×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Blogs Are Changing the Scientific Discourse

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the get-ready-to-science dept.

Communications 136

quax writes "Mainstream media always follows the same kind of 'He said, she said' template, which is why even climate change deniers get their say, although they are a tiny minority. The leading scientific journals, on the other hand, are expensive and behind pay-walls. But it turns out there are places on the web where you can follow science up close and personal: The many personal blogs written by scientists — and the conversation there is changing the very nature of scientific debate. From the article: 'It's interesting to contemplate how corrosive the arguments between Bohr and Einstein may have turned out, if they would have been conducted via blogs rather than in person. But it's not all bad. In the olden days, science could easily be mistaken for a bloodless intellectual game, but nobody could read through the hundreds of comments on Scott's blog that day and come away with that impression.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

136 comments

Not good for one's career (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216177)

While blogging might be good for long-established academics, younger academics might just be undermining their own careers by posting their thoughts on blogs. They can prove a distraction that slows one down from publishing, and if you post a novel thought or promising research direction on your blog, it might just be picked up by one of your fellows who beats you to publishing first.

Considering that one's ideas, namely the publications arising from those ideas, are what one is judged on when getting grant funding and tenure, why give them away for free?

Re:Not good for one's career (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216187)

Who needs a career when one can collect Obamacare?

Re:Not good for one's career (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#46216197)

Being liberated from the tedium of work is not the same thing as being liberated from the laboratory.

Re:Not good for one's career (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216223)

Being charged with a crime and having all one's colleagues testify against one is the same thing as being liberated from the laboratory.

Re:Not good for one's career (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216235)

I guess if the scientist in question had conservative leanings, the IRS could root him out, sure.

Ah, you mean tax fraud for rightwingers is legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216543)

The only one who fell foul was a left wing "charity".

Most of those "charities" from the right wing jumped because they knew they were political lobby groups, not charities.

The remaining ones knew that they (at least intended) were charities, not political lobby facades. And the IRS agreed.

Howeer, this doesn't demonise Obama, and will be ignored.

Re:Not good for one's career (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218419)

Who needs a career when one can collect Obamacare?

I need a career. I like eating more than just ramen noodles every night. I also enjoy driving a car from this century. And I especially enjoy not living in my parents' basement.

Re:Not good for one's career (5, Informative)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#46216193)

Legal blogs, http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/ [pjmedia.com], http://althouse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com], http://althouse.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com], http://www.powerlineblog.com/ [powerlineblog.com] don't seem too bad for careers, in the main, though one of the PowerLine writers took a sabbatical due to a client. Maybe the legal blogs are closer to talk radio.

In the olden days, science could easily be mistaken for a bloodless intellectual game

By precisely what mature person with any shred of insight into human nature? It's kind of silly how the Church of Holy Progress has tried to co-opt scientists as some sort of secular priesthood. Get over it. Scientists are people, too. I'd expect Richard Feynman would have been a right blast of a blogger, if he yet lived.

Re:Not good for one's career (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216325)

Dick Feynman was one fine man.

mAYBE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217135)

Could they be looking for a commonality for their thesis? Or that some obscure point they are missing? Or a validation of observation? rather then the funding, or tenure, could they be putting out the common counterpoint? Or could they be looking for the others in the same general field for guidance where there are limited studies? Or expanding the general knowledge of the subject is harmful to the the public.
Or could they have missed the latest announcement by their august luminaries of the field. Because of other commitments?
There are so many variables, once a quarter publish or die, was once considered the mainstay of "blogs", but now that leaves you out of the mainstream, well into fossil arguments and information passes so fast now, so how would one stay current without blogs, snailmail?

Re:Not good for one's career (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#46217873)

They can prove a distraction that slows one down from publishing,

Note to self: stop browsing slashdot...

and if you post a novel thought or promising research direction on your blog, it might just be picked up by one of your fellows who beats you to publishing first.

Presumably a researcher would know if and when this was likely. And in my experience, what happens most of the time when two people are working on similar things is that the researchers can collude to publish simultaneously so neither one is upstaged. I think it's more likely that blabbing about what you're doing to a competitor will help AVOID being scooped than causing it. I've found this to be the case in my short career. My thesis adviser said in her 25 years she never found much use in keeping her research secret before publishing. Undoubtedly varies between fields.

Re:Not good for one's career (1)

danudwary (201586) | about 2 months ago | (#46218121)

While I don't blog, anything that gets an academic writing and shaping their thoughts can be a good thing. And in the modern grant-writing process, it's absolutely better to get your ideas out there - it helps you to plant your flag, and it gets people thinking about your ideas. If your blog has followers, you get immediate feedback and critical analysis. And suddenly, you're recognized as the expert in that area.

Like it or not, at least in the US system, your grant application is not reviewed solely on its merits. The surest way to get a grant rejected is to have a really good idea that is completely unproven, and which a reviewer (who's probably reading 30 other applications that afternoon) will immediately be overly skeptical about. An application from a "recognized" expert will be far better received than someone who is just getting started. While most academics aren't going to know what a blog or twitter is, all it takes is for one reviewer in the room who does know to speak up and say "You know, this young guy with very few pubs has actually been deep into this for a while..."

But, yeah, there's a balance. If you should be in the lab, it's best to be in the lab, and you should absolutely not be live-blogging experimental results, no matter what.

Re:Not good for one's career (1)

godrik (1287354) | about 2 months ago | (#46218697)

I am a young researcher (got hired this year on a tenure track position). I must say I do not blog because of lack of time, more than because of not wanting my ideas to be stolen. Likely if I blogged, I blogged on news or on published papers. That could help the visibility of my work, which is what is most important to me now. I no longer care about paper count. Now I care about visibility.

scientists need sock puppets too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216181)

Who else will agree with everything they say, if not sock puppets?

Re:scientists need sock puppets too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216205)

You're soooo right, all the time! Please let me suck your massive cock, you gorgeous sciencey hunk!!

Re:scientists need sock puppets too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216233)

Sock puppet on the other hand asks if you want to beat off with both hands today!!! Sock puppets totally don't get jealous!!!!

Re:scientists need sock puppets too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216267)

Yeah baby stroke me squeeze me give me tenure.

"climate change deniers" (4, Insightful)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 2 months ago | (#46216207)

"climate change deniers"?

Ah, where would we be if we couldn't put others down ... makes you feel good, huh?

Re:"climate change deniers" (5, Informative)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#46216243)

Well, if you are arguing that climate is constant, then you're a CCD.
Except that no one has ever argued constant climate.

Ah, I see you're in denial about your denial. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216409)

Climate denial is the insistence that the climate science as accepted by mainstream is entirely incorrect based solely on the fact that it means that we cannot continue with the current scheme of huge financial interests in fossil fuels and must change.

And when you're at the top, change is bad. Since there are far more ways to go down than to go up.

And when you're THAT rich and powerful, it's not the money, but the relative money that matters, so if you gain money but someone else GAINS MORE, then you've "lost".

So change is bad.

And since climate science inevitably leads to "Burning fossil fuels is a shit idea and we must stop now", they can't claim "BUT I WANNA BURN IT!" so have to deny the evidence that informs the scientists.

They deny the climate.

For example, how would you tell if the climate were changing? You retards all "accept" that "climate has always changed" but you're entirely unwilling to accept any evidence that climate is changing now. "Oh, that's just weather!". Well, climate is weather, in gross.

When you deny that the shit weather is evidence of AGW, you're denying climate change, because climate is the average weather, and the average weather is the weather you have, each event. So the weather is evidence of cliamate. And the weather is changing. That means the climate is changing. But you'll deny it because it means your current career choices have been poorly made and that's unpossible.

Re:Ah, I see you're in denial about your denial. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216505)

Actually, if you pull your head out of your ass, you'd realize a lot of climate denial comes from skepticism about their methods and as such, being unconvinced by their results. And a lot of us are actually probably more scientifically literate than you are.

Here's the part that probably would be a head fuck for you since you're so smug and think you're so smart. I think we need to find alternative energies and stop the reliance on fossil fuels, but not because of climate impact, but simply because it's going to run out.

And I claim that the "scientists" (and I use that term loosely, and I happen to be one of those "scientists", just in a different field, and know first hand how full of shit "scientists" typically are and how driven they are by money and ego and prestige and how they'd stab their own mother in the back just to get published, and how you have to toe the political line because failure to do so is suicide for your career, seriously, I have friends who left academia because they were sick of "whoring themselves out for a grant" and found industry to be a lot more pure and clean, and then reading through scientific journals constantly to find the 5% that's actually worth anything while, seriously, sifting through bullshit is such a large part of the job it's actually sort of amazing) methods are garbage. They've come to a pre-concieved notion, and now they're trying to find evidence that supports it. They don't have an accurate model, as is proven damn near every week, but they keep trying to cram the evidence into the model rather than maybe considering their model is wrong. That isn't science, that's religion. Also, maybe being more open with their raw data would be a help too. In most areas of science, if a researcher refuses to show their standard deviations, and refuse access to their raw data, they'd be considered two bit at the best and a fraud at the worst. In climate science, that's just SOP.

Nope, not skepticism: straw clutching. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216665)

"skepticism about their methods".

Which methods you have been told by someone ABOUT WHOM YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNSKEPTICAL ABOUT as being poor. Right?

"Here's the part that probably would be a head fuck for you since you're so smug and think you're so smart."

Nope, I AM smart. So smart that your follow on has nothing for me in illumination.

"and I use that term loosely, and I happen to be one of those "scientists", just in a different field, and know first hand how full of shit "scientists" typically are and how driven they are by money and ego and prestige "

Yeah, right. Bullshit. There are PhDs working at AIG who have CATEGORICALLY stated there is PROOF that TRex was a vegetarian in the Garden of Eden.

YOU are full of shit and driven by money, ego and presige, I can fully concur (you DO claim you are a scientist, and that all scientists do this as far as you are aware), but your attempt to slur anyone else because you're crass and venal cuts no mustard.

"and how you have to toe the political line because failure to do so is suicide for your career"

Ah, so tell me how when Shrub was in charge how all the climate scientists in the USA "toed the political line" or got shitcanned by the "oil baron" Shrub...

"Also, maybe being more open with their raw data would be a help too"

More denier bingo.

What more openness do you need? GISS. Google it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

But you've heard from the shitstains of the blogworld how CRU wouldn't give McIntyre information

a) he already had
b) wasn't CRU's to give
c) Could freely get from the actual owner
d) was unpaid for by McIntyre, who was not a UK taxpayer, but wanting a handout at UK taxpayer expense.

and have just swallowed it whole like the credulous moron you are.

PS 9 investigations later: no fraud.

You're both wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217299)

Climate science skeptic's are about the proper use of science to tax man. If you want to tax a carbon unit, should you use real science, or science fiction to do it?
The studies so far are based on science fiction, made up data, to make a model work, and then predict the future from it. So far the adjustments to the model don't work. therefore the thesis is wrong. But they want to change the world because there is too much carbon here. So they cut out,data points, changed the data to fit another variable, and said now, there is peril, because the carbon here has picked up another trick, It learned to read and understand, therefore it must be evil, we must sequester it.
Another model change, say the sun is constant in output, and it can be expressed as this certain number, never mind the cloud, or the changes in albedo during the orbit, or that the orbit is variable from the center-point, and not circular in motion, but elliptical, changing the amounts of energy received, But is a constant, never heard of a dampened furnace?

Re:You're both wrong! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217409)

"Climate science skeptic's are about the proper use of science to tax man."

Nope, you're dead wrong here.

"The studies so far are based on science fiction"

Which studies? McIntyre, Wegman, Tony Watts? Sure is.

Mann, Jones, Hansen? Nope, their science is available for you to test, if you have the intelligence or will.

"So far the adjustments to the model don't work."

Nope, Hansen's 1988 model overestimated the actual trend since then by 10%. That's pretty damn far from "don't work".

You can go look at a REAL climate model. Let me know if it's missing "the sun", won't you.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Well, it's true, blogs have changed scientific discourse: any arsehole can make up any old shit and spread it far and wide. Please give your anus a break and let the adults think for a bit.

TIA.

Your bias is showing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217189)

" I happen to be one of those "scientists", just in a different field"
"They don't have an accurate model, as is proven damn near every week"

Your own words betray both your bias and your inability. Just because someone in an expert in their field doesn't mean they are an expert in all fields. Their model has been inaccurate only in that it underestimated the time frame because they were being conservative. They've made adjustments in their outlook whenever they've received new information to warrant an adjustment, and then your ilk claims that means they are wrong when they are just doing real science and following the data. I'd be interested in knowing what major part of the science has been disproven or revised and has been published in a peer reviewed journal. It's really ironic you say all this when the initial "hockey stick" find was entirely unintended.

"full of shit "scientists" typically are and how driven they are by money and ego and prestige"

This statement is irrelevant to whether they have good data, in the private sector this would be called ambition. I work in the private sector and know quite a few people who fit this description. I'd wager it's something that encompasses many humans regardless of what they believe or where they work.

" "whoring themselves out for a grant" and found industry to be a lot more pure and clean"

I think there are many people in lower wage jobs that would disagree. It seems to be a white collar to think that they've got it terribly bad. Just watch any episode of a show beginning in "Real Housewives of..."

"maybe being more open with their raw data would be a help too. In most areas of science, if a researcher refuses to show their standard deviations, and refuse access to their raw data, they'd be considered two bit at the best and a fraud at the worst."

Yes, deny the absolutely copious amounts of data available. You can have a different opinion, but everyone has the same facts. Your absolute arrogance, coupled with your ignorance of basic logic has rendered you unable to make a salient point that can be supported in fact.

Based on your statements, your language, grammar, and complete inability to support your argument, I'd wager your claim that you're more scientifically literate than anyone is a bit overestimated. I could get my 4 year old daughter to speak to you, she can probably break down the science into words and concepts small enough for your to wrap your head around.

Re:Ah, I see you're in denial about your denial. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217565)

Oh but it's so much more... there are TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS at stake for the climate warmists. Not only is there funding for the scientists, there are carbon credit trillions that the world bank is drooling over... better yet, it's a very handy way for those with power (think USA) to prevent third world countries frrom progressing and becoming economic competitors that could wrest control over their own governments... just say "OMG GLOBAL WARMING" and prevent them from getting access to the energy reserves of their own countries.

It's a shell game. Of course the governments are behind it... ...but look at what happened to the country that really took it to heart... Australia.

Re:Ah, I see you're in denial about your denial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218081)

how is it, that this is only 1+ post? quite insightful as far as I can tell.

what if I told you, that when you open source data for one important study about consensus on climate change, enormous part of data was papers on biology, zoology, energetics, and similar stuff which has nothing to do with actual climate change.

how could I be NOT skeptical, when data used to promote consensus on climate change partially consist from sexual life of rodents, biodiversity of specific beaches and similar stuff.

to me, that study really seemed like they know the answer, they just had to fit the data correctly.

Re:Ah, I see you're in denial about your denial. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 months ago | (#46216669)

Climate denial is the insistence that the climate science as accepted by mainstream is entirely incorrect based solely on the fact that it means that we cannot continue with the current scheme of huge financial interests in fossil fuels and must change.

So "climate denial" doesn't actually exist. Good to know.

Ah, you deny the denial (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216865)

Well, I've read your posts, so this is not news, sad to say. Tell me, do you ALWAYS read what you think is there, and ignore what is said? Or is this merely your way of pretending to never have lost?

Re:Ah, I see you're in denial about your denial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216769)

websters? wikipedia? or the world according to anonymous coward.

when you're done fucking your mother, you powerless piece of garbage, come back with something meaningful.

at least scare me a bit.

Re:"climate change deniers" (2)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#46216923)

Those unaware of Alinsky buy the self-serving change in terminology as being more accurate, not self-serving. Climate change is used because their predictions were beginning to fall apart and they knew they were. One can't argue that the climate is changing, so lie about those who disagree with your rationale and agenda. It's a standard political attack.

Re:"climate change deniers" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217111)

Well, if you are arguing that climate is constant, then you're a CCD. Except that no one has ever argued constant climate.

If you use the term "denier", then you're not helping science, you're helping politics.

I believe the point is that the term "deniers" carries the connotations of "holocaust deniers". At the very least, it's a term to marginalize the opposing side's viewpoint. Using the term "deniers" to any opinion/viewpoint these days is usually done to discredit the group (whatever it may be).

It's a tactic to insert bias and bias isn't science, it's politics.

Try it in another context (one where you're the skeptic) and you should see the point.

While I'm at it, saying that the "deniers" are very few is an example of the bandwagon logical fallacy.
The numbers of supporters on one side or the other of an argument does not address the validity of the argument.

Science needs less bias, less politics, less "my-team" vs "your team", less "cover-ups", more transparency, more peer review, more logic, more reason and maybe we'll stop climate change. Until we realize this, we're doomed to fall into another dark ages.

Does it surprise you that I'm not a "denier", but I abhor the term?

Re:"climate change deniers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217261)

I like it how recent climate debates are more and more about being offended at the word "denier" and claiming it's all eeeeevil climate scientists political ruse to make people think their opponents are literally Hitler, and less about, you know, actual counterarguments and alternate climate models.

Well, hard to do the latter when all the Heartland Institute's "arguments" have been debunked many times over and they don't produce new research on this topic lately.

PS: It doesn't surprise me, as you're probably just a concern troll.

Re:"climate change deniers" (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#46217905)

You're right, we should be more respectful to people who disagree with pretty much every scientific study on the matter yet somehow have the ear of most people in government. There's nothing shameful going on there.

(/s) Calling them names is a damn sight kinder than what they deserve.

Re:"climate change deniers" (2)

JWW (79176) | about 2 months ago | (#46217997)

Calling them names is a damn sight kinder than what they deserve.

What then do they deserve? Fines, banishment, prison, gulag?

Seriously calling them names it the most deniers should face. In the US they have free speech rights. They get to say what their opinion is. Opinion is heavily protected speech.

You of course have the same rights which makes the name calling, while not nice, something you are fully allowed to do.

I so much want the concept of "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" to actually mean something in this country again.

Lately, the political left, instead of debating, has been strenuously trying to remove the right of their political opponents to speak and I find that absolutely terrifying.

Re:"climate change deniers" (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#46218861)

No, that's both sides. Actually, that's all political sides in this country. Actually, that's all political sides in any country ever. Actually, that's just human nature.

Anyway, sure, they have right to free speech, but they're not convincing the majority of politicians that climate change isn't happening through speech. I'd call it bribery, which they do not have a right to do.

Interesting (5, Interesting)

X10 (186866) | about 2 months ago | (#46216217)

This is an interesting discussion. On the one hand, more people can follow or even contribute to scientific debates when they're online, on blogs. Otoh, the amount of noise can become incredible, obscuring the debate for those who can't judge who's credible and who's not. What do we think of a world where it's not the best scientist who "wins", but the one who's most persuasive in online debates.

Re:Interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216245)

Mod down.

Re:Interesting (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 months ago | (#46216247)

What's even more interesting is the spectrum of solutions to managing the signal-to-noise ratio, from no comments, to moderated, to the fabulous disaster that is /.'s moderation system.

Re:Interesting (2)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 2 months ago | (#46216289)

[...] the fabulous disaster that is /.'s moderation system.

Yet you're still here, posting away and participating 13+ years after you got your account, so you must find it to your liking. Therefore, you contradict yourself.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216295)

English is a dreadful language, let I'm still typing it. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Re:Interesting (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216331)

I'm still peeking, though losing interest. The discussions seem rather... limited. Perhaps a user purge was the intended goal, to bring in "more monetizable" users?
If they were not making enough money with the previous community, and are looking for more of an "audience" than a participatory body of users (some of whom were interesting and notable experts in their fields), only time will tell if this should remain on that person's resume as a "successful" change of a notable website. (someone posted a link to a linked in profile of the person who spearheaded this endeavor). On a side note, my previous posts (done while logged in) which directly mentioned this topic, seem to somehow not have "saved" (or were deleted) - did anyone else have this happen or do I have to ease off on the paint fumes?

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216657)

Could you elaborate on the perceived contradiction?

Re:Interesting (1)

X10 (186866) | about 2 months ago | (#46216557)

Couple more years we'll have AIs that do the moderating and shifting and managing for us.

it's always been that way (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217107)

This is an interesting discussion. On the one hand, more people can follow or even contribute to scientific debates when they're online, on blogs. Otoh, the amount of noise can become incredible, obscuring the debate for those who can't judge who's credible and who's not. What do we think of a world where it's not the best scientist who "wins", but the one who's most persuasive in online debates.

Your point is well-intended and I sympathize, but speaking as a [reasonably successful] tenured professor in a scientific discipline at a major research university, I would point out this is how science has always been. It's never actually been about who the "best scientist" is--that's very subjective--it's always been about who is most persuasive or popular. This was Kuhn's point, as well as that of other philosophers of science such as Quine or Feyerabend (who all came from very different perspectives).

There's always been this myth that science rises above psychology, sociology, and human nature, but nothing is further from the truth. I think some scientists aspire to that, but it's unattainable--something that some helpfully recognize but others unfortunately don't. The latter cloak themselves in vacuous arguments about "objectivity" and what's "more scientific" but it's meaningless and distracts from substantive arguments over important issues.

Science has always been most like the music industry--there's only a modest correlation between quality, popularity, and success. Many of the best scientists are overlooked or forgotten; many never receive funding; others are grossly wrong but are popular because they capture the zeitgeist of a certain era; and still others are financially successful and well-known and do good work. You have to sort of be willing to sacrifice yourself at the altar of science to survive, which is an ironic position to be in. To give one perhaps oversimplified example: why does everyone know about Darwin, but not Wallace?

Blogs and whatnot are complicating all of this by reinforcing the noise, as you say, but they are also focusing attention on issues such as the worth of peer review and formal publication. They're also giving outlet to some who might not otherwise have voices. But the fundamental phenomena are nothing new. In this regard, the question is: would you rather have infighting and manipulation with or without the communication afforded by the internet?

Re:it's always been that way (1)

quax (19371) | about 2 months ago | (#46217827)

Very insightful comment. May I asked what field of science you're in?

Re:Interesting (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#46217431)

That's why we need a good moderation system for blogs.

That and, _ON_ those blogs we need good discussion boards.

"moderation" (aka censorship) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218023)

We need "moderation" (aka censorship) for blog comments so that readers only see the establishment view and think that they are the minority if they disagree.

Take the red pill and read the NIPCC Reports: http://www.nipccreport.org

Re:Interesting (0)

JWW (79176) | about 2 months ago | (#46218141)

And also on those blogs we need a comments system that is functional and usable.

FUCK BETA!

No one is claiming that climate doesn't change! (2)

davide marney (231845) | about 2 months ago | (#46216293)

Grrr. If you can't (won't?) state your opponent's point of view accurately, then why would you ever expect to have a decent conversation?

Re:No one is claiming that climate doesn't change! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216309)

Your climate theory is intriguing to me, and I wish to cite your next paper.

Re:No one is claiming that climate doesn't change! (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#46216957)

How cute, a non sequitur disguising an ad hominum.

bird bird bird is the word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217247)

How cute, passive-aggressive commenting disguising a comment about nothing.

Fresh off the press (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218187)

It's not a paper, it's several volumes: http://www.nipccreport.org

Re:No one is claiming that climate doesn't change! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#46216917)

Why play your silly game of semantics? You deny the best well-established scientific knowledge on the earth's climate. Why does it matter if you think it's controlled by the mind of a rainbow-farting unicorn on the moon, has been static since 6000 years ago, or is capable of any kind of change with the magical exception of being affected by hundreds of years of humans pumping fossil-sourced CO2 into the atmosphere?

Re:No one is claiming that climate doesn't change! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217099)

It's not his game of semantics. It's yours. His whole point is he doesn't deny climate change, yet he is labeled that way on purpose to marginalize his argument. You are marginalizing him again by saying a bunch of creationist facade words, which he never said he believes that way.

What we say is wrong, and has been proven, that the foremost report on fossil fuels causing climate change has been proven completely made up. If you have completely figured out a model for earth's atmosphere that you can predict the change occurring by humans, then we would not be arguing semantics that you conveniently use, since you have no real argument on the model.

Re:No one is claiming that climate doesn't change! (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#46217233)

Let's say for the sake of argument that all IPCC reports to the UN consist of a bunch of crazy garbage. What would that change? It would be like arguing that a car doesn't really work because the dealer's brochure is full of bullshit. The models still work. Anthropogenic change lines up. Maybe that was wrong in one of the reports. Doesn't change anything.

Would making up a bunch of more detailed labels - anthropogenic climate change denier, total climate change denier, lunar unicornist climate change denier, etc - make you happy? I think they'd be useless but I'm curious.

Blogs != scientific discussion (3, Insightful)

deleveld (607488) | about 2 months ago | (#46216305)

I don't agree with the premise. Yes we hear about the conflicts more than we used to because conflicts are what people tend to talk about. Modern media devotes attention to the disagreements, even when there are lots of agreements. There are serious considered discussions taking place, but you don't hear about them because modern media ignores them. I imagine that there are thousands of conversation every day but only 1% of them are vocal disagreements. Now fill all the blogs with that particular 1%. Many people would get the impression that its all disagreement and conflict. But that is simply not true in general. Blogs aren't changing scientific discourse. Blogs are pulling disagreements and conflicts on scientific topics into modern media.

Re:Blogs != scientific discussion (1)

quax (19371) | about 2 months ago | (#46217857)

But isn't the fact that blogs open the dialog up, to include individuals outside the realm of academia, a decidedly new quality?

The difference with Bohr/Einstein (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#46216313)

The difference with Bohr/Einstein was probably something to do with the fact that nobody's multi-billion dollar industry's reputation had potential to be damaged by the results.

Re:The difference with Bohr/Einstein (2)

the gnat (153162) | about 2 months ago | (#46219113)

nobody's multi-billion dollar industry's reputation had potential to be damaged by the results.

...and nobody's religion based on the literal interpretation of ancient Middle Eastern texts.

Figures (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216329)

I figured there would be a backhanded comment directed at people that don't believe the climate change mantra. First sentence in! Surprised they didn't use the old standard statement of "those that don't believe the FACT of climate change". Then to say it's a small group that doesn't believe in it? Ah yes. The old "this is how it is, but don't research it, because then we will have to shout you down, cause that's how science works!"

Re:Figures (1, Flamebait)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#46217083)

I, for one, will mock you deniers at every opportunity. You are a small minority, about 1/3 of Americans and nearly nonexistent elsewhere. As Max Planck pointed out, we can't change your opinions, only wait for you to die. In the meantime, the mocking will continue. Get used to it, deniers.

Reminds me of a bio professor I had who would crack jokes at creationist theory in class whenever the opportunity came up. Haha, good times.

The old "this is how it is, but don't research it, because then we will have to shout you down, cause that's how science works!"

Your theories have been researched many times, even with dollars sourced only from people you like, but the results stubbornly continue to confirm that "mainstream" science was on the right track. How many more times will you insist that there has been an error and that the issue should be revisited? There's a word for people who do the same thing over and over again and expect different results, maybe you'd prefer it to "denier."

No, you are the minority (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217355)

You people won't even look at other causes of global warming/cooling such as the sun, and instead have a vote saying that the Sun has nothing to do with global warming.. it is definitely AGW. You call yourselves scientists? Spend a moment and read on up on the other side of the debate by reading the NIPCC Reports. http://nipccreport.org/

Re:No, you are the minority (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#46217459)

Hahaha shows what you know. Yes the sun has been considered. Many times. You're fairly ignorant of the body of research on global warming, at best.

Suggested reading list for the climate science den (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217545)

- NIPCC Reports
- Climategate
- Eco-tyranny

dark matters 85 centuries of deception to resolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216353)

our secrets are killing us? everybody? http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

we fail to honor our genuine heros,, ominous (very nearly fatal) 'welcome home' from our 'civil' servants http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scott%20olsen&sm=3

so we pretend even more accounting problems still http://rt.com/business/us-unemployment-economy-crisis-assistance-006/

Denier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216411)

Anyone using the phrase "climate change denier" obviously does not understand the scientific method.

The problem isn't that people have contrarian ideas and express them - but the authoritarian view that they shouldn't be allowed to.

Anyone who uses "scientific method" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217031)

Anyone who uses "contrarian" as a synonym for the scientific method doesn't know what the scientific method, nor skepticism, is.

The problem is that contrarianism isn't skepticism, but you're damned sure going to pretend it is so you can stuff your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

Get your facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218451)

Real science by credible people not funded by political organisations are what fuel our skepticism. Have you read the NIPCC reports? Didn't think so.

Re:Get your facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218563)

> Not funded by political organisation
> NIPCC, which is published by the same old Heartland Institute

Rrrright.

Also, have you read the debunking of the claims in NIPCC's reports? Those were published since 2009 as well.

No different than GMO debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218667)

Your science vs our science. We debunk your AGW theories with peer reviewed science, and you claim to do the same to ours. It comes down to who you believe, and I believe the NIPCC. LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!

Peer review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218919)

Peer review doesn't mean "Get Screaming Mad Lord Monckton to look at it", dearie.

Climate Change Deniers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216455)

that is why even climate change deniers get their say, although they are a tiny minority.

Right off the top? Classy.

True Believers are worse that vegans in their dampened ability to think straight through their dollops of misplaced, righteous outrage.

Overly emotional thinkers trying to assuage their human guilt. -It's not a bad thing to feel guilt, but without the ability to think rationally, it gets pinned on irrational things.

Proof of irrationality?

Just count the number of posts questioning climate change in any given story where the question comes up. Seems like a fairly even split to me. Not "a tiny minority". And some days, only the lunatic fringe are adamant about Global Warming.

And yes, for the record, they've shifted their position. It used to be "Global Warming". Now that we've had, what is it? 17 years of no warming according the last story from satellites sent up to measure global temperatures, the dissonant believers have shifted their story to fit the emotional demands. Now it's "Climate Change." -Which, yes, holly hell, there is climate change.

If you're going to get into a righteous huff and blame a sacrificial carbon goat, pick a windmill and stick to it.

And no, carbon emissions have nothing to do with why the weather is freaking out.

Climate Change Deniers? Yup, you are. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216787)

"And no, carbon emissions have nothing to do with why the weather is freaking out."

Yup, this is climate denial: evidence you don't like is denied.

Well done.

PS IPCC was named what? And when?

Gilbert Plass' paper in 1955 was named what?

Frank Luntz said what to do to minimise the impact of Global Warming for his Oil Baron prez?

Climate Change Deniers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217401)

The number of fanatics someone has screaming their message doesn't give credence to their argument. The problem with the moniker global warming is that people misunderstood it to mean that everywhere would get warm, which wasn't accurate. The whole planet IS warming, that's an irrefutable fact if we look at temperature norms for the planet over it's existence and your cherry picking of dates doesn't make that go away, the planet's temperature has risen almost .6 degrees since the mass introduction of fossil fuels. Climate change is a more accurate term based on what most people will see, and also significantly less sensational. I fail to see why changing the description of something based on new evidence or understanding is bad or incorrect. Please enlighten me.

"And no, carbon emissions have nothing to do with why the weather is freaking out."

Pray-tell then why is the climate "freaking out". Magic? The mystical sky fairy? The Earth using it's rocket engines to fly closer to the sun? Seriously you have no actual science to back up your argument. In closing, your argument is wrong, you are wrong, and your opinion is wrong and we have the science to back it up.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

In closing, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218323)

In closing, YOUR arguments are wrong and WE have the science to back it up. You just choose to ignore and deny it.
http://www.nipccreport.org

Re:In closing, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218615)

In closing your arguments are wrong and here is the science to back it up:

www.nature.com

www.ipcc.ch

You just deny it exists.

Re:Climate Change Deniers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218535)

Pray-tell then why is the climate "freaking out". Magic? The mystical sky fairy? The Earth using it's rocket engines to fly closer to the sun? Seriously you have no actual science to back up your argument. In closing, your argument is wrong, you are wrong, and your opinion is wrong and we have the science to back it up.

Psst. Note the increased number of comets interacting with the Earth. That and the increased number of extreme geologic events, earthquakes, volcanoes. And no, I'm not suggesting that volcanic ash is the culprit, rather I'm saying that something is causing shifts in the way the solar system is behaving, affecting the sun and the planets.

The problem is that those shifts cannot be blamed on human activity, and thus, they are not within the control of the almighty elites who supposedly "guide and protect" us. They know it on a deep level. In the past, when the skies hammered the world with Olympian fire and thunderbolts, and the seas raged and the earth shook, kings who could not appease the gods were quickly deposed and cut into smallish pieces.

The same thing could easily happen today. Easily. -Which is why we are seeing this whole carbon "It's human-caused and YOUR fault, little people. Accept our punishing measures. Wallow in guilt! The angry skies are your fault!" spin.

When Ice Ages hit, they do so fast and hard. And yes, there's good science and historical evidence to back all of that up. You just have to look beyond the controlled message and the silly sandboxed debates. Do a little digging and a little open minded thinking and see what you come up with.

Most don't have the stomach for it, nor have they done the self work required to think objectively. To set aside the ego.

It's okay, empowering, and in fact absolutely necessary in every step of learning to admit that you have been ignorant, lied to and manipulated.

But most simply cannot let go of their sacred cows. Golden, Carbon or otherwise.

Journals are failing (5, Insightful)

beaker_72 (1845996) | about 2 months ago | (#46216463)

The peer review system for scientific journals is broken. It was supposed to ensure that only valid research which takes a field forward would actually get published. Techniques such as blind and double blind reviewing were supposed to help in ensuring that there was no bias towards specific researchers such as those who were considered to be leaders in the field. However what happens in practice is usually a long way from that ideal, vested interests and group think often result in new, fresh ideas not being published (older academics pulling up the ladder) and mutual back scratching is very common. Reviewing is rarely blind let alone double blind and so all the abuses those are supposed to prevent can (and do) take place. New approaches to publishing ideas and possibly even research results should be encouraged. Blogs are also far from ideal, but if it helps get ideas out to a wider audience then they're a step in the right direction.

Re:Journals are failing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216877)

The peer review system for scientific journals is broken. It was supposed to ensure that only valid research which takes a field forward would actually get published.

I don't recall Francis Bacon writing about "valid" research and taking a field "forward", anymore than evolution having a "direction".

Re:Journals are failing (3, Interesting)

hubie (108345) | about 2 months ago | (#46217053)

You make good observations on the shortcomings of journal peer review, which of course varies considerably for the field and the journal. However, I don't see something like blogging to make a whole lot of difference regarding this issue. Scientists have been able to put up personal research websites for 20 years, and something like arXiv.org lets them get whole papers out, not to mention presenting at scientific conferences. Things like blogging can be effective in getting ideas out to the general population, but to get ideas out and vetted at the scientific level, you need topic experts to review the material and that brings you right back to some sort of peer review system.

Re:Journals are failing (1)

the gnat (153162) | about 2 months ago | (#46219216)

However what happens in practice is usually a long way from that ideal, vested interests and group think often result in new, fresh ideas not being published (older academics pulling up the ladder) and mutual back scratching is very common.

I can't defend the current system, which is broken for more reasons than I can count, but it's important to keep in mind that we really do need some kind of community-enforced quality control. Outsiders tend to see this from a negative perspective: groupthink is suppressing new ideas! But there is also a vast quantity of crap that gets caught at this stage - not necessarily shoddy results (although there are certainly plenty of those), but wild and fanciful interpretations that should embarrass any first-year grad student with half a brain. In fact, the more common argument within the scientific community is that peer review often isn't a rigorous enough filter.

To pick a recent counter-example, the Science paper reporting bacteria that supposedly depend on arsenic was a perfect case of a revolutionary new idea that made it past peer review despite many serious flaws that should have made it unpublishable.

One true science is unscientific (1)

SlOrbA (957553) | about 2 months ago | (#46216511)

Science articles are at best n-1 dimensional projections of n dimensional objects.

Re:One true science is unscientific (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#46217455)

That isn't too bad if science turns out to be an n-dimensional projection of an infinite-dimensional object.

Not to mention... (2)

argStyopa (232550) | about 2 months ago | (#46216709)

...one can then ALSO see the sorts of personal bias a scientist has.

This also helps identify if they're peddling some sort of politically-motivated mendacity.

Re:Not to mention... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#46217589)

Which goes both ways, keep in mind.

This is all under the continued larger political assumption the solution is to crush modern live via massive and detailed government intrusio. into energy, vastly increasing costs (with the attendant kickbacks, let us not forget that, which is what differentiates the west's powerful economy from more struggling ones).

I keep saying don't bother -- we'll be objecyively better off in 100 years with tech of 100 years from now than with lower seas and tech of 70 years from now.

Imagine people in 1900 slamming on the brakes, leaving us with cleaner air, no gw, and 1970-level tech. thanks for nothing.

And before bleating, no, history shows you can't have both apid advancement and massive government inyrusion.

Re:Not to mention... (1)

the gnat (153162) | about 2 months ago | (#46219342)

history shows you can't have both apid advancement and massive government inyrusion.

Sure you can. The economic (and human) costs may be severe in many cases, but there are numerous examples of rapid advancement being directly tied to government involvement. In the 20th century, we have the invention of digital computers, nuclear power, radar, jet engines, satellites, GPS, the Internet... of course these technologies were later extensively developed by private enterprise, to the benefit of everyone (especially consumers), but their genesis was in government programs.

my eyes are bleeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46216911)

Please have mercy on us and turn off this God-awful beta format!!!!

Re:my eyes are bleeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218845)

Add
?&"nobeta=1"
to the URL and Beta goes away.

The article is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217079)

There is another way for people to get the real facts, the real science of climate change other than from the mainstream media. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed by real American climate scientists and they have created their own extensive reports on climate change. Over 37,000 other scientsts have signed their name in support. http://nipccreport.org

Trivializing the Holocaust is not cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217425)

Using the term denier to refer to climate skeptics is a blood libel invented by the Boston Globe in 2007 to deliberately compare those who question AGW theory to those who deny the Holocaust.

You are profoundly offensive. You should consider how you got to this point, speak with a therapist.

And don't ever use the term denier in such a flippant context again. Shame on you.

Re:Trivializing the Holocaust is not cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46217547)

a blood libel invented by the Boston Globe in 2007

Even when you're trying to deflect the debate with your "OMG, they must mean Holocaust deniers when they say that, because that's what denial means and nothing else! What awful, awful people!", you still can't even get the facts right [google.com].

lol... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218075)

Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments.
Try again... na-nu, na-nu!

Fuck Beta!

Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218201)

I think blogs are making it very easy for false (intentional or not) to spread as fact. By reading blogs, you would not know that less and less scientists agree on man-made global warming. I'm at a point where I'm skeptical about any science unless there is solid way to prove it, because often it seems scientists are being paid to get the results they want.

"Tiny minority"? Last study from Jan 17 says 23% don't think global warming is happening. This is what happens when scientists make predictions based on guesses, and are wrong every time. It was 16% last april, so the people who not believing it are going up fast.

e.g. Lior Pachter's latest blog posts (1)

maubp (303462) | about 2 months ago | (#46218675)

Lior didn't think much of two recent articles in Nature Biotechnology and attempted the traditional reply route, but the journal declined to publish it - so he blogged it:

http://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-network-nonsense-of-albert-laszlo-barabasi/
http://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/the-network-nonsense-of-manolis-kellis/

Terry Tao's polymath projects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46218943)

No mention of Tao's polymath projects? They missed the most interesting example.

The past several months we've witnessed remarkable progress on the twin primes conjecture take place on Tao's blog.

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/polymath8b-viii-time-to-start-writing-up-the-results/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...