[han]

Depends a bit on the conference, sometimes even non-speakers get expenses paid. Maybe I should have said "nothing unusual" rather than "normal". I ha ve never heard of people who give a talk getting paid for it.

[helene_t]

Wow, where do the conference organizers get the money from, Han? Sounds as if pure math is a lot more lucrative than medical statistics. I would have thought the opposite, after all we have some rich pharmaceutical sponsors that can keep the conference fees as low as typically EUR 600, lol.

[han]

Depends a lot on the size of the conference.

[kenberg]

I have been to many mathematics conference and for that matter I have run, or co-run, a few. Typically many participants will be provided with lodging, two to a room. Often I bring my wife and so the conference pays half, I pay half. Sometimes the organizers can do more, sometimes less, but I think it is safe to say that I have never seen going to a conference as a way to make a buck.

Major speakers, especially if they are giving a series of lectures, may receive additional compensation, but again we are in no way speaking of major money.

I don't know what to say about the $1,000 participants are reportedly getting. I went to the website and it seems clear that the event cannot reasonably be called a scientific conference any more than Al Gore's movie is a scientific presentation. It's a political meeting of advocates. I have no objection to political advocates meeting to share ideas, it's a free country. But an advocacy meeting is what it is. Any scientist , whatever his views on the subject matter, can tell the difference.

[irdoz]

I was a medical student in the 90s and got placed at a large HIV hospital.

At the time a nobel prize winning chemist had challenged orthodox scientific opinion that HIV caused AIDS and promoted an alternate hypothesis. He was correct in that there was not sufficent evidence to say with certainty that HIV caused AIDS. His alternate hpyothesis was, however, scientifically bankrupt.

Drugs to treat HIV disease were improving enormously. There had been a long controversy about many of the drugs and the side effects of some of the first drugs were often considered worse than the disease itself. Many people with HIV refused to take the new drugs - a choice that was reinforced by the scenitific debate about the lack of certainty that HIV causes AIDS.

Meanwhile, the increasing experience of doctors treating people with new drug combinations was of incredible success. I watched and shared their frustration as they tried to convince dying people to take these drugs and how constrained they were by the language of science and their inability to state things as certain. In private they were certain and could be scathing about the motivation of people promoting alternative hypothesies. They often had a conflict about their obligation to people with HIV they were seeing as doctors and whether or not to overstate their personal 'certainty'.

I remember going to the funeral of one person with HIV who refused drug treatment, and his sister looking me in the eye and saying 'you know you doctors failed my brother - you should have made him go on treatment'.

Im sure scientists who had the same personal certainty that tobacco caused lung cancer must have faced similar dilemnas about how to state the science, as they saw scientific uncertainty disingenuosly and quite mischievously used by the tobacco industry and their paid 'researchers'.

And Im sure climatologists who have the same personal certainty that human activity is contibuting to the current gloabal warming (with of course different degrees of certainty about how much contribution and what future impact) are facing the same dliemna as they watch global warming sceptics misuse and misrepresent scientific uncertainty, produce meaningless out of context data and non peer-reviewed scientific garbage. If in 30 years time the world is badly affected by global warming, the effects are towards the worst end of what's predicted as possible and because we failed to act soon enough those effects are not reversible for a few hundred years did they fail because they were constrained by the lack of certainty and 'science' to say strongly enough what they personally believed?


Some URLs

For sceptics
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...th/skeptics.htm

Some evidence
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...ic_evidence.htm

One of the key studies on historical CO2 levels in ice cores
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/...s/399429a0.html

Countering some of the myths abut CO2 (including in this thread)
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%2...al_warming3.htm

[kenberg]

I believe that he above post by irdoz goes right to the heart of the matter.

The fact that science will continue to refine knowledge and correct error should not be construed as saying that our current knowledge is "just a theory", as if one view is as good as another. There have already been adjustments in the scientific view, unfortunately they have been along the lines that situation is worse, not better, than was previously thought. There will be further adjustments. That's science. But you won't be waking up to learn that global warming isn't real any more than you will be waking up to hear that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

[helene_t]

Great post, Irdoz.

I do think there is a difference between the medical doctor advising a patient and a climatologist "advising" society as a whole. The first does not have to appear as a scientist. He has the option of saying "if I were in your situation, I would most certainly ....." without mentioning the scientific evidence directly. Also, if he choses to overstate his scientific certainty he would probably get away with it. (Whether he should do that is of course a different matter).

The climatologist doesn't have the option of overstating his certainty. It might have a positive short-term impact to do so, and it may earn him a position as a hero for the political environmentalists, and it may boost the sales of his popular books. But it would be bad for his reputation as a scientist.

[han]

If you haven't noticed, this thread has made me very upset. I wrote in private to Winston that it was better if I stopped posting here because I was getting so angry and would likely end up really insulting some people (I also apologized to Winston, I clearly misinterpreted his comment earlier).

Winston misunderstood my anger. It doesn't matter to me if people are not convinced that global warming is happening and caused by mankind. I think it is fairly ignorant but in no way offensive.

What really bothers me is that there are people out there who claim to be scientists but get paid a lot of money to knowingly produce false evidence. Just the idea of offering money not to good and correct papers but to papers whose conclusions you can use necessarily leads to corruption of science. Anybody with a PhD understands this and should be able to see the distinction between real science and scams like that.

I don't mean to say that any scientist who writes a sceptical paper about global warming is necessarily a big liar, maybe there are also a few highly ethical researchers out there who think that global warming is not caused by humans.

[PassedOut]

han, on Mar 5 2008, 06:15 PM, said:

What really bothers me is that there are people out there who claim to be scientists but get paid a lot of money to knowingly produce false evidence.

Sad to say, producing false evidence for pay is, in the US at least, considered to be a natural part of free enterprise. For years we had "scientists" casting doubt about the relationship between tobacco smoke and lung cancer. "Expert witnesses" get paid to give favorable testimony in court. Most of the global cooling "scientists" are of the same ilk.

I find this disgusting, but there is definitely a market for it.

[Winstonm]

han, on Mar 5 2008, 06:15 PM, said:

If you haven't noticed, this thread has made me very upset. I wrote in private to Winston that it was better if I stopped posting here because I was getting so angry and would likely end up really insulting some people (I also apologized to Winston, I clearly misinterpreted his comment earlier).

Winston misunderstood my anger. It doesn't matter to me if people are not convinced that global warming is happening and caused by mankind. I think it is fairly ignorant but in no way offensive.

What really bothers me is that there are people out there who claim to be scientists but get paid a lot of money to knowingly produce false evidence. Just the idea of offering money not to good and correct papers but to papers whose conclusions you can use necessarily leads to corruption of science. Anybody with a PhD understands this and should be able to see the distinction between real science and scams like that.

I don't mean to say that any scientist who writes a sceptical paper about global warming is necessarily a big liar, maybe there are also a few highly ethical researchers out there who think that global warming is not caused by humans.

I think is position is to be praised for its maturity - it is wise to step away for awhile when anger builds. Not too many have that maturity and self control.

If knowing what one were talking about were a requirement for posting, I'd be wordless and postless.

I do understand the frustration that Han described - but I am simply too ignorant of this argument to get mad.

I'm glad to have Han posting on this thread again as he seems to have a better grasp than many - and I'm still listening....

[mike777]

Interesting article by John Preston of MIT and Bryan Martel of the Environmental Capital Group on Investment Opportunities in Clean Energy.
He discusses some emerging areas of innovation of economically viable options including wind, photovoltaic power and solar among others.

He thinks while Europe is moving towards a carbon cap and trade he thinks a carbon tax would be difficult to enforce and politically difficult to pass in the USA because of concerns over forcing industy to pay taxes on carbon dioxide emmisions. Incentives and trading can be good but he feels a mandatory cap would be less desirable. Bottom line much new technological innovation is still needed.

[han]

Winstonm, on Mar 5 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

I'm glad to have Han posting on this thread again as he seems to have a better grasp than many - and I'm still listening....

I don't want to pretend that I know a lot about global warming research. In fact, there are some people who have posted in this thread who seem to know quite a bit more about it than I do.

I think that Mike777 is right and the discussion should really be about what the political consequences should be. It is really quite strange for a group of non-experts to debate whether scientific results are correct. Think about it, it just doesn't make sense.

But it makes perfect sense for non-experts to discuss what (and if) political decisions should be made. After all, these decisions are typically made by non-experts in the real world (hopefully after studying the predictions and conclusions found by a large number of experts).

[irdoz]

I actually think it is reasonable for non-experts to have a discussion about making sense of the scientific evidence. Sure, for most of us who are not expert it's not like we are giving expert opinion. But if expert opinion was actually leading the way, then substantial investment in alternative energy sources and serious policy development and the beginning of implementation of appropriate policy responses would have begun.

The reason things have by and large not begun in some places is not because of the science - but because of politics. While people perceive that there's two bickering sides and everything is unproven and too political then gridlock is well and truly in place. And it is this political environment that those with a vested interest in the status quo are trying to maintain.

If you have some knowledge of the history of 'science versus the tobacco industry' then the tactics they are using are incredibly similar.

These include

i) focus on uncertainty and lack of 'proof'
ii) brand advocates of any effective action as extremists or leftists or some other highly politicised term
iii) produce highly selective out of context and out of date 'science' to support your own views

Probably their most convincing argument is the lack of certainty and proof. In tobacco there was epidemioligal data showing a clear link between lung disease and cigarette smoking. But a statstical link is not 'proof' that smoking causes lung cancer. But it is really strong circumstantial evidence. I guess thats my (non-expert) impression of the current state of play in climate science. While there may not be 'proof' (and in the tobacco case the industries definition of proof was incredibly rigid) the circumstantial evidence that human activity is significantly contributing to the current global warming is incredibly strong.

It's worth remembering that the surgeon-generals report highlighting the link between smoking and lung cancer was produced in 1964 - and that cigarette companies still persisted with their 'no proof' campaign until well into the 1990s. It was only when the numbers of people with lung cancer became so overwhelming that they couldn't politically persist any more. But ultmately in my opinion it was politics that finally changed the picture - not science. (Although the tobacco industry is still doing very well despite law suits and is producing impressive prospectus for investors... and their new 'customers' in the developing world can't sue because they are 'knowingly' taking the risk)

If we have to wait for the politics of global warming to change because the effects are actually happening and seriously impacting on our quality of life then it may be a little late - so Im interested in how you have a conversation about global warming that positions it outside of the current gridlock - and I do think it is non-experts who have to have that conversation.

On another matter, I understand the 'anger of Han' about the corruption of the scientific process by money. The widely publicised letter by the AEI offering $10,000 to scientists and economists to provide commissioned articles to counter the recent ICCP report on global warming comes to mind. Unfortunately, in those areas of science that have associated with them large commercial interests , perceived 'non-independent' funding is often a major problem. The role of the pharmacuetical industry funding medical research is an ethical minefield and has arguably corrupted not only 'grey' literature but according to former editors of the NEJM, probably some peer-reviewed literature as well.

[han]

I didn't argue against discussion, I argued against debate. From what I understand from other posters here a debate is something competitive while to my mind a discussion is an exchange of thoughts and information. That indeed seems very useful.

A debate where obviously crooked arguments are brought forth by both sides in an attempt to "win" does not seem useful.

[mike777]

I think the smoking analogy may be very good.

To make it a bit extreme
1) If you are against stopping smoking you are a selfish,greedy, idiot, who does not care that the mass of the human race is being killed.
2) If you are for a total ban against smoking ....you want to throw thousands if not millions out of work in farming, manufacturing, bars and diners and stop personal freedom......
3) you are against the billions and billions in taxes that smoking brings to the worldwide economy that helps poor people..not the rich who stopped smoking anyway.

Note the debate is really about jobs and poor to lower middle class people paying the mortgage and bills....not the science of how smoking kills us.

[DrTodd13]

Hmmm...$10,000 grant money offered for papers against GW. Doesn't surprise me but I also see little difference between this and the grants totaling millions which you will lose if you aren't pro-anthropogenic GW. I don't think there's much outright fraud just to obtain grant money though. It may cause some results to be squelched but what is published is likely not intentionally fraudulent. Those who don't believe it will seek the $10,000 but I don't think it will convince a pro to become con. Recent research has said that the authors in around 20% of papers accepted to refereed publications outright manipulated data so as to produce a preconceived outcome.

I agree with Mike and Han that it does seem silly sometimes that we non-specialists are debating the merits of the science. But if we don't feel qualified to debate the science then why are we qualified to have any opinion? Maybe we couldn't make it through the day without something similar but the vast majority of people when asked why they believe anthropogenic GW is true would say "TV told me a bunch of scientists agreed." To me, this is a pretty frightening basis for accepted truth. In the absence of other information then it is reasonable to lean that direction based on one source but what I don't like is the dogmatism that people have developed who have insufficient reason to be dogmatic and how they demonize others who disagree.

[whereagles]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2008, 11:41 PM, said:

han, on Mar 5 2008, 06:15 PM, said:

What really bothers me is that there are people out there who claim to be scientists but get paid a lot of money to knowingly produce false evidence.

Sad to say, producing false evidence for pay is, in the US at least, considered to be a natural part of free enterprise. For years we had "scientists" casting doubt about the relationship between tobacco smoke and lung cancer. "Expert witnesses" get paid to give favorable testimony in court. Most of the global cooling "scientists" are of the same ilk.

I find this disgusting, but there is definitely a market for it.

It took more than 60 years and thousands of deaths to stop using lead on gasoline. It is known nowadays that the company producing lead additives payed for false research and bribed politicians to keep business going.

This is why you need a strong, independent central government, that can take measures against monopolies. That's the idea, but seldom the practice.

[mike777]

"This is why you need a strong, independent central government, that can take measures against monopolies. That's the idea, but seldom the practice."

Please define:
1) strong central gov.
2) independent central gov.
3) that can take the measure of monopiles..


At first blush this sounds frightening.........horrible..horrible horrible....
I find these three terms horrible......and prefer to fight to the death to stop them but then........
When I hear these three terms what I really hear is "God Empower"

In the USA we have a severly dependent, crippled, central government. It is severly dependent on the power of the citizens, of the people, this includes.....corporations who are considered..."Persons"......

In other words the cure sounds far far worse than the problem...but then you have not defined anything yet...

I have no doubt as a physicist you can define these terms and remove my fears...

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Mar 6 2008, 04:54 AM, said:

Please define:
1) strong central gov.
2) independent central gov.
3) that can take the measure of monopiles..

I have no doubt as a physicist you can define these terms and alloy my fears...

Seems to be the definition of your government, based on the principles of its foundation.

I am not sure about the alloying part but this may do nothing to alay your fears.

[han]

mike777, on Mar 6 2008, 02:21 AM, said:

I think the smoking analogy may be very good.

blah blah blah

This is either a very clever distraction from the valid point irdoz was making or an very stupid post. Irdoz was talking about science, you are talking about what political decisions should be taken.

Quote

but what I don't like is the dogmatism that people have developed who have insufficient reason to be dogmatic and how they demonize others who disagree.

The reason go against you so strongly is not that you disagree. It is because you bring us crooked arguments from obviously corrupt sources, and I think you know this very well. That is why I strongly doubt your integrity.