If someone published something in, say, medicine, and was shown to have bought his qualifications, I am quite certain the articles he had written would be retracted and he never publishing anything again. Not doing so opens the journal, and, eventually, the entire field of science, up to criticism and views of irrelevance. No matter what was actually in those papers.
Notably, the article you linked to spoke of the total amount of money the anti AGW groups had to use. Meaning political lobbying, research, and so on. How much money do AGW groups use for lobbying? Is that money included in the 2,7 B$?
Indeed. I am merely describing how I see the AGW people's handling of the "climate deniers" and what effects I see it having. It is not in any way an attempt to describe what anyone here has said, to me or anyone else.
Convincing people should be only about arguments. If a smoker tells you you shouldn't smoke, it's still a good message, right? Unfortunately, since he's a smoker himself, it's likely you will consider him a hypocrite for saying this. Who you are matters. What you do matters. In particular, if you see a massive danger to humanity, as the AGW groups do, it falls upon them to ACT WELL while telling us so. They need to deal with research and quality control that doesn't measure up (weather stations without geographical locations, glaciers in Himalaya melting), they need to distance themselves effectively from big oil (WWF on Borneo, for example), they need to kick out people that do not act well (bought qualifications, redefining the peer review process), and so on. But they do not. They are so focused on producing reams and reams of figures that they never stop to think about the costs of keeping all those numbers as relevant. In the end, that will be the undoing of the entire structure, and if they were right all along, the end of humanity. Whether these demands are fair or not do not enter into it - it's just something they need to accept.
And if someone's little sister sent in a paper on gravity loops to a journal under false credentials, the paper would get retracted the moment it was discovered. Then someone else would make a reproduction of the experiment if it made sense. And the little sister would talk to journalists and be welcome a decade later, forgiven by the fact that she was a kid.
So, there was a Dr. Tran?
Part of the problem is that the equality movement on here...What's an 'equality movement'?
Basically, gender and sexual equality.
If someone published something in, say, medicine, and was shown to have bought his qualifications, I am quite certain the articles he had written would be retracted and he never publishing anything again. Not doing so opens the journal, and, eventually, the entire field of science, up to criticism and views of irrelevance. No matter what was actually in those papers.
You are incorrect. Someone's credentials does not invalidate data. That's an ad hominem argument.
Notably, the article you linked to spoke of the total amount of money the anti AGW groups had to use. Meaning political lobbying, research, and so on. How much money do AGW groups use for lobbying? Is that money included in the 2,7 B$?
How much money do oil companies spend denying climate change? How much effort do they spend hiding how much they spend?
Oil companies have a vested interest in denying climate change. They make vast amounts of money on the current system. The 5 biggest oil companies in the US had a combined profit of $118 billion in the 2012. Not revenue, profit. After all their expenses, spending on research, lobbying, etc... they still took home $118 billion.
Over the past decade, their profits have just barely exceeded $1,021.1 billion.
If I were a scientist looking to make money, I think the oil companies would be your best bet. If you could prove what they want to tell the public, they'd make you ridiculously wealthy.
Again, that's just the US though. If you expanded it around the world, oil producer profits are going to go even higher.
Name one "green" energy company that even comes close to the profits of the oil industry.
Once we start seeing major effects from climate change, I doubt people will blame scientists for exaggerating.
Notably, the article you linked to spoke of the total amount of money the anti AGW groups had to use. Meaning political lobbying, research, and so on. How much money do AGW groups use for lobbying? Is that money included in the 2,7 B$?How much money do oil companies spend denying climate change? How much effort do they spend hiding how much they spend?
Oil companies have a vested interest in denying climate change. They make vast amounts of money on the current system. The 5 biggest oil companies in the US had a combined profit of $118 billion in the 2012. Not revenue, profit. After all their expenses, spending on research, lobbying, etc... they still took home $118 billion.
Over the past decade, their profits have just barely exceeded $1,021.1 billion.
If I were a scientist looking to make money, I think the oil companies would be your best bet. If you could prove what they want to tell the public, they'd make you ridiculously wealthy.
Again, that's just the US though. If you expanded it around the world, oil producer profits are going to go even higher.
Name one "green" energy company that even comes close to the profits of the oil industry.
They also spend three times that promoting it.
Here's a simple fact where it comes to climate change: No matter which side you're on, you're probably working for or with an oil company.
Want to see this in action? Check the list of reviewers for the IPCC's latest assessment and do a search for ExxonMobil. You're going to find ExxonMobil listed in the reviewers section of every single assessment the IPCC has ever produced. Basically, they're influencing international policy on climate change by influencing how the assessments are worded.
And if you start tracing the money on a lot of climate research, you'll find quite a bit of leads right back to them (once you've sorted through the numerous shell companies). That's part of the problem; it doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on, the money or science is probably coming from an oil company. That's a major reason why there's environmentalists who think climate change is a scam; they think the oil companies created it as a way to gain more power and more profits and are playing a long-term shell game to weaken national governments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely lament for the 'good old days' of just five years ago when the most lively, energetic, and often no-holds-barred non-gaming-related discussions were held right here at Paizo.
The OTD section of the Boards was the go-to place for philosophical, well-thought and well-written, intellectually- and socially-engaged, well, off-topic discussions--things that didn't necessarily define the gamer stereotype, things about which--and not surprising to actual gamers--we were intensely passionate!
These days, before any fur flies or digital faces are smacked, the Heavy Hand of Thread-Lock descends because the thread become 'hostile'!?
Are we really such intellectual cowards that the engines of discourse perforce must drive debate that is only flawlessly, precisely, undoubtedly inoffensive to anyone in any way?
What's happened to us?
Speaking as someone who's been here since he was, like, eleven, and who loved to harass frequent the OTD, this place used to have way fewer arguments. The Civil Religious Discussion was civil (don't know if it holds up now), and political discussions were rare. The most serious we would get was an argument about the smurfdamned smurfs.
Oh, wait, sorry, are we arguing about global warming now? Okay.
Once we start seeing major effects from climate change, I doubt people will blame scientists for exaggerating.
People already blame scientists for exaggerating because a climate disaster isn't here yet.
Keep in mind a lot of the early predictions about climate disasters had them starting to really hit in 2015, with world-wide drinking water reduced to nearly nothing, global lowland flooding, chaotic storm surges that would ravage the land and seas, and the like.
Take a look at the calendar. Note that what they describe hasn't happened yet, and that we're not even close to some aspects of that coming about. In fact, the flooding is predicted to take over a century now.
The next goal was to reduce emissions by 2015 to prevent a disaster by 2025. We'll see how the predicted disasters from that pan out.
"The Journal of Patient Safety, like the other journals that have published work from Mr. Hamman, had to retract the article."
How common do you think this is, anyway, meatrace? It's not common by any means, if nothing else, most such people would be discovered ages before publishing anything by their co-writers.
Nevertheless, you wanted an example, and you got it.
EDIT: It seems the other journals were in the process of retracting or correcting the credentials when the linked article was written. As one of the journals stated, it's extremely rare and they have a lot of discussing to do with their publisher.
"The Journal of Patient Safety, like the other journals that have published work from Mr. Hamman, had to retract the article."How common do you think this is, anyway, meatrace? It's not common by any means, if nothing else, most such people would be discovered ages before publishing anything by their co-writers.
Nevertheless, you wanted an example, and you got it.
It should also be noted that there is no prejudice against the co-authors, who are free to re-submit the research without Hamman's name attached. Likely the only reason it was retracted at all was the nature of the publication itself "Patient Safety" where, ya know, patient safety might be at stake rather than merely grant money or rhetorical points.
You will find very few such retractions in other credible scientific publications, regardless of erroeneously reported credentials. Because the credentials don't matter.
Yes, I got an example. One that seemed to agree more with my assertion than with yours (1 in 6).
Once we start seeing major effects from climate change, I doubt people will blame scientists for exaggerating.People already blame scientists for exaggerating because a climate disaster isn't here yet.
Keep in mind a lot of the early predictions about climate disasters had them starting to really hit in 2015, with world-wide drinking water reduced to nearly nothing, global lowland flooding, chaotic storm surges that would ravage the land and seas, and the like.
Take a look at the calendar. Note that what they describe hasn't happened yet, and that we're not even close to some aspects of that coming about. In fact, the flooding is predicted to take over a century now.
The next goal was to reduce emissions by 2015 to prevent a disaster by 2025. We'll see how the predicted disasters from that pan out.
Since as we are in fact seeing global lowland flooding, chaotic storm surges, and major drinking water shortages (Half the US is under drought conditions at this moment) I would say their predictions seem to be pretty darn accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notably, the article you linked to spoke of the total amount of money the anti AGW groups had to use. Meaning political lobbying, research, and so on. How much money do AGW groups use for lobbying? Is that money included in the 2,7 B$?How much money do oil companies spend denying climate change? How much effort do they spend hiding how much they spend?
Oil companies have a vested interest in denying climate change. They make vast amounts of money on the current system. The 5 biggest oil companies in the US had a combined profit of $118 billion in the 2012. Not revenue, profit. After all their expenses, spending on research, lobbying, etc... they still took home $118 billion.
Over the past decade, their profits have just barely exceeded $1,021.1 billion.
If I were a scientist looking to make money, I think the oil companies would be your best bet. If you could prove what they want to tell the public, they'd make you ridiculously wealthy.
Again, that's just the US though. If you expanded it around the world, oil producer profits are going to go even higher.
Name one "green" energy company that even comes close to the profits of the oil industry.
They also spend three times that promoting it.
Here's a simple fact where it comes to climate change: No matter which side you're on, you're probably working for or with an oil company.
Want to see this in action? Check the list of reviewers for the IPCC's latest assessment and do a search for ExxonMobil. You're going to find ExxonMobil listed in the reviewers section of every single assessment the IPCC has ever produced. Basically, they're influencing international policy on climate change by influencing how the assessments are worded.
And if you start tracing the money on a lot of climate research, you'll find quite a bit of leads right back to them (once you've sorted through the numerous shell...
No offense, but that final aspect of the conspiracy theory sounds very similar the overall plot of episdoes 1-3 of Star Wars.
"I'm going to create fake science to rule the world... but wait... that won't work, people won't just believe stuff published as science.... no, I must create a competing fake science, then spend billions and billions to control and fuel this debate... all to rule the world!"
It's too complex, convoluted and enormous to be realistic.
A much simpler explanation:
1) oil companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so they fund research and public relations campaigns to prevent change, they deny climate science.
2) each individual oil company has a vested interest in maintaining a better appearance than their competitors. Investing/donating towards climate change research helps them mold that public perception of themselves and reduces the chances that (1) becomes part of the standard perception of their behavior.
So much simpler, without the requirement of grand puppet master style theories. Massive secrets are difficult to keep. They rarely stay secret for long. The grand conspiracy requires that massive numbers of scientists, numbering in the 10's of thousands be complicit. Groups of 10,000+ can't keep secrets. It just doesn't happen.
If they did have the ability to control both sides of the debate, that means they have the ability to control one side of the debate. It therefore becomes unnecessary to control a second side, you just don't have a debate and you just "control the truth". You don't need to control "competing truths". It's a waste of resources and eats into profits.
Different fields have different expectations of professional certification. I can think of of several amateur fossil collectors which have published peer-reviewed papers in journals, and I believe the same thing is seen in Zoology. I would hazard a guess it wasn't absence of a degree that led to the paper retraction, but rather falsified credentials (which pretty much get in you in trouble anywhere).
FYI, an earlier point that was also brought up several times. People have argued that the climate scientists are "in it for the money" since there is more from government funding agencies than private oil companies/think groups. As someone in academia and most recently in a geology department with a lot of funding from the oil industry...this really has bearing on reality.
The current funding rate is something like 1% I have been told for NSF proposals (with some variance depending on programs). Most people entering the job market now are competing with several hundred people for a few positions, and it's expected that for every 20 job applications you put in (which are much more laborious to produce than in other fields), you might get a single interview. Pretty much all of my cohort who are pursuing academic jobs, including myself, are currently unemployed and trying to scrape together postdoctoral funding or a job.
Contrast this with friends who went into the oil industry after some level of grad school. Almost all of these people quickly landed a job with a starting salary of 65,000 a year or more and great benefits, all for a 9-5 job that requires minimal after hours investment of time. One of my good friends has done TWO safaris to Africa during my PhD, just because: Why not? he has more money than he will ever spend. So seriously folks...if you want to make the big money, going into academia and pursuing NSF funding to study climate change is a very very flawed plan.
Once we start seeing major effects from climate change, I doubt people will blame scientists for exaggerating.People already blame scientists for exaggerating because a climate disaster isn't here yet.
Keep in mind a lot of the early predictions about climate disasters had them starting to really hit in 2015, with world-wide drinking water reduced to nearly nothing, global lowland flooding, chaotic storm surges that would ravage the land and seas, and the like.
Take a look at the calendar. Note that what they describe hasn't happened yet, and that we're not even close to some aspects of that coming about. In fact, the flooding is predicted to take over a century now.
The next goal was to reduce emissions by 2015 to prevent a disaster by 2025. We'll see how the predicted disasters from that pan out.
Can you link to those predictions? I assume they weren't cherry-picked outlying worst case scenarios hyped by the media, but actual mainstream scientific consensus.
Similarly with the next goal part. Sources for the disasters predicted by 2025?
As someone tangentially working in the field, all the worst case scenarios I have seen have been at the earliest set in the 2060's (and more often a vaguely defined "next century".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The worldwide rollout was 2007. The disaster date back then was 2050. In 2010 it was updated to 2060. I expect it to be 2070 in 2020.
The worldwide rollout was 2007. The disaster date back then was 2050. In 2010 it was updated to 2060. I expect it to be 2070 in 2020.
By 2020 Solar Freakin Roadways will have saved the world from road signs, snow plows, global warming, moose, the Taliban, and failed Youtube videos. If we could just get some kind of glass gripping octopus arm type suckers on the tires of all cars, I'd wager we could tilt the actual road in the direction of the sun and get the efficiency of the solar panels up enough to collect enough power to power NASA's theoretical warp bubble interplanetary spacecraft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah! And we could call it... hmmm... I know! Rainbow road!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The worldwide rollout was 2007. The disaster date back then was 2050. In 2010 it was updated to 2060. I expect it to be 2070 in 2020.By 2020 Solar Freakin Roadways will have saved the world from road signs, snow plows, global warming, moose, the Taliban, and failed Youtube videos. If we could just get some kind of glass gripping octopus arm type suckers on the tires of all cars, I'd wager we could tilt the actual road in the direction of the sun and get the efficiency of the solar panels up enough to collect enough power to power NASA's theoretical warp bubble interplanetary spacecraft.
Ha! Stupid people trying to make the world better through technology. When will they learn science is never the answer.
-sent from my iPhone
Yeah! And we could call it... hmmm... I know! Rainbow road!
"We need to cross the river to the other side, why are you stopping?"
"I'm not crossing the Rainbow Bridge. Look there is no ice. Bye-Frost indeed."
No offense, but that final aspect of the conspiracy theory sounds very similar the overall plot of episdoes 1-3 of Star Wars.
"I'm going to create fake science to rule the world... but wait... that won't work, people won't just believe stuff published as science.... no, I must create a competing fake science, then spend billions and billions to control and fuel this debate... all to rule the world!"
It's too complex, convoluted and enormous to be realistic.
A much simpler explanation:
1) oil companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so they fund research and public relations campaigns to prevent change, they deny climate science.
2) each individual oil company has a vested interest in maintaining a better appearance than their competitors. Investing/donating towards climate change research helps them mold that public perception of themselves and reduces the chances that (1) becomes part of the standard perception of their behavior.
So much simpler, without the requirement of grand puppet master style theories. Massive secrets are difficult to keep. They rarely stay secret for long. The grand conspiracy requires that massive numbers of scientists, numbering in the 10's of thousands be complicit. Groups of 10,000+ can't keep secrets. It just doesn't happen.
If they did have the ability to control both sides of the debate, that means they have the ability to control one side of the debate. It therefore becomes unnecessary to control a second side, you just don't have a debate and you just "control the truth". You don't need to control "competing truths". It's a waste of resources and eats into profits.
An even more interesting possibility is that the oil companies are looking for new markets to dominate, since no one else has the money they do for large-scale technology rollouts, and is doing research in the area of climate science just to make certain they can dominate the alternative energy market if it ever really takes off.
Edit: Unnecessary comment removed.
Since as we are in fact seeing global lowland flooding, chaotic storm surges, and major drinking water shortages (Half the US is under drought conditions at this moment) I would say their predictions seem to be pretty darn accurate.
For some strange reason, a lot of people feel that isn't apocalyptic enough to be worth warning over. Plus, the levels predicted are massively higher than the levels we're seeing today.
Note that scientists were not doing the predicting, but are still getting blamed for those predictions.
Me? I say that, on the issue of at least water shortages, they're nowhere near apocalyptic enough. Drinking water shortages could easily cause World War 3. And that would likely utterly ruin the environment.
Can you link to those predictions? I assume they weren't cherry-picked outlying worst case scenarios hyped by the media, but actual mainstream scientific consensus.
Similarly with the next goal part. Sources for the disasters predicted by 2025?
99% of them were either hyped by the media, made up by the media when the report didn't even talk about that, or a result of flat-out lying by the media when it had nothing better to say.
Unfortunately, the media did have someone predicting just such ruin when that person actually was a climate scientist, so they looked legit. Links to articles of various "doomsday" date predictions and who predicted them:
James Hansen, must change by 2013
Senior UN scientist, must change by 2000
IPCC, saying it's too late to do anything if we don't act by 2012
The 2015 date that a lot tote? That's coming up ;)
As for mitigating it? These are the dates:
Michael Mann, must act by 2036
Camilo Mora and colleagues, final date to stop global heating to dangerous levels is 2047
Commissioned by 20 nations, 100 million deaths by 2030
Prince Charles, 2015 (why are people blaming scientists for what this guy said?)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, up to 2/3 of world population could be in water stressed areas by 2025
Remember how I've harped on water shortages, world wars, and 2025 in the past? That report is why.
Now, keep in mind that those with the right education understand what the dates mean and that science can revise its data as new information comes in. Unfortunately, the public doesn't; all they see is a doomsday deadline.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People with beards are most excellent! - fact!!!!
[Beats self about the head and shoulders with keyboard for introducing topic to this thread.]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thread contesting that the moderation is excessive got hijacked, turned vicious, and ended up needing moderation.
Eighth Dwarf, I strongly recommend you clean that post up. Such inflammatory language is unacceptable and is bound to cause a flamewar, no matter how true it is.
Never....
I won't be censored by you KC (sans your "Sunshine Band").
I stand for truth justice and BEARDS!
Or it could be that the models they looked at to decide the world would be on fire AND under water by 2015 were bunk.
Now they have new models.
Why you gotta bring up old s**t?
Or it could be that the models they looked at to decide the world would be on fire AND under water by 2015 were bunk.
Now they have new models.
Why you gotta bring up old s**t?
So they made a prediction. That prediction turned out to be incorrect, so they went back to their data to revise their model.
That sounds like
*dun dun DUUUUUUUN*
how science works, yo.
OK, so you essentially were talking about the media hyping a couple of outlying worst case scenarios. At least for the "world should be ruined by now" cases.
As for those "doomsday" date predictions, there's a big difference between "We must act by X date to prevent disaster" and "Disaster will occur by X date". Given the scale of the climate and the built in lag time, even if we stop adding to the problem, we have decades of warming already built in. Which I'm sure you know, so I'm not sure why you link to those articles. Two of them make no such short term predictions. The
other is behind a pay wall.:)So if you're blaming the media for it, what should climate scientists do, in your opinion? Close ranks and avoid any media exposure? Nothing's going to be done if no one's aware of the problem.
You have an odd approach to this. You seem to flip between parroting the lines deniers use to bash global warming and dismissing the same arguments. Why bring up those past "failed predictions" if you agree the predictions were just hyped outliers and the basic science is sound? Are you just criticizing the media and the political tactics?
Sorry about that. It's doublespeak. Useful for lobbying, not so useful for regular conversation. I sometimes slip into it.
Basically, yes, I am criticizing the media and political tactics. Because, from what I see, climate science is handling the situation entirely the wrong way.
From the start, climate science has needed clear communication with the public and to convince the public to a degree that the politicians have no choice. Politicizing it early on was a mistake; the politicians are not going to move a single inch further than is necessary to get reelected. Instead, they should have focused on the public and building lines of clear communication with the common man from the very start. Then, the politicians would probably have moved faster just to keep the public happy and get reelected.
The politicizing is too late to fix, for good or ill. But the public interaction can be fixed. Scientists need to massively advocate direct lines of communication with them, and be willing to actually spend some time each week just talking to people. They need the idea that you can hear it directly from them, in a clear manner, made well-known. In addition, they need the media to do a blitz of showing them out and about, doing their part to help. Even if it's just delivering recyclables to a recycling center. It establishes the "he's just like us" mentality and allows the public to actually get some information that is correct.
Admittedly, they are going to get attacked by skeptics. It's one of the reasons why climate science shouldn't have been politicized so early; the scientists are pretty much walking around with targets on them.
Also, the most important aspect is that they need a change of tone. The public has been dealing with doom and gloom after doom and gloom for nearly thirteen years now. They need something positive. So, the scientists need a media blitz of positive depictions of helping out to prevent the worst aspects of climate change being a good thing. It would also be a refreshing tactic for a public that is used to dour predictions on the topic, would likely draw a lot of positive attention, and would serve as a nice vehicle to educate on what is needed to prevent catastrophe. And it would also get around a major issue they have with the climate change deniers using their own predictions and general dark tone the science presents against them by focusing enough on the positive aspect that people see the idea of changing to prevent climate disaster as inherently good instead of simply trying to prevent things from getting worse.
Indeed. Nobody doubts that.
How many times will the models have to be revised before we get the really real real? Is it ok to trust the outcome now, or is it ok to hesitantly accept that maybe that's what the models say now, but could change again?
Or it could be that the models they looked at to decide the world would be on fire AND under water by 2015 were bunk.
Now they have new models.
Why you gotta bring up old s**t?
So they made a prediction. That prediction turned out to be incorrect, so they went back to their data to revise their model.
That sounds like
*dun dun DUUUUUUUN*
how science works, yo.
Even the Jehovah's Witnesses quit trying to put a specific date on doomsday though. Once they effed it up two or three times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see this as an unfortunate crossing of spheres of influence. Science is clashing with our "free market" system of aligned business and politics. Similar to the case with tobacco use and health problems in the twentieth century, we have a political "question" about the science, rather then a scientific question. (In the nineteenth century it was more science vs religion with cases such as human evolution being decided.)
I am amazed at how well such a "question" diverts the attention from a solution, and promotes the status quo. At least that political tactic works well in this country. In most countries the conservative parties are not climate deniers (some exceptions for countries that produce a lot of petro and/or pollution.)
To me the very definition of being philosophical craven is to allow political/corporate lobbyist types to influence science, especially when the stakes are high. Note that I'm not a big fan of the political/corporate influence on anything... but especially art, science and math, and religion.
|
Did you really believe, even for a minute, that this thread would not prove the need to lock, moderate, and edit threads and thread content?
Even if some few posters did deliberately attempt to derail and toxify the thread, haven't the several dozen other locked, moderated and edited threads, which followed the same course as this one, shown the sea change since the 'good ole days' (and like most good old days, they weren't good for the reasons you think they were good, and they weren't as good as you think they were at all)?
Anarchy in action; it's why even the most civilized people need policing, rules, laws, consequences.
Better luck next time!