AbNo wrote:So, first you're saying we should ignore people that aren't published in Indon-approved tm scientific journals, then a few sentences later, you are saying we should evaluate them?
I'm saying that not being able to make it into a peer-reviewed journal is
a mark against them, but that doesn't prevent them from trying to make their case (and in doing so, demonstrating that the system is biased against them).
Yaa! Now I'm a tin-foil hat wearing, Bible-thumping creationist conspiracy nut!
Well, you appear to think that anti-global warming publications can't get published because of a scientific conspiracy against them
AbNo wrote:Singer is one of a LONG line of scientists derided, demonized, and silenced because they do not perpetuate the Great Global Warming Myth, and if you think I'm just taking singular, random events from the past, I'd like to point out that it happened just three short weeks ago.
A quick search for "global warming dissent" pulls up stories with lines such as the Telegraph's "Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming", the Boston Herald's "...when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy", or, for more fun, the Senate's web site, in which The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen advocated the American Meteorological Society deny the AMS Seal of Approval.
If you expect to be believed, you should take steps to support your position, which according to your own words, is that people who agree with you can't get published. For anyone who actually trusts a scientific field to produce unbiased results, such a stonewalling of a position is most likely because it's not good science.
You could attempt to argue this by showing the science (which Vaniver did a good job of doing with his citation, I can honestly say I'm recalculating my perception of global warming), or by trying to prove a bias.
AbNo wrote:Do you believe that there is incentive, be it financial, personal, political, or otherwise, to perpetuate the myth of global warming?
Not so prevalent that it would prevent any significant meteorology publication from publishing an anti-global warming finding. And in fact, if I'm to take Vaniver's source as accurate (and it seems about as solid as you can get for being a newspaper), it isn't the case.
There's clearly a bias in media interpretation of the scientific community, but I have no reason to doubt the community itself, especially one so large and diverse as the meteorological one.
AbNo wrote:Below are some potential incentives that I could think of in the span of about 30 seconds (I'm on a time schedule today). Feel free to take them into consideration while you
Financial: Donations, research grants, book deals, cushy jobs
Personal: Fame, reputation (no one wants to be proven wrong), personal legacy, free travel (I hear Bali is nice in December and January)
Political: "Vote for me! I'll end pollution!"
Oh, and if you can do that without going "ZOMG! Teh big oil companies!!!11", that'd be great. It seems like everytime I post a question like this, the only response I get is "Yeah, but *tired almost copy-and-paste from two days ago*" that tries to deflect the argument.
Who is possibly supplying all the money to pay off the boards of every meteorology journal in the western hemisphere
? Are you trying to tell me that each and every one - or even a majority - is doting on a cushy research grant specifically concerning global warming such that they would risk their jobs by making unethical decisions in order to keep?
Similarly, there's money for anti-global warming advocates... but where's the motive to give it? Western energy companies can stand to rake in cash for changeover to clean energy sources, and it's not like oil would become any less vital to our economy - petroleum is used to make PLASTIC, for God's sake, and is the least expensive source for most kinds of it. Octane is practically a byproduct of the production of something far more vital to our economy than SUV's.
Outside of the claims of mass media, there is no reason to believe that there's any bias in the meteorological community as a whole for or
against global warming. If the media is claiming that such a bias exists, my first instinct is to say they're full of it - after all, if we've established anything in this thread, it's that the media does not accurately report science.
As such, if anti-global warming advocates are seriously having such a hard time being believed, it's probably because they aren't very believable. If anything, I consider it much more believable that science that does not imply global warming is simply being ignored by the media, and that this 'censoring', as you quoted, is a fabrication.
AbNo wrote:Oh, I never said a conspiracy against the people, that's your wording, be it intentional or otherwise.
You seem to be trying to make my words into and us vs them (pro-GW scientists) situation, and I do not appreciate it.
My words? You speak of the "Global Warming Myth", and pick quotes from individuals talking about how denyers of the myth are treated as heretical and censored, and _I_ am trying to make your words into an us-vs-them?
AbNo wrote:I simply say that there is plenty of other incentive for them, namely, the reasons listed above. Going hippy-level green is becoming its own big business, ironically enough. There's a lot of money to be had. Ever look up "carbon credit" on eBay? On Google?
I know what the carbon credit system is, and I think the idea has both upsides and downsides. On the one hand, I think it works well as an incentive program. On the other, it presents a challenge for a company to reduce their carbon emissions when they must already buy additional credits to sustain their business - scrubbers are hella expensive. Thus in some cases, it can backfire.
But, on the topic, if you're going to try to tell me that industries that recieve carbon credit for their emissions, and that can sell their credit because they are not producing much carbon emissions, are in a position to influence the scientific community, please support your claim.