What are your beliefs on climate change?

[Guest]

I have to trust that the information has been collected properly.

 

Trust that no one fiddled with it.

 

Trust that the explanations are in line with other theories and evidence.

 

Trust that no one is trying to get an advantage by being dishonest.

 

And so on.

 

A big issue at the beginning of the scientific era was, if we accept the experimental method, will it be a basis that engenders enough trust that we can go ahead to build reliable knowledge?  So - we have ways to try and create that trust built into the system.

 

But in some ways I think we can say its sucess at creating trust has been a little more limited that we might have thought in a more optimistic age.

 

Building on that, I think the trust would also go further if scientists (and governments) in general owned up to past mistakes and when they were flat out WRONG on supposed facts instead of waiting so long past the point of anyone caring that it becomes moot. Sweeping mistakes or misinformation under the rug has helped to build up a large level of distrust in so many areas. Big science did not learn any lessons from the churches on this one! 

 

I compare it to the pharma industry. They can do great things. They have done great things. But they've also done some really crappy things leading to an general distrust and distain. Does it make the science of what works any less real? No. But does it make people less likely to put faith in that science? Abso-freaking-lutely.

 

Something as politically and corporately loaded climate change and all that encompasses isn't something where you can simply tsk-tsk people into accepting everything thrown their way about it by the powers that be.  

[treestarfae]

I'll concede the point that it takes a certain amount of trust to accept or reject a conclusion based on fact, but will still argue that a conversation goes a lot deeper and farther if we can frame it as a discussion of factual conclusions rather than one stemming from gut feelings or a system of belief or disbelief.

 

Is this a belief or factual conclusion?

[Rosie_0801]

So, even if one is not concerned about the survival of humans as a species, there is grave concern about the survival of millions of individuals. And about the resulting conflicts when islands sink in some areas and water becomes scarce in others.

 

Especially since your island home sinking beneath sea level still doesn't seem to be considered an adequate reason for seeking asylum.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'll concede the point that it takes a certain amount of trust to accept or reject a conclusion based on fact, but will still argue that a conversation goes a lot deeper and farther if we can frame it as a discussion of factual conclusions rather than one stemming from gut feelings or a system of belief or disbelief.

 

I was reading through a science book with my younger kid last week. There was all kind of information regarding nutrition and how foods supposedly do XYZ to our body.  Like saying that if one eats high cholesterol foods it raises their cholesterol.  Is there even any proof of that?  Or that eating fatty foods directly makes us fat.  Again...proof?  Or fatty foods clog our arteries.  It's a flipping science book.  I'd expect FACT.  I'd expect honesty regarding what we know or do not actually know.  I don't believe the stuff because I've done enough reading where I feel reasonable to conclude that this has not been proven to be true.  Yet, again...science book...used in public schools....science...on the cover.  What happened?

 

So what else is not 100% true that we are told?  Stuff gets exaggerated. There are examples of that.  Science related organizations have exaggerated claims to get funds. 

 

This is, again, not to claim I don't believe in climate change.  I'm just saying in general I believe it's ok to be skeptical of scientists and scientific organizations.

[hornblower]

Especially since your island home sinking beneath sea level still doesn't seem to be considered an adequate reason for seeking asylum.

 

Yes. 

 

and historically, access to land, resources, potable water etc are all reasons for war. Mass migrations, border walls etc. The blase oh well, humanity will manage just seems so cruel to me. 

 

It's like people don't care about anyone else. 

[RegGuheert]

Most people are not aware of the fact that there is no mathematical proof that solutions even exist (or that any such solutions would be unique) to the Navier-Stokes equations.  These are the equations which must be solved in order to simulate the Earth's climate.  If you have discovered such proof, please feel free to claim ONE MILLION DOLLARS, as many people are quite interested in having that proof:

 

 

This is the equation which governs the flow of fluids such as water and air. However, there is no proof for the most basic questions one can ask: do solutions exist, and are they unique?

[hornblower]

I was reading through a science book with my younger kid last week. There was all kind of information regarding nutrition and how foods supposedly do XYZ to our body.  Like saying that if one eats high cholesterol foods it raises their cholesterol.  Is there even any proof of that? 

 

Yes. We've known this for literally decades. 

 

"The ingestion of cholesterol resulted in an elevation of the serum cholesterol. This increase was linear over the entire range of sterol feeding. Each 100 mg cholesterol in 1,000 kcal of diet resulted in approximately a 12 mg/100-ml increase in serum cholesterol. "

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/25/6/589.short

 

Seriously, you keep asking these question in so many threads. Is there any proof that will convince you? Or do you just want to ask lots of questions, declare the issue is undecided & then do what you want to do? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yes. We've known this for literally decades. 

 

"The ingestion of cholesterol resulted in an elevation of the serum cholesterol. This increase was linear over the entire range of sterol feeding. Each 100 mg cholesterol in 1,000 kcal of diet resulted in approximately a 12 mg/100-ml increase in serum cholesterol. "

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/25/6/589.short

 

Seriously, you keep asking these question in so many threads. Is there any proof that will convince you? Or do you just want to ask lots of questions, declare the issue is undecided & then do what you want to do? 

 

Here we go.  I knew you'd respond.

 

NO you won't convince me.

 

It just happens to be an example of something I've spent some time learning about that I could point to.  I didn't want to debate it. 

 

You can quote whatever until your fingers fall off I won't buy it.  I can quote too.  You won't buy it.  So why bother discussing it with me? 

[RegGuheert]

NASA data page on Greenland http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

 

Thanks! No ice mass budget is presented there.  DMI is the authority on the ice mass budget for Greenland.  Greenland is gaining mass at abnormally high rates this year (and last, and the year before that).  2012 was the low point, as shown in the plot I provided.

 

[Barb_]

I was reading through a science book with my younger kid last week. There was all kind of information regarding nutrition and how foods supposedly do XYZ to our body. Like saying that if one eats high cholesterol foods it raises their cholesterol. Is there even any proof of that? Or that eating fatty foods directly makes us fat. Again...proof? Or fatty foods clog our arteries. It's a flipping science book. I'd expect FACT. I'd expect honesty regarding what we know or do not actually know. I don't believe the stuff because I've done enough reading where I feel reasonable to conclude that this has not been proven to be true. Yet, again...science book...used in public schools....science...on the cover. What happened?

 

So what else is not 100% true that we are told? Stuff gets exaggerated. There are examples of that. Science related organizations have exaggerated claims to get funds.

 

This is, again, not to claim I don't believe in climate change. I'm just saying in general I believe it's ok to be skeptical of scientists and scientific organizations.

Scientific theories are explanations which can expand or change based on new facts. This is an excellent example. As new research is published, I would expect newer texts to incorporate the newest thinking based on that's most recently available information. In that case, I would say to my student, "I don't agree with this conclusion because some recent studies contradicted it. Let's go look up some newer information." "I don't believe it" sounds like someone is trying to trick you. They aren't. Scientists adjust accepted ideas all the time. If anything, Science has a serious communication and PR problem.

 

Skepticism is healthy and good. I'm skeptical of certain scientific conclusions myself. My only beef was in how this particular discussion was initially framed.

[hornblower]

Here we go.  I knew you'd respond.

 

NO you won't convince me.

 

It just happens to be an example of something I've spent some time learning about that I could point to.  I didn't want to debate it. 

 

You can quote whatever until your fingers fall off I won't buy it.  I can quote too.  You won't buy it.  So why bother discussing it with me? 

 

why do you bother asking the questions then? That's the part I don't get. It's like you're a plant of the Merchants of Doubt. Just spreading the idea that "we don't really know". 

 

You're wrong you know. You could convince me. I'm vegan for 3 reasons (environment, ethics, health) & any of them is enough so I don't NEED veganism to be healthier. I'm ok with it being less healthy (though I don't think it necessarily has to be & I think the evidence is that plant based well planned diets actually ARE healthy).

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

why do you bother asking the questions then? That's the part I don't get. It's like you're a plant of the Merchants of Doubt. Just spreading the idea that "we don't really know". 

 

You're wrong you know. You could convince me. I'm vegan for 3 reasons (environment, ethics, health) & any of them is enough so I don't NEED veganism to be healthier. I'm ok with it being less healthy (though I don't think it necessarily has to be & I think the evidence is that plant based well planned diets actually ARE healthy).

 

 

 

Well thank you.  I now have all the answers because you have told me the answers.  Because as you say, I'm wrong "you know".

 

contentious much

[hornblower]

skepticism is not the same as saying 'oh they don't know anything. Their studies just keep changing and they say different things all the time.'  That's closer to solipsism than skepticism. 


 

[SKL]

Here's a question.  Suppose we knew for sure that sea levels were going to rise enough to hurt certain people, AND that the cause was NOT human.  Then how should we act?  Well that is how we should act, regardless of whether climate change is caused by humans.

 

I said the science is not settled, but I want to amend that.  Of course we know that over the entire life of the earth, climate change has occurred naturally.  That will continue.  It has affected humans in the past, long before the industrial age.  It will affect humans in the future, regardless of whether human activity is a cause.

 

So policy on what to do about climate change isn't just "how do we manage human behavior that might change climate," but also "what do we do for people negatively affected by climate change, regardless of the cause"?

[Lecka]

We had a choice between moving two places. Quite a few factors for us.

 

But one place has had a lot of forest fires and wild fires lately. One is near a large body of water.

 

My thought that climate change might mean more fires in one place, and the large body of water in the other place might be good if there is climate change, was a factor.

 

Just one factor, though.

 

But yes it was a factor.

 

I am scared of fires though, and it is something where there are wildfires whether there is climate change or not.

 

So I think there would be fires either way, but it is on my mind a little more with climate change being a topic in the news.

[Barb_]

Here's a question. Suppose we knew for sure that sea levels were going to rise enough to hurt certain people, AND that the cause was NOT human. Then how should we act? Well that is how we should act, regardless of whether climate change is caused by humans.

 

I said the science is not settled, but I want to amend that. Of course we know that over the entire life of the earth, climate change has occurred naturally. That will continue. It has affected humans in the past, long before the industrial age. It will affect humans in the future, regardless of whether human activity is a cause.

 

So policy on what to do about climate change isn't just "how do we manage human behavior that might change climate," but also "what do we do for people negatively affected by climate change, regardless of the cause"?

Much like, "Do we allocate money to study meteorite redirection?" If a big one was headed in our direction I wouldn't care why, or that not all of us would die right away. I certainly wouldn't be saying, "We shouldn't interfere in the way this is all going to play out."

 

ETA: On second thought..that should be meteor redirection, shouldn't it?  If it survives long enough to be a meteorite it's too late :tongue_smilie:

Edited December 13, 2016 by Barb_

[maize]

The maxim, I believe, is to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out of your head.

 

It's not efficient to approach every scientific paper thinking it must be fake, exaggerated or false.

Well now, if efficiency is the question I actually think this approach would get top marks. Very little brain power required.

 

Reduce thinking effort, Re-use prior assumptions, then Recycle the paper itself.

 

It's a highly laudible system ;)

[Barb_]

Ironically, the desert we live in is expected to become significantly wetter and more inhabitable. I understand that weather isn't the same as climate, but winter weather patterns are holding to the model over the past 5-6 years.

[SparklyUnicorn]

The maxim, I believe, is to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out of your head.

 

It's not efficient to approach every scientific paper thinking it must be fake, exaggerated or false. 

 

Of course.

 

I haven't read many scientific papers about climate change though. 

[Barb_]

Of course.

 

I haven't read many scientific papers about climate change though. 

 

Not to pick on you Sparkly, but that's the point I'm trying to make in this thread.  If you don't read and understand the facts, you can't form conclusions based on them.  You then rely on beliefs to inform your thinking.  I think that's a big problem in how people approach scientific thought, particularly in the US.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not to pick on you Sparkly, but that's the point I'm trying to make in this thread.  If you don't read and understand the facts, you can't form conclusions based on them.  You then rely on beliefs to inform your thinking.  I think that's a big problem in how people approach scientific thought, particularly in the US.

 

But that is the point.  Most of us are not reading the scientific reports.  We are relying on second hand information that seems to be muddied with political agendas.  So it's not just resorting to voodoo beliefs because we don't get it, it's because people in authority are trying to convince us of various things. 

 

And as much as I'd like to understand everything there is in the world, I won't. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not to pick on you Sparkly, but that's the point I'm trying to make in this thread.  If you don't read and understand the facts, you can't form conclusions based on them.  You then rely on beliefs to inform your thinking.  I think that's a big problem in how people approach scientific thought, particularly in the US.

 

I don't feel you are picking on me btw.

 

I'm just trying to get my point out why people "believe" these things or not.  It's not that they are reading the science and saying NOPE I don't believe the science.  They are choosing who to believe that is feeding them the information. 

 

And of course that is not a good thing, but it explains it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree with whomever it was upthread - Sparkly ? - who said we need a better interface between science and the public. There are some good science journalists out there, but often, when you read a report of a finding, and then go and look at the study itself, there's a mismatch between the study conclusions and the headlines.

 

It's not so much that the science was flawed, but that the reporting was facile.

 

I didn't say that, but I agree.

 

That is a huge part of the problem.

[hornblower]

Just an aside, but US climate scientists are saving & backing up all their data abroad to protect it from gov't interference. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.9a1a59951662

[creekland]

Humans making choices in favor of the environment, our home, should be the norm no matter what.

 

It bugs me when people don't want to value the environment. Whether one "believes" or not why not care for our planet?

 

 

And this is how I sum up many things in science (or other) classes at school.  

 

It can be really tough to convince folks about what is going on (increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc) even though that is fact, and even tougher making predictions in the future as those are more or less educated guesses.  We have thoughts.  No one knows how it will play out in reality.  Any one issue happening (storm, etc) is not a pattern, but patterns can be seen in more than one happening.  Coincidence?

 

But our bottom line should always be:

 

I want clean air.

 

I want to drink clean water.

 

It's better for humans (and our planet) to have less pollution all around.

 

These are some (practical) things you can do.

 

These are some things that often come up with lawmakers that would help the situation (and how), so it's worthy of considering when you're voting age (and anything you want to stand up for now).

 

That pretty much always makes sense to the kids.  Teaching them habits (recycling, less waste, etc) can be more difficult, but it gets things started on the right foot.

 

Showing them scenes/stats from other countries where the air pollution is far worse that ours (China, etc) also sticks in their minds and gives them a "we don't want that happening here" mentality.

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by creekland

[fraidycat]

 

Yes. We've known this for literally decades.

 

"The ingestion of cholesterol resulted in an elevation of the serum cholesterol. This increase was linear over the entire range of sterol feeding. Each 100 mg cholesterol in 1,000 kcal of diet resulted in approximately a 12 mg/100-ml increase in serum cholesterol. "

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/25/6/589.short

 

Seriously, you keep asking these question in so many threads. Is there any proof that will convince you? Or do you just want to ask lots of questions, declare the issue is undecided & then do what you want to do?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20683785/?i=5&from=/19852882/related

 

Nope. Sorry. It's not so cut and dried.

[Ausmumof3]

Who needs science when you have anecdotes ?

 

In my dream education system, as well as at least 2 semesters of stats, there'd be a compulsory class in how to search for, read and assess scientific papers.

Which can be an issue given that not all scientific papers are available to the public. Access is definitely a problem.

[prairiewindmomma]

What are MY beliefs on climate change?

 

Well, these are the facts in my neck of the woods:

1. Sea levels are rising where I live.  Coastal floods are higher, more frequent, and are resulting in moderate to severe coastal erosion.

2. There are flora, fauna, and insects here that could not have survived my childhood years here due to an increase in temperatures--whether that is cyclical or permanent change, I do not know.

3. Disruptive weather events are more frequent.  People are suffering.  Part of their suffering is due to poor land/resource management, but part of that is that storms have become more intense.

4. My community's water supply is endangered.

5. Soil quality is being affected---as severe droughts/excessive heat has hit, the plants protecting the top soil has died, which has led to more moisture leaving the soil, which results in more soil degradation

 

So, I believe climate change is real. I believe there is a manmade contribution to climate change. I believe that the conflict and suffering (hunger, lack of water, increase in disease) will continue come as result of climate change.

[lauraw4321]

I just got it Reg! You're the opposite of a Tree Hugger! Wow, how many times did I read your name and miss that?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Which can be an issue given that not all scientific papers are available to the public. Access is definitely a problem.

 

Not to mention it's one thing to have some understanding of the basics of how the papers are set up, but it's another to understand the contents. 

 

I sometimes read Science.  I understand maybe half of what is in it.  I don't know what I don't know.  Simple is that.  The more I read the more I learn, but there is SO MUCH TO KNOW.

 

So I think it's important to have sources of information that we can trust without necessarily understanding the details.  I just don't know what source that is.  And then you hear stuff about scientists supposedly thinking the govt. is going to block their research?  From a news source that probably the average person would trust?  What do we make of that? 

[Mimm]

What an odd way to state the question.

I do not "believe" in gravity - it exists whether I believe in it or not. Ditto for climate change. Scientific evidence is overwhelming.

 

Since I am not a climate scientist, I do not possess sufficient expertise to predict on what timeline we will see what magnitude of problem

 

It can exist all day long and people still don't believe in it. Asking if people do is a valid question. I get that people are sick of people "not believing" in climate change, but nit picking the word choice is counterproductive. Better to provide evidence.

 

Or maybe not. I read that providing evidence to anti-vaccine people actually makes them cling even more strongly to their beliefs. At this point, I'm not even sure how you convince people.

[Bluegoat]

I'll concede the point that it takes a certain amount of trust to accept or reject a conclusion based on fact, but will still argue that a conversation goes a lot deeper and farther if we can frame it as a discussion of factual conclusions rather than one stemming from gut feelings or a system of belief or disbelief.

 

The question then is going to be, do we think that there is enough reason to accept the same set of facts - if we do, or close enough, then we can have a useful discussion about what conclusions to draw from them. 

 

I totally agree that in this case, we really have plenty of data that everyone agrees is good, barring a small number of people who have been subject to particular political influence.  And there has been pretty good information for a long time, even before the political was a factor.  And now we can see the earlier predictions coming home to roost, so that is even more information.

 

But I think claiming that science somehow has access to things that are these indisputable, objective facts is overreaching and fails to convince people as a result.

[creekland]

And then you hear stuff about scientists supposedly thinking the govt. is going to block their research?   

 

Blocking I don't know about.  Defunding is a very high concern from those I know.  And that would have the same effect as it's impossible to make a living studying (anything, not just climate change) without getting an income and expenses from somewhere.  Sometimes there are companies that would willingly fund studies, but they usually have an agenda they want from the results.  Gov't funding has fewer strings and bad associations.

[Bluegoat]

I don't entirely agree with the idea that it doesn't matter if we agree whether climate change is human caused, we'd do the same thing to deal with it.  Because if it is caused by our actions, we need to change those things to stop it getting worse. 

 

 

[regentrude]

 And then you hear stuff about scientists supposedly thinking the govt. is going to block their research?  From a news source that probably the average person would trust?  What do we make of that? 

 

Well, the unprecedented request by the president elect that the Department of Energy disclose the names of employees and contractors who worked on climate change topics is definitely cause for concern.

 

And then there is federal funding. With an openly anti science administration, we expect significant cuts to the National Science foundation and similar organizations. Scientists cannot do research if they are not being paid. How do you think it works? 

Edited December 13, 2016 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

Building on that, I think the trust would also go further if scientists (and governments) in general owned up to past mistakes and when they were flat out WRONG on supposed facts instead of waiting so long past the point of anyone caring that it becomes moot. Sweeping mistakes or misinformation under the rug has helped to build up a large level of distrust in so many areas. Big science did not learn any lessons from the churches on this one! 

 

I compare it to the pharma industry. They can do great things. They have done great things. But they've also done some really crappy things leading to an general distrust and distain. Does it make the science of what works any less real? No. But does it make people less likely to put faith in that science? Abso-freaking-lutely.

 

Something as politically and corporately loaded climate change and all that encompasses isn't something where you can simply tsk-tsk people into accepting everything thrown their way about it by the powers that be.  

 

Yup.  As soon as trust is broken in a system, it impacts how much trust people have in other parts of the system.

 

So we see things like flaws in how scientific papers are published or other errors, or much worse corruption like with the cover-up about sugar and blaming fat or covering up negative drug trials - and that effect isn't limited to those instances.  Those organizations and scientists are ones that normally would be considered reputable. 

 

Now people wonder about every instance, because they know that even if they read the papers, they don't have the skills to identify which are good and which have problems.

 

Telling people that they just need to admit to facts that science gives them, or trust experts, or read the papers, will not repair the situation.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well, the unprecedented request by the president elect that the Department of Energy disclose the names of employees and contractors who worked on climate change topics is definitely cause for concern.

 

And then there is federal funding. With an openly anti science administration, we expect significant cuts to the National Science foundation and similar organizations. Scientists cannot do research if they are not being paid. How do you think it works? 

 

that's crappy

[Bluegoat]

I disagree.  I think the earth knows how to "fix" itself.  Remove humans from the picture and "getting worse" doesn't exist.  Because the question is...worse for what?  The planet?    The plants?  The animals?  Worse is a term that is only relevant to how the conditions of the planet affect US. 

 

 

I DO absolutely believe we should already do the things that will help keep our planet clean.  We should look for ways to fulfill our energy needs that don't waste the resources of planet.  We should not be throwing trash in the water.  We should be learning everything we can to use our resources wisely.  But we should be doing these things anyway.   Regardless of the degree of impact of humans on the climate of the planet, we should ALWAYS respect the place we live.  (now, we may all have different beliefs about what constitutes that respect...what it means.) 

 

Because we are thinking beings, beings who have the capability to decide how we act and so on....we should always decide to try to minimize our impact on the environment.  Use as few resources as possible.  Reduce the trash we produce.  Generally, do our best to TRY to make sure we leave the place cleaner than we found it.   BUT, we should do that ANYWAY....regardless of what effect that has on climate change. 

 

At the moment, climate scientists are saying that it looks increasingly like we need to cut back on emmisions hard, right now, to avoid effects that will be deadly for many people.

 

But those who don't wish to do that are saying that it is barking up the wrong tree.  We don't need to do that, and attempting to change so quickly will be a waste of our effort when it should be used elewhere.

 

I think that is what the problem here is - if CO2 isn't a problem, putting it into the air isn't polluting.  And when so many people get advantage from something, you need to give good reason to do it.  Even many people who believe in human caused climate change seem to think we need to balance action with economic growth and political expedience.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, the unprecedented request by the president elect that the Department of Energy disclose the names of employees and contractors who worked on climate change topics is definitely cause for concern.

 

And then there is federal funding. With an openly anti science administration, we expect significant cuts to the National Science foundation and similar organizations. Scientists cannot do research if they are not being paid. How do you think it works? 

 

The Department of Energy said they would not comply.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/13/energy-dept-rejects-trumps-request-to-name-climate-change-workers-who-remain-worried/?utm_term=.5360b62d6102

[regentrude]

The Department of Energy said they would not comply.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/13/energy-dept-rejects-trumps-request-to-name-climate-change-workers-who-remain-worried/?utm_term=.5360b62d6102

 

And I commend them for it.

 

ETA: And at the very core, these demands are extremely dangerous to science. Scientific inquiry cannot proceed if scientists are not allowed to discover whatever their investigations yield. If a desired outcome is stipulated up front, that is not science.

Edited December 13, 2016 by regentrude

[treestarfae]

I hope we don't have to hide scientists in attics.

[FaithManor]

I agree with the concensus of the scientific community, and I fear that we have waited too long to take significant, decisive action especially in terms of rainforest and temperate rainforest preservation which is causing more and more encroaching desert, meanwhile sea levels rise.

 

I do believe people can be of necessity very adaptable. That said what will have to be adapted to is NOT good.

 

My middle boy is gungho into Great Lakes preservation/conservation. Nearly 1/4 of the world's freshwater. And many industries want to mess that up for profit!

 

My parents do not believe in climate change. But they also believe vegetables and frankincense oil will cure his stage IV benzene and asbestos induced metastasized cancet. So.... uhm...we do not talk of such things.

[FaithManor]

Just an aside, but US climate scientists are saving & backing up all their data abroad to protect it from gov't interference.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.9a1a59951662

Very astute move given the state of things!

[regentrude]

Just an aside, but US climate scientists are saving & backing up all their data abroad to protect it from gov't interference. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.9a1a59951662

 

Thanks for sharing this, I had not read that. It is truly frightening that this is deemed necessary.

[KarenC]

It's already happening.  You can look at satellite images of Louisiana and see how the coastline has changed over the past 20 years.

[creekland]

And I commend them for it.

 

ETA: And at the very core, these demands are extremely dangerous to science. Scientific inquiry cannot proceed if scientists are not allowed to discover whatever their investigations yield. If a desired outcome is stipulated up front, that is not science.

 

That is the same thing that happens when many businesses fund studies.  Get the results we want and you get paid handsomely, because we'll profit off it.  Get other results and bury the info (or worse).  Perhaps that's what happens when a cut throat businessman ends up in charge of gov't studies... not science - profits from whatever we can get people to believe and buy, esp since most people can't critically look at the studies to find obvious flaws or confounding information.

[Guest]

Yup.  As soon as trust is broken in a system, it impacts how much trust people have in other parts of the system.

 

So we see things like flaws in how scientific papers are published or other errors, or much worse corruption like with the cover-up about sugar and blaming fat or covering up negative drug trials - and that effect isn't limited to those instances.  Those organizations and scientists are ones that normally would be considered reputable. 

 

Now people wonder about every instance, because they know that even if they read the papers, they don't have the skills to identify which are good and which have problems.

 

Telling people that they just need to admit to facts that science gives them, or trust experts, or read the papers, will not repair the situation.

 

Amen. I wish the scientific community- and I include the medical community in this as well- as a whole would be less afraid to utter the words "we don't know".  It's as if they are terrified saying that will empower those who pretend to know. But I don't think that's the case. I think they would instill more confidence in what they do proclaim if they didn't pretend to know everything in a definitive manner. But they don't.  They convolute the "I don't know," by saying in a muddled way that "research should continue but in this case, results show.......", which is fine if it's being read by a target audience educated in that subject, but then the media takes one study and runs with it and it's suddenly proclaimed as fact. It's not just the media really either- the journals themselves will press release the findings on a preliminary study hoping to drum up publicity. The sponsoring university or organization will also do it to try and drive more funding. Then suddenly you have "coffee causes cancer," or some other ridiculous assertion that then has to be corrected two years later or what have you. Sometimes the universities and scientists are their own worst enemies by trying to promote preliminary research that is honestly years, if not decades, away from being able to actually prove anything in a definitive manner. 

 

That is another reason I disagree with those in this thread who act as if there is no bias in government funded studies. Government studies and grant applications are absolutely political. As are those appointed to the committees who select what is going to be funded- that is a political process within whatever funding organization you're looking out. It's not a democratic process. Anyone who disagrees hasn't applied for enough grants. There are pet projects and they run in cycles of whatever the particular powers that be have on their agenda. They may not be as blatantly obvious as say the sugar industry or other corporately funded studies,  but there are clear cut patterns in the areas of funding. These committees might not be biasing the results, but they're biasing the studies that get funded in the first place. That's a very easy way to shut up the opposition. Then you still have to get published. There is a lot more that goes into getting your research out there than some are making it sound like. 

[hornblower]

It's already happening.  You can look at satellite images of Louisiana and see how the coastline has changed over the past 20 years.

 

yes, and also a time lapse sat image progression of the loss of perrenial ice in the Arctic https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4510

[Tanaqui]

It's already happening.  You can look at satellite images of Louisiana and see how the coastline has changed over the past 20 years.

 

Part of the problem with Louisiana is the levees on the Mississippi, which prevent it from from replenishing the delta with new sediment. It's more complicated there than simple climate change, though to be sure that doesn't help at all. However, it's true that Louisiana doesn't have much land less to lose - they're losing the equivalent of a football field to erosion every single hour.

 

[gaillardia]

http://floodlist.com/

 

I found this website of interest.