This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Readers are welcome to comment online on anything published in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature . Submissions to Correspondence may be sent to correspondence@nature.com
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gilman, L. An intellectual black hole. Nature 468, 508 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/468508b
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/468508b
Martha Stokely
Climate is an extremely difficult field to study and it suffers from the fact that it's really not possible to perform a controlled experiment in which there is only one variable that has been changed. This means it is often not possible to establish causation, regardless of whether there is overwhelming evidence of correlation, so people are always dealing with the problem commonly illustrated by the question: Do blue skies cause deserts? If you decide to make that vast logical leap from overwhelming evidence of correlation to assuming causation, then you still will have to deal with the questions of whether anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a significant effector of climate when compared with other climate effectors, such as solar output and whether the effects of AGW can be teased-out from the effects of solar output and other climate effectors. Then if AGW is a significant effector of climate whose effects can be teased-out from the effects of solar output – and only then – can we start to make intelligent decisions about the desirable levels of green house gasses (GHGs) in our atmosphere. We might wish to decrease GHGs when solar output is high but we might also wish to increase GHGs if solar output is dropping. And we might not wish to decrease GHGs during a decline in solar output. These considerations are important because periods of continental glaciation have historically been far more inimical to life than the Interglacial Period. But denigrating people with different views doesn't help answer any of those important questions.
Martin Hill
It's not really surprising that commenters feel 'attacked, lied to and conspired against' when articles like this appear in respectable scientific journals. Comments are not exactly the ideal place to engage with the original science, and the effort and resources involved in repeating experiments and other investigative work are beyond most of those who are not publically funded to do that work. The best commenters can sensibly do is point at potential errors and holes, in argument, process and quality as well as the science.
One point, for example, is that the line taken by some MMCO2GW advocates is that because current changes are unprecidented, they must be caused by recent human activity. Showing that they are not unprecidented merely removes this line of argument; it's not a serious argument that it cannot be human activity, but that it is not necessarily so, and so other evidence will need to be presented and accepted.
It's hardly surprising then that commenters indeed get angry when the response is not the oft-touted 'open and honest welcoming of criticism' of science but charges of 'denialism'. This recent claim that 'denialists' are 'full blown conspiracy theorists' is particularly depressing, especially given how often MMCO2GW advocates – some of them respected scientists – claim that denialism is a well organised oil-funded conspiracy.
ian love
Stokely writes as if Climate Change is a science-free area – assuming that there are only observations because global experiments cannot be instigated. There are, of course, substantial data from uncontrolled experiments (natural changes, e.g. volcanic eruptions) and very substantial theoretical understanding backed by laboratory experiments (e.g. on infra-red absorption by CO2). The latter provide the basis of the GCM climate models – despite constant denialist misinformation they are not 'tuned' to provide agreement with data but rely on the working through of the basic science, and their substantial agreement with observation provides yet more experimental information.
So we have already progressed through Stokely's various 'ifs' and are able to predict in broad terms the likely consequences of business as usual – it looks horrific!
ian love
Hill implicitly pleads for more understanding of 'commenters' when they "point out potential errors and holes" - the problem is that so many commenters are 'denialist': they just parrot the latest 'sceptic' meme and conclude that it overthrows all the scientific understanding.
Even when thorough investigation of supposed errors have shown their essential unimportance (e.g. urban heat islands, solar output) the same 'errors' are constantly regurgitated as serious flaws in understanding. A further example that Hill cites: the lack of unprecedented change – the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and of global temperature is indeed unprecedented in human history, even if higher CO2 levels have existed in Earth's distant past (and much higher temperatures too, and no large mammals)
On oil-funded conspiracy – the evidence is there in the large sums given to USA congressmen and foundations that propagate anti-global warming propaganda. Granted, it isn't merely oil companies, but includes other large industrial companies.