Skip to main content

View Diary: 10,883 Scientific Studies Agree Global Warming Is Real, and Caused By Humans. Two Do Not. (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  They're all good-- (7+ / 0-)

      if you scroll down the article there are others.

      •  I believe that mankind is contributing to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi

        global warming, but see a very different part of this story about peer reviewed articles. Even scientists who have tenured university positions rely on grants for much of their research. There is absolutely no upside for any scientist to try and swim upstream on the issue of global climate change. Those who don't believe in man made climate change are shut out of all the major grants and don't want to be linked to Big Oil, where they might find a grant sponsor. So in my view those who believe in man made global warming (including me) collectively control the purse strings of the granting agencies so those who don't believe remain silent on this topic and focus their research elsewhere.

        I see the same practice in other scientific disciplines. Once something becomes a strong consensus its hard to find funding to challenge that view.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:05:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nonsense. Huge incentive to disprove AGW. (31+ / 0-)

          If you could find credible scientific evidence to cast serious doubt on anthropogenic global warming you could get a fortune in speaking fees and grant money. Unfortunately, AGW is real and there are detailed lines of evidence from multiple disciplines that prove that AGW is a real and present danger.

          “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

          by FishOutofWater on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:30:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  that is absolutely hilarious (20+ / 0-)

          and based on absolutely nothing but rightwing talking points!

          University professors with Tenure have the freedom that they need.  If there isn't university dollars there sure as hell is plenty of Koch brother's dollars to fund investigations into why CO2 doesn't cause global warming!

          get ahold of yourself!!!!

        •  Did u read the diary? It addresses precisely this. (17+ / 0-)

          Your comment seems to just ignore what the diary says:

          Business Insider adds some sharp perspective for those who would suggest that this overwhelming consensus is the product of some nefarious "groupthink." Quoting Ashutosh Jogalekar at Scientific American:
          I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.

          Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

          It would be a conspiracy of staggering proportions in the scientific community, with an unprecedented 'cone of silence,' if -- as VClib suggests -- there is no upside for any scientist to challenge the consensus. Challenging consensus is how academic careers are made, and it is what peer-reviewed journals look for.

          "Shut out of all the major grants"? What proof is there of this, that none of the right-wing foundations (set up following the Powell Memo) refuse to fund change-denying research? To the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume they would love to find and fund such a scientist. And if any scientists "don't believe in man made climate change," then why would they not want to be linked to Big Oil? To the contrary, this could offer them a veritable, er, pipeline of oil-money funding. Most academics are poor, many are whores ($10k will buy an opinion from many), and would not pass up corporate funding even if criticized by their peers for doing so.

          •  some examples of recent 'groupthink'; (13+ / 0-)

            the human olfactory system can distinguish about one trillion different scents, although 'everyone believed' the number was around 10,000. Somebody was brave enough to publish that finding.

            Pluto is no longer a planet, but now part of what appears to be a system of dwarf planets inhabiting the vast area between the orbit of Neptune and the Oort cloud, despite 'everyone knowing' that Pluto was the ninth and last planet orbiting Sol. Somebody had to stick their neck out to get that recasting of the solar system started.

            The very, very accepted principle of physics that states that all information going into a black hole is lost forever from the universe, and the underlying conflict with quantum physics that creates has just been destroyed by recent observations of cosmic background radiation. This will require a major rethinking of the two main branches of theoretical physics. Somebody sure stirred the pot on that one, too.

            Scientists live for this stuff; it is how breakthroughs happen.
            Breakthroughs are how scientists achieve peer respect, and even scientific immortality.
             For most, that is a far bigger payoff than a frickin' grant.

            Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

            by kamarvt on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:07:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And don't forget the excitement (5+ / 0-)

              When it appeared that the OPERA Experiment had detected Faster Than Light neutrinos. On the surface, scientists were cautious -- correctly so, given that the result turned out to be caused by an instrumentation problem -- but underneath everyone was sort of hoping that it turned out to be true, because overturning the established paradigm makes for lots of exciting science.

              In a similar vein, Stephen Hawking is reputed to have said prior to last year's LHC results that actually finding a Higgs Boson would be boring because it would just confirm what we already expected; not finding it would be much more interesting.

              •  The faster than light neutrinos is an excellent (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon Wraight, T100R

                example.  If there was ever "pressure" to not go against the generally accepted science, it was here.  But, the researchers reported their results honestly, knowing full well that a mistake was the most likely explanation for the measurement (and, it was).  

                Truth is, blatant dishonesty is the surest way to lose grant money (and ruin a career in science), so the real "pressure" is to do your work as dispassionately and as diligently as you can.

        •  There is a conspiracy website dedicated to posting (7+ / 0-)

          papers 'the CO2 cabal doesn't want you to see' that purportedly debunk global warming (1350+ papers).  The thing is, the papers don't actually debunk global warming.  Some of them look like they were written by authors annoyed that global warming gets all of the attention so they lead in with statements along the lines of "while climate change has been attributed to ice sheet decline, let me explain my theory on geothermal activity..."

          And if you cruise through the papers, that is what you get out of most of them.  Some require a little more wordsmithing to differentiate what the paper says versus what the website implies the paper says, but in general I have not found a single paper there that 'debunks' global warming.

          And that is part of the problem - the website is superimposing conclusions that many of the authors don't support.  Some have written to the site stating that, one has sued.

          I plan on diarying the site (wrote one, then realized it was too short).  The site is populartechnology dot net.  Don't let the name fool you, it is a one-hit-winder dedicated to debunking global warming, but the fact that it masquerades does not mean it isn't part of a conspiracy, it has to hide because everyone else is :)

          And we love to wear a badge, a uniform / And we love to fly a flag But I won't...let others live in hell / As we divide against each other And we fight amongst ourselves

          by ban48 on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 03:48:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  VClib - That is a ridiculous and desperate (7+ / 0-)

          position. In fact there is plenty of money available for any science that can dispute the AGW consensus. There is a handful of scientists who make a great deal of money speaking to energy industry groups and conferences and editting fossil fuel publications. But, when push comes to shove, they can't produce an academic paper that withstands even the most cursory scientific scrutiny.
             The fact is: The earth is warming, which Arrhenius, in 1896, predicted would happen if atmospheric CO2 were significantly increased.
             All sources of natural variation have been measured and accounted for.
             The only explanation for the warming left standing is human caused CO2 emissions.
             Slurring the motives of the scientists who have done the work is just contemptible.

        •  As a person who "controls the purse strings" (12+ / 0-)

          on millions of dollars in government grants on environmental issues each two years for the past eight years or so (admittedly on subsurface processes, not climate change), I call nonsense on your comment.

          The grant applications that are most interesting to me are the ones that cut against the grain, which come up with new ways of looking at things, which tend to push or defy the consensus, which want to check into something others haven't thought about or tested yet, new ways of measuring things. I have to recommend who gets funding and who doesn't and if two proposals are equally competent, but one is looking at things from a new perspective that might challenge what we think we know, I will tend to favor that one.

          If a scientist had an approach and actual data that showed even a strong possibility that anthropogenic climate change was not occurring, they would become famous in the scientific community, we could pursue their lines of evidence, and possibly all breath a sigh of great relief. Unfortunately, that is not happening.

        •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)

          If a real, serious, competent scientist finds substantial flaws in the overall consensus on global warming and climate change, then it's their moral and ethical obligation to say so. If they do not, then they're cowards and morally and ethically unqualified to be scientists.

          Sorry, but "They'll be mean to me and cut off my funding!" just doesn't cut it. Plus, you need to name names to make this more than idle CT.

          Which is bannable here btw.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 09:00:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What About Big Corporate Polluters? (0+ / 0-)

          Those people are a goldmine to forces who want to end our experiment in Democracy. Why would they not provide just as generously to those who could justify their polluting? After all freedom to pollute is one of their major goals in trying to end the EPA thru control of the government. Your position is pure wishful thinking. Grow up. The evidence just isn't there. Would a scientist needing money for his research care who provided the money? Claptrap. The Big Tobacco companies found legions of scientists willing to research the proposition that tobacco is not harmful. That kind of scientist kept the bogus proposition that tobacco is not a deadly cancer causing poison alive for several decades. In the end science triumphs because YOU HAVE TO PROVE THINGS. The strong positions in science rule because they have the ring of truth. They rule because their predictions are accurate; Because their insights make life better & longer for everyone (not just some rich, selfish special interest). Perhaps scientists realize just how dire the predicted results of Global Warming really are. Could that be why scientists will not publish pseudo science about Global Warming? We are talking about catastrophes, the end of civilization, A New Dark Age as possible outcomes. Even the most pliable of scientists has to have an eye on his grandchildren's survival. You are obviously a Sock Puppet. How nice it must be to be a part of the Kochtopus. I hope they pay you well; I hear they are quite stingy.

        •  Do you actually believe (0+ / 0-)

          that there is no way to get funding if you genuinely think you can support a study that is contrary on this or any other issue?  I would point to the Regenerus study at UT - Austin.  Regenerus got over 700,000$ from Right wing think tanks to publish a study that was so bad that professionally it has become a joke - in which he misrepresented data and in which he outright, in scientific terms, lied about where evidence pointed by cherry picking data, and doing it badly.  I am quite sure that ... oh... let's see... the Kochs, with enormous oil and gas interests and no interest in the future after their death, would be glad to fund such research.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site