Nebraska Scientists Refuse To Carry Out Climate Change-Denying Study 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.'"
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
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!".
Re:Only in America (Score:5, Informative)
Canada. Look up Steven Harper and muzzling scientists.
Past all the heiressy (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
"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? (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is, the study they where asked to take had as part of its *premise* that it was caused by non human means.
Um... no, it didn't. TFA doesn't say that, nor does the article that TFA links to.
The ONLY thing even remotely related to that was mention that the word "cyclical" was put in. There is no indication that the study calls for any pre-determined conclusions. It only stipulates that certain parts of the climate equation be studied. Why do you have a problem with that?
I think you've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid.
Re:Only in America (Score:5, Informative)
Canada. Look up Steven Harper and muzzling scientists.
And under the banner of a Conservative government.
Re:You think that government is apolitical? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I fear the real problem is this: "Homo Sapiens is an oxymoron." Both corporations and government are composed of people, and all-too-often people embrace and extend their flaws, rather than trying to be better people.
As for option 1, you're right. As for option 2, you're nuts. Corporations would do away with regulations, our air would be like China's, The Cuyahoga River would still be burning, and things like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire would be regular occurrances, except "tort reform" would be used to make sure corrective action couldn't be taken.
IMHO the power hierarchy should be:
1 - The voters
2 - The government, but that government should be wise enough to know that that power should be used sparingly.
3 - The rest.
Nifty experiment... Imagine that we could all designate how our tax dollars were to be spent. You can't change the amount, just the distribution. I have this ugly feeling that by the time everyone had stated their wishes, with perhaps a few rounds of iteration on the process, the budget would wind up pretty close to where it is now.