of course!
Re: Re: Oh dear ...
Or send the remaining humans to a space station. Then after, say, 97 years, send a team of 100 young people back down to Earth to see if it’s habitable once again.
Re: Oh dear ...
or,
or, oh dear, what if its all a hoax and we borrow and spend trillions of dollars for nothing.
Climate change prevention and even mitigation is not free. That money could be used to feed starving people or improve quality of life. Bjorn Lomborg makes this point exceptionally well.
Actions, even actions to “SAVE the PLANET”? still need to make economic sense.
Re: Re: Oh dear ...
What’s the economic impact of flooding every coastal city in the world by 75ft (conservative) and shrinking the food belts of every nation by 20% (also conservative, I would refer to the IPCC for this)?
Re: Re: Oh dear ...
“borrow and spend trillions of dollars”
Would it really cost that much to reduce levels of pollution? I’d like to see the analyses.
Let’s continue filling the air, rivers and oceans with our unwanted crap because we are too friggin cheap to cleanup after ourselves.
Re: Re: Oh dear ...
“we borrow and spend trillions of dollars for nothing.”
Except that nobody is proposing any such thing. What people are proposing is the development of new industries and technologies that, all by themselves, bring great economic benefits.
Re: Re: Oh dear ...
I might buy that argument a bit better if the people making it were actually making an effort to do that. But, like the ant-abortion fanatics who push for no abortions but also fight for cutting welfare, food stamps and other quality-of-life elements, these people just don’t want to spend money on anything inconvenient like helping others but still want the kudos of claiming that they are.
And ‘saving the planet’ makes a lot of economic sense in itself – but not necessarily for the current generation.
Re: Oh dear ...
What if it is all a big hoax, and we wasted 50 times the resources to try to mitigate problem that does not excited when it could of been spent real useful science and development, and not plumb job and false hockey sticks.
Re: Re: Oh dear ...
Heck of hoax to be carried out by ~20,000 climate scientist around the world.
Re: Re: Oh dear ...
50 times? Where does this number come from?
Problem that does not exist? Denial is horrible way to go. Anyone who thinks there are no problems is certainly being delusional, and many of them get mad when this is pointed out. So yeah – do nothing, good plan.
Re: Oh dear ...
Or is that “a better place for “nothing””. 🙂 If we aren’t careful, that’s what will be inhabiting our planet soon – sigh…
Citing “Peer reviewed” over and over is like a Christian holding up the bible as proof of God. Too many have a vested interest in promoting climate change as completely man made so others can profit from it or exploit it in other ways, so not many dare introduce data or studies that show a different result or risk their careers. Ideas like Cap and Trade are ridiculous, but demonstrate that mentality.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle and extremists from both camps should be ignored equally.
Re: Re:
A great scientist named Greg Graffin PhD, who’s also a great musician has pointed out that constant Appeal to Authority is equal to blind religion positions. I can see where you’re going with this.
Re: Re:
Actually Cap and Trade is a huge step away from the “one patent for a friend and the government is there like stink on cheese”-issues. It is a good example against the small conspiracy theories (Even though a big all-encompassing climate-fascism is impossible to proove and therefore impossible to disproove. It is religion as such and moreover talking points pushed by non-scientists with political agendas.).
Peer review is a Quality Assurance system with some flaws, but mostly it is possible to transverse biased reviewers by publishing elsewhere.
The truth depends on the subject:
If we are talking the scientific angle it is stupid to attack the established facts (scepticism is always warrented with extrapolations, though!).
If we are talking the political angle there is a huge open field where arguing that capping economic development caps innovation and it is therefore reducing the amount solutions to combat climate change is a scientifically sound opinion!
Re: Response to: AjStechd on Apr 4th, 2014 @ 5:31am
Funny thing is, emissions trading was originally a conservative idea back when they still mostly believed CC was real. Also, moderation for the sake of moderation is also flawed
Re: Re: Response to: AjStechd on Apr 4th, 2014 @ 5:31am
We should be focusing on the real science. We have incontrovertible proof that these emissions corrupt plant life in the surrounding areas as well as the harm it does to the human respiration system as a start.
We should be focused on having a clean environment because there is a good reason to do so for pollutions sake alone. Not because of some crazy global warming scare that used to be global cooling and is now ‘Climate Change’ so they can call out humanity no matter which direction it needs to go.
Cap-n-Trade just means you pollute more… someone else gets richer for it. A Very thinly veiled wealth redistribution plot. The only way is… when you pollute without a care to the environment with oil spills or unsafe drilling… well then… you see real jail time, money changing hands only generates corruption… of which your political officials excel at!
Re: peer review
But, part of the problem,is the reviewers. They have/had an agenda. My opinion is the only one that counts. Therefore any refuting study is disregarded. No just disregarded but, some of those studies were doctorate studies that drew a different conclusion. And those people had to change their study to conform or not be degreed.
Is that fair, is that education or science? Or is that the same as a claimed religion?
Re: Re: peer review
I have a hard time making sense of your comment. Peer review doesn’t compare/contrast studies. That’s not the role of it. Peer review doesn’t determine the truth or falsity of a study. It is intended to be a fact-check operation: was the methodology reasonable, does the math work as claimed, etc. It’s a totally different thing than determining truth.
“And those people had to change their study to conform or not be degreed.”
This seems like a highly dubious assertion. Do you have an example? Doctoral theses are not accepted or rejected based on whether they are perceived to be “true” or not. They are accepted or rejected based on the methodology and quality of the paper. Again, a totally different thing.
Scientists as a group love nothing more than having their hypothesis disproved. That’s the only time knowledge advances, and advancing knowledge is what really turns scientists on. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t be scientists.
Re: Re: Re: peer review
People who think that scientists are in some sort of conspiracy to suppress the truth and enshrine the established consensus viewpoint don’t know the first thing abut science.
Who’s the most famous scientist of all time, the guy who was widely recognized as being so brilliant that, even almost a century later, his name is still synonymous with “genius” in the colloquial lexicon, even by people who don’t know anything about science? Yeah, I’m talking about Albert Einstein. But do you know what he actually did to earn that?
He proved that something that everyone had believed was correct–Newton’s laws of motion–were actually wrong. He took the solidly established consensus, found a hole it it, and became the most famous scientist in history. What scientist wouldn’t want to be the next Einstein?
But here’s the truly interesting thing about it: Newton really wasn’t all that wrong. For essentially anything at all that you would want to do on Earth, Newton’s laws still hold, and you’d use them rather than Einstein’s equations in engineering calculations, because they’re simpler. Einstein’s Relativity only becomes relevant in extreme situations, such as space travel.
Applying this logic to the analogous situation, even if “the next Einstein” found an Einstein-sized hole in the science of global warming, this suggests that most of the scientific consensus would still be understood to be valid! So denial simply doesn’t work at all to anyone with even a cursory understanding of science.
Re: Re:
“Peer reviewed” doesn’t equate to (and isn’t intended to equate to) “proven,” although both the press and a distressing percentage of the public seem to think otherwise. No respectable scientist will say a paper proves or disproves anything simply on the basis that it was peer reviewed.
How confident scientists are in research results is directly related to how many scientists were able to independently get get same results. By that measure, climate change has a very high level of confidence.
Re: Response to: AjStechd on Apr 4th, 2014 @ 5:31am
Yeah, peer reviewed science is science, unless you’d prefer non peer reviewed science, which usually goes by one of its more common names, fraud, quackery or propaganda
Re: Re:
Peer-reviewed research is (and was, even when UK libel law was at its worst) largely protected, because it is accepted as being based on a well-founded belief of the truth of the statements.
Thus, for legitimate research which has been peer-reviewed to be withdrawn from publication because of fears of a libel suit is a Bad Thing.
Of course, the same people that complained would be the first to cry “censorship!” and moan about the unfair silencing of one side of the argument if it had been a paper from “their side” that had been treat like this
It should have been retracted
I normally agree with Techdirt, but there were good reasons for this particular paper to be retracted. There’s not a link to the retraction statement itself, but here it is: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full
Richard Tol’s comment is particularly enlightening as to why the journal did what it did. A more detailed analysis of the paper’s flaws and discussions leading up to retraction can be found at http://www.climateaudit.org.
Re: It should have been retracted
I think the Science should be out there to stand on its own 2 feet, wrong or not.
What got all of this Psuedo Science rolling along was the Idea that the community is saying what should and should not be published!
I am very much on the fence on the “true” cause of ‘Climate Change’, but we should set the information free, that is the true essence of Science! Let his ideas get the scrutiny it deserves for better or worse! You cannot have Science beneath the sheets, under the covers, behind the scenes, or legal meanderings!
Re: It should have been retracted
I don’t think there would be a problem if it was simply retracted, but the issue of libel muddies things up
Re: It should have been retracted
Here’s everything you need to know about climate audit and the guy who runs the site
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
“See, what a term like “global warming” does is allow the guy in the cubicle next to me to point out of the window in Chicago and say, “If global warming is true, why is it snowing out again?””
Only if he’s stupid enough to not realise that the first word of that very term makes whatever he sees outside of his window irrelevant. But, somebody that ignorant isn’t going to suddenly accept science and logic because a different term is used. He’d probably just whine that the climate isn’t changing because it’s the same temperature outside as it was the day before, being just as obnoxious with his ignorance of what “climate” is…
While man-made climate change does happen, it’s mostly localized. The major “global warming” issue with the Midwest’s cold snap has to do with a certain long-winded named volcano that erupted in 2010 in Greenland. The ice caps aren’t melting either…They are actually getting bigger as we are overdue for another ice age…though I don’t think that will happen in any of our lifetimes.
Re: Re:
So it’s not farting cows?
More garbage
There was a time when the majority of the “PSEUDOScientific” community said that TransFats were PERFECTLY SAFE! There was also a time when a vast majority of people thought the Earth was flat too! Care to use those numbers to support your tripe?
The word “Climate Change” is every bit as bad as “Global Warming” it should have a name that directly implies that it is believed that HUMANS caused it. Of which there is no proof. The Global warming collectivists serve to reveal that Global Warming, Cooling, Change is nothing more than a politically motivated RELIGION!
There is a very specific reason these terms were used! And its not about being accurate!
Re: More garbage
Do you usually find that ranting like a lunatic and launching baseless accusations against people gets them to agree with you?
If you guys want to convince anyone, try a reasoned argument without name-calling and backed with evidence. No, random quotes from people who work in a completely different field and studies funded by petrochemical giants don’t count. If you can come up with something else, let’s discuss it. Else I’m going to go with the people who sound like they’re familiar with the concept of sanity, even if they’ve made mistakes in the past, thank you very much.
“it should have a name that directly implies that it is believed that HUMANS caused it”
Why? Besides, there is such a term – anthropogenic climate change. Guess why it’s been shortened? Hint: the people who can’t understand that global warming is global can’t quite process the multi-syllabled correct terminology.
Re: Re: More garbage
2 Things… treating people like they are stupid benefits no one. The name should stay not be shortened… there is reason it was shortened and there is a post here already doing a good job of explaining why.
The other… where did I call anyone a name?
I do not have to offer evidence. I am saying YOUR EVIDENCE does not convince me. This does not require me to run off and fun my own research.
If I see a broken glass with a baseball sitting next to it, there is evidence to suggest that the glass was broken by the baseball… however it does not prove anything. The glass may have been broken by a hammer and the baseball’s presence mere coincidence.
The problem is all of the cooking of the evidence to lead people by their nose hairs to a conclusion. This is no genuine! When I see evidence that appears to be a bit more conclusive then you might win me over.
And on a last thought… I am not here to win people to a side… I don’t have one… I am acting like a parent telling everyone that they need to stop turning this debate into a religious convent where people are having a revival.
Re: Re: Re: More garbage
That is an unfortunate position: You are defending a position of no evidence of anthropogenic climate change and you are calling evidence not convincing of the opposite. The problem is that you are merely defending a status quo of no evidence for either rather than evidence to the contrary.
It is a situation where you have insufficient evidence for one side, but no evidence for the other…
You are not acting like a neutral voice here. By denying evidence you are taking a stance.
Re: Re: Re:2 More garbage
See there?
I said not enough to convince and I got labeled a denier. That is the crux of the problem right there.
“Drink my cool-aid Denier!!!” is all I read.
Re: Re: Re:3 More garbage
You are not even trying…
Denying that there is evidence to convice is by definition a denial of the content of the evidence. I am not trying to poison any wells here, your position is just impossible to reason with.
Re: Re: Re:3 More garbage
There is a breadth of evidence arguing that there is anthropogenic climate change. The disagreement is to what extent is the anthropogenic component playing a role.
That argument that you are saying (that there isn’t enough to convince you) is all well and good. but that is you denying that humans have played a part in climate change. So, it is reasonable to call you a denier of anthropogenic climate change.
Does that make more sense now?
Re: Re: Re:3 More garbage
No sonny. I disagree with many things the “global warming” crowd say but unless you’ve been living under a rock you’ll see that there is something wrong with the climate, empirically speaking. I also disagree with the deniers simply because I’m seeing first hand all the ways we are fucking up with nature as a whole (I work with environmental monitoring).
What I do question is the way people are trying to tackle the climate issue. Trapping carbon dioxide is an idiocy. Instead they could be using that energy that would go down the drain to build better pollution removal systems. Carbon dioxide in the air doesn’t do shit. Nitrous oxides, sulfur, dioxins and the likes are pure poison ready to fuck up a myriad of things. But air is still not the worst of our problems. Trash, overexploitation of natural resources and polluted liquid effluents will do the job faster than any coal plant driven economy can ever think of doing.
Re: Re: Re:4 More garbage
Problem with statement is that the climate we are experiencing may not be “wrong”. Undoubtedly, it is problematic for our civilisation in very many ways, but to say that there is something wrong with it is jumping to a conclusion that can only be described as an opinion.
There is quite a lot of historical data available (you do need to look into the records for the last century and a half) that seriously indicates that what we are seeing now is part of a cyclic pattern. I find it interesting that it is commonly reported that we are seeing unprecedented changes when I recall from my own youth, the same events occurring year on year.
I do agree that we need to be much more careful with our natural resources and the contaminants we released.
Re: Re: Re:5 More garbage
“There is quite a lot of historical data available (you do need to look into the records for the last century and a half) that seriously indicates that what we are seeing now is part of a cyclic pattern. I find it interesting that it is commonly reported that we are seeing unprecedented changes when I recall from my own youth, the same events occurring year on year.”
The anecdotal data isn’t what’s worrying. The worrying bits are raising sea surface temperature and higher global temperature averages. There is ice core data going back 100k years along with many other kinds of data that go into cyclic analyses. There are certain periods we expect to see rising and lower temperatures based on changing distance from the sun, axial tilt and even periodic changes in solar output.
Cyclic variation can be accounted for. There is still some worrying excess.
Re: Re: Re:6 Deforestation
One thing that comes to my mind a lot is the deforestation factor. I don’t claim to be an expert in the field, but I can’t help but wonder about the effects of massive deforestation across the planet. I find it worrying that this doesn’t ever seem to be mentioned as something that might affect climate.
Re: Re: Re: More garbage
“The name should stay not be shortened… there is reason it was shortened and there is a post here already doing a good job of explaining why.”
Really? Where? My experience is simply that the people who get confused by “global warming” generally can’t pronounce anthropogenic, let alone define it… If people get confused by the first word in the term “global warming”, will they really understand the full correct terminology?
“The other… where did I call anyone a name?”
Really? Saying “collectivists”, “PSEUDOScientific community”, etc. doesn’t seem like name-calling to you? Childish, at the very least…
“The problem is all of the cooking of the evidence to lead people by their nose hairs to a conclusion. “
…and your evidence of this is….?
That’s the funniest thing about this argument. We’re meant to believe massive collusion among all the experts in this particular field (but not consider the same of the “opposing” research, of course), but there’s little to suggest any actual wrongdoing. The “controversies” so far have been pretty weak attempts, and few of the “experts” opposing this even work in a similar field. If you disagree, present your evidence for doing so.
“If I see a broken glass with a baseball sitting next to it, there is evidence to suggest that the glass was broken by the baseball… however it does not prove anything. The glass may have been broken by a hammer and the baseball’s presence mere coincidence.”
But, you ignore anyone’s fully confirmed research that the baseball was at fault, while refusing to present any evidence that a hammer was even present, let alone the sole culprit.
I’m happy to accept that climate change isn’t 100% drive by humans. But, I’m yet to see anything convincing that we’re not at least partially responsible. Why don’t you try since you’re the “adult” here? Links, please.
“I am not here to win people to a side… I don’t have one”
Then why are you just attacking one side? There’s a reasoned argument to be had here. “PSEUDOScientific”, “RELIGION”, etc. sure as hell doesn’t bear any resemblance to one. Trying to act superior along with your ranting doesn’t lend any credence to a word you say.
Re: Re: Re:2 More garbage
Really? Saying “collectivists”, “PSEUDOScientific community”, etc. doesn’t seem like name-calling to you? Childish, at the very least…
I will respond to this part… I will leave you to the rest of your comments as other posts have addressed most if not all.
Collectivists is a term to identify a group of people I am talking about. Are you saying they are not collectivists? I am willing to be corrected if you can convince me.
On using Pseudo Science. How else would you say that I can tell people that I believe they have devolved into whacky non pure science? That one term does a fantastic job of describing what I think about it. It is not intended to be ad-hominem like ‘retard’ or ‘assclown’, you are just taking it that way and I cannot stop you. I truly believe the religious advance of this climate change movement is spawned of unmitigated pseudoscience. There are real scientific pursuits to be engaged in. And I am more than fine continuing and encouraging even more research into these things… but not with the pseudo’s we have running around right now.
The risks are too great to leave this sort of thing in over zealous hands!
Re: Re: Re:3 More garbage
Oh dear, so you won’t debate any of the other points, and just claim that someone else has addressed it. You, of course, won’t link to the comments and what you think they confirm. You won’t link to anything supporting your own blind assertion. You won’t even describe the exact definition of the terms you’re using (you are using at least one term wrongly, from what I can see).
But, of course, everyone in the relevant scientific field agrees among themselves so they must be “zealots” and we have to agree with your definition of this with no supporting evidence.
Sorry, you’re convincing nobody.
“There are real scientific pursuits to be engaged in.”
Why is the study of the planet’s climate and/or the effect of what we’re doing to it not a “real scientific pursuit”? You’re not only attacking the conclusions and research of climatologists, but rejecting the entire field entirely? On what basis, other than the fact you don’t like the fact they mostly agree with one another?
” I truly believe the religious advance of this climate change movement is spawned of unmitigated pseudoscience.”
Are you aware that there’s a difference between the “climate change movement” and the science it’s based upon, or are you one of those morons who just rejects the idea because Al Gore supports it?
Re: Re: Re:3 More garbage
I dislike the term “pseudoscience” because nobody has ever found a clear way to distinguish it from real science without begging many questions.
It seems to me that nearly every criterion advanced as a marker of pseudoscience has been shown to be true of some paradigmatic example of good science.
Heliocentrism is a great example: what the Church did the Galileo was definitively wrong, but at the time the scientific community adopted it, there actually wasn’t a lot of evidence for his position. The planets should vary in brightness far more than they do to the naked eye, and there was not yet a good theory of optics that explained why the telescope was more reliable when used for astronomy. (The prevailing theory predicted that anything set precisely at the focal point of the telescope should appear infinitely far away, which of course does not happen.)
If there were actually a master scientific method that let you know when a hypothesis is irreparably refuted, the term would make sense, but there isn’t and science is full of comeback kids (e.g. atomism fell out of favor for most of the 19th century). The best we can do is compare the relative status of scientific hypotheses in terms of predictive power vs. how many ad hoc alterations have had to be made to save the core idea (a la Lakatos).
Re: Re: Re:4 More garbage
My definition of pseudoscience is “Any scientific discovery that is either directly or indirectly allowed to be polluted for ANY purpose other than Scientific advancement.” So yes, if a scientist does his work honestly but still allows a political movement to highjack his work then it just became psuedoscience, because his work is now being removed from the science where it HAD a chance of objectivity. The political process effectively removes that objectivity with excessive force.
The source of funding is a concern, however can be easily seen through as good and proper research will reveal itself for what it is.
I hear constantly that the community said this is a done deal, yet I also hear that this is not so.. Whom do I believe? Certainly not the ones sounding religious over it. I am religious myself… I know what it looks like and baby… I see twins when you set global warming right next to another religion right now.
Your historical view of “Heliocentrism” could use some refining. Galileo was accosted by the church more by his disrespectful comments towards it… not specifically for his theory. Furthermore… it is on record that he hesitated to publish his owns finding because he believed fellow (non religious)scientists might spurn his findings not just the Church. His theories were not so as accepted as you claim. There is debate even there on how well his theories were accepted but to this day does reveal how horrible humans are at remaining objects… no matter which side you are taking.
Re: Re: Re:5 More garbage
You can define pseudoscience any way you want. But what’s the common definition?
I know science works like this.
First, you become familiar with a specific field of science.
You prove your knowledge thru degrees (Bachelor’s, Master’s, etc). You contribute to your field with a PhD.
Starting with an hypothesis (educated guess), you seek to answer a question within your field.
You then think up what evidence/observations/experiments that help back up your hypothesis or disprove it.
You then proceed with your evidence/observations/experiments.
You then provide this to some of your colleagues in the same field. They repeat the same evidence/observations. If they match up, you write up a paper, present to a scientific journal for all your colleagues to review.
If there is a consensus, it’s a theory.
pseudoscience doesn’t follow that methodology.
Climate science does.
Re: Re: Re:6 More garbage
This is the “travel brochure” version of how science works. Start looking deeper (e.g. Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend) and you’ll see that it has many exceptions.
Re: Re: Re:7 More garbage
Aye it was meant to be the quick/dirty version. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:5 More garbage
My definition of pseudoscience is “Any scientific discovery that is either directly or indirectly allowed to be polluted for ANY purpose other than Scientific advancement.” So yes, if a scientist does his work honestly but still allows a political movement to highjack his work then it just became psuedoscience
That strikes me as an unreasonably high standard for science. It’s also not always a scientist’s fault when their ideas are hijacked ? did Social Darwinism, which Darwin despised but was powerless to stop its proliferation, invalidate the theory of evolution? And it’s certainly not the idea’s fault.
Your historical view of “Heliocentrism” could use some refining.
My elaboration of it was oversimplified but I don’t believe it differs substantively from your own. I still believe Galileo’s punishment was unjust because the Church had no business getting involved in the first place. Still, he got away easy in comparison to some others.
Re: Re: Re:3 More garbage
“Collectivists is a term to identify a group of people I am talking about. Are you saying they are not collectivists? I am willing to be corrected if you can convince me.”
This is illogical bordering on the bizarre. You have defined “collectivist” to mean “the people I am talking about,” and then say you are willing to be corrected if you can be convinced. You are saying “I use the term “x” to mean “y”, prove me wrong.” That’s a meaningless thing to say because it’s obviously true that you use the term “x” to mean “y”.
“How else would you say that I can tell people that I believe they have devolved into whacky non pure science?”
So you admit that this is name-calling. A better approach would be to say something like “I don’t think that climate researchers have reached the correct conclusions, and this is why…”
Re: Re: Re:4 More garbage
So are you saying there are people with a collectivist mindset… that do not believe in Global warming?
This is where you convince me that I am using the incorrect name.
I have used the wrong word before I trying to describe something, it happens… I am willing to be corrected, but since you have seemed to outwit yourself, I am not sure if you contributed to the conversation. Ask a specific question, you will get a specific answer.
Re: Re: Re:5 More garbage
“So are you saying there are people with a collectivist mindset… that do not believe in Global warming?”
You need to define what you mean by “collectivist mindset” in order for me to answer that question.
Re: Re: Re: More garbage
Agreed, up to the last line.
I don’t ever recall hearing about a revival meeting at a convent. Revivals are staged to bring strays back to the faith and bring in new faithful. Convents are already populated by the faithful.
Although the image of a bunch on nuns having an old fashioned revival is fun.
Re: Re: Re:2 More garbage
lol, I don’t always use the best euphemisms… even though I try to.
I will stand corrected! But I think most people got what I wanted to say, however I always prefer clarity to agreement.
That clarity comment was taken from Dennis Prager, for those that recognize it.
Re: Re: More garbage
Well said sir , Well said.
Re: More garbage
Sometimes I think all of this is a red herring for something more nefarious that will be caused by humans who will try to reduce population by using devices that indeed cause very large sudden warming…
Then I take my meds.
Re: More garbage
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1z1hyo/two_of_the_worlds_most_prestigious_science/cfpy15c
“Let’s be honest here. These climate change scientists do climate science for a living. Surprise! Articles. Presentations. Workshops. Conferences. Staying late for science. Working on the weekends for science. All of those crappy holidays like Presidents’ Day? The ones you look forward to for that day off of work? Those aren’t holidays. Those are the days when the undergrads stay home and the scientists can work without distractions.
Now take a second before you drop your knowledge bomb on this page and remind me again… What’s your day job? When was the last time you read through an entire scholarly article on climate change? How many climate change journals can you name? How many conferences have you attended? Have you ever had coffee or a beer with a group of colleagues who study climate change? Are you sick of these inane questions yet?”
You’re really going to dismiss the finding of an entire branch of science? You think you know better? Go on then, tell me what profound evidence you have to support your claims!
Re: More garbage
Actually, they are going back to trans fats being reasonably safe again in their most recent research.
But there is an enormous amount of difference between the effects of food on the diets of humans than there is the study of other subjects.
Re: Re: More garbage
They were probably paid to generate a “study” which claims hydrolyzed vegetable fat is not bad for you. BPA is also “good for you” wink wink.
Re: Re: Re: More garbage
And the basis for that statement is what?
Re: Re: Re:2 More garbage
“And the basis for that statement is what?”
Past experience with un-sourced statements about “they” and what their new research reveals. Perhaps a link to this new research claiming trans fat is ok would be appropriate, oh and you might want to include who funded same.
Remember the studies on smoking that claimed it did not cause health issues? I wonder who funded those.
Re: More garbage
Climate Change is now being used because they were once again wrong with Global Warming when it’s actually been Cooling! See you can never be wrong with Climate Change. It can go up, it can go down and you’d be always correct.
The Climate is always changing. There’s been a couple BIG Ice Ages and a number of small ones. Without Climate Change, New York would be under a couple miles of ice!!! How did the Earth Warm up and then Cool down and then Warm up over and over again without MAN or Few people, let alone burning Oil???
How come it has been Warming up on MARS? Is there a bunch of cars driving around on the surface I don’t know about???
The Climate is always changing. Guess what, warming weather has a lot of pluses. Longer growing season. Less need to heat homes burning fuel!!
Cap & Trade would do what? NOTHING. Not a single thing to change anything other then just a Grand Scale of Spreading the Wealth. That’s money from the U.S. and Europe and other rich countries to the Poor Countries that have Carbon Credit because they have no Industry. In the middle there’s people like Al Gore that get Rich on this garbage!!! A person that has a HUGE Carbon footprint over that of dozen’s of normal Family’s!!!
The Ice Pack has been GROWING, but it just doesn’t matter. It’s all about CONTROL over YOU! For these other people, they’ll continue to do what they’re doing. They’re Rich, it doesn’t matter if Gas is $15 a gallon to them. You on the other hand can’t afford it and will be on a bike or Public Transportation like the rest of the little people.
“See, what a term like “global warming” does is allow the guy in the cubicle next to me to point out of the window in Chicago and say, “If global warming is true, why is it snowing out again?””
(During Winter)
Look it’s snowing in the winter! Global Warming is a hoax!
(During Summer)
Look it’s over 100 degrees today in the summer! When will you fools admit that global warming is real and we must do something about it!
Re: Re:
Well said! ha ha hahaaaa!
I have a damn awful taste in my mouth from reading this. Fucking disgraceful, is about the inly way i can sum it up.
I'd rather have multiple ideas to choose from and study
This doesn’t sound like the case seeing as how you call anyone who doesn’t buy into the modeling and “consensus” as deniers. Implicitly linking people you don’t agree with to people who don’t believe that the holocaust actually occurred is pretty underhanded. Im not sure if that is an example of godwins law or reductio ad hitlerum or if it needs it’s own category. Regardless, the tactic is cheap and is contradictory to the spirit of science.
Points to consider…
Geocentrism was once considered settled science. God knows how many ass-backwards (or what we now believe to be ass-backwards) things once had a scientific consensus. Also see global cooling scare.
Climate is constantly changing. You have the dust bowl. Medieval warm period. Little ice age.
We are exiting an ice age/progressing through an interglacial period.
Reliable and accurate satellite observations of worldwide weather has only been around for 30-40 years. The ten most recent years have see temperature level off even though green house gas emissions have continued to climb. Sample size is inadequate.
All predictions by people/organizations that say there is no doubt, at least the highly publicized ones, have been wrong.
Scientific method calls for hypotheses that can be tested and tests repeated. If the models predictions are wrong, the hypothesis needs to be re-examined.
There are thousand if not millions of variables that impact climate.
Whatever… The main point of what Im saying, is that people who are sceptical of the science used to push environmental policies are hardly irrational. I expect better than ad-hominem attacks(comparing your opponents to the mentally ill conspiracy theorists) when Im reading techdirt.
Im not a climatologist or a mathematician, so I have no business speculating either way.
There is good reading to be had out there. Check out the climate etc blog sometime.
Since this post has been completely off topic, let me get to that: Yup, censoring scientific research is complete bullshit. Frontiers should be ashamed of themselves.
Re: I'd rather have multiple ideas to choose from and study
Uh-ho… introducing logic to this equation will cause noggins to go Nuke-U-lur around here.
But yea, the ad-hominem is all about shutting down the debate not advancing any aspect of it.
Re: I'd rather have multiple ideas to choose from and study
The full holocaust deniers have often been proven to be jewish themselves. There was industrial killing of human beings, jews, russian pows, poles, various slavs, all were untermensch…the 6 million number does not make sense as there was never that many Jews in Europe then.
I’m quite well versed into this subject, I love history and history that isn’t acknowledged by the mainstream is often proven true years later. This is just a very big secret, so much it is illegal to deny the official story in Canada…
But indeed, jews were persecuted and worked to death in concentration camps, stories of holocaust survivers often say that they were mistreated and sometimes well treated, because to Nazis the experiments done on them was in the name of cold “science”. But many were just there and when food stopped coming to the camps, the SS guards started to starve to death too.
All of this is just very un-PC to say. I do not mean to offend anyone and am not racist.
From what I know about the subject at hand, it seems like nature is on climate change itself, and we humans are pushing it faster, we should do our very best to diversify energy sources so that oil lasts as long as possible until it is no longer necessary, but that might take a while when major polluters like my own country (sorry, I think we’re worse than America since a while now). But even China is working towards Green energy now, the excuse that “fast developing countries not giving a shit about the environment so why should we” is now over.
Herr Harper is trying to push through a very undemocratic (academic experts and Elections Canada both think such) and there is such a backlash that they are pretending to be cooperating with the opposition(s) now…for now all I can do is lie there and wait until 2015 when we finally toss out those Neanderthals.
Re: I'd rather have multiple ideas to choose from and study
I agree — many different ideas are critical! However, in the realm of science, these ideas are put to the test and if they fail, they are put in the “unlikely to be fact” pile. It advances nothing to continue to treat such ideas as likely truth.
“Geocentrism was once considered settled science”
No, it wasn’t. There’s no such thing as “settled science”. Geocentrism was considered a prevailing hypothesis, and was informed by and pushed as “settled fact” by religion, not science.
Science is what disproved geocentrism.
“Also see global cooling scare.”
Again, that didn’t come from science. That came from the popular press.
“Reliable and accurate satellite observations of worldwide weather has only been around for 30-40 years”
True, which is why climate change science does not draw any conclusions from those observations.
“All predictions by people/organizations that say there is no doubt, at least the highly publicized ones, have been wrong.”
Scientists haven’t, and don’t say things like “there is no doubt”. You’re confusing the popular press with scientists again.
Whilst we all appreciate the title of this article, can you stop using the term “Chilling Effects” so often?
That is indeed bad...
… almost as bad as shutting down an entire journal because it published an article doubting global warming, right?
(I sincerely hope that Timmy starts defending IP soon; then I can just ignore him as a 100% idiot.)
Re: That is indeed bad...
There are a couple of problems with your assertion.
First, Pattern Recognition in Physics is not considered a reputable scientific journal, so you can’t impugn “science” by what it does. it was only in existence for about a year.
Second, the reasons that they gave for killing the journal had nothing whatsoever to do with the article in question doubting global warming. The reasons were accusations of unprofessional behavior serious enough to pretty much ensure that the journal couldn’t be taken seriously.
For a publishing group like Copernicus, publishing a journal that looks like it has shady or dubious practices is poison and casts doubt on all of the other journals they publish.
Shutting down the journal seems drastic, but it also seem justifiable.
You may think they’re lying about why they shut down the journal (I assume that you do), but unless you can come up with support for that, the shutting of the journal isn’t an example of what you think it is.
Re: That is indeed bad...
Oh, and apparently the paper was retracted because it was just bad:
Frontiers did not ?cave in to threats?; in fact, Frontiers received no threats.
Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Question 1: Do you hold at least a BS degree in one or more of climatology, meteorology, physics or chemistry?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
Question 2: Have you read at least one textbook on climatology?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
Question 3: Have you read the latest IPCC scientific assessment? (It’s here, by the way: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/ and it’s about 2000 pages.)
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
Question 4: Have you read the latest IPCC report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters? (It’s here: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ and about 600 pages.)
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
You are, in all cases, free to hold your own opinion, no matter how uninformed and ignorant. But you should not speak on the issue, because you haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about. It’s beyond your comprehension.
You can, of course, readily fix that problem. You can educate yourself — much easier now than it once was thanks to a plethora of online resources. You can learn basic thermodynamics, carbon chemistry, stochastic processes, fluid mechanics and so on. In fact, I strongly encourage you to do so, and to read the reports referenced above so that you possess at least a modicum of knowledge on the subject. At that point, maybe, you will be worthy of the privilege of expressing an opinion.
But as long as you choose to be lazy and wallow in ignorance, anything and everything you say on the topic may be instantly dismissed, with prejudice, because, like I said, you are not worth to speak. You haven’t earned that right.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Please stop voting… there is no way you have enough knowledge to know which leaders are in the best position to be deciding our fates.
A formal education will not prevent corruption. And there is plenty of it. Neither will a formal education ensure that a Professional with a Degree is more capable than a caveman fresh off a pachyderm.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Ha. Good rational arguments there bud.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
I tell you another reason why I consider this junk science and this article is a piece in the puzzle:
there is no scientific discourse.
The IPCC climate change believers (yes believers, I get to it) have unilaterally declared the discourse is over. Scientific publications questioning it are not considered at all, they are dismissed or made disappear (like this one), their authors are ridiculed and their scientific career irreversibly destroyed. These people only consider studies that support their beliefs and anything that disagrees needs to be silenced.
This is not science, this is dogma. Climate chage has changed from a science into a religion and the deniers (what a wonderfully revealing term) are the heretics that need to be punished.
And this tells me it is most likely wrong, because if it would be correct there would be no need to let studies disappear and silence their authors.
Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Bullshit. The reason discourse is over about climate change is because that part of the science is over. Just like gravity, electricity, germ theory, etc.
It’s up to somebody to produce evidence to the contrary that can withstand scrutiny of the scientific method if that’s to change. They can’t so far, so they run off to other methods (websites, blogs, commentaries).
Re: Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Bullshit. The reason discourse is over about climate change is because that part of the science is over. Just like gravity, electricity, germ theory, etc.
Bullshit. Scientific discourse, per definition, is NEVER over.
If new information come to light that call theories into question, they have to be considered.
Here we have the case where evidence and competing theories are not even considered. This is not science anymore.
Re: Re: Re:2 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
It is over when it’s pretty solid. Climate change is pretty solid when there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists.
The refinements continue but you don’t hear biologists argue over germ theory, etc.
You don’t even know what a theory is. There is no competing theory in climate change.
IF you knew what science is, you would have used a different word other than theory.
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
“It is over when it’s pretty solid. Climate change is pretty solid when there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists.”
no. it is NEVER over. you can never prove a theory, just disprove it. Even if a theory has not been refuted for a century or more it does not become fact. You can never know when new knowledge comes around that may do so. Theories have to be constantly reevaluated based on new knowledge.
You declaring ANYTHING scientific as over, that has not been thoroughly DISPROVED, shows only your fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific methods.
Re: Re: Re:4 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
If there is a theory, then it has it’s facts. Without facts, there is no theory.
Are you sure you don’t know about that other word they use in the scientific methodology?
It’s a shame common day language throws around the ‘theory’ as if it meant ‘guess’.
Re: Re: Re:5 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
a theory is a theory and not a believe because it makes prediction that can eventually be tested.
And it is these predictions that are to be tested. If the experiment confirms some or all of the predictions, a theory is valid, (but never final), if only one is disproven, the theory is disproven.
A theory may be based on observed facts, but doesn’t have to be.
That is how you deal with theories.
Theory, YOU are using this word, It doesn’t mean what you think it means…
Re: Re: Re:6 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
I know what it means exactly and you’ve described it pretty well.
I’ve been using the word theory since that’s what you’ve been using.
It seemed like you didn’t know what it meant.
Now what is the word for an untested theory in science methodology?
Re: Re: Re:7 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
hypothesis. This is the first time I have seen anyone in a public forum actually mention this difference.
Re: Re: Re:8 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Bingo. A theory is not a guess. Even a hypothesis is more than guess. An educated guess would be more like a hypothesis.
Re: Re: Re:9 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Still, the point is a theory is never finalized, the discourse is never over. Declaring a discourse over is unscientific and seriously damaging the credibility of the one declaring it over, It is a very serious mistake.
That is equal to proclaiming to be the only one to have the absolute truth, and that is what religions do, not scientists.
They want to get the “deniers” to shut up? well first of all, stop calling them deniers, that is an unjustified ad hominem. Then, finally take part in an actual and honest discourse and make a honest and thorough effort to work with those sceptical scientists and put all the theories to the test (at this point I would say, even the outlandish ones deserve this scrutiny in an attempt to undo the damage the “believers” have done so far).
As it is going now, they will never have a chance convince the sceptics, because of how poorly they follow proper scientific procedures. Only when they finally face the questions and discussions can something worthwhile come out of it.
Personally, I don’t know enough about this specific field of science to evaluate the works of either side, but the way how sceptical works are dismissed and their authors treated tells me enough about their validity to be deeply concerned.
Re: Re: Re:10 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
A year ago, I was skeptical about global warming because I didn’t look into it.
Then I started to. I found the deniers to be alot like creationists. I even found a website for the deniers stating an oath to denial because the Bible said it was so. Pretty shocking, but I didn’t let that be a tipping point.
The science for climate change is there.
CO2 increasing, actual temps increasing. CO2 of the isotope only found in fossil fuels being the greatest source. Islanders in the Pacific noticing sea levels rising.
Satellites measuring energy input to Earth/Output from Earth. The result? Earth holding onto that energy more over time.
Glacier melt rate overall, increasing over time.
So, it would take some evidence to address these to change my mind.
Go…
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
The AC is right. The discourse is never over. When new evidence comes into play, the discourse resumes.
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
That whole 97% agree is a huge pile of B.S. LIE!!! That so called fact thrown around is not even close to the fact. That’s been debunked! Here’s a few links!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Come on that’s FORBES!!! Surprise, Surprise, once again doctoring the results to get what they want that lie of 97%!!!
Re: Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
oh and as a bonus, nobody knows yet what gravity actually is. You can measure it but you can’t explain it. The discourse there is very much alive still.
same with the others, electricity (or rather electromagnetism) is till worked on a lot as well, especially in theories trying to create a general theory about the 4 fundamental powers (strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, gravity).
so you are very wrong in declaring those as done. The same counts for AGW, calling the discourse done, is not scientific in any way.
Re: Re: Re:2 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Really, they still argue about what gravity does (ie it doesn’t exist) and electromagnetism (ie it doesn’t exist)?
Interesting.
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Actually yes, they are still refining theories on gravity and of course other errata that may or may not play a part it its effects.
However, I can say that no ‘religious’ factions have formed in the science that I can immediately identify, not in the way that climate change has.
Re: Re: Re:4 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Gravity, Evolution, Big Bang, Climate change. They all undergo the same treatment of the scientific method.
Why is climate change different?
Re: Re: Re:5 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
because the proponents of climate change don’t allow the discourse to happen. Competing theories are summarily ignored.
Re: Re: Re:6 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
What competing theories? Please reference the peer-reviewed papers when mentioning these other theories.
Re: Re: Re:7 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Got him there, he could at least produce links, right?
Re: Re: Re:7 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
how about the peer reviewed article mentioned in this very article?
Re: Re: Re:8 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Uh, that’s more a sociology paper comparing climate deniers to other conspiracy ‘nuts’, not a paper on climate change.
Please provide links to the peer-reviewed theories countering AGW theories.
Re: Re: Re:6 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
“Competing theories are summarily ignored.”
Evidence, please?
Re: Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
What if… someone sees the evidence YOU ALREADY provide as “evidence to the contrary”.
You assume that people will arrive at the same conclusion as you do reading up on the evidence. They may very well say, this evidence does not convince me or that they see another conclusion entirely.
yes yes… see it my way or you are an idiot denier!.. catching the pattern here?
Or the best yet… go and provide contrary research! Sorry, you provide research when you are wanting to prove something… You side wants to me life altering changes for your cause… PROVE IT… don’t say, prove us wrong… that is a juvenile argument.
Re: Re: Re:2 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Or the best yet… go and provide contrary research! Sorry, you provide research when you are wanting to prove something… You side wants to me life altering changes for your cause… PROVE IT… don’t say, prove us wrong… that is a juvenile argument.
small defense here, all competing theories have to disprove each other.
The problem with AGW is, competing theories are not allowed into the “discourse”. That means you can’t prove them wrong because they are not allowing you to attempt it.
That is religious dogma.
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
you mean the competing ‘theories’ are so bad, they won’t even consider them? Why would they waste their time?
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Still on that?
I am not trying to convince the world that is NOT happening. Your ARE! YOU Must provide the evidence. It is up to me and others if they choose to…
1. Trust if it was honestly collected, reviewed, and presented.
2. Agree or disagree with the findings regardless of the quality or honesty of them.
It is not up to me to prove or disprove your idea to the world. It is up to me to decide if your evidence is not enough to convince me to side with you and support you.
I follow science and read extensively on certain subjects. Nothing about this debate is scientific… its dogmatic. I do not blame it 100% on the scientific community because I know politics has grabbed it by the short and curlies, but they still can be blamed for allowing biased funding into manipulating their mind sets.
When scientist that already believes in their cause sets about their experimentation, they will by human nature corrupt their own research even if they do a fairly good job of censoring their non scientific urges to pollute the experiment. They will do so unconsciously! And more than anything… the absolute fervent stomp fest that occurs when someone says they are not convinced is the greatest reason for accusation against you that I can find to call it all into question. No one without anything to hide does this sort of thing.
Again… YOU have the burden of proof… not I!
Re: Re: Re:4 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
ignore the actual proof = idiot
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
“There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.”
-Bertrand Russel
Re: Re: Re:2 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
lolwot?
a) You “carry out” research
b) In an attempt to see IF a theory is true or not
Your wording shows the mindset and lack of understanding on how the scientific method works. You’re not an “idiot denier”, just a regular idiot who believes vested interests over mass amounts of collected data.
ps…
Do you know that scientists will get grants to study something BEFORE the outcome is known?
The scientists didn’t know how much co2 was trapped in ice cores before they studied them.
The scientists didn’t know the map of tree rings, hence “tree growth rates throughout time”, before they studied them.
The scientists didn’t know the rate that the ice caps melt, before they studied them.
The scientists didn’t know the atmospheric makeup, before they studied it.
The scientists didn’t even know the average global temperature until they studied it.
To say there is some sort of conspiracy among the thousands of independent and initially, totally unrelated studies is complete “idiot talk”.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Did you even read what I wrote? You didnt respond to anything I said. In fact, I said I didnt have an opinion because I wasnt qualified to have one.
I did say that there is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks. Considering the science is not settled as you would believe. If you want to get all high and mighty, go to climate etc and debate with some people with credentials that are actually debating the topic like scientists.
In conclusion. Shut up and put the balls back in your mouth.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Wow, so much elitism.
My degree is on computer science, I have never read a book on climatology, and haven’t read the IPCC doorstoppers yet. That doesn’t mean I’m unworthy to speak. It only means that whatever I speak won’t have as much weight as what the lifelong experts on the IPCC say.
It would be the same if I said “if you doesn’t have a degree on computer science, didn’t read a computer science textbook, or didn’t skim the Knuth books you are not worth to program a computer or talk about computer programming”. It would be wrong.
Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
If “being educated on the topic before speaking” is “elitism”, then we have a serious philosophical disagreement.
I don’t pontificate on Renaissance Italian poetry because I know NOTHING about it. I don’t speak or read Italian. My knowledge of Renaissance history and culture is middling, but no better. And I have no formal training (or even informal training) in the understanding, analysis, and critique of poetry.
So I do what I should do: I STFU. Nothing I could possibly say on the topic would have the slightest value to anyone. The only useful thing I could possibly do would be to remedy the deficient areas I just outlined (above) so that, MAYBE, after years of diligent study, I might finally have at least one meaningful thing to say.
But that’s because I have the humility to recognize and acknowledge my own ignorance. Contrast with the unbelievable arrogance not just of commenters here, but of many elected and appointed public officials — who “enjoy” a similar level of ignorance w.r.t. climate…yet speak to the subject anyway.
The proper response to all such people is STFU — until and unless you can demonstrate that you’ve managed to grasp the basic underlying science and that you’ve put in the time to read the original source material. (It really is depressing how many mouth-breathing morons think Fox News is a viable outlet for scientific discourse.) (And none of the others are really any better.)
So if requiring that people know WTF they’re talking about before they speak is “elitism” — then guilty, guilty, guilty.
Re: Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
I see. You seem to be committing a form of the “perfect solution fallacy”: unless you have an advanced understanding of the topic, you should not speak of it at all.
There are degrees of knowledge. Someone who did not take the many years for a full degree, but has studied the basics, can help educate the ones who did not have that opportunity. They won’t usually add anything new, but they help spread the information.
If a child comes to me and asks, “what’s global warming”, I have enough knowledge to impart at least the basic information. If someone on a discussion has never heard of ocean acidification, I know enough to give a general idea of what it is, how it works, and a few of its consequences. And so on.
I recognize and acknowledge my own ignorance, but I also recognize and acknowledge my own knowledge. I know there is a lot I don’t know, but I also know there are a few things I know.
Re: Re: Re:2 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
“I see. You seem to be committing a form of the “perfect solution fallacy”: unless you have an advanced understanding of the topic, you should not speak of it at all.“
No. Unless you have at least minimal understanding of the subject, you should not speak of it at all. For example, here are some of our elected representatives demonstrating that they do not grasp even the first principles of science, the things that they should have learned in elementary (or at worst, high) school: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/03/31/the-house-of-representatives-committee-on-science-is-turning-into-a-national-embarrassment/
On this particular topic, it is impossible for anyone who does not understand principles like temperature, energy, entropy, diffusion, convection, etc. and a least enough math to understand a partial differential equation to say anything meaningful: how could they? They don’t even speak the language in which the conversation is being held.
Similarly, anyone who hasn’t read original source materials: the papers, the textbooks, the IPCC reports, etc., can’t say anything meaningful either: how could they? They are not acquainted with the basic scientific facts.
I’m not demanding that someone be a PhD-level climatologist before uttering an opinion. But I think it’s absurd that people who cannot not recite the laws of thermodynamics or explain the difference between convection and conduction or recognize a diffusion equation, and have read zero technical papers and zero books and zero reports, somehow think that they are magically enlightened enough to say something meaningful about this subject.
They’re not.
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
So I suppose you think then that people without an education should not be allowed to vote since voting is ultimately about voicing your opinion on issues and the people tasked with addressing them then, right?
Re: Re: Re:3 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
I understand your frustration with noise coming from uneducated sources, but you are dead wrong. It simply doesn’t work that way. The answer is always MORE speech, not less. People should be encouraged to speak up with their opinions regardless of what their background is. Idiotic speech is easily dealt with by those who are not idiots and then likely ignored. Furthermore, often times the best answers to problems are the simplest ones coming from what is seemingly the least likely of sources – those who aren’t as familiar with all of the nuances of the issues whose opinions aren’t colored by the environment surrounding those who are in it. Of course if your position isn’t strong enough to stand up to scrutiny, then you do the next best thing, try some other method to silence those that oppose you. What you are advocating is sort of a variation on an ad hom attack. You are saying that their opinions don’t have merit because they aren’t educated enough to have a valid opinion. While it is true that a person who is familiar with all the factors surrounding an issue is more likely to offer a relevant, well supported opinion, the opinion stands on it’s own regardless of who the person is that is making it or what their background is.
Re: Re: Re:4 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
I’d like to agree with:
“People should be encouraged to speak up with their opinions regardless of what their background is.“
but I don’t.
I’d like to encourage people to THINK about whether they have the slightest clue about what they’re saying before they say it. I’d like to encourage them to self-educate so that they do have a clue. I’d like to encourage them to show self-control, restraint and good judgment in what they say — and what they don’t. I’d like to encourage them to acknowledge that they aren’t experts in the field (with some rare exceptions, of course) and that there ARE experts in field who have spent their professional lives studying this stuff — and those people are vastly more likely to be correct than they are. I’d like to encourage people to have some humility and to learn to answer “I don’t know” — because nearly all of them know little-to-nothing.
For example, anyone who can’t read this, understand it, and explain it hasn’t got the slightest clue about climate: http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/model/direct/images/image9.gif
It’s absolutely impossible for such a person to say anything intelligent about climate: they don’t even grasp the first principles of climatology 101. (Just as it’s absolutely impossible for me to say anything intelligent about Renaissance Italian poetry: I’m utterly clueless. The difference is that I have the humility and the honesty to admit it and STFU — as I should.)
Re: Re: Re:5 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
I agree that people should try to educate themselves. Part of that education often comes by engaging in discussions with people more educated than themselves. I agree people should be encouraged to think about what they are saying before they say it and have the humility to accept constructive criticism when it is offered.
What you are exhibiting here is no where near humility. It’s professional elitism. Perhaps you shouldn’t engage in debate until you have done a little more research on the subject.
Re: Re: Re:6 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
“What you are exhibiting here is no where near humility. It’s professional elitism.”
I disagree that it’s elitism. However, if “studying at length” and “reading widely” and “doing the math” and “self-educating to fill in gaps in my background” is elitist: then, okay, fine. I guess it’s fashionable now to disrespect people who actually know WTF they’re talking because somehow that would hurt the tender feelings of the uneducated and ignorant masses who wouldn’t know a boundary value problem even if it was tattooed on their ass.
There is a serious dose of anti-intellectualism, anti-education, anti-science in this thread. I find that highly ironic given that it’s a discussion on a web site on the Internet of computers built of hardware designed by engineers based on research by scientists. One of the things that you need to accept is that (a) there are people who are much smarter than you and (b) there are people who know a lot more than you and (c) there are people who are smarter AND know a lot more than you. You can either get your precious ego butthurt over this violation of your egalitarian principles, or you can accept it. Or better yet, you can work your ass off, like I have, in order to try to catch up to them, and put your energy into that instead of this incessant, annoying whining.
Re: Re: Re:7 Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
I said nothing about disrespecting people who know what they are talking about. Well formed arguments with backed by verified evidence are not disrespected. You are the one that appears to be whining that others shouldn’t speak because they are beneath you instead of simply arguing your position and supporting it well.
Re: Re: Re: Just one thing...
“Nothing I could possibly say on the topic would have the slightest value to anyone.”
There is one thing which you (or anyone else meeting the same criteria) could say of value on any topic with which you are unfamiliar, and that is:
I don’t know.
Which, in and of itself, is knowing something; the alternative of not knowing what one doesn’t know is worse. Take a look at human history (as a whole) and you’ll find that pretty much every problem humans have faced has been the result of what we don’t really know but choose to believe we know anyway.
Further, simply stating ‘I don’t know.’, rather than remaining silent, might introduce the concept to others who aren’t familiar with it.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
We already earned the right to speak. We paid for it with the blood of the soldiers defending our Constitution. If I’m an idiot, I still have the right to speak. I don’t have the right to make you listen or take me seriously, but I have the right to speak. It is in the Constitution of the United States of America, the First Amendment. You can refute my stupid arguments all you like, because that is your right, but you cannot take away my right to make the stupid arguments in the first place. In fact, this is exactly what the article is all about. People who disagree with the science are censoring it. They may be correct. They may be incorrect. But they should NOT be able to say “I’m right, you’re wrong, begone.”
Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Hear, hear.
Threats and intimidation have no place in rational discourse. It’s tempting to believe that obvious cranks need to be put in their place so they don’t mislead everyone else, but that’s not much better than censoring or shouting down someone for religious heresy or blasphemy.
I have no sympathy for people who think it’s OK when their side does it because they’re right. I’ll stick with Mill’s “On Liberty”: even if we could be sure that someone was wrong, censoring them would still be worse.
Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Umm so what you’re saying is people have a right to say anything they want and other people have a right to ignore them but the one thing people don’t have a right to say is don’t speak about things you know nothing about and that is because of the first amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
He does have the right to say that. I also have the right to craft an elegant counter-argument, as I did there, and make him look like a total fool. The “I’m right, you’re wrong, begone” was to make the point that you should not be able to censor work based on the fact that you disagree with it.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
So according to your logic Einstein shouldn’t have been allowed to voice his opinion on relativity because he didn’t have an appropriate degree and wasn’t employed in an appropriate job?
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Question 1: Do you hold at least a BS degree in one or more of climatology, meteorology, physics or chemistry?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 2: Have you read at least one textbook on climatology?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 3: Have you read the latest IPCC scientific assessment?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 4: Have you read the latest IPCC report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
At that point, maybe, you will be worthy of the privilege of expressing an opinion.
Free speech is a privilege now, is it?
…you are not worth to speak. You haven’t earned that right.
Rights aren’t “earned.” They’re considered inherent. You can agree or disagree with opinions, you can listen to them or not, but you can’t silence them by virtue of them coming from someone who didn’t waste a hundred grand on a college degree.
Are we clear?
Chilling effects on an article discussing a paper about climate change? Pun intended?
Bad Paper
The paper was sloppily done and may be libelous to many who are not convinced that humans have that much effect on they climate. There are at least three groups: believers in AGW, doubters in AGW (a large number of scientists are actually doubters), and deniers. The doubters are concerned about modelling verification, inaccurate predictions, the very limited data, etc. They tend to believe models that are any good should be able to model correctly the observed data. And the current models overestimate the warming.
Re: Bad Paper
Ah, the true believers, the ignorant who need to be made to see the light and the heretics.
In the wonderful tradition of the spanish inquisition.
History repeating…
Re: Re: Bad Paper
Spanish Inquisition was about a religious group taking over the religion of people who they’ve sent over to the new world in central and south america, Jewish people who were running the slave trade.
It’s not as evil as it was made sounded to be. 2 extremist groups fought themselves over slaves, gold etc. extracted by the blacks and natives there, there was only a change in Management.
Re: Re: Re: Bad Paper
“Spanish Inquisition was … not as evil as it was made sounded to be”
Revisionist history, isn’t it fun? The torture and horrific means of ending life were reasonable responses to the heretic non believers of the chosen religion.
Re: Re: Bad Paper
Read the retraction notice (http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812). The journal explicitly states there were serious ethical and legal problems with the paper. The principle on was the implication of a psychopathology by the authors on those they considered deniers without any real evidence of any pathology of the “deniers”.
The journal also has stated they tried to get a revised paper that addressed the issues but the authors apparently refused to rewrite the paper to address the issues.
Re: Re: Re: Bad Paper
Will Tim update the article?
Re: Re: Bad Paper
Stating your opinions about people, and criticizing them, is like the Spanish Inquisition? Really?
Re: Bad Paper
That paper is not on anthropogenic climate change at all. It is merely a low value social study with a low quality problem definition (Is there a correlation between broader conspiracies and climate change denial? Talk about poisoning the well!).
I will defend Frontiers decission to keep their distance from that pile, even though their reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.
When that is said I do believe in climate change, but it is irrelevant to the specific subject.
In today’s climate ,I think Mother Nature needs an Attorney.
“do it for the legality’s ,not the children”
She blinded me with scien^H^H^H^H a Cease & Desist letter.
Gettin what we pay for
Try this on for size:
START-
Defund public education.
UNinvest in public schools.
THEN (you get people who) –
Believe Climate = Weather
Believe Science = Faith & Opinion
Don’t believe Cause >> Effect
GOTO START
(and run the scenario again until we prove Darwin was correct by disappearing)
Re: Gettin what we pay for
That’s not the only bad things about defunding public schools but yeah…
It’s really disheartening how thoroughly science can become enmeshed in political partisanship and moral panic. And once the polarization has commenced, often it’s both sides that resort to unethical tactics to win the debate by other means.
(Full disclosure: I think anthropogenic climate change is real, and likely to be even more harmful in the near future than most models predict, though the long-term effects are probably exaggerated.
I’m also an intellectual heretic and have several non-mainstream opinions. So I can sympathize with the dissenters and doubters when they’re not being bullies.)
What a term like “Climate Change” does is allow the guy in the cubicle next to me to point out of the window in Chicago and say, “Today is a different climate than yesterday, so what?”
If retards can’t comprehend the difference between “global” and “local”… then that is their problem.
Re: Re:
or is it simply that you cant comprehend that global and local are the same things in this case. you breath the same air as I do, the globe in this case is a local system.
reasoned debate on climate change
Since it seems like these debates quickly turn into screaming matches, I just wanted to point to a recent episode of EconTalk which was a very interesting and reasoned debate on the issue of climate change:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/03/john_christy_an.html
Re: reasoned debate on climate change
Keeping the discussion going even when it devolves to grubby screaming matches should still happen. Though without the screaming would be better.
Re: reasoned debate on climate change
This was not even a paper on climate but on psychology. Next time do a bit more digging before you get everyone up in arms.
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of__Recursive_Fury__%3Cbr%3EA_Statement/812
Re: Re: reasoned debate on climate change
“Next time do a bit more digging before you get everyone up in arms.”
…and how did he do that by posting a comment on an article he didn’t write, addressing a reaction that was already taking place?
Re: Re: reasoned debate on climate change
This was not even a paper on climate but on psychology.
Yes – just like Tim said:
Next time do a bit more digging before you get everyone up in arms.
Next time actually read the article before condemming it. Just sayin’
Re: Re: reasoned debate on climate change
Wait, everything we said here is absurd? Um… NO IT ISN’T! YOU’RE WRONG! MIKE CENSOR HIM!
-How not to deal with stuff you don’t agree with.
Re: Re: reasoned debate on climate change
Without regard to anything else, people get themselves up in arms. I simply cannot disagree enough with the idea that people are somehow not responsible for their own choices, or that only some are.
The paper was not about climate change
This whole thread is ridiculous.
The paper was not about climate change. It was about the psychology of climate change deniers, and how they lean flaky. Some of them took it personally. Interestingly enough, it was the second of two papers. The first generated reactions from the deniers, and the second paper was about this meta-reaction.
Re: The paper was not about climate change
I wonder if they aren’t studying this. This comment thread could be part of a third paper, about the meta-meta-reaction.
Re: Re: The paper was not about climate change
Then they can show the comment thread to the deniers and do a paper on the meta-meta-meta reaction! Reactionception!
Re: The paper was not about climate change
I will agree whole thread is ridiculous.
I want the article to remain in the light because it helps prove my point that this movement is more about religious/political motivations than what it has to say on scientific merits.
Even though I do not agree with Tim on this specific subject I can say that its take down benefits the believers more than the deniers despite initial indications.
Reminds me of how governments would send their troops across a border… get them all dressed up as another enemy and then attack another enemy… drumming up a false war.
Re: Re: The paper was not about climate change
“Even though I do not agree with Tim on this specific subject I can say that its take down benefits the believers more than the deniers despite initial indications.”
Thanks for disagreeing in a reasonable way and actually finding some common ground on not wanting to censor shit. Nice to see someone who I disagree with do it civilly and actually read the god damned motherfucking post and comment on that rather than a larger debate I never opened, and in fact said we should be having elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re: The paper was not about climate change
ffs, be civil man!
Who gives a fuck what the article was that started the communication.
Forum slides are fun.
Meeting IRL idiots and arguing with them is fun.
Re: Re: Re: The paper was not about climate change
As I said, the age of extremes. Although I will have to apologize, I got down to discussing climate change after my first post even though this article is about the censoring of the scientific work.
Still, this comment section alone must be giving plenty of material for a 3rd paper lmao!
Re: Re: The paper was not about climate change
Except the take down was about the contents of the paper, not threats, of which there were none.
From madasahatter above:
________________________
Read the retraction notice (http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812). The journal explicitly states there were serious ethical and legal problems with the paper. The principle on was the implication of a psychopathology by the authors on those they considered deniers without any real evidence of any pathology of the “deniers”.
The journal also has stated they tried to get a revised paper that addressed the issues but the authors apparently refused to rewrite the paper to address the issues.
________________________
I think the article should get an update.
FFS Tim, you bring up this on a website infested with right wing libertarians and don’t know it’ll immediately degenerate into the BS that we see here.
A stopped clock is often correct at least once a day, you’ve mistaken the acuity of the readers of techdirt based on them accidentally pointing in roughly the correct direction on IP issues for the wrong reasons.
Learn from this.
Re: Re:
FFS Tim, you bring up this on a website infested with right wing libertarians…
lolwut?
Re: Re: Re:
COMMUNISTS, ALL OF THEM! Also… Third world leftists!
Whatever it means.
Re: Re: I have .... for teh lulz
implying we all haven’t spammed this everywhere
Ron Paul 2012
Re: Re:
FFS Tim, you bring up this on a website infested with right wing libertarians
In my experience, it’s actually left-wing libertarians who are most likely to go along with the opinions TechDirt regularly espouses.
Re: Re: Re:
As someone who most closely resembles a socialist, I’m thoroughly perplexed….
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suppose you’ve never encountered libertarian socialists, then? 🙂
Anyway, left-wing libertarians comprise the field from Tuckerite free-market socialists to capitalists who are anti-big-business and pro-equality on social issues. Good examples are Kevin Carson and Roderick T. Long. Every one I’m aware of is vehemently anti-IP, anti-surveillance, pro-equality for gays and minorities, and they all think the Republicans are complete hypocrites for slamming Democrats about “big government.”
Re: Re: Re:
The basic point is that the site seems to be making some more politically controversial posts lately, probably with the result of better understanding the leanings of the readers.
Ironically left-wing libertarians seems to be a good name for what you find here:
People are extremely enamoured by the civil rights and particularly how authorities are abusing those. Thus socially libertarian seems pretty straight.
Scepticism about IP and proponents of a collectivistic culture as in public domain is traditional left-wing.
A less comfortable side of the usual suspects is shown in this thread and it has been said by several more reasonable dissidents before: There is a large degree of conspiracists, which is pretty common for both sides of the extremes in the traditional political spectrum.
Extremist left wing libertarians sounds about right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I didn’t make up the term. It’s proudly worn by the left-libertarians themselves.
Scepticism about IP and proponents of a collectivistic culture as in public domain is traditional left-wing.
Anti-IP libertarians think exactly the opposite is true, of course: IP is a denial of individual freedom to peaceably use information one possesses, traditionally justified by its utility to society as a whole. So, collectivistic.
There is a large degree of conspiracists, which is pretty common for both sides of the extremes in the traditional political spectrum.
True that.
The thing I don't get
From what I’ve seen the scientific claims allege that the problem is CO2 emissions as a result of burning carbon based fossil fuel collecting in the atmosphere causing an insulating effect resulting in a rise in average global temperatures. Ok so then I’ve seen this then used to advocate the use of alternative energy sources that do not result in CO2 emissions. Fine. That’s one way to approach the problem but ultimately this really just slows things down and does nothing about the existing CO2 levels that exist. What about that? Why the hell aren’t the scientists and activists pushing to plant more vegetation that turns the CO2 into back into O2 and returning the carbon back to the soil? I’m not a denier, but I do see where many of these people are more concerned with pushing an agenda than tackling an actual problem.
Re: The thing I don't get
Absolutely right, in the last 20 years or more absolutely no one has pushed for increased forestry and changing procedures with forestry to balance out the needs for lumber with planting etc.
Haven’t heard of it, nobody thinks about it, absolutely nobody even suggests it.
Back in actual reality….
Re: The thing I don't get
Probably because there isn’t enough landmass to counter the amount of CO2 being released.
What took a few millions of years to produce (oil) is being released in just 100 years at an increasing rate. Need something more than that.
Re: Re: The thing I don't get
Thing is, the global warming originally wasn’t about fossil fuels AT ALL when it was first raised. It was raised initially with concerns about rainforest deforestation. It was only later that the issue was co-opted and made to be about fossil fuel use so I find that argument somewhat suspect. Still if the problem is as grave as it is being made out to be, wouldn’t it make sense to advocate for BOTH controlling the supply of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere AND increasing forestation that would work to decrease CO2 levels even if it were not able to completely offset it?
Re: Re: Re: The thing I don't get
I don’t recall it that way. I think it was a professor of Chemistry in the 80s that noted we were increasing CO2 and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It went from there.
But with the amount of CO2 from fossil fuels being dumped at increasing rates, forestation on the most massive scale wouldn’t put a dent in it.
Like using your car as a barrier to stop a tidal wave.
Re: Re: Re:2 The thing I don't get
Yes, I remember hearing about the concerns during the 80’s too and at that time I remember that they were attributing it to a deforestation of the tropical rainforests in places like South America.
“Deforestation is a contributor to global warming, and is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest_destruction
I’m not saying that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption is an issue that doesn’t need to be dealt with. I’m saying that a lot of those people that push the issue are more about pushing their own agendas rather than solving the actual problem otherwise they would be looking for multiple ways of addressing the problem not just demonizing the petrochemical countries.
Re: Re: Re:3 The thing I don't get
Deforestation has always been a left-wing concern, but as far as I remember the main reason was the effect it has on the threatened animals and biodiversity. I remember WWF being at that forefront in that figt by the start of the 90’s!
As a natural extension of that the left wing has transitioned to be very strong supporters of doing something against gw/acc. The problem is that people are conflating science with politics. Since many professors in USA or even globally are left-leaning politically, it is an easy trap to fall into. The current problem with climate change is that politicians have entrenched religiously.
Scientists of any kind never want to pick a side politically and since everything coming from them is used as such it is extremely delicate for them to comment on this subject. Sceptics working with other partially controversial explainations are scared of the left-wing and the establishment are scared of the right-wing. It sucks to be a climate scientist at the moment! 3% denying acc and 67% being non-specific tells a story of an extremely controversial subject where few are willing to take the inevitable beating rather than a story of doubt!
Re: Re: Re:4 The thing I don't get
Well in American politics at least, there really isn’t much of a left anymore. All of those in power are decidedly right-wing. (I’m using the true definitions for right and left as they were set by those describing the members of parliament during the French revolution.) Republicans and Democrats alike are all beholden to rich corporate masters even if they aren’t the same ones. That is by definition right-wing.
Re: Re: Re:5 The thing I don't get
That is also an excellent definition! I was using a more relativistic approach and a definition informed by western politics since at least the 90’s.
When talking about politics, discussions are becoming much more devious and brutally divisive in arguments, while the policy is becoming exactly the same with only slight deviations. It is fascinating and scary at the same time. I guess it is the same as with dogs: The louder the bark, the smaller the dog!
Re: Re: Re:2 The thing I don't get
CO2’s been known to be a greenhouse gas since the late 1800’s. A series of speculative handwaves were used to avoid the conclusion that too much of it in the atmosphere would heat everything up, and only when they were debunked did it become a live issue.
Re: The thing I don't get
Planting trees or generating more photosynthesis based life will mostly not help. Sorry.
Trees etc… decompose and with it, they release ALL their co2. Only in exceptional circumstances when they are “buried alive” do the trees become co2 stores (like when a tree falls into a swamp/bog).
The problem is releasing all that stored (as carbon) co2 by burning fossil fuels.
If we all burnt wood then the co2 levels would not increase. carbon-neutral
The tree takes co2 from the atmosphere, turns it into carbon. PROBLEM is that nitrogen dioxide is also released and that is a worse greenhouse gas.
Fighting the root cause or “pushing an agenda” ?
Fighting the root cause is better than just dealing with it.But looks like we will have to just deal with it.
Bury trees deep underground when they die.
Grow algae and bury it deep underground before it decomposes.
Farm photosynthesizing bacteria and bury it underground before it decomposes.
“Dealing with it” is far more costly than preventing it.
5 Trees buried when you die just to cover the co2 omitted from your breathing….for a start.
Re: Re: The thing I don't get
WTF are you talking about? Trees don’t just store up CO2 during their entire life time only to release it when they die. O2 is a byproduct of photosynthesis that is released into the atmosphere while consuming CO2. Sure there is a lot of carbon stored in trees. They are of course, like everything else, carbon based life forms. And yes burning trees release CO2 by introducing O2 with the presence of heat that causes the reaction. But trees that aren’t burned and simply decompose don’t release all that carbon into the air. Where do you thing the carbon based fossil fuels came from in the first place?
Re: The thing I don't get
There are 2 things involved in the mass balance part of the argument:
Sinks and turnover rates/equilibrium between the different sinks.
Sinks in this context are air, ocean, deep ocean, surface ground, underground and some other mostly pasive places for the most part irrelevant to the argument.
There is a balance between surface ground sinks and the air sink, though it has some seasonal variation. The turnover is fast. Air and ocean has a certain equilibrium based on concentrations of CO2, carbonic acid and biological buildup. It is also rather fast. The turnover from ocean to deep ocean is pretty slow and the deep oceans are sometimes seen as a sink even though certain parts of the planet can attest to that assumptions limitation.
The underground is very slow in building up carbon (coal, tar and oil. Natural gas is a lot faster at forming and therefore assumed to be less problematic.).
By collecting a lot of carbon from underground at a very rapid rate, you are emptying that mostly passive sink and turning it into part of the active system (air, surface ground and ocean).
The problematic sinks for the extra carbon are mostly the air and ocean (greenhouse effect and acidification).
Planting more multiannual vegetation does help compared to seasonal vegetation but turnover rates from forests are still fast compared to deep ground buildup of carbon and a large majority of the carbon stays in the active sinks anyway!
The chemistry of acidification is very easy to show and relatively easy to understand. The physics of greenhouse effect is more complicated to show and understand, while still being at the intermediate end of physics and therefore scientifically settled.
When you understand these three effects it is hard to keep rejecting effects and if humans are at least partially responsible.
What to do about it is politics.
Re: Re: The thing I don't get
I understand where you are coming from there and I’m not disputing that. What I am saying is that wouldn’t reforestation at least help in the long term? Or were the cries of the harm caused by deforestation initially lies?
Re: Re: Re: The thing I don't get
Mostly we have to remember that the main effect of forests is as an extra storage capacity in the surface ground sink and therefore in keeping more of it temporarily away from the problematic air and ocean sinks. However, it is not providing much advantage in the longer terms where the carbon has to be more permanenly inactivated again.
Forests, swamps etc. are not just forests, swamps etc. There are large differences on a climate scale between how much of an effect they have and the more advanced understanding of those areas cycles is only in its infancy.
Most importantly getting a planted forest to a state where it acts as a reasonable sink has proven to be a slow process.
Reducing deforestation is therefore more important than ever and especially dense old jungle is important to keep because of its high storage capacity and the slow increase in capacity of replanted jungle. For us in the non-jungled parts of the world, it is not as relevant.
Re: The thing I don't get
CO2 is a good thing. Without it the Plant’s couldn’t grow and produce the Oxygen we breath!!!
Not Sure Why?
I’m not sure what the OP article is all about.
Basically, it seems it was an article trashing people who deny “global warming”. I’m not sure how that qualifies as a scientific article. Science is not about what the scientist or the advocate believes, it’s about the facts.
Linus Pauling may have been a bit nuts about Vitamin C; Shockley may have been a bit controversial about genetics – but whateevr your views of those issues, that has zero bearing on the science that they did before, and even during those controversies. The only question is whether the science is sound.
“So let it be with Caesar…” The OP laments that a hatchet job was suppressed, but says nothing about the work of the hatchetees and its merit. The article, if as described by the OP, is a hatchet job and has no place in climate discussion.
IMHO, the biggest problems are these:
– (some) “Global Warming” advocates have become as fanatic as (some) deniers.
– everything is explained away. Worst winter in decades? Staistical anomaly. (Hottest summer? Ditto, by other side.) Excessive rain? “It’s climate change, side efect of warming!”; lack of predicted massive hurricanes, in fact, abnormally quiet seasons? Actual warming stalled for 10 years now? “Let me get back to you on that”, “It’s saving up for a big one”, “La Nina is temporary holding things back…” Statistics can be waterboarded to tell you whatever you want to hear.
-Ignoring the fact that climate change is confused with recovering from a series of little ice ages. The Thames and the Hudson stopped freezing over, glaciers befgan retreating, long before gloable CO2 was significant.
-This is my biggest point – compared to mother nature, we are crumbs on the floor. Without the benefit of human input, she has had dinosaurs wandering the arctic forests, she has had mile-thick glaciers across the northern states. We have no idea if what we are seeing is our doing or hers.
-The solar cycle this time is half what it was last time and about where it was in 1900 when we were recovering from low sunspot cycles and a period of cold. Are we headed to another climate low like the Maunder minimum, or the Oort minimum, which killed off the european Greenlanders? We had the warming period before that, again with limited human input, that allowed crops in Greenland. Climate change is a possible reason for the Mayan civilization collapse too.
Looking at the temperature graphs for the last dozen ice ages – there is no logical coherent pattern. The cycle is too irregular for the alleged astronomical cause. Regardless, compared to past cycles, we seem to be overdue for a cooling cycle. Sometime in the next 0 to 3,000 years we’ll probably see a serious cooling. When? How fast? Who knows. We can’t rely on it to save our globally warmed bacon, or ignore CO2 emissions because of the coming ice age.
-My opinion – we should be avoiding excessive pollution, simply because we DON’T KNOW. Global warming as a hypothesis is more valid than “it doesn’t matter”. There’s only one way to prove it, which we probably don’t want to do.
-My other contention is that there is a limited supply of oil. Deep sea drilling, fracking, and other tricks simply put off the day when oil starts to become like it statred in 2008, f***ing expensive. Society needs to adapt now or else the inflection point with oil will be a much much bigger crash. Now is the time to build, for example, the transit infrastructure to handle the day when one-person-per-car commuting is impracticale. Suburban sprawl needs to be rationalized sooner, before suddenly any house built more than 10 miles from city center has no resale value. Factories need to cluster closer to transit paths. Manufacturing capacity that relies on cheap intercontinental shipping needs to rationalize. Alternate energy sources, better electric or hydrogen cars… And so on.
Re: Not Sure Why?
Basically, it seems it was an article trashing people who deny “global warming”. I’m not sure how that qualifies as a scientific article. Science is not about what the scientist or the advocate believes, it’s about the facts.
Actually it’s an article about the psychology of the denial process (if I read right), not about climate change. So.. uh… it is science. But not in the climate change issue but rather in the social and psychological stuff behind the topic.
Re: Not Sure Why?
My other contention is that there is a limited supply of oil. Deep sea drilling, fracking, and other tricks simply put off the day when oil starts to become like it statred in 2008, f***ing expensive.
This is the problem a number of people have with many of the long-term predictions of the IPCC model: it assumes the oil supply will just keep coming, and increasing as quickly as it is now. That’s just ridiculous.
The consensus seems to be that peak oil started in 2005, and we’ve just managed to stave off the downward curve with some dirty tricks and just devoting a larger percent of the oil we extract to extracting more of it.
So, ignoring climate change for a minute...
First of all, as has been said, this is a psychological paper, not a climate paper. Trying to use it in the climate change debate pretty much means you’re using an ad hominem argument anyway.
So ignore your biases for or against the subjects of the paper for a moment.
According to Frontier’s statement on the retraction, “The article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics.”
If this is true, do you think it’s really appropriate to publish such a paper? Would anyone here really not object to a psychological paper being published based on their posts, in which they are identifiable? Would you still not object if it portrayed you as having psychological issues? Does it even MATTER if it’s true or not?
Re: So, ignoring climate change for a minute...
does truth matter?
Re: Re: So, ignoring climate change for a minute...
By that I mean: Do you think it’s OK for someone to write and publish a psychological article about your Internet posts, in which conclusions are drawn about your psychology, and in which someone could identify that they are in fact talking about you, even if everything they say is true?
Re: Re: Re: So, ignoring climate change for a minute...
It sounds more like a sociology paper actually that some people took a little too personally.
Re: So, ignoring climate change for a minute...
Exactly.
Someone likely with an axe to grind makes disparaging remote psychological analyses of people who hold opposing views. Likely these people are identifiable. Should the publisher expect legal action?
The author could have examined 1980’s survivalists, 1900’s anarchists, etc. He had to pick on the one side in a very current polarized debate and associate them with crazies, and expect that it would be taken as “just impartial science”? yeah, right.
When someone attacks a group rather than the merits of their point of view, it says something about the attacker. Either the rebuttal of the facts is too weak, or the attacker is themselves part of a group of crazies.
If global warming is the runaway freight train that it is claimed, the anomalous data points should not be:
– “coldest winter in a century”,
– “series of very cold winters”,
– “first snow in Cairo in decades”
– ‘Second year in a row of heavy snowfall in Jerusalem”
– “warming has virtually stopped the last 10 years”
– “quietest hurricane season(s) in a long time”
– “heavy storms and flooding are a result of global warming”.
Re: Re: So, ignoring climate change for a minute...
Actually, the problem is climate change. You are the kind of person that makes Timothy nuts because you declare “things are colder, therefore no issue with global warming”. I also would like to note that you could easily have omitted possibly more numerous stories about warming. Not saying you did, but we all know exactly what you can do with statistics.
Re: Re: Re: So, ignoring climate change for a minute...
I like Thomas Friedman’s suggestion of “global weirding” for what’s going on, but I doubt much that it will catch on.
Woops… I thought at first it was a climate change denier’s paper that vanished, not a paper on such people…
still playing censor mike the dick !!!! LOL..
I know I have won when you don’t have to guts or balls to not censor those you are so scared of..
I guess that all the power you will ever have, so you make the very best of it..
you censor friends are so proud of you..
Scientific paper?
Frontiers is a psychology magazine, right? The title of the pulled article was ?Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation? This doesn’t really have anything to do with climate science other than impuning AGW skeptics with the conspiracy theorist moniker.
Re: Scientific paper?
What is fascinating, though, is how the response to the issue could serve as evidence to support and strenghten the conclusion given how some people are now furiously defending a point that is irrelevant to OP…
I have respect for Frontiers pulling this article. It is extremely controversial and the problem description is not even close to a neutral starting point scientifically. It is the scientific equivalent of “how often do you beat your wife?”.
Re: Scientific paper?
I thought it was a Journey album.
Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
here is what the publishers actually said : http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
Draw your own conclusions
The journal's respondse.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/04/journal-takes-lewandowsky-and-his-supporters-to-task-over-threats-over-retracted-recusive-fury-paper/
The journal's response.
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
there is such a thing as man-made climate change.
The data referenced in the linked article demonstrates that less than 3% of published articles refute AGW.
That’s not the same as 97% supporting AGW. 67% of the published articles expressed no position one way or the other.
Despite any conclusion the referenced article might draw, their own numbers don’t support their conclusion.
Re: I hate that i can't edit my comments ...
I meant “there is such a thing as man-made climate change? Really ?”
I don’t see what the problem is with the study. I didn’t read the paper but I suspect people read too much into what is being said. It likely said that people who buy into large numbers of “outlying” (for lack of a better word) theories generally disregard anthropogenic climate change. It is likely not saying that people who disregard climate change also buy into the above mentioned outlying theories.
The only constant is change. The climate has always and will always change. Look up Milankovitch cycles.
Science is misunderstood. Science proves nothing. If you want proof go to a court of law. Science disproves. Any given event could have an infinite number of causes. You cannot prove you are correct without refuting every other cause in question. You can only disprove hypotheses on a case by case basis. Good science is what is left standing.
Climate change is left standing.
There is no scientific conspiracy. There are biased papers, there are scientists who have compromised themselves. But, if you believe that climate change is made up, you havent looked at the raw data or, if you have, you may fall into the demographic this paper is talking about. While some might debate whether there is a consensus about the origin, there is a mountain of data pointing to rapid climate change.
But don’t take my word for it. Look at some data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets
Re: Re:
It likely said that people who buy into large numbers of “outlying” (for lack of a better word) theories generally disregard anthropogenic climate change. It is likely not saying that people who disregard climate change also buy into the above mentioned outlying theories.
Whether that’s what the paper said or not, that has certainly been my experience.
“Climate change is the better term, of course, and the majority of the SCIENTIFIC community firmly BELIEVES that there is such a thing as man-made climate change.”
So in other words you admit that your logical fallacy of appealing to authority is based off of faith?
Global Weather Chaos
I prefer the term Global Weather Chaos; as it accurately describes how a more energetic system tends to be more chaotic. The highs are higher and the lows are lower, and the storms are more intense.
Re: Global Weather Chaos
Chaos also implies a lack of order. While a warming climate does increase entropy it doesnt change the physics behind what causes the weather.
Re: Re: Global Weather Chaos
Chaos also implies a lack of order. While a warming climate does increase entropy it doesnt change the physics behind what causes the weather.
Weather is actually the paradigmatic example of a chaotic system in the sense here. Chaos theory began when a meteorologist truncated a few digits in initial conditions of a weather simulation and got completely different results than if he’d left the digits in. What was discovered was that weather is extremely sensitive to relatively small disturbances.
Increase in average temperature means and increase in the thermal energy in the atmosphere and thus an increase in sensitivity to disturbance. So the term is appropriate.
Re: Re: Re: Global Weather Chaos
“Weather is actually the paradigmatic example of a chaotic system in the sense here. Chaos theory began when a meteorologist truncated a few digits in initial conditions of a weather simulation and got completely different results than if he’d left the digits in. What was discovered was that weather is extremely sensitive to relatively small disturbances.”
I just googled chaos and Webster spit out “complete confusion and disorder.” While weather is a system with sensitive variables we still recognize it as weather. Your definition doesn’t describe anything new. Weather has had the properties you describe since before language was developed so it doesn’t serve to distinguish what we are experiencing now.
I haven’t seen any data that indicate increasing temperature increases the systems sensitivity to temperature. More extreme weather is expected when there is more energy on tap but sensitivity to temperature and more extreme weather are two different things.
Re: Re: Re:2 Global Weather Chaos
Look up chaos theory sometime. What I was talking about, and what I believe Michael was talking about, is that sense of “chaos.”
Increased heat causing more extreme weather is chaos theory in action: the more energetic the system, generally the more exaggerated the reaction to events both within the system and from outside. A prime example is the different states of matter: drop a solid object and it generally keeps its shape, drop a liquid and it sloshes about. Wind is the closest equivalent with respect to gases, I think.
Re: Re: Re:3 Global Weather Chaos
You’re talking about entropy. Gasses are less ordered than liquids which are less ordered than solids.
Chaos theory involves sensitivity to initial conditions and the unpredictability of systems. It applies to ice age weather equally as well as “warmed” climates. As far as chaos theory is concerned it doesn’t matter how much energy is in the system, just that the system has a starting state that is different, lots of things interact and time goes by.
“Warmed” climates are not more chaotic. Something is either chaotic or not. Sensitive to initial conditions and unpredictable over time even though it’s based on deterministic principles, or not. Weather, regardless of how much energy is in the system, is chaotic.
Re: Re: Re:4 Global Weather Chaos
I’m going to call BS on myself.
Things either act chaotically or not but the time period over which we can make predictions is relevant. We can forecast weather. So something could be more chaotic if that predictable period is shorter.
However, chaos theory doesn’t imply that higher temperature result in more extreme weather. It only states that there will be different weather. The guts of it state that if we had very similar starting conditions we could end up with radically different results. With climate change we know that is going to be the case anyway because we are changing starting conditions by a significant amount.
We don’t need to invoke chaos theory.
Re: Re: Re:5 Global Weather Chaos
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I’ll have to read up more myself before I try to discuss such things next time.
ARRRGHH!
This is an article about a paper being removed due to legal threats. While some people debate about the subject at hand (for instance, people arguing that the paper actually was libelous, so removing it was okay), everyone else instead debates about AGW itself. It’s like the Popehat article on Mark Steyn’s counterclaims against Michael Mann. Instead of talking about the counterclaims, most everyone talks about AGW itself, leading to Ken eventually shutting down the thread in exasperation.
Look, people, if you want to discuss AGW itself, there’s already a zillion and one places to do it. You don’t need to turn every related topic back too AGW itself.
…
Well, you don’t need to, but you’re going to anyway. Why I’m even bothering to type this comment out? *sigh*
Here’s the latest statement by Frontiers regarding the paper in question: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
Re: Re:
OK, that’s like the fifth time that’s been posted. If people haven’t read it by now they aren’t going to.
Re: Re: Re:
But shouldn’t Tim update the article? It seems highly relevant.
I figured this post would be from this particular author, who seems to be the one who has a habit of expressing mainstream opinions on heated non-computing/privacy/IP… subjects, while throwing out copious childish words about anyone who may disagree. I wish that the other Techdirt authors would get the shill / troll / baiter out of the list of authors. And I hate to see the astroturfing that follows. It is a disgusting stain on the otherwise rational, intelligent, and pro-sanity undertaking that is Techdirt.
One person commented about the toxicity associated with our carbon fuel technologies. This (and the much more thorough and expanded environmental poisoning) is the gold, the big deal, the rapidly developing, urgent, and systematically underrepresented threat to all life on earth. Start noticing whenever anyone bothers to test, say, aluminum levels in whale or other mass animal die offs. Anytime someone bothers with such testing, we get these high measurements that we are then reassured are unrelated to the deaths. Anyone following the standard NSA doubletalk should be skilled in recognizing this we-don’t-see-a-problem-because-we-will-not-look-and-therefore-the-problem-does-not-exist methodology. Have you lost someone yet from a toxin induced illness? Are you dealing with one, or is someone you love dealing with one? Probably. Would you know it? Every attempt has been made to ensure that you wouldn’t, and that liability is maximally avoided for those responsible.
But don’t trust me — just start noticing. You might also want to find out what technologies have been developed and tested and used which affect climate and weather directly, and investigate some of the catastrophic environmental and health effects of those technologies. I think many people who are involved in digital rights advocacy don’t yet see the full set of ways in which we are being profoundly violated. I would like that process to speed up as this is generally a great group of people.
bogus comparison
It is hardly fair to compare who don’t agree with conventional wisdom’s view of climate change to people who who tend to believe anything that is exactly opposite of conventional wisdom.
The fact is, the vast majority of people who have an opinion about climate change one way or the other did not come to their opinion by careful analysis of the data.
How did you reach your opinion?
"Deniers"?
I don’t understand why you call those who question predictions of global catastrophe “deniers”.
No sensible person on either side “denies” that the world is warmer than it was 20 years ago. No denial there.
No sensible skeptic denies that the climate is “changing”. It always has. No denial there.
No sensible person denies that there has been no significant warming for the last 15 years. That’s just established fact. No denial.
One can’t “deny” future predictions. They haven’t happened yet. You can doubt the predictions or believe the predictions but you can’t “deny” predictions.
So what do you think is being denied? I don’t see “denial”.
Re: "Deniers"?
“No sensible person on either side “denies” that the world is warmer than it was 20 years ago.”
Well, there’s your first mistake. There’s a lot of people denying exactly that. They’re perhaps not “sensible” in any traditional sense, but they certainly do exist.
“I don’t see “denial”.”
Wilful blindness is not a virtue.
Perhaps instead of getting caught up in semantics, you might want to take a look at the arguments being made.
Re: Re: "Deniers"?
“There’s a lot of people denying exactly that.”
Really? Who? Name some names.
Oh, wait, you’re just talking about all your “denier” strawmen, not real, people who are actually talking about “climate change”. Good one.
Good Grief!!!
I’m sorry to disappoint so many earnest believers, but this discussion is about science. The religion department is the other side of campus. Please take all your fanatical beliefs over there.
Some of you have a Saturday-morning-cartoon understanding of how science works. Here’s a couple of hints: it’s not a democracy and it’s not a popularity contest; it’s not done by press release, and the most important researchers are people you’ve never heard of unless you’re doing work in their field. Scientists are people, too; they put their pants on one leg at a time, they hold opinions and biases and likes and dislikes, some of them are total jackasses, most of them are normal but you get the occasional bloated ego just like in any other occupation. Stop putting them on a pedestal as if they were demigods – they’re not.
Think for yourselves. Blind appeals to authority, whether religious or scientific, are equally valueless.
And yes, I did teach for two decades in a geosciences department. And no, I’m not saying either the ‘alarmists’ or the ‘deniers’ are wrong. Or right. I am bemoaning an educational system which has produced far too many people bereft of the critical reasoning necessary to form an intelligent decision.
Re: Good Grief!!!
Actually, the discussion wasn’t about science, it was about the evil “deniers” who used “legal threats” to get a “climate change research paper” suppressed.
Except that there were no legal threats and the paper wasn’t about “climate change”.
But, hey, who cares about accuracy?
History and repetition
I would imagine that, at the least, most people don’t expect history to repeat because of the average human lifespan. Repetition of history is not confined to a certain time limit.
When I read “History repeating…” all I can think is, Does it ever not? Will it?
What a stupid article
It sounds as though the paper in question was taken down because it contained potentially libelous material. Not very complicated if you ask me. There’s plenty of literature of the topic so one paper being taken down is immaterial.
The crowning touch of stupidity was the ongoing Bush Derangement Syndrome in the last paragraph. Bush left office five years ago and has moved on with his life. You might want to do the same
You shouldn’t use “deniers” because it’s connoted with the Holocaust.
Re: Re:
It also has something to do with bedsheets and comforters.
Also, Al Gore has no credibility.
Statement from Frontiers in Psychology blog
In part it says:
Did you note the part where “Frontiers received no threats“?
I think a bit more investigation was warranted before making such inflammatory accusations. Unfortunately, when something touches the highly volatile subject of “Climate Change”, good judgement seems to be lacking in many cases.
Whats the problem
It’s the start of the growing season, i hope it gets warmer. Plants grow rather slowly with snow over them.
The other side of the coin is starting to show paranoia. The paper was about psychology. About one person calling another paranoid. The publisher asked by the subject said have him prove it. He would not prove it, just reinterated what he originally wrote. Whats that to do with climate science? One by saying the patients name, he violated patients rights, by publishing diagonsis he violated confidentiality, he should have been sued outright in court for defimation and slander, since he wasn’t a shrink. And I thought all peer reviewed papers were withdrawn and the problems noted or corrected and then republished. That what the process till the bullies got in the way of education and scientific research.
Timothy: Please Stop The Ad Hominems and Strawmen
[ shakes head ] So, Timothy. You mention your disagreement with those who think that climate change isn’t primarily due to humans up top, but then (I am assuming in order to distance yourself further in case people missed that disclaimer?) you decide to compare them to people that say the moon landings didn’t happen, that Hitler was fighting lizard people and now runs world government, and 9/11 was faked with a holographic light show to allow W. to land on a carrier in a flightsuit. Then, you follow it up by saying that way you know to keep your kids away from them.
Would you mind clarifying, please, why you feel the need to take an article standing up for free speech and turn it into an ad hominem against those who with whom you disagree on an issue? Do you really feel that those who believe climate change might have significant causes other than human ones are in the same category as all those other strawmen you put up?
And frankly there are lots of nuanced opinions between “humans are all rainbows and lollipops for Earth and never ever ever cause damage” and “it’s likely that the significance of human action on environmental damage is at least somewhat overblown due to the benefits people receive from being on ‘the right side'” and “climate change is real, but I have no idea whether humans are causing it, and even so government involvement will (as always) misdirect the resources that people who care would be putting towards doing something about it anyway.” Could you please speak to which of these positions it is that would cause you to want to keep your kids away from someone holding it?
Your debate tactics, I’m sure, score a lot of points with people that feel like you do, but they sure turn me off. Part of what’s tearing people apart today is this adversarial tit-for-tat argumentation, which has been perfected by the politicians, big businessmen, and pundits. And frankly, you’re dragging Techdirt down by putting that bullshit here.