Every couple days we see another thread about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).”It’s real!” “It’s pseudo-science!” “Conservatives are destroying the planet!” “Environmentalists will destroy the economy!” “Tastes great!” “Less filling!” I agree that there appears to be some measure of GW occurring now but I am still not completely convinced that it is AGW.
Frequently, we hear about the consensus of scientists who all state that our climate changes are due to AGW and that it is almost indisputable that man will be responsible for the majority of the disasters to come.
Today, I saw this press release about published evidence from peer reviewed journals that disputes many of the aspects of AGW and claims that our climate change is all part of a naturally recurring cycle of warming and cooling. I realize that the release came from the Hudson Institute , a “think tank” that is slightly to the right of Pat Buchanan (hey, they had Bork, Haig and “Scooter” Libby associated with them). Still, doesn’t the fact that the information was originally published in peer-reviewed journals throw a little damper on the idea of a consensus? It appears that not everyone is on board.
How do the AGW scientists account for the discrepancies published by their colleagues? Is it dismissed out of hand as mewling of an oil-company lackey or do they attempt to incorporate the data into their theories?
I know we have some brilliant people here who have spoken from the pro-AGW (is that the correct term?) stance. I would love to hear from them. Thanks.
The linked release is long on advertising for a book and short on actual details such as which studies they are using, what data they are taking from it and how it contradicts the other studies which support AGW.
In short, I couldn’t take much of anything from it besides “Buy this book”. Which I probably won’t do so I can’t help you (or them) much there.
I agree that it is a press release for a book, which puts it one step above a 2AM infomercial for the Abercizer 3000. However, I have seen and read some of the information that they mention (cosmic rays and cloud production, being a good example). If there are reviewed articles that put to question some of the statements made by the proponents, are they being honestly addressed by the proponents or are they dismissed out of hand?
I would hate to think that scientists would be so set in their thinking that they would refuse to accept the possibility that they might be wrong or at least misinterpreting data. Think of the denial about ulcers being caused by bacteria. It took a long time and lots of doctors saying it was garbage science and quackery before they finally accepted it was right. Same thing with prions. Studying disease is easy compared to a system as complicated as our climate. If it took almost 100 years for doctors to come around on ulcers and almost 30 years for prions to be accepted as an infectious agent in spongiform diseases, how resistant will climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists and so on be to the idea that maybe everything they believe might not be right?
I’m not talking ulterior motives here (pro-AGW people making money from Greenpeace, anti-AGW people getting cash from Citgo). I’m talking about basic human stubbornness. Are the scientists really looking at everything objectively or are they skewing their results by not looking at “controversial” items?
I think scientists are very concervative. Once they are comfortable with a theory it takes a lot to get them collectively moving in another direction. Eventually it DOES happen…which is why science and the scientific method is such a great thing. I have no doubt that if new data and new (valid) theories concerning the causes of GW surface that eventually they will become acceptable to the majority. I doubt this will happen at this point, but it COULD happen…because the scientific method works and works well in the long term.
Exactly my concerns. I’d hate to think that some brilliant peace of research is being dismissed because it runs counter to what is currently accepted based on present data. If someone had definitive proof that GW was caused by subterranean dragon farts and could provide photos, audio recordings and samples of the flatus, would his evidence be tossed aside because it doesn’t match with the effects of the evil SUV? I don’t want good science to be ignored because it doesn’t fit the current mold.
If these contrary facts are being published in peer reviewed journals as said in the OP, why are you worried that they are being dismissed or tossed aside?
I can understand these concerns, as they make sense to a certain extent.
But most scientists aren’t going to ignore evidence just because it’s “controversial” - that would go against the very nature of their profession. If they flat out ignore it right now, they know that it’s going to make things even harder down the road.
Imagine a doctor who’s just received some test results showing that a patient of theirs has lung cancer. Do you think that most doctors would ignore the test results, and tell the patient that they’re just fine, so they don’t have to deal with any kind of “confrontation”?
LilShieste
Can I assume for the sake of the question that the “consensus view” is that lung cancer is impossible and that any perceived cases of lung cancer are actually some other malady?
If you mess with the details of an analogy it kind of defeats the purpose, eh?
You can assume for the sake of the question that the “consensus view” is that lung cancer is extremely likely in this case; test results came back positive. (Or negative, depending on how you look at it.)
LilShieste
Put your mind at ease then. Science doesn’t really work that way. If there IS convincing evidence then reseach will continue (even if there is not its rare that even an unpromissing branch won’t be explored by someone, sometime). Eventually as evidence mounts a new theory will take shape. If it pans out then science will adapt, the people in the field will begin to accept the new data and look harder at the theory (if only to try and prove it wrong). At some point the new theory will replace the old one as the ‘main stream’ view.
Thats pretty much how AGW got where it is today. Science and the scientific method are self correcting mechanisms in the end.
The point of my analogy was more to address this question:
They have nothing to gain from doing something like this (and it would, in fact, only make things harder for themselves), so it should be fairly safe to assume that they’re not doing it.
LilShieste
I’m interested in knowing all the goodies that climate scientists as a group stand to gain by flatly disregarding evidence. They would have to be pretty damn good, considering the scientists would be putting their reputations directly on the line.
You really think that most scientists would throw away their careers for these two purposes?
What good is increased funding and attention if you can’t find employment? Or do you think there’s a vast conspiracy of scientists out there whose members are simply watching each others’ backs?
Seriously, though - if people want to earn a quick and easy buck, they contact that guy in the purple, question mark jacket. They don’t usually jump in a science-related field, and conduct long, thankless hours of research.
LilShieste
It depends on what the scientist actually does. I doubt that many scientists would deliberately falsify data. But there are a lot of areas where a scientist can exercise judgment. I would imagine that a little spin, exaggeration, or bias isn’t likely to cost the scientist his or her carreer. If a scientist pretends to be a little more sure than is really justified, I doubt it would ruin his or her carreer.
One the one hand, we’ve got your unsupported theory that scientists worldwide are deliberately falsifying data, because to do otherwise would result in less funding for their labs and/or livelihoods, despite the damage it would do to their professional reputation.
On the other hand, we KNOW that Exxon has been caught attempting to bribe scientists into publishing anti-AGW papers, because they stand to lose billions of dollars if AGW is correct.
