Engaging With Climate Skeptics 822
In the wake of the CRU "climategate" leak, reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog profile of Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "Curry — unlike many climate scientists — does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics,' but attempts to engage them in dialogue. She can, as well, be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues, as in a post on the skeptic site climateaudit where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations (mirrored here). In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here —- that when scientists 'circle the wagons' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair (and unscientific) attacks, the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended. Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue, or is there no possible common ground?"
ESR said it very well - Open Source Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Open-sourcing the Global Warming Debate [ibiblio.org]:
In short, if computer models are the primary tool in making all sorts of climate predictions, then let's have transparency in building the models and getting conclusions from them.
Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science (Score:5, Insightful)
While I do think there is climate change, I think that many of the "disaster scenarios" are over hyped.. and I think that Gore and his "it is all already completely decided everything I is fact and no reasonable scientist can argue with me" is bullcrap.
Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science (Score:5, Insightful)
While I do think there is climate change, I think that many of the "disaster scenarios" are over hyped..
What possible motivation would the climate scientists have to do so? What do they gain from over hyping the possible scenarios? To promote renewable energy? Again, what do they gain from this?
Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Millions of pounds in research money is a pretty motivating factor to anyone, including scientists, politicians and whoever has a stake in carbon credit companies.
Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are just a few reasons:
1) Further their own careers. Big (positive) claims about AGW are important if you want to get published in the high impact journals.
2) To get grant Money to stay publish and stay employed.
3) Face time with the media
4) Genuine-belief in AGW--even if not well supported by the actual evidence.
5) Insider politics -- why criticize a peer's research that largely agrees with your own? The incentives are reversed.
6) Other environmental motives, e.g., "even if AGW is wrong, reducing pollution, sprawl, cars, oil dependency, etc is good" (I have heard this argument a lot)
7) (Mistaken) belief in the precautionary principle, i.e., AGW is a risk and refusal to see it in cost vs benefit terms.
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)
But don't an equal number of opportunities exist for the contrary side? Wouldn't Exxon be willing to sponsor a whole scad of research grants if it disproved climate worries? Wouldn't a researcher who proved AGW was a hoax be bathed in media attention, career opportunities, etc.? With good enough research, couldn't journals be shamed into publishing?
Anyone foolish enough to think they'll advance their careers with false science will be caught out soon enough.
Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science (Score:5, Insightful)
While I do think there is climate change, I think that many of the "disaster scenarios" are over hyped..
What possible motivation would the climate scientists have to do so? What do they gain from over hyping the possible scenarios? To promote renewable energy? Again, what do they gain from this?
I hope you were being sarcastic and aiming for funny (I laughed!) but since you've been modded to insightful, I fear this needs an answer.
Scientists are under immense pressure to publish, and, as long as an article can pass peer review, the more sensational the claims you make, the better the odds of being published. Once you have published, more sensational claims make it more likely you'll be cited, and generally lead to your article getting more attention, which is purely to the scientist's benefit so long as his claims aren't so outrageous that the scientific community responds with ridicule. Scientists have every incentive to make the most dramatic claims they can get away with, and the peer review process seems to let them get away with an awful lot. Publication in major journals is one of the primary determining factors in employment and promotion in academics, yet hiring is usually done by people with expertise in a different subfield (schools like a range of researchers) who won't necessarily look too carefully at the articles themselves relying instead on number of publications, the reputation of the journals, and number of citations.
So, short answer: scientists have every reason to exaggerate and overstate.
Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortuantely, this dramatic over simplification results in personal observations by most people that are obviously inconsistent with what the talking heads on TV are trying to scare them with. That creates the skeptics, but it's the tribalism in the climatologist community (along with a handful of vocal and qualitifed critics) that turn skeptics into deniers.
But it goes beyond the computer models. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's have some light shone on the temperature data and how it is collected:
From Surfacestations.org [wordpress.com][pdf], a project to survey all 1221 of the climate-monitoring stations in the U.S.:
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.
And let's not forget the international methods [wattsupwiththat.com] of survey.
Re:But it goes beyond the computer models. (Score:4, Insightful)
You linked to a Hartland Institute report and got modded up? Seriously?
Apparently the mods don't realize who that group is....or you've got some help trolling.
Re:But it goes beyond the computer models. (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you not read the first page of that PDF at all?
Regardless, I'll admit that should that be accurate data, it's yet more noise that needs to be dealt with in an already very noisy dataset. However, I'd very much like to see such research done by respected scientists and published in respectable, peer-reviewed journals. A book being sold by the Hartland Institute comes nowhere close to being a respectable publication.
If it's true that those stations are in such bad positions, it still doesn't invalidate climate change. The trends will still be there, despite the extra noise. It's not like 800 thermometers were suddenly moved from cold, dark places to hot steamy ones, and that's the sole basis for climate change. Even if they are located poorly, year after year they should have the same operating conditions. And if year after year they show consistent temperature changes, that's still a signal that you can pick out of the noise.
I'm pretty well acquainted with people who make use of the network of weather stations around the US. They know which ones are consistently abnormal, since they pour through the data every single day. I'm skeptical that there is any such major issue in the US because of that. While I'm sure there are some bad weather stations, the scale in that book is unlikely. Meteorologists track weather systems. If a pocket of air suddenly rose 10 degrees when it passed over a weather station, then dropped on the other side, it would be very obvious.
A link from an untrustworthy source combined with my experience dealing with experts in the field makes me very skeptical indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How did this get modded up? Two links to a discredited climate blogger?
On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."
When the NOAA slapped him down, he suddenly became the
Re:But it goes beyond the computer models. (Score:5, Insightful)
How long has the air conditioner been there. Has the AC been replaced with one that blows more strongly or directly on the sensor. Was the nearby driveway originally gravel, how frequently is it repaved (Fresh pavement is much darker than old pavement).
If you actually downloaded the pdf from surfacestations.org you'd see that many of the sensors have been upgraded from manual temperature gages that needed to monitored daily with a pencil and paper, to electronic sensors that report back automatically. In many of the cases the new sensor was located much closer to the sources of extranious heat that then old sensor. Usually becase the old sensor was on the other side of a perminant structure such as a paved road and it would be prohibitively expensive and troublesome for those installing the new sensor to rip up the road and bury the power and data cables. Instead the moved the sensor to a more convenient, but more biased location
Some of these sensors have been around a long time and the environment has changed, or the sensors have been moved without anyone taking note of it. In the PDF is a smattering of photo's and their associated temperature data, and the 2 sensors that were actually well placed had COOLING trends in the data. Bad data is bad, no matter how (in)convenient the trends it contains.
Re:But it goes beyond the computer models. (Score:4, Informative)
I've already discussed [dumbscientist.com] this issue:
Surfacestations.org is saying that the surface temperature record is contaminated by the "urban heat island" [wikipedia.org] effect-- that temperatures are only rising around cities because of economic growth. One example he shows is that exhaust vents have been placed closer and closer to the sensors over the years.
This is a superficially compelling argument, but it's also one that scientists have considered and rejected. One test is that the urban heat island effect should be less pronounced on windy days than calm days. That's because if this warming is just caused by local exhaust vents, wind should carry that heat away whereas calm weather won't. This doesn't happen: calm and windy days have the same warming trend. This conclusion is from an article [nature.com] published in Nature by Dr. Parker in 2004; here's a BBC article [bbc.co.uk] quoting it. Other studies have confirmed this result using different methods and data in 2003 [noaa.gov], 2006 [allenpress.com], and 2008 [agu.org].
NOAA recently published an answer [noaa.gov] to that specific website. They took the 70 stations that surfacestations.org designated "best" or "good" and created a time series based on them. Then they used all 1218 stations to create another time series. Both of those time series are plotted on page 3. They're practically identical.
Also, scientists don't have to blindly trust these sensors because surface temperature measurements are also confirmed by satellite measurements and proxies [noaa.gov] such as ice cores, boreholes, coral growth, tree rings, stalactites, fossil beds, ocean sediments and glacial deposits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Source and data to one of the models: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ [nasa.gov]
This has been available for some time. And despite all the whining and yelling about closed source models and the like, over the years there have been no submissions from the open source community for fixes to bugs, aside from the occasion tweak for the makefile to compile on yet another platform.
There are also several books, multiple papers, etc. on how to write your own. There are several public sites that contain data you can use
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I don't think anyone is suggesting that we set it up on github so every clown coding in his mothers basement can can start contributing. I don't know that the important thing here is a true "free software(tm)" or "opensource(tm)" license. The important thing is that before we start looking at this research and assuming it is all correct because a few other scientists did a peer review and then making sweeping and expensive policy changes at the highest levels we should open up what they did so that p
A question (Score:5, Interesting)
Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?
Re:A question (Score:4, Informative)
Well, of the 54 prominent skeptics [sourcewatch.org] on the record, only eight of them have any relevant scientific qualification: Tim Ball, Robert C Balling, Bill Gray, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Garth Paltridge, Roy Spencer and Wolfgang Thune. So I guess they could fit in one New York Yankees box seat.
People like you are a large part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This attitude that when it comes to climate science it is a "With us or against us," sort of thing. Either someone accepts that humans are causing climate change, that the results will be catastrophic and so on or they are the ENEMY. Skepticism, dissent, etc are not tolerated. If you don't tow the party line, you are clearly in the pocket of the industry or a moron or whatever, worthy only of being shouted down and silenced.
That sort of attitude is a large part of what leads to the polarization of the issue, and is precisely what it seems that this person is trying to work against. If you have the attitude that anyone who is skeptical of your theory at all is to be dismissed a priori, well then you aren't going to win many converts, are you?
Also I should note that attitudes like this make many people like me extremely skeptical. Whenever people act in a manner that demands unquestioning support, when they simply shout down those that disagree and attempt to silence them, when they are secretive about their methods and data, when they appeal to a consensus, when they say debate is over, well that raises my bullshit alarm. The reason is that is precisely how con artists operate. They present you with what they say as absolute truth and shout down those who would dare question it. They want to present you with only their reality, because they are indeed full of shit and they don't want that to come out. As such they attack those that question them and try to silence them, because they want to deflect from the questions.
Well, when you act like a con man, that really sets off warning bells for me. Why would you do that? Why would you simply try to shut down those that question you if you are so sure of your position? While it doesn't make you a con to do that, it sure as hell makes me suspicious you are one.
So really, shit like that doesn't help. If you are going to dismiss anyone who is skeptical of your viewpoint out of hand, you accomplish nothing. You won't convert any of them, obviously since you just dismiss them, and you'll make others wonder what it is you are so worried about.
Re:People like you are a large part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The opponent of human-induced climate change is humbling. It is namely the status-quo. (Human induced) climate change is bad news not just for oil companies, but for banks, industry, anything that depends on burning fossil fuels: i.e., the economy. So the fight is between the climate change scientists + their hippie groupies and the economy, all 400 trillion dollars of it.
So, from this perspective, you might be able to infer that opposition has been a bit on the heavy side. Why should we kill our economy for some unproven stuff that some hippie scientists have been providing? That was the tune of the nineties. So nothing happened. Now there is some more proof that actual climate change is occuring, but ha! you cannot prove it was us humans doing it! No this cannot be proven but it's a dishonest cop out.
So it is a set of hippie scientist that are obviously overconcerned with the figures they are measuring versus 400 trillion dollars worth of people 100% concerned with next quarter's financial report, combined with all people that like their way of life as it is know thank-you-very-much.
And you are complaining about the defensiveness of the hippies?
Re:People like you are a large part of the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, but you forget one thing: Green-washing is now a valid way of bringing in the big bucks from consumers. Look at things like the Toyota Prius, which is blown out of the water in fuel consumption by pretty much any modern diesel of the same size or smaller (and the diesel doesn't require environmentally unfriendly battery production/destruction techniques) - but it doesn't matter, that, because the Prius has been cemented in the public consciousness. Mention diesel to people, and it conjures up images of the smoky, rattling behemoths spawned by the 70s oil embargo. It's not about better, it's about perception. The public is so willing to give up money and comfort now to save the environment (which fills me with an odd pride in humanity) that they'll give up their supposedly errant ways for ones that are perceived as helping reduce damage.
The big thing, the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about is the farm industry, by FAR the most polluting industry out there. One cow puts out more methane by belching (cows don't fart) in one year than a Land Rover Discovery. Put down that steak, and pick up that asparagus!
Yes, I know I didn't cite anything, but I felt like ranting. I read it somewhere, I think. Anyway, that's still a more robust source than most of the envirogangsters' info.
Re:People like you are a large part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I am not saying our conclusion is wrong, and I don't think your point hinges on that last paragraph, so you might want to consider not using it as an argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what you can't understand. It's not about being right. It's about scenario planning.
Scenario 1. Climate change is not happening.
skeptic: wait for more data.
result: life goes on.
activist: execute global emissions changes
result: millions are inconvenienced as governments struggle to achieve futile targets. The air and water is cleaner though.
Scenario 2. Climate change is not primarily man-made
skeptic: wait for more data.
result: humans deeply impacted. millions die of starvation,
Wrong results (Score:3, Interesting)
You missed one. Or two. (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's not about being right"? Really?
And you miss a couple of alternate scenarios and outcomes.
Scenario 2a. Climate change is not primarily man-made, but emissions are keeping the next ice age from happening.
Activist result: Depth and speed of problem is accelerated by human change.
Scenario 3a. Climate change is primarily man-made, but emissions are keeping the next ice age from happening.
Skeptic result: Nothing happens.
Activist result: Ice age. Humans deeply impacted. millions die of starvation, cities are
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Collapsing antarctic ice shelves, melting Greenland glaciers, a soon-to-be snow-free Kilamajaro, the opening of the Arctic passage, frost-heave in permafrost.
Ice age?
Current CO2 levels are off your chart. They're around 390ppm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg [wikipedia.org]
Your are committing a fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
In particular, what you are doing is a modern version of Pascal's Wager. You are saying "Here is a scenario that only has these simple outcomes, as such you must logically make this choice."
If you aren't familiar with the original it is about the question of to believe in god or not. Pascal said that you could plot the outcomes on a 2x2 matrix. If you do believe in god, and there is a god, you are infinitely rewarded. If you do believe in god and there isn't a god you get a small reward (that was his argume
Uh yeah, whatever... (Score:4, Insightful)
"...tribalism in science is the main culprit here..."
Funny, the old word used to be 'fraud'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which questions? (Score:3, Insightful)
"you're still evil for asking all of those questions (even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism, and you were pretty much right about the weak science)
Which questions had a good foundation?
My experience is that a good number of "those questions" -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change.
"How can it be global warming if some places are getting cooler?"
"Why is no on
Re:Which questions? (Score:5, Interesting)
"My experience is that a good number of 'those questions' -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change."
The first and largest was "what did your simulations actually DO when calculating this predicted climate change?"
And yes, the answer was, basically, "shut up - we know what we're doing, you don't need to see the computer code."
Whereas the truth was "the computer code sucks, it doesn't give the 'correct' answers, so we filled it full of hard-coded routines that gave us the answer we wanted."
Another question was "have you adjusted the raw data?" They said "no," the truth was "oh, hell yeah, and we're going to delete it before you can get an honest look at it."
The straw man questions you post were, oddly enough, not that straw-mannish, especially since the guy who is the godfather of the global warming computer models apparently did the computer model that predicted global cooling back in the day. I guess you didn't know that, though. It's another of those "dumb" questions you didn't even know was asked, much less the answer to...
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Common Ground? (Score:5, Interesting)
There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truth... in fact, there clearly are, in both camps. Those aren't scientists, though, and they aren't doing science. They're just people interfering with science. Best to publish all data, and keep discussion reasonable and non-accusatory. The amount of political and activist cruft attaching to the believers and deniers are harming the TRUE cause, which is to find out the truth.
Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.
Re:Common Ground? (Score:5, Insightful)
There very much is a common ground. Truth.
To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones Jr...
Science is the search for FACT, Not Truth. If you want Truth, try the philosophy department.
Maybe now the debate will actually occur? (Score:3, Insightful)
This way when the debate finally is over, the statements about such can be true.
Of course, this does overshadow the real debate, which is whether or not Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues, which, if we look at similar historic pollution agreements, they have failed miserably.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now there is a question that is often glossed over.
I am inclined to think that they are the only ones with the power to do anything. They have set themselves up as the requirers. They set regulations, and everyone else either abides by them or risks punishment. Nobody else can rightly claim that position (lest THEY find themselves on the receiving end of an assload of "justice")
That said, I would like to think that there are other ways, I just wonder if they can happen fast enough or thoroughly enough.
Then
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, and this is of course a fine example of the Appeal to Consequences [wikipedia.org] fallacy. I like it when that one crops up as I can instantly reject any arguments they make as being most likely poorly thought out.
Extraordinary claims... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Extraordinary claims... (Score:5, Informative)
How about
"Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/tech/main3613698.shtml
Or is that to anecdotal for you?
Re:Extraordinary claims... (Score:5, Informative)
Quite Anecdotal to me. The Antarctic has 90% of the earth's ice anyway. The eastern half of Antarctica is 4x the size of the western half, and is cooling/growing.
You may want to update the facts that you were trained to regurgitate [time.com].
Normal cycles, should not be made into an international crisis.
I've never studied climatology or even oceanography but if you're going to make such statements, I hope you have the credentials to back it up and tell me without any doubt what a 'normal cycle' constitutes.
Re:Extraordinary claims... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, I recently just read of an interesting, related hypothesis that the Little Ice Age itself was the result of the dropoff of anthropogenic CO2 due to the plagues of the Middle Ages. The loss of 10 ppm in that period was enough to shift the settled part of Greenland back into unsustainability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was hoping you were being sarcastic but then I saw you posted the original question. The data collection is not the likely cause for problems here. The size of an ice sheet in a satellite photo isn't somethign delicate oyu need to carefully get right in a lab.
The real issue is whether the event is significant or whether chance just caused more ice to melt for whatever reason.
Re:Extraordinary claims... (Score:4, Insightful)
... require extraordinary evidence. The global-warmists, or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild, alarmist claims about doomsday they've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc. ice sleets falling off Antarctica, etc.
I agree with your subject statement but I disagree with that very last part. Apparently the West antarctic ice sheet was the part with "ice sheets falling off it" while the East side remained relatively stable. That's recently changed [time.com]. I don't think this proves anything but I admit it's alarming to me that we might just be sitting on our hands while Antarctica breaks apart. Hell, we're already opening up shipping lanes through the north pole [nationalgeographic.com]. It's true, I am just another internet moron but I would really prefer we don't have to find out what results from Antarctica breaking apart or melting. At this point, I'm open to suggestions and theories ... although for any of them to be unquestionably valid, I refer to your first statement.
No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs. We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad. And so on and so forth you can look back historically at man negatively altering his environment to varying degrees. I think more than sufficient evidence has been provided to prove that we need to get a better grip on what emissions and carbon proliferation mean for the Earth and -- most importantly -- us. I'm a small government kind of guy but if that means more government funding being dumped into unbiased investigations than so be it. I don't want Earth to end up like Easter Island.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say the position of:
"we can pour as much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as we want and it will affect nothing"
is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. It flies in the face of reason. It's like saying "When you add 1+1, it equals 2, expect when one of the 1s is anthropogenic, then 1+1=1."
Scientists are not Politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
It is up to the politicians to use (or misuse) those facts and data.
But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.
Re:Scientists are not Politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists have always been egotistical, with their own pet theories and human idiosyncrasies. The saving grace of science has never been the scientists, but the method in which science is conducted. Peer review, vigorous debate, and cat-fights. What we believe scientists should be and what scientists are are two very different things. The problem here is the outside influences. You and me.
Re:Scientists are not Politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
No (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
How about no.
I'm going with Sagan on this one: "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science."
Not enough people in charge of public policy will be convinced as long as the appearance of secrecy and misconduct are present. If we do not listen to the criticism of skeptics, politicians will, and they already do, and this sets back the efforts of the scientific community to contribute to proper, well-reasoned decisions of public policy. The rush to stop the damage being done to the environment which has supported us is, ironically, the very thing slowing us down.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
"Notice Dawkins doesn't seem willing to apply the same test to his views, despite the reality that he is asking us to *believe* him?"
Sorry, you lose. Dawkins provides EVIDENCE, he does not require belief. True skeptics will discard a belief when presented with better evidence. Most people who call themselves skeptics aren't-they search for information that fits with their beliefs. In short, skepticism requires rational, logical and reasonable thought.
Eric Raymond's take on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, ESR has gotten in on the discussion and is a little more damning in his condemnation of the entire Climategate ordeal
http://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html [blogspot.com]
There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU's research: open-source it all. Publish the primary data sets, publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature "hockey stick", publish everything. Let the code and the data speak for itself; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.
We know, from experience with software, that secrecy is the enemy of quality -- that software bugs, like cockroaches, shun light and flourish in darkness. So, too. with mistakes in the interpretation of scientific data; neither deliberate fraud nor inadvertent error can long survive the skeptical scrutiny of millions. The same remedy we have found in the open-source community applies - unsurprisingly, since we learned it from science in the first place. Abolish the secrecy, let in the sunlight.
Actually this is about *policy*, not science (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, while we'd all feel better if science was going to determine the policy outcome, I think we're all aware here that the truth about global warming is only a secondary factor in the success or failure of enacting policy to prevent it.
This is true for both sides, and *both* sides know it. Simply put, the issue is way too important to be left to mere science.
AGW is only a secondary issue to many of the non-scientists in the game. The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.
Likewise, many of the anti-AGW would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of poor people in geographically challenged areas if the only alternative was strict curbs on their lifestyle, but would prefer not to have to actually say it. So they'd deny the science rather than admit the underlying sentiment.
I strongly suspect that among the voters, there's only a small minority for whom the science is the principal factor in determining the preferred policy.
Proof? For all those who hold a strong opinion on AGW in one direction or the other, ask yourself this. What proof would it take for you to accept that the opposite position was actually the correct one? Exactly.
Oftentimes, simply no... (Score:5, Insightful)
In a lot of cases, if not most, dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.
I work with this stuff. Every day. 40 (well more like 50-60) hours a week. It took years of study for me (and everyone else)
just to get to the level where you can properly understand what it is, exactly, that I do. That's what being an expert at something entails.
Now when I get into a dispute with someone, they typically have the same level of expertise. They know more or less everything I do. I know what they're saying, and they usually know what I'm saying.
Now you bring into that situation some layperson with their religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality, who wants to dispute the results of my work. So they pore over it, and they simply don't understand it. (And ignorance breeds arrogance more often than humility, as Lincoln said) But they think they do. And then they formulate their criticism. Even if that criticism makes sense (often not), it's typically wrong at the most basic level. And that will practically always be the case - because there's virtually *nothing* in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert hadn't thought about already. You're just not going to find a professor of physics having made a mistake of forgetting the first law of thermodynamics.
Now I'm happy to defend my science against legitimate, good, criticism. But a scientific debate is *NOT* where anybody should be TEACHING anybody science. What kind of 'debate' is it if every answer amounts to "That's not what that word means, read a damn textbook." It's not the scientists who are being arrogant then. Hell, since when didn't scientists bend over backwards to educate the public? We write textbooks, and popular-scientific accounts. Research gets published in journals for everyone to see, etc. It's not like we're keeping it a big secret - The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to learn, yet arrogant enough to believe they should be entitled to 'debate' with me, and that I should be personally burdened with educating them in the name of 'open debate'!
(Just to pick one out of the climate bag. How often haven't you seen someone say "Yeah but climate change is cyclical!" - What? As if _climate scientists_ didn't know that?! Refuting someone's research with arguments from an introductory textbook)
The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate. And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. They're called experts for a reason.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good, legitimate criticism is difficult when you find out that one side has been manipulating data, deleting data, strong-arming publications and otherwise engaging in questionable behavior in order to sabotage the opposing side.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may not like the fact, but if you pick a random PhD from a university, as a matter of statistics he or she will probably more intelligent than you (where intelligent means able to understand abstract subjects). That doesn't make the person better than you, and it doesn't make you a moron, but it is nevertheless a fact. The same person has probably spent most of his or her adult life only trying to understand one single narrow subject, in an environment where they are surrounded by some of the best avail
Uh... (Score:3, Informative)
That's not at all how I read that (IMHO interesting) comment. What I read is: lack of expertise on in a field robs you of both the ability to form an accurate opinion, and the ability to perceive the holes in your reasoning that led you that that inaccurate opinion. Ignorance begetting confidence, in all good faith. Which is nothing new at all [apa.org] (one of the most enlightening psychology paper I've ever read -- do check it out). It has nothing to do with being a 'moron', and that you read it as such possibly te
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No lay person could possibly understand what you do because you're just so much smarter than they are? Or is it that you spent 40 years poring over data day and night? Are you THAT smart? Give me a break. Anyone who has the hubris to think that their work can only be understood by those in their field is just aching to be smacked down by some un-educated smarty. Look, its attitudes like yours that make the rest of us 'non-scientists' think you're an idiot. Give people some credit, we're not all morons.
Then let me clarify for him. Experts in a field, especially scientists, spend years if not DECADES studying their subject matter. The average layperson doesn't. They aren't necessarily SMARTER, just BETTER EDUCATED BY FAR in their field. The letters after their name are usually a good indicator of the minimum number of YEARS they have spent pursuing knowledge and understanding in their field.
They use words that mean specific things, and they all know what they mean as opposed to just guessing from commo
Re:Good faith and bad faith (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith?
Can you cite a source for that?
:)
I'm dead serious. Show me a solid, scientific study that shows a concerted effort by climate scientists to be acting in bad faith.
The fact that you got moderated interesting is ridiculous. There's this big uproar about climate science in ONE place. Where? In the media. Why? Because nothing sells like scandal or death.
I'm working on a PhD directly related to climate modeling. I've got access to four climate models, from four competing organizations, ranging from middle-school simple to research grade. And they all give about the same results. In my office, I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models, and looked at how well they agreed. There were differences, for sure. But they all were similar. Why are they all similar?
IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY BY THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!!!!!
Well, except for the fact that we would love to rip the shit out of another organizations research. In that seven-model comparison, we were looking to rip apart some of the models. Where they were different, we did. Had we found one that was totally different from the rest, we would have figured out why, and published that. The fact of the matter is that the science is well settled.
While I think you're an asshat, I do agree with your last statement. It is a big pseudo-scientific world out there, provided you define "out there" as "in the media". Those of us actually involved in science know that it's not. You get ahead in science by taking heads. We know Darwin's name because he wiped out hundreds of scientists' work on biological diversity. We know Einstein's name because he wiped out hundreds of theories on atomic interaction and the nature of space-time. We know Maxwell's name because he invented coffee.
As a scientist, surrounded with scientists, and friends with a lot of scientists, I can tell you, there's nothing any of us would like to do than destroy the establishment. If I could disprove evolution, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I could prove General Relativity wrong, I wouldn't hesitate. It would put me in the text books. It would make me famous. If I could prove climate change wrong, I'd do the same.
But I'm in the middle of that science. And I can't. It's solid, despite what the media makes it out to be. If it wasn't, I'd be famous. You have to realize that most scientists want to know the truth. And as humans, we like nothing better than to be able to yell, DUMBASS in a very loud voice, while pointing at the dumbass so everyone notices. I believe in science because if I screw up, that will happen to me. So I try really hard not to screw up. As do all scientists. The ridicule of your peers is a very good tool to keep you honest. While there are some bad scientists, we all know who they are. They're the ones that we watched get called a dumbass at the last conference. They're the ones who published an article last year, which was utterly demolished by one this year. I've been to those conferences. I've read those articles. Scientists are blood-thirsty, brutal individuals. If you do poor science, you'll be ripped to shreds. That's how scientists advance in levels.
Forcing people into impoverished lives (Score:4, Insightful)
The real AGW arguments (and the motivation of all the parties involved) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate. The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives. Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.
They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data. They refuse to publish the code for their computer models. They refuse to rationally refute skepticism. They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics. They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder. They refuse to identify the "correct" temperature, let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature. They refuse to close the loop on their proposed remedies to objectively weigh the benefits against the cost.
If Global Warming was simply an academic question rather than a life-or-death political struggle for power (or against power and for freedom), then it could be discussed as such.
AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate. It was already reeling from the fact that it hasn't warmed in the last decade. And it faced an uphill battle due to the depression: rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality, poor people can't. If the political struggle ends, this can go back to being about whether carbon release causes warming, and how much, and what it really means.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives. Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.
And the great thing about the leaked CRU emails is that you should now be able to provide evidence for this otherwise unbelievable claim! Surely, from that enormous heap, you will be able to pull out many internal communications along the lines of "our evil plan to make people lead poorer lives is advancing apace".
So, er, go on then. Where's
To the believers (Score:4, Interesting)
I am unfortunately forced to put most "believers" in Human-Caused Global Climate Change into the same group that believe in the "not a sparrow shall fall" form of biblical fundamentalism. Beliving that humans are fully in control of the Earth's climate and can change it at will is just as dangerous as those that believe in a personally involved God that oversees every event on Earth.
Right now, we have at our disposal enough information that we can see most of the inputs to the Earth's climate. We do not yet understand all of these inputs and their relative weightings. Nobody has any real knowledge of how much energy is stored in oceans or how much effect solar variance has on oceans.
Sure, we know there is a lot more CO2 than there was 100 years ago. And some fairly obvious conclusions can be drawn from there being more CO2, but we have real information for only an extremely short period for the Earth. We might know some things about the climate 1000 years ago, but the information is very incomplete.
Could the climate be changing? Sure it could. Can we materially change this, given what we know today? Almost certainly not, at least not without huge inputs of energy or removal of what energy we are putting into the climate system. Neither of which is proposed. The Earth's climate engine is something that is measured in gigajoules. So far, the proposals on the table are not even rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They are like dusting off the tower that held the Trinity device.
It is obvious that nobody in any position of power really believes there is some onrushing global catastrophe. Most of the rather weak carbon emissions reductions that have been proposed will have zero effect on emissions for a decade and even then it is a decrease in growth, not a real decrease in emissions. Of course, the costs for this decrease in growth will affect everyone in US and Europe in some pretty unpleasant ways. But still, regardless of the cost, the net effect is so close to zero as to be meaningless. And there is nobody saying that if these steps were taken immediately there would be any net change.
So what else could be done? Well, for starters we could eliminate passenger air travel. The reduction in emissions might only be 20% of the total but it would be a 20% decrease in emissions rather than a reduction in growth. We could require special permits to enter a large city by car. You can't outlaw cars in the US because of the way cities have been built for the last 70 years or so. By requiring such a permit it could eliminate much of the commutting by car that is happening. Might not cut emissions by more than 5%, but again it would be a 5% decrease rather than a decrease in growth. This might take years to be able to implement, but it could be done.
The problem is, if we did this what would happen? Nobody really knows. There is a theory that it might change the climate, or stop a change that we don't seem to like much. But the ugly truth is that we simply do not know what would happen. Clearly, the leaders of the world today do not believe (as some do) that it would save thousands if not millions of lives.
Instead, in the US we are looking at utterly pointless plans to implement some sort of point trading system that will enrich a few at the cost of all consumer goods going up in price. Oh the price for manufacturing them will stay the same, but transport will cost more. You can't bring manufacturing back to high-labor-cost US from cheap-labor-cost Mexico and China, but the traders can get rich. Net effect of this will be somewhat lower sales and the three or four manufacturers still in the US will be forced to move out. But little else will really change. Except the growth of emissions will slow just from economic changes.
If you believe that humans can change the climate in a few years with minor energy inputs you are almost certainly wrong. It is extremely arrogant to believe that the energies commanded by humans today could do any suc
People are debating the wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
"Global warming is caused by CO2 and the CO2 comes from human sources. "
Most intelligent people who have researched the issue have come to this conclusion.
"Curtailing carbon emissions is the only way to prevent further global warming."
Intelligent people should immediately recognize the fallacy in this statement. Curtailing carbon emissions is but ONE possible response, it is not the only response and it is not necessarily the best response. The debate, at this point in time, should focus on the response. "Believing" in global warming does not need to translate into "believing" politicians can fix it with more power.
What is wrong with giving the government(s) power to curtail carbon emissions?
For one, it gives the government control of every faculty of human life. Almost everything we do, from eating, to breathing, breeding, and working has a carbon footprint. Giving the government control of carbon emissions gives the government control of everything. Students of history should recognize this pattern very well. An external force will harm us all unless the government is given enough power to protect us. Governments don't protect, they repress. What happens if the government decides large dogs have too much of a carbon footprint. Or horses? Or more than one child?
Secondly, cutting emissions in the US will do nothing about China and India. In fact, cutting oil consumption in the US will make oil cheaper for third world factories. It is supply and demand. Personally, I would rather see the fossil fuels burnt in the US, under EPA standards, creating American jobs than to have it sent to China or India where it will be used in a much less efficient manner.
Third, it is unclear that cutting carbon emissions drastically in the near future will save us from tragedy. Global warming proponents admit this, but still advocate cutting emissions for lack of a better alternative.
What is the alternative?
While it isn't my preferred approach, one alternative is to do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oceans will rise, the world will get hotter, and people will adapt. All of the carbon we are pumping out of the ground and burning once existed in the atmosphere anyways. Plants and animals consumed it, fell to the ocean floor, and were buried under ground. The world survived with extra carbon in the past and could again. The Earth is not going to turn into Venus, no matter how much oil we burn.
Of course there will be costs for doing nothing. For one, a lot of very wealthy people are going to lose their expensive beach front properties. Many bailed out bankers will see their mansions succumb to the tides. Tough shit.
A lot of poor people, mostly in third world countries will have to move. Even in the US we may have to move certain cities like New Orleans instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to wall them off from the seas. This will be expensive, but probably less expensive than curtailing global emissions enough to have an effect.
Arable farming land will lost. Some will be gained, but overall there will probably be a decrease in the amount of land available for agriculture. Farmers may have to stop selling their prime lots to housing developments. People may have to stop bitching about genetically modified food and learn to adapt. But most people will not starve to death, we will adapt.
Is there a better solution than doing nothing?
Like I said, I am not a proponent of doing nothing. I think we should do something that actually stands a chance of working. The best way (notice how I didn't use the word "only" here) to curtail carbon emissions is to give people cheaper options. I don't mean solar or wind, or osmosis generators or tide machines or biofuel or nuclear fission.
Perhaps I have read one to many sci-fi novels, but I think we should take the hundreds of billions being spent on cutting emissions and put it into nuclear fusion research. If nuclear fusion can be perfected in the next decade or two then there will be no reason to burn fossil fuels, conserve energy, or give the government a fascist grip on the economy.
What Debate? (Score:3, Informative)
First off I don't think there is any serious debate, if you took the proportion of people who have some understanding of climatology and are climate change sceptics I would be surprised if it is as high as 1:1000. When you go over those published signatures on various websites, basically none of them are practising climatologists, and the ones that are are generally private consultants, which like it or not taints them. As has been said before, the debate is political not scientific. By some understanding above, I mean at the very least a PhD or equivalent experience, I'm afraid an undergrad course simply doesn't cut it.
Secondly, whilst the idea of "open-sourcing" the data/models is a nice one and I am not against it, look at the practicalities. How many of you have the capacity to deal with hundreds of terabytes of data and run models that take days on a supercomputer? Anyway, the models are actually out there, they are peer reviewed and published. Not the source code (what would you run it on?), but the maths. Although, the peer review process means you tend to be a year or two behind the latests updates I'll admit.
The Slashdot crowd like to be against "authority", but that doesn't mean we should simply be against anything we don't like. On this front page is a story about the LHC. How many people here would claim to understand all the maths and science behind that? Of those that don't (the vast majority of us) how many think it's a load of old hokum? It's far more ridiculous and unbelievable than climate change (CO2 and methane absorb infra-red radiation - it's an indisputable fact and can be proven in any high school), but we don't have a massive crowd here talking about what a waste of money the LHC is and denying that entire area of research do we?
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
The claims of evolution skeptics and round-earth skeptics is not backed up by observation and evidence. On the other hand, the more extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming _proponents_ are not backed up with sufficient observation and are extrapolated from very small datasets.
Given all of this, to say the "science is settled" is a travesty, and all those who said so fully deserve what's come so far and is undoubtedly coming as there's greater public and scientific scrutiny of their methods:
a) the Yamal tree-ring data [telegraph.co.uk] - data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend' and finds its way into a number of papers
b) CRU emails - won't say much more, too much said about this already.
c) New Zealand average temperature graphs [telegraph.co.uk] - high-school style 'cooking the graph' to match expectations
At this point, climate scientists who don't open up their raw data, modelling code and assumptions/decision-making are going to look as sleazy as PHB managers who forecast self-serving weird shit to make themselves look good to their bosses.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the imprecision of the language here always irks me. When you say climate change skeptics, that's not a single entity. Do they mean the hard core 'the earth can't change' types, the ones who think climate change is influenced by both people and natural cycles to one degree or another, the ones who just say it happens but it isn't the end of the world, or some other group who simply doesn't buy into the next scheduled apocalypse? When you say evolution skeptics (deniers), you're almost always talking about a member of a fairly homogeneous group who started with a conclusion and worked backwards, a position that rarely has much merit in its entirety. Not so with this. Yeah, there are some out there like that, but that's hardly the full range of things.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Interesting)
I would be classified as a skeptic. I'm not convinced that they are wrong, I'm just not convinced that they are right. The first one would be my fault, the second is theirs. I'm not one of the "earth can't change" types. I'm positive that it is changing, I'm just not convinced that:
A We are responsible for it
B That it's the end of the world as many seem to believe it is.
I am employed as a scientists, in an admitedly unrelated field. My industry is also under fire by "Skeptics" and I can relate to the frustration evidenced in the leaked emails. However, I've always believed that enganging those who are willing to listen, and ignoring those who made up their mind and as you say "Started with a conclusion and worked backwards". My industry is only recently taking the innitiative and it seems to be working.
P.S. I would NEVER use a word like "Hide" in context of normalizing a dataset. That smacks way too much of fraudulent data manipulation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is unfortunate that the signal to noise ratio on the skeptic side is low.
I have no problem with thinking skeptics. I think there should be more of them. But the problem is almost all the skeptics are fanatical mad dog skeptics with solid Ph.Ds in arcmchair climatology backed by B.S's in BS. It's become like evolution vs. intelligent design, only worse.
There are few good skeptics out there, but the overall onslaught of the mad dog skeptics have made it so that it is that much harder for them to be heard.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points - this needs modding up!
I don't doubt the anthropogenic basis for climate change - you can take a look at the IPCC Synthesis Report [www.ipcc.ch] for a persuasive outline of the case. However, once you get past the most basic assertions, the scientific community is doing an absolutely terrible job. Most of the time when I read a paper on climate change I can immediately spot lots of methodological and deductive errors, and, conveniently, they always come out in favour of anthropogenic climate change. Some argue that science is just another religion. This isn't true. However, the sort of 'science' most climate scientists are doing nowadays may as well be a religion, basing conclusions on manifestly insufficient data, and inferring causation based on correlation alone. Right now the climate sceptics don't need to make straw men to argue against - the scientific community is making the straw men for them.
Scientists shouldn't be arguing against sceptics - scientists should be the sceptics. Even ignoring faulty reasoning, many published scientific results are wrong (see this article [marginalrevolution.com]). Scientists should be constantly questioning results to try to arrive at a refined, unbiased analysis of the facts - instead we have become defensive, treating every sceptical inquiry as an attack, and as a result, the research doesn't get the sort of scrutiny necessary to advance our understanding. Something needs to change.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, you're right.
None of that melting ice caps, record glacial melts, and lack of ozone layer above the Antartic stuff means anything. All of it's BS.
I'll grant you that transparency hasn't been very good. But you can ignore that little passage between Thule and Vancouver that's nearly ice free now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, you're right.
None of that melting ice caps, record glacial melts, and lack of ozone layer above the Antartic stuff means anything. All of it's BS.
How do you know any of what you say is true if can't see or trust the raw data?
I'll grant you that transparency hasn't been very good. But you can ignore that little passage between Thule and Vancouver that's nearly ice free now.
No one is denying climate change. The climate is and always has changed for billions of years. What is up for debate is WHY the climate is changing.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know any of what you say is true if can't see or trust the raw data?
This is a false argument. How can you ever be sure about the integrity of anything unless you are the one doing it? How can you trust the raw data if you are not collecting it? How can you trust the analysis if you are not the one analyzing it? How can you trust the satellite data if you didn't build the satellite?
How can you trust the food from the store if you're not the one making it? How can you trust your prescription if you're not the one giving it? How can you trust your car if you didn't build it?
Or in other words, you are arguing from the standpoint of paranoia/conspiracy. Everyday you rely on total strangers to make sure your life keeps humming along. You are surrounded by black boxes that you don't have access to yet you seem perfectly content in assuming that people are doing their jobs. Why are climate scientist suddenly the target?
For example, how do you know if your local transportation authority is really doing the best job to keep traffic moving? They could have incentive not to, such as increased tax flow to the coffers by making motorists spend just that much more on gasoline. Or perhaps their even getting kickbacks from a couple oil boys for making sure consumers spend their quota.
Conspiracy? Well, how do you know it's not happening? Can we get access to the raw data of the traffic grid? Can we get the source code for the programs running the traffic network? It's publicly funded, so WE should be able to get access and review ourselves, right?
No one is denying climate change.
I take it you haven't visited any mad dog skeptic sites lately. There are plenty of people denying exactly that with a passion and dedication that most religions would kill for
The climate is and always has changed for billions of years. What is up for debate is WHY the climate is changing.
The mountains of research done on this is pretty clear about why it's happening. But I don't expect facts to get in the way of beliefs anytime soon. Be that as it may, why is not the important. The important questions, and the ones the climate scientists spend a lot of time working out, are how it's going to affect us and what we can do to prepare for it.
~X~
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
I've collected dozens of independent, peer-reviewed articles in my article [dumbscientist.com] devoted to engaging with climate skeptics. I even described my own personal research which independently confirms Greenland and Alaskan glacier melt through their effects on time-variable gravity. Just last month at the most recent GRACE Science Team Meeting, my advisor displayed the most recent GRACE results over Greenland, showing that the mass loss is accelerating and spreading from the southeast coast to the entire western coast.
There most certainly is a mountain of evidence showing that abrupt climate change is happening, and that it's due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
As I keep repeating [slashdot.org], 2007 was the steepest drop [uiuc.edu] in ice cover on record. It scared a lot of us when the extent of the drop was shown at the 2007 AGU conference because the climate models weren't predicting such a huge drop. The subsequent increases actually confirm that this decrease was due to weather, not climate, which tends to validate the models.
Completely wrong. Global circulation models allow for short-term variability due to weather. That's the whole point of taking an ensemble with varying initial conditions and parameterizations. Please remember [dumbscientist.com] that weather is different than climate, which is an average over at least several years.
When studying any science, it's best to ignore politicians and only focus on peer-reviewed scientific articles. In this case, you should be paying attention to the fact that scientists are saying CO2 is causing abrupt climate change.
Again, I've discussed [dumbscientist.com] this in detail many times. You're neglecting to consider pressure broadening, which forces any realistic climate model to treat each layer of the atmosphere differently. CO2 isn't saturated in the highest layer of the atmosphere, which is what really matters.
Yet again, I need to repeat [dumbscientist.com] that water vapor is a feedback in the climate, not a forcing. We can't change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere because it establishes equilibrium with the oceans in a matter of weeks. However, because we're increasing the temperature of the planet by increasing CO2 concentrations, water vapor will tend to provide positive feedback which will make the problem worse.
Also, water vapor isn't well-mixed to t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, in what way is Anthropomorphic Climate Change testable Not to pick nits(a lie), but I believe the word you were looking for was anthropogenic.
I assumed he was talking about the theory that it's getting hotter because the climate's all mad at us for being such assholes with the air pollution. I'll grant that it's a more or less untestable theory unless someone knows the climate's address so we can send flowers or chocolates or something.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)
>Greenland is not called GREENland because it's covered by glaciers.
Greenland is called Greenland because Lief Erikson wanted to convince/trick Icelandic settlers to go to this glacier-covered land that he had discovered.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Close.
Lief Erikson called it Greenland because he know global warming was coming...
Funny and on topic. definitely going to get modded flamebait.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny and on topic. definitely going to get modded flamebait.
If you get modded down this line would explain why... Probably worth a +5 funny without it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Were they short-term, perhaps you'd have an argument. Indeed they've melted something that hadn't seen that in say, well, over twenty thousand years.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
The short version of everything that's come out so far is: the leading climate scientists pushing AGW were lying left, right, and center, and there is absolutely no evidence, not even a little, to support global warming, let alone AGW. If you haven't done so already,
I've seen it, it shows nothing of the sort. It shows people having considerable difficulty in combining data sets in a consistent and reliable way. This is always a tricky problem. Your "data manipulation" could easily be correction factors for systematic errors or problems with particular data sets. But of course a private note that was never meant to be read is hardly going to be a complete, detailed and fully explained document, is it?
I can only assume that people are reading into it what they want to see.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading the comments, I see a programmer struggling with a chaotic data set, trying his best to figure out how to run sensible experiments on disorganised raw data. Data which is stored in various inconsistent formats and accessed by ancient unmaintained software. I sympathise with the poor guy, I know how frustrating such tasks can be.
Based on this I say it is no surprise that the CRU were completely unwilling to provide information about where their raw data came from, when Steve McIntyre and the others
Re: (Score:3)
The first part of what you say is true, but again no surprise. However, the part about deliberately fudging it all to get the "right" answer? I don't see that. But I wouldn't expect to see a full picture in a few old notes and bits of code. Private notes are always incomplete.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)
How can you be a good scientist without being able to trace your data all the way from its source? How can your results be valid if they are not reproducible?
There is more information that you should be aware of. Read about the attempts of one man to independently verify the CRU findings [wattsupwiththat.com]. They consistently obstruct him, even after he resorts to the FOIA. And now we know why. It's not just because they thought he was just making trouble for them: it's because the raw data is an impossible mess. The CRU staff knew that and it didn't bother them in the slightest because they were getting the results they expected.
Bad, bad science. Pons and Fleischmann. Condemn the bad science. I agree with George Monbiot: credibility is lost and resignations are needed.
Re: (Score:3)
I said that *I* couldn't trace it from the source based on the leaked files. Can they? I don't know, we only saw a very incomplete set of documents regarding this. No word on whether this code was exactly what was used for the final publications.
Yes, *if* the path from data to results isn't fully accounted for, that would be a problem. Is this the case? Can't tell from what we've seen.
In any case, if I'm not very much mistaken the results have been reproduced by other scientists at different institutes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubbish, the scientists aren't "pushing for" anything, they're just presenting results. These results may of course suggest the need for action, but that's in the realm of politics. And if you actually look at the full range of published literature, not a few cherry picked background-free private communications, you might see the evidence and methodology described in a way that's fully "scrutinizable". And indeed has been scrutinized, by other experts in the field - that's rather the point of publishing.
If
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rubbish, the scientists aren't "pushing for" anything, they're just presenting results.
Rubbish yourself, the "scientists" at CRU were clearly "pushing for" a pro-AGW outcome. Why else the attempt to banish anti-AGW papers from the IPCC reports regardless of their merit, or to blackball a scientific journal based on its editorial practices?
Good science stands on its own merits. It doesn't require backroom deals or underhanded methods.
The end result of Climategate should be academic discreditation for several of those involved, and jail for a few - most likely to include Phil Jones. He very blatantly disregarded valid Freedom of Information requests. That's a felony in Great Britain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubbish, the scientists aren't "pushing for" anything, they're just presenting results. These results may of course suggest the need for action, but that's in the realm of politics.
There are multiple problems with this stance. The first is that scientists almost always have preferred answers. When the first Hubble results were coming in an the value of Ho seemed anomalously high, I recalled someone commenting that if so-and-so had a religion, it would be 50 (the low end of expected Ho values.)
Most of the
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
What you say is largely true. Scientists do have preconcieved ideas just like anyone else (well, rather less than the average person if they're any good, but there nonetheless). Group-think is also a possibility, and would be a problem if it was happening. But is it?
I don't know, but those leaked emails don't provide much if any evidence of it. On the other hand, I see it in vast quantities in most of the climate "sceptics", along with logical fallacies, superficial analysis (just enough to support their view but no more), personal attacks, lack of understanding of the issues, and many more failures. If they conducted honest, robust and high quality analysis then I have no problem with them contributing. But the vast majority that I've seen do not do this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you can supply some links. I'm not saying such things don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. However, one thing I did see was a list of signatures from people opposed to the climate change theory - almost all of whom had no science qualifications.
Yes, they get involved with IPCC or the media from time to time. But IPCC's role is not to set policy, but to present evidence and options.
Finally, I don't see any reason as to why any involvement in this way this would influence their research. The ot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hiding from FOIA requests, conspiring to lock out a publication that wasn't swallowing their bate (how dare a peer review journal ask difficult questions of AGW!).
Lock out? They thought the publication was publishing poor quality papers. If that was their belief, why would they not refrain from publishing there or citing articles?
Then we have Phil working to keep these two papers [populartechnology.net] from being seen at the next IPCC meeting--
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC repor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lock out? They thought the publication was publishing poor quality papers. If that was their belief, why would they not refrain from publishing there or citing articles?
The problem is that by their lights *every* dissenting paper is of "poor quality".
The analogy here, where the AGW proponents are the sole source of knowledge, is to the Christian church in the Middle Ages. The Bible was in Latin, which no one but the (better educated) priests could read. Instead of the laity being encouraged to learn Latin, or instead of translating the Bible to the local language, the priests and bishops decided what meanings the Bible would have.
Similarly, the AGW priest-kings deny raw da
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, how do they gain lots of money from this? And would this be more than the lots of money they could get from the fossil fuel industry by publishing valid anti-AGW papers?
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
Your 'point' is is not factually correct. Nothing in the CRU email and data indicates scientists who subscribe to an anthropogenic cause of climate change have not been systematically lying or engaging in unethical practices to support their work. There already are *mountains* of evidence from a huge array of sciences supporting both climate change and an anthropogenic cause. And nothing on Wikileaks invalidates any of the work done at CRU or any other climate research institute.
The reality of all that hoopla is the people doing the agitating had long since decided that not only can the climate not change but even if it did man couldn't possibly have an impact.
Re:Climate skeptics have no arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They did no such thing. This stems from a personal out of context note.
2. There were concerns about a journal starting to have an agenda and they should consider not publishing in it. ONE journal. Hardly preventing peer review.
3. One comment about one set of data we know very little about. again and out of context accusation. For all we know that data may have been bad.
4. this is a case of a smear compaign. EVERYTHING is based on out of context notes and innuendo
Quite frankly I am getting really sick and tired of ignorant people getting time spouting off crap they know nothing about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2. Peer review hasn't been redefined. Perhaps you never knew what it was in the first place. Peer review is not equivalent to supplying open, raw data nor supplying random "skeptics" with data they want. Look up Lenski's dealing with Schlafly for an example of how silly this is.
3&4: Haven't heard of the FOIA request stuff, but given the track record so far I don't doubt that when looking into it,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was a pretty genius stroke by energy companies, enlisting one half of the two political poles as allies. It basically ensured the entire debate couldn't take place on scientific grounds. And it's do
Dirty tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the burden of proof is on the person making claims.
"who just approach things like recycling and increased efficiency as a no-brainer."
excepot recycling isn't a no brainier and efficiency always has a cost. Neither topic is a no brainer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meh, less cost isn't always better. The main environmentalist claim is "look at the externalized costs".
Yeah, it would be interesting to convince Japan to try spend the energy trying to reign in the pile of waste swirling around in the Pacific, and feed it to their plasma incinerators or something.
Yeah, I saw the Penn & Teller BS episode on recycling too. And I'd still rather expend the extra energy to recycle, the same as I'd rather spend the extra energy to clean my house once in a while. I think p