

'Science as the Enemy': The Traveling Salesmen of Climate Skepticism - blasdel
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,721846,00.html

======
kiba
I hate politics. They muck up everything and make it hard for me to learn the
truth.

Right now, I am inclined to be suspicious of global warming folks, especially
the extreme apocalyptic alarmist version.

I am apt to believe that global warming will be good for some people and bad
for some people. However, when it is _uniformity_ bad. Something is wrong.

I also dislike oil interests getting energy subsidy, or refinery cannot be
built, and stuff like that. I knew that the higher price of oil _will_ drive
technological research for energy efficient.

I also thought the current pollution and emission _crisis?_ have much to do
with the government building roads all over the place, encouraging automotive
usage instead of letting transportation evolved naturally.

Something is wrong with this debate. Especially if people are calling others
unscientific for adherence to one side of the debate. This is not the bible
contradicting the words of evolution, people.

------
hga
It's my understanding that the EPA's 1993 study on second hand smoke was only
able to achieve its desired result by redefining the previously accepted
statistical threshold of "scientific truth". If that's indeed the case (I
don't know or exactly care, since I'm just plain allergic to it) then calling
it "junk science" is only speaking the truth.

I only skimmed this article; I sure hope it doesn't try to deny that a lot of
science, and most especially a lot of medical science, is _highly_ politicized
and often just plain wrong. If you've been following Official Truth on fats
for the last 4 decades as I have you can discern for yourself that _something_
is seriously amiss.

Worse, if the people who excessively slammed fats pushed people to
carbohydrates and thus diabetes (I think this is only speculation now, but
it's hopefully getting a serious look) then they have a lot to answer for.

Heck, how about the previous US Official Truth that babies should be placed on
their stomach for sleep. Oops, that _may_ have had a significant effect on
SIDS: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_sleep>

~~~
philwelch
_the previously accepted statistical threshold of "scientific truth"_

This concept heartily amuses me. Care to say more?

~~~
hga
I think it was a meta-analysis (a study using multiple original studies) and I
recall 95% being a number of significance. As in it was either the previous or
new, improved and of course lower threshold of "truth" (or rather statistical
significance or whatever). I'm going by a 2nd or 3rd hand report, but the
reported details are simple and easily falsifiable.

(ADDED: Or maybe it's 90% and they used 85%??? Anyway, that should give you
enough to search on if you want to follow it up.)

Epidemiology is _hard_. When it's about a politicized topic (and almost all
are nowadays) I've learned to just not pay much attention to any one study, at
least until others have a chance to tear it apart.

------
drndown2007
"97 percent of all climatologists worldwide __assume__ that greenhouse gases
produced by humans are warming the Earth"

------
RK
I really don't like the recent conflation of contrarianism with skepticism.

Skepticism should be the default stance of all scientists. That does not mean
that their conclusions will be at odds with the initial idea simply because
they are skeptical.

------
rick888
"A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on
global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the
dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the
tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action."

Global warming (global cooling, climate change) is starting to sound like a
religion. I always start to question things when:

1) It's about the money. The same people that claim that global warming is a
problem are also invested in carbon credits (including Al Gore). Not to
mention the fact that governments use it to fill their pockets with billions
of dollars in tax revenue (we need a TV, radion, and Human tax because we emit
carbon dioxide).

2) Any scientist that even hints at mis-information regarding global warming
(and backs it up with stats) is immediately attacked and discredited.

3) Those emails that circulated were pretty damning, yet supports still won't
believe it. They falsified information and many universities and organizations
came out (before anyone investigated) to admit that yes, they were also using
this info.

"With his sonorous voice, Fred Singer, 86, sounded like a grandfather
explaining the obvious to a dim-witted child."

For a minute, I thought this article was on the onion.com

~~~
powerje
Your ridiculous talking points are well overplayed. Let us start with the
e-mails - point out where they were "damning" and where information was
"falsified", hint: it didn't happen, you're a fish swallowing a hook.

~~~
randallsquared
There were several long discussions about this on this very site at the time,
and many of us remember those discussions, so it's going to be difficult to
spread FUD about them.

Here's a pointer to a bunch of them, in case you missed the whole debacle:
[http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+c...](http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+climategate)

------
lionhearted
> According to a US study, 97 percent of all climatologists worldwide assume
> that greenhouse gases produced by humans are warming the Earth.

This is a lot like saying "97 percent of all feminists believe that
patriarchal oppression is holding women back."

You don't go into climatology unless you think it's a big deal. See, I think
global warming (1) exists, (2) is a mix of man made and natural cycles, (3)
_is not a big deal at all_. Apocalyptic global warming just seems obviously
false based on everything I've looked at.

Now, perhaps I'm mistaken. I didn't make this comment to argue the case - what
I wanted is to point out that because my layman's understanding is that it's
not a big deal, I don't go into the field. You'd expect anyone in the field to
think it's a big deal.

