h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Have we ever seen the science community so politicised and media savvy? Note how many research papers get released, not to the peer review process, but straight to Press Release. Science has been commercialised in a way we've never really seen before. GW is virtually the only show in town just now. I made a gag about tree frogs earlier, but it's got a germ of truth in there. The fight for funding is intense and has led to a polarisation between big industry vested interests on one side and governments on the other. I've tried to show that government has just as much a vested interest in promoting GW for their own reasons. Who puts more money into GW research, industry or government? I'd be interested to see if the proportions of scientists supporting man-made GW and their critics correlates with the money going in.

"1) You assume it is the scientific community that causes all of those major scares. Wrong! As SoRB and others pointed out, it is journalists exaggerating a *minority* opinion, or exaggerating the worst case scenario."

Exactly. There was a good article on BBCi (you'll rarely find those last few words in that order) quite recently in which a climatologist who thinks GW is a major problem attacked the media's scaremongering and worst-case disaster-porn handling of the issue. Well worth reading if you can find it.

"2) You keep using the idea that there are people with a vested interest in global warming that are pushing the idea. Yet you have not once addressed the fact that the OIL INDUSTRY has a vested interest in the exact opposite position. Why don't you think they have a vested interest? There are many reports available categortically stating that the oil industry has dumped tons of money into keeping the debate on climate change going."

Again, very true. The vast majority of GW-deniers have an ideological drum in the same way you won't find a US nationalist who thinks 9/11 was an inside-job (unless they're an anti-semite who thinks teh joooz were behind it).

"Have we ever seen the science community so politicised and media savvy? Note how many research papers get released, not to the peer review process, but straight to Press Release. Science has been commercialised in a way we've never really seen before. GW is virtually the only show in town just now. I made a gag about tree frogs earlier, but it's got a germ of truth in there. The fight for funding is intense and has led to a polarisation between big industry vested interests on one side and governments on the other. I've tried to show that government has just as much a vested interest in promoting GW for their own reasons. Who puts more money into GW research, industry or government? I'd be interested to see if the proportions of scientists supporting man-made GW and their critics correlates with the money going in."

So, in short, scientists are gladly lying to us en-mass in order to get some money and for some reason not one member of this massive conspiracy has realised that they're debasing the entire scientific profession and blown the whistle.

This is classic conspiracy-theory nonsense and deserves to be treated as such.

There are plenty of whistle-blowers. They're shouted down and called conspiracy theorists

Scientists have to eat & pay mortgages just like the rest of us and governments are dangling big carrots for research into GW. Produce a report that the money-men don't like and you're unlikely to be successful in your next research grant. People are building careers on GW and the consensus is becoming a vested interest in it's own right.

I'll say it again, if GW is such a clear and present danger, why are governments enacting policies that fly contrary to what they're telling us?

"There are plenty of whistle-blowers. They're shouted down and called conspiracy theorists"

There aren't "plenty" at all. They're a tiny minority. And they're not shouted-down, their arguments are quickly discredited with facts. There's a reason the vast majority of climatologists agree with the current concensus and it's not a giant conspiracy, it's called rationalism.

"I'll say it again, if GW is such a clear and present danger, why are governments enacting policies that fly contrary to what they're telling us?"

They're not. They're enacting major moves to combat global warming. All the evidence you have is a runway on an island built by one government. You haven't demonstrated that 1) such an island would sink with GW nor that 2) the government that built it has taken GW into account (I don't suppose you've noticed, but sometimes governments do things that are silly and haven't been thought-out in the long term).

All the sites for proposed nuclear power stations are coastal and within a few feet of sea level. Land reclamation projects continue apace worldwide. The US is still seriously considering rebuilding New Orleans *below* sea level. Councils are pressured by government into housebuilding on coastal regions liable to sea level changes, not to mention river flood plains. The physical evidence for governments not believing the GW hype are all around you and all around the world.

Yes, "sometimes governments do things that are silly and haven't been thought-out in the long term" - like hitching their trailers to GW?

"All the sites for proposed nuclear power stations are coastal and within a few feet of sea level."

Nuclear power plants are only designed to last a couple of decades. I don't think anyone is predicting GW to sink us all in that amount of time.

"Land reclamation projects continue apace worldwide."

A hell of a lot of people think in short-term. If an area might be under the sea in thirty years that's no reason not to reclaim it and built a profitable industry there in the meantime.

"The US is still seriously considering rebuilding New Orleans *below* sea level."

Where else is it going to build it? New Orleans is already below sea level. It's been sensible to move the city for centuries but they're never going to do it.

"Councils are pressured by government into housebuilding on coastal regions liable to sea level changes, not to mention river flood plains."

Stupid, yes, but again on these sort of issues people think surprisingly short-term. You can still buy houses in areas that might topple into the sea in 20 years due to erosion and, frankly, why not?

SWL, I'll also make the following points:

In order for your theories to be true the following must be the case:

*The vast majority of climatologists are taking-part in a massive worldwide conspiracy of silence.

*Pretty-much every government in the world is joining them in this conspiracy.

*Only a few mavericks, the majority of whom have ideological motives which we should disregard for now, are uncovering the truth about this vast, worldwide conspiracy.

This makes the stuff in "The X Files" and "The Lone Horsemen" look, frankly, like level-headed rationalism.

So in one breath you say governments are stupid and short-termist and in the next you say to trust their long term GW predictions

And the science community are an extension of government. Who pays the piper calls the tune.

To address your specific rebuttals -

Nuclear power stations take about 10-15 years to build, then they run for about 20 years before taking 100 years to decommission. They are long term projects. Can you imagine the outcry if a nuclear site, even one that is closed, is flooded? Do you have any idea just how much that would contaminate the seas?

Most land reclamation is for housing, fuelled by population growth. Not a short-term industrial concern.

New Orleans is currently devastated. It's not really a case of redeveloping it, but almost totally rebuilding. The cost of building sea defences to even cope with current sea levels is stymying the whole project, never mind predicted rises in sea levels.

"So in one breath you say governments are stupid and short-termist and in the next you say to trust their long term GW predictions"

Governments are complex beasts. On one hand, faced with the overwhelming concensus and facts about GW they will act responsibly, on the other faced with pressure to build housing or power stations they will think in the short term or, more likely, one department don't talk properly to the other. This sort of nonsense happens all the time.

"Nuclear power stations take about 10-15 years to build, then they run for about 20 years before taking 100 years to decommission. They are long term projects. Can you imagine the outcry if a nuclear site, even one that is closed, is flooded? Do you have any idea just how much that would contaminate the seas?"

Tell you what, SWL, email your MP about nuclear power stations being built in coastal areas and the how GW might affect that and post the reply you recieve here.

Incidentally, most GW-deniers specifically deny that human CO2 production is adding to global warming not that GW is happening. The concensus on the planet warming up is more overwhelming than overwhelming these days. If governments are building power stations on the coasts it's almost certainly because they don't think GW will pose a danger or because they're pushing for short-term solutions.

"Most land reclamation is for housing, fuelled by population growth. Not a short-term industrial concern."

I've already explained how housing *can* be a short-term concern.

"New Orleans is currently devastated. It's not really a case of redeveloping it, but almost totally rebuilding. The cost of building sea defences to even cope with current sea levels is stymying the whole project, never mind predicted rises in sea levels."

But as I said, they should move the entire city anyway, GW or no.

I'd really like you to respond to my point that I have to make again and again to GW deniers about why they believe, as rational human beings, that the vast majority of climatologists and the world's governments are colluding in such a massive conspiracy.

"Produce a report that the money-men don't like and you're unlikely to be successful in your next research grant. People are building careers on GW and the consensus is becoming a vested interest in it's own right."

Absolute rubbish.

There is huge incentive to discredit global warming. If you found strong, compelling evidence against man-made global warming you'd be a scientific celebrity - your papers would be published in the most prestigious journals and you would be offered jobs at the top universities in the world.

Also, research grant funding is not determined by "the money-men" (wtf!?), but by delegations of your peers, anonymously, on its SCIENTIFIC merits.

SWL, honestly, try to get an idea of what science is about before lampooning it with ludicrous conspiracy theories.

Ste

"If you found strong, compelling evidence against man-made global warming you'd be a scientific celebrity - your papers would be published in the most prestigious journals and you would be offered jobs at the top universities in the world."

Exactly! The lazy argument in favour of conspiracy theories is the "they doubted Einstein!" one and yet what actually happened was his peers looked at his working and said "actually..." and the scientific-correctness of his theories was quickly acknowledged. Scientists *do not* en-mass debase their own profession and ignore fact and good science for the sake of money. There would be no point in them being scientists otherwise.

I don't believe we're seeing a conspiracy at all. Shouting "Conspiracy Theory" is just a tactic to try to denigrate a point of view you don't agree with.

I believe what we are seeing is human nature allied with a snowball effect that has made the GW bandwagon self-perpetuating.

The opportunity for scientists to be neutral in this area disappeared when the finance for GW research started rolling in from both sides. There is lamentably little pure theory being researched these days because there is no money available.

I don't dispute climate change. The climate has changed rapidly, markedly and repeatedly over the last two millenia alone. I don't think we are facing a doomsday scenario because the actions of government do not match the hype.

There are no steps being taken to alleviate the predicted effects of GW. None, zilch, nada. There are projects being undertaken that make no sense at all in the light of the predictions. Hundreds, worldwide.

I think its actually pretty simple. There have been a number of studies of ice cores, recording methane and CO2 levels for hundreds of thousands of years back. These show that they are pretty strongly correlated to global warming, and that methane levels are higher now than any point previous by pretty huge amounts, while CO2 levels are up there and have been rising faster than ever before. Meanwhile, global temperature has all been rising pretty quickly.

There is a known causal link - the greenhouse effect - which can be tested and measured in labs. The predictions of that evidence accurately match the trends observed.

<<"Can you imagine the outcry if a nuclear site, even one that is closed, is flooded? Do you have any idea just how much that would contaminate the seas?">>

Do you? Are you aware of how many layers of protection exist on a modern nuclear plant? Do you realise how much nuclear waste (not just the fuel, which is comparatively less of a bother) has already been dumped at sea? Do you know how much nuclear fuel is kept in a reactor after it is decommissioned?

You might be right, but I can't say you show any evidence of having looked into your rising sea levels -> nuclear disaster claim, and thus must for the moment dismiss it as scaremongering .

I'm scaremongering

The exact opposite I'd say.

Incidentally, there was a point made earlier about the AIDS scaremongering in the early 90s. That science-based fiction predicted huge numbers of AIDS victims by now. The rebuttal was that a massive public awareness & sex education campaign stopped it in it's tracks.

That would be the advice to wear a condom, right?

And yet STDs amongst young people are now at almost epidemic proportions. Shouldn't that have been stopped by the condoms?


We have seen scientists hit us with scare story after scare story after scare story and they have all proved to be inflated nonsense. This scare story has grown legs because Governments use it as a big stick to beat us with in an effort to make us consume less resources and be more efficient. I have absolutely no problem with the ethos behind that and it could be argued that it takes a massive scare story sustained for years to shock people out of a wasteful way of life.

It's still a lie though and I've spent my entire adult life being lied to by governments.

I disagree with SWL but I want to defend one small part of what he's saying.

It is true that there are pressures on scientists through various mechanisms that can distort or bias scientific results. In particular, SWL is right to say that

"Shouting "Conspiracy Theory" is just a tactic to try to denigrate a point of view you don't agree with."

The mechanisms by which this bias creeps in are complicated and difficult to quantify. For example, some research is easier to get funding for than other sorts - this is probably why we have so many papers telling us that chocolate and wine are good for you. It's not that this sort of research is false, it's just that it focuses on one very particular thing more than its scientific merit really deserves (and is oversimplified by the media reporting of it in a way that is beneficial to the makers of chocolate and wine). To illustrate this - suppose some study shows that there is a negative correlation between say cocoa consumption and some sort of cancer (I'm making this up I have no idea). Cadbury's jumps on the bandwagon and says "Wahoo! Everyone eat more of our chocolate bars and don't get cancer." This ignores the fact that Cadbury's chocolate typically has a very small amount of cocoa in it, and lots of very unhealthy fats and sugars. The point is - why would anyone do that research about cocoa anyway? It's not exactly first rate science and the contribution to our knowledge of public health is probably fairly minimal compared to learning more about say the health impacts of various sorts of highly processed fats. (I may well have the details wrong here, it's just an illustrative example.)

To return to the issue of global warming.

It's obvious that the subject is highly politicised and it would be a wonder if some sort of bias didn't happen. Like Arnie, I find it more likely that the bias is the opposite of what SWL thinks it is, and that there is strong scientific consensus despite the pressures. What SWL needs to do if he wants to make his case is to come up with an explanation of what systematic, institutional mechanisms create the bias he thinks exists. What those of us who disagree with him need to do (if we feel like engaging at all) is to show that the mechanisms he thinks create this bias aren't there or are too weak to create any bias compared to all the other forces involved.

So I think Ste does well on this with:

"There is huge incentive to discredit global warming. If you found strong, compelling evidence against man-made global warming you'd be a scientific celebrity..."

And there's also the financial incentive too.

This is also good, but not quite so good:

"Also, research grant funding is not determined by "the money-men" (wtf!?), but by delegations of your peers, anonymously, on its SCIENTIFIC merits."

True, but there are other sources of funding apart from research grants (private sources, companies, etc.). Also, there are probably pressures on the scientists making grant decisions too. My feeling is that these don't add up to enough to create a sizeable effect, but it is possible.

Final point - SWL I have no idea what point you're trying to make by referring to where the government is building housing, power plants etc. The government is not a single unitary being. Much as I dislike the man, Tony Blair is not an all-powerful malign force who controls the debate on global warming as well as making less public decisions which assume that global warming isn't happening. Anyway, the government didn't create and doesn't control the debate on global warming - if anything I think they mostly wish it would go away. They only react to it at all because a sufficient number of people have very slowly come to realise that it's a real and serious problem (largely because of the increasing scientific consensus and tireless campaigning of activists), and so there are votes in it. They're responding to a situation that has developed outside of their control.

"Produce a report that the money-men don't like and you're unlikely to be successful in your next research grant. People are building careers on GW and the consensus is becoming a vested interest in it's own right." Absolute rubbish.

Remember Dr Arpad Pusztai from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen and his GM potatoes:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2278044.ece

“All of this is a classic case of smug-cynicism and after-the-event pontificating”

Crivens! a bit strong. No it’s not. What it is, is observation of the way, over the years, the scientific process has been eroded from a careful, conservative progression based on the long term to a media exploitive, politically friendly, dog fight for research funding.

In the early 90s, the government published a white paper entitled "Realising our potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology". This laid out the priorities for research that the govt was seeking to fund. This is a clear example of govt influencing science through manipulation of funding, something denied on this thread.

The fact that one bit of government isnt in synch iwht another bit seems to surprise you, that the left hand doesnt know what the right is up to is the general state of government. The UK Home Office bangs on about expelling illegal immigrant workers and then finds out that many of the people working there are ...illegal immigrants. The reaction to GW and humanitys input ws first denied by governments before being accepted this coupled with the "turning an oil tanker" effect inherent in any large organisation explain the discrepancies in speil and action by goevernments.



You cant inluence science or it just isnt science. You can influence the directions scietific research is pointed in but anything more than that and you cant call the recults science. I'll grant you that what areas scietist look are without doubt directed by the people who are paying, But its not like Exxon are short of a few quid to throw in.

Its a horrible generalisation to rubbish *all* the GW warnings that come from cietists on this basis simply by saying they are playing a tune to suit the people paying. To accuse scietists of saying what the customer wants to hear instead of being honest you are just colouring the world with your own experience as a salesman.

one love

<>

Hmm, maybe not. As the government does fund a lot of the science in this country, and it is also charged with driving economic growth (I'd say its number-one job), then obviously if it's going to spend £bns then it will want it to be in productive areas. Things which will benefit the economy and the country in the long term, like biosciences and advances in computing, as opposed to things like finding out why toast always lands buttered side up.

To say that this is influencing 'science', is right only in the most meaningless, general sense. If it influenced the result of scientific papers, that would be another thing altogether.

GW will probably cost huge sums of money, which will be bad for the global economy. Sustainability issues are related but separate, and will also cost huge sums. Any government has to try to get elected while keeping the economy growing, while also trying to reduce consumption of goods and services which are, in our current economic system, unsustainable *and* are changing the climate.

There is hypocrisy, in that we as a society like cheap flights, strawberries from Kenya etc, and that many people do care about the planet, and want future generations to enjoy the things that we do now. There isn't one easy answer, and it will be *incredibly* difficult for any govt to steer a course towards a zero-carbon, sustainable economy while having the remotest chance of staying in office.