Al Gore Slamdunked

[Chinahand]

I find the accusation of obscurantism quite offensive, either whether its meant as 'opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge' or a 'deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.' Indeed, the other definition I found - 'A policy of withholding information from the public' actually seems more easily applicable to people in East Anglia.

I should also be honest enough to add that I frequently find the patronising attitude of some members of the scientific community does little to make me care about their findings or their warnings - its as if we're all supposed to ignore the fact that scientific and technological progress is exactly what's brought us to the present state of affairs.

Terse - my take on the issue is a little different from yours. My understanding is that when it comes to the scientists working in the field majorities of over 80% worry about the effects of AGW. There is a lot of uncertainty, but most would say it was an issue.

 

A small minority think it will be catastrophic and the tipping point has been reached already or in the very near future - and these people are the poster children of the green movement, organizations such as Plane Stupid etc. They are apocalyptic and driven by beliefs about capitalism and modern man being out of sync with nature which is reaping its revenge.

 

The broad majority are concerned - temperature rises around 2 to 3 degrees will change ecosystems, bring drought to millions in the third world and flood islands in the pacific. But generally this is something which will be sorted out over decades of hard work which the world needs to be taking, but there is no need to demand we go back to the dark ages.

 

Another small minority think nothing will happen and its all a fuss about nothing.

 

The internet contains far more coverage of the first and third groups totally out of proportion to what the scientific consensus says is the likelihood of these extremes happening.

 

There is then the issue of the integrity of the scientists in the various camps - an analogy to cigarettes seems appropriate - some people may claim that the doctors working away researching cures for cancer and the ill effects created from smoking have a vested interest in making a big deal out of the ill effects of smoking. Their jobs, careers and research budgets are dependent on keeping the NHS funding it - and the government has a vested interest due to its taxation of tobacco in proving the evil weed should be priced out of existence.

 

I don't think that is true - I think by far the majority of cancer studies are genuine attempts to get to the bottom of an issue, honestly and openly.

 

However I am far more doubtful of what will happen to the science coming out of labs supported by the Tobbacco industry - the scientists may have integrity - most people are professional and I hear what Lost Login and VinnieK has said. But that may not be true of the tobbacco lobby pushing the direction of the research, and once the research is concluded the scientists will have little control of how their results are spun with the caveats and nuances removed.

 

I think it is well known that Big Tobbacco went out of its way to confuse the science, it twisted genuine research and wasn't afraid to spin stories based on dubious science to keep politicians on its side. That is what I call obscurantism. A deliberate attempt by politically motivated people to destort the evidence.

 

I believe this is what is happening over climate change - Big Oil isn't as involved in conducting the research as big Tobbacco was, but it is very involved in spinning it.

 

And yes I'll agree so are the dark greens as well.

 

The IPCC is a reputable scientific endeavour - like a research project into cancer. Its an honest attempt to find the scientific consensus in a complicated subject.

 

But groups with very different agendas are making hay out of it. The greens in an almost religious attempt to convert people to their point of view via scare tactics, and the vested interests in oil and coal to protect their industries.

 

I am far more worried about the influence of King Coal and Big Oil - their tactics are working - when I read up about the common climate denial themes it really is obvious to me that the are talking crock for political reasons.

 

Their base simplification of the science and distortion of it are to me obvious - ie really would recommend watching some of these videos. They go to the heart of the debate.

 

Terse, you say you see about equal amounts of evidence that AGW isn't an issue - I really do think that is down to politicization of the issue and the obscuring of the evidence by those with a vested interest in climate change denial.

[Dr_Dave]

Is that really the case as if it was a would be much more of a sceptic. My understanding it is not two roughly equal sides with opposite views but that one camp is considerably larger than the other.

 

Here's a good overview of the current state of climate science:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....rarian-nonsense

 

From page 5:

 

In 2004 historian of science Naomi Oreskes published a well-known analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." Out of 928 papers whose abstracts she surveyed, she wrote, 75 percent explicitly or implicitly supported anthropogenic global warming, 25 percent were methodological or otherwise took no position on the subject—and none argued for purely natural explanations.

 

It also carries an interesting response to Terse/Ringwraith's theory that scientists are just in it for the cash. From page 5:

 

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs.

 

And, from page 4, a reminder that if the global scientific cabal conspiracy theory were correct, the scale would be utterly impractical:

 

Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world, stretching back through Arrhenius and Tyndall for almost 150 years. (See this feature on “Carbon Dioxide and Climate,” by Gilbert N. Plass, from Scientific American in July 1959.) It is also one so powerful that it has co-opted the official positions of dozens of scientific organizations including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics and the American Meteorological Society.

 

I can't imagine that this article would convince everyone - it's very editorial. But it's definitely worth following the links (not the money) and finding out about the actual science behind it all. I think a lot of the problem is general ignorance about how well supported and discussed this stuff is. And it's all out there for you to find.

 

Dave

[Terse]

It also carries an interesting response to Terse/Ringwraith's theory that scientists are just in it for the cash. From page 5:

 

Dave

I have never made any such suggestion. Your research methods are clearly suspect!

[Albert Tatlock]

It also carries an interesting response to Terse/Ringwraith's theory that scientists are just in it for the cash. From page 5:

 

Dave

I have never made any such suggestion. Your research methods are clearly suspect!

Albert and others having appeared to suggest that work produced by scientists who are paid by Governments or large organisations should be discounted on principal.

I never said that either. Some yes though - not all.

 

If you want to really know who is undermining scientists and researchers - just watch BBC Breakfast for the latest mornings' science scare/hope/fashion (usually contradictory v previous so called 'scientific discoveries/research') - and you'll find that it's many scientists and research groups themselves, as well as the media.

 

Scientists and researchers often trade with the public on the 'I'm a science expert so should be trusted' basis. Even the official science mouths of the government come out with a load of rubbish many times (look at the recent drug committee debacle). Joe Public often doesn't know if he's coming or going, or what to believe, on what scientists and researchers come out with - especially via the media. Most of the media can't even pronounce 'Hadron' correctly, never mind know what one is - or know whether the MMR vaccine is dangerous or not.

 

And then, worst still, there's the hidden agenda of many scientists/researchers...many out now to control how we live our lives. Yes they have a responsibility to tell us about danger and educate us - but it has become a hell-bent philosophy of some to seek to control us and tell us what we have to do by lobbying government to bring in laws.

 

That's what loses and has lost much trust.

[Dr_Dave]

I have never made any such suggestion. Your research methods are clearly suspect!

 

Apologies!

 

Jurors will disregard this accusation. Counsellor Dr_Dave, you will be careful in future, or I shall hold you in contempt of court!

 

Dave

[Dr_Dave]

And then, worst still, there's the hidden agenda of many scientists/researchers...many out now to control how we live our lives. Yes they have a responsibility to tell us about danger and educate us - but it has become a hell-bent philosophy of some to seek to control us and tell us what we have to do by lobbying government to bring in laws.

 

You've really been watching too many James Bond films. Scientists generally don't all spend their time building mind control devices or hatching plots to blow up the world's dams. Read some of the original source literature!

 

But there is merit in what you say with regard to the media. Scientists generally aim to publish and don't really care what their findings affect or influence. The media then shoot this through their own prism and what the lay-man tends to hear is a distorted, headline friendly version. See: MMR and vaccinations in general.

 

Dave

[Slim]

China, interesting point about the noisy minorities on both sides. Talking to a friend about it this morning yielded a similar conclusion. He's basically sick of being told about it, so while he accepts warming is happening, he'd far rather just let it happen and deal with it than be told what to do in advance. Seems like a head in the sand attitude to me, but that's the kind of response bad science PR invokes.

[Dr_Dave]

China, interesting point about the noisy minorities on both sides. Talking to a friend about it this morning yielded a similar conclusion. He's basically sick of being told about it, so while he accepts warming is happening, he'd far rather just let it happen and deal with it than be told what to do in advance. Seems like a head in the sand attitude to me, but that's the kind of response bad science PR invokes.

 

I kind of hope that we're the last generation of the wasteful. I think that if we can agree on one thing, it's that our lifestyle is not sustainable. We waste, we fuck things up, we pollute. But I would expect that kids today are being raised to think entirely differently from us. We see a DVD as something to aspire to - they will see it as a chunk of plastic that cost x resources to make, and they could have downloaded it off the net.

 

I expect that in 20 years time, "green" thinking will have become part of the culture. Solar, wind and other renewables will have advanced to become affordable and ubiquitous.

 

Dave

[Slim]

I kind of hope that we're the last generation of the wasteful. I think that if we can agree on one thing, it's that our lifestyle is not sustainable. We waste, we fuck things up, we pollute. But I would expect that kids today are being raised to think entirely differently from us. We see a DVD as something to aspire to - they will see it as a chunk of plastic that cost x resources to make, and they could have downloaded it off the net.

 

Seeing a bit of this already, top of my boys xmas list is 'Microsoft points', so he can download stuff off Xbox Live. My daughter wants phone credit, the other lessons. I don't know if that's common, but they don't seem to hanker for 'stuff' like my generation did.

[VinnieK]

But there is merit in what you say with regard to the media. Scientists generally aim to publish and don't really care what their findings affect or influence. The media then shoot this through their own prism and what the lay-man tends to hear is a distorted, headline friendly version. See: MMR and vaccinations in general.

 

Very true, but it has to be said that the public also seem to have developed a thirst for distorted science: on the one hand they want to see scientists telling them that doing something easy like eating cardboard will stop them getting cancer or halt the aging process and wearing odd socks promotes happiness and well being, whilst on the other they want to see scientists who happen to suggest that there will be consequences of this or that established form of behaviour pilloried and exposed as power hungry frauds. It's a tune which a significant proportion of the media is happy to play. As I've said before, I think it's compounded by a streak of an anti-establishment attitude rather than anti-science, and is at least partly a consequence of the government being a bit heavy handed over the years in its attempts to influence the direction of society, but, together with a short sighted demand to justify and explain every penny of the relatively poor funding of science in terms of immediate and practical benefits, that's one of the factors that's helping screwing up public science in the UK.

[Ringwraith]

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

 

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/...enews/CRUupdate

[Ringwraith]

CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!

 

COLD FACTS ABOUT THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE AFTER THE CLIMATEGATE

SCANDAL

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...e%20Scandal.pdf

[VinnieK]

Oh good, another hatchet job from that demented old fool Christopher Monckton (of Bletchley, dontchaknow). I believe taking Monckton seriously about virtually anything is soon to be adopted as a clinical measure of insanty.

 

Jesus, it's like sitting in a room with the unbalanced and emotionally disturbed sibling of Newsbot in here.

[Slim]

CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!

COLD FACTS ABOUT THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE AFTER THE CLIMATEGATE

SCANDAL

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...e%20Scandal.pdf

 

Urgh, Mockton again. What does that add to the discussion Ringy?

[Ringwraith]

CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!

COLD FACTS ABOUT THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE AFTER THE CLIMATEGATE

SCANDAL

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...e%20Scandal.pdf

 

Urgh, Mockton again. What does that add to the discussion Ringy?

 

Why don't you just read it Slimy, and then maybe you can refute it? 'Urgh', doesn't really do it does it, and certainly doesn't 'add to the discussion' as you put it. But then that's your usual argument against something you don't like isn't it?