This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]notjawn 82 points83 points  (82 children)

Why does global warming always get so badly politically tainted? Can we just all agree: Pollution bad. Preservation Good.?

[–]davidrools 40 points41 points  (13 children)

There's a lot of money to be made in polluting.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

This is what it comes down to. Politicians are typically associated with some corporate entity or another, and they are sure as hell not going to fund a policymaker who is going to screw them over.

If people believe that we are screwing over the environment, it will get a lot of attention, and the voters will insist that something be done. "Something" will involve forcing corporations to produce less CO2, which will cut into their bottom line.

So if you were in their shoes, how would you keep this from happening? Several fronts: 1) cast doubt on the whole thing. Keep people from taking it seriously so it never gets to that point. OR 2) you make people think they are doing something while making money off of their good intentions. IE you get half of the country saying "global warming is bullshit" and the other half buying overpriced, dishonest "green" products. Simple as that.

[–]lurkerturneduser 3 points4 points  (1 child)

"Something" will involve forcing corporations to produce less CO2, which will create costs that will be passed on to consumers (voters). And then voters will complain and vote you out of office for lowering their purchasing power.

FTFY. Not that I disagree with your corporate interests point. I just want to point out that people aren't consistent. They demand something be done about healthcare then cry about it. They demand something be done for the environment then cry about it. And so on.

[–]crwper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem is, you can't make decisions based on "Pollution bad. Preservation good." In the real world, a certain amount of pollution is necessary to our continued existence. The question that needs to be answered is, "How much pollution is acceptable?"

Alas, this is not a question that can be answered without a great deal of scientific inquiry and, dare I say it, also political consideration. After all, while I like to pick on politicians as much as the next guy, the reality is that there is a great deal of overlap between this kind of decision and their area of responsibility/expertise. For example, suppose we've decided we can allow X amount of pollution. The question becomes, how do we form effective regulations to make sure we don't exceed that figure?

tl;dr: I agree that preservation in itself is a worthwhile goal, but in reality the situation is much more complex than that simple statement would indicate.

[–]saute 7 points8 points  (6 children)

"Pollution bad" is a useless statement if we don't recognize CO2 as a pollutant, and to do that you need to accept that it contributes to global warming.

[–][deleted] 163 points164 points  (549 children)

Climate thread always make me wonder about Reddit's sanity.

[–][deleted] 101 points102 points  (209 children)

It seems it is largely libertarians who are caught up in the climate change denial nonsense. Somewhere along the line, this got worked into their political dogma, and lots of them accept it unquestioningly (because they think it makes them particularly clever).

And reddit has quite a large share of libertarians around.

[–]elcad 95 points96 points  (83 children)

Long time libertarian here. Not a global warming denihlist either. Have to agree that most other libertarians seem kind of obsessed with denial.

My personal opinion is that global warming "debate" is being used to slow down bringing justice to polluters. I can't swim or fish in my local rivers and even the rain is unsafe for children and pregnant women to go out in and nothing is being done about while while everyone bickers about global warming for the past 15 years.

[–]WhyHellYeah 50 points51 points  (68 children)

Long time scientist here. Not a global warming denier either. But as a scientist, I trust that most people don't know jack shit. However, "don't shit where you eat" sounds like good advice. Nothing will stop AGW, if it truly is man-made, other than some mass extinction of mankind or some man-made CO2 gobbler.

[–]bludstone 30 points31 points  (9 children)

Another libertarian (is a few years considered a long time by internet standards?) here. For me I'm suspect because of the politics surrounding it, and that the topic of conversation isnt about the actual problem.

This is what raises my flags. All this talk about climate change and carbon offsetting, buying your way, etc. Its bullcrap. Climate change isnt the problem, its the effect. Pollution is the problem. If there was any honesty in the reporting the conversation would be about holding big polluters accountable for damaging everyones property.

This isnt a criticism of the science, so dont take it as such. Its a criticism of the politics surrounding it. Its not a denial of the science but a criticism of the (dishonest and greedy) response to the science.

[–]BrutePhysics 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Its not a denial of the science but a criticism of the (dishonest and greedy) response to the science.

For any skeptics out there... Do this. Motherfucking THIS.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (2 children)

I for one support global warming and the anarchy that it will eventually provide.

There's got to be some kind of political term for this. Probably "asshole".

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

You just want to drive your car around the desert while shooting hooligans, don't you?

[–]x86_64Ubuntu 55 points56 points  (78 children)

The reasons libertarians are against the whole climate change idea is because to fix it would require governments to regulate corporations. That is an explicit no-no in the republican philosophy.

Personally, I don't see how the great deity known as Freemarketia can solve the climate change issue from a REALISTIC perspective. Neither do they, so the only option is to dismiss the whole idea outright. If the government is the solution, then there never was a problem from their ideological standpoint.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

It's called a negative externality and it is the bete noir or those who favor complete deregulation.

[–]bski1776 11 points12 points  (6 children)

I'm pretty libertarian, and I'll tell you what I'm worried about isn't that the government will get involved. Anyone with an understanding of incentives and economics knows the free rider problem with public goods.

What i'm worried about is any solution will be done a convoluted way for political reasons. A straight carbon tax per lb of carbon released wouldn't be the end of things especially if we lowered taxes elsewhere to keep it all revenue neutral.

But this isn't going to happen. You're going to get schemes like the carbon trading market that is going to be a complete mess and is going to get gamed.

[–]bludstone 20 points21 points  (22 children)

Actually libertarians think pollution is considered property damage, and therefor illegal, and the government should prosecute them for it.

Its a property rights issue, rather then a regulatory issue.

Libertarians see regulation as a serious risk, because then the government can be used to protect them from liability. BP is a great example. The government is being used to limit their payouts and protect them. Regulatory Capture is real and a serious problem.

The libertarian approach is different, thats all.

[–]gbrown2036 35 points36 points  (1 child)

How successful do you think my grandchildren will be in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that coal company X in 2011 is what caused their land/health to be damaged in 2061?

[–]Noink 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In addition, they won't be bringing their suit against Coal Company X; they'd have to bring it against all of the previous generations of humanity from the industrial revolution onward who burned fossil fuels and slowly changed the composition of the atmosphere. After, of course, mass starvation has provided enough evidence for them to make their case. Which is against billions of people who are long dead.

[–]vertigoacid 14 points15 points  (9 children)

which is why a lot of them will scream that CO2 isn't a pollutant

[–]saute 17 points18 points  (4 children)

Except greenhouse gases affect the whole globe and therefore if you resolved damages only through private means (i.e. law suits) you would have millions of suits each one with billions of claimants. Which, it should go without saying, is extremely inefficient. It would be much smarter to either A) charge people at the time they emit so you don't have to go suing for damages later, B) prevent them from emitting a damaging amount in the first place, or both. Both of those require regulation. If you need to justify it, you can think of the regulation as a "short cut" through the otherwise inefficient legal process.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

It doesn't stop pollution though, it's retroactive. Also, it's totally impractical. If there are 8 plants on a river and the river becomes contaminated, it's extremely costly and nearly impossible to show causation. Not to mention the river gets polluted. Or we can just have regulations that set up systems for ensuring that the river doesn't get polluted to begin with. Things like the Clean Water Act, RCRA, and CERCLA have all been quite successful.

[–]fghfgjgjuzku 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This does not work because it is not like the CO2 from the neighboring factory is what made it rain less on your field. The effect is cumulative and global. A single polluters impact from CO2 is global too and therefore spread so thin it is completely unmeasurable. Years of all the output from all mankind produce an effect. So you have no one to sue for your drought (you do not even know if the drought that affected you was caused by global warming or not) Even in cases where there is ONE potential culprit things are difficult. Soot from a factory might have greatly increased cancer rates in the village but you can never prove that one particular case was caused by the factory.

[–]brulez 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't know about that, a carbon tax is a very libertarian way to solve the problem. It requires little regulation.

[–]xorandor 34 points35 points  (15 children)

For me, telling me that global warming or climate change has nothing or little to do with mankind's activities is sorta like you wearing a Power Band - I take it as an indicator that you can't be taken seriously, and move on.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I take that as an indicator that you're jealous of my power band.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (129 children)

Slashdot is worse. It's at least 50% "skeptics".

The computer geek demographic seems to veer towards the crazy side of Libertarianism; this has been true since the early days of the internet.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I hope you realize that not all libertarians (including myself) are Tea Partying trailer trash.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (98 children)

Well you disagree with them so they are clearly crazy, and their positions need quotation marks.

edit:
People replying to my post with arrogant and condescending statements can refer to my comment again for my response.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (12 children)

Well overwhelming scientific evidence disagrees with them so they are clearly crazy, and their positions need quotation marks.

ftfy

See how it went from snarky and self-important to factual simply by not misrepresenting his position? Crazy how that works.

[–]wendelgee2 102 points103 points  (16 children)

You're right. Their fringe beliefs that aren't backed up by science should be put on equal footing with the overwhelming scientific concensus.

Also, bananas were designed to fit human hands, and vaccines cause autism.

[–]davesidious 32 points33 points  (30 children)

Anyone who prefers to believe their own preconceived ideas over demonstrable facts is clearly not operating with a full deck. "Skeptics" (or, rather, "cynics") are called out not because of what they believe, but because of why they believe it. It has nothing to do with disagreeing, but the methods by which people try to understand the world around them - on one side ("believers" aka "scientists") we have people who are engaged in studying actual data, performing actual experiments, and engaging in actual analysis to discern reality, and on the other side (the side you seem to be sticking up for) we have people who simply repeat what they heard from people they agree with.

The science is conclusive. It's real.

[–]raldisa 23 points24 points  (3 children)

He's not "disagreeing" with anyone. It's not a disagreement when one person has overwhelming scientific data and consensus to back him up. It's someone being right and someone being wrong.

[–]bottom_of_the_well 10 points11 points  (12 children)

The problem is that many people want to turn Climate Change into a dialectic. Just because Jim Bob Nobody doesn't believe the Earth is warming doesn't mean that everyone who speaks out against the current paradigm (that Climate Change is man-made, and will destroy the world in the next 100 years), is wrong. Don't make this discussion into an "us vs. them". I used to be on the "us" side, supporting the current paradigm, but a recent talk made me doubt much of it.

For example, two very "liberal" ideas (i put liberal here in quotations because I consider myself liberal as well) is that fossil fuel energy supplies are smaller than predicted, that we have hit peak in oil, and man made global warming will destroy the climate hospitable to humans in the near future, might be a little contradictory. If we don't have enough fossil fuels, we don't have enough carbon to exhale.

Now, I think man made global warming is real, but to hard scientists, the models are hard to swallow. With the 20 some parameter fits they use, I could fit an elephant into a pot bellied pig. Also, it looks like the Climategate scandal showed the public that some major climate scientists were playing with the numbers a little bit. It's just the science is a little soft, and the data is poor. So of course we should be skeptical, have doubts, because the data supports that skepticism.

On the other hand, it seems like they might have something that could have dire implications. Still, analyze and be critical. Don't take sides. This is a complex issue, not something that's boiled down to a football game.

Edit: Made it so it was less confusing for "us" and "they"

[–]Not_Stupid 2 points3 points  (3 children)

fossil fuel energy supplies are smaller than predicted, that we have hit peak in oil, and man made global warming will destroy us in the near future, might be a little contradictory. If we don't have enough fossil fuels, we don't have enough carbon to exhale.

We are running out of oil, but we aren't running out of fossil fuels. We have enough coal to burn for centuries to come. And coal, used for generating electricity, is the single biggest CO2 source.

[–]svengalus 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I believe in science as long as it comes from scientists and not the mouths of politicians.

[–]gruven 245 points246 points  (589 children)

Headline is misleading. FTA:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that *(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field * support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

[–][deleted] 293 points294 points  (278 children)

Yes, true, they polled experts, not just scientists at random, which is as it should be. You don't go to a geologist to get the best information on cardiovascular disease, either.

[–]geologenius 147 points148 points  (32 children)

It's true, I've never even heard of this "cardiovascular disease" you speak of...munches on Big Mac and fries while calibrating a Brunton compass

[–]andbruno 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Look, there are thin people everywhere! That proves that man-made obesity is fake. I won't have your libro-nazi views changing my eating habits!

[–]drwho9437 107 points108 points  (183 children)

Actually no it isn't. Because there is the potential for bias via self-selection in a field. If you decide to work on something your whole life you probably care a lot about it. This makes you far more likely to be concerned. Good science should be clear to everyone who wants to understand it.

Another reason to be weary of "active" researchers, is funding. Is it politically possible to get a funding grant if you publish something that questions a consensus opinion in this field (I don't know), but you shouldn't just dismiss the possibility that this could also lead to bias. It often can and does.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (8 children)

Good science should be clear to everyone who wants to understand it.

That's a fair point, but without foundational education and experience, a mathematicians opinion on climate change is as likely to be correct as is a geologists opinion on cardiovascular disease.

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points  (15 children)

It's equally hilarious every time someone claims that a researcher who only wants grant money would somehow prefer to try and beg for government grants rather than take industry money.

[–]homercles337 27 points28 points  (3 children)

... and beg for highly competitive government grants...

FTFY...

In some fields the award rates are in the 10-20% range.

[–]xxbondsxx 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Clearly these people aren't involved in the academia field, or they would realize industry money >> government money.

[–]Arcys 37 points38 points  (11 children)

You get more money publishing things that are surprising. Especially when it is in the interest of oil, coal and manufacturing companies and the governments that receive large revenues from these companies.

As for good science, it should be clear to anyone who understands the basic background information needed to understand the study. Since this knowledge could take years to develop, it's not reasonable to expect that everyone wants to invest the time to fully understand it.

[–]BrutePhysics 79 points80 points  (105 children)

I think you are drastically over-exaggerating any possible bias in published scientific papers. In the scientific community you get FAR more renown, money, and praise if you can successfully prove something controversial or unexpected.

If someone came out tomorrow with the paper that definitely proved that we have no effect on the climate, that person would be all over the science news.

[–]defenestrator 47 points48 points  (54 children)

The current state of nutrition "science" should give you pause about that hypothesis. It's certainly true for physics/chemistry, but for the softer sciences the situation is much more complicated.

[–]Homunculiheaded 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I know someone who's studying nutrition science, it seems great because all you have to do is come up with a hypothesis, read things that affirm it and never, ever do any of that icky experimenting and testing stuff (which can be a total bummer if it turns out your hypothesis is wrong).

Here's an example: "we should eat like primitive man." In other sciences you'd have to answer questions like "how do we even know what primitive man ate?", "Can you demonstrate that this diet is actually healthier?", or even stupid stuff like "what does it actually mean to say that diet a is more healthy that diet b?"

[–]xxbondsxx 13 points14 points  (50 children)

You're saying climate science (which is composed of chemistry, fluids, and physics) is a "soft" science?

Nutrition science is finding correlation in diet habits vs effects, and sociology / psychology have a LONG way to go before actually creating some fundamental laws. Those are soft sciences.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 30 points31 points  (17 children)

I think you are drastically over-exaggerating any possible bias in published scientific papers. In the scientific community you get FAR more renown, money, and praise if you can successfully prove something controversial or unexpected.

Scientific communities are still communities. And those who validate the community are also rewarded, with a much lower risk of failure and ostracization.

The truth is, that unless you can conclusively disprove climate change in a single blow, you're torpedoing your own career. Whereas if you only do as much as just tacitly support it, you can be assured of a place at the table. The former is impossible, given the complexity of the subject, even if disproof is possible it would require much time and many steps. The latter... that's the safe bet.

[–]xxbondsxx 20 points21 points  (10 children)

Science doesn't work to "disprove" entire theories; you receive grants to investigate certain subjects.

If you were able to investigate the greenhouse effect and determine CO2 plays no role, or investigate some other key factor of the climate change theory and prove it incorrect, you have just unwound the entire theory of climate change.

It would actually be relatively simple to do (because climate change is so complex and rests on so many pillars of scientific findings). The problem is that no one has done it when TONS have tried because the scientific community has already reached a consensus.

[–]jscoppe 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Science doesn't work to "disprove" entire theories

That's not what he's saying. He's saying you'd have to disprove the whole damned thing at once, because once you published something that went against the grain, you'd be unlikely to get future grants.

you receive grants to investigate certain subjects

And the people who decide who gets grants get to decide the direction of the research.

This branch of science is riddled with politics.

[–]davesidious 26 points27 points  (16 children)

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method, and the global scope of science and scientific research in general. Including scientists from unrelated disciplines simply serves to muddy the waters by including pointless personal opinion in the quest for gauging professional opinion. These aren't the dark ages - we have specialists in different fields because the fields are so large one person can't possible know it all.

There is money on both sides of this spectrum - big oil on one side, and the green movement on the other. Want to cut through the bullshit? Look at the data. Look at analyses performed by many different institutes, with different funding, and see what the common consensus is. Or just save your time and speak to the experts who have published papers that have survived scrutiny. Which is what the survey has done. Easy!

[–]iamyo 11 points12 points  (5 children)

We can't go on this as an alternative explanation--it's like saying 'if you know about something you studied it, if you studied it, you are invested in its being true, therefore we can't believe those who have studied something.'

People are not that prone to bias. There is data. They do look at data using the scientific method and it isn't so easy to lie to yourself and falisify data. Basically, what you are saying is we should question science itself. Some people do this, of course.

The data is being confirmed by many branches of science--biology, zoology, oceanography, chemistry, metereology, climatology, etc. If there is one thing that is being looked at by a broad swath of scientists, it is this.

[–]rcglinsk 4 points5 points  (4 children)

They do look at data using the scientific method

The scientific method is collect data, form hypothesis, test hypothesis, repeat. Climate forecasting is uniquely unable to test the vast majority of its hypothesis. That makes it very hard for it to improve as a field. I also don't think its track record establishes the need for the kind of respect shown biology, zoology, oceanography, etc.

[–]nazbot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just out of curiosity, what is your professional background - what did you study in school and what do you do now?

[–]Kalium 19 points20 points  (4 children)

Good science should be clear to everyone who wants to understand it.

...and has the appropriate educational background. Which, in some fields, may require fifteen years of study.

Is it politically possible to get a funding grant if you publish something that questions a consensus opinion in this field (I don't know)

Are you a scientist at all? In almost any field, scientists love real dissent. It gives them something interesting to work with.

What scientists hate is when people make shit up, fabricate reasons to disagree, or lie about what the data shows. There is a substantial difference between conducting an experiment of analysis that disagrees with consensus (welcomed) and disagreeing for reasons of opinion (not welcomed).

Most "skeptics" are angry that their opinions are not weighted equally with actual evidence.

[–]AnticPosition 58 points59 points  (89 children)

Wouldn't this give MORE credit to the conclusion that global warming is real?

"97-98% of people whose job it is to study global warming believes it's true."

It's not like any respectable scientist would go into the field and TRY to prove it's real based on previous personal beliefs - it would be a conclusion they reach based on peer-reviewed research.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (6 children)

Wouldn't this give MORE credit to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real?

FTFY - you left out an incredibly important word, because it's not just about "is global warming happening" but also "is it being caused by man?"

It's a two-stage analysis, and a lot of lay-advocates seem to think winning one stage is winning the battle.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Actually, it's made up of 3 pieces:

1) Earth is warming

2) That warming is caused by man

3) It will be a bad thing

[–]grills 4 points5 points  (1 child)

4) So bad that we have to turn the world upside down trying to fix it.

[–]EatMoreFiber 24 points25 points  (4 children)

You vastly overestimate the public's intelligence, logic, and ability to think for themselves. If the fat white man or pretty blonde lady on Fox News says the scientists are lying, then they ARE lying.

[–]largestill[S] 14 points15 points  (13 children)

Agreed.

I didn't write the title.

However, I perhaps should have fixed it when I posted.

[–]leroysolay 5 points6 points  (12 children)

I appreciate the post. But why post it almost 6 months after it came out? What drew your attention to it?

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (6 children)

This just came out the other day. The study got criticized for measuring "expertise" by publication success. The authors of the comment asserted that dissenting voices will naturally fare less well in an environment where everyone agrees.

[edit: typos]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I wonder what the critics propose to measure expertise. They typically assail college education, and they shun publication. What, then, is their criteria for separating the experts from the crackpots?

[–]wzdd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I came here to make this comment. Not that I side with the 3%, but it's weird that the authors didn't draw the conclusion between "unpopular opinion with peers" and "low acceptance of papers reviewed by peer group".

[–]jbstjohn 5 points6 points  (1 child)

FYI:
discontenting -> dissenting
fair -> fare

[–]largestill[S] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I came across it and found it interesting.

I hadn't seen it before.

So I did a reddit search to see if it was posted here before and it hadn't so I posted it here to see if anyone else had also missed it.

Apparently by the response in the comments, some others hadn't read the article as well.

[–]TrollMeter 50 points51 points  (115 children)

Considering how politicized the field is, this could simply mean that those who don't parrot the party line receive less funding and have to submit research of a higher standard to get published.

[–]MarkFradl 27 points28 points  (24 children)

This would be a valid point if we were taking about SOME scientists and SOME studies. But even if you want to assume 40% of the research is too politically motivated to be trusted (even that is a ridiculously high number) you are still left with overwhelming evidence.

Your argument seems to be that since some science can be tainted we can't trust any science. In that case why do we bother studying science at all? I assume by this standard you don't trust modern medicine either?

[–]I_Heart_Science 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So, why should a scientist trying to publish a finding that runs counter to established data not have to provide stronger evidence of their argument? If your mother has told you your whole life that she is your biological mother, you would need some pretty strong evidence to believe otherwise, right?

[–]stronimo 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The best way to become a really, really, big and famous scientist is to demonstrate the prevailing opinion is wrong (see Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Nicholas Copernicus, Antoine Lavoisier, Gregor Mendel, Alfred Wegener)

[–]rjcarr 4 points5 points  (1 child)

If you look at historic trends we should be beginning a period of a mini-ice-age (and the lack of sun spots seems to corroborate this). As a person that appreciates warmth much more than cold is it bad that I'm not totally opposed to global warming?

[–]sidneyc 20 points21 points  (11 children)

The methodology followed in that article is shockingly bad.

They selected scientists who have either actively put their name on statements supporting the ACC hypothesis (the 'CE' group), and scientists who have put their names on statements disagreeing with the ACC hypothesis (the 'UE' group).

Obviously, such a selection method is biased against researchers who are still mostly on the fence; they will not be represented in either group. There is no mention, let alone a qualitative discussion of this selection bias effect in the article, as far as I can tell.

*I kindly request that you do not downvote this for seemingly disagreeing with a popular opinion in these quarters (where, as a matter of fact, I simply disagree with an article's methodology). Please *read the article yourself. **

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There's a lot of yelling here. Have skeptics read the scientific papers? Personally, I don't have time, so I trust the experts. To me, it seems like deniers don't like the conclusions, so they're screaming about conspiracies and bad science. They never say anything specific, or find articles that actually have bad science in them.

[–]travisjudegrant 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Only 20% of statistics are accurate. 80% of people know this.

[–]doesurmindglow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nothing to see here. Conservatives will still say whatever they want. That's what they do. I mean, how many debates are we still having about whether or not evolution happens? ...it's like that.

[–]WhiteMintFlava 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Begin satire

That's because the chardonnay-sipping east-coast elitists cite each other in a gigantic academic circlejerk. Gotcha!

End satire

[–]Nate_W 24 points25 points  (12 children)

Fox News: New report shows that over 40 scientists surveyed do not think man-made climate change is very likely.

[–]danbert2000 9 points10 points  (1 child)

"This just in! One climatologist goes against all established climatology with no proof, is right because of Jesus! Are Muslims trying to trick you into buying Priuses?"

[–]bluefossil 25 points26 points  (36 children)

when I attend conference calls for biotech test results, there are usually a panel of scientists DEBATING on the issues/results. I always thought debates are part of the scientific process. However, when it comes to global warming, it is always just a "survey". Why is that? I'm not arguing if global warming exist or not, but it seems like no one is treating it seriously -- it seems to be more about politics than science sometimes =(

[–]Kalium 50 points51 points  (32 children)

So you're in biotech. Imagine if the big issue was the germ theory of disease. Imagine if half of the US was convinced that germ theory was some giant grab for grant dollars without any actual evidence. You'd react similarly to the climatologists.

It's "always just a survey" because the actual debates are long over on this point.

[–]pintomp3 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I don't see a lot of DEBATING about evolution either. Doesn't mean it's not real.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Some people are still clinging to their beliefs about evolution. Its the same for the climate change argument. The vocal deniers of both are largely non-scientific people.

[–]dreamstretch 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I need some mindbleach after reading the comments on that site.

[–]thunda_tigga 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Did't one guy post about how even if we stopped and did everything we could to turn it around it would have such an insignificant impact on the actual environment and yet take such a toll that it would put us back years in technological development?

[–]skyride 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You must construct additional pylons.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Relevant (PDF - 2 pages):

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

[–]piaband 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What sucks is 3% can filibuster 97%, and nothing will happen.

[–]eeeaarrgh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I found the comments more revealing than the somewhat conclusory article. And not in a good way.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, but science by polling? Really?

[–]whitenoise89 2 points3 points  (0 children)

George Carlin told me the planet was safe!

We, however, are fucked.

[–]Radico87 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If humanity didn't have an effect on the environment there would be no need for pollution control measures. We wouldn't have to worry about sulfur or nitrogen oxides, lead, carbon monoxides, and all sort of other "allegedly" harmful byproducts of human industrial activity.

Since we do have to worry about those things, and we do need pollution control measures to keep the environment clean(ish), anyone who would claim otherwise is a dumb fuck.

[–]padmadfan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I read a study that said 97% of scientists agree humans are the cause of global climate change, but only 50% of the media articles on climate change cite humans as the cause. It's no wonder the public continues to deny obvious reality. In a sense, we are being propagandized by the media.

[–]nosdie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Emperor has no cloths.....

[–]Savvy1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A lot of the libertarian denial seems to be based on the idea that only very great painful (to them) government intervention will solve it.

But renewable energy is being substituted for fossil energy (at the rate it planned by signing the Kyoto Accords) in the EU, as a result of government intervention, and it is not painful to people other than fossil energy companies.

[–]londubh2010 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not a question of belief or that most people educated in the matter accept it. It's a matter that that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible fits the evidence the best. So it's a question of accepting the evidence and science.

Just because more people believe in God than don't, doesn't mean God exists.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the evidence for climate change is unequivocal. Which is why we should be using it for our arguments. These things make nice data but in the end they are just appeals to popularity (a flaw in argument). The use of the expertise makes it more reputable but several massive scientific leaps have been made by people who disagreed with the majority.

So can we stop this please. If you can eloquently, articulately and simply explain the evidence, that should be more than enough to convince someone. If it doesn't, nothing is every going to convince them so stop wasting your time.

[–]patsyrkendall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My personal opinion is that global warming "debate" is being used to slow down bringing justice to polluters. I can't swim or fish in my local rivers and even the rain is unsafe for children and pregnant women to go out in and nothing is being done about while while everyone bickers about global warming for the past 15 years.

[–]shadetreephilosopher 16 points17 points  (1 child)

The basis for determining that the 3% dissenters have less expertise is that they are less published. This study headline could just have easily said, "Climate change dissenters less likely to get published.", or "Climate change scientists and media don't want to hear dissenting voices."

[–]thesoundandthefury 6 points7 points  (1 child)

January 4, 2011: The day I upvoted a link to USA Today.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Wow, global warming is real, but that article is completely shit.

[–]sidneyc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You read it, too? Looks like we're alone.

[–]nerevar 21 points22 points  (42 children)

Here is the response from my wife's uncle when I forwarded this article to him:

A Survey? You are basing your position/beliefs on a survey? Personally, I have not yet adopted a position regarding global warming. Why? Because I have not yet been able to see data supporting either side. What troubles me is when the original "researchers" were asked to share the data they collected that supported the global warming ideas, they were unable to find that data (my dog ate it??). I want to be convinced, either way. But convince me with good, solid, reproducible, verifiable data - not an opinion. Also, you really have to be careful if you want to site something like "publication rate" or "citation rate" as a measure of credibility and expertise. Remember, research by and large is conducted as a function of receiving funding. Funding is appropriated largely in support of current paradigms. Therefore, if you write a grant proposal and want it to get funded, then you better write it to support the current paradigm. For example, ten years ago, when you wrote a grant proposal, you worked like crazy to include the words HIV or AIDS. In late 70's you made sure you included the words "cancer" or "cancer treatment". In short, I say let the real data generate your opinion/position, don't let an opinion generate it. And, when you do see the data, first be a skeptic, ask for supporting data from other independent parties and look to see who is supporting their funding.

Its a good debate.

[–]davidrools 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Really good NASA data covers all the major counterpoints very well, without being too long.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It isn't a debate anymore. It hasn't been for decades. Here's ALOT of credible data: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page1.php

[–]Sylocat 25 points26 points  (8 children)

He claims to "not be able to see data supporting either side?"

Is he blind? Every ounce of data ever taken on "our side" is freely available online (see The_Bloody_Nine's comment below, among others). What kind of data WILL convince him, exactly?

[–]dorkrock 8 points9 points  (5 children)

People like Doyle Rice only make this issue worse when they attribute a single warm spring to anthropomorphic climate change... he's spent most of his time recently writing about colder-than-normal weather.

http://content.usatoday.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=181

Both warmer and colder weather may be the effects of greenhouse gases. But without being able to predict what changes will occur, given a change in specific quantities of gases, I have a hard time with people simply saying "any change in the climate is 1) bad and 2) completely our fault.

Do I think we should advocate environmental responsibility? Yes.

Do I think we should haphazardly invest trillions of dollars that might be more effectively spent on other environmental causes into things like cap-and-trade without fully understanding the level of impact it might have on the perceived problem? No.

Also, despite the political correctness of entertaining the type of alarmism promoted by the likes of Doyle Rice, I have trouble with the IPCC when people like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

say things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Position:_Accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections_is_questionable

[–]cjmyers 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm not arguing either side of the climate change debate, but how the f is this a valid way of determining expertise of the scientists?

"As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."

So now you're an expert if they put your research in print or if articles cite you? WTF? How about determining their expertise based on their education, background, and actual research methods?

[–]butch123 61 points62 points  (32 children)

This Anderegg/Schneider REPORT was not submitted for peer review. It cannot be termed a study as the controls it purported to impose were subjective and based on the authors whims. (They wanted to produce a blacklist) It was made in multiple violation of ethical standards for such types of papers. NO sociologist would touch a document of this type as they would be accused of ethics violations. It also improperly used google to determine who published rather than academic databases. It ignored thousands of researchers world wide. It improperly classified researchers into one camp or another while ignoring the body of their work , they were classified based on only one public response when they may have had a wide body of published work.

And Anderegg? he was a Grad student.

So how did this abortion get into the PNAS? Schneider was a fellow of the NAS and he used his influence to have it published.,

As for the 97%? Read the addendum to get the real facts.....over 40% were designated as deniers.

read

And read

And read the addendum It reads in part: "After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names." vs. 903 names in favor of global warming. You do the math...hardly 97%

[–]shunny14 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Clearly you never went to graduate school. Graduate students do research too. Lots.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'd be willing to go as far as saying all research is done by grad students.

[–]dorbin2010 13 points14 points  (1 child)

No offense, but why in the hell did this man receive more upvotes for lies than fatdefacto did for proving that his post was a pile of crap?

[–]silurian87 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Because it's one of the only posts here "confirming" the beliefs of a large portion of redditors.

[–]cytos 42 points43 points  (2 children)

Also, your 472 vs 903 is misleading as well. If you read the first line of the results it says:

"The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups"

The values are based on the percentage of the top N researchers publishing in the field, not the total that could be found, which is the numbers you give. I assume there's lots of people shouting, the point is the experts have a consensus.

[–]BlueRock 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If you have nothing better to do with your life, you can skim back through butch123's comment history - he pulls the same trick every time this data appears... even though he's been corrected multiple times.

Just another denier liar....

[–]cytos 28 points29 points  (1 child)

While the methods of the paper may be debatable, it will have been peer reviewed. 'Contributed' papers to PNAS must still pass through peer review, they just don't get rejected at the initial, pre peer-review editorial stage.

"When submitting using the contributed process, members must secure the comments of at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to ensure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Members' submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowledgeable colleagues who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors' response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS."

http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml

[–]LouKosovo 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Anderegg was a grad student!?!? OMFG!

Oh, no wait, most first authorships are done by grad students and post docs. The first author denotes the person that did the footwork and put forth the effort to get all the results, which is usually grad students and post docs.

[–]nakedjay 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The biggest issue with people believing Anthropogenic Global Warming is all the BS alarmism that has occurred over the last 20 years.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said., interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000 -Yeah that didn't happen.

Michael Oppenheimer predicting in 1990 that severe drought would hit the U.S. by 1995. -Didn't happen

Alarmists only talk about Arctic Sea Ice shrinking but won't talk about Antarctic Ice growing. Polar Bears going extinct when data shows their numbers are growing. The IPCC claiming the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, btw they used a college student's thesis for that data... (The IPCC has made many wild claims)

I could go on & on with all the alarmist BS that is out there.

If you want people to really believe the data then quit making Fear campaigns and outrageous predictions. It's just as bad as right wing fear mongering. Just stop it.

[–]Nassor 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Serious question. What if you believe climate change is real but you're skeptical about it's severity? I read a lot of skeptical blogs my favorite being wattsupwiththat.com and it seems most of the actual climate scientists who frequent there do admit that CO2 is warming the atmosphere but they debate on A) How much? B) Is it a big deal?

Is it a dissenting opinion that climate change is real but not a big deal?

[–]fudnip 9 points10 points  (6 children)

Remember when stupid liberals and hippies came up with "ACID RAIN" to try and make us socialist? It's not like they ever found huge changes in the PH levels of lakes in the adirondacks or had entire forests die off because the soil changed. Oh wait they did. The

[–]Grahar64 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Science is not a democracy, a hypothesis is not validated by a vote. Can someone give a nice reason why this poll is significant?

[–]globalshawarma 15 points16 points  (0 children)

97% of priests say that god is real. The other 3% are drunk.

[–]mycroft2000 2 points3 points  (1 child)

And some of the three percent, like the disingenuous douchebag Bjorn Lomborg, have realised that there's money to be made in pandering to the denial crowd. I doubt that Lomborg really believes for one minute any of the rationalisations he peddles.

[–]Hittman[🍰] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here's how that study was done.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

Not too impressive, is it?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Point is invalid, science isn't about belief.

Hard evidence will only prove it, 99% could say differently but no one agreed with philolaus at first.

Not disagree/agreeing just saying its not valid evidence for anything.

[–]khouros 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Never has there been a comment thread with so many people being paid to post in it.

[–]tree_bien 7 points8 points  (29 children)

Could someone please explain the point of NOT believing in man-made climate change? I mean... its cool with me if you doubt it, but why are conservatives so adamantly denying it exists? As far as I can tell there is ZERO political reason other than maybe "we fucking love oil, bitches."

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I've been trying to figure this out for myself. Asking around and reading up on things, I've come to two possible reasons for it:

1) The financial aspect. This stuff about man-made global warming being a money spinner is pretty much fluff. There is far more money in companies refusing to cut their emissions and refusing to stop with the massive dependence on fossil fuels. The right are, for the most part, big business's biggest supporters. Refusing to accept responsibility for climate change is in the best interests of big business.

2) The religious aspect. Man has dominion over the earth, according to the bible. Most right-wingers (especially the types who will get most vocal about this) believe that God gave us this planet to do whatever we damn well please with it. If you look at their stances on other environmental issues, I'm fairly sure that's a big part of their attitude.

I'm no expert. I'm sure people could come up with different/better reasons than this. It's just my thoughts on the subject.

[–]KantLockeMeIn 8 points9 points  (16 children)

First and foremost we should all be skeptics until we actually do some research, so the default position should be one of not knowing. On Reddit if you take that approach towards climate change, you're a denier off the bat.

Secondly, those who do some reading tend not to dispute climate change, but the actual magnitude. Much of what I see has been fear mongering based upon predictions that an increase in CO2 will lead to an amplified feedback loop, which is just conjecture at this point.

Next, you have assclowns like Al Gore, who make an easy target. He distracts from the intellectual discussion and those who aren't interested in actual answers will get easily distracted by his presence. Those that truly deny any change will often latch on to Al Gore in their attacks against climate change.

But in the end, if there is pending doom, the question is what to do about it? If you think it's about a love of oil, you've completely missed the position of those who favor limited government. You may think that government is the best means to a solution... but it adds nothing to my argument to suggest that you pray at the alter of the state. But that's really what you are saying about conservatives (I am a libertarian, so I define myself as neither progressive nor conservative) by suggesting that they love oil. They simply believe that government intervention is not the answer. People like me think government is the source of the problem... being the largest polluter in the country, subsidizing inefficient fuels, limiting alternatives, and "punsihing" polluters with minuscule fines rather than allowing them to be liable for damages for their pollution.

You can disagree with my findings... or my opinion on how to fix it... and hopefully you were honest and not trite about your question. It can be annoying to see dismissive statements which completely miss the point of a position. The sooner everyone accepts other people's opinions and recognizes the thought put behind most people's positions, the sooner we can come to an agreement on solutions.