Global warming 'past the point of no return'

[hatedbythemail]

gosh its gone quiet in here ;-)

how does that song go? there are more questions than answers though im not sure how the more that you find out the less you know :-) )

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

YET AGAIN YOU IGNORE THAT IT IS THE ROYAL SOCIETY THAT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE OIL COMPANIES. IT IS THE UK'S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. I DO NOT CLAIM OR PRETEND TO BE A SCIENTIST, JUST SOMEONE WHO IS FOLLOWING THE ISSUES.

Aren't these the same guys who are trying to strongarm ExxonMobil into stopping funding scientists who gainsay global warming, though? I thought good science was about exploring competing theories and letting them stand or fall based on evidence, not shutting down exploration of any theory that runs contrary to your own. It sounds more like an inquisition to me.

Given the amount of funding to be had at the moment (providing your study is related to climate change in some way), I wonder whether vested interests play a part here?

[injuneer]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Aren't these the same guys who are trying to strongarm ExxonMobil into stopping funding scientists who gainsay global warming, though? I thought good science was about exploring competing theories and letting them stand or fall based on evidence, not shutting down exploration of any theory that runs contrary to your own. It sounds more like an inquisition to me.

Given the amount of funding to be had at the moment (providing your study is related to climate change in some way), I wonder whether vested interests play a part here?

I'd rather trust an independant body that does not have a vested interest in oil. Let's face it, any large corporation is going to resist any argument that threatens its profits, power and the status quo, it's the way they work. The world is run by corporations not governments.

Originally Posted by injuneer

I'd rather trust an independant body that does not have a vested interest in oil. Let's face it, any large corporation is going to resist any argument that threatens its profits, power and the status quo, it's the way they work. The world is run by corporations not governments.

You don't have to accept or trust the results produced by the scientists who are paid for by the oil industry. But to try to prevent them even doing their research? Surely you're not suggesting that is a 'scientific' way to behave?

I also think it is naive to believe that the oil industry is the only vested interest here. As I said earlier, there is a lot of research money to be had at the moment, for people willing to give their time over to researching climate change.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Aren't these the same guys who are trying to strongarm ExxonMobil into stopping funding scientists who gainsay global warming, though? I thought good science was about exploring competing theories and letting them stand or fall based on evidence, not shutting down exploration of any theory that runs contrary to your own. It sounds more like an inquisition to me.

Given the amount of funding to be had at the moment (providing your study is related to climate change in some way), I wonder whether vested interests play a part here?

the royal society alleges that exxon is funding cod-science. whether they're strong-arming depends i guess on your perspective but theyre clearly very annoyed with what they claim exxon are doing - funding multiple pseudo scientific organisations to muddy the waters with the non-scientific community ie the public. they argue that there is an overwhelming consensus regarding the science of climate change. nit sure why they, as a national institute of scientists, would want to prevent genuine scientific exploration of alternative theories. their stance quite clearly is that exxon is not funding genuine scientific exploration.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

the royal society alleges that exxon is funding cod-science. whether they're strong-arming depends i guess on your perspective but theyre clearly very annoyed with what they claim exxon are doing - funding multiple pseudo scientific organisations to muddy the waters with the non-scientific community ie the public. they argue that there is an overwhelming consensus regarding the science of climate change. nit sure why they, as a national institute of scientists, would want to prevent genuine scientific exploration of alternative theories. their stance quite clearly is that exxon is not funding genuine scientific exploration.

I thought peer review was about critiquing the results once they're published? No matter how you spin it, trying to prevent research from happening in the first place is not good practice. If they're so confident of their own conclusions, and the dodginess of the competition, they should have no concerns about taking part in an open, rigorous and public debate.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

the royal society alleges that exxon is funding cod-science. whether they're strong-arming depends i guess on your perspective but theyre clearly very annoyed with what they claim exxon are doing - funding multiple pseudo scientific organisations to muddy the waters with the non-scientific community ie the public. they argue that there is an overwhelming consensus regarding the science of climate change. nit sure why they, as a national institute of scientists, would want to prevent genuine scientific exploration of alternative theories. their stance quite clearly is that exxon is not funding genuine scientific exploration.

Hope they are using the same message to Creationists.

btw, what ever happened to "Freedom of Speech"

ps I believe that Global Warming is happening, just uncomfortable when groups say what and what can't be researched - if the research these "cod" groups produce is untrue, surely peer review will kill it dead.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I thought peer review was about critiquing the results once they're published?

Peer review is the process by which manuscripts get published or rejected.

Basically, a researcher submits an article to a journal. The journal then sends the manuscript out to a number of people who are considered knowledgeable in the area. These people (typically 3 or 4) independently critique the paper and give a verdict of accept/reject/accept given modifications. The journal's editor then makes a decision based on these reviews. It's about selecting the research that is good enough to get published.

A similar process is used in bids for research funds from the research councils.

Originally Posted by Chris T

No matter how you spin it, trying to prevent research from happening in the first place is not good practice. If they're so confident of their own conclusions, and the dodginess of the competition, they should have no concerns about taking part in an open, rigorous and public debate.

I haven't followed this one, but perhaps it could be argued they are engaging in a public debate about this?

Originally Posted by danielf

.... snip....
I haven't followed this one, but perhaps it could be argued they are engaging in a public debate about this?

"the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...876541,00.html

Public Debate usually takes the form of one side taking the side of the affirmative, with the burden of advocating and proving the resolution, and the other debater takes the side of the negative, with the burden of refuting the affirmative's case.

Not saying "Stop it, it's wrong"

Oh, and this is on the Royal Society's website
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1
"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

ps I believe that Global Warming is happening, just uncomfortable when groups say what and what can't be researched - if the research these "cod" groups produce is untrue, surely peer review will kill it dead.

the point is that whilst scientists may be aware its cod scvience, the public and journalists may not. the royal society clearly believes there is a deliberate strategy to undermine what they see as legitimate scientific enquiry using illegitimate tactics due to commercial interest. my understanding is that the "science" they challenge is not subject to standard peer review.

as for freedom of speech, well if you have a lot of cash, from wherever it comes, your speech can be a helluva lot freer because you have greater access to mass communication mediums.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

... snip...
as for freedom of speech, well if you have a lot of cash, from wherever it comes, your speech can be a helluva lot freer because you have greater access to mass communication mediums.

So, this free speech thing - you for it, or agin it?

[hatedbythemail]

this is what the royal society has to say about climate change and the arguments put forward against it: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 they certainly see the us oil industry's opposition to kyoto etc as being key to the 'research' findings they present.

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

So, this free speech thing - you for it, or agin it?

well like most things its more complex than that ;-) of course i favour free speech but its also quite clear that not everbody has the same resource with which to communicate their message. in this instance exxon has the resources to both fund organisations (which the rs say are pseudo scientific) and promote the anti-climate change messages which they generate.

in an ideal world freedom of speech would be matched by equal access to communication of that speech. an impossible dream obviously but im sure yoi can see the point im making in that those with power and/or money can reach more people than humble mortals like me and you.

this is, though, another debate :-)

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

....snip....well like most things its more complex than that ;-)

Hee hee - I will bear that statement in mind, next time any "simple" statements are used in a debate in the Cable Forum.

As I said, I think what the Oil companies are doing is equivalent to what the Tobacco companies did (and are still trying to do) at the end of the 20th Century - however, trying to "ban" the funding of research sets an awfully dangerous precedent; let's hope no fundamentalist vegetarian anti-vivisectionists get in charge, or they could "ban" medical research based upon animal testing (but, as you say, that's another thread).

As you have so often said in other threads, these rights are fundamental, and any encroachment on them weakens them.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Hee hee - I will bear that statement in mind, next time any "simple" statements are used in a debate in the Cable Forum.

As I said, I think what the Oil companies are doing is equivalent to what the Tobacco companies did (and are still trying to do) at the end of the 20th Century - however, trying to "ban" the funding of research sets an awfully dangerous precedent; let's hope no fundamentalist vegetarian anti-vivisectionists get in charge, or they could "ban" medical research based upon animal testing (but, as you say, that's another thread).

As you have so often said in other threads, these rights are fundamental, and any encroachment on them weakens them.

of course the rs doesnt actually have the power to prevent exxon funding 'research' so their right to free speech isn't denied.

one of the key points here is that exxon is funding multiple organisations (which the rs says are of dubious origin) rather than a single, reputable scientific orghanisation. This, the rs alleges, suggests that opposition to the general scientific consensus is more widespread than it in fact is. In short, my reading is that they are saying its just a pr tactic.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

of course the rs doesnt actually have the power to prevent exxon funding 'research' so their right to free speech isn't denied.

one of the key points here is that exxon is funding multiple organisations (which the rs says are of dubious origin) rather than a single, reputable scientific orghanisation. This, the rs alleges, suggests that opposition to the general scientific consensus is more widespread than it in fact is. In short, my reading is that they are saying its just a pr tactic.

My concern is not so much with whether someone's right to free speech is being eroded. With ExxonMobil on their side, that is very unlikely to happen. What worries me is the apparent sacrifice of proper scientific method and objectivity on the part of the Royal Society.

One columnist I read this weekend - either the Sunday Express or Sunday Herald, I forget which - suggested that some climate scientists are beginning to sound worryingly like a priestood, for whom climate change is an article of faith, rather than a scientific theory open to challenge and revision.