Yup, It's yellow

[red-beard]

Another good stab at what is really wrong!

Yellow Science

By JAMES KERIAN
June 25, 2008

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.

* * *

Scientists, like journalists, are called upon to plumb the depths of the unknown and to fairly and objectively report their findings to their own professional community as well as the general public. Scientists, like the journalists of yesteryear, have specific methods for ensuring that the public trust placed in them is not abused. The most fundamental of these methods is the well-known, if not so creatively named, scientific method. The essence of the scientific method is the formulation of hypotheses (ideas) and the using of these hypotheses to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington in "The Philosophy of Physical Science," "Every item of physical knowledge must therefore be an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure."
Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.
The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."
Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. The first question that this raises is why have so many scientists chosen to ignore this glaring failure of the global warming hypothesis to meet the standards of their own profession? The second question is what, if anything, can be done about it?
The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.
Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."

* * *

The layman might object that this is not his problem. Surely Joe Six-Pack should not be expected to monitor the findings of research physicists; if anything is to be done about this collapse of scientific standards, it must be done by the scientific community itself. Unfortunately, history has shown the inability of professional communities to police their own ranks. When it first reared its head, yellow journalism was roundly condemned by the journalistic community. In fact, it was these critics who coined the term yellow journalism. The condemnation of their peers was an insufficient deterrent for Pulitzer and Hearst, because it was the approval of the public that drove their circulation. Eventually the entire journalistic community acceded to the sensationalism that the public seemed to insist on.
In recent decades, the scorn of prominent scientists such as John Coleman has been similarly unable to stop the ascendancy of the global-warming hypothesis as the public has been increasingly drawn by its sensationalism. The scientific community as a whole is on the brink of acceding to Ban Ki-Moon's insistence that "the debate is over" and turning now to their grant applications.
Ultimately, it is only the public that holds the power to enforce professional standards, and therefore each of us must accept this responsibility. Most of us will not be able to comprehend the latest climatologic studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but fortunately that is not necessary. However complex the information may be, the standards are quite clear. One need not be a Beltway newshound to know that whatever follows the phrase "unnamed sources in the capital" or "rumors in Hollywood are" is not real journalism. Similarly, one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to understand that whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public.
The long-term results of yellow journalism have probably been more devastating than the war it started. Journalists have lost the respectability of their profession, and the public has lost real journalism. We are in very real danger, as scientists and as a nation, of losing the respectability of a professional community that has done so much to make this country great in the past hundred years. If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. This is why, as the editors of the New York Press said in 1897, I "called them yellow because they are yellow."
Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.

[Seahawk]

I enjoyed the perspective. I did a Google on him and he has some other interesting outlooks as well.

[turbo6bar]

Originally Posted by red-beard

If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. [/B]

Absolutely correct. We should demand professionalism in science, the media, and all facets of government. Mediocrity is unacceptable.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Another good stab at what is really wrong!

Yellow Science

By JAMES KERIAN
June 25, 2008

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.

* * *

Scientists, like journalists, are called upon to plumb the depths of the unknown and to fairly and objectively report their findings to their own professional community as well as the general public. Scientists, like the journalists of yesteryear, have specific methods for ensuring that the public trust placed in them is not abused. The most fundamental of these methods is the well-known, if not so creatively named, scientific method. The essence of the scientific method is the formulation of hypotheses (ideas) and the using of these hypotheses to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington in "The Philosophy of Physical Science," "Every item of physical knowledge must therefore be an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure."
Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.
The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."
Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. The first question that this raises is why have so many scientists chosen to ignore this glaring failure of the global warming hypothesis to meet the standards of their own profession? The second question is what, if anything, can be done about it?
The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.
Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."

* * *

The layman might object that this is not his problem. Surely Joe Six-Pack should not be expected to monitor the findings of research physicists; if anything is to be done about this collapse of scientific standards, it must be done by the scientific community itself. Unfortunately, history has shown the inability of professional communities to police their own ranks. When it first reared its head, yellow journalism was roundly condemned by the journalistic community. In fact, it was these critics who coined the term yellow journalism. The condemnation of their peers was an insufficient deterrent for Pulitzer and Hearst, because it was the approval of the public that drove their circulation. Eventually the entire journalistic community acceded to the sensationalism that the public seemed to insist on.
In recent decades, the scorn of prominent scientists such as John Coleman has been similarly unable to stop the ascendancy of the global-warming hypothesis as the public has been increasingly drawn by its sensationalism. The scientific community as a whole is on the brink of acceding to Ban Ki-Moon's insistence that "the debate is over" and turning now to their grant applications.
Ultimately, it is only the public that holds the power to enforce professional standards, and therefore each of us must accept this responsibility. Most of us will not be able to comprehend the latest climatologic studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but fortunately that is not necessary. However complex the information may be, the standards are quite clear. One need not be a Beltway newshound to know that whatever follows the phrase "unnamed sources in the capital" or "rumors in Hollywood are" is not real journalism. Similarly, one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to understand that whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public.
The long-term results of yellow journalism have probably been more devastating than the war it started. Journalists have lost the respectability of their profession, and the public has lost real journalism. We are in very real danger, as scientists and as a nation, of losing the respectability of a professional community that has done so much to make this country great in the past hundred years. If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. This is why, as the editors of the New York Press said in 1897, I "called them yellow because they are yellow."
Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Great source for your argument.
I'm not a pro-climate change guy, but you've mimiced Mule for dubious sources on this issue.

[cmccuist]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Great source for your argument.
I'm not a pro-climate change guy, but you've mimiced Mule for dubious sources on this issue.

That graph clearly shows a cooling trend from year 2000 on.

Thank God! Thank algore! The crisis is over!!

I didn't want to have to divert money from my Porsche fund to buy carbon credits.

[legion]

You mean the temperature has risen steadily since the Little Ice Age ended 140 years ago? Who da thunk?

[The theory of man-made] Global warming is based on 150 years of temperature measurement and millenia of guesses on what the temperature was in the past.

It's like having 15 seconds of trading information from the open of the stock market on January 2nd, and detailed information on oil prices going back to 1920 that you have used to "extrapolate" what the stock market did for the past 88 years, and then using that information to project how the stock market will close out the year...

And there is another, much simpler explanation for your graph Jim. Most temperature measurement stations are in urban areas. Due to the "heat island" effect, that has skewed the data in favor of higher temperatures. Do a Google search, there is a website that tracks the placement of these stations (and how they are more often than not improperly placed) and discusses this issue. Even many of the stations set up in rural areas are set up in the middle of large, asphalt parking lots--it's almost as if the results are being manipulated to produce a predetermined outcome.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Great source for your argument.
I'm not a pro-climate change guy, but you've mimiced Mule for dubious sources on this issue.

Yeah, and since the revised data shows that the 1930's were warmer than the 1990s, your graph is old.

That DARN Wallstreet Journal. They suck at reporting! Such a dubious source.

[Pazuzu]

I hate articles like that where they generalize the term "scientist". I dealt with increasing ignorance about science over the past few years, from people who now assume that ALL scientists are in Big Government's pocket, lying, stealing, or just outright frauds.

[IROC]

I actually had an opportunity to talk a climate scientist at some length about this whole "global warming" thing. Coming from a skeptical point of view, I was mainly lambasting the ability of global climate models to accurately predict temperature changes. (this guy happened to work on global climate models - oops). As it turned out, I didn't know what I was talking about. This was a guy who works with this stuff day in and day out and he was genuinely convinced that the phenomenon is real. He wasn't taking measurements from parking lots - he was using satellite data.

We can argue all day long about the causes for the warming, but it is happening.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

I ALL scientists are in Big Government's pocket, lying, stealing, or just outright frauds.

Originally Posted by IROC

This was a guy who works with this stuff day in and day out and he was genuinely convinced that the phenomenon is real.

So, which of the above was he?

[Tobra]

Chris makes an excellent point. If you want a nice practical demonstration. Go drive your 911, get it good and hot, park in your garage and shut the door, voila, your own heat island.

Jim, the point is not that temps are rising, it is that Man's impact on it has been greatly overstated by some who would financially benefit from coloring their perspective. If you look at placement of reporting stations, together with more recent, ostensibly more accurate information, that one line you pulled out to exhibit his incompetence, is probably not incorrect.

[john70t]

"The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere."
-Bhaa, what a bunch of scientific balony. The polar cap having melted is just 20 years has nothing to do with this folks. Go back to your homes, there's nothing to see here.



Hey red-beard, if the bio/chemical/mechanical systems of the "environment" are reduced to dust and hot gasses, how will most humans survive if there's nothing to eat or breath?
I'm sure a few will still feel good about themselves despite the catastrophy they helped produce, because they are "wealthy",

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Yeah, and since the revised data shows that the 1930's were warmer than the 1990s, your graph is old.

That DARN Wallstreet Journal. They suck at reporting! Such a dubious source.

My source was http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

I'm not saying algore v. manbearpig. I'm saying, use good sources for your argument, not opinions from mechanical engineers or, in Mule's case, college juniors who also report on frat/sorority activities.

[legion]

Originally Posted by john70t

"The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere."
-Bhaa, what a bunch of scientific balony. The polar cap having melted is just 20 years has nothing to do with this folks. Go back to your homes, there's nothing to see here.



Hey red-beard, if the bio/chemical/mechanical systems of the "environment" are reduced to dust and hot gasses, how will most humans survive if there's nothing to eat or breath?
I'm sure a few will still feel good about themselves despite the catastrophy they helped produce, because they are "wealthy",

I think this post is an excellent illustration of the modus operandi of the "environmentalists".

First, it uses a condescending dismissal of the argument at hand, then it presents, different, unrelated evidence. Finally, it ends with a dire prediction of what may happen if you do not heed the "imminent warnings".

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Jim, the point is not that temps are rising, it is that Man's impact on it has been greatly overstated by some who would financially benefit from coloring their perspective.

I agree that it's possibly overstated or even incorrect. I just don't know.

Originally Posted by Tobra

If you look at placement of reporting stations, together with more recent, ostensibly more accurate information, that one line you pulled out to exhibit his incompetence, is probably not incorrect.

Maybe, but this is just an op-ed piece. I could write one, and it would be just as relevant. Or just as irrelevant. It's simply playing to what you believe, or disbelieve.

[john70t]

Speaking of watering down the subject, how 'bout "sensor tampering", "typical liberal politics", followed by complete denial of Global Warming.
The melting of of the polar caps is real, and very sudden. No matter how many climatologists Bush fires, the data remains until it is erased from government archives.

Speaking of erasing data, I heard the National Chemical Database has recently been consolidated and "secured" from scientists viewing it. This is the total knowledge of known effects of chemicals upon humans and the environment.
Try explaining that to a loved one with cancer.

[Jim Richards]

Bush hates transparency in government.

[legion]

Originally Posted by john70t

Speaking of watering down the subject, how 'bout "sensor tampering", "typical liberal politics", followed by complete denial of Global Warming.
The melting of of the polar caps is real, and very sudden. No matter how many climatologists Bush fires, the data remains until it is erased from government archives.

(I'm ignoring the topic-switching and scare-tactic part of the post.)

Can you prove that global warming is caused by human activity?

Barring that, can you disprove that it is caused by non-human factors, such as volcanic activity and/or the sun?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Another good stab at what is really wrong!

Yellow Science

By JAMES KERIAN
June 25, 2008

In the late 19th century,
Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.

I'm in the "global warming is happening - might be man, might be natural cycle" camp.

This guy knows about as much on global warming as you do on who sets crude oil pricing.

has Rupert Murdoch destroyed the WSJ so fast he can print an authoritative OpEd by a guy who runs a company in ND making machines that clean fruits and vegetables, and people take it as the final word on global warming?

Do I have that right? or is just that people reading OpEds and take them for factual treatises (a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached) are really really stupid?

[jjone20]

OMG the icecap is melting. That's never happened before, has it? I don't remember it in my lifetime, so we must be in imminent danger of - the end of the world. I asked my dad, he's 89. He doesn't remember it happening either. That's surely proof that it is a true crisis. Trying to predict the cyclical nature of the earth's climate based upon measurements across an infinitesimal speck of time is ludicrous. It's about power and control. What's the next crisis? Food, water, population? For sure there are some who have the answer to each crisis, and it means more govermental control of your life.