Who is more reliable? someone who tries to suppress debate or the one who tries to open it?

Question

It is clear that proponents of the AGW theory, or what ever you choose to call it have tried to keep credible scientists silent by a variety of less than honorable methods. Many now skeptical scientists involved directly in the UN panel, some of whom remain neutral, have attested to this phenomenon comparing the mood generally relavent to the philosophies held in the middle ages. How this doesn't seem to deter the masses from blind acceptance, I will never understand. With exceeding beligerance, these people have no idea the amount of damage they are doing to science. Eventually it seems, scientific theory will be determined by popular election.

Answer 1

Yes, you found us out. We all got together and wrote letters, made phone calls and sent emails to the deniers and threatened them with bodily harm if they didn't shut up. But the more effective strategy was we told the deniers we would take their teddy bears away and use them as hostages if they didn't comply.

Answer 2

I don't know how many people in the AGW debate actually have any scientific training, or have actually performed experiments.  Or have any inkling of accuracy, precision, significance, variance, errors, etc.

Science is not nearly as neat and tidy as Hollywood protrays.

The starting point is "Occam's Razor".  Simply put, simple theories are preferred over complicated theories that explain the same phenomena.  We model the solar system using the sun at the center instead of the earth, not because one is more "true" than another, but because the mathematics are enormously simplified.

Before you immediately dismiss the above, remember that the Coriolis Force is needed to account for our frame of reference where the earth stands still instead of rotating.  In this case engineers prefer to use a model we most certainly know is "less true".

The AGW debate should first examine where any extraordinary force or input from mankind is needed to explain cycles of warming and cooling and glaciation during this brief time period on earth.

The cycles existed before mankind existed, and no one can provide a satisfactory explaination why they occur in the first place.

"But this current cycle is different."  There is so much uncertainty in past data (large error ranges), that no one can definitely tell if our current cycle is anything but ordinary.

Again, since no one can explain past cycles, about any theory can be floated to explain the current cycle, and AGW is just one of many.

One last point.  There are people freed from prison based on DNA evidence, who were indicted, tried (sometimes more than once), convicted, and sat on death row.

How exactly could the police, prosecutor, judge, jury, appellate courts, etc. all have been absolutely completely wrong?

If AGW enthusiasts can't conceive of any circumstance that AGW could possibly be wrong, they might as well walk around Harlem wearing a sandwich board saying the end of the world is near.

Answer 3

Right on BD!  If we had listened to the Tobacco Industry 40 years ago instead of all those toxicologists, oncologists, environmental scientists and physiologists, tens upon tens of millions of people would now be enjoying a cool refreshing menthol cigarette in their own cubicles.  Opening a debate, or sustaining one that is essentially over, for reasons of profit and personal comfort is an entirely logical and good thing to do.  It always benefits the long-term good, like leaving smoking unregulated as a public health issue would have if we hadn't been so foolish.  

Perhaps once the skeptics like Crichton convince people global warming isn't an issue, they can go back and get more permissive regulations concerning smoking in public spaces.  

You deserve the Lampshade of Hope award for best diatribe thinly veiled as a question.

Answer 4

Scientists are not trying to stifle debate.  There is plenty of debate at scientific conferences, has been for years.

The very few "skeptics" just lose.  Because the data overwhelmingly proves that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

Is this "blind acceptance"?

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

EDIT - birdog - Have I ever refused to debate you?  Or used personal insults?  I have trashed some of your sources, but always with links to actual information proving their irrelevance to the real science.

Answer 5

It depends upon the circumstances and the worth of the points being raised.  Science operating in isolation can debate forever, but when time is of the essence with regard to taking action, there is a need for a conclusion, as far as the people responsible for taking action are concerned.  For example when one needs a new car, one does a certain amount of research, reaches a conclusion as to what is best for you, and goes out and buys that car.  Clearly global warming is a far more important matter, but very extensive scientific work has been done and validated.  The science indicates that time is very much of the essence.  It is very understandable to try to close out those who repeatedly raise arguments based on shallow thinking or disreputable debating points.

Answer 6

The consensus is not a "popular vote" as you suggest, but a scientific one:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

So what exactly is there to debate, if we're talking about scientists?

The whole concept of debate is being proposed by this type of player in the media circus:

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11...

Based on my own skepticism, research and subsequent conclusions, it seems extremely difficult for someone to be informed and to honestly disagree with the scientists represented by the organizations listed below, all of which accept the theory.  If there truly were a scientific debate on the veracity of global warming theory, wouldn't scientific organizations be split on one side or the other, or wouldn't they take an "undecided" stance?

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

That fact that most of the contrary information is manufactured by oil industry funded special interest groups "doesn't seem to deter the masses from blind acceptance."  

Follow the links on this site to see a factsheet containing information about funding from Exxon-Mobil and see their spokespeople:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorg...

Here's how the information gets to the public:

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, documents how the media supports the false appearance of controversy on the topic of global warming:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05...

Creating controversy where science finds consensus

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

"A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling "both" sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias."

Media False Balancing Allowed Extreme Views to be Treated Same as Scientific Consensus

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Gl...

So your implied claim that there is something worth debating seems unsupported and unwarranted.

Answer 7

Not just suppress, but run the other way and hide their heads in the sand. The AGW crazies have consistently hid from debate. Their only real arguments are to call other people names and claim "big Oil" paid for it. Anyone else notice when a study comes out against AGW, they spend more time reviling the author, but never really dispute the data?

Answer 8

Science will survive.  Science has always moved to the political arena through history.

There are many reasons for this.  One is that people like to be accepted by others.  This makes it hard to stand alone even if you know you're right.

Another is the money that follows the pack.  Go against the pack is to give up the money.

To insure that they remain where they are, that no one can challenge them, they claim the debate to be over.

Global warming isn't about finding knowledge.  It's just a social group bent on destroying those who don't agree with them.

Answer 9

Correct.  Ive heard the stories about the "peer review process" the IPCC used for their reports.  Only 5% or so of the reviewers actually commented on all chapters, 75% or so only made one comment, in which half of those were simple grammatic/spelling corrections.

Some reviewers comments were rejected because they didnt agree with the general scope of the papers, which to me is a GIANT RED FLAG.  It is an insult to science.  And the fact that it was supposed to be more of a political paper, designed to instruct the world on how to deal with climate change/decrease emissions is another thing, there were no reviewers from African countries, as well as many other countries in the world.

Answer 10

Who is more reliable, scientists who have studied an issue for decades and come to a solid theory or people, ignorant of decades of research, who suddenly come into the spotlight and want to continue debating whether or not _______ (fill in the blank with any well established theory in science: evolution, plate tectonics, cell theory, AGW, etc.) is real?

You completely misrepresent the scientific process, whereby many scientist independently develop hypothesis, perform studies and experiments, and then publish their results in peer reviewed scientific journals where other scientist (highly trained and knowledgeable about the field under consideration) scrutinize their work.  This went on for several decades regarding AGW and it's now behind us, as far as the overwhelming majority of legitimate climate scientists are concerned.

A better comparison for AGW would be that the so-called "skeptics" are the equivalent of the Young-earth creationists who want to continue taking pot-shots at a well established theory, yet offer no evidence of their own that can fit the observable data.  The debate over AGW went on for over 100 years before a solid scientific consensus emerged, and now a handful of people that weren't even aware of the debate come along and scream "suppression" because real scientists don't want to waste time dealing with issues already debated?  The real abuses going on are by those who want to obfuscate and confuse the public about the clear picture that's emerged among real practicing honest climate scientists.

Should the scientific community start debating (again) whether or not our planet is 4.5 billion years old or < 10,000 years old, just because a few people with PhD's in various scientific fields can be found that believes that?  That would be ludicrous, yet such individuals do exist.

Answer 11

You are so hopelessly confused.  What is the point?

edit:

Thanks Ken.  Best yet.

Answer 12

I don't support censorship but imagine a hospital having a doctor telling patients that smoking is actually good for their health. Don't you think that hospital would like to persuade the doctor at least to be silent in order not to damage the health of the patients or the hospital's reputation?

Or what about a scientist claiming new evidence has showed that the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe? What scientific organization would like to be connected with that scientist?

This, I think, is how climate scientists sees people who refutes the idea of climate change due to greenhouse gases. There may be a scientific debate at to what degree the climate will change, but there is no real debate on whether or not greenhouse gases affects the climate on our earth, the physical evidence supporting this theory is too strong and anyone claiming anything else is not taken seriously.