Nobel Laureates Speak Out on Climate

brianlux

This just about says it all:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... eak-out-2/

So does the P.S. on this RealClimate post, unfortunately. :problem:

PJ-Physics

We seek the advice of experts for everything...when we are sick, when our cars or computers break down, when we are in legal hot water, etc...But when scientific experts put out these climate change warnings..."it's a hoax...it's a scam".

After all that science has done to lead us into this technologically advanced 21st Century...scientists have now become pariahs because of political posturing and WE ALL are going to pay the price for our growing science illiteracy.

**This gets me emotional. The declining level of science literacy of our citizenry was the determining factor behind me deciding to begin my PhD in Science Education in August...don't know what I can do just yet, but I am highly motivated and got to do something!!!!!

brianlux

PJ-Physics wrote:

We seek the advice of experts for everything...when we are sick, when our cars or computers break down, when we are in legal hot water, etc...But when scientific experts put out these climate change warnings..."it's a hoax...it's a scam".

After all that science has done to lead us into this technologically advanced 21st Century...scientists have now become pariahs because of political posturing and WE ALL are going to pay the price for our growing science illiteracy.

**This gets me emotional. The declining level of science literacy of our citizenry was the determining factor behind me deciding to begin my PhD in Science Education in August...don't know what I can do just yet, but I am highly motivated and got to do something!!!!!

Good job, PJ-Physics! The more we do to educate, the better chance we have to make a difference. Some of us hard hard-wired to do big things, and some just to do a little- and that's ok too. If we all do what ever we can, big or small, we can make a positive difference (which is why I'm so stoked about Bugs Amonst the Waves- already we see some good things happening there!)

bytterman

PJ-Physics wrote:

We seek the advice of experts for everything...when we are sick, when our cars or computers break down, when we are in legal hot water, etc...But when scientific experts put out these climate change warnings..."it's a hoax...it's a scam".

After all that science has done to lead us into this technologically advanced 21st Century...scientists have now become pariahs because of political posturing and WE ALL are going to pay the price for our growing science illiteracy.

**This gets me emotional. The declining level of science literacy of our citizenry was the determining factor behind me deciding to begin my PhD in Science Education in August...don't know what I can do just yet, but I am highly motivated and got to do something!!!!!

It sounds like you'll make a difference, which is fantastic. Scientific literacy is an important topic to me as well (not to mention global change...sorry OP). One societal thing I'd like to see is more science graduates go into journalism, because the scientific literacy of the media is appalling. I'm not sure why many (if not most) journalists aren't scientifically aware, but I'll venture that: a) university science students don't do nearly enough writing during their science course-work, and b) good writers get funneled/attracted to humanities/social sciences. The scientific community may exacerbate the problem with jargon (guilty as charged your honour), but a more scientifically inclined media could help fix that, to some extent. Weak journalism doesn't excuse the public's generally poor understanding of some of these issues, of course, but it doesn't help.

Jeanwah

bytterman wrote:

PJ-Physics wrote:

We seek the advice of experts for everything...when we are sick, when our cars or computers break down, when we are in legal hot water, etc...But when scientific experts put out these climate change warnings..."it's a hoax...it's a scam".

After all that science has done to lead us into this technologically advanced 21st Century...scientists have now become pariahs because of political posturing and WE ALL are going to pay the price for our growing science illiteracy.

**This gets me emotional. The declining level of science literacy of our citizenry was the determining factor behind me deciding to begin my PhD in Science Education in August...don't know what I can do just yet, but I am highly motivated and got to do something!!!!!

It sounds like you'll make a difference, which is fantastic. Scientific literacy is an important topic to me as well (not to mention global change...sorry OP). One societal thing I'd like to see is more science graduates go into journalism, because the scientific literacy of the media is appalling. I'm not sure why many (if not most) journalists aren't scientifically aware, but I'll venture that: a) university science students don't do nearly enough writing during their science course-work, and b) good writers get funneled/attracted to humanities/social sciences. The scientific community may exacerbate the problem with jargon (guilty as charged your honour), but a more scientifically inclined media could help fix that, to some extent. Weak journalism doesn't excuse the public's generally poor understanding of some of these issues, of course, but it doesn't help.

You also have a lot of censorship when it comes to journalism these days. A NASA scientist years ago was threatened with job termination if he didn't change his findings on global warming in a piece for the US govt to use and release. Because he refused, he also had to leave his job; the piece he wrote was torn apart by the Bush administration, but the guy release his entire uncensored piece through an independent publisher. With censorship the way it is now, journalism is an entirely different field than it once was.

Kudos PJ-Physics!

brianlux

Good point, Jeanwah. The facts do get buried all too often. I like the RealClimate cite because it gets good information out and seems to be run by very clear thinking people- the only problem with it is that the entries are often very technical and difficult for many of us to follow. But truth has a way of making itself known one way or another!

bytterman

Jeanwah wrote:

You also have a lot of censorship when it comes to journalism these days. A NASA scientist years ago was threatened with job termination if he didn't change his findings on global warming in a piece for the US govt to use and release. Because he refused, he also had to leave his job; the piece he wrote was torn apart by the Bush administration, but the guy release his entire uncensored piece through an independent publisher. With censorship the way it is now, journalism is an entirely different field than it once was.

Kudos PJ-Physics!

Jeanwah how does that NASA worker being forced to 'change his findings' relate to the media generally? To me that sounds like an employer-employee problem, rather than a press freedom issue. I agree that journalism has changed but I'm not convinced it's a censorship issue per se, particularly in the developed world. Also was it change findings, or change the conclusions drawn from those findings? Presumably the latter unless the data was flawed (which is certainly possible of course). Just curious.

Jeanwah

bytterman wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

You also have a lot of censorship when it comes to journalism these days. A NASA scientist years ago was threatened with job termination if he didn't change his findings on global warming in a piece for the US govt to use and release. Because he refused, he also had to leave his job; the piece he wrote was torn apart by the Bush administration, but the guy release his entire uncensored piece through an independent publisher. With censorship the way it is now, journalism is an entirely different field than it once was.

Kudos PJ-Physics!

Jeanwah how does that NASA worker being forced to 'change his findings' relate to the media generally? To me that sounds like an employer-employee problem, rather than a press freedom issue. I agree that journalism has changed but I'm not convinced it's a censorship issue per se, particularly in the developed world. Also was it change findings, or change the conclusions drawn from those findings? Presumably the latter unless the data was flawed (which is certainly possible of course). Just curious.

It was changing the writeup that the scientist submitted to be published. So, yeah, the conclusions.
I have been following the mainstream media and free press in general since I got a media marketing degree many years ago. I've changed face though and rather than work in the field, I'm sickened of the manipulative and deceitful tactics by the media overall. The mainstream media is definitely controlled now compared to 20 years ago and journalism as a whole is nothing compared to what it used to be and also controlled by our govt. Everything needs approval now before it's released, and even then, only with it being censored. My example was just one example but censorship is widespread, and especially when it comes to climate change and scientists releasing their reports since political posturing on the topic is "more important than facts" lately. In fact, the only reason there's a "debate" about global warming is because it didn't sit well with the Bush administration, and they skewed facts to confuse the public as well as hire scientists to support their agenda to gain support.

Look around, do some research on the topic if you'd like. There really is no such thing as true press freedom anymore, unless you seek an independent publisher.

bytterman

Jeanwah wrote:

It was changing the writeup that the scientist submitted to be published. So, yeah, the conclusions.
I have been following the mainstream media and free press in general since I got a media marketing degree many years ago. I've changed face though and rather than work in the field, I'm sickened of the manipulative and deceitful tactics by the media overall. The mainstream media is definitely controlled now compared to 20 years ago and journalism as a whole is nothing compared to what it used to be and also controlled by our govt. Everything needs approval now before it's released, and even then, only with it being censored.

Is the media doing the manipulating, or being manipulated? Certainly the latter in the case of politics (ours for sure, but I'd bet it's the same in the US at least under W). What's the boundary between censor and editor?

Jeanwah wrote:

My example was just one example but censorship is widespread, and especially when it comes to climate change and scientists releasing their reports since political posturing on the topic is "more important than facts" lately. In fact, the only reason there's a "debate" about global warming is because it didn't sit well with the Bush administration, and they skewed facts to confuse the public as well as hire scientists to support their agenda to gain support.

Respectfully, that's a US biased view; there is plenty of climate science going on in the rest of the world, and it's not only the Bush administration who aren't happy with the answers. There actually is considerable debate about global change, not that it's occurring or that we're the primary cause, but the extent of the problem (meaning how bad will it really get, the IPCC predictions have significant uncertainty) and of course what to do about it. That's why there the science is ongoing.

Jeanwah wrote:

Look around, do some research on the topic if you'd like. There really is no such thing as true press freedom anymore, unless you seek an independent publisher.

I wasn't doubting you, clearly more your field than mine.

brianlux

A few comments to add to this thread.

First regard the media: News in general and in particular news produced by U.S. media seems to be- at the very least- quite out of touch. James Howard Kunstler posted some interesting thoughts along this line in his blog today:

"The failures in journalism are now so stupendous that there are only a few possible explanations.
1. The major media, hard pressed by declining revenues and the extremes of competition on cable TV and the Internet, are in thrall to corporate advertisers who expect cheerleading for the status quo in return.
2. Major media editors and producers - the officer corps of journalism - are not smart enough to tell the difference between what's important and what's not and can't run their newsrooms.
3. Mainstream media only reflects the cognitive dissonance that pervades the collective imagination of a culture - too much noise to think coherently.
4. We really don't want to know what's going on - it's too scary.
5. Sometimes a generation of leaders just fails."

Secondly, regarding climate change- its causes and consequences. Yes, the IPPC predictions have proven to have inaccuracies but they admit this, openly citing that such predictions are difficult at best. The legitimate climate science community (i.e. people who take their jobs seriously and who are not supported by denialist corperations) overwhelmingly agree on two things:
1. Climate change is anthropogenic and
2. Without very fast changes in our behavior climate change will have consequences that are very dangerous.
I suspect the denial of these fact is closely tied to Kunstler's 4th statement regarding the media. Yes, it's scary stuff but is that reason to go into denial? No- that is why actions such as "Dig It" are so important. We can make positive changes if we look at reality and take action.

_

PJ-Physics wrote:

We seek the advice of experts for everything...when we are sick, when our cars or computers break down, when we are in legal hot water, etc...But when scientific experts put out these climate change warnings..."it's a hoax...it's a scam".

After all that science has done to lead us into this technologically advanced 21st Century...scientists have now become pariahs because of political posturing and WE ALL are going to pay the price for our growing science illiteracy.

**This gets me emotional. The declining level of science literacy of our citizenry was the determining factor behind me deciding to begin my PhD in Science Education in August...don't know what I can do just yet, but I am highly motivated and got to do something!!!!!

Very well said & thank you for dedicating your life to making the world science-literate. :thumbup:

_

bytterman wrote:

PJ-Physics wrote:

We seek the advice of experts for everything...when we are sick, when our cars or computers break down, when we are in legal hot water, etc...But when scientific experts put out these climate change warnings..."it's a hoax...it's a scam".

After all that science has done to lead us into this technologically advanced 21st Century...scientists have now become pariahs because of political posturing and WE ALL are going to pay the price for our growing science illiteracy.

**This gets me emotional. The declining level of science literacy of our citizenry was the determining factor behind me deciding to begin my PhD in Science Education in August...don't know what I can do just yet, but I am highly motivated and got to do something!!!!!

It sounds like you'll make a difference, which is fantastic. Scientific literacy is an important topic to me as well (not to mention global change...sorry OP). One societal thing I'd like to see is more science graduates go into journalism, because the scientific literacy of the media is appalling. I'm not sure why many (if not most) journalists aren't scientifically aware, but I'll venture that: a) university science students don't do nearly enough writing during their science course-work, and b) good writers get funneled/attracted to humanities/social sciences. The scientific community may exacerbate the problem with jargon (guilty as charged your honour), but a more scientifically inclined media could help fix that, to some extent. Weak journalism doesn't excuse the public's generally poor understanding of some of these issues, of course, but it doesn't help.

I don't think the problem is as much about journalists lacking science literacy as it is about media being about politics & money rather than truth & critical thinking, making science literacy irrelevant.

_

Did y'all see how this major study denying climate change has been retracted for serious flaws including using Wikipedia as a source, plagiarism, lack of peer review, & repeating claims that had already been discredited?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... ifledebate

gimmesometruth27

_ wrote:

Did y'all see how this major study denying climate change has been retracted for serious flaws including using Wikipedia as a source, plagiarism, lack of peer review, & repeating claims that had already been discredited?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... ifledebate

Jeanwah

bytterman wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

It was changing the writeup that the scientist submitted to be published. So, yeah, the conclusions.
I have been following the mainstream media and free press in general since I got a media marketing degree many years ago. I've changed face though and rather than work in the field, I'm sickened of the manipulative and deceitful tactics by the media overall. The mainstream media is definitely controlled now compared to 20 years ago and journalism as a whole is nothing compared to what it used to be and also controlled by our govt. Everything needs approval now before it's released, and even then, only with it being censored.

Is the media doing the manipulating, or being manipulated? Certainly the latter in the case of politics (ours for sure, but I'd bet it's the same in the US at least under W). What's the boundary between censor and editor?

Hmm. Good point. I think it's the latter, though, generally.

bytterman wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

My example was just one example but censorship is widespread, and especially when it comes to climate change and scientists releasing their reports since political posturing on the topic is "more important than facts" lately. In fact, the only reason there's a "debate" about global warming is because it didn't sit well with the Bush administration, and they skewed facts to confuse the public as well as hire scientists to support their agenda to gain support.

Respectfully, that's a US biased view; there is plenty of climate science going on in the rest of the world, and it's not only the Bush administration who aren't happy with the answers. There actually is considerable debate about global change, not that it's occurring or that we're the primary cause, but the extent of the problem (meaning how bad will it really get, the IPCC predictions have significant uncertainty) and of course what to do about it. That's why there the science is ongoing.

Yes, it is a US biased view. And looking at how people in other countries recognize that climate change is real, suggests that political posturing on the issue isn't there quite as much as it is here. Other countries, European countries are getting their act together and taking the topic seriously like you mention.

bytterman wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Look around, do some research on the topic if you'd like. There really is no such thing as true press freedom anymore, unless you seek an independent publisher.

I wasn't doubting you, clearly more your field than mine.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem like you were doubting me!

polaris_x

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... seat_n.htm

basically the article compares birthers to the climate deniers ... anyhoo - despite the overwhelming evidence ... i'm afraid that there will still be people who deny this (they know who they are on this board) ... sometime in the not too distant future ... an op-ed will get picked up by all the right-wing sites and it will be posted and yet again ... we will see a series of cut and paste jobs with many people not even understanding what they are posting ...

:(

education and the lack of critical thinking has been the downfall of society ...

bytterman

_ wrote:

Did y'all see how this major study denying climate change has been retracted for serious flaws including using Wikipedia as a source, plagiarism, lack of peer review, & repeating claims that had already been discredited?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... ifledebate

I hadn't seen that it had been retracted, thanks muchly for that link. The lack of peer review part jumped at me, because that would be on the journal, not the authors. I found this story on the matter http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/05/retracted-climate-critics-study-panned-by-expert-/1. I'll quote part of it.

"...So, how did the paper get published? The journal shows the manuscript was submitted July 8, 2007 and accepted July 14, 2007, for publication. This is a very fast review of a paper. Most take months and require review by two-three outside experts.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request last year, Wegman sent USA TODAY two emails detailing the paper's review, to and from his friend, the journal editor, Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California:

July 8, 2007 Professor Stan Azen Editor CSDA
Dear Stan: Yasmin Said and I along with student colleagues are submitting a manuscript entitled ―Social Network Analysis of Author-Coauthor Relationships.This was motivated in part by our experience with Congressional Testimony last summer. We introduce the idea of allegiance as a way of clustering these networks. We apply these methods to the coauthor social networks of some prominent scholars and distinguish several fundamentally different modes of co-authorship relations. We also speculate on how these might affect peer review.
We think this is an interesting and provocative paper. We hope you like it.
Cheers, Ed Wegman

July 13, 2007, from Dr. Azen to Dr. Wegman:
Title: Social Networks of Author-Coauthor Relationships Computational Statistics and Data Analysis
Dear Ed: I personally reviewed your very interesting (and unique) manuscript. I think the paper is very interesting, and I could not identify any errors. So, I am pleased to inform you and your colleagues that your paper "Social Networks of Author-Coauthor Relationships" has been accepted for publication in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis.
Your paper will now be forwarded to the Publisher who will contact you soon with full details. Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.
With kind regards,
Stanley P. Azen
Co-Editor Computational Statistics and Data A"

Editors do have this privilege/power but this the first time I have seen/heard of this in a 10+ year career. Strangely, that journal has a section that is explicitly not peer-reviewed, but it's not obvious at all that this paper wound up there (it would effectively be a letter to the editor if it had). Interesting (to me) part is that Wegman et al don't seem to have started out to deny climate-change, but rather to show how the publication of papers varies depending on the relationships among the authors involved. What an interesting mess, thanks again _.

_

bytterman wrote:

_ wrote:

Did y'all see how this major study denying climate change has been retracted for serious flaws including using Wikipedia as a source, plagiarism, lack of peer review, & repeating claims that had already been discredited?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... ifledebate

I hadn't seen that it had been retracted, thanks muchly for that link. The lack of peer review part jumped at me, because that would be on the journal, not the authors. I found this story on the matter http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/05/retracted-climate-critics-study-panned-by-expert-/1. I'll quote part of it.

"...So, how did the paper get published? The journal shows the manuscript was submitted July 8, 2007 and accepted July 14, 2007, for publication. This is a very fast review of a paper. Most take months and require review by two-three outside experts.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request last year, Wegman sent USA TODAY two emails detailing the paper's review, to and from his friend, the journal editor, Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California:

July 8, 2007 Professor Stan Azen Editor CSDA
Dear Stan: Yasmin Said and I along with student colleagues are submitting a manuscript entitled ―Social Network Analysis of Author-Coauthor Relationships.This was motivated in part by our experience with Congressional Testimony last summer. We introduce the idea of allegiance as a way of clustering these networks. We apply these methods to the coauthor social networks of some prominent scholars and distinguish several fundamentally different modes of co-authorship relations. We also speculate on how these might affect peer review.
We think this is an interesting and provocative paper. We hope you like it.
Cheers, Ed Wegman

July 13, 2007, from Dr. Azen to Dr. Wegman:
Title: Social Networks of Author-Coauthor Relationships Computational Statistics and Data Analysis
Dear Ed: I personally reviewed your very interesting (and unique) manuscript. I think the paper is very interesting, and I could not identify any errors. So, I am pleased to inform you and your colleagues that your paper "Social Networks of Author-Coauthor Relationships" has been accepted for publication in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis.
Your paper will now be forwarded to the Publisher who will contact you soon with full details. Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.
With kind regards,
Stanley P. Azen
Co-Editor Computational Statistics and Data A"

Editors do have this privilege/power but this the first time I have seen/heard of this in a 10+ year career. Strangely, that journal has a section that is explicitly not peer-reviewed, but it's not obvious at all that this paper wound up there (it would effectively be a letter to the editor if it had). Interesting (to me) part is that Wegman et al don't seem to have started out to deny climate-change, but rather to show how the publication of papers varies depending on the relationships among the authors involved. What an interesting mess, thanks again _.

REALLY?!? WOW!! :shock: That's crazy! And ironic. Thanks for the info.

bytterman

Jeanwah the forum isn't letting me quote you sorry, but I just want to add that while I understand and agree with your point about political posturing, there is a huge amount of crucially important work on global change and its consequences coming out of US government and university labs (Canadian ones too). The smaller contributions don't make the headlines, unfortunately, but they are crucial bricks.

Jeanwah

bytterman wrote:

Jeanwah the forum isn't letting me quote you sorry, but I just want to add that while I understand and agree with your point about political posturing, there is a huge amount of crucially important work on global change and its consequences coming out of US government and university labs (Canadian ones too). The smaller contributions don't make the headlines, unfortunately, but they are crucial bricks.

Yes, I'm sure there is!! I just sadly assume that it's published on a maybe a smaller scale and independently, unfortunately. Still, it's good news.

brianlux

People often ask me, "Hey, we had record rain and snow this year. What's with the global warming nonsense?" Here is an article published yesterday by Bill McKibben that responds well to that issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

brianlux

Here's the latest evidence that the right is basically clueless when it comes to climate change:

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/gop-presiden ... 49700.html

Anyone with a good basic understanding of climate science will be frustrated by the false thinking of these climate change denialists. Begs the question: "How did they make it this far in positions of such great responsibility?"

CH156378

polaris_x wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-05-16-Report-puts-climate-change-deniers-in-hot-seat_n.htm

basically the article compares birthers to the climate deniers ... anyhoo - despite the overwhelming evidence ... i'm afraid that there will still be people who deny this (they know who they are on this board) ... sometime in the not too distant future ... an op-ed will get picked up by all the right-wing sites and it will be posted and yet again ... we will see a series of cut and paste jobs with many people not even understanding what they are posting ...

:(

education and the lack of critical thinking has been the downfall of society ...

this is funny. well not really. but a coworker and i were discussing this the other day at work. what to call the climate change deniers compared to what name was created to call obama birth deniers "birthers." well many names were tossed around. we finally settled upon "dumb fucking assholes."

polaris_x

CH156378 wrote:

this is funny. well not really. but a coworker and i were discussing this the other day at work. what to call the climate change deniers compared to what name was created to call obama birth deniers "birthers." well many names were tossed around. we finally settled upon "dumb fucking assholes."

hahahaha

Cree Nations

I thought Climate change was caused by dinosaur farts?