delegitamizing science

[Chris]

Global surface temperatures for 2009 will be well above the long-term average, while the annual temperature for the contiguous United States will likely be above the long-term average, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The analysis is based on global records, which began in 1880 and U.S. records beginning in 1895. The NCDC analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.

Global Temperature and Precipitation Highlights:

•Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through October are the fifth warmest on record, at 1.01 degrees F above the long-term average.
•NOAA scientists project 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years of the global surface temperature record, and likely finish as the fourth, fifth or sixth warmest year on record.
•The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.
•Ocean surface temperatures (through October) were the sixth warmest on record, at 0.85 degree F above the 20th century average.
•Land surface temperatures through October were the fifth warmest on record, at 1.44 degree F above the 20th century average.
•Arctic sea ice extent reached its third smallest annual minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The past five years have produced the lowest sea ice extents on record.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: 2009 Global Temperatures Well Above Average - Slightly Above-Average for U.S.

 

[eagleseven]

It's NOAA's job to record temperatures!

According to Dr. Phil Jones at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, it's NOAA's job to change temperatures, not record them.

They're out to get you!

Are you suggesting that we're all gonna die from global warming unless we spend billions of dollars?



Here, take my money! All of it! Save me, Chris, save me!

 

[Chris]

It's NOAA's job to record temperatures!

According to Dr. Phil Jones at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, it's NOAA's job to change temperatures, not record them.

They're out to get you!

Are you suggesting that we're all gonna die from global warming unless we spend billions of dollars?



Here, take my money! All of it! Save me, Chris, save me!

Phil Jones doesn't work at NOAA.

You guys are so desperate it's hysterical.

 

[eagleseven]

Phil Jones doesn't work at NOAA.

Dick Cheney doesn't work at Halliburton.

You guys are so desperate it's hysterical.

That's funny, because we're not the ones under investigation.

 

[Si modo]

Global surface temperatures for 2009 will be well above the long-term average, while the annual temperature for the contiguous United States will likely be above the long-term average, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The analysis is based on global records, which began in 1880 and U.S. records beginning in 1895. The NCDC analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.

Global Temperature and Precipitation Highlights:

•Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through October are the fifth warmest on record, at 1.01 degrees F above the long-term average.
•NOAA scientists project 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years of the global surface temperature record, and likely finish as the fourth, fifth or sixth warmest year on record.
•The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.
•Ocean surface temperatures (through October) were the sixth warmest on record, at 0.85 degree F above the 20th century average.
•Land surface temperatures through October were the fifth warmest on record, at 1.44 degree F above the 20th century average.
•Arctic sea ice extent reached its third smallest annual minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The past five years have produced the lowest sea ice extents on record.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: 2009 Global Temperatures Well Above Average - Slightly Above-Average for U.S.

You're panicked in your desperation and we can smell your fear. The fact that you posted this as some sort of defense of this apparenet scandal is laughable because it demonstrates both your ignorance of the contents of the emails (Jones' requests to Hansen to doctor data, for example) and your lack of understanding how that impacts the science.

 

[midcan5]

....No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

How old are you? We live in history and reality not corporate spin or rhetoric. Smoking was looked on as pleasurably and wholesome till the ugly truth (reality) bit the head of product. We used to get cigarettes in C Rations as this was part of your meal. 'Smoke em if you got em.' Watch the old movies in black and white, everyone smokes. When the health concerns started, the tobacco industry did everything it could to counter the growing evidence. But the evidence was overwhelming as it is in global warming. As it was when we polluted our lakes and streams, there will always be naysayers but time changes attitudes and soon attitudes become embedded. Consider only seat belts and attitude change.


"The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time." F. M. Cornford

 

[Si modo]

....No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

.... But the evidence was overwhelming as it is in global warming. ....

W.r.t. AGW, maybe it's overwhelming to those without an understanding of basic science it is, but there is nothing overwhelming about the scientific evidence.

 

[Toro]

Thought this was interesting.

Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful

Also, ~90% of respondents in an online WSJ poll believe mankind is at least partly responsible for global warming.

Wall Street Journal: Science Journal Do you believe humans are responsible for climate change?

An online poll isn't exactly the most scientific of polls, but WSJ readership skews quite heavily to upper-income, conservative and Republican.

Also, simply because 90% believe it does not mean it is correct.

 

[Si modo]

Thought this was interesting.

Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful

Also, ~90% of respondents in an online WSJ poll believe mankind is at least partly responsible for global warming.

Wall Street Journal: Science Journal Do you believe humans are responsible for climate change?

An online poll isn't exactly the most scientific of polls, but WSJ readership skews quite heavily to upper-income, conservative and Republican.

Also, simply because 90% believe it does not mean it is correct.

Science isn't decided by vote, but I bet you knew that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And NASA has yet to release their data.

 

[tigerbob]

....No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

How old are you? We live in history and reality not corporate spin or rhetoric. Smoking was looked on as pleasurably and wholesome till the ugly truth (reality) bit the head of product. We used to get cigarettes in C Rations as this was part of your meal. 'Smoke em if you got em.' Watch the old movies in black and white, everyone smokes. When the health concerns started, the tobacco industry did everything it could to counter the growing evidence. But the evidence was overwhelming as it is in global warming. As it was when we polluted our lakes and streams, there will always be naysayers but time changes attitudes and soon attitudes become embedded. Consider only seat belts, you corporate reactionaries opposed to sound science soon pass away.


"The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time." F. M. Cornford

Midcan, you are waaaay off base.

Just because I post something that you disagree with you use a term like "corporate reactionaries" without having the first inkling of understanding of my view on anything other that the post you are responding to. You think that because I have an opinion on a particular subject that you can reasonably extrapolate a position from it. Well, I guess you can extrapolate but it doesn't make it reasonable and it doesn't make it right. In this case specifically, it makes it wrong.

So, with that dealt with, on to the issue at hand. I'll set out the facts as I see them. I'm assuming you're interested in facts. I'll number them so you can say specifically what you disagree with.

1. The tobacco companies, when it was first opined that tobacco was dangerous, did everything they could to derail the discussion, and everything they could to demonstrate that it was not as harmful as was being suggested.

2. Epidemiological studies provided overwhelming evidence that smoking (Primary Tobacco Smoke is the name now given to this) was harmful to smokers.

3. Tobacco companies became viewed as untrustworthy since they were generally accepted to have tried to suppress the debate and the ensuing legislation.

4. A number of very well respected organizations such as the EPA and the WHO then published studies saying that there was clear evidence that Secondary Tobacco Smoke (STS, also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or Passive Smoke) caused chronic disease among non smokers that were exposed to it.

5. The tobacco industry rebutted these claims, and insisted that the data had been manipulated.

6. The public, the media and the politicians did not believe the tobacco industry, partly because they had lied before, partly because of the credentials of those (EPA, WHO, etc) who were publishing these new reports.

With me so far? OK, here's my issue.

Having made a study of the research findings that are used to justify the current bans on smoking in public, I find that the link between STS and chronic disease is at best massively overstated, at worst a complete and deliberate misrepresentation. I find that anyone (scientists, the media, politicians or the public) who voices concern about this is ridiculed, sidelined, or subjected to character assassination. I find that anyone who attempts to publish findings that are not in line with these "embedded attitudes" (to use your phrase) is instantly accused of being in the pocket of big tobacco or (to use your phrase again) a "corporate reactionary".

This scenario is the reason for my concern about the conclusions of the climate change lobby. I don't profess to be an expert in climate science. I don't even claim to be an expert in tobacco science, although I am probably significantly better informed than 99% of people.

I have seen policy made on the back of bad research (or badly interpreted research, I should say) once already. This is a big deal to me in and of itself, but not a big deal to many others because more than 3 in 4 people don't smoke and are therefore not directly impacted to a large degree. However, climate science is a MUCH bigger issue and the legislation and global targets that are being introduced will affect everybody. As such, before we rush off and spend hundreds of billions of dollars and force everyone to change the way they live their lives, it is VERY important to me that all opinion to the contrary is discussed in public and without any hidden agenda or foregone conclusions. This has not happened with STS, and it is not happening at present with climate research, or at least has not been until recently.

The fact that once already a huge movement has grown up based on manipulated research, aggressive lobbying, hard to understand science and historical mistrust of an industry leads me to be concerned that another, even bigger movement is growing the same way.

So, not so much of a corporate reactionary as you might have imagined.

Unless of course you think I'm making this shit up about STS to provide a stalking horse for taking issue with the climate debate.

Unless you can change my mind about my misgivings as far as STS is concerned, you will not be able to convince me that there is not a significant degree of duplicity potentially at work in the climate debate. It is remarkable how much the one mirrors the other.

 

[xsited1]

Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

Read this:

Any computer programmer worth his or her salt will tell you, "Garbage in, garbage out." The garbage in the AGW debate turns out to be the scientists who are writing fraudulent computer codes. Time to take out the garbage.

American Thinker: Revenge of the Computer Nerds

 

[midcan5]

So, not so much of a corporate reactionary as you might have imagined.

Unless of course you think I'm making this shit up about STS to provide a stalking horse for taking issue with the climate debate.

Unless you can change my mind about my misgivings as far as STS is concerned, you will not be able to convince me that there is not a significant degree of duplicity potentially at work in the climate debate. It is remarkable how much the one mirrors the other.

Mea culpa, I white out 'corporate reactionary,' and STS came latter and seems exaggerated, but the problem is, something that is bad for you in large doses may also be bad in small doses and people are no longer tolerant. I am an ex smoker.

As for GW physical evidence called for action and while the evidence mounted, the time since the industrial revolution has certainly changed the landscape. Again we can debate cause and consequence but there is no doubt change is happening. Personally I have never seen so much rain as we have lately not that that means much. We dealt with acid rain we need to deal with GW. Seems the sensible thing to do from a national security and a renewal energy view as well as a clean earth view.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, not so much of a corporate reactionary as you might have imagined.

Unless of course you think I'm making this shit up about STS to provide a stalking horse for taking issue with the climate debate.

Unless you can change my mind about my misgivings as far as STS is concerned, you will not be able to convince me that there is not a significant degree of duplicity potentially at work in the climate debate. It is remarkable how much the one mirrors the other.

Mea culpa, I white out 'corporate reactionary,' and STS came latter and seems exaggerated, but the problem is, something that is bad for you in large doses may also be bad in small doses and people are no longer tolerant. I am an ex smoker.

As for GW physical evidence called for action and while the evidence mounted, the time since the industrial revolution has certainly changed the landscape. Again we can debate cause and consequence but there is no doubt change is happening. Personally I have never seen so much rain as we have lately not that that means much. We dealt with acid rain we need to deal with GW. Seems the sensible thing to do from a national security and a renewal energy view as well as a clean earth view.

Kindly explain why the polar ice caps are melting -- on Mars

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

You do realize that the scientific community brought all this on themselves by looking the other way while scientists knowingly lied about, destroyed, and manipulated data so it fit their theory?

 

[jillian]

Thought this was interesting.

Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful

Also, ~90% of respondents in an online WSJ poll believe mankind is at least partly responsible for global warming.

Wall Street Journal: Science Journal Do you believe humans are responsible for climate change?

An online poll isn't exactly the most scientific of polls, but WSJ readership skews quite heavily to upper-income, conservative and Republican.

Also, simply because 90% believe it does not mean it is correct.

Science isn't decided by vote, but I bet you knew that.

true... but science does tend to be more accurately portrayed by more educated people.

 

[HUGGY]

Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

Nothing.

And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.

Only an idiot would compare something as complex as possible human caused climate change to "Two sides of a coin".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thought this was interesting.

Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful

Also, ~90% of respondents in an online WSJ poll believe mankind is at least partly responsible for global warming.

Wall Street Journal: Science Journal Do you believe humans are responsible for climate change?

An online poll isn't exactly the most scientific of polls, but WSJ readership skews quite heavily to upper-income, conservative and Republican.

Also, simply because 90% believe it does not mean it is correct.

Science isn't decided by vote, but I bet you knew that.

true... but science does tend to be more accurately portrayed by more educated people.

And the polar ice caps on Mars are presently melting because....

 

[manifold]

I've heard it all now.

People who challenge the largely speculative conclusions about man's contribution to climate change are worse than the tobacco company shills that tried to discredit research showing the potentially ill health effects of smoking.

Is it any wonder OR has become a board punchline?

 

[Liability]

Science isn't decided by vote, but I bet you knew that.

true... but science does tend to be more accurately portrayed by more educated people.

And the polar ice caps on Mars are presently melting because....

Despite the distance from Earth and the vacuum of space between them, Mars' polar caps are melting because the Earth is overheating and that is because of SUVs.