Why do these global warming skeptic articles keep popping up here? Global warming is certainly OT, and skeptics' theories are not really any more interesting than any other conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy? Do you mean any 'theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators'? This would indeed be a weird way of describing the arguments and data put forward by a significant number of authoritative scientists of the calibre for instance of MIT's Richard Lindzen. The arguments against global warming hysteria are out in the open for all to examine, discuss and refute if they will. I mentioned Lindzen so here's a recent contribution.
"Conspiracy theory" is an interesting phrase. It doesn't have a meaning so much as a purpose: to shut someone up by ostracizing them and/or to shut the minds of third parties (a signal that most people reflexively obey). It's a conformist move that has a tinge of violence about it, if a phrase can be called violent.
Personally, as soon as I hear someone labeled a "conspiracy theorist" I immediately sympathize with them, though of course that doesn't make their views true.
Edit: replaced "belittling" with "ostracizing" as explained below.
"Conspiracy theory" has a very simple meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory) and no derision at all. You might take it as belittling but it's not. The term "conformist" on the other hand fits your description perfectly.
Come to think of it, "belittle" doesn't exactly capture what I meant, which is to mark someone as outside the zone of proper discourse. I will change the comment.
No derision at all
That's obviously not true. If it were, people would use the phrase to describe their own views sometimes.
Because any place that involves technological discussions attracts a number of self-styled "objectivists" and libertarians who can't cotton to the idea that collective selfless behavior is needed to solve any problem.
I would dare to say that there's much, much more than ideology here. There's an awful lot of propaganda on Global Warming. The facts that are presented are, in a way, manipulated to scare the masses. For me it's more than ideology, it's a matter of principle. I would like to see good, honest and open scientific debate on this topic, and that seems to be impossible. Anyone who questions the validity of the global warming predictions is labeled as a crackpot. This is very dangerous. This kind of dogmatic view is rather similar to the Inquisition.
If everybody had studied the global climate in detail and had arrived at the same conclusions, then the fact that everybody thinks the same way would not be dangerous. After all, everybody thinks the Earth is approximately ellipsoidal, and everybody can measure it. However, very few people have studied the climate in detail, and due to this herd movement, any scientist who questions the predictions the most pessimistic arrive to is attacked. This is unacceptable.
Intellectually dishonest conspiracy theories at that. As much as some people here hate the 9-11 truthers, at least the mainstream ones aren't making up facts or using quotes out of context.
Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson? Seriously.
The point I am trying to make: not at skeptics are born equal. Some are ignorant fools. But others are well-educated and well-trained in the Natural Sciences. Your simplistic view that all skeptics are conspiracy theorists is ideology. You looked at no data. You did not check the assumptions. You did not create any of the climate computer models. You probably did not read any papers on the topic. So, your beliefs stem from where exactly!? This is not an attack. It is an honest question.
BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information.
> BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information.
It only has zero information if you give it a massively uncharitable and ignorant reading. A climate per se describes a long term pattern of weather in a region. If that pattern changes, by definition, the climate has changed. Hence, "climate change".
Systems, or "dynamical systems" (whatever that means), are privy to two levels of change: one occurs within the system, the other defines the system. In other words, a system's state may change to another state, or the system may change into another system. Got it?
For starters, I don't like your tone. This is HN, not reddit. Got it?
I stand by my assertion. "Climate Change" is a redundancy. The climate has always been changing. If you reduce the entire complexity of the global climate system to 1 bit, you're not doing any good Science. It's not whether it's changing or not, it's how it is changing. This makes a world of difference.
The laws of Physics haven't changed. What may change is the inputs: solar radiation, C02 and methane emissions from the biosphere, C02 emissions by humans, etc. Since we don't really know the inputs with good precision, and since we can't measure them reliably either, jumping to conclusions based on computer models is ludicrous.
The problem with computer models is that we lack sufficient knowledge on the initial conditions. We would need a whole lot more measurements to be able to come up with reliable computer simulations. Unfortunately, measuring is expensive, while simulating is cheap. Trying to solve the fluid and heat dynamics PDEs on a global scale with incomplete info on initial conditions is not Science, it's voodoo magic.
I repeat: the rules of the game haven't changed. The laws of Physics are still the same. Focus on measuring the inputs that drive the dynamical system, rather than make apocalyptical predictions based on bad computer models.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to good ideas. Dyson's points are valid. If you dismiss them without even thinking deeply about them, you're pretty much doing what the Inquisition did to Galileo.
Moreover, Dyson's points are based on good Science. He focuses on measurements and data, which are hard evidence. Dyson does not appeal to emotion or fear.
You said "Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson?"
But then, only in a fantasy world do people not appeal to authority. Someone who has a track record is always more reliable than someone who lacks it. And, to be honest, this is a good thing.
http://portaldata.colgate.edu/imagegallerywww/3503/ImageGall...?
This is conspiratorial?