The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[pantagrapher]

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

It's funny how the solution—On Both Sides™—should be to halt climate legislation.

What's funny about it? Would you typically consider it a good policy to make a potentially costly decision when the facts relevant to that decision are unknown? No one is suggesting a permanent ban on climate legislation (at least I'm not, and it doesn't sound like moleculo is either). But until there is stronger evidence one way or the other it seems prudent to not enact legislation.

I didn't say anything about a permanent ban. But this can will continue to be kicked down the road, always with similar claims that we need more time to gather more data or to address the latest damning revelations and conspiracy theories. No matter what happens, the policy prescription On Both Sides™ will be to wait. What kind of evidence would please you?

 

[moleculo]

I didn't say anything about a permanent ban. But this can will continue to be kicked down the road, always with similar claims that we need more time to gather more data or to address the latest damning revelations and conspiracy theories. No matter what happens, the policy prescription On Both Sides™ will be to wait. What kind of evidence would please you?

conclusive.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I didn't say anything about a permanent ban. But this can will continue to be kicked down the road, always with similar claims that we need more time to gather more data or to address the latest damning revelations and conspiracy theories. No matter what happens, the policy prescription On Both Sides™ will be to wait. What kind of evidence would please you?

conclusive.

Or at the very least not doctored?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Ignoratio has a point in checking your sources, but it looks like they have taken some steps to check the validity of the signatures, such as forcing you to actually mail in the form and by checking that they have a bachelor of science in appropriate fields for the topic.

How are they doing this? (It's ok, you don't actually have to answer.) "Checking your sources" doesn't mean asking your source if they are telling the truth. Besides, even if it were shown that they individually verified that each signatory had a B.S. or greater in a scientific discipline, it wouldn't validate the argument that "2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not." First of all, having a degree in such a discipline doesn't necessarily make someone a credible source on climate change. It's just an argumentum ad populum, and an especially poor one because it's a petition. Only people who agree with the petition sign the petition, so it also involves the most egregious form of self-selection bias.

 

[pantagrapher]

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

It's funny how the solution—On Both Sides™—should be to halt climate legislation.

What's funny about it? Would you typically consider it a good policy to make a potentially costly decision when the facts relevant to that decision are unknown? No one is suggesting a permanent ban on climate legislation (at least I'm not, and it doesn't sound like moleculo is either). But until there is stronger evidence one way or the other it seems prudent to not enact legislation.

apparently pantagrapher missed the "until this all is thoroughly vetted" bit. Frankly, after reading most of this, I'm not sure that any of the AGW platform has been properly vetted, certainly not to the tune of enacting policy that will impact the lives of billions of people world wide.

It will never be "thoroughly vetted." There will always be "lingering questions" about whether we can "trust the evidence" and arch warnings about how climate scientists will "profit from ruining our economy."

 

[pantagrapher]

I didn't say anything about a permanent ban. But this can will continue to be kicked down the road, always with similar claims that we need more time to gather more data or to address the latest damning revelations and conspiracy theories. No matter what happens, the policy prescription On Both Sides™ will be to wait. What kind of evidence would please you?

conclusive.

Ah yes, another mirage.

 

[moleculo]

I didn't say anything about a permanent ban. But this can will continue to be kicked down the road, always with similar claims that we need more time to gather more data or to address the latest damning revelations and conspiracy theories. No matter what happens, the policy prescription On Both Sides™ will be to wait. What kind of evidence would please you?

conclusive.

I think, given that we don't have an experimental model to work with, i.e. we can't replicate Earth 10,000 times and then tinker with it in the lab, asking for conclusive evidence is the same as saying you'll never be satisfied.But public policy in other areas gets made on much lower degrees of certainty.

so quit making arguments about science then. If you want to act w/ lower degrees of certainty, it's no longer a scientific decision, it's a political one. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but let's call a duck a duck and acknowledge that the science isn't settled.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I think it needs to be far more conclusive than it currently is in order to legislate heavy restrictions regarding the environment that will have long-lasting and wide-spread economic consequences.

However, I support legislative incentives for development of alternative fuel technologies.

 

[katarr]

Ignoratio has a point in checking your sources, but it looks like they have taken some steps to check the validity of the signatures, such as forcing you to actually mail in the form and by checking that they have a bachelor of science in appropriate fields for the topic.

How are they doing this? (It's ok, you don't actually have to answer.) "Checking your sources" doesn't mean asking your source if they are telling the truth. Besides, even if it were shown that they individually verified that each signatory had a B.S. or greater in a scientific discipline, it wouldn't validate the argument that "2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not." First of all, having a degree in such a discipline doesn't necessarily make someone a credible source on climate change. It's just an argumentum ad populum, and an especially poor one because it's a petition. Only people who agree with the petition sign the petition, so it also involves the most egregious form of self-selection bias.

At some point you have to either believe what they say or not believe, mate. In this case, they say they check each signature to make sure they have a B.S. in an appropriate field, therefore they have studied science to a relevant degree to be able to give an educated decision on the facts that are presented in the GW case.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Somebody who's good with FFA searches help me find a poll I created about a year ago.

The subject matter of the poll was generally:

Which is more accepted science: Global Warming or Evolution.

Sadly enough, I think the results were tracking pretty equally.

 

[DrJ]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

Can we get the raw data used to make those calculations by any chance? Not exactly sure how they make the "10 year trend" line the way they do either. They start the thing well under where the temperature was in 1998 for some reason. If you considered 1998 as point 0, the vast majority of this graph would be in the negative. How exactly does that represent a 10 year warming trend?

 

[Phurfur]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

Can we get the raw data used to make those calculations by any chance? Not exactly sure how they make the "10 year trend" line the way they do either. They start the thing well under where the temperature was in 1998 for some reason. If you considered 1998 as point 0, the vast majority of this graph would be in the negative. How exactly does that represent a 10 year warming trend?

I thought data was not important to you?

 

[DrJ]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

Can we get the raw data used to make those calculations by any chance? Not exactly sure how they make the "10 year trend" line the way they do either. They start the thing well under where the temperature was in 1998 for some reason. If you considered 1998 as point 0, the vast majority of this graph would be in the negative. How exactly does that represent a 10 year warming trend?

I thought data was not important to you?

What are you talking about?

 

[pantagrapher]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

Can we get the raw data used to make those calculations by any chance? Not exactly sure how they make the "10 year trend" line the way they do either. They start the thing well under where the temperature was in 1998 for some reason. If you considered 1998 as point 0, the vast majority of this graph would be in the negative. How exactly does that represent a 10 year warming trend?

If you'd like raw data, I'd suggest contacting these people or these people, as their data are the main resources cited in the article.As for the question about the origin of the trend line, I'd refer you to this explanation of trend lines and how they work.

 

[moleculo]

Here's the evidence that would please me (long form):

1. independently verifiable proof between a causal relationship between carbon emissions eminating from burning fossil fuels and temperature change. The following sub-points are implied:

....a. atmospheric CO2 is increased due to burning fossil fuels.

....b. the above CO2 increase is significantly more than naturally occuring CO2, accounting for CO2 swings across the known continuum of time

....c. an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. This is probably the toughest thing to prove, and I'm not sure if this is even possible. We need to see more than a correlation, we need to really understand the mechanism of how it happens, the various feedback loops, etc. This is a very complicated issue and beyond my ability to even adequately frame the problem.

2. evidence that temperature change is bad. Spare the hyperbole; a warmer planet isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warmer planet means longer growing seasons, more farmable land, more vegetation, and in turn, more animals. The earth has been warm before, and as I've been told that's when all those dinosaurs and plants were abundant that we all enjoy as oil right now.

3. evidence that even if we wanted to, we could reduce CO2 emissions. I'm not sold that it's even feasible , given difficulties we will have getting emerging economies to sign up for it and getting new regimes to honor previous regime's treaties.

Provide solid, independantly verifiable evidence of these three items and I'm on board with enacting climate change legislation.

 

[Statorama]

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

It's funny how the solution—On Both Sides™—should be to halt climate legislation.

There was a question of whether or not this legislation was worth the cost back when we thought the global warming science was valid.Now that their shennanigans have been exposed, it's an even harder sell.

 

[pantagrapher]

Here's the evidence that would please me (long form):

1. independently verifiable proof between a causal relationship between carbon emissions eminating from burning fossil fuels and temperature change. The following sub-points are implied:

....a. atmospheric CO2 is increased due to burning fossil fuels.

....b. the above CO2 increase is significantly more than naturally occuring CO2, accounting for CO2 swings across the known continuum of time

....c. an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. This is probably the toughest thing to prove, and I'm not sure if this is even possible. We need to see more than a correlation, we need to really understand the mechanism of how it happens, the various feedback loops, etc. This is a very complicated issue and beyond my ability to even adequately frame the problem.

2. evidence that temperature change is bad. Spare the hyperbole; a warmer planet isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warmer planet means longer growing seasons, more farmable land, more vegetation, and in turn, more animals. The earth has been warm before, and as I've been told that's when all those dinosaurs and plants were abundant that we all enjoy as oil right now.

3. evidence that even if we wanted to, we could reduce CO2 emissions. I'm not sold that it's even feasible , given difficulties we will have getting emerging economies to sign up for it and getting new regimes to honor previous regime's treaties.

Provide solid, independantly verifiable evidence of these three items and I'm on board with enacting climate change legislation.

1b. I believe this will never be proved, because it is not one of the current findings. I think what climate scientists contend is that there is a CO2 equilibrium which can be highly influenced by a relatively small human contribution.2. I've seen this bizarre idea peddled on a lot of libertarian websites, for some reason. Do people realize that many crops only survive because there is a winter and corresponding non-growing season? I'm sorry, but this seems like the desperate next level of "skepticism"—a science fiction fantasy where a rise in global temps miraculously leads to better things. If you really are interested in doing thorough science and compiling exhaustive evidence before making policy decisions, this entire fantasy should be ridiculous and unthinkable to you.

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

 

[moleculo]

Here's the evidence that would please me (long form):

1. independently verifiable proof between a causal relationship between carbon emissions eminating from burning fossil fuels and temperature change. The following sub-points are implied:

....a. atmospheric CO2 is increased due to burning fossil fuels.

....b. the above CO2 increase is significantly more than naturally occuring CO2, accounting for CO2 swings across the known continuum of time

....c. an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. This is probably the toughest thing to prove, and I'm not sure if this is even possible. We need to see more than a correlation, we need to really understand the mechanism of how it happens, the various feedback loops, etc. This is a very complicated issue and beyond my ability to even adequately frame the problem.

2. evidence that temperature change is bad. Spare the hyperbole; a warmer planet isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warmer planet means longer growing seasons, more farmable land, more vegetation, and in turn, more animals. The earth has been warm before, and as I've been told that's when all those dinosaurs and plants were abundant that we all enjoy as oil right now.

3. evidence that even if we wanted to, we could reduce CO2 emissions. I'm not sold that it's even feasible , given difficulties we will have getting emerging economies to sign up for it and getting new regimes to honor previous regime's treaties.

Provide solid, independantly verifiable evidence of these three items and I'm on board with enacting climate change legislation.

1b. I believe this will never be proved, because it is not one of the current findings. I think what climate scientists contend is that there is a CO2 equilibrium which can be highly influenced by a relatively small human contribution.2. I've seen this bizarre idea peddled on a lot of libertarian websites, for some reason. Do people realize that many crops only survive because there is a winter and corresponding non-growing season? I'm sorry, but this seems like the desperate next level of "skepticism"—a science fiction fantasy where a rise in global temps miraculously leads to better things. If you really are interested in doing thorough science and compiling exhaustive evidence before making policy decisions, this entire fantasy should be ridiculous and unthinkable to you.

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

1B. Kind of important, no? if you can't demonstrate that we are making significantly more CO2 than could occur naturally, what's the point?2. a small temperature rise (even as high as 5 degC) does not mean the end of winter...come on now. If you are the one pushing that we must disrupt our economy to prevent global warming, it's on you to demonstrate that global warming is worth stopping...You asked me what level of proof I want, I think proof that what you are fighting against is really bad is appropriate.

3. of course not. I gave reasons why I think emissions will continue to ruse regardless of legislation; you providing evidence that they rise would in no way imply that we can cause them to fall.

 

[RCon]

Here's the evidence that would please me (long form):

1. independently verifiable proof between a causal relationship between carbon emissions eminating from burning fossil fuels and temperature change. The following sub-points are implied:

....a. atmospheric CO2 is increased due to burning fossil fuels.

....b. the above CO2 increase is significantly more than naturally occuring CO2, accounting for CO2 swings across the known continuum of time

....c. an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. This is probably the toughest thing to prove, and I'm not sure if this is even possible. We need to see more than a correlation, we need to really understand the mechanism of how it happens, the various feedback loops, etc. This is a very complicated issue and beyond my ability to even adequately frame the problem.

2. evidence that temperature change is bad. Spare the hyperbole; a warmer planet isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warmer planet means longer growing seasons, more farmable land, more vegetation, and in turn, more animals. The earth has been warm before, and as I've been told that's when all those dinosaurs and plants were abundant that we all enjoy as oil right now.

3. evidence that even if we wanted to, we could reduce CO2 emissions. I'm not sold that it's even feasible , given difficulties we will have getting emerging economies to sign up for it and getting new regimes to honor previous regime's treaties.

Provide solid, independantly verifiable evidence of these three items and I'm on board with enacting climate change legislation.

1b. I believe this will never be proved, because it is not one of the current findings. I think what climate scientists contend is that there is a CO2 equilibrium which can be highly influenced by a relatively small human contribution.2. I've seen this bizarre idea peddled on a lot of libertarian websites, for some reason. Do people realize that many crops only survive because there is a winter and corresponding non-growing season? I'm sorry, but this seems like the desperate next level of "skepticism"—a science fiction fantasy where a rise in global temps miraculously leads to better things. If you really are interested in doing thorough science and compiling exhaustive evidence before making policy decisions, this entire fantasy should be ridiculous and unthinkable to you.

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

With respect to #2, I don't understand why this isn't a valid question. If we accept the premise that the earth is warmer today than it was during the little ice age 500-ish years ago, the first question to ask is "Is the earth better or worse off today (in terms of life, quality of life, whatever) than it was then?" What's the answer? Similarly, we could ask if the earth would be better or worse off if the earth cooled by two degrees or warmed by two degrees. I don't know the answer, but just because I don't know doesn't make the questions invalid. I might answer that "I'd prefer things to remain as they are because I like things as they are now," but it doesn't necessarily prove that "things" would definitely be worse if the earth cooled or warmed by one degree. I don't think anyone knows, or for that matter, can even define, what the optimal temperature of the earth is.

 

[pantagrapher]

More on topic:

The Science and Politics of Climate ChangeScience never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.By MIKE HULMEI am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.Surveys of public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic about man-made climate change continue to tell us something politicians know only too well: The citizens they rule over have minds of their own. In the U.K., a recent survey suggested that only 41% believed humans are causing climate change, 32% remained unsure and 15% were convinced we aren't. Similar surveys in the U.S. have shown a recent reduction in the number of people believing in man-made climate change.One reaction to this "unreasonableness" is to get scientists to speak louder, more often, or more dramatically about climate change. Another reaction from government bodies and interest groups is to use ever-more-emotional campaigning. Thus both the U.K. government's recent "bedtime stories" adverts, and Plane Stupid's Internet campaign showing polar bears falling past twin towers, have attracted widespread criticism for being too provocative and scary. These instinctive reactions fail to place the various aspects of our knowledge about climate change—scientific insights, political values, cultural moods, personal beliefs—in right relationship with each other. Too often, when we think we are arguing over scientific evidence for climate change, we are in fact disagreeing about our different political preferences, ethical principles and value systems.If we build the foundations of our climate-change policies so confidently and so single-mindedly on scientific claims about what the future holds and what therefore "has to be done," then science will inevitably become the field on which political battles are waged. The mantra becomes: Get the science right, reduce the scientific uncertainties, compel everyone to believe it. . . and we will have won. Not only is this an unrealistic view about how policy gets made, it also places much too great a burden on science, certainly on climate science with all of its struggles with complexity, contingency and uncertainty.The events of the last few of weeks, involving stolen professional correspondence between a small number of leading climate scientists—so-called climategate—demonstrate my point. Both the theft itself and the alleged contents of some of the stolen emails reveal the strong polarization and intense antagonism now found in some areas of climate science.Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.We have also seen how this plays out in public debate. In the wake of climategate, questions were asked on the BBC's Question Time last week about whether or not global warming was a scam. The absolutist claims of two of the panelists—Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips, and comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke—revealed how science ends up being portrayed as a fight between two dogmas: Either the evidence for man-made climate change is all fake, or else we are so sure we know how the planet works that we can claim to have just five or whatever years to save it. When science is invoked to support such dogmatic assertions, the essential character of scientific knowledge is lost—knowledge that results from open, always questioning, enquiry that, at best, can offer varying levels of confidence for pronouncements about how the world is, or may become.The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values.Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.Similarly, we endow analyses about the economics of climate change with too much scientific authority. Yes, we know there is a cascade of costs involved in mitigating, adapting to or ignoring climate change, but many of these costs are heavily influenced by ethical judgements about how we value things, now and in the future. These are judgments that science cannot prescribe.The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.Mr. Hulme, author of "Why We Disagree About Climate Change," is professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia.

 

[StrikeS2k]

More on topic:

The Science and Politics of Climate ChangeScience never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.By MIKE HULMEI am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.Surveys of public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic about man-made climate change continue to tell us something politicians know only too well: The citizens they rule over have minds of their own. In the U.K., a recent survey suggested that only 41% believed humans are causing climate change, 32% remained unsure and 15% were convinced we aren't. Similar surveys in the U.S. have shown a recent reduction in the number of people believing in man-made climate change.One reaction to this "unreasonableness" is to get scientists to speak louder, more often, or more dramatically about climate change. Another reaction from government bodies and interest groups is to use ever-more-emotional campaigning. Thus both the U.K. government's recent "bedtime stories" adverts, and Plane Stupid's Internet campaign showing polar bears falling past twin towers, have attracted widespread criticism for being too provocative and scary. These instinctive reactions fail to place the various aspects of our knowledge about climate change—scientific insights, political values, cultural moods, personal beliefs—in right relationship with each other. Too often, when we think we are arguing over scientific evidence for climate change, we are in fact disagreeing about our different political preferences, ethical principles and value systems.If we build the foundations of our climate-change policies so confidently and so single-mindedly on scientific claims about what the future holds and what therefore "has to be done," then science will inevitably become the field on which political battles are waged. The mantra becomes: Get the science right, reduce the scientific uncertainties, compel everyone to believe it. . . and we will have won. Not only is this an unrealistic view about how policy gets made, it also places much too great a burden on science, certainly on climate science with all of its struggles with complexity, contingency and uncertainty.The events of the last few of weeks, involving stolen professional correspondence between a small number of leading climate scientists—so-called climategate—demonstrate my point. Both the theft itself and the alleged contents of some of the stolen emails reveal the strong polarization and intense antagonism now found in some areas of climate science.Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.We have also seen how this plays out in public debate. In the wake of climategate, questions were asked on the BBC's Question Time last week about whether or not global warming was a scam. The absolutist claims of two of the panelists—Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips, and comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke—revealed how science ends up being portrayed as a fight between two dogmas: Either the evidence for man-made climate change is all fake, or else we are so sure we know how the planet works that we can claim to have just five or whatever years to save it. When science is invoked to support such dogmatic assertions, the essential character of scientific knowledge is lost—knowledge that results from open, always questioning, enquiry that, at best, can offer varying levels of confidence for pronouncements about how the world is, or may become.The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values.Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.Similarly, we endow analyses about the economics of climate change with too much scientific authority. Yes, we know there is a cascade of costs involved in mitigating, adapting to or ignoring climate change, but many of these costs are heavily influenced by ethical judgements about how we value things, now and in the future. These are judgments that science cannot prescribe.The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.Mr. Hulme, author of "Why We Disagree About Climate Change," is professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia.

What a load of ****.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Ignoratio has a point in checking your sources, but it looks like they have taken some steps to check the validity of the signatures, such as forcing you to actually mail in the form and by checking that they have a bachelor of science in appropriate fields for the topic.

How are they doing this? (It's ok, you don't actually have to answer.) "Checking your sources" doesn't mean asking your source if they are telling the truth. Besides, even if it were shown that they individually verified that each signatory had a B.S. or greater in a scientific discipline, it wouldn't validate the argument that "2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not." First of all, having a degree in such a discipline doesn't necessarily make someone a credible source on climate change. It's just an argumentum ad populum, and an especially poor one because it's a petition. Only people who agree with the petition sign the petition, so it also involves the most egregious form of self-selection bias.

At some point you have to either believe what they say or not believe, mate. In this case, they say they check each signature to make sure they have a B.S. in an appropriate field, therefore they have studied science to a relevant degree to be able to give an educated decision on the facts that are presented in the GW case.

Oof.

 

[moleculo]

More on topic:

The Science and Politics of Climate ChangeScience never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.By MIKE HULMEI am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.Surveys of public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic about man-made climate change continue to tell us something politicians know only too well: The citizens they rule over have minds of their own. In the U.K., a recent survey suggested that only 41% believed humans are causing climate change, 32% remained unsure and 15% were convinced we aren't. Similar surveys in the U.S. have shown a recent reduction in the number of people believing in man-made climate change.One reaction to this "unreasonableness" is to get scientists to speak louder, more often, or more dramatically about climate change. Another reaction from government bodies and interest groups is to use ever-more-emotional campaigning. Thus both the U.K. government's recent "bedtime stories" adverts, and Plane Stupid's Internet campaign showing polar bears falling past twin towers, have attracted widespread criticism for being too provocative and scary. These instinctive reactions fail to place the various aspects of our knowledge about climate change—scientific insights, political values, cultural moods, personal beliefs—in right relationship with each other. Too often, when we think we are arguing over scientific evidence for climate change, we are in fact disagreeing about our different political preferences, ethical principles and value systems.If we build the foundations of our climate-change policies so confidently and so single-mindedly on scientific claims about what the future holds and what therefore "has to be done," then science will inevitably become the field on which political battles are waged. The mantra becomes: Get the science right, reduce the scientific uncertainties, compel everyone to believe it. . . and we will have won. Not only is this an unrealistic view about how policy gets made, it also places much too great a burden on science, certainly on climate science with all of its struggles with complexity, contingency and uncertainty.The events of the last few of weeks, involving stolen professional correspondence between a small number of leading climate scientists—so-called climategate—demonstrate my point. Both the theft itself and the alleged contents of some of the stolen emails reveal the strong polarization and intense antagonism now found in some areas of climate science.Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.We have also seen how this plays out in public debate. In the wake of climategate, questions were asked on the BBC's Question Time last week about whether or not global warming was a scam. The absolutist claims of two of the panelists—Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips, and comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke—revealed how science ends up being portrayed as a fight between two dogmas: Either the evidence for man-made climate change is all fake, or else we are so sure we know how the planet works that we can claim to have just five or whatever years to save it. When science is invoked to support such dogmatic assertions, the essential character of scientific knowledge is lost—knowledge that results from open, always questioning, enquiry that, at best, can offer varying levels of confidence for pronouncements about how the world is, or may become.The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values.Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.Similarly, we endow analyses about the economics of climate change with too much scientific authority. Yes, we know there is a cascade of costs involved in mitigating, adapting to or ignoring climate change, but many of these costs are heavily influenced by ethical judgements about how we value things, now and in the future. These are judgments that science cannot prescribe.The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.Mr. Hulme, author of "Why We Disagree About Climate Change," is professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia.

it's kind of odd that the scientists are claiming that science can't provide all of the answers. If we therefore want to act on any conclusions based on the science, we must rely on what some might term "faith".

 

[pantagrapher]

Here's the evidence that would please me (long form):

1. independently verifiable proof between a causal relationship between carbon emissions eminating from burning fossil fuels and temperature change. The following sub-points are implied:

....a. atmospheric CO2 is increased due to burning fossil fuels.

....b. the above CO2 increase is significantly more than naturally occuring CO2, accounting for CO2 swings across the known continuum of time

....c. an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. This is probably the toughest thing to prove, and I'm not sure if this is even possible. We need to see more than a correlation, we need to really understand the mechanism of how it happens, the various feedback loops, etc. This is a very complicated issue and beyond my ability to even adequately frame the problem.

2. evidence that temperature change is bad. Spare the hyperbole; a warmer planet isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warmer planet means longer growing seasons, more farmable land, more vegetation, and in turn, more animals. The earth has been warm before, and as I've been told that's when all those dinosaurs and plants were abundant that we all enjoy as oil right now.

3. evidence that even if we wanted to, we could reduce CO2 emissions. I'm not sold that it's even feasible , given difficulties we will have getting emerging economies to sign up for it and getting new regimes to honor previous regime's treaties.

Provide solid, independantly verifiable evidence of these three items and I'm on board with enacting climate change legislation.

1b. I believe this will never be proved, because it is not one of the current findings. I think what climate scientists contend is that there is a CO2 equilibrium which can be highly influenced by a relatively small human contribution.2. I've seen this bizarre idea peddled on a lot of libertarian websites, for some reason. Do people realize that many crops only survive because there is a winter and corresponding non-growing season? I'm sorry, but this seems like the desperate next level of "skepticism"—a science fiction fantasy where a rise in global temps miraculously leads to better things. If you really are interested in doing thorough science and compiling exhaustive evidence before making policy decisions, this entire fantasy should be ridiculous and unthinkable to you.

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

1B. Kind of important, no? if you can't demonstrate that we are making significantly more CO2 than could occur naturally, what's the point?2. a small temperature rise (even as high as 5 degC) does not mean the end of winter...come on now. If you are the one pushing that we must disrupt our economy to prevent global warming, it's on you to demonstrate that global warming is worth stopping...You asked me what level of proof I want, I think proof that what you are fighting against is really bad is appropriate.

3. of course not. I gave reasons why I think emissions will continue to ruse regardless of legislation; you providing evidence that they rise would in no way imply that we can cause them to fall.

1b. I think we're talking past each other here.2. Seasonal temperatures have a very distinct influence on how far different types of parasites can migrate. I will revisit this tomorrow, as it's a tough one to google for the information I would like to cite.

3. So you don't think it's possible to prove that if humans are making CO2 levels rise, then humans can make them decrease?

As for the entire discussion about what kind of legislation or lack thereof we each support: I think this is a separate thing from the science issue, and it's getting us off-topic. Especially when you assert that regardless of what the science eventually shows, global warming might be a good thing anyway.

 

[jonessed]

What a load of ****.

I don't know. I thought he had a lot of good things to say. He was very soft on the science community, but he is directly involved so you kind of have to expect that.The IPCC has a huge influence on global climate policies and it was being fed data by organizations that felt pressured to fudge data. That doesn't mean Global Warming is a scam, but it does mean that the data needs to be opened up and looked at by a much larger group of people. In my research since this blew up I think the most startling find is how few people actually controlled the decisions being made. Pieces of the puzzle were looked at by lots of scientists, but the centers that really collected the data and ran the models driving the politics were controlled by a handful of people and those people all had the same motives and beliefs. They used their political leverage to stifle debate and hijack the peer review process.The community as a whole is going to have to step back and really change the way they operate if they expect to regain public faith.

 

[moleculo]

Here's the evidence that would please me (long form):

1. independently verifiable proof between a causal relationship between carbon emissions eminating from burning fossil fuels and temperature change. The following sub-points are implied:

....a. atmospheric CO2 is increased due to burning fossil fuels.

....b. the above CO2 increase is significantly more than naturally occuring CO2, accounting for CO2 swings across the known continuum of time

....c. an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature. This is probably the toughest thing to prove, and I'm not sure if this is even possible. We need to see more than a correlation, we need to really understand the mechanism of how it happens, the various feedback loops, etc. This is a very complicated issue and beyond my ability to even adequately frame the problem.

2. evidence that temperature change is bad. Spare the hyperbole; a warmer planet isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warmer planet means longer growing seasons, more farmable land, more vegetation, and in turn, more animals. The earth has been warm before, and as I've been told that's when all those dinosaurs and plants were abundant that we all enjoy as oil right now.

3. evidence that even if we wanted to, we could reduce CO2 emissions. I'm not sold that it's even feasible , given difficulties we will have getting emerging economies to sign up for it and getting new regimes to honor previous regime's treaties.

Provide solid, independantly verifiable evidence of these three items and I'm on board with enacting climate change legislation.

1b. I believe this will never be proved, because it is not one of the current findings. I think what climate scientists contend is that there is a CO2 equilibrium which can be highly influenced by a relatively small human contribution.2. I've seen this bizarre idea peddled on a lot of libertarian websites, for some reason. Do people realize that many crops only survive because there is a winter and corresponding non-growing season? I'm sorry, but this seems like the desperate next level of "skepticism"—a science fiction fantasy where a rise in global temps miraculously leads to better things. If you really are interested in doing thorough science and compiling exhaustive evidence before making policy decisions, this entire fantasy should be ridiculous and unthinkable to you.

3. If we can show evidence that we increased emissions, would that be sufficient, since it would imply the opposite is possible?

1B. Kind of important, no? if you can't demonstrate that we are making significantly more CO2 than could occur naturally, what's the point?2. a small temperature rise (even as high as 5 degC) does not mean the end of winter...come on now. If you are the one pushing that we must disrupt our economy to prevent global warming, it's on you to demonstrate that global warming is worth stopping...You asked me what level of proof I want, I think proof that what you are fighting against is really bad is appropriate.

3. of course not. I gave reasons why I think emissions will continue to ruse regardless of legislation; you providing evidence that they rise would in no way imply that we can cause them to fall.

1b. I think we're talking past each other here.2. Seasonal temperatures have a very distinct influence on how far different types of parasites can migrate. I will revisit this tomorrow, as it's a tough one to google for the information I would like to cite.

3. So you don't think it's possible to prove that if humans are making CO2 levels rise, then humans can make them decrease?

As for the entire discussion about what kind of legislation or lack thereof we each support: I think this is a separate thing from the science issue, and it's getting us off-topic. Especially when you assert that regardless of what the science eventually shows, global warming might be a good thing anyway.

fair enough, but to your last point regarding point 2, I'm not aserting anything. I'm just asking for the AGW folks to explain why global warming is so bad. This should be more of an exercise in pointing me in the right direction; I assume most of my above questions have already been answered (minus the independently verifiable bit); I'm just trying to be thorough. All the above is an attempt at a logically complete set of information needed to justify significant changes. If I go to my boss and ask to spend a big chunk of company money on a new project, he's gonna have some questions - why do you want to do this project, will you solve the problem you want to solve, and how will you do it?

 

[jon_mx]

so I just got done reading this whole thread up to this point. Not that anyone cares, but here's my take:1. IMO greenhouse gas caused global warming is neither proven nor disproven at this point. This was my take before reading each of the above 460+ posts, and that's what I continue to believe.2. Everyone who has an opinion on this likely formed their opinion before considering the data. I haven't see any one recant. I see a lot of "gotcha" and "no you haven't".3. This recent scandal demonstrated some scientists behaving poorly - at the very least, their work cannot be unquestioned, and all of their conclusions should be scrutinized. I would like to see their work repeated, reviewed, and verified. At best, the CRU scientists were negligent in discarding raw data, minimizing dissenting views, and formulating poor code. At worst, they purposefully acted to manipulate the data to strengthen pre-conceived notions, and worked to cover up their transgressions. I suspect that reality is somewhere in between.4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.In the interest of full disclosure and expanding on (1), I believe that the Earth is warming. I'll even agree that man may play some role in that, although I'm not sure...regardless, I don't think we can do anything about it. I have very strong doubts that reducing CO2 emissions will have any effect, and I have doubts that global warming is actually a bad thing. I am certainly no expert, but the causality of our CO2 emissions on temperature seems to be missing.

but this makes you one of those evil 'deniers'.

 

[StrikeS2k]

What a load of ****.

I don't know. I thought he had a lot of good things to say. He was very soft on the science community, but he is directly involved so you kind of have to expect that.The IPCC has a huge influence on global climate policies and it was being fed data by organizations that felt pressured to fudge data. That doesn't mean Global Warming is a scam, but it does mean that the data needs to be opened up and looked at by a much larger group of people. In my research since this blew up I think the most startling find is how few people actually controlled the decisions being made. Pieces of the puzzle were looked at by lots of scientists, but the centers that really collected the data and ran the models driving the politics were controlled by a handful of people and those people all had the same motives and beliefs. They used their political leverage to stifle debate and hijack the peer review process.The community as a whole is going to have to step back and really change the way they operate if they expect to regain public faith.

I guess I take issue with the fact that he is a professor at the same school where the CRU resides and apparently worked there in the past. He should have intimate knowledge of some of their practices and be able to shed some light on the ACTUAL SCANDAL. Instead, he chooses to take a position about balancing science and politics and junk. I see it as trying to deflect from the current issues. He could have written this at any time yet chose NOW to do so. He also touts the new manta that the science will never be settled so we have to act now, despite the fact that we've been told for the last 15 years or so that the science IS settled. Only now that their own e-mails and fraud expose the fact that the science is NOT settled do they say we need to act despite the science not being settled. As I said, what a load of ****.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Link

UK University to probe integrity of climate data

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER and DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writers Raphael G. Satter And David Stringer, Associated Press Writers – 32 mins ago

LONDON – A British university said Thursday it would investigate whether scientists at its prestigious Climatic Research Unit fudged data on global warming.

Thousands of pieces of correspondence between some of the world's leading climate scientists were stolen from the unit at the University of East Anglia and leaked to the Internet late last month. Skeptics of man-made global warming say the e-mails are proof that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence showing that global warming was not as strong as generally believed.

Phil Jones, the director of the unit, stepped down Tuesday pending the result of the investigation.

The university had promised a probe when Jones stepped down, but didn't specify what the investigation would encompass. Thursday's announcement was the first acknowledgment that the research itself would be under scrutiny.

East Anglia said its review will examine the e-mails and other information "to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."

The university said former civil servant Muir Russell would lead the inquiry, and Russell said he "has no links to either the university or the climate science community."

East Anglia has asked that the review be completed by spring 2010.

The theft of the e-mails and their publication online — only weeks before the U.N. summit on global warming in Copenhagen_ has been politically explosive, even if researchers say their content has no bearing on the principles of climate change itself.

There was further criticism following the revelation that the university had thrown out much of the raw temperature data on which some of its global warming research was based. The university said in a statement last week that the data, stored on paper and magnetic tape, was dumped in the 1980s to save space when the unit moved to a new location.

The release of the data has prompted some lawmakers in Britain to warn that critics of climate change want to wreck any global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that could be achieved at the Dec. 7-18 U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen.

Ed Miliband, Britain's climate change secretary, on Thursday called those challenging the mainstream scientific view on climate change irresponsible and dangerous.

"We have to beware of the climate saboteurs, the people who want to say this is somehow in doubt, and want to cast aspersions on the whole process," Miliband told reporters.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have grilled government scientists on the leaked e-mails, with U.S. lawmaker James Sensenbrenner arguing that the e-mails show the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled.

Sensenbrenner, a Republican lawmaker from Wisconsin, read out loud some of Jones' e-mail messages at a hearing Wednesday in Washington, including one in which Jones wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Another of Jones' e-mails reads, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

Scientists called before the House's climate change committee countered that the e-mails don't change the fact that the earth is warming.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She said the e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming.

The University of East Anglia's investigation comes in addition to a probe by Penn State University, which also is examining e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann.

Mann said Wednesday that he welcomes the investigation and has nothing to hide.

"I've been working overtime to clarify the record. None of us like to have our personal e-mails shared," he said. "But there's nothing in there I'm ashamed of ... or any improper behavior."

 

[Challenge Everything]

Somebody who's good with FFA searches help me find a poll I created about a year ago.

The subject matter of the poll was generally:

Which is more accepted science: Global Warming or Evolution.

Sadly enough, I think the results were tracking pretty equally.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=452413&hl=

 

[tommyboy]

count me as one person that is glad some russian hacked this open and posted it online. The truth has a way of leaking out eventually.

I honestly hope some of these scientists and politicians go to jail over this. This would have been a much bigger fraud than Oil-for-food. One thing we should have learned from experience; if the UN is pushing it, its probably a huge fraud where the UN profits and gains power.

 

[jonessed]

"We have to beware of the climate saboteurs, the people who want to say this is somehow in doubt, and want to cast aspersions on the whole process," Miliband told reporters.



Some people never learn.

Mann said Wednesday that he welcomes the investigation and has nothing to hide.

Then he shouldn’t have tried to obfuscate data and communications in order to avoid FOI disclosures. Clearly he did have something to hide.

 

[jon_mx]

Really odd Gore would have something more important to do than giving a speech at Copenhagen.

Gore cancels climate lecture in Copenhagen

December 3, 2009 5:05 PM ET

COPENHAGEN (AP) - Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Really odd Gore would have something more important to do than giving a speech at Copenhagen.

Gore cancels climate lecture in Copenhagen

December 3, 2009 5:05 PM ET

COPENHAGEN (AP) - Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

Can't he just do a Q & A session? He can show off his Nobel prize.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...He should have intimate knowledge of some of their practices and be able to shed some light on the ACTUAL SCANDAL. ...

Why?

 

[jon_mx]

Gore vs. Palin in Climategate.

Copenhagen targets not tough enough, says Al Gore times online UK | December 4, 2009 | Robin Pagnamenta, Even if a deal is reached at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen next week it will only be the first step towards the far more radical cuts that are needed in global carbon emissions, Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, told The Times last night.Mr Gore said that to avoid the worst ravages of climate change world leaders would have to come together again to set more drastic reductions than those now planned.“Even a final treaty will have to set the stage for other tougher reductions at a later date,” he said. “We have already overshot the safe levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.”He insisted that the present goal set for Copenhagen of stabilising world emissions of carbon dioxide at or below 450 parts per million — enough to prevent a rise in average global temperatures of no more than 2C — was insufficient and a safer target would be 350 parts per million....He also brushed aside questions over the reliability of climate science that have followed the publication last month of leaked e-mails between climate experts. He claimed that the scientific consensus around climate change “continues to grow from strength to strength”. He added: “The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view. This is a race between common sense and unreality.”

Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change "Experts"Facebook | 12-03-09 | Sarah Palin The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

 

[Sarnoff]

She said the e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming.

Meh, with the NASA data starting to look troublesome too (rejecting FOIA requests, and their constant tweaking and revising what should be old and factual numbers), it doesn't instill any confidence.

 

[jon_mx]

Here is a summary of many of the emails (stolen from a blog)....the number is parenthesis are the email number.

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).

Analysis of impact here. Wow!

Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)

Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)

Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)

Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)

Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Phil Jones having problems with explaining issues over the Lamb image of global temps in the early IPCC reports. Says it shouldn't be discussed openly at Real Climate. Says better left buried.(1168356704)

Phil Jones emails Steve [schneider], editor of Climatic Change [plus others, editorial board of the journal?], telling him he shouldn't accede to McIntyre's request for Mann's computer code. In later email to Mann ("For your eyes only, delete after reading") Jones says he told Jones separately [presumably meaning without saying to the rest of the board] that he should seek advice elsewhere and also consult the publisher and take legal advice.(1074277559)

Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)

An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann'svery thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past.(1067194064)

Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this.(0968705882)

IPCC review editor John Mitchell says that the issue of why proxy data for recent decades is not shown (he says it's because they don't show warming) needs to be explained. [Note to readers, this was not done Let's say that the explanation was nuanced - it said that the divergence problem, as this issue is known, was restricted to a few areas]. Also says that Mann's short-centred PC analysis is wrong and that Mann's results are not statistically significant.(1150923423)

 

[moleculo]

We can keep going around and around on this but frankly I'm seeing less and less of a point. You seem to have in your mind:

Science = Perfect assessment of some observable phenomenon with the ability to take that data and create a perfect future prediction.

Politics = Unknown assessment of risk or predictive factors and a wager on what is going to happen.

The fact of the matter is that within this area, your definition of science is wrong. We cannot create another 10,000 Earths, control all factors, tweak various inputs, and see exactly what is happening. The scientists in this realm operate with a healthy respect for their uncertainty. That's why on these surveys you see about 90%+ of scientists agreeing that global temperatures are going up and 80%+ are attributing it to human input. Now, do they know that this factor or that factor is the cause? And that if we fail to do X, then Y will occur? No. They're operating on educated guesswork.

HTF do you know what my definition of science is?I am not looking for a test that can be repeated 10k times - that's your straw man, not mine. I can make assinine assumptions on my own, thank you very much.

That said, their educated guesswork is much more informed, much more nuanced, and much more competent than anything that you or I could cook together with talking points, graphs, or essays. That's why I'm willing to delegate my opinion on this matter to them. If the community of scientists in this field come to a different understanding then I'll trust that. But let's be real here: frankly I don't really understand electricity. Oh, I get it that it's a transfer of charged particles, but as far as a real conceptualization and visualization of what happens when I turn on a light switch? It's not there. But there are electrical engineers and Physics PhDs who do get it. And we don't yell and scream and say that they're wrong because they don't satisfy my level of understanding. This should be no different (subject to the caveat that this area of science differs in experimental versus observational paradigms).

if their level of understanding is deeper and more correct, it should be pretty easy to satisfy my level of understanding without skewing the data. I'll freely admit - I haven't done a whole lot of research on the subject and I really don't know what is out there. My curiosity is piqued and I will be digging deeper into the science to formulate my own opinion, can I trust you will do the same?

This is not "global warming" versus "anti-global warming." This is science versus dogma. You all have aligned yourself with dogma and nothing anyone can say or do will convince you otherwise. It just doesn't work that way.

after reading through this thread and about "climategate", I'm not 100% sure which side has more dogma - the GW or anti-GW side. You seem to have taken the tact that you trust implicitly what the AGW guys are saying, so it's pretty clear which side you have aligned yourself with and I doubt anything anyone can say or do will convince you otherwise.

 

[moleculo]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

The section on "House of Cards" is what is wrong with this thread and exactly why calling this a major story that proves a vast conspiracy is just plain silly.

 

[Thorpe]

after reading through this thread and about "climategate", I'm not 100% sure which side has more dogma - the GW or anti-GW side. You seem to have taken the tact that you trust implicitly what the AGW guys are saying, so it's pretty clear which side you have aligned yourself with and I doubt anything anyone can say or do will convince you otherwise.

I trust what an overwhelming of scientists (>82%) and what a near universal of climatologists (97%) say about the subject. The side of science happens to be on the side of global warming so I guess you can call that my "side." You saying you "doubt anyone can say or do will convince you otherwise" is completely and 100% contrary to what I have said at least 5 times in this thread. If the weight of the scientific community was to change its mind, I would change my mind. Is there anything that you can say to change my mind? No. There isn't.

Scientists are normal people, and have families and mortgages and car payments. If they support Global Warming, they have access to huge sums of money, have any paper of theirs published, and can travel the world attending conferences. If they are skeptics, they are blackballed from publishing, will never get a dime of grant money, and will probably have to find a new line of work. Also, the vast majority of scientists are basically sheep and will believe whatever the established scientists tell them to believe.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

after reading through this thread and about "climategate", I'm not 100% sure which side has more dogma - the GW or anti-GW side. You seem to have taken the tact that you trust implicitly what the AGW guys are saying, so it's pretty clear which side you have aligned yourself with and I doubt anything anyone can say or do will convince you otherwise.

I trust what an overwhelming of scientists (>82%) and what a near universal of climatologists (97%) say about the subject. The side of science happens to be on the side of global warming so I guess you can call that my "side." You saying you "doubt anyone can say or do will convince you otherwise" is completely and 100% contrary to what I have said at least 5 times in this thread. If the weight of the scientific community was to change its mind, I would change my mind. Is there anything that you can say to change my mind? No. There isn't.

Scientists are normal people, and have families and mortgages and car payments. If they support Global Warming, they have access to huge sums of money, have any paper of theirs published, and can travel the world attending conferences. If they are skeptics, they are blackballed from publishing, will never get a dime of grant money, and will probably have to find a new line of work. Also, the vast majority of scientists are basically sheep and will believe whatever the established scientists tell them to believe.

 

[moleculo]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

The section on "House of Cards" is what is wrong with this thread and exactly why calling this a major story that proves a vast conspiracy is just plain silly.

Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't think anyone made that claim.However, let's not downplay this. This is still a major story regarding highly influential scientists acting unethically and possibly criminally to further thier own agenda's.

Note - in no way does that disprove or prove anything.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

an interesting take here:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

By Peter Kelemen

The section on "House of Cards" is what is wrong with this thread and exactly why calling this a major story that proves a vast conspiracy is just plain silly.

Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't think anyone made that claim.However, let's not downplay this. This is still a major story regarding highly influential scientists acting unethically and possibly criminally to further thier own agenda's.

Note - in no way does that disprove or prove anything.

Re-read this thread's subtitle

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't think anyone made that claim.

I thought you said that you read every post in this thread before posting? This thread isn't about how a few scientists may or may not have behaved poorly but how this scant evidence of even that being significant is the "smoking gun" exposing the grand fraud.

 

[moleculo]

so quit making arguments about science then. If you want to act w/ lower degrees of certainty, it's no longer a scientific decision, it's a political one. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but let's call a duck a duck and acknowledge that the science isn't settled.

do you believe the science is settled and therefore there is no room for debate?How settled do you consider long range weather forecasting relative to economics?

if their level of understanding is deeper and more correct, it should be pretty easy to satisfy my level of understanding without skewing the data. I'll freely admit - I haven't done a whole lot of research on the subject and I really don't know what is out there. My curiosity is piqued and I will be digging deeper into the science to formulate my own opinion, can I trust you will do the same?

No. You've completely and utterly missed my point.My point is that no matter how much me as a layman tries to, "dig into it" my understanding will never come close to the understanding necessary to have a truly educated opinion on the subject. Therefore I outsource my opinion of it to the people who spend time working in the field and studying the subject. And therefore I am happy to go with whatever the current scientific wisdom is.

so you blindly will follow what the scientists say, and you will believe what they tell you to believe. Interesting. This will make a neat data point for the next religion thread.

 

[moleculo]

Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't think anyone made that claim.

I thought you said that you read every post in this thread before posting? This thread isn't about how a few scientists may or may not have behaved poorly but how this scant evidence of even that being significant is the "smoking gun" exposing the grand fraud.

good point - please allow me to re-phrase:Agreed - I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy, and I don't take any posts in this thread that made that claim seriously.

 

[DrJ]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

Can we get the raw data used to make those calculations by any chance? Not exactly sure how they make the "10 year trend" line the way they do either. They start the thing well under where the temperature was in 1998 for some reason. If you considered 1998 as point 0, the vast majority of this graph would be in the negative. How exactly does that represent a 10 year warming trend?

If you'd like raw data, I'd suggest contacting these people or these people, as their data are the main resources cited in the article.As for the question about the origin of the trend line, I'd refer you to this explanation of trend lines and how they work.

Funny thing is you look at these links and you get stuff like this:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt

using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment

There's some claims that GISS revised their temperature records earlier this year and refuses to release the algorithms used to make calculations like in this article. Any of that accurate? If so, I don't know that GISS charts have all that much credibility right about now either.http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/104812.html

Update: Turns out this NASA data was revised because of a Y2K bug in the algorithm used to adjust measurement station raw data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. NASA's James Hansen has refused to release his algorithms but they were reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and NASA has since updated their data (so you know he Steve got it right). What this author finds truly disturbing (and disgusting) is that NASA would keep these algorithms secret. This is public information. Steve really should file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to obtain this and what ever else he needs. NASA would be very hard pressed to justify withholding that information. These events seriously call in to question anything James Hansen has touched, supervised, or managed. Not just because he got the math wrong but because he also hides his methods. He is apparently attempting to establish a new religion by requiring people to have faith in his data.

Sounds familiar....

 

[Bonzai]

Reading over this trainwreck, I gotta say that I think the term "climate change" means different things to different folks. I think some here equate it to some type of panic button with very direct consequences to public policy, while others (myself included) see it as a scientific phenomenon independent of politics. I think this disconnect really adds to the trainwreck factor. I might just be really drunk, though.