56gsa said:
what was interesting about this program was the acknowledgement that science ('truth') is biased by people's priorities (eg in this case governments and funds available). thus while the dissenters may have industry connections i don't see this as problem as long as the science stacks up. advocates have similarly dubious links to funding sources (eg govt).
i'm no scientist so i would be interested to know how the al gores, tim flannery's and other advocates for the CO2_climate change link have responded to this - anyone found any scientific response to the ideas in this doco?
thanks
Warning long, convoluted post follows!!!!!!
I saw Al Gores movie last week & I thought I should watch the 'Opposing view' movie carefully - just to make sure I had a handle on both sides of the argument.
I can say that I have a great respect for Al and his views - but the 'swindle' movie brought up some good points - and the one about 'scientific bias' driven by the continual (usually yearly) need for scientists to submit funding applications / proposals is a biggie. I have worked (in the past) for both CSIRO and Qld State scientific bodies - and this problem is VERY real. In my arena - soil & land management/conservation - the buzz words a few years back were ' SUSTAINABILITY'; 'Land Degradation' and the like. It was understood by all that any funding proposal would be greatly enhanced by the liberal insertion of these buzz words throughout the proposal and particularly in the title. Thats how fickle the many funding bodies were/are.
Now this isn't to denigrate the scientists involved but the facts were - and probably still are - that if you want to do a comprehensive study of 'X' - then you will need many more then 1 years funding - and you'd better be prepared to make your yearly funding applications relevent to the political climate - or you will find yourself and your project canned in no time - so what would you do??? ... You tell the funding bodies what they want to hear, get your funding, and continue your important work.
Another aspect about 'Modelling' is also very true - by changing a few perameters or constants, modellers can make their models say almost anything. Within scientific circles - this statement (more or less) is often spat out of the sides of the mouths of 'grass roots' scientists, when asked to consider the new & wonderful model of 'AAA Natural System ' which miraculously deals with hundreds of parameters.
Now I'm sure the vast majority (of modellers) are trying to get to 'the scientific truth of whatever they are studying' - BUT there is no doubt in my mind that many are unconsciously biased towards creating the result that they believe in or have a vested interest in. ie. If the model says something that you don't like or is unexpected - then you tend to go back and check data and find a 'reason' - then maybe you 'fix' the model to account fo this 'discrepancy'. But as soon as the model says exactly what you wanted or expected - then the checking is moderated to make sure there are no glaring omissions. etc. The model is wheeled out as largely 'complete'.
All this doesn't mean models have no value - we just need to be very careful about how we use them - especially for very complex systems like global weather. Models that can be checked against 'reality' have greatly increases validity - but this is difficult for something as huge and complex as 'global weather'.
I would really like to look at the hard data about sunspots and which comes first - the CO2 rise or the Temp rise. That, I think is the crux of the matter.
... But maybe I won't use 2020's data set below!!!
. (which looks suspiciously like three charts of the same data! . nice try 20's!!)
Either way - even if CO2 isn't the problem we think it is - there are myriad other reasons why we 'human animals' should try to minimize our impact on the planets surface; minimize energy consumption and pollution and try to find ways to 'work with nature' rather then 'work against it'.
Anyway... my
!!!!!
Certainly won't hurt to change a few light bulbs and fix other energy 'bad habits'...