×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nebraska Scientists Refuse To Carry Out Climate Change-Denying Study

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the not-on-my-watch dept.

Earth 640

Lasrick writes "Nebraska researchers say they refuse to be used as political pawns: 'The problem, according to members of the governor-appointed Climate Assessment and Response Committee, is that the bill behind the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change. In so doing, it completely leaves out human contributions to global warming.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

640 comments

Governor Appointed (3, Insightful)

Yahooti (3401115) | about 6 months ago | (#45252687)

How do we keep politics out of this?

Re:Governor Appointed (5, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | about 6 months ago | (#45252887)

How do we keep politics out of this?

By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.

As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.

Re:Governor Appointed (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 6 months ago | (#45253001)

Indeed, it should be entirely privately funded. Thus we can focus on the research that matters: only that which can be monetized within the next 4 quarters or sooner!

You think that government is apolitical? (5, Insightful)

xmark (177899) | about 6 months ago | (#45253137)

wow

Everyone has an agenda. Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society. It is (and has amply proven itself to be) capable of corruption, graft, and political pursuit of goals contrary to the interests of those who are taxed to fund it.

Concentration of power is the problem. Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction. They both pursue their own agendas in service to the elites who are stakeholders, and then use propaganda to claim otherwise.

Re:You think that government is apolitical? (4, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | about 6 months ago | (#45253207)

Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

I disagree. Look into the funding of elections.

Re:Governor Appointed (1)

MacDork (560499) | about 6 months ago | (#45253183)

No way! Government funding is better. It's solid and dependable funding that never ever left projects in Antarctica unfunded due to government shut downs in DC.

Re:Governor Appointed (5, Insightful)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about 6 months ago | (#45253151)

I Disagree. Publically funded research is essential because there are many fields that private companies would not research (ironically, like climate change) and where monetary interests influence the results. The main problem here is that it seems that there are no checks in place to prevent (obvious) influence from eg. lobbying groups, or prevent bogus research from being funded (like the "only cyclic" climate change that is the topic here)

Re:Governor Appointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252891)

How do we keep politics out of this?

Simple, keep out the politicians. Leave the public information and press briefings to the scientists.

In other words go back a few decades and keep Al Gore from making it a partisan political issue for the campaign trail?

Seriously, he meant well, but he was not the most accurate provider of information -- he is a politician not a scientist after all. Like it or not, he greatly contributed the politicized environment this topic is stuck in.

Re:Governor Appointed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252913)

NO, he did not mean well. He meant to start a panic from which he would benefit personally, and he has.

Re:Governor Appointed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252961)

the politicized environment this topic is stuck in.

oil companies make trillions each year, THAT's the source of the politicization (with the help of some media networks, funded by said corps of course.)

Re:Governor Appointed (3, Insightful)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 6 months ago | (#45253205)

How do we keep politics out of this?

By keeping politics out of it. Set aside a portion of the national budget to research that will be overseen by an independent trust, then release all the fruits of the same into the public domain.

Sorry, we were talking pies in the sky, weren't we?

Any assessment of climate change is political (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252697)

It's inherent in the whole process now. You can't separate out the politics anymore.

Really? (5, Insightful)

kramerd (1227006) | about 6 months ago | (#45252703)

Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

Re:Really? (1, Flamebait)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 6 months ago | (#45252825)

Because it's HERESY, pure and simple! My indignation that someone might not believe is beyond description. Burn them at the stake!

Past all the heiressy (2, Informative)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#45252935)

Atlantic Hurricane Season Quietest in 45 Years [wattsupwiththat.com]
Recalls Ace of Spades [ace.mu.nu]:

"If only there were some. . .natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature.
It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun."

The idea that, just because I find the "Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change" club is tantamount to a religious cult armed with a computer model means that
I am automatically contending that "climate is constant", is more than a little silly. The idea of nature conservation is as conservative as conservare [wiktionary.org].
If the last decade of ManBearPiggery has taught anything, it is the imperative to reject categorically all appeals to guilt & fear. Make the argument, put the raw data and the model out there for calm reflection, or understand that you've completely undercut your point.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#45252859)

That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*.

Of course, open-minded studies are always needed, but this specific one reeks of political interference.

Re:Really? (-1, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#45253053)

"That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*."

Yes, it is the problem.

Science is science, regardless of any political reasons for doing it. There is ample reason to study cyclical climate change, which unlike AGW we know beyond doubt does happen.

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253121)

"That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*."

Yes, it is the problem.

Science is science, regardless of any political reasons for doing it. There is ample reason to study cyclical climate change, which unlike AGW we know beyond doubt does happen.

It is the scientists who are refusing to study it who are being political, to the detriment of science. They should be taken out and shot. Or at least kicked out of any professional organizations they belong to.

You do know that absolutely all serious climate research do this already? That is take into account natural causes in addition to human influenced causes. The "baseline" people keep talking about here is part of every major study on this. It is interesting how easily people seem to think that their own "common sense" trumps science. "Stupid scientists, weather changes, why didn't they think of that!" It explains how people can so readily dismiss science in various areas, like evolution for intelligent design, alternative medicine for medicine etc.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252871)

Because "cyclical climate change" is voodoo. It doesn't explain WHY it changes, it's just curve fitting.

Moreover, if you'd ever bothered to read ANY of the IPCC reports, you'd see that in the Attributions section it goes into the non-anthropogenic forcings.

However, it's just much easier for you to go "Derpy derp derp!".

Here is a hint: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252951)

The "president" of the IPCC is the guy that owns the worlds biggest trading company of "carbon credits".

Re:Here is a hint: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253031)

The "president" of the IPCC is the guy that owns the worlds biggest trading company of "carbon credits".

This claim would be more interesting with a citation. The chair of IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri (since 2002). What is the name of the carbon credit trading company he owns?

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | about 6 months ago | (#45252885)

There are studies of it, plenty. What we don't need is politically motivated research with predefined results. That has also been done several times, and they all ended up agreeing with the scientific consensus (though sometimes only after being called out on fabricated numbers and bad science).

Re:Really? (1, Troll)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#45252895)

Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

Mod parent insightful.

If you don't have any understanding of the noise, how can you detect the signal?
Real signal can be masked by noise just as well as fake signal could be induced by noise.
Fear of knowing what part of a trend is noise vs signal is simply intellectually dishonest.

Many claim that the recent leveling off of global warming is because we just happen to be in a period where solar output is lower.
If true, as soon as that solar output ramps up we are in for double trouble.

If you refuse to study cyclical warming trends, specifically in this case solar output, you have no idea how much trouble
or how soon.

In fact, if you refuse to quantify the noise, you have to totally toss out the solar output argument and accept that the leveling off
is real signal, and the new norm.

Fear of knowledge, and acceptance of dogma defines a religion, not a science.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Alef (605149) | about 6 months ago | (#45253021)

If you don't have any understanding of the noise, how can you detect the signal?

You can't, which is of course why that is pretty much all climate research consists of -- separating and modelling different forcings and interactions, some of them caused by human activity, most of them natural. Really, how did you figure climate researchers arrived to the conclusions there are today? Have you even looked at any research?

I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change". There are multiple factors affecting the average energy in the climate system, greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) and solar irradiation being the most important ones. You need both to explain temperature trends, not only the current ones but historical. It has been studied by many researchers to great detail, and it is being studied still more.

By telling the researchers to "look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion, that climate changes cyclically, instead of studying and understanding the mechanisms that causes change. It is probably one of the most blatant and ignorant attempt and controlling science for political motives I have seen.

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#45253133)

I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change".

Wow. Really? I have to be honest with you: this is the most disingenuous post I have seen in a long time.

There are a multitude of cyclical climate events that make up part of the models used in AGW theory. You simply can't even begin to have a valid theory if you do not take them into account.

Among those, but by no means an all-inclusive list, are: the short solar cycle (~ 11 years), plus longer term known solar cycles. And then there are the El Nio and La Nia (ENSO) events... which may be a bit more chaotic but still cyclical. And many more.

You can't seriously claim to be studying AGW, and ignore these others, because they are going to effect your results. There is no way around it.

By telling the researchers to "look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion, that climate changes cyclically, instead of studying and understanding the mechanisms that causes change.

Horse balls. You are telling them to study phenomena that are essential to their understanding of AGW, or even whether it exists.

Re:Really? (2)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#45253143)

look at 'cyclical' climate change", you are telling them to lock in to a conclusion,

Wrong.

All you are telling them to do is to quantify the noise: Separate natural changes from their claims of AGW.
Some of this has been studied, most of it has simply been denied.

Re:Really? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#45253153)

I don't even know what they mean by "cyclical climate change".

My first guess at what they mean is identifying those forcings and interactions that are periodic.

How are the two not inherently related? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 6 months ago | (#45252907)

Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

How are the two not inherently related? Doesn't determining one determine the other? If p is the percentage due to human influence then 1.0 - p is the percentage due to non-human influence.

Re:How are the two not inherently related? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 6 months ago | (#45252943)

How do you determine 'human influence' without first knowing how the climate changes naturally?

OK, the Climate Change Deniers have their 'Hockey Stick', where the temperature was perfectly flat until EVIL SUVS appeared, but no sensible scientist should take them seriously. Earth's climate has been changing ever since it reached the point where it could sensibly be said to have one.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252947)

Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

Maybe cyclical warming and cooling has an effect on temperature. That said, it is equally important to know how strong it is relative to other things, like particulates in the atmosphere, or human produced CO2/methane/other gas. Without good relative grounding, the findings could be written as unimportant or they could be overstated, both of which are not useful in an accuracy-oriented career.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253027)

Agreed. Even if we can agree that humans aren't significantly contributing to global warming, we should still stop pollution for it's own sake.

Re:Really? (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about 6 months ago | (#45253091)

I couldn't agree more. As an analogy, there have been tons of studies looking for a link between cellphones and cancer. Even before those studies were made, anyone who had an understainng of how electromagnetic radiation works would have said that cellphones can't cause cancer. Still, the studies were made, showed no link, and gave empiric support to something that was previously just a theoretical argument.

Re:Really? (1)

fritsd (924429) | about 6 months ago | (#45253175)

Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

Yeah, I don't get that either--what Milankovich discovered in the 1940's is fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles [wikipedia.org]
Let's hope the experiments don't have to run for 25 000 - 100 000 years though.

Only in America (5, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#45252711)

Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money? Name one other country who will purposedly ally themselves with corporate interests agaisn't the will of the people to do such silly things like publish these studies?

America is turning into the laughing stock of the world. It is truly embarrasing. Conservative Americans might be mad at my post or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.

Re:Only in America (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252865)

Ummmm..... seen the idiots in power in Australia lately?

Re:Only in America (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252911)

Canada. Look up Steven Harper and muzzling scientists.

Re:Only in America (2)

nbauman (624611) | about 6 months ago | (#45252929)

Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money?

Nigeria?

Sweden (1)

Jakosa (667951) | about 6 months ago | (#45252967)

In Sweden the radical-feminist ideology has made similar intrusions in the free scientific research. This is not an American-only problem. Watch from ca. 1:39:00 or thereabout. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn3cHsHnUPM [youtube.com] The program was made by Swedens state television by a Iraqi-Swedish female journalist and she came close to leading Swedish politicians and feminist lobbyists only because of their overly positive PR stance towards women from third-world countries.

Re:Only in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253019)

What's worse is that the residents of Nebraska have a stake in controlling climate change because their state economy is so dependent on corn, and the corn belt has been moving northward. Nebraska's oil production capacity is very limited, but I guess the oil industry lobbyists have deep pockets.

Re:Only in America (1)

gtall (79522) | about 6 months ago | (#45253033)

Please try to keep up. The current crop of "conservative" (read libertarian) Republicans have no allegiance to Wall Street. Hell, during the banking crisis, they were the ones telling Wall Street to go to hell. They didn't want to bail out the banks, or AIG, or the GM or Chrysler. When they shut down the government, it was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street telling the Republicans to knock it off. Now, the corporate interests are interested in running candidates against the Tea Party.

Political party loyalty is foolish ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 6 months ago | (#45253055)

Conservative Americans might be mad at my post ...

Only because you assume that conservatives are anti-science.

... or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, ...

That is a truly foolish thing to do. Voting for a party, being loyal to a party, makes oneself irrelevant. The party you favor can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.

... but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.

You are absolutely wrong. They are believers or deniers of science and reality depending upon the issue. Both parties have core beliefs that are held as articles of faith that can not be disputed.

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253079)

Name one thing democrats deny?

While they are no saints they are not at least batshit crazy and embarrasingly dellusional

Re:Political party loyalty is foolish ... (1)

sI4shd0rk (3402769) | about 6 months ago | (#45253193)

Wow. It's pretty pathetic when the only 'good' thing you have to say about something is that it's not quite as bad as something else.

Both main parties are almost entirely corrupt; people shouldn't vote for either.

Re:Only in America (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#45253075)

If the effects of what they are doing would only hit US, then would be the laughing stock. But you don't laugh at the mad driver that is pulling all of the world to a cliff.

Re:Only in America (2)

mevets (322601) | about 6 months ago | (#45253129)

There is a saying that you get the government you vote for. It is obvious that existing parties have permitted too many special interests (from oil companies to deficits) dictate their priorities. The citizens are supposed to take a participatory role in selecting government and driving its priorities. They have chosen the backseat, or more properly have sold their control for a handful of shiny beads. Blaming your government is blaming yourselves.

This isnâ(TM)t an America only problem; variants of it play out everywhere (except probably in Norway, the bastards). It may be more acute in America, but there is a lot more at stake there.

Science, or sinecure? (0, Troll)

J Story (30227) | about 6 months ago | (#45252717)

I thought that one of the things that made something a "science" was that it could be falsifiable. However, when so-called researchers refuse to try to find alternative explanations for a prevailing theory, it seems to me that they are more intent on building a cathedral than on discovering the truth. If the researchers are self-funded, then what they do is their business, but if they are dependent on the public purse, then they cannot thumb their noses at their paymasters and still expected to be paid.

Re: Science, or sinecure? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252823)

Good lord, what the fuck is wrong with the commenters here? It's for the same reason that biologists wouldn't consent to researching intelligent design as a 'falsifiable alternative' to evolution, without evolution being a part of the study. The study is framed in a way that ignores the overwhelming weight of the evidence and lends credibility to crackpots.

Re: Science, or sinecure? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252901)

That's directly absurd. So directly absurd, it's difficult for me to believe you aren't simply bold-faced lying.

Some variance to climate change we observe is unquestionably due to non-human factors. Charts detailing this over tens of thousands of years can be called up by anyone at will with a google search.

The relative effects of human-created change cannot be evaluated apart from that historical pattern, and there is nothing the least unscientific about this fact, nor the quite-measurable, quite-quantifiable, quite-studyable, quite-scientific sources of change that are not of human origin.

Re: Science, or sinecure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253059)

'Bold-faced [sic] lying' about what?

Cyclical climate change may be a real phenomenon, it's true (unlike intelligent design). And certainly other factors contribute to global warming. But that doesn't change the fact that studying a phenomenon and ignoring one of its primary causes is not just silly, but dangerous ideologically-motivated crap.

Especially so because the people who commissioned the study didn't exclude man-made causes because they were trying to research some sort of independent baseline or something. They excluded it because it suits their political goals to reach a certain conclusion, which is about as unscientific as you can get.

Re: Science, or sinecure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253149)

"They excluded it because it suits their political goals to reach a certain conclusion, which is about as unscientific as you can get."

Do you have any actual evidence of this, beyond the obvious slant of the Slashdot headline? Do you have an "ignore human factors" citation to offer?

If there was a stance that "crime is up due to the increase of drugs" there is nothing unscientific about commissioning a study attempting to quantify the relative effects of, say, an influx of firearms. Unless the commissioning of the study specifically says "don't reference drugs anywhere", there is no issue with this. The study merely expands the understanding of the situation, even if the "drugs" were not the primary focus of the study. Unless, of course, one already knows that their "drugs" stance can't withstand scrutiny, in which case one might naturally refuse to even consider participating in further analysis.

Re: Science, or sinecure? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253197)

"They excluded it because it suits their political goals to reach a certain conclusion, which is about as unscientific as you can get."

Do you have any actual evidence of this, beyond the obvious slant of the Slashdot headline? Do you have an "ignore human factors" citation to offer?

"The word “cyclical” was added to the legislation by State Sen. Beau McCoy, a Republican who represents western Douglas County and is a candidate for governor. McCoy could not be reached late Wednesday.

Last April, during debate on the bill, McCoy said: “I don't subscribe to global warming. I think there are normal, cyclical changes.”"

From this article: http://www.omaha.com/article/20131024/NEWS/131029338/1707#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists

Re: Science, or sinecure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252953)

So now it's a matter of faith that cyclical climate change doesn't exist?

Egad, now we can't even study something if it doesn't inevitably affirm that people are "destroying the planet".

Re: Science, or sinecure? (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 6 months ago | (#45253097)

Methodology is supposed to override objective in science. It doesn't matter whether my hypothesis is that the world is round or flat, in the former case it should be upheld and the latter case it should be invalidated, but in either case science should produce the correct result. What "lends credibility to crackpots" is if scientists are specifically avoiding doing science because of how they feel the results will be cited, because frankly at that point the crackpots are right, there *is* a conspiracy against their views.

Re:Science, or sinecure? (3, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | about 6 months ago | (#45252841)

So should government fund Young Earth Creationism "Research" / Intelligent Design research?

Re:Science, or sinecure? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252843)

the point of public funding is that there isn't supposed to be any "paymasters"

So they are unwilling to establish baseline change (1, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 6 months ago | (#45252721)

without human involvement and they think they aren't being political as well ?

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252817)

Thank you! If humans are the leading cause for what's going on today they'll find evidence to support it. The question doesn't matter as much as the answer in this case. If the theory being put out there is based on junk science the evidence will point the way.
 
Why are these "scientists" afraid of science?

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha (4, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#45252869)

You can't selectively investigate one possibility while completely ignoring the other.

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 6 months ago | (#45252991)

Oh? Why not? It's done all the time. People seem to think studies require bias, when in fact you should be trying to avoid it.

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253013)

Of course you can. Does smoking cause cancer? That doesn't deny that radiation causes cancer, it just looks at whether smoking causes cancer.

No, they've already done that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252949)

IPCC WG1 Section 7, IIRC. Attribution of climate change.

Already done.

Moreover "cyclic climate change" *by definition* will not "establish baseline change" since it only does a fourier transform of the data, not describe what makes it do that.

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha (2)

shentino (1139071) | about 6 months ago | (#45253029)

More like they know the human involvement angle is going to be blatantly suppressed.

Re:So they are unwilling to establish baseline cha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253185)

Alternate headline: Nebraska publicly employed scientist refuses to do his job and establish a baseline for scientific comparison.

The scientist is quoted as saying, "Waah. I don't want to have to do the rigorous sciencey parts. Mommy please make them let me do what I want."
And she said, "Ok dear, I'll submit this to the news, and they'll run a hatchet piece on your boss."

denier scientists (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 months ago | (#45252723)

Surely some of the AGW denying researchers like Roy Spencer will take up the invitation. Funny thing about Spencer and his ilk, though. They're quick to take Koch money to attack AGW, but seem reticent to do actual research to back up their frequent public skepticism.

Science isn't just confirming what you know (0, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#45252729)

More proof that the AGW movement is a cult. Real scientists would do the investigation o learn more about climate change, not shrink away from it just because it upsets their insular worldview.

I would have a lot more respect for "not wanting to be political pawns" if they had not already chosen a side of the board.

Re:Science isn't just confirming what you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252819)

More proof that the AGW movement is a cult.

You mean AAGW, right? Or maybe AARP....

Re:Science isn't just confirming what you know (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#45252833)

More proof that the AGW movement is a cult. Real scientists would do the investigation o learn more about climate change, not shrink away from it just because it upsets their insular worldview.

I would have a lot more respect for "not wanting to be political pawns" if they had not already chosen a side of the board.

If the existing data used to base the current conclusions were open to all, you might have more independent scientists investigating this too.

It is open. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253167)

If you want the raw data produced by a country, however, you don't pay taxes in, then why the hell should you get free stuff without paying?

Scientist showing their agenda (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252731)

If the study and its methods are not invalid and the only reason not to do it is that it does not fit their agenda then they are not real scientists. Just tools for one side or the other. Of course that is all science these days. As complately corrupt as the fourth estate.

In unrelated news . . . (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252751)

. . . Scientists refuse to carry out a pedophile-glorifying study for NAMBLA.

In forums all across America, pedophiles complain about "Damn scientists, damn eddekashun, and their political biases."

Scientific Method (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252753)

> the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change

It's almost as if someone has proposed a hypothesis to be either validated or rejected by examination.

If they're so confident in their (pre-formed) conclusions, they should have no issues with doing this study, rejecting the hypothesis (based on evidence), and proving the opposite hypothesis. Grant money is grant money, and publications are publications. I am sure there are many grad students / post docs willing to take on this research.

K. Bring on the ad-hominem now please.

Re:Scientific Method (5, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 6 months ago | (#45252921)

> the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change

It's almost as if someone has proposed a hypothesis to be either validated or rejected by examination.

Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point, especially when there is every indication that the person defining something as ephemeral as "cyclical climate change" will simply claim the study didn't add enough epicycles.

A Salon article? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252773)

What's next, are we going to start including articles from the National Enquirer?

One of the few things we don't understand that well about climate change is precisely how much of it is happening because of natural causes and how frequently this happens (the most accurate data we have only goes back a few hundred years, the rest is extrapolation from known factors with large error bars). While it won't impact the climate change debate all that much, this research would also have important implications for astronomy, which is still fighting to figure out how climate change worked on Mars for instance.

Re: A Salon article? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252845)

Oh my god! I have heard the parent's talking points on: Fox News, Rush , Hannity, and Boortz before he retired. So, do their writers hash out their taliking points here first?

*Intelligently designed* cyclical change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252775)

The liberal MSM scientists have been attacking it in their worldwide Apology Tour against America.

Skepticism is a scientific virtue. (2)

mc6809e (214243) | about 6 months ago | (#45252779)

But only if that skepticism is also applied to one's own ideas.

Vanity makes it easy to be skeptical of others' theories but it's leaving open the possibility that one's own theories could be mistaken that makes one a scientist.

Misguided. (3, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 6 months ago | (#45252787)

These scientists are misguided, to put it kindly. I don't think they've really thought out their positions.

First, science is science. There is value in studying the natural climatic progressions of the planet.

Most importantly, by refusing they are doing far more to help deniers than they would be by doing the study. Just makes them look like they have something to hide to the typical conspiracy minded denier dolt.

Re:Misguided. (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 6 months ago | (#45252923)

The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them. Jumping through hoops to satisfy them accomplishes nothing, and only lends credibility to the false notion that this is still being debated by scientists. It's not.

They need to be minimized, ignored, shoved aside. Lives depend on it, and only a fool would think that another study would satisfy them.

Re:Misguided. (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#45252965)

The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them. Jumping through hoops to satisfy them accomplishes nothing, and only lends credibility to the false notion that this is still being debated by scientists. It's not.

Odd, this sounds like the reasoning of atheists towards *insert religion.* Always interesting to see exactly how corrupted people come towards the "we already know..." mentality.

Re:Misguided. (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 6 months ago | (#45253177)

We have mountains of evidence supporting AGW, and we know that AGW will result in widespread suffering and death if left unchecked. We do not, and cannot, have "mountains of evidence" against religion in general, and religion in general doesn't kill people.

We do have mountains of evidence against certain religious beliefs, such as faith healing, and in those cases we DO intervene, e.g. by forcing parents to take their kids to a doctor.

People can believe what they want, but when we as a society are making life-and-death policy decisions, we should rely on evidence and scientific consensus.

Re:Misguided. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 6 months ago | (#45253147)

Science - that word doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not a body of knowledge, it's a process. _Everything_ should be debated by scientists. Sure, it's pretty clear that we are contributing to global warming but there are always more facts to be found.

And I don't think you do the study because it would satisfy them. If anything, these scientists are the ones not ignoring them - they are explicitly saying that the reason they don't want to do it is because they will be used by the deniers. That's anything but ignoring them.

If the study will provide useful data, then do it. If not, then don't. But don't say you won't do it "because POLITICS".

Not surprising, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252791)

"Climate change" offers scientists a level of "stop everything you're doing, and do what we say instead, forever" authority that your average fascist-wannabe could only dream of.

If the study wouldn't move the bar toward that, why would they be interested? It's not like studying the non-human factors would be of politico-scientific value in itself. It'd be only of actual scientific benefit.

They have made themselves political pawns (0, Troll)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about 6 months ago | (#45252809)

Refusing to look at alternative hypotheses speaks volumes of these "scientists". The reaction would be the same if a Catholic priest was asked to attempt to verify the existence of Vishnu.

AGW continues to be junk science by excluding itself from the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, when you conjure up a hypotheses that is not, you're not longer dealing in science, you're dealing in religion.

"Climate change denying" - LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252915)

Nobody is denying the climate is changing, we're questioning whether MANKIND is responsible for it.

These criminal fraudsters (man made global warming alarmists), so-called 'scientists', should all be arrested and tried for defrauding the taxpayer, worthless parasites.

The Relevant Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252917)

Seems like the relevant question is how other public-funded studies are phrased by comparison.

If other studies focus specifically on human-caused warning, without mention of cyclical or other non-human causes, that strikes me as the same sort of bias but in the other direction. The Salon article, of course, makes no mention of how other such bills and laws are worded; if they (or some of them) are, there is no mention of whether scientists have a problem with them for the same reason .

Can't we kill two birds with one stone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252933)

How about showing a correlation between terrorism and global warming? Then global warming is a warning sign that we need to invest in more eavesdropping, since nothing thwarts terrorism like an autocratic surveillance regime.

You don't really get science, do you? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45252939)

Politician: We're commissioning a study on biodiversity. But this study strictly focuses on intelligent design, so don't include anything about evolution. After all, we should explore alternative explanations for a prevailing theory.
Biologist: We refuse to participate in your misleading, artificially limited study.
Idiot Slashdot Commenters: The biologists are an evolutionist cult! They're... they're building a cathedral! Science isn't just confirming what you know! Real scientists would do the investigation to learn more about intelligent design!

And yes, before, you say it, cyclical climate change is a real phenomenon while intelligent design is not. But the idea is the same. You can't analyze an effect and pretend one of its primary causes just doesn't exist.

Re:You don't really get science, do you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253157)

Thank you for confirming the invalidity of your post, and your postulation that humans are the primary cause lacks citation or proof or any semblance of reason given what is already "factually" known about the history of our planet.

Of course (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 6 months ago | (#45252941)

To quote in part; " ... National Weather Service, pointed out that âoecyclicalâ isnâ(TM)t even a scientific term."

So they do not or will not recognize that weather is or can be cyclical. No surprise since on longer time scales than a generation or two of human activity becomes said activity becomes immeasurably minute compared to geological, solar influences and things on a much more macro level. Those "scientists" insisting on including human activity is like a scientist looking at a grain of sand in an ant hill and declaring the whole of the earth is a desert.

Aye lass (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 6 months ago | (#45252989)

But she is more than willing to be a political pawn for the pro-humans-are-causing-climate-change-fanatics.

She is shallower than a puddle of water in the Sahara.

The study is about the effects of climate change (5, Interesting)

Xolotl (675282) | about 6 months ago | (#45253005)

No one has RTFA it seems ... (I know, I know, /.)

The scientists are being asked to study the effects of climate change on Nebraska, not climate change itself.

in that context restricting them to studying the effects of cyclical changes only is stupid, and the reason for their protest.

See also the longer article here http://www.omaha.com/article/20131024/NEWS/131029338/1707#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists [omaha.com]

Global Warming crowd wants Eugenics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253057)

The EPA is mandating fuel efficiency standards on the grounds that CO2 is a pullutant (sp) , and is causing global warming. You know what else causes C02? Human beings. So if the EPA can regulate fuel efficiency standards, wont it also be able to regulate the USA's fertility rates. Maybe we can have a .7 child per household standard to ensure C02 levels don't rise. The bible thumping crowd is against this kind of governmental mandated population controll, so the call into question any kind of global warming science.

The honest to god truth of the matter is that with 7 billion people on the planet it is inconceivable that we could not have an effect on the planet. My problem with the global warming crowd is that in order to have zero affect on the climat (sp) it is necessary that you curtail the population. My belief is that rather that spending billions of dollars 'studying' global warming, we should be spending billions trying to figure how to get people off the planet and colonizing other planets. This would be the humane solution. Of coarse you will all call me a faggot because I disagree with you. So be it.

Unless it's their agenda too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253065)

Bunch of hypocrit scientists should just be canned like anybody else would be for not doing there job.

But the IPCC is SCIENCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253073)

But the IPCC is only required to study human-caused climate change... why is the IPCC's work considered science when they can ignore natural climate?

Volcanoes forest fires etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45253083)

The AGW folks expect a rational thinking human to just accept the fact that humans have more influence on GW than volcanoes, CO2 sources in the Oceans(71% of the earths Surface FFS), forest fires the world over etc.. Human beings are ants. This planet had multiple ice ages before humans even walked erect and many glacial periods before we even had fire. Poltical tools posing as scientists need to get over themselves and go find another line of work.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...