Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[waldo]

Thanks for the link. But it's not a convincing argument: you claim "largely left-leaning" (and the author claims "overwhelmingly liberal"), after showing stats of 56% self-identified liberals, and 55% Democrat-voters.

Since 50%/50% is itself statistically unlikely, I don't see this as powerful evidence of bias.

At any rate, personal political leanings (which everybody has, whether they identify them or not) is not evidence of scientific bias.

it doesn't matter that it's not evidence of scientific bias... deniers simply plant the seed and foment implication. Notwithstanding, my quick return of that single Pew Survey, shows a 52% figure (but who's quibbling over 4%)... I'm just wondering how 5x% of anything gets labeled as "overwhelmingly"???

notwithstanding, of course, the survey (as I can read it) doesn't appear to provide a metric for what constitutes, by definition, "liberal" versus "moderate" versus "conservative". Or how TimG translates "right" versus "left" across a 3-fold breakout of "liberal/moderate/conservative". Nor does it distinguish itself in terms of it's apparent American attachments; that is to say, is it an American research institute surveying American scientists? And, if so, how does an American influenced understanding of "liberal" versus "moderate" versus "conservative" labeling, translate to a global perspective (to a global body of scientists)? But don't let any of that dissuade TimG from labeling all scientists as "overwhelmingly left-leaning"... not that there's anything wrong with that

[TimG]

And, just as much to the point, what makes AGW ideas "left-leaning"?

All of the anti-CO2 policies currently being discussed are only acceptable to people with a left-leaning political ideology. This is particularily true of the policies being pushed by the UN and the IPCC. A left leaning scientist will tend to interpret ambiguous data in a way that supports those objectives. A right leaning scientist will do the reverse. Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

All of the anti-CO2 policies currently being discussed are only acceptable to people with a left-leaning political ideology. This is particularily true of the policies being pushed by the UN and the IPCC. A left leaning scientist will tend to interpret ambiguous data in a way that supports those objectives. A right leaning scientist will do the reverse.

Again, why will they "tend to" do such a thing? You have laid a case which suggests that if there will be a politically-directed bias, it is more likely that the bias will be--well, not necessarily left (as you incorrectly assert), but more likely mainstream liberal than conservative...these distinctions are not even clear in themselves, by the way. And this is a far cry from stating that "it will tend" to occur.

And where is all the conservative bias among geologists' findings?

Edited October 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

where scientists work is determined by their interests and if it's of financial interest to the corporate world...most will take work wherever it is offered, and if it's researching the sex life of a moose that offer isn't coming from the private sector.

You are living in a dream world. Academic scientists face the same pressure to spin their research in a way that supports the current objectives if the bureaucracy and government. It is well known that many scientists interested in things like the 'mating habits of moose' have been deliberately linking their work to climate change in order to attract funding.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And, if so, how does an American influenced understanding of "liberal" versus "moderate" versus "conservative" labeling, translate to a global perspective (to a global body of scientists)? ....

Why not...it seems to work for everything else, regardless of topic 'round here!

[TimG]

Again, why will they "tend to" do such a thing? Where is all the conservative bias among geologists' findings?

Geologists are largely sceptical of AGW.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And, if so, how does an American influenced understanding of "liberal" versus "moderate" versus "conservative" labeling, translate to a global perspective (to a global body of scientists)? ....

Why not...it seems to work for everything else, regardless of topic 'round here!

[waldo]

All of the anti-CO2 policies currently being discussed are only acceptable to people with a left-leaning political ideology. This is particularily true of the policies being pushed by the UN and the IPCC. A left leaning scientist will tend to interpret ambiguous data in a way that supports those objectives. A right leaning scientist will do the reverse.

since it's your survey, where do you position moderates in this, your latest rambling piece of unsubstantiated tripe?

[bloodyminded]

Geologists are largely sceptical of AGW.

If this were true, you'd be rather suspicious of their political bias, I should think.

At any rate, do you have a link for this?

[wyly]

You are living in a dream world. Academic scientists face the same pressure to spin their research in a way that supports the current objectives if the bureaucracy and government. It is well known that many scientists interested in things like the 'mating habits of moose' have been deliberately linking their work to climate change in order to attract funding.

bullmooseshit...I know a number of public and private scientists doing research and where their research takes them doesn't matter they have job regardless of what they find only the data matters...your take on it is straight out of conspiracy theorists handbook, it's loony...

[TimG]

If this were true, you'd be rather suspicious of their political bias, I should think.

I acknowledge that the opinions of geologists is also likely skewed by their politics. The point I am making is everyone is biased and one cannot interpret any claim without knowing the biases that affected the people making the claims. The trouble in the AGW debate is the myth that government funded scientists have no bias that might skew their claims.

[TimG]

I know a number of public and private scientists doing research and where their research takes them doesn't matter they have job regardless of what they find only the data matters.

The don't get to choose what gets funded. They have to convince someone to fund it. This invariably introduces a bias into the science that gets done.

[wyly]

If this were true, you'd be rather suspicious of their political bias, I should think.

At any rate, do you have a link for this?

I know two, one a friend, the other my bro-in-law, the friend a senior geologist with Conoco-phillips agrees with AGW but won't say so publicly(not a wise career move) and my B-I-L an independent oil geologist has no job issue confirms it's AGW-CO2... Edited October 5, 2010 by wyly

[TimG]

I know two, one a friend, the other my bro-in-law, the friend a senior geologist with Conoco-phillips agrees with AGW but won't say so publicly(not a wise career move) and my B-I-L an independent oil geologist has job issue confirms it's AGW-CO2.

Scientist who have to beg the government for money face the exact same pressures. i.e. expressing skepticism about CO2-AGW link is a very bad career move.

[Michael Hardner]

where scientists work is determined by their interests and if it's of financial interest to the corporate world...most will take work wherever it is offered, and if it's researching the sex life of a moose that offer isn't coming from the private sector...

None of that is reflected in the survey, though. It just says whether scientists view themselves, or are viewed as conservative, liberal or what have you.

I asked for a valid source for the claim, and to my surprise I got it.

Scientists appear to be much more liberal than the public.

[Michael Hardner]

The don't get to choose what gets funded. They have to convince someone to fund it. This invariably introduces a bias into the science that gets done.

I don't think it's invariable. Any good journalist or scientist should be able to be objective enough to do their job.

[wyly]

The don't get to choose what gets funded. They have to convince someone to fund it. This invariably introduces a bias into the science that gets done.

so we have federal government full of Climate Change deniers who according to you are busy funding researchers that are colluding in some wild conspiracy to verify AGW...

[waldo]

Scientists appear to be much more liberal than the public.

if that is the case, that particular survey isn't your support to make this claim... the survey was about the public perception of scientists and the scientists designation of themselves. You seemed to fall over the survey without regard to the implied intent for which the survey was offered; i.e. to imply scientific bias. In that vein, your acceptance of the survey belies your tacit approval of the false implication.

it doesn't matter that it's not evidence of scientific bias... deniers simply plant the seed and foment implication. Notwithstanding, my quick return of that

single Pew Survey

, shows a 52% figure (but who's quibbling over 4%)... I'm just wondering how 5x% of anything gets labeled as "overwhelmingly"???

notwithstanding, of course, the survey (as I can read it) doesn't appear to provide a metric for what constitutes, by definition, "liberal" versus "moderate" versus "conservative". Or how TimG translates "right" versus "left" across a 3-fold breakout of "liberal/moderate/conservative". Nor does it distinguish itself in terms of it's apparent American attachments; that is to say, is it an American research institute surveying American scientists? And, if so, how does an American influenced understanding of "liberal" versus "moderate" versus "conservative" labeling, translate to a global perspective (to a global body of scientists)? But don't let any of that dissuade TimG from labeling

all scientists

as "overwhelmingly left-leaning"... not that there's anything wrong with that

[wyly]

None of that is reflected in the survey, though. It just says whether scientists view themselves, or are viewed as conservative, liberal or what have you.

I asked for a valid source for the claim, and to my surprise I got it.

Scientists appear to be much more liberal than the public.

most people that have a university eductation are more liberal than the general public that are not as well educated...

[bloodyminded]

I acknowledge that the opinions of geologists is also likely skewed by their politics. The point I am making is everyone is biased and one cannot interpret any claim without knowing the biases that affected the people making the claims. The trouble in the AGW debate is the myth that government funded scientists have no bias that might skew their claims.

I"m still hoping for a link showing that geologists are "largely sceptical."

[ToadBrother]

There are surveys that show that scientists in academia are largely left leaning. The only exceptions are field like geology where scientists frequently work with private companies as part of their research.

And there are surveys that show most scientists are agnostics and atheists. These are used as justifications by Creationists to attack evolutionary theory.

That someone has political or religious opinions does not mean they do shoddy or slanted research. Climate change isn't the invention of a pack of Marxist ideologues, no matter how many times you repeat it. These are scientists doing what scientists do; reporting the theories they have developed. These theories are as rigorously defended as any theories.

Believe me, there's no greater dream for any researcher than upsetting an orthodoxy. If AGW was as weak a theory as you assert, the scientific community would be agog with it.

[Michael Hardner]

You seemed to fall over the survey without regard to the implied intent for which the survey was offered; i.e. to imply scientific bias.

This is the pot calling the kettle black, Waldo. If scientists can avoid their biases to study global warming, why can't they avoid their biases to study ... uh ... biases ?

[Michael Hardner]

This is the pot calling the kettle black, Waldo. If scientists can avoid their biases to study global warming, why can't they avoid their biases to study ... uh ... biases ?

Maybe that's a mixed metaphor... but I'm biased...

[jbg]

hmmm... somehow I didn't see a 180° turnaround, from your one post to the next, as being a genuine compliment. If it was, truly, well... I wasn't attacking the legal profession - I was providing a catchy recognizable advertising angle. It's public domain - feel free to use it... or not.

It may be a good joke e-mail; but then again clones of most of your posts would be.

[TimG]

I don't think it's invariable. Any good journalist or scientist should be able to be objective enough to do their job.

ROTFL. An unbiased journalist is an oxymoron. There are a few that do a better job of presenting opinions that they disagree with but most do not. The main reason is the definition of 'balanced' coverage is subject to bias.