I keep meaning to write something substantive about the theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, but my day job does sometime intervene. (Over six hundred postdoc applications in theoretical physics, but not to worry — only about 400 of them are in areas related to my interests.) There are some good discussions at Time and Foreign Policy, and you can’t poke your nose into the science blogosphere without reading someone’s take on the issue.
My own take is: what in the world is the big deal? Indeed, I would go so far as to ask: what could possibly be the big deal? Most of the noise has simply been nonsensical, focusing on misunderstandings of what scientists mean by the word “trick” and similar deep issues. And some people got upset when a dodgy paper was accepted by a journal, and they discussed giving the journal a cold shoulder. Cry me a river.
But I don’t really want to defend the scientists involved, because I’m not informed enough about who they are and what they did. For all I know, they may be very nasty and unethical human beings. (Actually that’s not true; I know Michael Mann, and he’s one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet.) And I see no reason not to do a thorough investigation, and hand out appropriate sanctions if there’s real evidence of wrongdoing.
What baffles me is the idea that this changes the conversation about climate change in any way. This isn’t a case like Jan Hendrik Schon, the rogue physicist who rose to prominence on the basis of falsified data, and was later exposed. The job of monitoring the climate is one that has been taken up by more than just one or two groups of people. There have been thousands of peer-reviewed papers that have provided evidence of global warming. Not to mention common sense; when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has shot up dramatically over the last century, and the temperature has done the same thing, it takes some willful stubbornness to avoid the obvious conclusion. All of the noise we’re hearing about “Climategate” is based on politics, not on science.
And that’s what really puzzles me. I understand the non-scientific motivations of certain climate denialists; in the abstract, they don’t want to accept that the unfettered actions of capitalism can ever have any deleterious effects, and in the concrete, many of them are paid by oil companies. (See this charming “letter to the American Physical Society,” whose handful of signatories includes “Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil.”) Those are powerful incentives to ignore the evidence.
But what is the incentive on the other side supposed to be? What exactly is the motivation for the nefarious conspiracy of people who are supposedly plotting to mislead the world about global warming? What do the people counting oysters get out of this?
Are there a lot of people out there who think that scientists as a group (since the vast majority of scientists appreciate the problems of global warming) have knee-jerk reactions against technology and industry? Let me propose another motivation for whatever corners the East Anglia group might have contemplated cutting: they’ve seen the data, they know what’s happening to the planet, and they’re terrified of what the consequences might be. They know that the other side is motivated by non-scientific concerns, and they want to fight back as hard as they can, both for the good of humanity and for the integrity of science. There’s no question that scientists can go overboard, pulling the occasional shenanigans in the pursuit of their less lofty goals. (Like, you know, other human beings.) But nobody wants to believe that we’re facing a looming global ecological catastrophe. They believe it because that’s what the data imply.
Brian, investments in improved efficiency, better millage, sustainability and so on are good ideas and should go ahead whether humans are behind global warming or not.
The problem is that it would take much more then that to significantly limit CO2 emissions, large portion of energy production would have to either switch to more expensive carbon neutral sources or invest into carbon sequestration, either way it would lead to a steep increase in energy prices. Since the cost of energy is factored into the price of every commodity the end result would be a substantial increase in cost of living for everyone.
Surferosad: “Yes Arrow, keep moving the goal posts.”
I have been talking about the very same thing in every single reply to you – climate models have to pass rigorous experimental verification to be considered established science, you failed to provide even a single example of such a verification. Your current claim that I am moving goal posts can only be read as an attempt to leave the discussion without admitting defeat, if your objection were sincere you would at least explain why you think they were moved.
Surferosad: “By the way, I’m a geologist by training. Your narrow (minded) perspective on what is science pretty much puts my particular discipline, and any discipline with a historical perspective (like evolutionary science, for instance) in the rubbish bin.”
So for you scientific method is a narrow minded perspective? And you think it invalidates geology and evolutionary science? I’d love to hear the logic behind those claims.
Nonsense. Here’s what I see: whatever model prediction, or verification of a model that will be given to you that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notions will immediately be considered not rigourous enough to fit your criteria. In other words, you move the goal posts.
And assuming that you’re a typical denier type (you sure sound like one to me), whatever bit of information that does fit your preconceived notions will immediately be accepted, verification be damned, and called rigourous science.
You just don’t want to hear it. You’ve already made up your mind, and there’s no point debating you. You’re not debating in good faith.
@Davis:
“You missed my point. How far out does such a prediction work? More importantly, why does it work? And the solar system has N bodies, where N is fairly large (asteroids, comets, etc); why is this obviously less complex?
Side question, how much have you actually studied chaotic systems? It’s not a typical part of the math curriculum, even at the graduate level (you’re more likely to see it in a graduate physics class).”
Not very far even in the very simple system of the solar system. It takes some careful numerical analysis to make sure various error sources don’t creep up in the calculation, which they always do eventually. The more complex recursive system you deal with the worse the situation is, especially when you have to start out with such vague conditions as in the case of weather systems.
Chaotic systems are very much in the basic undergrad math and physics curriculum at my university.
Remember commentators–the more comments you post, the more right you must be!
Last week I received an email from Hal Lewis, Bob Austin, Will Happer, Larry Gould and Roger Cohen on ClimateGate (phrase used by senders) with the title “scientific misbehavior”, and today I received a mail from the APS president to assure me ” that this was not an official APS message, nor was it sent with APS knowledge or approval”. I’m sure that others have received the same e-mails. Sort of amusing 🙂
Personally I am inclined to believe that peak oil and peak coal will take care of CO2 emissions eventually, but that is just my own unscientific opinion.
First off, I’m no scientist but I read alot and prize my common sense. Maybe instead of arguing about all the technical side, maybe we should simplify a little. Deniers have more to gain, that should be settled. Climate change aside, dosen’t it make sense to make all technological advancements more efficient? Dosen’t it make sense not to waste resources? Excessive packaging, fuel economy etc., shouldn’t we try to improve these areas in the interest of consumers? These are some small steps that we should make that should not even be argued about. Now, about climate change, we all know that earth experiences natural temperature cycles. We all know that human activity contributes to an increase in global temperature. The extent of which is of course in dispute. We all know that biological ecosystems are delicate and are prone to collapse when disturbed to a sufficient degree, the atmosphere is also delicate. Without an atmosphere we end up like mars, with a thicker atmosphere we end up like Venus. More or less. Why not keep an eye on the only thing that matters to all life on this planet, try to maintain it and anticipate future problems? I have heard that there could be 50million planets with life in the known universe, but I seriously doubt we will see a single one in the forseeable human future. We may spread out in our solar system but that is as far as I think we will ever get. So why risk destroying out only home? I am not a fan of capitalism, this is the greatest country on the planet but capitalism unregulated is a very bad idea in the long run. Why do we oppose government control so much. We start talking a “public OPTION” and people start buying assault rifles to get ready to fight the next Stalin. This is hysteria, plain and simple. Things could be far,far worse. You should be thankful your neighbor has not killed you yet. Government is a human concept made reality by adequate laws and policing. Without it we are right back in the jungle. Some of you may like it that way but those with a family and dreams do not. I’m getting off the subject. The problem about global warming isn’t what we know will happen, it is what we don’t know. Not much might happen or the very life supporting structure of the planet could collapse. These are the extremes but I am positive that the result of unregulated polluting from all forms will be negative. The only reason this is in debate, in my opinion, is because people profiting the most(energy companies) are making it a debate and angry,ignorant, greedy little people like Rush,Sean and Bill add fuel to the debate. The uninformed working class dosen’t stand a chance. I’m sorry I compare Rush and Sean and people like them to people like David Koresh and even Charles Manson. But that is my opinion. Fat little hedonists’. I think because the majority of humans value money over morality, that we won’t act on this and it will exponentially worsen. I just hope we don’t completely kill the planet in the process. I will end with one last point since this is turning out to be more of a jab at the right than a point about global warming. We should be concerned with many things, limiting resource waste, recycling, reducing the destruction of the rainforests, and overall sustainability. One way to help our economy and put us in a better position to protect the environment is to put a stop to off-shore tax havens, how many corporations engage in this deplorable activity? How much does the government lose in taxes each year because of this? Just think about all of this, especially if you have children.
Dethklok Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Surferosad Says: Nonsense. Here’s what I see: whatever model prediction, or verification of a model that will be given to you that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notions will immediately be considered not rigourous enough to fit your criteria. In other words, you move the goal posts.
So, your argument basically amounts to a baseless assertion that even if you could find an experimental verification of a climate model, which so far you couldn’t do, I would still not accept it?
You are wrong, I would certainly accept it, but I can understand why you have to resolve to such twisted logic – there simply are no experimental verifications of climate models. If they existed we would read about them in every climate thread.
And no, I am not a denier, I am a skeptic. I agree that the Earth is currently warming, I accept the physics behind the greenhouse effect, I accept that humans *may* be responsible for a significant part of the current warming. But I have some experience with computer models and I am deeply skeptical our climate models can accurately reproduce every important mechanism and feedback of something as complex as global climate. I won’t take anyones word for it I want to see a proof – meaning experimental verification of models predictions, but there is none. I keep bringing this up in climate threads and so far no one has been able to come up with any such verification and so I remain skeptical. But as soon as someone proves his model can accurately predict climate by repeatedly and correctly postdicting or predicting climate I will be happy to change my position.
Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion – R.P.Feynman
CBS News correspondent Declan McCullagh has a blog entry with more information on the controversy among members of the American Physical Society referred to in comment 108 above. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
>>>You’re basically trying to imply that climate scientists fudged the data because of their political convictions, and you assume that those convictions are left wing. Sounds like red-baiting to me.
Surferosad,
So, Lef-liberal should be a group protected from any criticism? How predictable 🙂 But, you are absolutely wrong on semantics. That was “green-biting” or perhaps “left-liberal baiting” or perhaps you need to invent a new word to bully your students into believing that anyone who could be labeled by it is bad person. What problem do you have with left-liberal baiting in general? You liberlas do Republican baiting and I do left-liberal baiting. They all do the same in Congress. You can call it any name, (or I could do) but calling names is not the way to conduct intellectual conversation. The question if it is relevant. And what I said is that left-liberal mob mentality may possibly serve as a sole motivation for commiting data fraud (completely aside of $60 billions that UN asks us to monitore climate change 🙂 ).
The worst thing I see here is that you assume that name-calling only may constitute a proof and get you some leverage in discussion. OK, let us asume that I can be also possibly a racist, sexist, homophobe and fascist or a criminal. But pointing to any of this circumstences would not in any way disproof of what I said about possibility of data fraud based on political motivations.
>>>Anyway, thank you for once again amply demonstrating the uselessness of debating climate change deniers.
Same to you. You are a geologist by training. I suggest you to complement your study with basic Aristotelean logic and learn at least one thing that ad-hominem attacks do not constitute proof and do not even show you in good light .
Well, I have the same problem with M. Mann and his writings on RealClimate as I have with you. The combating posture, name calling and demagogy (misuse of semantics) are signs of unsrupulous mind and of a potential lier.
To Sergey and Arrow, a single word: piffle.
Climategate “red-baiting” aka left liberal baiting is becoming somewhat mainstream. It seems that many people see it the way Lord Monkton and I see it:
from: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5756
The biggest scientific scandal in this generation is that “scientists” who ****push socialism through a Global Warming Scare ****tried to “hide the decline” in global temperatures and to destroy or manipulate — “trick” — data that disproved their theory. That they could not duplicate the experiment independently without lying is proof, to me, that Global Warming is a hoax (see REM). The fact that the Global Warming crowd by and large indulges in larger carbon footprints than everyone else is also proof that they do not believe in their junk science.
REM: This is simple Bayesian reasoning, used by detectives, common people, statistitians, politicians but somehow forgoten by practcioners of fundamantal sciences. Though, it is R. T. Cox and later E.T Jaynes (author of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science ) who glorified Bayesian reasoning.
W. Grey,”renowned hurricane forecaster ” nails it down:
from http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/gray-global-warming/2009/12/08/id/338053
“These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and **socialists*** who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.”
Yes, that is precisely how I see it.
“…The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.”
“The last century’s global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation. …”
This guy earned his right to have his opinion, ***unlike most of us***.
“The recent “Climategate” revelations coming out of the University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming ***conspiracy ***that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years.”
Sergey, you and other deniers remind me of something once said by Mark Twain:
“The less I know about a subject, the more confidence I have, and the more new light I throw on it”
At the beginning and at the end, denialists are always left with only one explanation: a giant, secret global conspiracy.
Surferosad ,
I am not debating here if climate chage is real, I am not qualified to do it. I did not say I have informed opinion. What I said is that I do not trust to people caught in lies and that possible motivation for lies is political agenda (along with financial interests). Acting based on IPCC report will be as good as acting based on coin throw. It is 50/50 chance to get it right. Would you invest $60 billions of your own money (if you had that) based on a coin throw?
>At the beginning and at the end, denialists are always left with only one explanation: a giant, secret global conspiracy.
Doug,
At the beginning and at the end, alarmist are always left with only one explanation: a giant, secret funding from Exon Mobile, Shell etc . Is not this the way how you would explain the report from NIPCC: http://www.nipccreport.org/ debunking AGW? And is not this the way how you would explain Alan Carlin’s report supressed by EPA? (even while Carlin is paid only by EPA 🙂 )
So if you think AGW is real, how far will you bend over for Mother Nature. Will you volunteer for sterilization in accord to the one-child policy for example?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioj53IBf4nM
How do you feel about these sorts being the recipient of your “climate debt”.
The IPCC are NOT under investigation.
The CRU is based at the University of East Anglia!
The funding for climate change “skeptics” from Exonmobil and Shell is, at least in part, not even secret!
(They publish accounts like all other companies….)
Janne, AGW is either true or it isn’t. It does not mean you will have to be sterilized.
http://www.realclimate.org
I think the discussion should be kept in perspective to the meathook realities of these new policies tied with the AGW.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
“My own take is: what in the world is the big deal?”
My own take is that I don’t appreciate them, or your take on them, making me (by unearned association) look bad for my choice of related profession.
Intelligent people aren’t supposed to be stupid.
Or irrational.
You’re embarrassing.
>>>The funding for climate change “skeptics” from Exonmobil and Shell is, at least in part, not even secret!
Read it: they funded by Big Oil, so what they write must be false. Here we have a good example of reasoning based on science 🙂
I am becoming extremely suspicious of people who speak on behalf of science about politicaly significant questions.
RE: Conspiracy.
Climategate to RICO, the call is becoming loud.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/21/manipulating-climate-change-warming-to-rico/
Manipulating Climate Change: Warming to RICO?
Well, now it really does look like a massive conspiracy to defraud the government……
Fraud is a RICO predicate offense. If what we are seeing unfold is evidence of fraud, a RICO complaint is a possibility, along with what the “discovery” process would reveal.
http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=websterb&date=091125
Those who were most responsible for massive diversion of federal spending (tens of billions of dollars over the past three decades) should not only be fired, they should be tried for criminal conspiracy and violations of the RICO Act. They have corrupted science, the classroom and political processes for their own personal empire-building gains.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html
I have an article here: “RICO Convictions of Major Tobacco Companies Affirmed — [T]he DC Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 92-page per curiam opinion upholding the judgment issued by DC District Court … in August 2006.” Well, this is how the big warmers should be treated, exactly — and Algore is the biggest of the big warmers along with Phil Jones and Michael Mann and everybody else at this CRU place at East Anglia. There should be legal consequences for this fraud! I remember those hearings. Waxman held those hearings. That’s when the CEO said nicotine was not addictive. Remember all that? We’ve been through this before. Except last time the left was out destroying a capitalist enemy. This time they’re circling the wagons around one of their own, which is genuinely destroying capitalism.
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Global-warming-loyalty-oaths-and-Climategates-smoking-gun
For more than two weeks we have heard the establishment scientists saying that the leaked emails were take out of context. Unfortunately for them, putting them in context makes it even worse, as McIntyre shows with one series that should have district attorneys dusting off the definition of RICO statutes. The emails show collusion to place inaccurate and incomplete data into public evidence for policy makers charged with enacting appropriate legislation to evaluate and deal with climate change.
http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2009/12/climategate-rel.php
From there you proceed into issues of potential legal liability, for transparency and other laws broken, possible RICO exposure, and other legal fallout for the principals.
“http://www.rushlimbaugh.com…..”
HAHAHAHAHAHA. LMAO.
http://www.realclimate.org
>>>“http://www.rushlimbaugh.com…..” HAHAHAHAHAHA. LMAO.
Dave,
Your arguments are based on science ,as usually 🙂 Well if you want to know (1), I like Rush Limbaugh, Mishelle Malkin and Mark Levin. I also (2) do believe in God and (3) family values. (4) I support Republican Party as of this summer. Any public outrage on this statement ???
OK, I will do it for you on your behalf: In any liberal University in US (not just ours) the first and the forth will make me a fascist, the second an ignorant bigot and the third a homophobe. And that would come from faculties not from students. And I know this too well and that is why now I want to go and work for industry and stay away from academia. I developed some sort of contempt for people who hide behind their degrees, tell us that they reason based on science while in reality they are more stupid than the rest of us if you take them outside of their field. In common human world they are less smart than an average person sampled from a telephone book. So, I would rather go and speculate on Wall Street, at least I will be surrounded by decent and honest people, I mean more decent and honest than ones I see in academia.
1. We are carbon life forms. Does anyone here on this blog know of any way that we can get raw molecular carbon into our bodies other than CO2 in Photosynthesis, and then consuming the product? No?
2. Therefore CO2 is plant food, and the by product is O2 right?
3. We are arguing about plant food and O2 is not a pollutant.
4. It is a known and easily provable fact that an increase in CO2 increases plant output and growth geometrically.
5. Volcanoes produce more CO2 in a year than man makes in a decade.
6. So you AGW true believers want me to believe that CO2 is a pollutant and I can control volcanoes by a higher tax rate. Is that right?
Boy I must have missed something somewhere in science class in school.