Back to the OP and specifically, the book itself. I’m in the middle of reading it now, and found that like every other Crichton book, it’s pseudoscience, mixed with his own editorial flair. He takes a piece of ‘science’, juggles some facts, takes a stand and waits for the royalty checks.
I’m pretty sure when I found this in the $5 rack at B & N, that it was labeled “Fiction”.
Entertaining, but would I ever read Crichton for the science in it?
Okay, now’s a good time to clarify my badly-worded intent. Virtually everyone’s taking what I said and putting words into my mouth. What I said was: “[T]here are a lot of political and financial reasons to come out on the side of global warning being true.” Now that’s not to say that there aren’t financial and political reasons for the other side as well. But the “evil” side is the side that everyone’s against, and it merits pointing out that these same considerations apply to the “good” side in this discussion as well.
Yeah, it’s obvious on the surface that “big oil” and other numerous evil corporations have an interest in portraying things a certain way. Maybe they do; maybe the don’t. The point is, the global warming crowd also have their own motivations that aren’t necessarily selfless. In many cases, there’s a potential (just a potential!) that if you don’t play ball, you don’t get your funding, your grant, or published. On /. just the other day, this article mentions that the BBC are looking for evidence of just such a thing. If you think it’s reasonable that a company distort things “just because they’re a company” isn’t it equally responsible to believe that may academecians distort things as well for their own nefarious purposes?
Thus we’re back to to having to study the data oneself.
The difference between hard science and climate study, though, is that for any report of climate study – unless one is an expert – you’re obligated to accept someone else’s interpretation of things yourself, lest you become an expert. But in real science, results are reproducible. There’s no interpretation involved. Once there’s a solution, there’s a solution, and anyone in the world can check that solution. Maybe you do have to become an expert to understand results or to build an experiment to test the results, but you’ll never have to worry about some biased professor saying that you’re interpretting something wrong, because there’s nothing to interpret. (And obviously I’m discounting things that aren’t hard science yet. While the study of string theory is a hard science, string theory in and of itself is more like climate change study – lots of people think they know something; can spin it one way or the other; and can opine. But no one can say whether it’s correct and there are other, opposing theories out there, too.).
Tracing the story back to the original article Skeptics: Cards on the table please!, it turns out that a better summary of the situation is that a BBC correspondent has challenged climate change skeptics to provide examples that will then be checked by him and his colleagues. His underlying point is that he thinks that such accusations are far too commonly made without anything to back them up.
I’m always astonished at the amount of vitriol spewed over the science in a fictional book. Crichton has a long history of sensationalizing controversial subjects (genetics, racism, sexual harassment, etc.), or even provoking the controversy with his stories. Aside from the fact that it’s dangerous to automatically presume an author’s views match those of his characters (although, it is sadly often true), the fact remains that Crichton was likely trying to sell novels, not prove that global warming is a myth.
Why? To take one example of fictional literature, why not “spew vitriol” (as you put it, but I’d put it “strong disagreement”) at psychopathological Ayn Rand’s one-dimensional, bizarro-world view of economics and contempt for 99.99999 percent of the human race? Why should the mere fact that works are, at one level, fictionalized be a defense against strong criticism when the creators disingenuously mix fact and fiction? Why should Crichton – or, for that matter, Dan Brown – get a pass on spewing bullshit just because his books are in the fiction section?
You might get away with that sort of argument if it’s not a best-seller, but the sad, sad truth is that State of Fear is the primary (if not the only) source of information on the subject for far, far too many people! And that’s exactly why so many Catholic and other Christian scholars were so upset about The Da Vinci Code: Brown had delivered extremely unscholarly and even blatantly false claims in such a way as to make most readers think he was reporting gospel truth.
I once posted one of the very few skeptical, critical reviews of Spielberg’s abominable fictional mini-series “Taken” on the SciFi channel’s board, pointing out how, when one disingenuously injects historical and scientific facts and then gives them new “fictional” interpretations and significance which distort the actual truth surrounding them, most people are going to internalize, if not outright believe, the false claims as the truth! And every single one of those who responded to my post told me “hey, it’s just fiction” – mindlessly and obliviously missing the whole point.
I don’t believe that for a minute. IRL, outside of his fiction, he has taken a strong stand defending that pseudo-skeptic Lomborg and spreading his claims. Furthermore, he is yet another credulous libertarian who believes whatever his Cato Institute masters tell him he should, and he has won at least one award from a libertarian “think” tank which also asserts with typical authoritarianism that global warming is a hoax.
No, he believes his own lies, and that’s awfully damned sad.
I think that’s a bit disingenuous. I’ve seen plenty of people take quotes out of context to make them look worse than what the author meant, but in this case I’m afraid it looks like you’re taking your own quote out of context to make it look better. To remind everyone, here is what you said (with my emphasis):
I have to stand by and repeat my earlier response:
I’m afraid that doesn’t represent much, if any, improvement! I’m not demanding that you agree with me, I’m simply asking for some intellectually honest realism. I’d like you to admit the undeniable fact that the vast majority of the money, power, and politics comes down squarely against accepting or acknowledging global warming.
Maybe? Such unjustifiable equivocating! Why won’t you acknowledge – at the very least – that oil and energy producing corporations (and only you used the term “evil”) not only have incredibly overpowering financial incentives to deny global warming, but that – by dint of their fiduciary duties – must deny it in order to serve the interests of their stockholders? If global warming is a reality, then they must lie outright about it and deny it or they’re not living up to their assigned financial responsibilities!
True. That potentiality absolutely exists, and anyone who out-and-out denies that there are at least some social and political pressures placed on scientists is kidding themselves. But that does NOT justify any postmodernist fantasies that modern scientists as a group can overrule facts and reality and come to a bogus consensus! Individual scientists and even a consensus can be wrong, of course, but but there’s no legitimate foundation for suspecting that they’d join in a consensus that they individually disagree with. If you think such a thing is in any way a significant possibility in a hard, empirical branch of physics such as climatology, you’re imagining things. It just ain’t gonna happen.
You’ve misunderstood, I think. bonzer has the right of it. They, too, just don’t believe there’s any truly significant pressure being put on scientists to form a bogus consensus – let alone the overwhelming amount yours and similar theses absolutely demand. It’s pure fantasy. So to try to put those wild claims of widespread pressure to conform to a bogus belief in global warming to bed, they’re seeking genuine evidence that anything untoward is going on. Again, they doubt it, but they’re willing to hear contrary evidence.
ABSOLUTELY FUCKIN’ NOT!! That statement is so full of shit, no one will ever be in need of fertilizer again! For one thing, you might want to tear down that straw man. But above all, it is laughably farcical to claim, as you just did, that the probability of a scientist denying reality is EQUAL (or anywhere even close) to the probability of a profit-making corporation denying reality in order to best serve what they think are their fiduciary responsibilities!
And have you never heard of tenure? A tenured scientist and/or scholar can – and often does – take whatever public position they believe in, no matter how crazy, without the fear of losing their jobs or positions. Just look at Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ at SRI or this Lombard clown or at people like Stephen Jones and other scientists and scholars who claim that we intentionally crashed into and/or blew up the twin towers on 9/11. On the other hand, a corporate executive in the energy-producing business who publicly states that global warming is real is quite likely to be fired!
That’s what I’ve been saying all along, and the justifiably massive, rational scientific consensus is that global warming is both real and highly perilous.
Climatology IS a “hard science”! As a branch of physics, it really can’t get all that much “harder”. It’s a very, very long way from “soft” science such as you’d see in the social sciences, for example. Furthermore, and I just don’t understand how you cannot get this, EVERYONE EVERYWHERE has to accept someone else’s knowledge and interpretation for EVERYTHING outside of one’s own unbelievably tiny realm of direct expertise! How can you honestly not know that nearly all, say, classical, mundane physicists HAVE to take just about every other classical physicist at their word? It is absolutely no different in climatology!
Bullshit. By that “logic” – which is EXACTLY the Creationist “logic” – the science concerning evolution or astronomy and may others isn’t “real” science, because you can’t reproduce the evolution of life on Earth and you can’t reproduce supernovae, either! Contrary to what sixth grade science books say, reproducibility is more the exception than the rule. The tools of science – which are nothing more than applied techniques of intellectual honesty – do NOT require reproducibility for them to be “real”!
What planet are you living on? Do you really know so very, very little about science? Not even in your oft-mentioned “hard science” of quantum mechanics can anyone avoid interpretations. The postmodernists are pretty much right about one thing: there are no theory-neutral scientific facts or observations. Interpretations are utterly inescapable. You’re doing it when you read these words and you’re doing it when you look up at the moon and you’re doing it when you hit your thumb with a hammer.
However (and this is where the pomos get it utterly wrong), not all theories and not all beliefs and not all interpretations are equal. Some are better evidenced than others. And global warming is far, FAR better evidenced than the dissenters so disingenuously claim.
See above.
WTF? Mathematics is NOT science at all! How can you not know that? Math is nothing more or less than identifying more and more already extant, a priori semantic/logical implications hidden in previous formal statements. It is the very opposite of science. Where science is all about acquiring previously unknown empirical, a posteriori synthetic knowledge, mathematics is purely about the already known (if hidden in non-obvious subtleties), utterly non-empirical, analytic knowledge. The two can’t be farther apart in their cognitive content or context.
Finally, here we see the utterly bogus foundation of your utterly bogus views on the subject. No more can be said, and no more need be said.
Talk about missing the point…What Cerowyn said wasn’t about illiterates that can’t tell the difference between FICTION and fact, it was about the fact that Brown, Crichton, and hell for that matter someone like Tim Powers sell books of FICTION. If he, or his characters have a point of view, it still does not change the fact that it’s FICTION.
Why should someone writing a work of fiction be required to make every piece of ‘scientific evidence’ in their book stand up to public scrutiny? It’s a STORY for goodness sake!
So, following this logic, because ‘most readers’ (which I think is bull anyway, IMHO) are too ignorant to read Brown, Crichton, Powers, et al… the author is required, when writing anything containing any sort of historical or scientific product, to make the facts stand up to a ‘fact’ check? Because then you’ve just eliminated pretty much any fictional stories or books that bother to use science or history to explain story elements. Better toss all those Tim Powers novels, because there’s no real proof that people suck up the essence of ghosts, or travel to other dimensions. Hitchhikers Guide? Ha! prove it could happen, or burn the books!
The Catholic and Christian scholars, in my opinion, did themselves a disservice here. The best reaction to DaVinci would have and should have been “It’s a fantastic piece of fiction, and to comment on it’s scholarly claims would to give it credibility on that basis. I neither encourage nor discourage anyone to read this book or see the movie, but only remind those choosing to indulge that the book and movie are works of fiction”
Sure there’s a difference between outlandish, obvious works of science fiction, or historical fiction (I’ve looked everywhere for Forrest Gump in old pictures - the gyu’s nowehere to be seen…) and those that bring a semi-plausible scenario, like Crichton sometimes does - but the reader’s inability to distinguish shouldn’t be borne by the author.
That’s a silly argument.
You’re the one missing the point.
This post was cleaned up on review, because after previewing, I realized this is GQ, and not The Pit.
Crichton writes fiction, and the controversy he stirs up sells his books.
When you cut through the BS in the DaVinci code, the controversy there covered up a run of the mill murder mystery.
The whole lot of you need a to chill. For Ambushed, I suggest chill medication supplied IV stat.
I wish vBulletin supported nested quotes; as such, I hope this is mostly clear…
I rather think that you’re being a tad disingenuous yourself while continuing to put that quote into its own false context. You did accurately quote me (aside from your bad editorial emphasis), but you left out the non-coordinating conjunction “and.” Perhaps it’d’ve been better to use a semicolon or “and also” to better separate the ideas, but I continue to make my stand that they’re entirely different ideas. In case there’s any doubt, allow me to dissect the quote that seems to infuriate you such.
[ul]
[li]One of the key arguments in the book has the ring of truth[.]This is one of the book’s key arguments. Note I’m not stating my key arguments, as we’re discussing the book here. Further down, I attempted to explain why there can be “the ring of truth” to the five key examples that follow.[/li][li][Y]ou hear the side of the story that has the best resources to tell you that story[.] There’s no doubt that this is true for any means of communication. I’m not saying “resources = power / money” (do I really have to explain “resources”? Do I have to be as patronizing to you as you to me?).[/li][li][T]here are a lot of political and financial reasons to come out on the side of global warning being true. Now we’re talking money and power, and by this point it should be completely obvious that money/power <> “best resources,” otherwise the book would be discussing why big oil, big automotive, and big petrochem have a monopoly on disseminating their anti-global warming message. The monopoly message being discussed by the book (remember, we’re not to the “attack Balthisar” stage yet) is that perpetrated by governments, world organizations, and universities.[/li][li]Global warming is expressed as true daily in the press. Point made by the book.[/li][li]It’s the only side of the story we hear. Point made by the book.[/li][li]Is it any wonder that we immediately discount the other side without being experts? Point made by the book.[/li][/ul]
Now I go on to explain why the book makes these points. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. The whole point (including my point, now) is that one should question everything, and why.
Well, of course not, and I think I’ve settled that above. I’ve also taken liberty to respond to an edited version of that quote so that I don’t find myself in a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of situation. 
Well, yeah. That’s the whole point of Crichton’s remarks. Most scholarly articles make no mention of the other viewpoint at all unless there’s a comparative analyis (which is the correct thing to do so that data stand on their own). Articles critical of the other side, of course, present both sides. The few popular articles (newspapers, magazines) that do bother to mention the other viewpoint gloss over the issue or deride the other side without offering substantive reasoning for the position of the other side. In many of these cases, there’s obvious derision and hostility to the non-agreeing side reminiscent of ambushed’s attitude.
I see part of the problem – you’re confusing my use of “politics” with “current executive branch.” In that sense, I freely admit that there’s vastly more money, power, and politics (in your limited usage) against accepting global warming. My usage of politics is a lot more encompassing, such as that found in world organizations, universities, private companies, and even governments. Now hopefully you’ll admit that none of this is the same as “best resources” otherwise global warming arguments would be being won by the side that you oppose.
I’ve never indicated that they don’t. What I’m indicating is that their message doesn’t even get out to the broad public, except on Fox News, and there’s a certain degree of credibility problems associated with that particular source. Consider the pervasiveness of their message compared to that of the creationists, for example. The amount of face time given to creationists – even by evolutionists – is staggering compared to the amount of face time given to the non-global-warming crowd, and they have nothing in hard science to even back them!
Honestly, I wouldn’t go that far. There may be isolated pockets of this going on, but otherwise it would be like trying to cover up the moon hoax. Are you seriously suggesting that there’s collusion on such a grand scale among the world’s corporations in the world’s several nations and word hasn’t gotten out yet? Fraud, collusion, racketeeting on a global scale (not just corporate-loving America)? You do realize that corporations are run by individual human beings, right? They’re not some Borg-like collective intelligence that does things on its own. I’m not sure if you’re bordering on paranoia or just hate capitalism (I don’t mean that to be an ad hominem attack [unlike yours]; I’m genuinely curious). In any case, is there a single, documented instance wherein they’ve not disclosed their research data as part of their hypothesis? That data is public and free to examination and other interpretation. Now we’re back to that being the trouble with qualifying global warming science as an inalterable science.
Thanks for at least acknowledging that. You’re also backing me up in my premise that there’s room to doubt certain interpretations, which is the problem fundamentally. Some of the quoted statements contradict themselves… if I read you right, though, then you’ll admit that they’re prone to error but that they’ll never intentionally support a conclusion that they don’t believe they honestly support. Okay… I’m with you so long as it applies to corporate-employed scientists as well. You’ve got to admit that in both cases, there’s pressure that can cause researchers to unwittingly reach faulty conclusions. I’ve never indicated that pro-global-warming guys are lying; I’m just trying to show that human factors (that you agree with) have that potential. Institutional bias applies to both sides.
You further mention facts, but what are the facts? Quantify them! There’s a virtually endless amount of facts, and they’re beyond quantifying as a whole. The best that you can do is try to interpret them and understand why the facts are what they are. There’s some hard science in that process. There’s hard science in the data gathering. There is no satisfactory model that can test the premise. There’s room for error.
Let’s get back to my basic premise: you have to become an expert, analyse the data, and reach your own conclusion. And you know what? You still could be wrong.
Here again you seem to think that corporations are mere machines, the output of which is farscical nonsense. I was extreme (“nefarious” was prejudicial, I admit), but my point was the same as further above: There’s pressure to reach a certain conclusion, and you don’t know that it’s not voluntary. Humans are humans and as much as the scientific method tries to remove subjectivity, it just can’t happen in this field. How can you say that this pressure is only present in corporate environments?
Yeah, and your chances of reaching tenure yourself are seriously at risk if you don’t tote the party line. Well, can be hindered. Does this happen? I don’t know, but it’s worthy of consideration. There’s ladder-climbing in academics just as there is in the corporate world, and you don’t have to work at Exon to be ruthless.
Just as the potential exists for any researcher to be impeded if he or she doesn’t, again, “tote the party line.” It’s preposterous to thing that only benevolent human beings work at universities, world organizations, and so on, while only little Eichmans bother to work at corporations. (gratuitous ad hominem attack here: you’re a commie, ain’t ya?)
You’re right, but the key difference is you’re free to duplicate tests and verify results in those other sciences. You don’t believe that two objects fall at the same accelaration and velocity? Test it, and then use math to expand on the implications of that. Don’t trust the math? Work out your own proofs. Doubt that e=mc^2? Do any number of experiments to verify it. On the other hand, don’t you believe in global warming? Well, here’s a subset of the data – interpret it yourself. What’s the result? Well, there’s not a single result. There’s no way to test and verify objectively the consequences of one thing or the other. Climatology is the study of history and the use of inference in order to predict what will happen. There’s a lot of physics in climatology, and there are a lot of correlations that can be seen and justified, but a suitable model to test it absolutely would be the earth, and it’s just not fast enough to process beyond realtime.
Reproducibility is everything to science. Holy copulating cow! How can you not see that? Reproducibility has nothing to do with re-creating evolution or building a new supernova to see if they happen as we think. They have everything to do with reproducing the tests and determining that you get the same results. Real science is a set of components that all build up upon one other, and every one of those components is 100% reproducible at any time. “Supernova” isn’t a science, but all of the physics that goes into what makes a supernova is. “Evolution” isn’t a science but the study of evolution is. In both cases, everything that makes them sciences is reproducible – process, method, tools, and so on. Global warming is not a science; climatology is. Just as you can’t build a friggin’ supernova, you can’t build a global warming. In all cases you can come up with models – maybe they’re satisfactory, maybe not. It’s a very facile, foolish argument to explicitely state I don’t know a thing about science, and then show that you don’t know the difference between science and results.
Interpretation is part of the discovery process, but once a fact is a fact, there’s no interpretation required. Global warming is still highly interpretive. Gallilean physics leaves no more room for interpretation.
String theory is a mathematical model of of fundamental physics, which is a science. We use math as a tool in all science. Who the hell mentioned mathematics anyway? I’m not above such ad hominem attacks, but I thought you were ;).
See what, finally? That just as in string theory there are several entrenched camps each of whom have their own interpretation of the available data, offer their own hypotheses, show data favorable to their own positions, accuse the other side of being wrong, being so closed-minded that they don’t stop to consider that there’s plenty of margin for error on all sides of a particular argument?
You want to know what’s funny? I’m pretty fairly convinced that anthropomorphic global warming is probably taking place. And I don’t just say that as some need to justify myself to you, but it’s important so show that you shouldn’t just believe in something because the side with the best resources constantly barrels it into your head.
Uh, no. Having been the officer of a public company, I can assure you that lying about something that may have a material impact on the company for which you work, particularly if it’s a negative impact, is criminal. Officers are routinely required to complete disclosure forms which usually conclude with a question to the effect of, “is there anything else that you are aware of that may materially affect the company that has not been otherwise disclosed in this form?”
May I weigh in on the funding of arguments bit for a moment? This is, of course, anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt.
A few years ago I was working at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, and put together an exhibit[sup]*[/sup] on global warming (it was just off the main entrance, if anyone remembers it). The bulk of my time was spent on the exhibit floor, essentially giving more depth and background to the exhibit and answering questions from visitors. I had a staff of five interns working there as well, so there were always two or three people working at any time.
We started noticing a pattern. In short, every day—literally every single day—two or three suited lobbyists would come in, take notes, ask us all sorts of questions, and do their best to get involved in our discussions with visitors. All told there were maybe ten to fifteen of them (over time we got to know faces, and eventually names), coming in at different times during the week. Then there were The Visitors. No, nothing South Park-like… just think plain-clothes lobbyists. People coming in hoping to trip us up so the lobbyists could then fire off a letter the legislature et al decrying federal space going towards mistaken or activist science. They also acted as shills, quite reminiscent of the apparently random stranger in a game of Three Card Monty—talking to regular visitors as if they were on vacation too.
I’m trying to keep this brief, since I’m replying to something of a hijack, so I’ll skip a lot of detail as to how the relationships evolved. But most everyone was surprisingly respectful, and even friendly—they were just doing their job, so there was nothing personal involved. I went to lunch with a few of them from time to time (grr… cafeteria food and I paid for myself—so much for my chance to be wined and dined!) and we had a few philosophical conversations: not all about GW per se, but in the information war in general.
The point being (wow, am I finally getting around to a point?) is that two of the organization’s budgets for monitoring us were both larger than our operating budget for the entire exhibit. There were about five or six different interest groups/associations in and out of the exhibit, but I can’t speak to their financing. Admittedly, it isn’t a perfect comparison, given that we had university and institutional resources, but it is one data point. The money being spent on us was not unique, there was (is?) tons of money out there in the anti-warming camp (having turned down a couple lucrative job offers, I sometimes wonder if the money is still out there).
So, that’s it in a nutshell. In my experience/opinion, while scientists (hoo, there’s a generalization!) may get more funding than lobbyists to do science, those with an anti-warming agenda vastly outspend on public outreach.
Just remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Rhythm
(who didn’t read the book, so didn’t weigh in on that)
[sup]* Well, doesn’t that make me sound all important. Actually, I was a cog in a much larger wheel, mainly as part of Columbia University.[/sup]
I think you’re still missing the points I was trying to make in post #25.
C’mon, get serious here. The point is not that Crichton invented characters or plot, which is all you you’re really talking about when you keep throwing around the word “FICTION” as if that’s some kind of magic totem that totally frees an author from all responsibility. If that were the case, you would have no grounds for complaint if I wrote a book and labeled if “FICTION” which said, in part:
(it would be the Amway part that would truly anger and outrage your friends and loved ones when they read it.)
You would have zero grounds for complaint, by your own logic, merely by my use of the magic word “FICTION”.
The whole and real point here is that Crichton not only has his fictional characters quote and cite REAL scientific literature (a key point!), he carefully cherry-picked just the tiny amount of data that agreed with his political, pseudo-scientific beliefs and presented them as the truth in order to propagandize and persuade. He wanted his readers to actually believe that global warming is a crackpot belief that’s been debunked by “real” scientists.
Now, the second key point is that when an author (even one writing fiction) presents a contemporary political and seemingly valid scientific viewpoint in which his characters and plot are deliberately contrived solely to advance the author’s personal agenda and have all his contrived black-hatted idiots mouthing patent bullshit in response, the intended message that only smart people agree with the author’s view and only evil, stupid people believe anything else IS internalized and taken for truth by many readers!
No, they don’t suddenly start believing that the characters are real (apparently you take me for an idiot with all your “FICTION” shouting), but a great many of them will take the scientific claims as truth. Especially in a case like this in which most (yes, most, or you’re not living in the U.S.) people will not follow up by trying to learn the actual facts.
You desperately need to get a hold of Thomas Gilovich’s extraordinary non-fiction book: How We Know What Isn’t So. In it, the author explores the social and psychological reasons why everyone comes to have at least some bogus beliefs (and most people (yes, most) have a great many false beliefs). If you read it, you will see what direct relevance it has to my arguments. Most people do internalize claims made in fiction, especially fiction like Crichton’s in which he deliberately contrived to have them do exactly that!
Why else do you think so many of Ayn Rand’s mindlessly stupid readers think she was – Bob help us! – a great “philosopher”? That ultimate, unsparing greed to solely benefit 0.00000001% of the world’s population is not only desirable, but morally and ethically pure and holy – man’s highest good – as well? I’ll tell you why: because Rand contrived her ridiculous, one-dimensional FICTIONAL characters and plots to con and seduce people into believing it!
Well, I give that strawman high marks for ludicrously shallow and off-point bullshit, but that’s all you’ll get from me.
Then it’s a damned good thing I’m not making such a silly argument! I never said anything approaching that. My original point on this particular aspect of the debate was that no fictional author who brings actual scientific data and citations into his or her fiction should every be immune to criticism for, among other things, leading the author’s readers to come to bogus beliefs. I do not claim he has no or limited rights to say or publish anything he wants. I merely insist that no one should be allowed to use the “it’s just FICTION” defense to avoid criticism. And this means that it’s stupid and counter-productive for the posters here to keep shouting “FICTION!” to assert that anyone who criticizes fiction for promoting false beliefs is an idiot.
Such reactions are just so much bullshit.
I just tried it, and it’s working. They’ve been migrating between servers, might have been the cause.
w.
I suppose you have some citation to show that those who have been censored at RealClimate are “crackpots” … have you read the link I supplied?
I personally have been censored when I wrote to RC to ask scientific questions, including asking them the source of the data for a particular statement … hardly a “crackpot” claim, not a proof that relativity is false, simply a rather standard scientific question, wouldn’t you say? And you are calling me a liar, knowing nothing about me?
Without citations to back up your claim that my post was a “canard, and a tiresome one”, your post makes you look like a … a … well, a crackpot. Do a google search on RealClimate and censored, and report back. Here’s a few quotes at random …
“Funny how realclimate.org is so heavily censored while other sites like climateaudit.org and climatescience take on all comers and keep the debate open. …”
“You should really link to ClimateAudit alongside RealClimate – RealClimate is usually censored and gives only one side of the debate …”
“The reader’s comment was posted both at realclimate, where the debate appears to have been swiftly censored, but a couple of illuminating responses from the …”
“When their math errors are brought to the attention of realclimate professors, they just censored them. Realclimate is a moderated site. …”
“That’s taken as fact by anyone familiar with the procedure, except, of course the softball guys over at Realclimate, who censored my follow up questioning …”
“I am pretty willing to debate and challenge the Global Warming theory over the RealClimate.org site. But unfortunately their web site is highly censored and …”
“Relative to RealClimate, ClimateAudit has the benefit of not being heavily censored to present a single favored side. Thus, actual debate takes place in the …”
“Realclimate, unfortunately do censor anything that they are not comfortable with…”
“By contrast the people on Climate Audit try to engage the realclimate crowd on their site, though they’re usually censored as soon as they start asking any …”
Your move …
w.
Yes. But it is a very long way from justifying your highly dubious claims.
intention, let’s first go back to exactly what you posted that I responded to so emphatically. You wrote:
Are you fucking kidding me? What huevos you must have to assert that a privately-run Internet forum must post everything submitted to it (even only every putatively scientific, ad hominem-free post) or, by God, the submitter is being ruthlessly censored! The horror! It’s, like, 1984, man!
It’s a fucking Internet forum! Why pretend that it’s a peer-reviewed, refereed scientific journal, for fuck’s sake? And even they very often reject sound scientific papers (you seem like an intelligent, honest person – if suffering from a bit of censorship “paranoia” – so I’m sure you didn’t need me to tell you this). People who, for whatever reason, choose not to post every contribution on their Internet forum cannot be charged with censorship, especially not “ruthless censorship” (I wonder where Ruth is?). Furthermore, as your exemplar himself admits, RC has accepted some of his posts; just not all of them. Big fuckin’ deal! I’ve had posts deleted or refused on various net fora, but I’m not quite enough of a crybaby to claim censorship, of all things.
I can detect little substantial difference between global warming “dissidents” and 9/11 “dissidents”. And I think the comparison is directly on point: the so-called “Scholars for Truth” have assembled an impressive array of genuine scientific and intellectual talents who write seemingly compelling scientific and scholarly papers… which are usually quite full of shit.
Why do you think orgs like CSI (formerly CSICOP) have so much work to do? Why do you think Cecil has been busy combating ignorance for so long?
I’ll tell you why: crackpots, crackpots everywhere.
I’m a little sceptical that humans are causing global warming, but since the ways to address it are consistent with my other political/economic beliefs I tend to want to err on the side of caution.
Here are some general questions I have:
We are coming out of a “little ice age”. Massachusetts was a rough place in the 1600s and is much warmer now. Both the Thames and the Dutch canals used to freeze over on a regular basis. How do we reconcile this “natural” recovery vs man-caused GW?
The places where weather data are collected have changed often over the years. These days it tends to be at airports rather than city centers. How do we compare weather data from different locations?
Urban “heat islands” affect weather readings. Again, how do we correct for that?
Well, I’m not a climate scientist myself, but since I put in a plug for the folks over at realclimate.org who are, I can at least tell you what they seem to have to say about your questions.
AFAICT, scientists are pretty much in agreement that the “little ice age” has been over for a while; we finished “coming out of” it in the nineteenth century, and the rapid late-20th-century rise in temperature doesn’t seem plausible as a mere continuation of the post-LIA recovery. Realclimate sez:
There’s something called “adjustment for urban biases”, although I can’t find details on it now, which tackles this very question of how the data collection site might affect the data record.
Realclimate sez that the “heat island” effect is apparently not great enough to overwhelm consistent evidence of a warming trend:
Let me review the bidding.
I said RealClimate censored scientific questions, and supplied a citation to show that it happens frequently. This was personal stories by people who had been censored.
You said this was a “canard”, in other words that I was a liar.
I then told you my own experiences, and provided quotations from nine separate sites confirming that RealClimate censors scientific questions. I asked you for a citation for your claim.
Your response? You simply repeated your claim, in ever more hysterical tones, with plenty of expletives to prove that you were right … but did not a) supply a quote, or b) show that the claims in my cited source were untrue.
I note also that originally you said I was lying about them censoring scientific questions … but you have quietly dropped that claim, and now say it’s fine for them to censor scientific questions.
Game over.
Regarding your claim that I said that a “privately-run Internet forum must post everything submitted to it”, I said no such thing. I said that RealClimate censors scientific questions that it disagrees with.
This is in contravention of its stated policy, which says that:
As expected, in the rest of their stated policy, they reserve the right to censor a variety of other things:
Censorship is also in contravention of the posture of RealClimate that it is a site for scientific discussion of the climate field.
While Joe can censor anything he wants on “Joes Blog”, RealClimate claims to be a site to discuss science. One of the fundamental parts of science is the freedom to ask questions. They only field the softball questions … tough questions never see the light of day.
I have provided you with a citation that shows a number of people who have asked scientific questions at RealClimate, only to have them censored. I have provided examples of those questions, which if you read them are shown to be perfectly straightforward, polite, germane scientific questions.
You have called me a liar, and have provided … escalating abuse. You have not provided a single citation to show that any of my statements are untrue. Nor have you provided any evidence that the other people who have had their scientific questions censored at RC are somehow wrong.
You sure you know how this science thing works? Here’s the short version. People put their ideas out there. Other people ask questions about the ideas, to see if the ideas are correct. If the questions do not reveal any flaws, the ideas are accepted.
As this shows, the questions are an integral part of the process. If they are censored, it’s not science.
Which was my original point, in my original post, where I said (in full):
[QUOTE=intention]
Kimstu, the missing part in your recommendation of realclimate is that they ruthlessly censor scientists and others who do not agree with their views. This leaves the impression of science and consensus on the site, when in fact neither one exists.
[QUOTE]
I did not say RC could not post anything they want. They can. What I said was that their site is not science because they censor scientific questions, and that the consensus which appears on their site is not real, but an artifact of their habit of censoring opposing views.
Which you clearly do not like, to the point of abuse and, “for fuck’s sake”, meaningless expletives … but which is also clearly true.
Best to all,
w.
A few random comments:
(1) Re urban heat island effects: In addition to the points kimstu noted from RealClimate, we also have satellite measurements since 1979 of the low troposphere that are now in good agreement on the warming that has been occurring. There are also glacial retreats…In fact, there was a recent paper by someone who used this to derive temperature variations over the last 100 years or so and it compared well with the instrumental record.
(2) Re Crichton’s work being fiction and thus it being sort of silly to criticize it: However, if you read Crichton’s appendices he says something to the effect that while the book is a work is fiction, the arguments, references, and graphs are real. So, I think they are fair game for criticism. Furthermore, since Senator James Inhofe, Chairman (not for too much longer, thank God!) of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works actually invited Crichton to speak before the committee last year (see here).
(3) Re whether RealClimate censors comments: I find this whole issue rather beside the point. RealClimate is a useful site with or without the comments section. In fact, the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments section is already low enough as it is even with whatever censorship they have. And, intention, I think you are well aware that many have accused JohnA over at ClimateAudit of having a very heavy hand at censorship too. [And, by the way, noone is trying to claim whether or not a scientific consensus on climate change exists by studying the distribution of comments at RealClimate…Or, if they are, they shouldn’t be. Their noting it on the basis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature or the summaries and statements on that literature provided by the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth.]
(4) Re “Big Oil” and climate change: It is worth noting that, while 5 or 10 years ago one could pretty much refer to “Big Oil” as a monolithic entity denying climate change, that has changed quite a bit in the last several years. BP was the first major company to break with the rest and Shell has also broken away; both corporations have clearly accepted the scientific consensus and have been significantly cutting their emissions. You can read about it on their web sites. (BP is also starting to address the emissions produced by their products, which is of course even a bigger issue for an oil company.) Exxon has been by far the worst actor of the oil companies, massively funding various denialist organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute; however, even they have been subtely changing their tune at least in public and paying some lip-service to the issue.