List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

[The Straight Story]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

And herein lies a problem I think is worth discussing.

In religion (let's take Christians as an example since there are so many here in the US) we have many who look at the same book (data) in different ways.

The Seventh day adventists see the rest as 'bad' (if you will) because we have Sunday as the Holy day and not Saturday. We have the Catholics, the Assembly of God, Baptists, etc. All seeing the same book (data) and each walking away with a different interpretation of the same information.

The same rings true for followers of Islam and Buddhism, which is why there are varied sects.

In science we have come to see many of the same things evolve - whether it be big tobacco companies and their scientists, to folks talking about mylar on apples to global warming, etc and so on.

The big issue of the day is global warming (although back in my day it was global cooling and fears of a new ice age coming).

Is it no wonder people are confused and that some (especially fundies in religion) don't trust people who label themselves as 'scientists'? You can hear one thing from one group and another thing from another group - and yet both are supposed to be people with the 'facts'. And yet both seem to be groups who interpret the same set of facts in different ways.

overall - it is a complex system that grows and changes. Science admits it may be wrong today, but tomorrow it will be right as it is self correcting. How does that instill faith in someone when you admit that what you are saying today may well be wrong but that is ok because tomorrow you will change it and make it right?

I used to own physics books from the early 1800's through 1900. And while they were spot on with some things Einstein (and others) proved they were wrong in some ways. And the more we learn now with the tools we have, the more we see how off we were before.

Is it no wonder then why some people don't put a lot of faith in science as it is continually changing?

This is not a bash on science (which I love and have spent a lot of time studying since I was 13, and am 42 now), but is more a way of saying "Can't you understand why some people see science as similar to religion?"

One thing is preached as a truth, only to be changed later - and when later comes we are expected to treat that as a new truth without question - and if you question it, well then you are nothing more than a "x" who hates science and is ignorant. But it is those very people who questioned science (and religion) whom we have held up over time as being the pioneers in their fields.

Should progressives shut down those with opposing science views like some religious folks want to shut down people with opposing views? Or should we at least listen and try to discern?

Maybe we just want to accept views that fit our own.

Maybe, in some way, we are all fundies.

[Teaser]

1. No.

That science changes its assessments does not make it at all similar to religion.

Indeed, precisely the opposite.

The the human mind is wired to be stupid and easily cowed, rooked, or gulled, is another problem, one that only reengineering the brain will ever, ever fix.

[The Straight Story]

2. But who decides?

There are some obviously on both sides of science that tell us that global warming is caused by us, some that say it is natural, and some that say it is not even really going on.

Which do we side with since all claim to be on the side of science and have science backing up their assertions?

[wtmusic]

6. When in doubt, side with the ones who are using good scientific method

They aren't that hard to pick out.

Weathermen and other high-profile morons, oil industry consultants, geophysicists, bah. They're all on the take.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Ooh! I got this one!

Thank you, first of all for posting this thread. Maybe we can finally end this myth that "doubt" is the same as science.

One of my favorite things to link to (besides my plethora of Stephen Colbert pictures) is an article about FUD--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear#Fear.2C_uncertainty_and_doubt">Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

When scientists have come to a consensus on an issue (like evolution or global warming) and someone wants to be skeptical, scientists welcome it. In fact, they encourage it.

However, this is not what global warming deniers are doing. They are committing grave logical fallacies.

They move the goal posts by saying, "All the science is not in!"

They change the terms of the argument by saying, "The world isn't getting hot, but man isn't to blame even though it's not getting hotter. And so what if it is!"

Then, it's about Al Gore, followed by how global warming is Al Gore's religion, followed with accusations of zombies in a cult.

And on and on.

Never once offering solid proof against existing science. What the deniers do is claim the proof isn't good enough, that somehow it doesn't meet their standards (whatever they need to be at the time).

Also, please check out Wikiality.com's excellent article on Global Warming. If you want to skip the jokes, just scroll down to the "External Tubes" section for some really good links.

[The Straight Story]

14. But then, proof today does not mean a lot

when we later decide we have more data and what we felt was right today is wrong tomorrow.

How many times have we seen something supposedly written in stone overturned later?

newton was right, but then he was wrong as well.

If someone had not questioned that proof we would have not progressed.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. Now, you're just talking philosophy, not science.

The earth revolving around the sun does not change just because we find more suns.

Also, I don't understand what you mean when you say "Newton was right, but then he was wrong as well."

[The Straight Story]

18. I meant as far as Einstein was Concerned

He was right, up to a point. But this did not stop Einstein (and Lorentz) from having a view outside of his.

If we had just stopped with Newton where would we be? We questioned this view and grew from it.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. What exactly did Newton say that was wrong? n/t

[The Straight Story]

22. Oh I dunno

F=Gm1M2/r^2....which was OK - but not really true in a broader environment.

So he was right - yes, but only for some things. If we accepted that today as the only truth we would be wrong. We know better now. it took someone challenging that to help us progress.

So what is wrong with challenging what we know today? Or should we just accept what we know today and make that law?

We live and learn, we grow.

When we accept only what we know today then we grow stagnant.

Questioning what we find today is not a bad thing.

Accepting what we know today to fit an agenda is.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Once again, philosophy.

First off, science is not an agenda. Nor is it a religion or a philosophy.

What advantage did Kepler have over Ptolemy?

BTW, I must commend you on your troll-fu; it is powerful.

[The Straight Story]

38. I think we agree really

Science, in a pure way, is not an agenda.

My point was that some (especially those in power) will use it as an agenda.

Just like those in the days where religion ruled used religion to advance their agenda.

And those that questioned it were ruled heretics. Just like some today rule those that today don't agree are heretics.

If we value science and we want to question things does that mean we are 'bad' and 'evil'? If I don't agree that we humans are the MAIN cause of global warming does that mean I am wrong?

Is there no room to think that there are other factors to consider?

If we value science so much, then why are some so eager to accept things when they fit their own views and discard the views of other people?

Why do so many progressives accept the views of some scientists while ignoring the views of others?

[ColbertWatcher]

43. I don't know if we agree.

When you say...

If I don't agree that we humans are the MAIN cause of global warming does that mean I am wrong?

...is it because you don't understand the science, or because you wish to question the philosophical meaning of the word "cause"?

When you ask...

"Is there no room to think that there are other factors to consider?"

...is it because you're not satisfied that science doesn't consider philosophical or supernatural factors, or is it because you wish to talk about philosophy instead of science?

When you ask...

"If we value science so much, then why are some so eager to accept things when they fit their own views and discard the views of other people?"

...are you considering that the general public are not necessarily scientists, and are easily swayed by pretty arguments, regardless of their merit?

And, lastly, you ask...

"Why do so many progressives accept the views of some scientists while ignoring the views of others?"

When my car is not working, I accept the views of the mechanic I have come to trust with my car; I don't care what my dental hygienist says. However, if my dental hygienist suggests something having to do with my teeth, I don't expect my mechanic to know anything about that subject, nor would I expect him to offer any advice related to it. If he is a professional, he wouldn't be talking about something he knows nothing about.

Maybe what you're wondering isn't so much why people believe the scientific findings of scientists who have spent their lives studying a subject but why people who have no idea what they're talking about are disagreeing with them just because they're paid to?

The opinion of the most attractive, nicest and most vocally passionate person who self-identifies as a scientist should not be given the same weight as someone who has actually done the work. No matter how ugly, honery or inarticulate the real scientist is.

Science isn't guided by the ideals of populism, it is guided by facts.

If a person disagrees with the facts before knowing them, just because it goes against everything he already believes, that person shouldn't call themselves a scientist.

And I don't have to give them the time of day; science isn't a democracy.

[bean fidhleir]

52. "Questioning what we find today is not a bad thing."

Only if we can show a credible basis for questioning. Simply to say in some obfuscated way "I don't believe it" isn't a strong questioning, it's only an expression of willful ignorance.

The guys, for example, who ring changes on "we're still coming out of the Little Ice Age" ignore the fact that (e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x4839) until now Kilimanjaro hasn't been snow-free in 11K years---10K years before the LIA started. If emergence from the LIA were a factor, K would also have been snow-free in the early Middle Ages.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. F = m*a

:shrug:

[Smith_3]

45. Newton's theory is correct within its region of applicability.

For velocities much smaller than the speed of light. That a more general theory exists doesn't make Newton's theory wrong.

[girl gone mad]

46. Newton was not wrong.

His laws still hold up today and are the basis of all first year college physics classes.

His laws break down at very high speeds and on very small scales, but Newton had no way of measuring or observing matter on those scales. Newton's laws are used every day by scientists and engineers around the globe.

[CANDO]

59. There was no consensus on global cooling in the 1970's

It was much to do about nothing based upon one man's conclusions at NASA'a Goddard Space Center. He was studying aerosols and the affect they were having in our atmosphere. He soon realized he should have taken into account the amount of Carbon Dioxide humans were pumping into the same atmosphere and that this would lead to global warming instead of global cooling. He had concluded aerosols would block the sun's warming rays and then found that carbon emissions and greenhouse gases would do the opposite and overwhelm Earth's ability to release warmth.

[angrycarpenter]

3. There are the laws of science

those are set in stone. The rest is open to interpretation. At this point scientists who are climate change nay sayers are probably just looking for grants from the right wing think tanks.

[The Straight Story]

15. Was Newton written in stone?

If so, it should not have been :)

[Johonny]

51. Newtonian physics works just fine

Which is why it's used every day by physicists. The belief that old science theories are thrown out by new ones is totally incorrect. Newtonian physics describes the motion of macroscopic objects, it does today just as it did in Newtons time. Indeed it would be worrying if quantum mechanic and relativity didn't transform into Newtonian physics when describing the same type of motions Newtonian physics was designed to describe. Because the observations of those motions are the same as in Newtons day.

Compare that to interpretation of the bible is completely missing the point. Since word usage changes so fast, within a few generations a phrase in the bible may dramatically change in meaning within a few generations. Apples however fall from trees today just like they did in Newtons time.

[Duppers]

57. nay sayers HAVE grants from OIL companies

2 fr. UVa mentioned in the wiki article, linked in the OP, are cases in point.

[Muttocracy]

4. since when does religion use hypothesis testing, logic, or peer review? nt

[guyanakoolaid]

5. There are no two ways of looking at facts.

The OP is based on a faulty premise: that sceince is something "believed" like religion. There is nothing to be "believed" about the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the highest ever recorded on earth, and we can go back 400,000-650,000 years. It is a fact that can be ignored, if you like, but it is a fact. Our glaciers and ice shelves are disappearing, this is also a fact that can be ignored, but I keep seeing the real-life pictures. Coastal areas are going to see a rise in sea levels in the next hundred years, it is too late to escape at some some rise in sea level, this is a fact again, and like the others can be ignored or not "believed", but I would get some higher trousers.

[The Straight Story]

10. If there is nothing to be believed

than why are there those within the fold of science of who interpret the same data in different ways - and then people are told that this OK?

To wit - we are told scientists are working off the same facts, but two different scientists can interpret the same facts differently. We can believe one today (like in the 70's and about global cooling) and then today we are expected to change our views.

We hear mixed messages all the time from people supposedly in the know.

Again, I am NOT bashing science - but then again I can see where some don't trust it as we have people who say they are on the side of science each saying different things.

I guess the question is - who is the 'pope' of science, and should we believe them today if they admit it is ever changing and that if they change their story tomorrow we should believe them?

If facts are ever changing, why should we NOT question the ones we are hearing today - and if we do - does that make us a fundie or a wacko because we don't buy into it?

Questioning the facts is something I thought is something we should do.

[Duppers]

58. because even science cannot always eliminated fucking stupid whores

who will do anything / say anything for grant money.....and they're stupid.

The main job of true scientists is ESTABLISHING facts and questioning hypothesises.

[Arctic Dave]

7. I had a similar discussion with my mom and dad a few months ago

My mom was saying basically how you could never really trust science because it keeps changing unlike religion (she is going through a religious phase, IMO, like a lot of people who are getting up in age). I said what makes science more believable is that it does change with new information and it actually encourages you to question what is known. Unlike religion, that says, you will believe in its dogma no matter what the facts or you're a bad person.

[orleans]

8. i don't know...but what did you decide to do about the job and possible

job change?

[The Straight Story]

12. That is still up in the air, as I am comflicted

I am a very loyal person, and I have a few days to decide.

I keep making great strides with this company and helping them out a lot. Within the next few days I will be talking to my current boss and HR about it. I am not one to quit a job generally (In 12 years I think I have quit 2 jobs, one was because I needed to move and one was that my boss was a total freaking jerk).

I am still at odds with it all tonight, and I have until Friday to decide. I hate being in this position :(

[orleans]

30. ok, i won't bring it up again--just keep us posted on the outcome.

good luck to you--of course.

[Kali]

9. science doesn't need faith

reputable journals and papers that are PEER REVIEWED are more credible than paid shills working for a point of view. Not to say that corporate researchers (or military for that matter) don't sometimes do good work, but that work actually gets "proved" when it is reviewed and duplicated by other scientists.

Like always you can often "follow the money" and then consider the source.

[The Straight Story]

13. Which only serves to prove my point

If science is bought off with money, how much should it be trusted?

My point is - people often see science as definitive (and I believe myself it can be) but often times we see conflicting reports. Which ones do people trust? The ones with the most money and the most backing? Even Peer reviewed things can be influenced by funding decisions.

And even if peer reviewed it is with the caveat that it may change later as new data comes in - which means that right now it is good, but tomorrow it may be bunk.

which is to say - take it for what it is worth today with the equipment we have now, but tomorrow it may all be different.

[0rganism]

31. To the contrary, science requires faith -- but faith of a very different quality than religion

Science is a body of worldly human knowledge, to the best of our combined abilities. Even at its most basic levels, we must still accept certain premises, epistemological ones, regarding the nature of the world around us. We generally concur that the following components comprise an adequate groundwork for empirical knowledge: a falsifiable hypothesis, a body of supporting evidence obtained through ostensibly repeatable experiments, and a long-term peer review process.

Each factor for each conclusion is subject to reasonable critique, on its own grounds. Yet one only has so much time available to compare data and confirm particular experiments and read up on the latest research in any number of exceedingly complicated areas. And here is where the faith comes in: we have faith in the process, as a whole. For instance, we have faith that the scientists tasked with peer review will do so in the most evenhanded possible way. Yet that is precisely the point you raised by way of anticipating objection.

Or, to take another angle, a "singular event" may produce a body of evidence that in isolation could be interpreted as satisfactory proof of a hypothesis. However, if that event is prohibitively difficult to reproduce under controlled conditions, the conclusion might not be as sound as we'd prefer. When unique phenomena are difficult to parametrize, sometimes humans may wait for centuries for true understanding to emerge.

Fortunately, scientific faith rests in the overall infallibility of the process, rather than any particular set of contemporary beliefs. We believe that by applying the scientific method continually on a large scale, over a long time, human knowledge will grow and build upon itself in a constructive way. So far, that faith appears to have been validated. Theories are refined to reflect new ideas and evidence, while hoaxes are exposed and discredited. Detractors are quick to point to any failings, while neglecting that it is science itself that exposes its own mistakes.

This is categorically different from a religious faith in supernatural entities and events, but like religion, it shares a certain defiance of the uncertain future.

[Speck Tater]

17. Are you comfortable with uncertainty?

If you MUST know the one right and correct answer, then go with religion. Whether that "one right and true answer" is REALLY right or true will be irrelevant, because at least you will be comfortable with your feeling of certainty.

If, on the other hand, you can learn to be comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, then you have what it takes to be a scientist. (And what it takes to be a Buddhist, by the way.)

There is no "pope" of science, because there is not now, nor will there ever be any certainty where science is concerned. Scientists are O.K. with that. Religious people are profoundly uncomfortable with uncertainty, however. There IS a "pope" (and a Bible, and a Koran, etc.) in religion, because religious people, in order to feel comfortable in the world, must CLAIM to have certainty about things. That claim is nonsense, of course, but believing in their own certainty makes them feel good, and they will cling to that certainty fiercely, violently defending attacks against it.

The best we can ever have in science is the generally accepted consensus. And, yes, very often that generally accepted consensus is later shown to be false. But that's perfectly all right, because nobody claimed to have certainty to begin with.

It's like what Helen Keller said about security. "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."

The same applies to certainty. It does not exist, except in such superstitious contexts as religion.

So the solution to you dilemma is simple. Accept the general consensus, for now, and learn to be comfortable with uncertainty.

[The Straight Story]

20. And that is what, I guess, I am trying to say really:

"And, yes, very often that generally accepted consensus is later shown to be false. But that's perfectly all right, because nobody claimed to have certainty to begin with."

And right now the generally accepted consensus is that Global Warming is a fact and we all need to do X to change that. And yet, here we have with your own admission, that it might later shown to be false.

So why not take a look at opposing view points? What is the harm in trying to see the other side of it all?

If we dismiss opposing ideals than how much better are we than those we condemn in religious circles for doing the same?

[Kali]

21. to help you with the ambiguity try "climate change" instead of global warming

:P

[The Straight Story]

24. So the only climate change has been because of us, today?

We were cold, then hot, then cold, etc and so on. if we are billions of years old then how do we explain all the changes before we humans came along?

We have had ice ages and hot times - long before we had oil and SUV's.

Is the whole global warming thing related to - maybe - us Humans trying to find a way to relate to change instead of us simply accepting that change occurs whether or not we exist?

Is it a way to try and control our destiny (not unlike a religion) in hopes of trying to change the outcome?

This world we live on has been in constant flux since day 1, maybe this whole global warming stuff is a way for us to feel like we are in control when we are not. And maybe, just maybe, science backs that up. But we don't want to hear that. We want to hear that WE are in control and can change it.

Maybe THAT is our religion. That we control it all and we can change it. Because maybe that is what WE need to hear to soften the blow (much like we claim that religious people need to hear they are in control).

Maybe it is not a religious thing, but a human thing. We can fix it, we can control it.

Maybe we are all deluded.

[Kali]

27. huh? I was just suggesting you use the term climate change

instead of global warming. As for previous changes (ce ages etc) you will need to read a good geology book, me thinks.

[Speck Tater]

23. Where real-world action is called for, we need to be pragmatic.

What are the consequences of being wrong?

You can set the whole thing up in a 2 x 2 game theory payoff matrix. In fact, some professor already did that. You can see the result of that analysis here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

This is VERY much worth watching to see what the consequences are of acting on the various possible conclusions.

[slowry]

25. There must be, what, 40 names on there? Is that really impressive? Oh, and I picked one randomly:

Sallie Baliunas

Her article: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1816

From Wikipedia:

13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work. There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.

Also from Wikipedia:

Baliunas earlier adopted a skeptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer. The originators of the hypothesis, Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland, were awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Her arguments on this issue were presented at Congressional hearings held in 1995 (but before the Nobel prize announcement).

Although Baliunas never publicly retracted her criticism of the ozone depletion hypothesis, an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.

That leaves about 39...

[Speck Tater]

28. I picked another of the scientists listed at random: Timothy Ball - ONE MORE DOWN

From http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/29/1/

Winnipeg bred global warming denier Tim Ball avoids embarrassment at Peoples Court

Wednesday, 03 October 2007

Tim Ball, of University of Winnipeg fame, dropped his libel lawsuit against Professor Dan Johnson and the Calgary Herald this summer. The statements of defense spooked him, apparently. Covering the defense material in court no doubt would have been very embarrassing for the well-known climate change skeptic.

Ball was claiming damages over a letter to the editor Professor Johnson had printed in the Calgary Herald. The letter pointed out that Tim Ball’s credentials attached to a Calgary Herald op-ed piece were false and that his past work showed no “evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere”. Ball was not a professor of Climatology at all. Paragraph 12 of Johnson’s statement of defense details many examples of false credentials attached to Ball’s name, and it's hard to believe Ball wasn't aware of it. The examples of false credentials include articles he wrote, websites he's associated with, and even a letter Ball sent to Prime Minister Paul Martin. Contained within the same paragraph 12 is this nugget:
Tim Ball’s “public statements reveal that he does not understand the basic physics of atmosphere and climate”.
Zing.

<snip>

It seems like all Ball does is write articles (still printed by our media, for some reason) and travel around telling people C02 isn’t causing global warming. He’s also the chairman of the cynically named National Resources Stewardship Project, which has an almost singular goal: deny that human activity is causing global warming.

More at the link, including links to the PDF documents from the court describing how Dr. Ball "falsified his professional and academic credentials..." and further that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

ONE EDIT: I'd say that completely discrediting two out of two randomly selected "scientists" from that list makes the list start to look kind of suspect.

[The Straight Story]

29. Which serves only to prove my point

Scientists who don't agree with other scientists are...

Well wrong.

But how can that be? If they are all 'scientists'?

Are you saying that the only scientists who are right are the ones who agree with you?

Once more - are ALL scientists right? If not - then why should we TRUST people who call themselves scientists?

It is a lot like religion - if you agree then you trust their views, if you don't then they are wrong.

How does one tell the difference?

[Speck Tater]

32. If the scientists that disagree with te consensus

are all seen to have some ax to grind, then that leads one to suspect that they may not be objective.

Scientists are not super-humans. They have their own flaws and prejudices. But when independent researchers say one thing and all the scientists employed by big oil say the opposite, who do you believe?

But, if you watched the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI you see it doesn't really matter that there is uncertainty. We can still know what the best course of action is.

[Occulus]

35. Okay. It has become clear- and please, pardon me, this is NOT intended as a slam-

it has become clear that you do not fully understand the scientific method. That is the name of an independent 'thing', called 'the scientific method'. This is the process scientists follow in their search for physical truths (meaning, here, 'in our universe').

You need to learn as much as you can, from as many reasonably competent sources as possible, about the scientific method. Knowing what that is will go a great googly-moogly way toward resolving most, if not all, of your questions.

(Knowing the scientific method ought to be a requirement for high school graduation. It really is that important, now that science has come as far as it has, with particle accelerators and such.)

And by the way, science is nothing at all, in any way like religion. Honestly.

[Speck Tater]

34. Oh, an 3 names on the list think global warming is WORSE than the consensus

So even though they disagree with the consensus, they do NOT deny human-caused global warming.

[boppers]

33. 40 is nothing. Project steve has 877.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/">Project Steve came about as an attempt to demonstrate how bizarre and ludicrous these kind of lists and petitions are. Yes, there are always "experts" who believe they know the "truth". That's religion. There are also "experts" who believe they know "the current model". That's science.

The problem isn't so much experts who disagree, it's people wanting to believe in "experts" as final sources of truth... religious ministers, speaking the word of god.

Science just can't work that way.

[Occulus]

37. But.... why can't the scientists just be like the televangelists?

:)

[Canuckistanian]

36. You're right. Global Warming needs more research.

Because if 1% of a population disagrees with something, it MUST be controversial.

[Usrename]

39. Several things you should consider.

First, the "global cooling scare of the 70's" is just as real today as was back then, at least withing the scientific community. Another ice age will come. I think that is the accepted view now, just as it was back then. Ice ages appear to be the norm for the planet.

Also, the "greenhouse effect" has been under scientific scrutiny for almost 200 years, since it was first noted by Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) way back in 1827. As far as I know, there has never been any serious scientific dispute over the greenhouse effect, in almost two centuries.

Next, you mention Lorenz somewhere above. Until he came along in the 60's, not enough was known about dynamic systems to even marginally comprehend climate change. Computers did not exist. Mathematics was a lot different than it is now. Whole new branches have been discovered in the last 30 or so years and many of these new branches of math have a whole lot of relevance in creating these climate models.

The best way to determine real science from bogus pseudo-science is to actually dig in and take a first-hand look and try and understand what the scientist are actually thinking. I know that's a lot more difficult for most folks than tuning into their favorite pundit to see what they think, but there is no substitute for actually trying to wrestle with the concepts, and unfortunately in the case of climate theory, it's all math. And people are just not equipped to deal with the math.

I'm not sure that it's possibe for science to be wrong about global warming. In the same way that it's not possible for Einstein to be wrong about spacetime or Darwin to be wrong about natural selection or Newton to be wrong about the laws of motion.

[0rganism]

40. Core question: should progressives shut down those with opposing science views?

I don't think anyone's really provided an answer for your question, yet. There's been a lot of back-and-forth about what those views are, and whether your objections (and those of the scientists your list cites) to climate science are valid. However, I think it's a lot easier to avoid the question than answer it honestly.

My gut feeling is, no we should not "shut down" opposing views, but rather refute them in the most coherent way possible so they shut themselves down. Unfortunately, when a topic is sufficiently complex, coherent explanations become harder to generate for those with insufficient scientific backgrounds.

It is not the uncertainty of the conclusion that empowers "skeptics", but rather the complexity of the topic. In this case, it is far easier to grab a single slice of a far larger data set and make a big show of taking exception by way of an incorrect claim than it is to really explain the data as a whole. This situation is only aggravated by the oil industry's attempts to buy conflicting science, shills promoting any such objections above and beyond their worth, and the profit-motivated mass media seeking to create and enhance falsified controversy.

Thus, the lies spread halfway around the planet by the time truth sets foot outside its door. As corollary, if a progressive finds someone playing polluter-shill using a known falsehood, that progressive is free to shut them the hell down, because there's plenty of propaganda available propping them up.

On the other hand, if it's a question of Copenhagen interpretation versus multiple worlds, feel free to pick sides. Jury's still out on that one AFAICT.

[ColbertWatcher]

44. What are those...

..."opposing science views"? And how did they come to have those views?

[bean fidhleir]

48. An even more core question: what's the cost of being right or wrong?

Metaphorically, we're in the situation where some guy is pointing a shotgun at us and slowly squeezing the trigger while another guy tells us not to worry, that the gun isn't loaded.

What are the prospective costs and benefits of our action or inaction, for the two scenarios of the second guy being right or wrong about the gun?

[Kali]

49. ...

"My gut feeling is, no we should not "shut down" opposing views, but rather refute them in the most coherent way possible so they shut themselves down. Unfortunately, when a topic is sufficiently complex, coherent explanations become harder to generate for those with insufficient scientific backgrounds.

It is not the uncertainty of the conclusion that empowers "skeptics", but rather the complexity of the topic. In this case, it is far easier to grab a single slice of a far larger data set and make a big show of taking exception by way of an incorrect claim than it is to really explain the data as a whole"

yep :toast: well stated!

[tkmorris]

41. It's been said above, but it bears repeating

Your original post, and your follow on replies to others, indicate that you really have no understanding of scientific methodology at all. For example, speaking of science you say "One thing is preached as a truth, only to be changed later - and when later comes we are expected to treat that as a new truth without question - and if you question it, well then you are nothing more than a "x" who hates science and is ignorant.". You could not possibly be more incorrect. If Newton could be brought back to life today and shown the work others have done on non-Newtonian physics, he would not be offended in the slightest. He would be positively DELIGHTED, because as a scientist he never claimed to have the final answer to anything, the Truth with a capital 'T'. No real scientist ever does.

Do you realize that the very machine you use to post your thoughts here operates upon principles still considered theoretical in nature? The very electron flow in it's circuitry is not completely understood, and yet somehow it still works. Science is often like that, trying to theorize why things occur as they do, and to use those theories to predict what will happen under other circumstances. When a theories predictions hold true under repeated experimentation, scientists do not hold forth that the theory is now "The Truth" and go become plumbers. They know that they have advanced understanding, but other conditions may exist which will require expanding upon the original theory.

Further, plenty of people call themselves "scientists" when in fact they are nothing of the sort. To discern the difference between a scientist and a charlatan requires that you be something of a scientist yourself, or at least have a working knowledge of the methods real scientists use and enough objectivity to analyze whether they practice those methods.

Religion states a thing as a fact, then defends that "fact" against all evidence that it is not. Science proposes ideas, then rigorously tests them to determine if they have merit. The two approaches are diametric opposites, and it is a real puzzle to me that you do not seem to grasp that.

[Solon]

42. Any bona fide scientist would be grinding their teeth at this thread...

Scientific consensus and uncertainty are the hallmarks of people who pursue scientific inquiry. Every scientist knows they are flawed beings, and so they are cautious, conservative(in the practical, not political sense) compared to most people. You could almost say that are, by nature, insecure, but only because the scientific method requires others, besides yourself, to test EVERYTHING you did to see if the results are repeatable or the observations accurate.

The fact is that humans aren't objective, at least on an individual level, all humans are subject to prejudices about numerous topics, and so, for any of us to claim we have a lock on truth, or even facts, is automatically suspect. Instead, in scientific circles, they try to remove the human factor from the theories that are the work of individuals by having hundreds, thousands, of scientists test each theory to find flaws, in fact, this is greatly encouraged. Its only then that a consensus is agreed to, and even then, its tentative at best.

Oh, and to the poster of post number 3, no law in science is set in stone, if it were, it wouldn't be science in the first place.

[bean fidhleir]

47. KEY ISSUE: What are the respective costs of being wrong?

If we choose to believe the climate guys are wrong, and in fact they are wrong, we get to enjoy the remnants of our current lifestyle while the wealthy use technology to hog the remaining resources and protect themselves from the effects of population collapse among the poor (which latter group includes us, too).

If we choose to believe the climate guys are wrong, but in fact they are right, the population collapse is uncontrollable, orders of magnitude more severe, and we all die.

[BlooInBloo]

50. Fuck we're a stupid fucking country. Letting idiots have a say in science is the WORST choice....

... And anyone who characterizes science as a "form" of religion is an idiot.

EDIT: Stupidity is NOT progressive, no matter what stupid people say.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Yeah, I've seen these kinds of lists before.

And debunked them as wonks for the petroleum and coal industries.

Some of it's already been debunked upthread, I just googled another at random and found he agrees entirely with anthropogenic global warming. I'm sure you'll find similar results if you do it yourself.

Maybe you should reserve some of your skepticism for Wikipedia instead of the scientific method.

[Ichingcarpenter]

55. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of Evolution

Same stupid arguments.

[Duppers]

56. apples and oranges; NOT the same thing

First of all it is ludicrous to compare science to religion!!!!

Why are you doing this? You have no extensive scientific training, nor have you done extensive reading about global warming.

It is well known that these two, mentioned in the wiki article, got their funding from the OIL companies:

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”

Patrick Michaels, former state climatologist, University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree...a modest warming is a likely benefit."


....
Some of the scientific organizations that have issued statements supporting the scientific consensus.
The American Geophysical Union,
the American Physical Society,
the National Academy of Science,
the American Meteorological Society,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
the IEEE, with something on the order of 100,000 members
the Royal Society of London, France, Germany, Russia, Japan,
the European Geophysical Union,
the IUGG
The Australian national research arm, CSIRO.

There are thousands of such quasi-scientific organizations representing millions of scientists world wide. Here's an A to Z list of organisations supporting manmade global warming...

A - American Association for the Advancement of Science
B - Birdlife International
C - Conservation International
D - Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
E - Environmental Protection Agency
F - Friends of the Earth
G - Greenpeace
H - Hanson Environment Fund
I - Intergovernmantal Panel on Climate Change
J - John Muir Trust
K - Koeberg Alert
L - League of Conservation Voters
M - Marine Mammal Center
N - Nature Concervancy (Council)
O - Oceana
P - Public Transport Users Association
Q - Queensland Department of Environment
R - Royal Scoiety
S - Sierra Club
T - Tropical Rainforest Coalition
U - Union of Concerned Scientists
V - Voluntary Services Organisation
W - World Business Forum
X - Xerces Society
Y - Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative
Z - Zero Emission Resource Organisation

[seasat]

60. There is a huge difference between scientific consensus and media reporting

The "Ice Age" scare of the 70's was a media invention. We were just beginning to understand the Milankovitch cycles and global clmate back then when some media folks looked at the time line and thought, "Wow, it's time for another ice age". The warming trend had leveled off over that period as the result of several factors and the media ran with it. A science historian went back and reviewed the scientific literature of the time. Over the period from 1965 to 1979, they found that 44 supported increased warming, 20 were neutral, and only 7 supported increased cooling. The scientific consensus from 29 years ago was increased warming not cooling. The cooling canard is a myth.

There are a few scientists that are in disagreement with the greenhouse gas theory of climate change that are legitimate. However, the vast majority of that list are folks that are benefiting financially from promoting their skepticism in the media. They receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and operate in a similar manner to the "experts" promoted by the tobacco industries. In fact, some of the same people did work for the tobacco companies years ago in the same capacity.

The scientific method works like this. An observation is made of some sort of phenomenon. A hypothesis is formed to explain the phenomenon. The main criteria for the hypothesis is that it has to be falsifiable. In other words, you have to be able to conduct a test that can potentially disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis passes the test then the results are presented to the scientific community. The scientific community then repeats tests on this hypothesis. After a consensus builds supporting the hypothesis, it becomes accepted as a valid scientific theory. Theories represent truth as we know it at the time. Science does not prove anything. Proofs are for mathematics and philosophy.

That is how science is different from belief. It is based on a consensus backed by rigorous testing. Of course there will always be further questions and doubts. The only way there would never be doubts is for mankind to achieve absolute knowledge of everything in the physical world. I don't see that occurring any time soon. The greenhouse gas theory of climate change is supported by every major scientific organization except for two who are neutral on it (The Association of Petroleum Geologists and The American Association of State Climatologist are neutral). There is more support behind this theory than many we commonly accept and waiting until there is 100% agreement from everyone with a PhD to address climate change would be ignorant and dangerous.

Now if I, as a scientist, were to discover that the current theory is wrong. You can bet I'd publish it and defend my work. A scientist always needs to keep an open mind. You will rarely hear an attack by a fellow scientist on the very tiny minority of dissenters that are actually trying to follow the scientific method. The problems with the majority of skeptics is that they either had their work disproven and their egos won't allow them to admit they are wrong or they are simply shilling for someone who is willing to pay them the big bucks. That is why they commonly viewed with derision. It's not criticism based on some "belief" but it is based on their personal corruption.