2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>But science and policy work hand in hand.

Almost. Science should direct policy; political ideology should not drive science. Other countries have tried that. Lysenkoism and eugenics were two results; climate change denial (as implemented in government) is the latest.

Are you suggesting that climate change denial is an example of policy in science but climate change assenting is not policy? Isn't that like saying, "supporting yellow is an example of arbitrary support of a color, but supporting red is not?"

I respect the hell out of you but your post follows a certain pattern which I will call The 5 Steps:

1) Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and its consequences are disastrous and will be worse unless we do something drastic;
2) Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and we haven't seen it yet, but the consequences will be disastrous unless we do something drastic;
3) Anthropogenic influence is causing global climate change, and the consequences will be disastrous unless we do something drastic;
4) Okay, the global climate is fluid and always has been, but can we really afford to have the earth change its climate when we like it the way it was when I was a kid? We must do something drastic or the consequences will be disastrous.
5) We never said that warming or even climate change would be global. It fits in perfectly with global climate change that we would see and increased incidence of either El Nino or El Nina that would vary year to year, and for temperatures to be either above or below average and even average.
6) See? The climate didn't change. I was right. Had it not been for the GW/GCH movement, we would have been under 268 feet of water right here. Imagine how much better it would have been if we had done something drastic!!!

Bill - scientists should ADVISE policy makers. We have had scientists advise the public and policy makers. Here in the US we have had scientific advice on the following:
1) DDT - banned, resulting in millions of additional malaria deaths, while the risk science now has serious doubts. Junk science affecting policy, and policy not in agreement with science. So what are a few million dark skinned savages dying? We gotta control population.;
2) Dioxin panic and Times Beach, Missouri. It actually isn't the "most toxic substance known to man" and the assassination attempt on Viktor Yuschenko with dioxin gave him nothing more than a bad case of chloracne. Yep, dioxin science affecting policy. No reversal there in policy - it was the CDC who was responsible for the scare to begin with;
3) Scientific fears that have resulted in ZERO new nuclear reactors coming online in the US in 20 years. Science affected policy there, too, and may come back not on the basis of science of nukes, but on the basis of policies against greenhouse gases. Bill - you yourself have mentioned the deaths caused by coal and how nuclear would cause far fewer. Too bad science scared the shit out of people 30 years ago, eh? They were wrong, but the policies continue because the public believed the fear.
4) Plutonium preceded dioxin as the most toxic substance in history. Remember Ralph Nader pissed off when a paper was published in 1979 debunking the plutonium toxicity myth? Oh, yeah, a 25,000 year half life means "pretty stable." But we don't worry about cesium-137. Remember when a scientist dared Nader to eat the same amount of caffeine by volume as the scientist would eat plutonium?
5) Oh! You don't hear much about radon anymore. People are still afraid of it.;
6) Alar. Science gets it banned.
7) Extinct species. Some scientists predict thousands of extinctions peer decade. Meanwhile, more "extinct" species are being found...
8). Edited to add - I forgot global cooling!!! (Jeez - maybe Ehrlich WAS right.)
These are just off the top of my head, Bill. While I know there are plenty of right-wing agendas affecting science, I figured I'd stick to these fairly recent scares that were junk and affected policy. And policy has affected science.

Nobody DARES to challenge Nader, Ehrlich, Gore, etc. Not if they know what is good for them...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,076]

>Are you suggesting that climate change denial is an example of policy in science . . . .

Climate change denial (and alarmism) are political positions. If someone's political position as a denier is used to suppress certain results of scientific research so as to mold public opinion, then yes, that is an example of policy in science. An example would be a politican who directs a scientist to change his work so that his conclusions are more politically acceptable.

>but climate change assenting is not policy?

"Climate change assenting" means that someone agrees the climate is changing. Since that is a fact to everyone but the most extreme deniers, no, it's not policy, any more than "evolution assenting" is a political policy. No changes to science or to politics is caused by someone agreeing that the climate is changing.

What _would_ be an example of a policy change would be a cap on CO2 emissions on power plants based on the desire to reduce CO2 emissions and thus slow the temperature increase.

>I respect the hell out of you but your post follows a certain pattern which
>I will call The 5 Steps:

>1) Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and its consequences are
>disastrous and will be worse unless we do something drastic;

I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>2) Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and we haven't seen it yet, but
>the consequences will be disastrous unless we do something drastic;

We have seen it. It's clear both in the CO2 and temperature records. I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>3) Anthropogenic influence is causing global climate change, and the
>consequences will be disastrous unless we do something drastic;

We have certainly influenced the climate in many ways (not just CO2). I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>4) Okay, the global climate is fluid and always has been, but can we really
>afford to have the earth change its climate when we like it the way it was
>when I was a kid? We must do something drastic or the consequences will be
>disastrous.

Climate is fluid and changes with time. We are changing it more rapidly than it otherwise would be changing. I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>5) We never said that warming or even climate change would be global. It fits
>in perfectly with global climate change that we would see and increased
>incidence of either El Nino or El Nina that would vary year to year, and for
>temperatures to be either above or below average and even average.

Warming and climate change already have been global, so your statement makes no sense.

>6) See? The climate didn't change. I was right. Had it not been for the
>GW/GCH movement, we would have been under 268 feet of water right here.
>?Imagine how much better it would have been if we had done something
>drastic!!!

You are contradicting yourself even within your own imaginary argument.

>Bill - scientists should ADVISE policy makers.

Of course. Scientists research; policy makers make policy. When politicians instruct scientists to alter their results to achieve a more politically acceptable outcome, the system is badly broken.

>1) DDT - banned, resulting in millions of additional malaria deaths, while the
>risk science now has serious doubts. Junk science affecting policy, and
>policy not in agreement with science. So what are a few million dark skinned
>savages dying? We gotta control population.

No one is claiming that.

>2) Dioxin panic and Times Beach, Missouri. It actually isn't the "most toxic
>substance known to man" and the assassination attempt on Viktor
>Yuschenko with dioxin gave him nothing more than a bad case of chloracne.
>Yep, dioxin science affecting policy. No reversal there in policy - it was the
>CDC who was responsible for the scare to begin with.

Dioxin is a dangerous poison. It can cause cancer, chloracne, thyroid disorders and nervous system disorders. Claiming that one person is poisoned and did not die is akin to finding a man who lived to age 82 while smoking two packs a day, and then claiming that smoking is therefore not dangerous.

>3) Scientific fears that have resulted in ZERO new nuclear reactors coming
>online in the US in 20 years. Science affected policy there, too, and may
>come back not on the basis of science of nukes, but on the basis of policies
>against greenhouse gases.

No. Scientists and engineers advised on the relative levels of safety (i.e. nuclear plants are still safer than coal plants) and the PUBLIC decided they did not want nuclear power. This is an example of how you claim things SHOULD work.

Do you advocate that nuclear power plants be built despite what the public (and their representatives) say? Should scientists and engineers set the policy on nuclear power and ignore everyone else?

>4) Plutonium preceded dioxin as the most toxic substance in history.
>Remember Ralph Nader pissed off when a paper was published in 1979
>debunking the plutonium toxicity myth?

I don't think you understand that subject. Plutonium is not chemically toxic but its isotopes are extremely toxic radiologically.

>Oh, yeah, a 25,000 year half life means "pretty stable."

Again, I'm not sure you understand that. Half life does not directly relate to toxicity.

>5) Oh! You don't hear much about radon anymore. People are still afraid of it.

?? Right. And some people are afraid of terrorism, and some people are afraid of the dark. So?

>7) Extinct species. Some scientists predict thousands of extinctions peer
>decade. Meanwhile, more "extinct" species are being found...

?? Right. What does that have to do with anything?

>8). Edited to add - I forgot global cooling!

?? What does that have to do with anything? In the 1970's a scientist published a paper detailing the cooling effects from stratospheric particulates, and said that if it got many times worse it could cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight. That was, and is, true. What is your problem with that?

>Nobody DARES to challenge Nader, Ehrlich, Gore, etc.

It is ironic that you make that statement right after detailing several challenges to them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Climate change denial (and alarmism) are political positions. If someone's political position as a denier is used to suppress certain results of scientific research so as to mold public opinion, then yes, that is an example of policy in science. An example would be a politican who directs a scientist to change his work so that his conclusions are more politically acceptable.

Of course. Or a politician who directs scientists to change work so that conclusions are more politically acceptable. But what of the scientist who, without direction, modifies work, data, conclusions and assumptions so as to make the conclusions better fit their hypotheses?

And what scientist would want to risk being publicly tarred by the politicians or lobbies for suggesting that the calls of alarm are premature or misguided? Ted Koppel rebuked Al Gore in about 1994 when Gore asked him to go after deniers. Such a thing has a tendency to chill opposing scientific opinion - much like those of us who favor due process are accused of being pro-terrorist.

Quote

No changes to science or to politics is caused by someone agreeing that the climate is changing.

I agree that it is foolish. I also think the point is that the disputes are not whether climate is changing. They are: (1) Is the earth warming and if so, what ios the nature and extent?; (2) is the climate change within normal limits; and (3) if so, what is the nature and extent of anthropogenic causes?

If there is climate change, does that mean that it is warming? Cooling? Getting more or less humid? What? The key is still going after "greenhouse gases." If the climate is "cooling" then greenhouse gases, as the present understanding is indicated, wouldn't be a culprit.

Quote

What _would_ be an example of a policy change would be a cap on CO2 emissions on power plants based on the desire to reduce CO2 emissions and thus slow the temperature increase.

Would scientists make recommendations?

Quote

>1) Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and its consequences are
>disastrous and will be worse unless we do something drastic;

I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>2) Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and we haven't seen it yet, but
>the consequences will be disastrous unless we do something drastic;

We have seen it. It's clear both in the CO2 and temperature records. I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>3) Anthropogenic influence is causing global climate change, and the
>consequences will be disastrous unless we do something drastic;

We have certainly influenced the climate in many ways (not just CO2). I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>4) Okay, the global climate is fluid and always has been, but can we really
>afford to have the earth change its climate when we like it the way it was
>when I was a kid? We must do something drastic or the consequences will be
>disastrous.

Climate is fluid and changes with time. We are changing it more rapidly than it otherwise would be changing. I did not say that it will be disastrous, nor did I advocate doing anything drastic.

>5) We never said that warming or even climate change would be global. It fits
>in perfectly with global climate change that we would see and increased
>incidence of either El Nino or El Nina that would vary year to year, and for
>temperatures to be either above or below average and even average.

Warming and climate change already have been global, so your statement makes no sense.

>6) See? The climate didn't change. I was right. Had it not been for the
>GW/GCH movement, we would have been under 268 feet of water right here.
>?Imagine how much better it would have been if we had done something
>drastic!!!

You are contradicting yourself even within your own imaginary argument.

Sorry, bill. I had another asshole moment.

Quote

Of course. Scientists research; policy makers make policy. When politicians instruct scientists to alter their results to achieve a more politically acceptable outcome, the system is badly broken.

Why must politicians instruct the scientists? Dont' you think scientists do it on their own? As far as I know, it wasn't a politician who instructed Mann to ignore the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. It seems he did it on his own. Policymakers at the IPCC then justified it by claiming that the events were ignored because they weren't "geosynchronous" - and at the same time stating that data was incomplete for the Southern hemisphere under at least 1861 and explicitly stating that Mann's graph showed only the northern hemisphere. That's hogwash!

It's another way of saying, "This would look like a letter "V" if we included those events. That doesn't show what we want it to show. So, we'll ignore them. Good job, Mann!"

Quote

>1) DDT - banned, resulting in millions of additional malaria deaths, while the
>risk science now has serious doubts. Junk science affecting policy, and
>policy not in agreement with science. So what are a few million dark skinned
>savages dying? We gotta control population.

No one is claiming that.

No one? Claiming what? That DDT is toxic? Or that millions are dying because there is no longer a cheap, long-lasting and effective anti-mosquito agent? I noted for historical curiosity that DDT was banned by the industrialized countries after the end of colonial rule. And yet, DDT still won't be used. (I bet it would see a resurgence in the use of DDT if global warming drove malaria into the temperate regions - just a hypothesis).

Quote

>2) Dioxin panic and Times Beach, Missouri. It actually isn't the "most toxic
>substance known to man" and the assassination attempt on Viktor
>Yuschenko with dioxin gave him nothing more than a bad case of chloracne.
>Yep, dioxin science affecting policy. No reversal there in policy - it was the
>CDC who was responsible for the scare to begin with.

Dioxin is a dangerous poison. It can cause cancer, chloracne, thyroid disorders and nervous system disorders. Claiming that one person is poisoned and did not die is akin to finding a man who lived to age 82 while smoking two packs a day, and then claiming that smoking is therefore not dangerous.

Hmm. How about "Dioxin can be toxic at extremely high levels." The factory explosion at Seveso, Italy shows no increased incidence of cancer - that was 32 years ago! The study stated there may be an increased risk of certain types of cancer. A rational conclusion is that dioxin may increase certain types of cancer but decrease other types of cancer.

It's like Vitamin A - a beneficial thing that'll kill you if you have too much. Vitamin A is also a toxic poison if you have too much, causing birth defects, liver problems, increased brain fluid pressures, etc. Vitamin K - an important electrolyte - is actually used in lethal injections because it is so good at causing the heart to stop. Just about ANYTHING in large amounts will kill you.

Claiming that dioxin is a dangerous poison even though, apparently, nobody has died from it, it not too scientific. It's why I brought up the assassination attempt - even assassins thought it'd kill him efficiently. It gave him a bad case of chloracne.

Quote

>3) Scientific fears that have resulted in ZERO new nuclear reactors coming
>online in the US in 20 years. Science affected policy there, too, and may
>come back not on the basis of science of nukes, but on the basis of policies
>against greenhouse gases.

No. Scientists and engineers advised on the relative levels of safety (i.e. nuclear plants are still safer than coal plants) and the PUBLIC decided they did not want nuclear power. This is an example of how you claim things SHOULD work.

Really? Weren't scientists the ones who advised nuclear dangers? Or was it there a scientific consensus that nuclear plants aren't dangerous? (I'll give the China Syndrome a lot of credit, by the way).

Quote

Do you advocate that nuclear power plants be built despite what the public (and their representatives) say? Should scientists and engineers set the policy on nuclear power and ignore everyone else?

Not necessarily. Indeed, the public tide is turning. I personally think we should have more. Then again, I voted against Prop 8 and we know how that turned out.

Quote

I don't think you understand that subject. Plutonium is not chemically toxic but its isotopes are extremely toxic radiologically.

Really? Pu-239 (which is the most common) isn't unless one inhales large quantities of it. (And you wouldn't want that. Plutonium has a vile smell. That's why it's chemical symbol is "PU"). Nobody has ever died from plutonium toxicity, either. Caffeine is more toxic. You get more radiation from your smoke detector. But, still, it has been publicized as the most toxic substance on earth. Did any scientist have a role in this?

Quote

Again, I'm not sure you understand that. Half life does not directly relate to toxicity.

Here I thought that something with a half-life of 20 years would emit more radiation than something with a halflife of 800,000 years, thus increasing the radiation toxicity of the former compared with the latter. Kinda like the difference between the danger of being near a pilot light burning a tank of propane over a year versus being near a flame burning the whole supply in five minutes.

Quote

In the 1970's a scientist published a paper detailing the cooling effects from stratospheric particulates, and said that if it got many times worse it could cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight. That was, and is, true. What is your problem with that?

Because a whole set of other "scientists" geared into motion and a whole political movement formed. Now, someone publishes a paper that CO2 can cause the earth to heat up by absorbing heat, and it it continues it will warm the planet. And the next big scare took off and won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Quote

It is ironic that you make that statement right after detailing several challenges to them.

I have no money on the line. I have no reputation to be tarnished by it. So "no one" was a lousy choice of terms. Gore wasn't asking Koppel to go after lawyers. Rather, he wanted him to destroy scientists who, if successful, would have cost him over $100 million dollars.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Royd 0]

Quote

In the mean time I am offering Carbon Credits at DEEEEP Discounts. Get yours while they are still hot.

And if we call in the next ten minutes, we can get a second set for only $19.95, along with an autographed poster of Al Gore.

[billvon 3,076]

>But what of the scientist who, without direction, modifies work, data,
>conclusions and assumptions so as to make the conclusions better fit
>their hypotheses?

Then their work is discredited through the peer review process.

>And what scientist would want to risk being publicly tarred by the
>politicians or lobbies for suggesting that the calls of alarm are premature
>or misguided?

Scientists who want to make a name for themselves (provided their research is accurate, of course.) Many scientists out there long for the day that their hard work contradicts long-held public beliefs, and they become the next Pasteur, or Galileo, or Darwin. Such is the stuff Nobel prizes are made of. Heck, I'd love to do it myself, and prove that the assumptions people make about electric car range (for example) are wrong.

> They are: (1) Is the earth warming and if so, what ios the nature and
>extent?

Lots of work being done here, and we have a pretty good idea now from atmospheric, surface, ocean and satellite measurements.

>(2) is the climate change within normal limits . . .

No scientist can answer that unless you define "normal." Does "normal" include the aftermath of massive asteroidal impacts? Then we are well within the normal range. Does "normal" mean "nothing unusual forcing the climate?" Then we are well outside that range.

>(3) if so, what is the nature and extent of anthropogenic causes?

Lots of work being done on that as well. That's basically the IPCC's charter.

>Would scientists make recommendations?

Of course! That's another part of their job; saying that X would work better than Y based on Z. Deciding between X and Y might well be a better job for a politician.

>Why must politicians instruct the scientists?

They should not, and indeed instances of that happening are a big black mark against science policy over the last decade.

>Dont' you think scientists do it on their own?

If your question is "do scientists talk to each other" the answer, of course, is yes.

>As far as I know, it wasn't a politician who instructed Mann to ignore
>the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age.

Nor was it a scientist, since he didn't.

>It's another way of saying, "This would look like a letter "V" if we
>included those events. That doesn't show what we want it to show. So,
>we'll ignore them. Good job, Mann!"

Uh, no. It's more like a historian who researches Shakespeare's life, only to have a detractor say "What about Chaucer? Why don't you just ignore him, and your work will seem more significant! Good job!"

>No one?

No one is saying what you claimed they are, which is that we don't care that "dark skinned savages" are dying, or that we have to control population. That's a strawman and not worth discussing.

>How about "Dioxin can be toxic at extremely high levels."

It is toxic at extremely high levels, as has been demonstrated in the lab. Since we don't intentionally kill people through medical experimentation any more, we don't have laboratory studies that show how quickly humans die. (I am sure you agree that's a good thing overall.)

>Claiming that dioxin is a dangerous poison even though, apparently,
>nobody has died from it, it not too scientific.

See above. No one has (yet) died from swimming in the core of a properly functioning nuclear reactor, but I bet even you would argue against trying it just to see.

>It's like Vitamin A - a beneficial thing that'll kill you if you have too much.

True, and that's true of oxygen, water and pretty much everything else we need for good health. (Surely you are not arguing that dioxins are essential to human health.)

>Really? Weren't scientists the ones who advised nuclear dangers?

Scientists did indeed advise people about the (real) dangers of nuclear power plants. That is part of their job.

>Or was it there a scientific consensus that nuclear plants aren't dangerous?

Again, that's a subjective word. Is driving drunk dangerous? How about skydiving? Many people think skydiving is far more dangerous; just look at the newspaper!

Scientists can say "your odds of death per X minutes of this activity are Y." They cannot say "that's too dangerous; don't do it."

>Really? Pu-239 (which is the most common) isn't unless one inhales
>large quantities of it.

If by "large quantities" you mean "far less than a milligram" I would agree. It's an alpha emitter, which means that the radiation is blocked by almost everything, including clothing.

>Here I thought that something with a half-life of 20 years would
>emit more radiation than something with a halflife of 800,000 years . . .

1) Radiation is not the only measure of toxicity.
2) Half-life indicates how long it takes for half the radioisotopes to decay. It does not speak to the relative dangers of the types of radiation (neutron, alpha, beta or gamma) or their energies.
3) Often the danger from radioactive isotopes is their ability to produce isotopes in other nearby materials through neutron absorption.

>Because a whole set of other "scientists" geared into motion and
>a whole political movement formed.

Actually, you have that exactly backwards. Scientists published a paper, a magazine (Newsweek) printed a sensationalist article, and people started to worry. From the magazine:

There are "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change." There was "a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. . . .The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

People picked it up and it became a talking point. Newsweek later published a correction (and in fact apologized for being "spectacularly wrong") but by that time the damage was done; the drive-by media (to use Marc's term) had picked it up and amplified it far in excess of the original paper.

[JackC 0]

Quote

]But what of the scientist who, without direction, modifies work, data, conclusions and assumptions so as to make the conclusions better fit their hypotheses?

Scientists are not lawyers. Scientists are in the business of discovering reality, not defending a predetermined position and by and large they perform that role admirably. While falsification of data undoubtedly happens from time to time, it is rare and is arguably the most serious crime in scientific circles and anyone found doing it will be struck off in short order. But that is the beauty of the peer review system. Anyone who falsifies results will get found out sooner or later; for reality never lies.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I've always differentiated between three things: (1) basic science; (2) applied science; and (3) technology.

Concur. I like to use the 6.1 - 6.5 system & TRLs, altho' I suspect Vinny, me, & maybe a couple others might get that. Happily proven wrong there tho'.

Quote

I'm saying that scientists will enter into a problem with a preconceived idea and seek out the data that backs it up and find reasons to disregard other data.

I think … if I’m understanding correctly your argument (both in response to me and Bill)… that part of the underlying issue is negative data, i.e., data that doesn’t support a hypothesis. Again, if I understand the criticisms correctly, one large one is that science (observations, results, and analysis) that don’t support climate change hypotheses aren’t published, yes?

There are (at least) two responses to that:

(1) The assertion that science counter to climate change is not being published, e.g., “NON GW advocate scientist get the peer review, when all the publications are run by the ‘consensus’.” [NB: quotation is not my words but is from SC.] examples from the peer-reviewed, scientific literature disproving that have been discussed here previously.

If some group of scientists working under the scientific method reporting public data & generating reproducible results were systematically excluded that would be a completely reasonable & legitimate contention. If it were true. But it’s not.

When data is found that is not accountable by theories or models (in a technical sense, they are not the same thing), the models or theories are re-examined. The majority of the controversial aspects of climate change relate to predictive models. The first question to me is do the observed results represent (a) data within the error bars of the models (b) explainable anomalies, e.g., Michael Phelps physiology and training along with physical design of the Beijing pool explains his ability to win all those medals, not supernatural abilities, drugs, or genetic engineering; or (c) evidence that forces the models to be discarded, e.g., earth-centered Universe model, which was replaced by the Copernican model and later replaced by other models.


(2) There is a lively debate in experimental science today – mostly in the realm of biology & medical research – regarding the validity of publishing another kind of negative results, i.e., experimental results that fail to support a hypothesis. In science, one typically doesn’t publish negative results in peer-reviewed literature … exception is one’s dissertation and occasionally presented orally. The argument against publishing negative results is that it’s not following the scientific method – a negative result does not support a specific idea but only tells you what isn’t correct often without any correlation or causality at its best … or acknowledgement of experimental error or bias at its worst.

While there are some folks, like PNNL’s Steve Wiley, who agree with me (or I agree with him … , there are a significant groups of experimental biologists who do think there is greater value in sharing negative results.

The debate: this year saw the creation of the “Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, which

“promotes a discussion of unexpected, controversial, provocative and/or negative results in the context of current tenets.

“Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine aims to encourage scientists and physicians of all fields to publish results that challenge current models, tenets or dogmas. The journal invites scientists and physicians to submit work that illustrates how commonly used methods and techniques are unsuitable for studying a particular phenomenon. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine strongly promotes and invites the publication of clinical trials that fall short of demonstrating an improvement over current treatments. The aim of the journal is to provide scientists and physicians with responsible and balanced information in order to improve experimental designs and clinical decisions.

“Not every unexpected observation, controversial conclusion or proposed model will turn out to be of such groundbreaking significance. Nor will they even be confirmed by subsequent scientific progress. However, we strongly believe that such ‘negative’ observations and conclusions, based on rigorous experimentation and thorough documentation, ought to be published in order to be discussed, confirmed or refuted by others. In addition, publishing well documented failures may reveal fundamental flaws and obstacles in commonly used methods, drugs or reagents such as antibodies or cell lines, ultimately leading to improvements in experimental designs and clinical decisions.”

One can ask should there be a Journal of Negative Results in Climatological Sciences (cause there’s more to climatology than just climate change, e.g., there’s a fair bit of work funded by the DoD to understand aerosol dispersal and transport phenomena among other effects) ?

As far as I am aware, creation of such a journal would be an example of exactly what you have argued against: science done for politics. The reasons for creation of the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine are both scientific and non-scientific. At this point, I’m not aware of any scientific arguments for such a journal in climatology, atmospheric sciences, etc.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[LaRusic 0]

here is another interesting read on climate change

enjoy

www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless
Dudeist Skydiver # 10