Expert Wants to Decertify Global Warming Skeptics 926
Penguinisto writes "Apparently in the Senate, at least one scientist wants to put a permanent stop to any arguments over Global Warming. The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming."
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite. You left out an important part of the sentence...2006 was the warmest year ever recorded. We only have records of weather data for approximately 400 years...not even the blink of an eye in terms of climatic change.
I'm not saying there isn't global warming taking place. I'm merely saying neither side needs to be exagerating to either extreme. And censorship is censorship, and is equally offensive and unscientific regardless of which side it comes from. A scientist who wants to censor or punish other scientists for their views is just as bad as any group of rabid "intelligent design" supporters.
Editors, RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
No one suggested a "permanent stop to any arguments over Global Warming" as the summary says.
The original article is JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE [weather.com], posted a month ago actually.
Apparently (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong Way (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit [wmconnolley.org.uk]
Re:Wrong Way (Score:2, Informative)
"The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don't always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That's all I will say about this."
Do you call this scientific discussion? I don't. The guy admits he has no understanding of the scientific issues, but feels free to add his comments nevertheless. Also note that the American Meteorolgical Society is actually endorsing someone by its AMS Seal of Approval. Should they be allowed to withdraw that, because that guy does not understand the issue, but still feels the need to question AMS's position on air? Do consider, for example, that guy stating: "I believe Bush attacked Iraque soley for control over its oil" as part of the news. I guess that would get him in trouble, if he could not back it up by facts. Would you call that censorship? While I do not agree with Dr. Cullen's call, IMNO this is not an issue of censorship in climate science, but of work ethics for TV journalists.
Misrepresenting things. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, the part of her statement this controversy is about, which is making just speaking on the actual scientific work out there part of the requirements of the seal of approval, rather then spreading misinformation not based on peer reviewed science. But what is the purpose of this seal. Well, let's check their site [ametsoc.org]: And they now have a specific certificate for broadcast meteorologists, which states its purpose as: Hey, how about that. It's about giving accurate information on the actual scientific understanding out there, and communicating this in an accurate and effective way. Not at all about "censoring", this call is merely suggesting that people who are certified under this hold themselves to the peer reviewed science out there on climate change. Which matches remarkably well with the stated purpose of the certification.
I'm not exactly sure if it is a good idea though, but this blogger linked by the
Iceless Greenland is a blatant proof (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period [wikipedia.org]
Not censorship. Not a problem. (Score:5, Informative)
What's the fucking problem here? They're not revoking his right to speak. They're just saying that they don't trust him any more. Are we under some damn obligation to approve of everybody's ideas, just because they're allowed to speak about them?
This is a non issue. Go get upset about the rights that are actually being taken away from you, not about this triviality.
A troll basically .. or a political smear campaign (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that somebody (opposed to the idea of a man-made impacy on climate) seems to have worked out how to evoke a popular (knee-jerk) response from Slashdot.
The secret is that ... most slashdotters simply don't read the article referred to, let alone the articles referred to by that article. They take the position that they can rely on whoever wrote the slashdot newsflash to do that for them. Instead they are happy to comment on the post and the previous comments (much more fun, and less work). So ... if you can insert any statement to excite slashdotters in your newsflash, you can pretty much lead them to endorse (or condemn) whatever orginal article you like.
So ... what is actually going on?
Q: Did those experts cited really propose to end scientific discussion by silencing those who oppose the idea of a man-made impact on global warning?
A: No! (see the original blog by Heidi Cullen at http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html [weather.com] )
Q: So if that wasn't the case, then where did the idea come from?
A: The idea came from a certain Marc Morano (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) who's blog was cited by slashdot. See the blog referenced by the slashdot newsflash at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23a d-440a-88824bb8e528 [senate.gov])
Q: So if there was no question of the experts proposing to stifle discussion by de-certifying opponents then where does all the hoopla come from?
A :I think we are witnessing a rant by Marc Morano which received disproportionate attention by it's referral on slashdot. In case this referral was deliberate, we are witnessing a political mear campaign. Live and in colour
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:4, Informative)
It's easy to suspect that fertiliser and pesticide run offs are altering which microbes prosper and thus affect climate. Bio-fuels require yet more intensive agriculture, and so may make the problem worse, or not. Again a focus on CO2 may be doing more harm than good.
Also, there is the random "background noise" of vulcanism. This can be a big term. In the last couple of centuries we've seen at least one event that lost our planeet an entire summer, and for a while entirely overwhelmed any possible human effect. A few big volcanoes randomly going off could make the most hysterical predicitons of arts-graduate Greens look like a rainy afternoon.
The nature of climate variation affects deeply how we should respond. We can't do much about volcanoes, except maybe set one off as a frantic reaction to short term global warming
Re:Don't commit a thoughcrime in Austria (Score:5, Informative)
Irving didn't go to jail for denying the Holocaust. He was put on trial because the Austrian government warned him not to enter the border because they knew who he was and what he would say. The Burschenschaft, a secret society of right-wing students who swordfight and wear weird costumes (I am not making this up, you can look it up if you want), invited him to speak and he was stupid enough to go and was subsequently arrested at the airport. We have a lot of problems right now, especially in Vienna, because so many Turkish people are coming and certain far-right parties are using it as the new scapegoat to gain support. The last thing Austria needs is some douche like David Irving fanning the flames.
Crack open a history book and an atlas sometime before writing flamebait about countries you know nothing about and have probably never been to.
Re:Wrong Way (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wrong Way (Score:3, Informative)
Now, compare this text to the way this text is characterised in the article. Dr. Cullen believes that competency in the subject of global warming should be required in order for a meteorologist to certified by the AMS, as they have a large impact on public opinion, and their AMS certification gives them an air of authority to the general public. She doesn't say that everyone has to toe the party line regarding global warming, but that their comments be founded on real science, not the junk science often behind global warming skepticism. Her first quote, the woefully ignorant meteorologist is an example of someone who is using their credentials to lend strength to an uninformed, ignorant and unscientific opinion.
I think open scientific debate is vital, and that no theory (including holocost denial) should
Re:Bullshit! is bullshit. (Score:2, Informative)
New glass packaging can be made from as much as 90% recycled glass. New glass requires the heating of silica to around 1800C whereas cullet (recycled glass) need only be heated to between 900 and 1450C.
After accounting for the transport and processing needed, 315kg of CO2 is saved per tonne of glass melted (source: wasteonline.org.uk, emphasis mine).
Additionally, old glass can be used in "glasphalt", up to 30% by volume, reducing the energy used to mine rock. This is an especially important use for green and mixed recycled glass since manufacturers generally want clear glass for packaging and flat glass usage, leaving brown and green primarily for certain beverage bottles. While it doesn't save carbon emissions (because the glass isn't being returned to remanufacture), it saves landfill space (more important in the EU than the US) and provides use for otherwise unneeded material.
Will that do for a start?
Re:Wrong Way (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:2, Informative)
Heidi is probably not a guy.
Re:A troll basically .. or a political smear campa (Score:4, Informative)
Are you sure about that?
From the TFA:
Re:Manmade being key here... (Score:1, Informative)
Yes Venus is closer to the Sun then Earth, but then again Mercury is even closer. The funny thing is that both the mean and maximum tempuratures on Mercury are in fact lower than those observed on Venus... Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:5, Informative)
Just mentioning this because I thought the same as you, but only found this out recently.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:5, Informative)
Excellent question since we all know by now that weather != climate. The point is that the AMC have a body of science that says XYZ about the climate, they do not want someone giving the impression that they endorse a diametrically opposed view that they have investigated ad-nauseam. A weather presenter has every right to an opposing view but whilst a member of that organisation s/he should be clear their view is personal and unpublished. Perhaps a surgeon who refuses to wash thier hands but is still allowed to practice is a better analogy.
"What is motivating her to suggest this? You kick doctors out of the AMA because you're concerned about patients."
Climate predictions are like a medical diagnosis for the progression of a "cancer" known as the population explosion. The "cancer" is literally eating and befouling the biosphere at (dare I say) an "alarming" rate. The main symptoms of this "cancer" are climate change, habitat destruction, peak oil and the sixth great extinction. Nobody can say if or when the biosphere will collapse around us, it's like a game of kerplunk, everyone knows we can't keep removing straws indefinitely.
Re:A troll basically .. or a political smear campa (Score:3, Informative)
"Morano works under Senator James Inhofe, majority chairman of the committee."
Inhofe is the senator who called human influence on climate one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated, and used his former chairmanship to throw all sorts of unsubstantiated claims into the limelight. I would assume that his staff have just as much credibility.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:4, Informative)
But I am not a Doctor, so this is mostly just guessing.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:1, Informative)
This has already happened on more than one occasion in the US. Any doctor mentioning/using "alternative therapies" will most likely have some sort of fall-out with the AMA.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong Way (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong Way (Score:3, Informative)
Although you're right about the reversal in predictions, your conclusion (they were wrong before, so they're always wrong!) is flippant and ignores the real science being done in the field.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:3, Informative)
The AMA lost the case, being found guilty of conspiracy and restraint of trade, in 1987. Before 1983 it had as a policy that it was unethical for medical doctors to associate with those in "unscientific cults." It included chiropractic on this list.
Re:Manmade being key here... (Score:2, Informative)
There are three main factors which govern its overall temperature: the amount of energy it receives from the Sun (insolation), the amount of that energy which is reflected by its atmosphere (albedo), and the amount of energy retained by the atmosphere (greenhouse effect). If you take only the first two into account, you get the wrong temperature; if you take the third into account, you get the right one.
Re:Wrong Way (Score:3, Informative)
I was old enough. I was born in 1958. I never said it wasn't in the media I said, SCIENTISTS NEVER SAID THIS. Every day I see things in the newspaper and on TV that I know are wildly distorted. What frightens me is that somehow speculative articles written in popular magazines 30 years ago are used to justify discounting the mountain of evidence scientists have built since then.
Re:Thoughtcrime (Score:4, Informative)
As for how the loaded word censorship got introduced here, note that this press release is really from James Inhofe's office (Morano is Inhofe's communications director).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_M
Inhofe has consistently misrepresented the evidence for climate change and included testimony from non-experts. So whatever the merits of whether and how meteorologists should be permitted to publicly disagree with the science endorsed by their organizations, this press release (and its histrionics about censorship) does not originate from the climate science community - it originates from a Senator with a track record of scientific disinformation. Know thy sources and their modus operandi.
Re:This is ridiculous, but... (Score:3, Informative)
That amounts to the same thing. The only things that can be proven beyond a doubt are math theorems. That means that scientists are reduced to reporting only measurements if they want to fit this criteria. If a scientist states a conclusion that they feel the data supports and a politician disagrees with it, that conclusion will be removed. No hypothesis are proven conclusively by evidence. There are always other possible explanations.
And given that this is the same administration that offers a book up for sale at the Grand Canyon stating that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood and forbids rangers from stating what they think the age of the Grand Canyon is [peer.org], I think it's clear that they aren't interested in truth.
Re:Right, just like the "Summer of the Shark" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Manmade being key here... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry AC, you're full of shit.
From wikipedia:
Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface--a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 C. This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance.
In fact, if we ignored the greenhouse effect, and made a simplyfying blackbody assumption, the increase in temperature due to distance D from the sun goes like 1/sqrt(D) [wikipedia.org]. So Venus, being 71% of the distance from the earth to the sun, would be only at 64 C without it's greenhouse effect (albeido plays a role as well, but that in turn is related to the atmospheric content).