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

[Michael Hardner]

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

Fair enough, but the claim is that they have a liberal bias. Without further qualification, then it's implied that you're comparing them against people on the whole. ( Presumably in America, but what is a "normal" sample space is another culturally loaded conversation isn't it ?)

[ToadBrother]

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.

Really? I do not buy it for a second. Add this to the list of Creationist claims aped by climate skeptics.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

No human is unbiased. But zealots are easy to spot.

[bloodyminded]

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.

I was going to refute this--55% self-identified liberal doesn't sound terribly high. But on the other hand, I simply don't know the stats for the public, so...who knows?

It raises, and is related to, another interesting question:

Why are artists/entertainers and scientists so often liberal?

[bloodyminded]

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)?

Yes, these are not only good questions, but are crucial ones.

[TimG]

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.

It takes time to reverse the train. If governments hostile to AGW were in power for 20 years you would see the science would adjust accordingly.

[wyly]

It takes time to reverse the train. If governments hostile to AGW were in power for 20 years you would see the science would adjust accordingly.

ya we would have scientific results confirming a 6,000year old earth ...

[Michael Hardner]

I was going to refute this--55% self-identified liberal doesn't sound terribly high. But on the other hand, I simply don't know the stats for the public, so...who knows?

Sorry - when you look at the 2% self-defined conservatives, that's low. So of the people who identify of left or right, a large majority goes left.

Why are artists/entertainers and scientists so often liberal?

Because they care about THE PEOPLE, man !

[wyly]

I was going to refute this--55% self-identified liberal doesn't sound terribly high. But on the other hand, I simply don't know the stats for the public, so...who knows?

It raises, and is related to, another interesting question:

Why are artists/entertainers and scientists so often liberal?

they think about deeper issues other than making money...for other people the most important social issue they think about in their day is what colour shirt to wear...it all depends on what you see as important in your life...

[TimG]

Really? I do not buy it for a second.

Are you really that naive? Even after the dirty laundry exposed in the climategate emails. The trouble is evidence for this kind of peer pressure only comes out in hearsay like this comment by Nir J. Shaviv.

I witnessed how an editor rejected a paper I wrote without forwarding the reviewers my detailed response to their comments (he was perhaps afraid that the reviewers would actually be convinced with my detailed response which included detailed referrals to published results proving my points).

I saw another rejection (perhaps by the same editor...), this time of a paper written by a colleague that included the punch line: "any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected"

I saw how proposal reviewers bluntly reject funding requests, based on similar beliefs in the global warming apocalypse. I even know of someone who didn't get tenure because he advocated non party line ideas.

http://www.sciencebits.com/node/211

Many similar complaints are out there.

[The_Squid]

It takes time to reverse the train. If governments hostile to AGW were in power for 20 years you would see the science would adjust accordingly.

Your assertion has no merit.

The government of Canada HAS been hostile to AGW. Scientists come out with their findings DESPITE the government, not because of it. The USA government has also not been GW research friendly, and yet even their top government scientists still come out with conclusions contrary to what the government would like (see NASA).

The Liberals never did anything that would help reduce GW. Just the opposite in fact. The next Liberal gov't probably will just do some talking as well. Canada will have to be dragged by the hair to do something about GW by Europe and probably the USA.

I took a drive through WA and OR recently and was absolutely astounded by the amount of wind-power electricity that they are using. In BC, we have 1 windmill that runs the shitters (or something) at the top of Grouse Mountain built for the olympics.

[TimG]

ya we would have scientific results confirming a 6,000year old earth

You are truely clueless if you cannot disguish between a claim that CO2 sensitivity to too low to cause any problems and the claim that the earth is only 6000 years old.

[TimG]

The government of Canada HAS been hostile to AGW. Scientists come out with their findings DESPITE the government, not because of it. The USA government has also not been GW research friendly, and yet even their top government scientists still come out with conclusions contrary to what the government would like (see NASA).

AGW research is dominated by the US and UK and it was pro-AGW governments that set up the bodies and tasked them with finding the science that justified the IPCC position. When Bush came in there is only so much he could do to reverse the tide because of the momentum created by prior governments. That is why I said it would take 20 years to reverse the conclusions but there is no doubt that they would be reversed in the peer reviewed literature if that is what governments said they wanted.

[ToadBrother]

It takes time to reverse the train. If governments hostile to AGW were in power for 20 years you would see the science would adjust accordingly.

Yes, sort of like how Mendelian Genetics was eclipsed by Lysenkoism in the USSR.

[bloodyminded]

Sorry - when you look at the 2% self-defined conservatives, that's low. So of the people who identify of left or right, a large majority goes left.

I agree with the bit about self-identified conservatives (and that's far lower than I would have expected, frankly). But no, voting Democrat, or even self-describing as a liberal, does not unambiguously mean that a large majority goes "left."

Unless our standard for "left" is "left of the right."

Because they care about THE PEOPLE, man !

I think there's more to it than this caricature would suggest.

[ToadBrother]

Are you really that naive? Even after the dirty laundry exposed in the climategate emails.

Which showed very little of anything beyond fevered imaginations of the pseudo-skeptics

The trouble is evidence for this kind of peer pressure only comes out in hearsay like this comment by Nir J. Shaviv.

http://www.sciencebits.com/node/211

Many similar complaints are out there.

Yes, hearsay. Shaviv won't name the editor, won't name the name of the other party that allegedly had a paper rejected, though with the reference in the paper, I'm dubious of the story myself. At any rate, Shaviv's theory has been debunked.

[wyly]

You are truely clueless if you cannot disguish between a claim that CO2 sensitivity to too low to cause any problems and the claim that the earth is only 6000 years old.

no you're the clueless one, 97% of climatologists agree that man made CO2 causes a significant problem...you could be in the 3% that disagrees but since you're not even a scientist you don't even qualify for that 3%, now that's clueless...

[Michael Hardner]

I think there's more to it than this caricature would suggest.

New thread ...

Why are entrepreneurs right-wing and artists left-wing ?

[dre]

AGW research is dominated by the US and UK and it was pro-AGW governments that set up the bodies and tasked them with finding the science that justified the IPCC position. When Bush came in there is only so much he could do to reverse the tide because of the momentum created by prior governments. That is why I said it would take 20 years to reverse the conclusions but there is no doubt that they would be reversed in the peer reviewed literature if that is what governments said they wanted.

Everything but the kitchen sink eh?

1. Its impossible for us to make a difference.

2. New technologies wont work.

3. Investing in energy technology will "destroy our economy".

4. The whole thing is just a big liberal conspiracy.

All this stuff is just boring-assed political hackery. All your doing is parroting somebody elses canned talking points.

[dre]

New thread ...

Why are entrepreneurs right-wing and artists left-wing ?

Arent artists entrepreneurs? Provided they at least sell some shit?

[bloodyminded]

New thread ...

Why are entrepreneurs right-wing and artists left-wing ?

Entrepreneurs no doubt tend towards fiscal conservatism--as do a heck of a lot of self-described liberals, since we're on the topic. But while I'm not sure, I really don't think they tend to be more conservative in other ways than the public at large.

Whereas I do think that artists tend to be (generally speaking, of course) more inclined leftwards.

[TimG]

2. New technologies wont work.

At the end of the day this is the real problem. There would actually be no debate if these technologies actually worked or were likely to work any time soon.

[Michael Hardner]

Arent artists entrepreneurs? Provided they at least sell some shit?

Well sometimes they are but not always.

[Michael Hardner]

Entrepreneurs no doubt tend towards fiscal conservatism--as do a heck of a lot of self-described liberals, since we're on the topic. But while I'm not sure, I really don't think they tend to be more conservative in other ways than the public at large.

Whereas I do think that artists tend to be (generally speaking, of course) more inclined leftwards.

New thread, though... I started this one so...

[bloodyminded]

New thread, though... I started this one so...

Granted.