Global Warming as 21st Century Religion

[The Free North]

The scientific consensus against me?  The scientific consensus is that humans are having a noticeable, significant impact on global temperatures through their economic activity.  I don't disagree with that at all.  I simply disagree with the convoluted, emotion laden process where that consensus gets blown up into "WE'RE ALL DOOMED THE SEAS WILL RISE 70 FEET IN OUR LIFE TIMES".

Ernest:  The skeptics do have a theory for why the climate acts like it does.  Unfortunately it's much much more complicated than the surprisingly simple greenhouse theory.  Various mechanisms respond to changes in solar activity which changes our weather pattern ultimately leading to climatic changes over periods of decades.

A quieter sun affects well known large natural atmospheric and oceanic cycles that we know can warm or cool the planet over periods of decades.  The largest of these is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation followed by the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation.

Nobody has been able to tie CO2 emissions to these natural variables.  And it just so happens the last time the PDO was negative for 30 years, the planet didn't warm for 30 years (~1945-1976).  By studying the cumulative value of the index, you can see the PDO peak in 2005 and begin to decline.  And the more we move away from 2005, it's becoming obvious that that was the "peak" in global temperatures... even if it wasn't necessarily the warmest year.  (Well, it's 2nd warmest according to NASA GISS).

But for you to say skeptics don't have any real theory is just laziness on your part Ernest.  You haven't bothered to read any skeptical opinions of CAGW theory... so you assume there is nothing to read.  That's your fault.. not mine.

Agreed 100%

Sure, there are people out there who are ignorant and simply deny AGW outright. But they are not in the majority. Most people ive talked to have a very good reason for disagreeing with catastrophic global warming, and are usually much better informed than your average hysterical nut job on the other side.

This is a science debate, not a political one.

What percentage of this forum actually understand what the PDO and AMO are? Understands solar cycles? Understands interactions between solar and the QBO and northern hemispheric circulation.

Its a hell of a lot more complicated than more CO2= human crisis, and unfortunately, not enough people are well enough versed on the subject to have a thorough discussion. Im not claiming to be an expert, i have only scratched the surface on the subject, but its helped me realize that there is a ton of information and data out there and to sit back and argue with no basis in atmospheric science or knowledge of atmospheric phenomena is awful.

[AkSaber]

The scientific consensus against me?  The scientific consensus is that humans are having a noticeable, significant impact on global temperatures through their economic activity.  I don't disagree with that at all.  I simply disagree with the convoluted, emotion laden process where that consensus gets blown up into "WE'RE ALL DOOMED THE SEAS WILL RISE 70 FEET IN OUR LIFE TIMES".

Ernest:  The skeptics do have a theory for why the climate acts like it does.  Unfortunately it's much much more complicated than the surprisingly simple greenhouse theory.  Various mechanisms respond to changes in solar activity which changes our weather pattern ultimately leading to climatic changes over periods of decades.

A quieter sun affects well known large natural atmospheric and oceanic cycles that we know can warm or cool the planet over periods of decades.  The largest of these is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation followed by the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation.

Nobody has been able to tie CO2 emissions to these natural variables.  And it just so happens the last time the PDO was negative for 30 years, the planet didn't warm for 30 years (~1945-1976).  By studying the cumulative value of the index, you can see the PDO peak in 2005 and begin to decline.  And the more we move away from 2005, it's becoming obvious that that was the "peak" in global temperatures... even if it wasn't necessarily the warmest year.  (Well, it's 2nd warmest according to NASA GISS).

But for you to say skeptics don't have any real theory is just laziness on your part Ernest.  You haven't bothered to read any skeptical opinions of CAGW theory... so you assume there is nothing to read.  That's your fault.. not mine.

Agreed 100%

Sure, there are people out there who are ignorant and simply deny AGW outright. But they are not in the majority. Most people ive talked to have a very good reason for disagreeing with catastrophic global warming, and are usually much better informed than your average hysterical nut job on the other side.

This is a science debate, not a political one.

What percentage of this forum actually understand what the PDO and AMO are? Understands solar cycles? Understands interactions between solar and the QBO and northern hemispheric circulation.

Its a hell of a lot more complicated than more CO2= human crisis, and unfortunately, not enough people are well enough versed on the subject to have a thorough discussion. Im not claiming to be an expert, i have only scratched the surface on the subject, but its helped me realize that there is a ton of information and data out there and to sit back and argue with no basis in atmospheric science or knowledge of atmospheric phenomena is awful.

Well put. The both of you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But for you to say skeptics don't have any real theory is just laziness on your part Ernest.

Of course it's laziness.  The primary method I favor to combat global warming, the carbon tax, would make good policy sense even without global warming, so I don't need to worry too much about who's right.  Still, for all your words, I have yet to see an actual model based prediction from the skeptic camp as to what they think the climate will be like in say 2025, 2050, or 2100.  The skeptics seem to be far more comfortable decrying the weaknesses in the predictions of others than in risking getting egg on their face and making predictions of their own.

[The Free North]

But for you to say skeptics don't have any real theory is just laziness on your part Ernest.

Of course it's laziness.  The primary method I favor to combat global warming, the carbon tax, would make good policy sense even without global warming, so I don't need to worry too much about who's right.  Still, for all your words, I have yet to see an actual model based prediction from the skeptic camp as to what they think the climate will be like in say 2025, 2050, or 2100.  The skeptics seem to be far more comfortable decrying the weaknesses in the predictions of others than in risking getting egg on their face and making predictions of their own.

Thats just the thing. The climate is governed by Chaos Theory, the models we have know are simply not able to predict things that far in advance, even climate models. Current computer model struggle to predict storms 7 days out as a result of the chaotic nature of the atmosphere.

I dont claim, nor do most skeptics to know what the future will hold because of the incredibly diverse nature of things controlling our atmosphere. Until we can perfectly predict teleconnections, no one will know for sure. This is one of the major tenants of the skeptic camp, we dont know what the future will hold exactly, but we disagree with the notion that our climate is changing dramatically and unprecedentedly.

[Space7]

But for you to say skeptics don't have any real theory is just laziness on your part Ernest.

Of course it's laziness.  The primary method I favor to combat global warming, the carbon tax, would make good policy sense even without global warming, so I don't need to worry too much about who's right.  Still, for all your words, I have yet to see an actual model based prediction from the skeptic camp as to what they think the climate will be like in say 2025, 2050, or 2100.  The skeptics seem to be far more comfortable decrying the weaknesses in the predictions of others than in risking getting egg on their face and making predictions of their own.

Thats just the thing. The climate is governed by Chaos Theory, the models we have know are simply not able to predict things that far in advance, even climate models. Current computer model struggle to predict storms 7 days out as a result of the chaotic nature of the atmosphere.

I dont claim, nor do most skeptics to know what the future will hold because of the incredibly diverse nature of things controlling our atmosphere. Until we can perfectly predict teleconnections, no one will know for sure. This is one of the major tenants of the skeptic camp, we dont know what the future will hold exactly, but we disagree with the notion that our climate is changing dramatically and unprecedentedly.

Your argument mostly makes sense, but the thing is that there are, in fact, people who know a ton about this subject, unlike us regular people who gain most of our scientific knowledge from a mish-mash of pseudoscientifical information, word of mouth, and the New York Times. These people have researched it excessively. They're called scientists. And 97% of the ones who take a stance on the issue agree that global warming is, in fact, caused by people.

It's true that many scientists don't take a stance, or aren't sure, and so, like you, I'm not saying it's totally improbable that global warming isn't caused by people.

However, when the consensus of the people who dedicate their lives to studying climate say that it is caused by humans, well... that's where my lean on the issue is coming from. They know more about it than I or you do. We haven't been researching it from the source.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is so for the purposes of trying to best game the political system to get what is thought to be necessary, which is ironic because it has led to far more doubt and distrust and thus innaction.

At the end of the day, it is all about technological developement and utilization. These policy options are all means to induce/force/compel its usage. The cost of each in terms of individual industries and the overal economy, especially if done unilaterally in a global economy make many of them rather undesirable actions, including the simplest and easiest methords like a Carbon Tax or a Cap and Trade System (Simple at least for the politicians, but not in reality).

Therefore when you try and force the motivation (AGW) down people's throats forcefully, and the two most obvious options are as they are, it is not surprising that people would object to the cost and proceed to question the motivation using the holes, the rush and forcefullness inherent in approach taken by these people, against it.

[The Free North]

But for you to say skeptics don't have any real theory is just laziness on your part Ernest.

Of course it's laziness.  The primary method I favor to combat global warming, the carbon tax, would make good policy sense even without global warming, so I don't need to worry too much about who's right.  Still, for all your words, I have yet to see an actual model based prediction from the skeptic camp as to what they think the climate will be like in say 2025, 2050, or 2100.  The skeptics seem to be far more comfortable decrying the weaknesses in the predictions of others than in risking getting egg on their face and making predictions of their own.

Thats just the thing. The climate is governed by Chaos Theory, the models we have know are simply not able to predict things that far in advance, even climate models. Current computer model struggle to predict storms 7 days out as a result of the chaotic nature of the atmosphere.

I dont claim, nor do most skeptics to know what the future will hold because of the incredibly diverse nature of things controlling our atmosphere. Until we can perfectly predict teleconnections, no one will know for sure. This is one of the major tenants of the skeptic camp, we dont know what the future will hold exactly, but we disagree with the notion that our climate is changing dramatically and unprecedentedly.

Your argument mostly makes sense, but the thing is that there are, in fact, people who know a ton about this subject, unlike us regular people who gain most of our scientific knowledge from a mish-mash of pseudoscientifical information, word of mouth, and the New York Times. These people have researched it excessively. They're called scientists. And 97% of the ones who take a stance on the issue agree that global warming is, in fact, caused by people.

It's true that many scientists don't take a stance, or aren't sure, and so, like you, I'm not saying it's totally improbable that global warming isn't caused by people.

However, when the consensus of the people who dedicate their lives to studying climate say that it is caused by humans, well... that's where my lean on the issue is coming from. They know more about it than I or you do. We haven't been researching it from the source.

Id like to see an official source for the 97% statistic first of all. Secondly, there is tremendous pressure for scientists to be on the alarmist side in this day and age. Thats where all the research money comes from, thats where the media attention comes from, and there is tremendous social pressure too.

There remains, however, a large and growing number of dissenters, look up the Oregon Petition online for example.

Science is not formed by consensus, its formed by research, analysis, and discussion. The biggest problem I have here is that, politicians especially, try to blot out ANY type of rational discussion, screaming that the science has been proven, blah blah blah.

Look at the Obama website now, under his 4 point plan for Climate action, he has a section for calling out climate deniers

"Climate change is real, it's caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for our health. Some members of Congress disagree with this simple, scientifically proven fact. We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem."

This is the type of rhetoric that is extremely dangerous, we cannot simply shut of all discussion on the subject or bully people into admitting something. Global Warming is not a static thing, its constantly changing and evolving as we gain more knowledge, to say the science is solved in any case is absurd, but especially in such a dynamic debate.

[Brittain33]

Yes, there's certainly no money from ExxonMobil or other hugely profitable energy firms to bankroll scientists to provide credibility to their point of view...

[The Free North]

Yes, there's certainly no money from ExxonMobil or other hugely profitable energy firms to bankroll scientists to provide credibility to their point of view...

I never claimed that there was no foul play on the other side. This is all part of the problem as I previously stated, because of the politicalization of the issue, outside influences and fear mongering are getting in the wary of rational discussion, which ultimately hurts all of us.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yes, there's certainly no money from ExxonMobil or other hugely profitable energy firms to bankroll scientists to provide credibility to their point of view...

I'm fairly certain ExxonMobil didn't pay the earth to stop warming.  ExxonMobil also didn't pay climate scientists to be "baffled" at the "tragedy" of not being able to explain the lack of rise in temperatures.

Nothing has been done here to "prove' global warming except to appeal to consensus.  A consensus that is only achieved through statistical trickery and sleight of hand, at best in two different "surveys" that were put out by well known alarmist scientists.

When you get down to it... 97% agree on only two things:  That humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise and that CO2 has a warming effect on the planet's atmosphere.

From there, most scientists would defer to the IPCC.

Please show me where that is the point of debate:  Whether we're causing CO2 to rise and whether that has an impact on climate.

None of you can show that because it hasn't happened.

When you guys argue against me (and rattlesnake)... you're arguing against an artificial strawman where you assign opinions to me that were provided by the very people I'm arguing against.

That's insulting.

[Lurker]

I'm fairly certain ExxonMobil didn't pay the earth to stop warming.  ExxonMobil also didn't pay climate scientists to be "baffled" at the "tragedy" of not being able to explain the lack of rise in temperatures.

Who said this?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Dr. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research United (CRU) at the University of East Anglia admitted to other top climate scientists via e-mail that the earth's temperature had stopped rising and it was a tragedy that they couldn't explain it.

Any climate scientist worth their salt knows the earth stopped warming.  People who claim otherwise aren't scientists.. they are dogmatists who are getting more and more desperate and turn to increasingly transparent tactics to try and "prove" their point.  It's way beyond debating facts.  It's about ad hominem and red herrings and appealing to consensus at this point.

And before anybody chimes in... projection as well.  At least one person will accuse me of ad hominems, red herrings, and appealing to _______.. cuz *I'M* the dogmatist...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Dr. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research United (CRU) at the University of East Anglia admitted to other top climate scientists via e-mail that the earth's temperature had stopped rising and it was a tragedy that they couldn't explain it.

Any climate scientist worth their salt knows the earth stopped warming.  People who claim otherwise aren't scientists.. they are dogmatists who are getting more and more desperate and turn to increasingly transparent tactics to try and "prove" their point.  It's way beyond debating facts.  It's about ad hominem and red herrings and appealing to consensus at this point.

And before anybody chimes in... projection as well.  At least one person will accuse me of ad hominems, red herrings, and appealing to _______.. cuz *I'M* the dogmatist...

Give it up, Snowguy

[The Free North]

Dr. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research United (CRU) at the University of East Anglia admitted to other top climate scientists via e-mail that the earth's temperature had stopped rising and it was a tragedy that they couldn't explain it.

Any climate scientist worth their salt knows the earth stopped warming.  People who claim otherwise aren't scientists.. they are dogmatists who are getting more and more desperate and turn to increasingly transparent tactics to try and "prove" their point.  It's way beyond debating facts.  It's about ad hominem and red herrings and appealing to consensus at this point.

And before anybody chimes in... projection as well.  At least one person will accuse me of ad hominems, red herrings, and appealing to _______.. cuz *I'M* the dogmatist...

Give it up, Snowguy

The truth hurts, but hes mostly right.

The earth has stopped warming since 1998, its a hard pill for most alarmists to swallow, but its the truth.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I really love this.  Briffa's the guy that corroborated Michael Mann's Hockeystick with more tree ring data from Russia!

Unfortunately it was easily found that the algorithms Briffa used were screwy and a set of trees he used greatly warped his graph to show more warming than their actually was.

Finally 5 years later Briffa took those criticisms to heart and did a further study... which found no hockeystick whatsoever.  In fact, temperatures in the past 30 years are wholly unremarkable in the last 150 years.



Just another nail in the hockeystick coffin.

Edit:  I should point out that recent decades have been consistently on the warmer side of the record.  But greenhouse theory isn't about that.  Greenhouse theory says the warming should be gradual over time.  Like Alaska, it appears most of Siberia probably saw a big jump in temperatures back in 1977 coinciding with the Pacific Climate Shift... but has seen no warming since then.  With indications that the Pacific underwent a reversal around 2005ish, which coincides with the beginning of rapid cooling in Alaska... Siberia probably is experiencing the same.

Siberia had a brutally cold spring this year.. I know that.

[Ban my account ffs!]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/22/netroots_nation_winning_on_climate_by_making_fun_of_people.html

Win the climate 'wars' by "making fun of deniers".  lulz

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If your political strategy that you have used for 15 years has failed you, just press the gas harder on it and "stay the course".


Just like our immigration policy for the past thirty years.


And the left says we are the ones who are stupid.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find the decline in the second part of the 19th Century to be interesting, considering that it occured in spite of the second wave of the Industrial Revolution (the first wave of which ended the Little Ace Age), and included far heavier steel production and coal usage over that period, which helped the US and Germany chug past Britain as the largest economies.

I wish the data extended back to 1800.

[Franknburger]

I find the decline in the second part of the 19th Century to be interesting, considering that it occured in spite of the second wave of the Industrial Revolution (the first wave of which ended the Little Ace Age), and included far heavier steel production and coal usage over that period, which helped the US and Germany chug past Britain as the largest economies.

I wish the data extended back to 1800.

It is probably due to the "dimming effect"  (also known as "London Fog" or "Hamburger Schmuddelwetter"). Essentially, by burning coal, the particle content of the atmosphere was increased, and less sunlight reached the surface. This reduced the global temperature, and set off the greenhouse effect for some time. The Krakatau eruption in 1883 had a similar effect, which can clearly be seen on the diagram.
Another substance that is since several years known to dim sunrays is sulphur dioxide. A number of climate researchers attribute the fact that temperatures only rose marginally from the 1950s to 1980s to increased sulphur dioxide emissions (coal, lignite). When most industrial countries started to filter these emissions in the early 1980s, and atmospheric SO² content decreased, temperatures rose sharply.
The dimming effect is best documented for the USA on the two days following Sept. 11, when all air traffic was banned, and surface temperatures increased by 1-2 degrees Celsius.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I find the decline in the second part of the 19th Century to be interesting, considering that it occured in spite of the second wave of the Industrial Revolution (the first wave of which ended the Little Ace Age), and included far heavier steel production and coal usage over that period, which helped the US and Germany chug past Britain as the largest economies.

I wish the data extended back to 1800.

It is probably due to the "dimming effect"  (also known as "London Fog" or "Hamburger Schmuddelwetter"). Essentially, by burning coal, the particle content of the atmosphere was increased, and less sunlight reached the surface. This reduced the global temperature, and set off the greenhouse effect for some time. The Krakatau eruption in 1883 had a similar effect, which can clearly be seen on the diagram.
Another substance that is since several years known to dim sunrays is sulphur dioxide. A number of climate researchers attribute the fact that temperatures only rose marginally from the 1950s to 1980s to increased sulphur dioxide emissions (coal, lignite). When most industrial countries started to filter these emissions in the early 1980s, and atmospheric SO² content decreased, temperatures rose sharply.
The dimming effect is best documented for the USA on the two days following Sept. 11, when all air traffic was banned, and surface temperatures increased by 1-2 degrees Celsius.

There is no evidence that the cooling periods were caused by a manmade "dimming effect", especially in the latter 19th century when we had a negligible impact.

This has been a favorite pet theory of people like James Hansen who refuse to believe that natural oscillations (which are proven and well researched) have any impact on global temperature.

If this were the case, then the cooling should have been localized in the spots where the tropospheric aerosols were concentrated.. namely over the U.S. and Europe.

But the southern hemisphere saw cooling as well where there were no manmade aerosols.

No.  The reason the earth has gone through roughly 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of cooling since 1850 is because of ocean/atmospheric oscillations that store and release heat over decadal time scales.  This was proven years ago... yet you've still trotted out the tired old "humans wot done it" pie in the sky theory that James Hansen likes to believe.

James Hansen also predicted manhattan would be permanently inundated by the ocean by now.  Oh, and not to mention the earth is gonna broil and the oceans will boil off.

But remember.. he's the serious scientist. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

I find the decline in the second part of the 19th Century to be interesting, considering that it occured in spite of the second wave of the Industrial Revolution (the first wave of which ended the Little Ace Age), and included far heavier steel production and coal usage over that period, which helped the US and Germany chug past Britain as the largest economies.

I wish the data extended back to 1800.

It is probably due to the "dimming effect"  (also known as "London Fog" or "Hamburger Schmuddelwetter"). Essentially, by burning coal, the particle content of the atmosphere was increased, and less sunlight reached the surface. This reduced the global temperature, and set off the greenhouse effect for some time. The Krakatau eruption in 1883 had a similar effect, which can clearly be seen on the diagram.
Another substance that is since several years known to dim sunrays is sulphur dioxide. A number of climate researchers attribute the fact that temperatures only rose marginally from the 1950s to 1980s to increased sulphur dioxide emissions (coal, lignite). When most industrial countries started to filter these emissions in the early 1980s, and atmospheric SO² content decreased, temperatures rose sharply.
The dimming effect is best documented for the USA on the two days following Sept. 11, when all air traffic was banned, and surface temperatures increased by 1-2 degrees Celsius.

Your assertion about Krakatoa and temperatures in the US after 9/11 are both false.

If you look at the observed weather records rather than at the models... you'll find the actual cooling caused by volcanoes is several orders of magnitude smaller and is actually followed by a period of warmer than baseline temperatures until a radiative balance is achieved at the top of the atmosphere.

Also, the temperatures didn't "go up" after 9/11.  And the theory isn't even that contrails cause cooling.. but that they cause warming...so temps should've cooled after 9/11. In fact, an analysis of temperatures after 9/11 showed no discernible increase or decrease in U.S. surface temps.. but a slight increase in the diurnal temp range.  That is, mornings were a bit cooler and afternoons a tiny bit warmer because the contrails act like clouds and reduce the temperature difference without actually increasing or decreasing overall energy.

There is a theory that after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991... global temperatures fell a few tenths of a degree, culminating in summer 1992.  But there was an anomalous period in 1995 and 1996 that sequestered record amounts of heat in the western Pacific beneath the surface which were then released in a series of Kelvin waves beginning in early 1997 that led to the 1997/98 El Niño.

The heat from that El Niño then moved into the extra tropical Pacific, the Indian, and Atlantic oceans afterwards... and the heat from the 1997/98 El Niño was traceable in the Indian ocean until 2007.

It's much more complicated than emitting a puff of smoke into the atmosphere.  The oversimplification of the climate by alarmists is one of the most dangerous problems in climate science.  The earth isn't like a person and the greenhouse effect isn't like a blanket at all.

Only when you simplify the atmosphere like that does the greenhouse effect make sense.

In fact, the troposphere should be thought of as a slab.  When you introduce greenhouse gases, it creates a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere that can be measured by satellites. 

Think of the greenhouse effect more like pollen trying to pollinate the individual hairs on a corn plant... where the pollen fertilizing each kernel of corn is akin to the CO2 atom warming the atmosphere.  Increasing CO2 is basically like increasing pollen... the chances of fertilizing any kernel is higher.  So as "fertilization" increases, the temperature must rise.

But this can be saturated.  Eventually you're gonna have too much pollen and not enough hairs/kernels to pollinate.  That's why CO2's warming effect is logarithmic in scale.  That is, you get a set amount of warming for each DOUBLING of CO2 rather than for each incremental increase in CO2.

So with each 1ppm of CO2 to add to the atmosphere, it's potential warming impact on the climate shrinks.  This makes the first ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere by far the most effective at warming.  And once you start to get into the several hundreds.. the effect becomes negligible with each added ton of CO2.

Unfortunately the physics of this process also means that greenhouse warming necessarily means the entire troposphere must warm.  The models perform this task correctly.  And the models say the warming should be the most apparent at the surface near the poles, and about 12km above the surface near the tropics.

This is because heat in the tropics is transported straight upwards rather than poleward with height like heat in the mid latitudes.  So CO2 buildup and its effects should be strongest here, at least int he model world.

But the warming has been more rapid in the tropics at the surface than at 12km up.  We've modeled the conditions we'd expect to see.. and what we have observed has not matched that.

In any other field of science.. that means you failed.  You redo the experiment with different parameters.

In Climate Science instead they appeal to consensus and authority and bully you or ad hominem you out of the argument.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

My Reaction to nearly everyone on this thread

Needless to say, I'm with Foucaulf.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When you operate on the basis that the other side is ignorant, pretty soon all those who disagree even slighlty become so as well and thus it contributes to lazy and sloppy work. That is the price you pay when you try to translate it directly into a political strategy and the scientists themselves are party of the strategizing instead of focsuing solely on doing their homework properly.