Great interview, enlightening while sadly not being surprising. There is an anti-science, anti-intellectual zeitgeist generally in the U.S. right now that prefers beliefs to facts, and the Right seems, if not more severely affected at least more able to actively suppress or twist the truth. As Dr. Oreskes indicated, the danger from this attitude on the right seems greater than that from the similar attitude among the pomos on the left, who generally don’t have much real-world impact outside of academia.

Gina Kolata, for years an investigative journalist, writing for SCIENCE (AAAS) was my journalist of choice for educated layman. (She is now with the New York Times).

She had/has great writing skills, but was most thorough in her coverage of scientific information. Almost as if she were going to be taken to task by “peer reviewers”.

I have no doubt whatever she would never title her reviews as this woman does.
——————————————————————————————
Her titles are agitprop for the scientifically illiterate, or those given to the “TRUE BELIEVER” style of reasoning.

For those TRULY intrested in the scientific status of “global warming”, go to this site:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22

Read as much as you like of the text, but pay extra attention to pp 22-26.

Actually, for those who want to know how conservatives regularly misrepresent that NAS report, see my book, The Republican War on Science.

Analytic, several of your recent posts have strayed into virtually content-free inflammatory rhetoric, which is a form of trolling. You have been warned about this in the past. Trolling is against the rules and will lead to banning if it persists. Thanks.

Analytic - 08 June 2010 01:34 PM

For those TRULY intrested in the scientific status of “global warming”, go to this site:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22

Read as much as you like of the text, but pay extra attention to pp 22-26.

Is the scientific status of “Global Warming” today the same as it was in 2001?

dougsmith - 08 June 2010 06:48 PM

Analytic, several of your recent posts have strayed into virtually content-free inflammatory rhetoric, which is a form of trolling. You have been warned about this in the past. Trolling is against the rules and will lead to banning if it persists. Thanks.

I am at a loss to see from my Posts that I am “trolling”. I don’t know what “trolling” is.

In fact, I have tried to offer links to relevant web content.

So that viewers can see for themselves on what bases I make my comments.

Fatso the combat wombat - 08 June 2010 11:15 PM

Analytic - 08 June 2010 01:34 PM

For those TRULY intrested in the scientific status of “global warming”, go to this site:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22

Read as much as you like of the text, but pay extra attention to pp 22-26.

—————————————————————-
Is the scientific status of “Global Warming” today the same as it was in 2001?

—————————————————————-
The gist of the title at the link I referred is mostly a report of the SCIENCE already “known” about “climate change” (global warming).

It is a thoroughly supportive document from the National Academy of Science published in 2001. The NAS is a prestigious institution which reports on the status of particular scientific investigation.

Pages 22-26 are a discussion of what is lacking in the science, alternative explanations, and recommendations for future research.

I hope you will especially note the information that invitations to scientists to respond to a poll - on what they considered the status of the global warming hypothesis - led to most of them declining to participate.

Analytic - 09 June 2010 05:21 AM

dougsmith - 08 June 2010 06:48 PM

Analytic, several of your recent posts have strayed into virtually content-free inflammatory rhetoric, which is a form of trolling. You have been warned about this in the past. Trolling is against the rules and will lead to banning if it persists. Thanks.

I am at a loss to see from my Posts that I am “trolling”. I don’t know what “trolling” is.

In fact, I have tried to offer links to relevant web content.

So that viewers can see for themselves on what bases I make my comments.

Posts #13 and the end of #17 in this thread qualify. Thanks.

Analytic - 08 June 2010 01:34 PM

For those TRULY interested in the scientific status of “global warming”, go to this site:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22
Read as much as you like of the text, but pay extra attention to pp 22-26.

OK pretty well read through those pages and failed to see anything radical, earth shattering, or eye opening.  It was an intelligent discussion of intricacies, areas of strength and areas when improvement is warranted, but nothing indicating anything is “wrong”.

Also, shall we please not forget all the real Earth data coming in - it does point in ominous directions!
And, as others have noted this is 2010 and not 2001, a lot has happened in that time - and it sure wasn’t global cooling.

What a rare intellect!! Willing to see other aspects of an issue including a fair reaction to the concerns of the NAS.

Thank you and congratulations.

Unfortunately, the year 2001 was also the start of Al Gore’s demand that tremendous effort should be exerted to

stop “global warming”.

I will check to see if the NAS - or another equally distinguished body - has published anything more recent.

CC,

I’m still searching for a more recent report by a reputable scientific source.

In the meantime, here is one of the authors of the NAS report in 2001.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

Dr. Richard S.Lindzen is the Alfred P.Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He was not in the least sanguine about the omissions in that report.

Here is another Lindzen article published THIS YEAR in the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196802317362416.html

He may be leading the defense of scientific integrity.

You would have to pay to read the 2010 WSJ article.
——————————————————————————-
Here is another of Lindzen’s articles. Published last month.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf

That should be enough to give you an accurate sampling of the scientific judgment of the status of the “global warming” conjecture.

Analytic - 09 June 2010 05:40 AM

Fatso the combat wombat - 08 June 2010 11:15 PM

Analytic - 08 June 2010 01:34 PM

For those TRULY intrested in the scientific status of “global warming”, go to this site:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22

Read as much as you like of the text, but pay extra attention to pp 22-26.

—————————————————————-
Is the scientific status of “Global Warming” today the same as it was in 2001?

—————————————————————-
The gist of the title at the link I referred is mostly a report of the SCIENCE already “known” about “climate change” (global warming).

So I see.

But I see that it is also nine years old. Is the scientific status of “Global Warming” today really the same as it was in 2001?
Surely some of the identified research priorities have been advanced a little at least?

Analytic - 09 June 2010 05:40 AM

It is a thoroughly supportive document from the National Academy of Science published in 2001. The NAS is a prestigious institution which reports on the status of particular scientific investigation.

So I see.

Analytic - 09 June 2010 05:40 AM

Pages 22-26 are a discussion of what is lacking in the science, alternative explanations, and recommendations for future research.

“Recommendations for future research” is merely a prioritised list of “what is lacking in the science”, and that is certainly there.

But I didn’t notice anything that could be called “alternative explanations”. Can you give some examples of what you mean by that?

Analytic - 09 June 2010 05:40 AM

I hope you will especially note the information that invitations to scientists to respond to a poll - on what they considered the status of the global warming hypothesis - led to most of them declining to participate.

No I didn’t notice any reference to a poll. What page is that on?

Analytic - 09 June 2010 10:23 AM

Here is another Lindzen article published THIS YEAR in the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196802317362416.html

He may be leading the defense of scientific integrity.

He says in the opening that sticks out this side of the pay-wall “In what has come to be known as “climategate,” one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation.”

There have been two independent investigations of the CRU at UEA pursuant to this “climategate”. The press reported that they both cleared the UEA of both suppression of information and data manipulation. Has this been misreported, or is Lindzen mistaken about this?

Analytic - 09 June 2010 10:23 AM

Here is another of Lindzen’s articles. Published last month.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf

That should be enough to give you an accurate sampling of the scientific judgment of the status of the “global warming” conjecture.

Do you think Lindzen’s opinions are “an accurate sampling of the scientific judgement of the status of the “global warming” conjecture”? Most people would say that his opinions are straight counter to scientific judgement of the status of the “global warming”. Certainly the heartland institute is one of the key organisations are doubt merchants for both the tobacco industry, and more recently the fossil fuel industry that Oreskes is discussing.

And note that it is their conference which Lindzen presented this opinion piece. If memory serves me correctly, he would have had little fear of observation by any peers heavily involved in global warming, since this conference was timed to conflict with the talks in Copenhagen late last year.