Re: Climate change discourse
Date:	10/03/11
Message:	"A peer-review process is an awesome process of sharing information, unless the jury is rigged." True, but it must be nigh on impossible to rig the jury for numerous journals. Remember that journals are competitive enterprises. Science would love to scoop a major find like that over Nature, and vice versa... Its all about reputation remember. "There are establishment forces on this topic in government that suppress contrary opinion, data, and conclusions that are held by graduate-level scientists" Perhaps there is resistance to results which are contrary to established science, in fact Id be surprised if there wasnt. People are just like that - even many scientists. However, you're still delving into the realm of "giant conspiracy", which I really dont think is plausible. Again, the graduate scientists could just go to another journal. Or the media, who are also in a competitive enterprise. Suggesting that there is some conspiracy hiding the results of thousands of grads is beyond reason, and speculative. " Could we not be honest and admit the fatal academic departure from the a priori of AGW is a career killer?" I understand your argument, but would suggest that it would be the opposite. Every scientist who (accurately) departed from the status quo is well recognised. Those who followed are not. In science it's not a career breaker, but a fame MAKER. There would be no better result for prestige. It's in the interest of science to make these paradigm shifts. "This is not unlike the politic of Galileo's day; or Pasteur's for example." The fact that you know the name of Galileo or Pasteur or Curie or Newton proves my above point. "There are massive problems with internal politics within the IPCC." Perhaps, but they arent really the ones doing the science. They just collate the findings from various sources and tie it together to tell a coherent story. Their reports are written there, but they are well cited. Easy enough to fact check. And errors are found (not surprising for 3000 page document, or whatever it is). The fact that the main flaw in AR4 had to do with Himalayan glacier melt rates, and was essentially akin to a typo, says something about it. Not only are errors found and publicised (showing no huge conspiracy), but these errors are far from significant given the size and scope of the document. "The WWF for example has an intake of close to 1/4 billion dollars per year." That's intake, not profit. Dont forget they have costs too. Compare for one second to the petroleum companies. eg: wiki - "In 2008, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion,[5][6][7] down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about 16 in the Fortune 500.[8]" Or mining companies. Ever notice petrol (gas) prices rising for some reason, then not dropping when that reason is no longer applicable...? Then petroleum giants consistently announcing record profits? They essentially have a monopoly on the transport and energy markets. What do you think they would do to keep that? "but like the Catholic Church of Galileo and Copernicus, or the biogenisists of Pasteur, it doesn't mean that it is correct." Nor is it evidence that they are incorrect. "I think it is important to hear those qualifiers." Hmm. Like everyone I think I am biased towards my own beliefs. But I try to form those beliefs based on evidence. I try to look at the story that a whole body of data tells me, and no doubt I write things off too quickly sometimes. I do try to be aware of this though (my undergrad degree is in psychology, so I always try to use that to guide my own thought processes and hopefully catch some of my subjectivity). Studies like Kirby and Svensmark I do keep an open mind about, because they seem reliable, and the science is interesting - and while I look for flaws, I accept their conclusions if I find none. Other 'skeptics' I sometimes have no time for, especially if they have been shown to be unreliable on multiple occasions. Someone like Monckton falls into that category. Unlike some other people, I will call out proponents who offer blatantly false information though. Usually if its minor I could call it an honest mistake, but (for example) a commenter just the other day said that GW would melt the Antarctic ice which would raise the Antarctic plate and cause mass earthquakes. I replied to him in the manner I do with 'skeptics' whose information is dubious, by asking for a source, then criticising his comment when he could not provide one other than himself. Im interested in humanity as a whole, and recognise that although we are all different and think differently, we have a common "destiny" (wrong word, but it'll do). Perhaps a "shared journey" is more accurate. To that end, I believe (ie: my personal belief) is that the world will become a better place by increasing scientific literacy, so that ALL people can evaluate scientific findings to a better degree than currently. And recognise enough psychology to watch for their own cognitive errors. And know enough logic to spot arguments which are not logically sound. I believe that science is not perfect, but pragmatically, it's the best system we've come up with by a LONG way. The results speak for themselves. This conversation medium is proof of that. Sure, we might be able to improve it, or replace with something better one day - but I actually think our political system needs it a LOT more help than the scientific one. Perhaps I could suggest Plato's "Republic" for some ideas in that regard. (though 'intellectuals who do not desire power are the ones who should be given power' probably sums it up). So politically I lean left. I admit to being a member of the Green party here. I dont agree with all their policies, but I do agree with their goals moreso than other parties. Things like social justice, economic and environmental sustainability, etc. I may be cynical, but the major parties all seem "paid for" by lobbies. So Im certainly not about "maintaining status quo" or "supporting the establishment" :-) In fact I think capitalism as is stands, promotes values which are less than ideal. Greed, selfishness, etc. It has only widened the gap between rich and poor. Note that I feel the same about communism though, as well as pretty much any existing system. Democracy is fine - the people need a voice - but there needs to be a counterbalance in the system. As it stands, it just promotes the view of "average Joe", which is mediocre at best. One of the two branches of government could perhaps be composed of by experts in a variety of fields, voted into office by their peers? Not sure. Oh I should probably mention my Masters is in Science (Astronomy), so I have some affinity climate science - which is also an observational science. Enough to be able to read a fair few of their papers, though I admit to not understanding some of it obviously! They have it easier though - their research targets arent lightyears away :-) I also have an application for Mensa in the works, though they seem to be taking months to schedule the "in person" test, even though I did the "at home test" and they suggested I continue. I dont often mention my education though, because I dont want to be seen as using an "argument from authority" fallacy. In terms of the quality of the claims I make, my qualifications are usually irrelevant, only the citations. In fact, I usually refuse requests, which people take to mean Im uneducated for some reason! "No comment" is not always an admission of guilt! lol. Its probably also important to mention that if a study is published which definitively falsifies AGW theory, then I'll happily change my opinion, but at present, I see nothing which approaches this. Kirby/Svensmark has potential, but I think at most it will merely alter the balance a little. CO2 will still have a climatic impact, but clouds induced by cosmic rays may do more than we currently think. We know too much about climate history and physics for CO2 to suddenly be declared as having "no effect" I think. Watch Dr Richard Alleys address to AGU to see what Im referring to. I certainly hope that this 'essay' has given you a good idea of any pre-existing prejudices or biases I have. Certainly Im heavily environmental-centric, but Im well aware that there are those who are not terribly fussed with things like evidence or coherent argument on both sides of the fence. But I do my best to be as fair as I can. I even admit to error when Im presented with appropriate evidence which demonstrates me wrong. I think this is all that any reasonable person can attempt to do, as subjectivity is unavoidable (though I have been called a robot or "sheldon" from "The big bang Theory" more than once!) __________________________________

That I should elicit such an in depth response is humbling for me, to take so much effort from someone in the midst of their graduate studies.

Perhaps you might sense I share your love for science, and perhaps my sincerity in my approach to the subject.
At first I was surprised to be considered a conspiracy theorist, since I find myself skeptical of conspiracies in general.  I accept that I have a naivete when it comes to believing in the purity of science--an ironic paradox to the skeptical fundamental.

Alas I am old, and well past my post grad studies.  Perhaps it has been the personal brushes with the sort of political agenda I have alluded to.  I think I battle with cynicism instead of skepticism because of personal interactions with the megalith that one finds in "established" science.  Perhaps one day when you are old, your opinions will be closer to mine.  Certainly if it turns out that after I die, the AGW theory is totally debunked.  I worrry about science in that event.  I think the credibility of the disipline will receive a damaging blow.  I was young when the pending ice age theory was pressing, until the tables turned, and warming was irrefutable.  I find it most galling that many of the cold-earth proponents, (I can't bring myself to call them scientists) converted to evangelize for the AGW theory instead.  Especially when, courtesy of the UN hundreds of billions of dollars were in the pot, and lucrative, long-lasting funding for those who tow the line.

Around the same time my opinion on the matter was shifting from acceptance of the AGW theory, I chanced upon this 60 minutes piece:  *http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n*  I suppose that had it been one subject or the other I could have maintained an opinion like your own.  But for me the topics were coincidental.  Both had an obvious taint of special interests and history of political interference in the science.  Frankly, it leaves me to question whether these are isolated events from different parts of the universe of science.  Two critical studies that upon which the very hope of mankind potentially rests.

I hope you note I have no quarrel with concerns about anthropogenic pollution issues.  I am a proponent of stewardship.  All of us should be concerned about the earth and human impacts.  I just can't let that belief become the reason to buy into AGW without the science confirming it.  Supposedly one empirically falsifiable result against a theory is to put the theory in serious question.  This is not happening.  If 90% of the various studies indicated AGW, but 10% didn't there should be no reason we should be at this point.  If 5%, 4%,3% or .1% of the experiments falsified Newton's laws, they would not be Newton's laws.  This same sort of rigor does not exist on the AGW theory.  That sir, is a travesty.

In summary, I am not saying AGW is false.  I am saying there are problems, and enough problems in my mind to resist capitulating to the status quo.  I am more comfortable with resisting a conclusion, even a compelling one, in favor of an open mind that is free to go in another direction should the data lead that way.

In conclusion, thank you for dialoguing with me.  One day, it would be an honor to sit at a table with you over a cup of coffee...for a few days.  I don't think we are far apart when it comes to the important things.