Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Omnirizon]

that sounds tempting. I'm already involved in two games though, and that's about my limit.

I'll take a rain check though

[licker]

Yeah, i'm a bit loaded up at the moment and about to leave for a 2 week vacation.

Perhaps in January we should arrange a battle of hot vs. cold?

No reason to limit the fun to just the 2 of us anyway

[Trumanator]

Don't forget to rename all important commanders after scientists that support your view. And make sure to post AARs in character.

[llamabeast]

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

[licker]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Dammit, licker missed my post again. Seems I'm doomed never to find an answer for that one.

Yes, sorry, I sort of addressed it elsewhere, and so did Max(?), but I'll try to do better.

I have seen first hand funding being denied or removed if the proposed research would seem likely to be at odds with some other agenda (usually non scientific). As I commented somewhere, in the case of GW this is true from both sides of the specturm, and is something I find personally abhorrent.

Further the direct funding issue with the notion of paradigms Omni and others are discussing and when you look at where the funding is coming from, you often have to couch your proposal in friendly terms to the organization handing out the money (think IPCC here, also oil companies, though they have 'come around' lately anyway and are really no longer a factor in this debate).

So if you are interested in doing climate research, and you have publicly been critical of the GW theories as pushed by the IPCC, you are less likely to receive funding for basically any research in that area. At least funding from organizations whom support the IPCC, so there is some impetus to accept the popular theory and just run with it.

Most good scientists do not invest their research with the politics of the day, but some do, and some are pressured to (I have seen this from DHS...).

So does that address your question? You can call it peer pressure if you like, but the field of climate science is (or was) a fairly small and insular one, and as such the breaking of the GW paradigm is very difficult to do internally.

I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

I disagree. Acting before we understand the causes is just as likely to do ill as it is to do good. Look at DDT as a clear example where acting before all relevant information was in place as a case in point. (and yes, DDT is 'bad' but the alternative, malaria, is worse).

I agree that we need to be looking at mitigation and adaptation technologies though, but those are beside the point of whether the temperature is going up or down.

[Poopsi]

If we agree the phenomenon exists, then the -causes- become academic curiosity.

Not really. The causes of a phenomenom are important when determining how to tackle with it.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Poopsi

Not really. The causes of a phenomenom are important when determining how to tackle with it.

I meant within the framework of this particular debate. Since we don't agree on the causes, then we just have to live with that, and begin to act before we fully understand.

[llamabeast]

Okay, I think I understand. Essentially you feel it's peer pressure. That's not entirely unreasonable. There have been strong but wildly incorrect scientific movements in the past.

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

In case it wasn't clear before, I'm personally strongly in the climate-change-is-serious-and-we-have-to-take-action camp, but this particular aspect of the beliefs of the "other side" has always somewhat mystified me and I'm glad to have it clarified somewhat.

Incidentally, have you come across Project Steve? I've recently been involved in organising a group of comedians to go to the Edinburgh Fringe next year. The stand-in name I suggested for the project while we were getting organised was "Steve", and it's now stuck, such that we're going to Edinburgh as "Project Steve Productions" (it's going to be an improvised comedy show, you should come!). I was startled to discover that Project Steve was also apparently a project to show that there are more respected scientists called Steve who believe in man-made climate change than there are respected scientists (of any name) who disbelieve in it. Note this is just what my (well-informed) friend told me while we were swimming this morning, so I could have got it wrong.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

Again, speaking for myself and not for licker: I'm not in a position to evaluate the history of the climate change theory. I do know that catastrophism has been around for a while (global cooling was the big fear in the 1960s, although it got less press than global warming does today), but I don't know how or whether global warming grew out of that specifically. I do know that I've listened to the arguments on both sides, and the evidence for catastrophic climate change is weak. I don't know whether that means it's always been weak, which I think is what you're asking.

-Max

[licker]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Okay, I think I understand. Essentially you feel it's peer pressure. That's not entirely unreasonable. There have been strong but wildly incorrect scientific movements in the past.

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

Actually I do not think there was much peer pressure from the 'denier' side ever. There was repression from the Bush administration though, to me that is different from peer pressure. You have to realize that GW is a reletively new phenomena. It was not until the late 80s or even early 90s that anyone was publishing on it, and at that time there was much less (basically zero) research to support any position. It is in many ways a 'boom industry' and for that reason there is money thrown at it, and for that reason you have a certain group who doesn't want off the gravy train. These are the people I detest, because they are not doing science for science sake, they are perpetrating an exaggeration for their own ends. The peer pressure has nothing to do with saving face (though most research scientists are horrible ego maniacs), and everything to do with keeping funding.

Originally Posted by llamabeast

In case it wasn't clear before, I'm personally strongly in the climate-change-is-serious-and-we-have-to-take-action camp, but this particular aspect of the beliefs of the "other side" has always somewhat mystified me and I'm glad to have it clarified somewhat.

I am likewise mystified that people consider themselves strongly in that camp. However, I realize from reading the IPCC reports that they do a good job of spinning their case. I also realize that many people seem to think humans can actually control (as opposed to affect) the climate, though that notion is completely daft.

I also do not like the use of the word 'belief'. Indeed 'belief' has no place in science, either you have the evidence or you don't. As soon as people start throwing around 'belief' and 'faith' it's become a personal sort of religion, and this is why to a large extent I remain utterly skeptical of the AGW believers. They also usually don't help their cause when they behave as Omni has been behaving, alot of hostility, but no support for his position. When someone is incredulous at someone elses 'belief' (for lack of a better word atm...) and cannot provide any kind of meaningful argument you have to really wonder what their level of understanding of the theory is (and this is not directed at Omni, this is a personal observation I have made in discussions with several AGW supporters).

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Incidentally, have you come across Project Steve? I've recently been involved in organising a group of comedians to go to the Edinburgh Fringe next year. The stand-in name I suggested for the project while we were getting organised was "Steve", and it's now stuck, such that we're going to Edinburgh as "Project Steve Productions" (it's going to be an improvised comedy show, you should come!). I was startled to discover that Project Steve was also apparently a project to show that there are more respected scientists called Steve who believe in man-made climate change than there are respected scientists (of any name) who disbelieve in it. Note this is just what my (well-informed) friend told me while we were swimming this morning, so I could have got it wrong.

Heh, well I'm a pretty far way from Edinburgh, but thanks for the invite

Yes the steve thing had to do with Intelligent Design I believe, out of australia or something like that.