Climate uncertainties and the problems communicating them

The journal <em>Nature</em> has used a series of editorials to point out the areas of climatology that are the least understood, and considers why the public remains fixated on the basics instead.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/science/news/2010/01/climate-uncertainties-and-the-problems-communicating-them.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[THIEF!]

This is a great and much needed article. The communication breakdown between scientists and the greater population eats away at democracy. When all the power is with the people, you'd better make sure they're educated!<BR><BR>"We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."<BR>-- Carl Sagan

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Its simple we need to pollute less but not at the cost of jobs and livelihood, we have to balance them.

 

[zato_ichi]

Instead of trying to ram so called man-made global warming down our throats how about reporting on scientific studies to the contrary? <BR><BR>James Hansen: Would you buy a used temperature data set from THIS man? <BR><BR>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...a-set-from-this-man/<BR><BR>http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/index.htm

 

[zeotherm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zato_ichi:<BR>Instead of trying to ram so called man-made global warming down our throats how about reporting on scientific studies to the contrary? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to cite one?

 

[Ueffo Beeblenarf]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zeotherm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zato_ichi:<BR>Instead of trying to ram so called man-made global warming down our throats how about reporting on scientific studies to the contrary? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to cite one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would citing a single one really satisfy you? Or are you going to ask for more citations?. Would 10 be enough? Would 50 be enough? <BR><BR>I get the feeling that even an infinite amount of citations would not satisfy you.<BR><BR>I also am skeptical that you have seen zero papers that contradict man-made global warming. If this is true, then perhaps you're not looking hard enough or you're sources are from the same propagandistic publisher.<BR><BR>I don't understand why you and Timmer can't spend a few hours to find a source other than Nature magazine.

 

[Cataleptic]

The comments section of this article have been reserved for a new and exciting exchange about global warming. If you wish to contribute to any discussion about how climate scientists can improve their communication with the public, this is not the place to do it.<BR><BR>Apparently.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ueffo Beeblenarf:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zeotherm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zato_ichi:<BR>Instead of trying to ram so called man-made global warming down our throats how about reporting on scientific studies to the contrary? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to cite one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would citing a single one really satisfy you? Or are you going to ask for more citations?. Would 10 be enough? Would 50 be enough? <BR><BR>I get the feeling that even an infinite amount of citations would not satisfy you.<BR><BR>I also am skeptical that you have seen zero papers that contradict man-made global warming. If this is true, then perhaps you're not looking hard enough or you're sources are from the same propagandistic publisher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The problem is each side of this argument can come up with mostly factual and creditable data that contradicts each other endlessly. So hedge the difference and balance it with jobs and livelihoods because at the end of the day that's all you can do.....

 

[Ueffo Beeblenarf]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZippyDSMlee:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ueffo Beeblenarf:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zeotherm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zato_ichi:<BR>Instead of trying to ram so called man-made global warming down our throats how about reporting on scientific studies to the contrary? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to cite one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would citing a single one really satisfy you? Or are you going to ask for more citations?. Would 10 be enough? Would 50 be enough? <BR><BR>I get the feeling that even an infinite amount of citations would not satisfy you.<BR><BR>I also am skeptical that you have seen zero papers that contradict man-made global warming. If this is true, then perhaps you're not looking hard enough or you're sources are from the same propagandistic publisher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The problem is each side of this argument can come up with mostly factual and creditable data that contradicts each other endlessly. So hedge the difference and balance it with jobs and livelihoods because at the end of the day that's all you can do..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cataleptic:<BR>The comments section of this article have been reserved for a new and exciting exchange about global warming. If you wish to contribute to any discussion about how climate scientists can improve their communication with the public, this is not the place to do it.<BR><BR>Apparently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It is a problem. When I was a lurker, I would see people refute Timmer's articles with links to other papers and they would go unnoticed or be ignored.<BR><BR>I understand that no amount of refuting will change one's mind. This topic is like the ones found in the Battlefront. Climate change is not a science anymore, it's a religion. Like the choice of a computer platform, nobody can change anyone's mind on which platform is the best.

 

[Cataleptic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZippyDSMlee:<BR>The problem is each side of this argument can come up with mostly factual and creditable data that contradicts each other endlessly. So hedge the difference and balance it with jobs and livelihoods because at the end of the day that's all you can do..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>IMO, 'the problem' is that people are too focused on global warming, as if it's perfectly fine to have an economy that is profoundly dependant on fossil fuels and uses our planet's atmosphere as a dumping ground for industrial waste... so long as it doesn't have a negative effect on the value of beach-front property in California.

 

[vibedog]

If communicating the problem, is such a problem, which I believe it is, maybe the scientists should start with something simpler, like human population. Exactly how many are too many? There are 300 million people in the USA, do we really need another 100 million by 2050? Biologically we'd be healthy with a number as low as 1 million, so exactly what is the "plan"? Unabated immigration and births? This is the plan? This is the global warming challenge that I think is easier to communicate to the masses but everyone just talks around the subject. What is a sustainable population if fossil fuel usage world wide ceases tomorrow? <BR><BR>The answer to the communication issue is to some extent, don't hassle with it too much, just do the right thing. Our government could be on a fast track for nuclear power and electric transportation because it is the right thing to do, even if the general public have far more important things to worry about- like paying bills and the everyday drudge that occupies so much of our lives but is an absolute necessity.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cataleptic:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZippyDSMlee:<BR>The problem is each side of this argument can come up with mostly factual and creditable data that contradicts each other endlessly. So hedge the difference and balance it with jobs and livelihoods because at the end of the day that's all you can do..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>IMO, 'the problem' is that people are too focused on global warming, as if it's perfectly fine to have an economy that is profoundly dependant on fossil fuels and uses our planet's atmosphere as a dumping ground for industrial waste... so long as it doesn't have a negative effect on the value of beach-front property in California. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Nice non sequitur, once you lower the bar to "killing the planet" and all that jive it makes the conversation a fanboyish argument inane of things.<BR><BR>Lower pollution where its cost effective, put it off where it is not unless it effects less than 20-30% of the public then get go after it because it dose not effect livelihoods that much.<BR><BR>I am all for forcing all new cars to be 50MPG or higher if not they are taxed 5% of retail price a year unless its a bushiness vehicle. And in 10-20 years all new vehicles must be 100MPG or better, we can do it this is were most of our cost and pollution is but no one wants to do it...

 

[jiffle]

While one can argue the niceties of the research back and forward ad infinitum, I find it useful to assess the motivations of the various participants in the debate:<BR><BR><B>Climate Change Lobby</B><BR><BR>What do disparate groups around the world have to gain in this? The only argument seems to be that they're jealous of US corporate wealth and want to bring it to its knees. The only problem with that is that a couple of new taxes aren't going to end US capitalism, and are certainly not going to directly benefit the individuals leading the campaigns, so it seems a bit pointless.<BR><BR><B>Anti-Restrictions Lobby</B><BR><BR>In contrast, this group seem to have a massive vested interest in fighting legislative change. By and large, these groups represent wealthy companies with large interests in fossil fuels. While economic change very rarely damages the economy itself (indeed it can often stimulate it), is does often result in <B>different</B> people getting rich. Which, of course, is a massive motivation for those who are already highly successful to fight against it.<BR><BR><BR>My natural tendency is to disbelieve any arguments from parties with very strong self-interest. To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies' famous quote "They would say that, wouldn't they". Hence, I find it prudent to take any of the Anti-Global Warming pronouncements with a huge pinch of salt.

 

[GFKBill]

jiffle, do you not think the Climate Change field of study benefits enormously from all this too? How many climatologist where there in the world 30 years ago?<BR><BR>Not taking a position on AGW or anything, just saying I think your analysis is badly flawed (biased is another word that springs to mind).

 

[Mydrrin]

Ueffo - John Timmers has shown 30 or so that I have seen of papers the are for Global Warming. You have shown websites that blather about what other people are saying without any data to back it up. Show something with some data, some meat with all that potato. You previously stated Ueffo that you have read far more about the subject than John, please do show some data or some actual factual study that shows that it is getting colder. Or at least some trend that is not up.<BR><BR>The onus is on you to show your side, because you can't prove a negative, cause somewhere somehow something could be out there and you could never finish looking for the mystical unicorn.

 

[laudunum]

Honestly, I don't understand why, Ueffo, you keep posting here if you feel like no one is listening to you. For most people, that would be a signal that they should look for a different conversation to join. A fair number of us clicking on an article by John Timmer are interested in reading about what's happening within a given scientific community, either in terms of research they are producing or in terms of how that research gets done. <BR><BR>The focus of this essay is both the complexities of climatology as well as the complexities of communicating those complexities. As someone who works in the humanities, I find myself drawn to these conversations because I am stunned that the scientific community has reached such a roadblock in this. The humanities have long been marginalized, both by their own inward turn over the last few decades as well as by a systematic effort by the far right to find a straw man that could not, by the very way it is structured, fight back. The sciences, living as they do at the very heart of our modern culture -- the Sagan quote is a great one, would seem to be in a much better position to avoid being marginalized. And yet there has been a steadfast campaign to accept a whole lot of advances made possible by science but then decline to accept certain ideas that are ideologically unacceptable for one reason or another.

 

[IdeaHamster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ueffo Beeblenarf:<BR>I understand that no amount of refuting will change one's mind. This topic is like the ones found in the Battlefront. Climate change is not a science anymore, it's a religion. Like the choice of a computer platform, nobody can change anyone's mind on which platform is the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Thank you Ueffo, I think you've captured the problem quite well. I like to call it the "Fair and Balanced Fallacy" or the "Fox News Fallacy" if you like. The problem is that, unlike politics, very often science <I>is</I> one sided. Of course, people relate much more to politics than science, on the average, and so you have this situation repeated throughout history.<BR><BR>In fact, I'd like to have a little fun for a moment:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ueffos Beeblenarfus, c. 1600:<BR>I unterstand that no amount of refuting will change one's mind. This topic is like the ones found in the Bible. Heliocentrism is not a science anymore, it's a religion.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I realize that this is beside the point of a debate on climate change, but I think this is central to the point of the article. It's almost as if some people want the Earth and the Sun to get together and debate which one is at the center so that they can evaluate the arguments and come to their own conclusion.<BR><BR>This thinking is attractive, borderline addictive, because it falsely presents a notion that one has some sort of control over outcomes. Everybody loves control. But the climate of the earth really doesn't care what you *think* might be happening.<BR><BR>So, yes Ueffo, eventually I expect that you <B>won't</B> be able to change anyone's mind about climate change. This is science, investigation of the <I>physical</I> world. At some point, reality wins!

 

[jiffle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GFKBill:<BR>jiffle, do you not think the Climate Change field of study benefits enormously from all this too? How many climatologist where there in the world 30 years ago?<BR><BR>Not taking a position on AGW or anything, just saying I think your analysis is badly flawed (biased is another word that springs to mind). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Fair point about climate research benefitting.<BR><BR>Unfair point about bias. I am merely playing the classic game of 'follow the money'. And the big money does, whether you like it or not, point firmly in one direction.

 

[bthylafh]

So, admins. How about you ban some persistent trolls so the signal/noise ratio improves?

 

[tashtish]

Lower pollution where its cost effective. An economy that is profoundly dependant on fossil fuels and uses our planet's atmosphere as a dumping ground for industrial waste.

 

[Transparent]

This was a very good article. <BR><BR>Everyone who is even vaguely interested has heard of objections to the significance of all climate warming data. It only has to deviate a little, even if it's a clear outlier, and someone will bring them up as irrefutable proof or the GW conspiracy. Ueffo blathers on about them like a bellowing toad in the comments to every post. Since I'm an uninformed moron, I'm often unable to ascribe relevant significance to these exceptions.<BR><BR>We get plenty of good articles discussing the mechanics of climate change, and I applaud NI for posting these. They're invaluable to understanding the scope of issue we're facing.<BR><BR>I want to hear more about the details of these uncertainties though. I would like to understand the actual uncertainty in many of the data points, especially where the data breaks down. Bad data does not undermine the general theory, when there is plenty of reliable data that still supports it. It's the same as the co called proof against evolution.<BR><BR>In regards to climate, more than any science (except perhaps evolution) the skeptics end up making contradictory points based on selective data, that make their overall argument incoherent. I've hear of evidence supporting a cooling trend, a flat trend, a "natural" warming trend that benefits us in every way and should be accelerated. From other likewise uninformed morons like myself, I can hear all these arguments, plus a bunch of others, in a single conversation.<BR><BR>Anyone who hopes to undermine articles in Nature with postings on a website is fooling themselves. I give far more credence to the authors of NI than anyone attacking them personally, attacking a highly respected journal, or pointing me to some website doesn't have any real data, just strange criticisms of the climate change methodology, or a list of cities that have just experience unusually cold weather.<BR><BR>For all those people who post the same old stupid comments in every climate post. Please stop. For NI, please post more excellent articles.

 

[nummycakes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mydrrin:<BR>Ueffo - John Timmers has shown 30 or so that I have seen of papers the are for Global Warming. You have shown websites that blather about what other people are saying without any data to back it up. Show something with some data, some meat with all that potato. You previously stated Ueffo that you have read far more about the subject than John, please do show some data or some actual factual study that shows that it is getting colder. Or at least some trend that is not up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ueffo clearly has no problem with hockey sticks, which must leave for him the anthropogenic link. Having said that I don't think I've seen from him any reasoning or links to papers that would suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions don't increase the atmosphere's greenhouse effect for some reason or that there exist feedback effects to cancel its contribution out, while at the same time proposing a non-anthropogenic cause for the warming.

 

[KnowledgeBro]

Here are some simple facts, simple enough for idealogical AGW deniers to understand.<BR>The Human race has been polluting the planet for hundreds of years. From the very first fire we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere, this is in addition to "Natural" CO2 from Volcanoes etc.<BR>All this has an effect. As to how great an effect you would have to analyse all the data but an affect is beyond denial, it is logical. To sacrifice the future of our existence on this planet for the sake of short term profit and wealth is the height of selfish ignorance.<BR>It is human nature is to deny responsibility if possible, like the kid who says "it was like that when I got here", "it's not my fault" or "he's lying, I didn't do it".<BR>Grow up, take some responsibility and stop your whining.<BR>It's Knowledge Bro.<BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by KnowledgeBro on January 25, 2010 04:07</I>

 

[zeotherm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ueffo Beeblenarf:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zeotherm:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zato_ichi:<BR>Instead of trying to ram so called man-made global warming down our throats how about reporting on scientific studies to the contrary? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to cite one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would citing a single one really satisfy you? Or are you going to ask for more citations?. Would 10 be enough? Would 50 be enough? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why don't you cite one and we'll see/go from there. <BR><BR>Of course, you may not be able to do it with a computer, since we already know that you are " neutral" on the underlying science of the foundations of the semiconductor industry (having heard contradicting evidence from each side, apparently).

 

[zeotherm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bthylafh:<BR>So, admins. How about you ban some persistent trolls so the signal/noise ratio improves? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Report trolling to mods@meincmagazine.com. If no one mentions it, it can often go unseen

 

[lost_packet]

What do you expect from people that think the earth is 6,000 years old and no matter how much science you give them, it is rejected? <BR><BR>We also have staunch republicans that reject anything that comes from anyone they perceive as a democrat. Anthropogenic global warming is a perfect example. <BR><BR>People draw lines in the sand and will not budge. If the church believes in creationism, you MUST believe it too or you are not a good christian. If you are a republican, you can NEVER side with a liberal view no matter what science says. Got to thank idiots on Fox News, teabaggers, and christian conservatives for bringing us back into the dark ages.

 

[Glidedon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lost_packet:<BR>What do you expect from people that think the earth is 6,000 years old and no matter how much science you give them, it is rejected? <BR><BR>We also have staunch republicans that reject anything that comes from anyone they perceive as a democrat. Anthropogenic global warming is a perfect example. <BR><BR>People draw lines in the sand and will not budge. If the church believes in creationism, you MUST believe it too or you are not a good christian. If you are a republican, you can NEVER side with a liberal view no matter what science says. Got to thank idiots on Fox News, teabaggers, and christian conservatives for bringing us back into the dark ages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>But it's hard to tell who the evangelists are in this case.

 

[Nyx]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZippyDSMlee:<BR>The problem is each side of this argument can come up with mostly factual and creditable data that contradicts each other endlessly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <img src="http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif" alt="Confused" width="15" height="22"><BR>Climate change: innumerable papers/studies/documentaries, etc. on the subject<BR>Opposing side: random websites & anecdotes as well as dodgy 'studies' from big oil that dont have a prayer of getting into a science journal.<BR><BR>Not exactly a balance I'd say.

 

[slam-o-rama]

I've actually been dreaming for a while about writing up a AGW: Know Your Sides kind of post. <BR><BR>In the AGW corner, innumerable studies, as mentioned. All journaled and peer-reviewed, a process that is not perfect but is the best review process around. Also a huge number of scientific and professional organizations, governments, NGOs, the UN, and universities.<BR><BR>In the AGW denial corner, a few peer-reviewed papers, a few climate scientists, a few non-climate scientists, no scientific or professional organizations, and probably no governments.<BR><BR>However I think the AGW public debate is a lost cause. AGW denial has shifted into the conspiracy theorist territory and it's impossible to root it out. To that demographic, all the journals, orgs, and even wikipedia are in cahoots together to promote the false science of AGW in order to fleece the citizens and capture our precious bodily fluids. Or something.<BR><BR>Instead there needs to be a philosophy or system of moving ahead despite the vocal flak of the illusioned few. The only debate worth having is the kind of debate where neutral third-parties and lurkers can see that one side has credibility and the other lacks it. This will not be decided on facts alone, because your typical "neutral" observer at this point obviously has a life and lacks the time for deep research. In addition to facts, process will count. Respectful, honorable, reasonable discourse wins out over personal attacks and shrill cries of a cover-up or suppression.

 

[IdeaHamster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slam-o-rama:<BR>Instead there needs to be a philosophy or system of moving ahead despite the vocal flak of the illusioned few. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There is such a system: science. Believe it or not, most scientists are perfectly happy to do their research, inform their peers of their findings, educate their students, and communicate results to the general public...all the while avoiding engagement with the lunatic fringe. This has been going on for years.<BR><BR>Usually the above arrangement works out because the scientists can still do their research in spite of the lunatic fringe. However, recently...well, let me show you a graph:<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://imgur.com/exNE9l.jpg"> <BR><BR>Notice that kink in the graph right around 2003? See, this time the lunatic fringe managed to elect one of their own to the executive. You know, the office that distributes money?<BR><BR>And if you're a fan of conspiracy theories, try this one on for size: reduce funding to a group of scientists that are producing results you don't want to admit to; when they begin struggling harder and harder for fewer and fewer funding dollars, point out that they have a financial stake in the matter; discredit said scientists as a money grubbing group of conspirators trying to take down the economy.<BR><BR>Now you might be tempted to think: "OH NOES! We're doomed to live in a dumb world..." but then you'd be wrong. This, too, has been going on for years.<BR><BR>America is not the only scientific superpower in the history of the world. Before America, England and Germany were the centers of scientific research. Going back in history, before them it was Italy then Turkey then Baghdad then Persia then Greece then China etc., etc. And now it looks like China and India are about to break into their own in the world of science again. Sure, the transition will be bumpy and take a decade or two...<BR><BR>...but honestly? I've stopped worrying about American global warming deniers. I've come to realize that the quickest way to shut them up is to take my 6 years of graduate education and leave. The manufacturing sector is already decimated and the service sector will only last so long before nobody wants the U.S.'s outdated technology. Europe has already shown it's better able to cope with high gas prices with its extensive public transport system, and just today I'm reading about how China is making a big push for renewable energy technology.<BR><BR>So you know what, Ueffo and friends? I...don't...care. Think what you want. In fact, sign me up for your global warming deniers campaign. The faster and more forcefully you push away anyone that wants to do scientific research, the sooner your impact on the global climate will be reduced to manageable levels.

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Transparent:<BR>Anyone who hopes to undermine articles in Nature with postings on a website is fooling themselves. I give far more credence to the authors of NI than anyone attacking them personally, attacking a highly respected journal, or pointing me to some website doesn't have any real data, just strange criticisms of the climate change methodology, or a list of cities that have just experience unusually cold weather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The problem with uncritical reading of reporters / scientists that you agree with is you just tend to re-inforce biases. This leads to sloppy science and reporting at all levels. Case in point courtesy of the IPCC and reported by the Times Online:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><I>The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.<BR><BR>But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.<BR><BR>The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The way that the IPCC responds to this will tell me exactly how much faith I should have in the integrity of the larger climatology community.<BR><BR>Nature needs to work on enhancing credibility at the same time as communicating uncertainty accurately. No one is going to be convinced of any position you advocate if such rubber stamping of AGW claims is widespread or insufficiently exposed to scrutiny. <BR><BR>Personally, I'm sceptical because the science isn't "settled." I'm not convinced yet, and events like the above don't help.

 

[JPan]

the problem is that lots of scientists are doing the natural thing. Fighting for the good cause by exaggerating and hyping up Climate change panic. I mean its natural with a sensational paper on how the seas will boil in 2050 or that all Himalaya glaciers will be gone by 2035 people pay you much more attention than with the truth:<BR><BR>Which is that temperatures will probably change by 1.1 -> 6 degrees by 2100. Which means that climate change can be anything from a mild annoyance to absolutely cataclysmic but nobody knows for sure.<BR><BR>That's the truth but its something that is not exactly enticing people to do something.<BR><BR>Nevertheless its the truth, which is what science needs to fight for. Scientists are not here to save the world. They are needed to provide the information and means to enable politicians and all other people to save the world. <BR><BR>So what I would like to see would be more focus on weeding out wrong and sensationalist papers and statements of both sides. Please leave the world saving to someone else.

 

[Ohmn]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climate Change Lobby<BR><BR>What do disparate groups around the world have to gain in this? The only argument seems to be that they're jealous of US corporate wealth and want to bring it to its knees. The only problem with that is that a couple of new taxes aren't going to end US capitalism, and are certainly not going to directly benefit the individuals leading the campaigns, so it seems a bit pointless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR>LMAO. It is precisely this kind of atrocious analysis that causes many of us who don't know what to make of the debate NOT trust the AGW side and possibly not their science. The climate lobby is trying to accomplish one of the greater power grabs in peace time. Absurd you say? The climate lobby is trying to dictate to people both how much and what kinds of energy they can use. This kind of power grab influences every aspect and phase of public life and private enterprise. What is worse, the lobby wants to be able to change dictates for "the good of the planet". The AGW crowd may want to give the UN and their respective governments that kind of power, but some of us are very uncomfortable with this. <BR><BR>If the AGW crowd can't see how their cause is being usurped by people who want to use it for a power grab, then it sheds doubts on their cause. There are a lot of troubling issues. Why isn't the AGW crowd pushing their operatives who are trying to pull off the power grab for nuclear power? Why are they allowing their operatives to suggest taxes to redistribute wealth with programs that are not going to help the planet one iota? Why are they letting their scientific research, if it is so holy, be used as a political football? Why are they allowing their operatives to push for "solutions" that mean pimping technologies that are energy losers? <BR><BR>Yes, many of us can see that the science indicates the planet is warming. If it is such a holy cause to stop, why isn't the AGW crowd rabid about going after those who are trafficking in "solutions" that are not solutions?

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR>the problem is that lots of scientists are doing the natural thing. Fighting for the good cause by exaggerating and hyping up Climate change panic. I mean its natural with a sensational paper on how the seas will boil in 2050 or that all Himalaya glaciers will be gone by 2035 people pay you much more attention than with the truth: </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You should read the whole article if you get a chance. The glaciologist that was misquoted eviscerates the IPCC report on the second page.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><I>But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”<BR><BR>He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.<BR><BR>It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.<BR><BR>A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.<BR><BR>The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.<BR><BR>An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The IPCC report is guilty of naked advocacy, fiction even with regard to the Himalayan glaciers. Who knows what liberties they took with claims that had slightly better scientific backing? They basically made stuff up with this section of the report after all. <BR><BR>When asked why he didn't come forward earlier when he noticed the errors in 2008 Hasnain said:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">“My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?” </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>His boss at his current research facility had this to say:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Pretty damning stuff.

 

[IIci]

The problem in many scientific fields is that editors not scientists make a synopsis of the findings which ends up being the public discourse point. Because editors and not scientists do these, there is often the temptation to stress findings and connections not made by the scientific paper to drive interest to the research. Part of it is the funding incentive structure that distorts the science at the public interface point.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to how great an effect you would have to analyse all the data but an affect is beyond denial, it is logical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>LOL ok this is the kind of statement that makes me really despise our ecological minded sandal wearing Greenpeace guys.<BR><BR>Yes an effect might be beyond denial (as is for pretty much FREAKING EVERYTHING MAN OR ANY LIVING ORGANISM does) An algae is using photosynthesis? woohoo we have an affect, its beyond denial. <BR><BR>See Jiffy the only important question is: How big is the effect. This is a really really important question and I think its fair to ask for solid scientific evidence that the damage man-made Global Warming does is probable more expensive to humankind than the billions of dollars (which translate into an equal number of dollars less spent for social security, wellfare, hospitals, food for the poor whatever) we need to spend to get it under control.<BR><BR>Now for the record: I think if done in an intelligent and fair way, the consensus seems to be that reducing CO2 emissions is probably a worthy investment. But this is the kind of qualified answer I want from a scientist. Not some all or nothing spiel.

 

[hpsgrad]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Invid:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR>the problem is that lots of scientists are doing the natural thing. Fighting for the good cause by exaggerating and hyping up Climate change panic. I mean its natural with a sensational paper on how the seas will boil in 2050 or that all Himalaya glaciers will be gone by 2035 people pay you much more attention than with the truth: </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You should read the whole article if you get a chance. The glaciologist that was misquoted eviscerates the IPCC report on the second page.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><I>But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”<BR><BR>He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.<BR><BR>It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.<BR><BR>A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.<BR><BR>The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.<BR><BR>An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The IPCC report is guilty of naked advocacy, fiction even with regard to the Himalayan glaciers. Who knows what liberties they took with claims that had slightly better scientific backing? They basically made stuff up with this section of the report after all. <BR><BR>When asked why he didn't come forward earlier when he noticed the errors in 2008 Hasnain said:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">“My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?” </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>His boss at his current research facility had this to say:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Pretty damning stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is the stuff that the IPCC just admitted was wrong, and removed from their report, right?

 

[Invid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>This is the stuff that the IPCC just admitted was wrong, and removed from their report, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They had an alternative? Even the researcher referenced in the report says he was misrepresented.<BR><BR>There are qualitative and quantitative departures from the truth in that summary. The admission almost three years later when pressed earns them no points either.<BR><BR>Edit: for additional backstory, see this Guardian article from Nov 2009 as the story developed:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of "arrogance" after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused "abnormal" shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.<BR>[...]<BR>The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years' worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.<BR><BR>Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some "Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."<BR><BR>Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".<BR><BR>"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm a little hazy on how exactly it came out that the 2007 report had little basis in fact, but this Indian report precipitated it.

 

[Kressilac]

Difference between dark matter and climate change is that there isn't a politician trying to tell everyone how to behave and what kinds of cars to drive because of the science surrounding dark matter. Because the politicians aren't involved, the science surrounding dark matter can trek along until the science reaches conclusions. When a politician get's his dirty hands on climate change and he realizes that he can use it to scare, coerce or convince the masses into action; well, then we have a different version of science and unfortunately, no amount of "correct and proper" science will come out of the mess once politics is involved. Too many scientists have chased the money and all too willingly cried wolf. It's no wonder their credibility is in question today because repeated cries of wolf fall on deaf ears these days.<BR><BR>That's the price you pay when you seek out government money for whatever plans you might have. (see Chrysler, GM, the banks, climate science and possibly healthcare.)

 

[klj1945]

Just one more thinly disguised political piece by John Timmer.<BR><BR>Yes, we have seen how some climate scientists wish to do science by consensus. You have to admit - it does generate funding!<BR><BR>The reality was expressed recently by Dr. Joanne Simpson. I refer to her because no one has since expressed it better. She said, after retiring, that "the science" consists "almost entirely" of computer simulations, and everyone knows the "frailty" of those models.<BR><BR>Please do a search for Dr. Simpson. Look at her qualifications - as to commenting on the state of climate science.<BR><BR>Look back here at previous comments to Timmer's opinion pieces. It was made very clear that those models the science depends "almost entirely" on are OPTIMIZED on the (very questionable) historical climate data. They do not use the historical data to VERIFY the models - they clearly use it to OPTIMIZE them. To anyone with any knowledge of using non-linear models in chaotic systems, this is a huge, huge red flag waving that should never be ignored. Timmer talks about uncertainties - he obviously has no clue about what the uncertainties are. (Unless he is purposely being dishonest.)