Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Politics Science

Nebraska Scientists Refuse To Carry Out Climate Change-Denying Study 640

Posted by samzenpus
from the not-on-my-watch dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nebraska Scientists Refuse To Carry Out Climate Change-Denying Study

Comments Filter:
  • Governor Appointed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yahooti (3401115) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:15PM (#45252687)
    How do we keep politics out of this?
    • by 0123456 (636235) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:45PM (#45252887)

      How do we keep politics out of this?

      By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.

      As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:

      Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

      In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

      Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

      The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

      So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.

      • by Microlith (54737) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:00PM (#45253001)

        Indeed, it should be entirely privately funded. Thus we can focus on the research that matters: only that which can be monetized within the next 4 quarters or sooner!

        • by xmark (177899) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:21PM (#45253137)

          wow

          Everyone has an agenda. Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society. It is (and has amply proven itself to be) capable of corruption, graft, and political pursuit of goals contrary to the interests of those who are taxed to fund it.

          Concentration of power is the problem. Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction. They both pursue their own agendas in service to the elites who are stakeholders, and then use propaganda to claim otherwise.

          • by polar red (215081) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:30PM (#45253207)

            Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

            I disagree. Look into the funding of elections.

            • by MightyYar (622222) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @05:02PM (#45253425)

              If you consider that he said "big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction", then the problems we have with corporate money in politics makes more sense.

            • by lgw (121541)

              Why does that make you want to disagree? Oh, I see. You're still clinging to some outdated notion that there's some difference between government and corporations. How quaint.

              Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society precisely because it's the "end boss" of all the large corporate entities.

              • by Ash Vince (602485) * on Sunday October 27, 2013 @05:39PM (#45253739) Journal

                Why does that make you want to disagree? Oh, I see. You're still clinging to some outdated notion that there's some difference between government and corporations. How quaint.

                Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society precisely because it's the "end boss" of all the large corporate entities.

                I think it is the other way around. Due to the huge amount of funding needed to get elected it is those who donate the most to political campaigns who ultimately are in charge, that is the corporations. Politicians simply do what their corporate backers tell them unless they know it will cause them too many problems with their electorate to get re-elected.

                • by hsthompson69 (1674722) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @07:03PM (#45254255)

                  Okay, so two thought experiments:

                  1) big corporations don't exist - politicians exert control over small businesses, extorting money out of them for election funding, and giving favorable treatment to those who pay up, and penalties to those who don't

                  2) overwhelming government power doesn't exist - big corporations don't throw money at politicians, since they can make better investments that have better returns.

                  I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

                  • by dpilot (134227) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @09:28PM (#45255085) Homepage Journal

                    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.

                    • by dpilot (134227)

                      No, I would say that in China the corporate/government line is even more blurred than in the US, except that in China the power flow is in the other direction. The net result is the same.

                      There are starry-eyed types on both sides, the side that says government can solve problems, and the side that says government is the problem. You obviously appear to be in the latter camp.

                      Given the government that you describe, I'll ask my 3 questions again:
                      1 - What keeps our air cleaner than China's?
                      2 - What keeps the C

                  • by c0lo (1497653)

                    I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

                    You are right, but for the wrong reasons.
                    You see, if big business are not limited by anything but themselves (the "free market fairy" hypothesis), then there would be no election process - the big corps don't need it because they don't need democracy to function.

                  • by Ash Vince (602485) * on Monday October 28, 2013 @08:30AM (#45257383) Journal

                    I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.

                    Actually, the big reason that businesses engage with politicians is not to unbalance the market, it is to make sure they have a nice friendly environment to do business in. They lobby government to pay less tax, be allowed to hire and fire at will, and also get new laws onto the statute book that benefit them like the DMCA.

                    I know this is going to be a wasted breath, but anyone in the US vaguely interested in how governments work should actually take a look at a few political systems in modern Europe and see how they prevent thing like corruption and use government and regulation as a method of restricting the power of large corporations instead of enhancing it. That might involve looking beyond the news reported by US news networks though as they generally have a serious vested interest in government being weaker so the rich and the corporations that own them gain even more power to push the pro-capitalist propaganda that so many of them are so fond of.

                  • Unfortunately, the other end of that is: If government was limited too much, it would not be able to stop abusive practices of big businesses. Some government rules and regulations might be garbage, but others are the result of businesses in the past trying to get away with anything and everything. Minimum wage laws and limits on worker hours or child labor? Because big business used to work people (including children) to the bone for virtually nothing. Workplace safety laws? Look at the garment distri

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:34PM (#45253241) Homepage Journal

            Government is the most powerful entity in our mixed society.

            That stopped being true thirty years ago.

            If by "powerful" you mean the ability to influence society, it's not even close. If you mean, "the ability to put armies in the field", corporations are catching up fast. If you mean, "the ability to exert their will on individuals, corporations are way ahead of governments.

            With the rise of corporate sovereignty, corporations are now saying, "We don't need governments, so we plan to ignore them".

          • Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

            Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

            Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

            Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

            • Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

              Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

              Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

              Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

              I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.

        • by MacDork (560499)
          No way! Government funding is better. It's solid and dependable funding that never ever left projects in Antarctica unfunded due to government shut downs in DC.
        • by riverat1 (1048260)

          If science is done correctly it shouldn't matter what the funding source is. All of the money in the world can't change reality. You can try to put whatever spin you want on science but ultimately the real world will trump it.

          • by rtb61 (674572)

            That is totally wrong. You can fund science and ask a stupid question and then get a stupid answer, then twist that stupid answer into something it is not.

            In this case earth cyclic weather change. Well that is utterly meaningless, as it can only really occur due to external circumstance ie solar output and orbital mechanics. Catch is both of those do not explain major ice ages. Which look to be driven by probability based co-incidental major geological events (a series of major earthquakes and major volc

        • by qeveren (318805) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @08:24PM (#45254685)

          This, exactly. Business has no interest in pure research - it has no direct, monetizable goal - and it certainly isn't interested in sharing any results if it bothered.

      • by YoungManKlaus (2773165) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:22PM (#45253151)

        I Disagree. Publically funded research is essential because there are many fields that private companies would not research (ironically, like climate change) and where monetary interests influence the results. The main problem here is that it seems that there are no checks in place to prevent (obvious) influence from eg. lobbying groups, or prevent bogus research from being funded (like the "only cyclic" climate change that is the topic here)

        • So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

          First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.

          Then you've also got the insurance industry who always has to have their ear to t

          • by Ash Vince (602485) * on Sunday October 27, 2013 @05:57PM (#45253867) Journal

            First, you have entire industries dedicated to profiting off of the idea that the world is about to explode unless we start going green. Solar panel manufacturers, raw materials recyclers, electric vehicle manufacturers, and much much more. Those groups alone profit from studies predicting a bad future.

            That is utter crap. Solar panel manufacturing is not that profitable, if it was why is BP winding down its solar division:
            http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9025019&contentId=7046515 [bp.com]

            Recycling is also not exactly a sure fire route to buckets of cash. Somethings it is cost effective to recycle like aluminium and maybe steel but most stuff is cheaper to just throw in a hole in the ground. The problem is that nobody wants a landfill next to their house and so the only money is in making rubbish go away as nobody wants to deal with it. Most stuff is simply too damn hard to split out into its raw materials in order to recycle it without serious government grants.

            As to electric vehicles it might be trendy but it is nowhere near as profitable as making good old fashioned gas guzzlers. The US auto industry did not need to be bailed out due to everyone buying electric cars, they needed a bailout because labour costs were too high and because more and more people were choosing to buy foreign cars. Most other countries auto industries have done ok.

            The reality is that without government funded research coming out of other countries the huge corporations and oil companies would have just out spent everyone else trying their damnedest to sweep climate change under the table.

          • by Capsaicin (412918) * on Sunday October 27, 2013 @08:22PM (#45254673)

            So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research?

            Let's rephrase to remove that objection.

            Publicly funded research is essential because there are many fields where private funding would be somewhere between insufficient to non-existent, especially those with low potential for obvious commercial application (ironically, like climate change). Additionally there are many fields where monetary interest raises questions about the reliability of industry based research (eg. the efficacy of glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis [nih.gov]), which reliability can be assessed only by comparison with publicly funded (as close as we can practically get to independent) research.

            To blame the nature of government funded research itself, for the gross attempt at state intervention described in the present article, is not only to misunderstand the nature and ignore the importance of public research, it is to underestimate the transgression contemplated by this intervention. Instead of attacking science funding we ought attack the administrator who fails in their duty to respect independence in publicly funded research. With pitchforks if necessary.

          • by microbox (704317) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @09:46PM (#45255203)

            So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.

            The university system is the USA's last beacon of exceptionalism, and is systematically being eroded by turning professors into professional grant writers. Momentum is mostly what is really keeping it going. The public funding of research also supports education of the entire population. Only a radical would propose undoing such a successful system based on some intellectual theory on how societies and economies work. A theory that most academics disagree with. See Hayek's Fatal Conceit [wikipedia.org].

      • by hey! (33014) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:34PM (#45253247) Homepage Journal

        Taxpayer funding of science has *not* produced politicized science; not during the period, say, from the end of WW2 to the end of the 20th C. Yeah, it *sounds* plausible that federal funding should produce politicized research, but if you ever worked in a science lab or with researchers on Federal grants you'd know that it just didn't happen.

        So what has changed? Thus far, for the majority of researchers, not much. But there have been two big issues. One is the rise of political concern over climate change research. The second is the shift of the Republican party from a industrial state based, business-oriented party to a Southern regional party driven by social and religious issues. 52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking). Having a majority membership of a major political party has given religious ideologues political influence they haven't enjoyed since the 1920s.

        • by Tom (822)

          52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking).

          This is what really changed: You've become a country of idiots, morons, fools and imbeciles.

          If the USA had had that attitude towards rocket science, it would still try to put a man on the moon, today.

      • by Bob9113 (14996) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:45PM (#45253315) Homepage

        By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.

        As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:

        Using Eisenhower's warning about the influence of politics on science to reach the conclusion that all taxpayer funded scientific research should be eliminated is about as sensible as taking his warning about the military industrial complex to conclude there should be no taxpayer funded military.

      • by Required Snark (1702878) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @05:46PM (#45253799)
        So where did the internet come from? Was it a untapped natural resource that was just lying around, unused until somebody figured out how to make it work?

        In case you forgot, the internet started as ARPANET [wikipedia.org], which was funded by the federal government. It was a research project, which is the R in ARPA. Research means experimentation, which is what scientists do. That this funding came out of the DOD is irrelevant. Quibbling about it not being "science" is also nonsense. The academic field that includes computer networking is called computer science. I don't think anyone has plans to change the name anytime soon.

        You are dumber then a box of rocks. You live in an environment created by a huge effort on the part of countless people, many of whom worked for various governments. Jet engines, nuclear energy, computers, all resulted from government initialed efforts.

        You're ignorant and ungrateful. I wish there was some way you could be stripped of all the benefits that have accrued from government research. You'd be sitting miserable in some decrepit hovel, which is all you deserve.

    • by newcastlejon (1483695) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:30PM (#45253205)

      How do we keep politics out of this?

      By keeping politics out of it. Set aside a portion of the national budget to research that will be overseen by an independent trust, then release all the fruits of the same into the public domain.

      Sorry, we were talking pies in the sky, weren't we?

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kramerd (1227006) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:18PM (#45252703)

    Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ericloewe (2129490) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:42PM (#45252859)

      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*.

      Of course, open-minded studies are always needed, but this specific one reeks of political interference.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:43PM (#45252871)

      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:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Carewolf (581105) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:45PM (#45252885) Homepage

      There are studies of it, plenty. What we don't need is politically motivated research with predefined results. That has also been done several times, and they all ended up agreeing with the scientific consensus (though sometimes only after being called out on fabricated numbers and bad science).

    • Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

      How are the two not inherently related? Doesn't determining one determine the other? If p is the percentage due to human influence then 1.0 - p is the percentage due to non-human influence.

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        How do you determine 'human influence' without first knowing how the climate changes naturally?

        OK, the Climate Change Deniers have their 'Hockey Stick', where the temperature was perfectly flat until EVIL SUVS appeared, but no sensible scientist should take them seriously. Earth's climate has been changing ever since it reached the point where it could sensibly be said to have one.

    • by shentino (1139071)

      Because lopsided focus causes bias.

    • by fritsd (924429)

      Why do we not need a study on cyclical climate change? Recognizing how much of global warming isn't due to humans is also important.

      Yeah, I don't get that either--what Milankovich discovered in the 1940's is fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles [wikipedia.org]
      Let's hope the experiments don't have to run for 25 000 - 100 000 years though.

    • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Sunday October 27, 2013 @06:00PM (#45253893) Homepage

      When a politician with openly stated biases comes to you and asks for evidence to support his existing point of view you should be suspicious. No matter how good your study they will at best use one or two data points out of context and ignore your conclusions.

      It's a trap.

  • Only in America (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Billly Gates (198444) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:18PM (#45252711) Journal

    Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money? Name one other country who will purposedly ally themselves with corporate interests agaisn't the will of the people to do such silly things like publish these studies?

    America is turning into the laughing stock of the world. It is truly embarrasing. Conservative Americans might be mad at my post or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.

    • Re:Only in America (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:49PM (#45252911)

      Canada. Look up Steven Harper and muzzling scientists.

    • by nbauman (624611)

      Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money?

      Nigeria?

    • by gtall (79522)

      Please try to keep up. The current crop of "conservative" (read libertarian) Republicans have no allegiance to Wall Street. Hell, during the banking crisis, they were the ones telling Wall Street to go to hell. They didn't want to bail out the banks, or AIG, or the GM or Chrysler. When they shut down the government, it was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street telling the Republicans to knock it off. Now, the corporate interests are interested in running candidates against the Tea Party.

    • Conservative Americans might be mad at my post ...

      Only because you assume that conservatives are anti-science.

      ... or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, ...

      That is a truly foolish thing to do. Voting for a party, being loyal to a party, makes oneself irrelevant. The party you favor can ignore you because they have your vote, the other party can ignore you because they can not get your vote.

      ... but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.

      You are absolutely wrong. They are believers or deniers of science and reality depending upon the issue. Both parties have core beliefs that are held as articles of faith that can not be disputed.

    • Re:Only in America (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gmuslera (3436) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:10PM (#45253075) Homepage Journal
      If the effects of what they are doing would only hit US, then would be the laughing stock. But you don't laugh at the mad driver that is pulling all of the world to a cliff.
    • by mevets (322601)

      There is a saying that you get the government you vote for. It is obvious that existing parties have permitted too many special interests (from oil companies to deficits) dictate their priorities. The citizens are supposed to take a participatory role in selecting government and driving its priorities. They have chosen the backseat, or more properly have sold their control for a handful of shiny beads. Blaming your government is blaming yourselves.

      This isnâ(TM)t an America only problem; variants

  • without human involvement and they think they aren't being political as well ?

  • denier scientists (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:20PM (#45252723) Journal

    Surely some of the AGW denying researchers like Roy Spencer will take up the invitation. Funny thing about Spencer and his ilk, though. They're quick to take Koch money to attack AGW, but seem reticent to do actual research to back up their frequent public skepticism.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:25PM (#45252751)

    . . . Scientists refuse to carry out a pedophile-glorifying study for NAMBLA.

    In forums all across America, pedophiles complain about "Damn scientists, damn eddekashun, and their political biases."

  • by mc6809e (214243) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:30PM (#45252779)

    But only if that skepticism is also applied to one's own ideas.

    Vanity makes it easy to be skeptical of others' theories but it's leaving open the possibility that one's own theories could be mistaken that makes one a scientist.

  • Misguided. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:30PM (#45252787)

    These scientists are misguided, to put it kindly. I don't think they've really thought out their positions.

    First, science is science. There is value in studying the natural climatic progressions of the planet.

    Most importantly, by refusing they are doing far more to help deniers than they would be by doing the study. Just makes them look like they have something to hide to the typical conspiracy minded denier dolt.

    • Re:Misguided. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by artor3 (1344997) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:50PM (#45252923)

      The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them. Jumping through hoops to satisfy them accomplishes nothing, and only lends credibility to the false notion that this is still being debated by scientists. It's not.

      They need to be minimized, ignored, shoved aside. Lives depend on it, and only a fool would think that another study would satisfy them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, 2013 @03:53PM (#45252939)

    Politician: We're commissioning a study on biodiversity. But this study strictly focuses on intelligent design, so don't include anything about evolution. After all, we should explore alternative explanations for a prevailing theory.
    Biologist: We refuse to participate in your misleading, artificially limited study.
    Idiot Slashdot Commenters: The biologists are an evolutionist cult! They're... they're building a cathedral! Science isn't just confirming what you know! Real scientists would do the investigation to learn more about intelligent design!

    And yes, before, you say it, cyclical climate change is a real phenomenon while intelligent design is not. But the idea is the same. You can't analyze an effect and pretend one of its primary causes just doesn't exist.

  • To quote in part; " ... National Weather Service, pointed out that âoecyclicalâ isnâ(TM)t even a scientific term."

    So they do not or will not recognize that weather is or can be cyclical. No surprise since on longer time scales than a generation or two of human activity becomes said activity becomes immeasurably minute compared to geological, solar influences and things on a much more macro level. Those "scientists" insisting on including human activity is like a scientist looking at a grai

  • But she is more than willing to be a political pawn for the pro-humans-are-causing-climate-change-fanatics.

    She is shallower than a puddle of water in the Sahara.
  • by Xolotl (675282) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:01PM (#45253005) Journal

    No one has RTFA it seems ... (I know, I know, /.)

    The scientists are being asked to study the effects of climate change on Nebraska, not climate change itself.

    in that context restricting them to studying the effects of cyclical changes only is stupid, and the reason for their protest.

    See also the longer article here http://www.omaha.com/article/20131024/NEWS/131029338/1707#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists [omaha.com]

    • by skine (1524819)

      So, this is really just an example of what we all (should have) learned when taught logic:

      False premises lead to whatever conclusion you want.

      In order for the statement "If only cyclical changes influence climate, then the effect on the climate of Nebraska will be ________," to even be worth asking, there has to be a good reason to assume that only cyclical changes influence climate, or a good reason not to assume other influences.

  • Great opportunity. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mevets (322601) on Sunday October 27, 2013 @04:32PM (#45253219)

    Method:
    1. Collect data on pre-inhabited Nebraska [ say 1CE - 1700 CE - soil samples, tree rings, etc.. ]
    2. Take earliest modern measurements [ say 1890 - 1900 ].
    3. Superimpose #2 measurements upon #1 curves.
    4. Announce expected weather for 1950 - 2050; ignoring actual measurements made during this period.
    5. Conclude that the difference between measured, 1950..2013, and expected is human caused.
    6. Spend rest of budget on beer + pizza.

    It might actually be interesting.....

"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler

Working...