Climate change denialists winning the race for "Best Science Blog"
Skye sez, "In the 'Weblog Awards Best Science Blog Contest' a psuedoscience web site denying the effect humans have on global warming is currently in the lead over real science blogs. Apparently conservative political sites have been directing their readers to vote for it, whether they read it or not."
Link
(Thanks, Skye!)
the latest
latest episodes
Bad Astronomy Blog was my choice from the beginning. Phil does a great job.
Well, I think Climate Audit is doing very important work here. I hope they take up the reins on other vital issues, like how the moon landing was staged and that gravity doesn't actually exist.
Good point Talia. Newton has gone unopposed for too damn long.
Is this the solution? If a Best Weblog vote becomes Who Can Get The Most Less-Interested People Who May Or May Not Read To Vote, it's pretty much an exposure contest-- you want your ad to get lots of people who probably don't read your blog to begin with. I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is the right way to go about this. It's not a wrong way, necessarily, but part of me would be more interested in making explicit that when a contest becomes this type of thing, it's pretty meaningless. Allowing the methodology to be flawed because we* can sometimes win* is not as good as fixing the problem.
*not the words I want, not a gladiatorial combat, etc
Good point, Yamara. We, as Americans, must ever vigilant in protecting our sovereignty. We follow American laws, not the laws of physics, motion, thermodynamics, the fittest, Kepler's Law, or any of these primarily foreign laws being taught in our schools and institutes of higher learning. Same goes for protocols: the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol...didn't we fight and win wars against these people? Now the pinko-lefty-Mac-using-cosmo-swilling-Gore-loving libtards say we should let the Japs and Pepe LePew dictate our domestic policy? You'll have to pry my SUV keys out of my dead hand before I'll let that happen.
Here you go:
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/?ic
I think you guys killed the server. But if Bad Astronomy is still leading when the servers die that means they win! :D
Another demonstration that truth is not a democracy.
I just looked over the supposedly "quasi-scientific" blog that's denying global warming and winning this obscure contest.
Frankly, I just don't see it. The guy who runs it appears to be backing up his theories with data, tests, and reports. I'm not a scientist, and due to my non-scientific educational background the stuff he's citing may as well be written in wingdings, so I have no idea if the stuff he's using is correct, but I don't think it does us much good to write him off as a "politically-biased GW denier."
I'm bothered by global warming and those who repeatedly deny it's existence as much as the next guy. Seriously, my girlfriend, my family, and my friends all tell me that I talk about it way too much. But this guy has an opinion and appears to be attempting to back that opinion up with science.
That is 100% A-OK in my book.
Even though the blog in question might be bunk (I don't know I don't have time to read it), there are some serious scientists who question the reasons for global warming. Eg: is it caused by humans or is it naturally occurring. It is important to examine both sides of the issue, which, I'm sure not everyone has. Examining the other sides of the issue in question with an open mind is an important part of forming your opinions on these important issues. Note however, that I am not a climate scientist or even a Geophysicist. So, what do I know? Please excuse my ignorance on the subject.
Newton has gone unopposed for too damn long.
Actually Einstein already disproved Newton's theory of gravity...
Actually Einstein already disproved Newton's theory of gravity...
No, he amended it.
The reason that human-driven climate change has become such a popular cause isn't that it's correct, it's that people want to believe the fate of the planet is dependent on their actions. It's a 21st Century re-enactment of the debate over heliocentrism, and you guys (non-denialists?)are the Inquisition.
climate change questions are best answered by scientists, not political activists. the fact that so many people care about the answers to these questions is a bad sign. if this were a question of whether the universe is going to be expanding forever or eventually contracting, most boing boing readers would approach the subject with scientific curiosity. they wouldn't get angry about either answer. i think that's the right way to look at the issue of climate change.
it is true that some conclusions are almost universally accepted by scientists and intelligent people. evolution is an example of this. i do find it laughable when someone denies scientific facts in order to fit the world to their beliefs (whether those beliefs be religious, political, or simply self-interested).
unfortunately, climate change questions have not all been answered conclusively. progress has been made, but politics keeps getting in the way. this little squabble between websites is not helping us find answers.
the blog that is linked to, the blog that is angry about the success of the "anti-science" blog, is actually a blog about psychology. and they're so petty as to refuse to even link to the blog they are complaining about (at least in that post). the link is http://www.climateaudit.org/ for anyone who actually wants to read what the site has to say.
i actually went there and read some of it. i'm not a scientist, but it all seems on the level from what i could tell. i'm sure politically active scientists and statisticians could find hundred of mistakes and misrepresentations in its content. but i'm also quite sure that politically active scientists and statisticians from the other side of the issue could find hundreds of errors in the content of the "anti-antiscience" blogs as well.
i'm not being paid off by the military-industrial complex. i'm not a conservative republican. i just think that this debate is still a scientific one. let's keep politics out of it.
I am appalled by you moderation nazis: "Let's consider both sides of the issue...."
Jesus. When something has the potential to drastically and inexorably change life on Earth don't you think it might possibly be a good idea to err on the side of caution?
And whether global warming is caused by human activity or natural reasons, does cutting down on human emissions hurt? If you buy a Prius are you putting Saudi oil workers out of work? Are you cutting into the Exon-Mobile pension fund? Does this bother you?
And let's look at the economic motivation on both sides: gargantuan energy interests that depend on a fossil-fuel thirsty world to keep energy costs high and--I don't know here--let's say the solar panel and hydrogen fuel cell lobbies. Who has the power to produce the most pseudo-science? What's the motivation of the environmental scientists? Are they trying to secure tenure or increase their pitiful research budgets by creating an artificial crisis? Come on now.
Isn't it slightly ironic that this poll (and others like them) are completely unscientific and meaningless.
The only thing you can possible conclude from this poll is that "blog x is considered the best among people who actually bothered to vote or knew about this poll".
There's no need to get worried, it means nothing, even though later on mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Republicans will point to it to claim some kind of validity for their made-up "scientific" stance.
S
Shrdlu, you may well be right, but "erring on the side of caution" is a policy decision, not a scientific one.
If we don't agree, we label it Pseudoscience and never attempt to find a solution. How perfectly Stalinist.
"Erring on the side of caution" sounds suspiciously like Pascal's Wager.
Anyway, there are multiple vectors along which one could be cautious for any potentially climate-impacting decision: climate impact, personal economics, global economics, safety, etc. For example, when you cautiously buy a Prius to cut down on petroleum use and emissions, you incautiously invest in new technology that is more expensive and whose lifecycle is not yet fully known. Sure, there are some climate-friendly actions you could take that seem to be pretty much slam dunks (e.g. using CFLs instead of incandescent lightbulbs), but most policy decisions are a great deal more complex, requiring responsible decision-makers to do a more careful analysis than simply being cautious along the vector du jour.
Moderate Nazis and Perfect Stalinists? Sounds like a match made in heaven...
SHRDLU is right in that buying a Prius won't hurt. We need to conserve resources to save our planet for future generations.
But using exaggerated and alarmist claims to scare people into conservation is wrong.
Even though many scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic, some still think otherwise. These people are not "climate change denialists"; they agree that global warming exists. They're just unsure about the extent to which human activity is the cause of global warming. They believe the science is at present inconclusive and can't be used to direct policy decisions.
SHRDLU -- climatologists are as human as the rest of us. This means that they care passionately about their work. Unfortunately, this passion often makes them less than objective. And when an issue is as politically and financially charged as this one, they can lose all semblance of reason.
Science is subject to paradigms of thought and those people who think outside the paradigm are often marginalized. This happens whether or not history later proves their ideas to be correct. It's just how humans behave.
Those environmental scientists you mentioned are not immune to the political effects at work here. Young researchers especially can be denied tenure or funding if they go against the paradigm of the day. And for environmental science, the money is not "pitiful". The US spends more on climate research than on AIDS research.
So to summarize: the motivations of climatologists are not always as pure as we'd like. They care about their work, they care about what their colleagues think of their work, and they care about the money and tenure necessary to continue their work. And with a subject as complex as environmental science, this can strongly effect their interpretation of what their data mean.
Apparently conservative political sites have been directing their readers to vote for it, whether they read it or not.
Institutions 187634285734, Individuals 0. Evil is apparently a competitive advantage.
"Skye sez: ... Apparently conservative political sites have been directing their readers to vote for it, whether they read it or not".
Doesn't that happen with every poll? It's just as bad with lefty activists as with righty opponents.
These days, once you hear the word 'denial', you can bet that all attempt at rational argument has ceased, and name-calling is in full swing.
i remember 2 years ago scientists were proclaiming that there would be no ice covering the north pole in the summer within 40 years...
last year they were saying that it would happen within 20 years...
i read a few weeks ago that it looks like next year...
vote however you like.
"Frankly, I just don't see it. ...I'm not a scientist...so I have no idea if the stuff he's using is correct,"
So you defend him because he "back(s) up his theories with data, tests, and reports."
How can you tell? You just admitted you have no basis on which to judge. Steve Milloy who runs junkscience (so, so aptly named) is a paid advocate for ExxonMobil. He's been a corporate lobbyist for most of his professional career. He's a scientist like Fox is news.
AnneBonney,
I don't think this is at all about departmental politics or the personal bias of researchers. Having worked in research science, I seriously doubt that 90% of researchers could be bought out by special interests.
And let's not forget that generally one side is peer-reviewed, one side issues press releases. One side is funded by largely by public money, one largely by private money.
And of that public money, of the roughly $2 billion spent on climate research by the government, only half goes into actual research. That may be more than to AIDs research, but it is a tiny, tiny fraction of military R&D. Climate change is certainly not an industry as some would have us think.
That's not to mention severe climate change is potentially a bigger threat to human health than AIDs, but of course we don't know with 100% certainty, but precious little in this world is 100% certain.
Isaac:
There is no evidence for God and substantial evidence of global warming; moreover, the consequences are not imaginary in this case.
If people don't know how faulty such online contests are by now, then that equally faulty site deserves to win. It's all one big ironic comment on our own stupidity.
For me, a science blog should be interesting in and of itself, as well as being about science (or, at the least, in some way vaguely connected to the subject). Climate Audit may be good or bad science, but it's as dull as ditch-water.
The poll is a popularity contest; it's not going to mean a thing if CA wins it. Do all those voting for CA seriously think they can vote an alternative scientific paradigm into being? Are the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report supposed to register this protest vote and turn their backs on their conclusions? Not going to happen.
I'm sad that my favorite science blog on climate change (realclimate.org) didn't even make the list. It's like the only blog I've seen where they use, y'know, actual science, and present things as "just the facts." Plus because its run by actual climate scientists, they actually regularly do updates on the most recent developments in the field. I think the problem is that they discuss technical details, but have little of the show business of more popular pundits on the matter.
-----
To those of you claiming that climatologists are so passionate that they lose all objectivity on the matter, I'd first like to ask you to source that, because besides being insulting, if you're just making it up as an ad hominem attack on climate science you're engaging in libel. To a scientist, nothing is more important than their reputation for objectivity and correctness.
In fact, keep in mind it isn't "alarmism" if in fact it's well substantiated and supported. I find that very few people who charge "alarmism" have any better factual basis for saying so, other than as a substitute for a lack of science supporting their position.
In this business of controversial science, I have to laugh at how of all of the fields of science only in climate science (and evolutionary biology) are scientists "passionate" and "ego-driven" to "lose objectivity" such that they could make such a colossal mistake that people claim they make. Yet somehow this doesn't happen in fields of science where the general public doesn't care about the results.
Can anybody point to an example of junk science on the Climate Audit site?
By the way, if anybody is curious about the kind of things Steve McIntyre (the ClimateAudit.org guy) pulls, check out the 0.03 degree temperature change.
Yes, folks, Publius got it right. The best science blog on global warming (by actual scientists) is realclimate.org. Anyone curious about the sort of junk the denialists put out will find the correct response there.
BTW, the politico pseudo science denialists are really hammering the voting now, apparently making a thing out of getting on top. It is a shame as Bad Astronomy, the blog right behind the junk science C.A., really, really deserves the win.
Also, as commented above, online polls are often bunk, and it seems likely the poll is being gamed, beyond the obvious neo-con crap-flood.
On a related topic, people are spamming reviews in Amazon.com. There is a denialist book by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer about "unstoppable global warming" (Singer just a few years ago was presenting cherry-picked data to prove that there isn't any global warming at all). It's scientific nonsense, but all the favorable Amazon reviews have been getting five stars and all the unfavorable ones, one star. Dunno who is responsible.
This is off of Owsley's essay site.
http://thebear.org/essays2.html#anchor506010
Believe what you want, but this is probably the LEAST outside-influenced take on the matter that I've found so far.
"C.A. is written in such a poor manner that general public can´t tell if it´s true or not (because it is unbearable to read)." Ideas are not clear, opinions are not referenced, and contrasting points are not properly presented. Therefore, it clearly does not merit the award what ever their political agenda might be.
A few hours left in this...
I'm not going to speak to the specifics of climateaudit.org; I see a lot of scare quotes and biased rhetoric like "This genuflection towards global warming..." which ring warning (or warming) bells for me, but Wikipedia and the associated discussion pages can probably do a better job giving you a summary ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy ).
But I would like to address the idea that he "appears to be backing up his theories with data, tests, and reports." Anyone can post tables of data and pretty graphs that look "good enough", and it's been a known tactic of right-leaning anti-science sites to produce enough "science" to convince the average Joe that their sites have real weight. A typical reader (and I'm including myself in that category) doesn't have the tools to make a real judgment. It takes close analysis by experts in the field, who aren't biased by the name or affiliation attached to the data. This is why we have peer review — the people who are best qualified to review the data do so — and why scientific questions are rarely settled in the popular press.
As far as I could tell, McIntyre's data has not been peer-reviewed, and he holds no advanced degree; he seems to be trying to hold a scientific debate in the wrong venue.
He isn't a "denialists", just a skeptic.
Here's a very thorough blog entry on the controversy: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html
I'd highly recommend reading the Wiki article on the "hockey stick controversy" if you want to know what climateaudit.org is all about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
climateaudit.org is about the statistics involved in climate science. They focus entirely on the science of statistics.
The most telling piece of the CA site is in the FAQs.
Question: Does your work disprove global warming?
Answer: We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.
Vote early, vote often, it's the GOP way!
SAE MILLER & ZOMBIEITE (particularly):
You've both admitted that you're not scientists and you think that both sides of the issue need to be discussed.
On the face of it, that's a very, very reasonable request. However, the problem is almost identical to the problem we're having with ID. Scientists don't see a controversy anymore, but the media needs to have two sides to a story, or else it's boring - even better if one side is a plucky underdog. Not only is it a waste of time, but "discussing both sides of the issue" is an end in itself to creationists / denialists, as it provides them with a legitimate platform.
The major points that they're raising have been discussed - and discarded - by the scientific community already. Now, as scientists try to work out what we can do, denialists are busy fitting facts to their theory while insisting that the rest of us pay attention.
We don't really want to have to argue with them, because it's a backwards step - exactly as introducing ID into schools would be.
No-one is advocating censorship and, under normal circumstances, we do our best to ignore people who don't contribute to science. But when scientists are confronted with pseudoscience, they have to decide whether to ignore it, or whether to stand up for their (empirically assessed) beliefs. That's why people are bothering to vote in this (fairly stupid) poll.
rodriquezseeds: Spend 10 minutes and give the wiki article "hockey stick controversy" a thorough read. There's more to AGW than just climate science. The climate science bases a lot of their work on results of statistical science.
Climate scientists are saying the "case is closed". Statistical scientists (more that just M&M) are saying the "case could be closed, but we don't really know." That is not "pseudoscience".
rambunctiousrob, November 8, 2007 7:49 AM
The reason that human-driven climate change has become such a popular cause isn't that it's correct, it's that people want to believe the fate of the planet is dependent on their actions.
I find this part of the debate completely mysterious. Who cares whether it is human-caused? Human-caused is distinct from human-preventable. I care whether it's human-preventable, but I couldn't care less whether it is human-caused.
I imagine a meteor flying toward the earth, on the verge of destroying all human life, a la "Armageddon" or "Deep Impact," and this group would say "don't do anything about the meteor! It's not human-caused!"
Wow. A lot of name-calling here, and no real facts except those which seem to prove that the other guys' information is completely bogus.
It seems that there are a lot of people lined up on either side of this issue, and it's not readily apparent which side has more scientists and which side has more politicians (or even that the scientists and the politicians are on opposing sides).
The best option, until the noise subsides relative to the signal, is to do nothing.
That's not Pascal's Wager, for if it turns out that human actions do have millennial global consequences on climate, the mechanism is poorly understood. Therefore, doing anything, just for the sake of doing something, may turn out to be the very worst thing for this planet.
DUUS -- The reason why the human factor is important, is that if this is a natural, non-human caused warming... then what makes us think that driving a Prius is going to change anything?
There was a major report a couple of weeks ago (I can't remember where it was from, but it was on the CBC) saying that Kyoto is failed and that we need to re-assess our climate change policies. They said that govs should be spending equal amounts of money between cutting GHG and adaption, i.e., dealing with the results of a warmer climate.
They weren't denying that it's getting to be a warmer climate -- just that we need to spend the same amount of money on reducing the impact as we do on prevention.
QSD:
I'm aware of the Hockey Stick Controversy and I think it's a nice illustration of my point that, as an oil industry consultant, you can successfully "filibuster" science by quibbling over what you perceive to be problems.
No one claims that any experiment is flawless and actual scientists (who dedicate themselves to the subject and aren't oil industry consultants) read papers, peer-review them and subsequently decide how much weight to give to their conclusions.
I think you'd find 10 minutes reading this New Scientist article interesting, particularly the part from "Flaws in methodology" onwards.
"Sure, there are some climate-friendly actions you could take that seem to be pretty much slam dunks (e.g. using CFLs instead of incandescent lightbulbs"
Not to be a pest, but CFLs turn out to be a bad choice. Many governments now ban (or are planning to ban) incandescents in favour of CFLs.
The problem is, CFLs require us to throw out our hundreds of millions of energy-saving timers, dimmers and photocell controls as being fundamentally incompatible, greatly off-setting the energy savings of CFLs.
Also, CFLs exhibit shorter lifespans than those their manufacturers claim in conditions other than the ideal ones their manufacturers test them in, such as outdoor fixtures, enclosed fixtures and ceiling fixtures where the CFL is mounted base up. This further offsets their energy savings.
Finally, improperly-disposed-of CFLs contribute toxic heavy metals to our groundwater. Imagine the net effect of a billion more CFLs going into landfill every year, once incandescents are no longer available.
No, I am not a puppet of the incandescent lightbulb cartel. In fact, I ma hoping that a practical LED bulb gets developed soon, so that we can avoid the nasty issues of CFLs altogether.
But I think I've made my point that there's always more to the story if you take the time to think about it.
The report I mentioned before was in Nature: "Time to ditch Kyoto"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7165/full/449973a.html
rodriquezseeds: The article at NS was well written, and interesting. It was reasonably non-biased.
The main problem that I see, is that it seemed to say that M&M are the only ones who see problems with the hockey-stick created by Mann and his peers.
It makes no mention of the Wegman report (see the Wiki article) that largely agreed with M&M. Steve McIntyre is indeed a retired oil dude. Wegman, however, is "a statistics professor at George Mason University and chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics."
I'm sorry, apparently I missed the proof that global warming is in fact caused by humans. Certainly there is compelling evidence, but to rule out the possibility that we are not causing it, is just as dumb as ruling out the opposite. We don't know for certain what is causing the climate change. I would rather be safe than sorry, but don't rule out the possibility that this is a natural cycle.
RUGERREDHAWK: If it was just a matter of "buy Prius" vs. "keep my 20 year old clunker" -- then I agree. Better safe than sorry.
But when it comes to major economic policy decisions, this is too important to let political biases get in the way.
One big silly thing about this is that if this pseudoscience site (which I have not read, I'm busy, dangit! I haven't read any of them.) wins this web-poll then some people in the conservative media will make serious hay about it, while people in the liberal media will shrug and say "morons". If not then things will happen the other way around. No minds will be changed by this whole thing.
Having a web-poll for anything is pointless at best. Believing a web-poll is anything other than pointless is just stupid.
"...actual scientists (who dedicate themselves to the subject and aren't oil industry consultants) read papers, peer-review them and subsequently decide how much weight to give to their conclusions."
No. "Actual scientists" do science. They don't just read about the science that others did and pass judgment upon it.
What you just described is the International Panel on Climate Change, a committee formed to create policy to address climate change using the methodology of finding support for anthropogenic CC in the research of others. True to your definition, the IPCC did no research whatsoever. Instead, they cherry-picked facts that would support their preconception, drawing conclusions that, in most cases, the authors of the research did not.
The IPCC's justification (and that of many global warming activists) is apparently that misinformation isn't wrong if it's for something they consider to be a good cause.
To an "actual scientist", misinformation is wrong. Period.
QSD:
Wegman's Wiki page was also worth reading, cheers for pointing that out.
In return I'd ask you to have a look at the RealClimate post referenced in the article. Yes, yes, I know, it's obviously prejudiced, whereas Wikipedia is of course NPOV. But sometimes it's OK to have an opinion - the interesting bits are where he shows the differences that Wegman's criticisms make to the controversial graph and the *really* relevant point is his last:
"Can we all get on with something more interesting now?"
This isn't an attempt to draw a line under an apparent embarrasment to climate scientists, it's a recognition that further discussion is a waste of time and plays straight into the hands of those who aren't really bothered whether "climate skepticism" is ultimately accepted or not, just as long as they don't have to respond to climate change now.
So, let's recap.
The Mann study may not have been statistically rigorous enough to say for certain that the planet was *never* hotter in the past millenium than it is now. However, other studies have since superceded Mann's and drawn the same conclusions - see the NS article.
McIntyre, who's blog is winning this poll, is a "retired oil dude" and his criticisms are ill-informed and methodologically flawed.
The universal consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is genuinely occuring and that something, unfortunately, needs to be done immediately.
Didn't realize until I went digging that this is Steve McIntyre's blog. If climate change denialists are voting for CA, then they're going to be in for a shock.
His work aims to ensure that conlusions claimed are based on evidence presented. And that methodologies operate as advertised. You'll have to dig, but he also works towards open access - of methodologies, tools, and data - so that others can repeat experiments and data analysis.
Good reading here if you want to better understand some of the issues...
http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf
I look at it this way - I don't want a climate change prediction based on junk science, because it already seems almost certain that we need to make big changes. So - I'd like those big changes to be the ones most likely to be useful. Furthermore - there is always the possibility that although humanity is doing a lot to run up the greenhouse effect, there may be other factors also working in that direction as well. If that is the case, we want those identified as well. Humans being at fault and needing to change their behaviour is no guarantee that there aren't other warming causes that we need to mitigate on top our own actions.
Just because someone agrees with accepted conclusions doesn't mean their science is sound.
Finally - being behind a browser proxy looks like it means that I can't vote. It appears to be "one vote per IP address every 24 hours". I first looked at the site today, but in every category I check, it says I already voted in the last 24 hours.
UNUSUAL SUSPECT:
Cheers for pointing that out.
I am in fact an "actual scientist" and I can assure you that the scientific method doesn't just involve sitting in a lab to "do science" (I'm forced to imagine bunsen burners and big machines covered in flashing lights).
Collecting and evaluating evidence is of course a huge part of what we do, but equally important is the assessment of other's work, known as "peer-review". Misinformation is always wrong and is dealt with severely. Check out Hwang Woo-Suk, for instance.
What you just described is a lab tech.
rodriquezseeds:
If I must choose as "actual scientists" either the peer-reviewers or those you derisively call "lab techs", then I choose the lab techs.
rodriquezseeds: I don't think you and I are ever going to see eye-to-eye on this one, but at least it's good to converse with someone who is rational about the topic.
One more mini-debate (I can't help myself): Although I concede that Steve McIntyre is a "retired oil dude", I don't agree that "his criticisms are ill-informed and methodologically flawed."
The oil thing is just flak, something that gets thrown in the way to stop the debate.
I currently work on a contract for a provincial gov Health ministry... that doesn't mean that my views about computer science (my specialty) are skewed towards or away from the views of the health system. (I know it's a stretch, but I wanted to give a personal example.) As an "expert" who is respected by my community and peers, it should be assumed that I am un-biased by $ in my opinions... until it can be proven otherwise.
Is an expert automatically a liar because he is associated with a particular opposition group?
Those who are discarding the views of people like Steve McIntyre because he previously worked in the oil industry, are implying that he's being paid by the oil industry to skew his opinions.
Is that fair? Is he to be assumed to be a liar because of his former employer?
Are David Suzuki or Al Gore automatically liars because they are financially supported or linked to Toyota or the Sierra Club?
then I choose the lab techs.
Except that you've done no such thing: you've chosen to mouth the message of the PR professionals, instead.
TUS, so you're saying that peer review is an unnecessary part of actual science?
Update: Climate Audit has won.
New headline: Climate change realists win race for "Best Science Blog"
UNUSUAL SUSPECT:
Thankfully for all of us, you don't have to choose.
You've missed the point (completely). Real scientists do both the creating and the reviewing. Real scientists work very hard at gathering evidence then work very hard at interpreting it, then *publish* it, so that everyone who understands what they are talking about can decide if it is worth accepting. Real scientists often disagree, vehemently, about who is right and will mercilessly criticise each other's work.
Anyway. The system works, consensuses change, science advances. The only problem is when egotists with a chip on their shoulder (ahem) decide that the place for their half-considered views is in an actual scientific debate.
QSD:
Thanks for the considered response.
You're right - to some extent I am judging him on his connections to the oil industry. There's inevitably an ad hominem element to pointing it out, but it's certainly not an irrelevant point.
I've been involved in pharmaceutical research and I acknowledge it's pretty ugly. I can objectively compare the industry's R&D budgets against its advertising budgets, then come to a dispassionate conclusion about the argument that "drugs need to be expensive." (They don't. Big pharma are indeed bastards.) My personal experience is irrelevant.
But let's say I had defended the pharmaceutical industry from legitimate criticism. What could motivate me to do this? It's an important point, because I might be genuinely misguided and in need of education and debate. Alternatively, I have more sinister motives, like a kind of "trolling" on a grand scale.
In this case my background would be of interest and would help to decide whether I should be engaged in debate - or whether I should be ignored / confronted.
I reckon this is true in McIntyre's case. Clearly he's intelligent, his academic record speaks for itself. But first you look at his actions (attacking the consensus with dubious science), then come up with a hypothesis (perhaps he's got a serious conflict of interest) then you collect evidence for and against (here's where his background becomes important). I agree, you don't just *immediately* dismiss him from the issue because you happen to disagree with him - or even because you disagree with him and he's worked for the oil industry. He's judged by his actions, first and foremost.
- I'd have to say that I'm sad he's won. Science isn't about to roll over and die, but having him stick "best science blog" on his page is only going to kick up the dust around the issue and waste time and confidence that we could all be using to think of what to do next.
This is getting increasingly stale, but I wanted to quickly clarify that I'm sure McIntyre is *not* in the pay of the oil industry - just that he spent years in it and it's skewed his thinking to the extent that he's no longer open to true, rational debate.
And I wanted to add PZ Myers' take on the issue:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/hello_stan_palmer.php#more
@ DUUS
I apologize for making an idiotic over-generalization. I was a little mad. What I meant to say is that, as far as I can tell from the people I know, most support for 'AWG' is tied to a kind of egotistical view of human capability/responsibility, not from a disinterested analysis of facts. The distinction is important because if there were some looming catastrophe it would demand massive government investment and regulation (of our personal lives).
This doesn't at all mean that I don't believe in environmental responsibility, I just don't believe in the thesis - which is all AWG is, a thesis.
As an aside, and this isn't directed at you directly, the idea that skeptics are paid by oil companies, or are driving SUV's, which gets tossed around a lot, is juvenile and misses the point. I personally am still in University and am supporting myself on barely more than minimum wage (in Canada).
What this debate boils down to is whether the government should have a mandate to dramatically intervene in the economy, with 'AWG' believers (if I can use that term) acting (probably unknowingly) as catalysts.
You know, it would be a lot better if global warming supporters would stick to science rather than ad hominem attacks.
Every time someone presents a chart saying that global warming is a scam, the response never disputes the chart -- instead it's more like, "Your chart is wrong because you own stock in Exxon." Er.... what?
Any chance we can ever have a real debate on the subject? It's long overdue and I don't know why scientists and politicans avoid it. Just accept the debate, crush the opposition with the facts and be done with it. Stop with the ad hominem attacks already. Fox News has been trying to schedule a debate like this for ages. Well? Accept it, crush them and move forward. Why is that so hard?
rodriquezseeds:
Ignoring for a moment your implied insults (based on your unproven assumptions regarding the credentials of those whom you are debating), you assert:
"Real scientists often disagree, vehemently, about who is right and will mercilessly criticise each other's work."
Yet your earlier position was stated as:
"The universal consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is genuinely occuring and that something, unfortunately, needs to be done immediately."
Were you overstating for effect when you spoke of "universal consensus", or is this the position you wish to defend -- as an actual scientist?
Calton:
It depends on whom you consider to be the PR professionals. I see them on both sides.
Obviously there is the energy lobby on one side, but too few people realize that the IPCC is itself a PR instrumentality, designed with the stated purpose of getting UN member countries to agree with the Kyoto protocols. The IPCC are not researchers, but merely editors and recompilers of others' research, with the aim of "proving" an a priori conclusion.
Usual Suspect: As I understand it, the disposal of compact fluorescents (CFL's) introduces less mercury into the atmosphere than generating the electricity to operate incandescents of comparable brightness over the life of the CFL. That assumes coal power.
LED's are / will be nice, but they aren't as efficient as many fluorescents yet. There are some in the lab but they're decades away from being $1/ea for 1740-lumen lamps in eight-packs at Lowes. (If that ever happens.)
Quality is an issue, though: as you said, many manufacturers are overly optimistic (to be charitable) about their hours rating. I've found the commercial grade 10,000 hour rated bulbs to be excellent, but they're still close to $10/ea. Given labor costs we use them in our office building, but for home use, I still struggle by with the cheapies.
Most timers will work with CFL's, but only certain photocells and almost no dimmers. That means that, unfortunately, I've stuck with incandescent in certain applications. But a 7watt CFL has been on my porch for over five years and is still going strong.
I take this as just another nail in the coffin of electronic voting. Why even bother asking people to vote? Just generate some random numbers and get it over with. Define "random" any way that suits your fancy. Change the motion being voted upon post hoc.
Disclaimer: I do not work for Diebold. Or Livebold either.
Without weighing in on whether or not CA is correct or not, it is extremely troubling to see the term "pseudoscience" thrown around like this.
Pseudoscience should be reserved for those who reject the scientific method itself. All of the variations of creationism that I'm aware of, for example, are pseudoscience since they rest on non-scientific methodologies. Creationists tend to be honest enough, in fact, to attack the "naturalistic" underpinnings of science, though most of them don't realize just how profoundly stupid that attack is.
CA's arguments may be lousy and they may be wrong, but they are certainly not pseudoscientific, unless Cory and others really mean to say that all criticisms of scientific theories that turn out to be wrong are pseudoscientific.
CA clearly attempts to marshal a scientific argument against global warming. Whether or not his argument is cogent or successful, his methodology does not appear to reject accepted scientific methods and should not be dismissed as "pseudoscience".
Finally, it is a bit weird to see Boing! Boing! pimping Big Foot nonsense on the one hand, and then complaining about "pseudoscientific" theories of global warming the next. Maybe CA should dress up in an ape suit and shoot some jerky video in order to get Boing! Boing!'s endorsement for best science blog.
UNUSUAL SUSPECT:
Please don't ignore the implied insults. They were intended to be taken to heart.
Now, stop quote-mining for a moment and think about the issue. I stand by both of my statements: 1) Scientists often disagree; 2) Scientists accept global warming.
Think about any other major (or minor) issue in science throughout history. Someone comes up with a new theory, someone argues, they work out who is right, scientists eventually accept the theory, idiots come along and try to distort it to claim there's a controversy / conspiracy. McIntyre and his posse, yourself included, are part of a well established pattern.
BRIAN CARNELL:
I respect that you're trying to promote legitimate debate, but we are definitely are discussing pseudoscience here.
For instance creationism is *not* pseudoscience, it's just an anti-rationalist philosophy. By contrast, ID is pseudoscience, because it seeks to conceal its creationist agenda under the cloak of a "scientific" appearance.
Pseudoscience is a pastiche of science and it subverts it in the eyes of the public. That is exactly what is occuring in this instance and it's a valid criticism of McIntyre's work to call it pseudoscience.
**Unlike the scientists involved, he does not do original research and his work is not peer-reviewed.**
His work shows a poor grasp of the wider issues involved in the paper he's so fixated on, let alone the wider issues in science. Also, his own critique contained serious methodological flaws.
He uses a style of writing that to scientists marks him down as a crank, but to the layman may be appear to be that of an actual scientist.
This is textbook pseudoscience.
It's profoudly depressing that a non-scientist with a pronounced agenda and no evidence base can win a competition for "best science blog", using the votes of equally poorly-informed individuals who only hear what they want to about global warming.
rodriquezseeds:
"Please don't ignore the implied insults. They were intended to be taken to heart."
This is hardly the type of argument you should resort to, as an "actual scientist".
"Now, stop quote-mining for a moment and think about the issue. I stand by both of my statements: 1) Scientists often disagree; 2) Scientists accept global warming."
So to clarify: you are no longer asserting that "The universal consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is genuinely occuring..."
And we can hardly discuss your opinions without quoting them, can we? I suggest you don't think of it as "quote-mining" but rather as "peer review".
""It's profoudly depressing that a non-scientist with a pronounced agenda and no evidence base can win a competition for "best science blog", using the votes of equally poorly-informed individuals who only hear what they want to about global warming."
Here, hear. And thank you for bringing this discussion back on track.
All this to me just further demonstrate the bankruptcy of public discourse- at least among us english speakers.
When you have people thinking that BUYING A CAR helps to save the planet, it just goes to show just how much of the human brain's activity has been shut down in American society and replaced by word viruses.
Actual scientists speak their minds.
Once and for all, I am *still* asserting that "The universal consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is genuinely occuring..."
An established consensus does not preclude the possibility that bitter debate has *previously* taken place - although only in cases where the evidence is ambiguous enough to merit such a debate.
Please, please go back and read the posts. Then think about them. Then understand them. Don't reply until you're sure that you've done this.
Of course actual scientists speak their minds. Actual scientists also examine their assumptions.
And what is it about your consensus that makes it universal? That there is not one scientist disputing it? That it will not be disputable at any time in the future?
RodriquezSeeds: Thank you for your patience, and for keeping track of the argument and sticking to it.
Brian Carnell, I may not agree with it (which is to say I don't), but that's an interesting comment on "pseudoscience."