ClimateGate and the Climatati

[myata]

If there's one thing the hacked emails show it's that you're quite mistaken. Scientists actually do show a preference, only release information which supports their theories, hide facts and data and twist things to suit themselves.

No, you're wrong, obviously. The emails are only just private communications, no more and no less, and anybody could say pretty much anything in a private conversation with a collegue or friend. But the actual product of scientist's work is published research. If you could point to example(s) of actual research being compromised, you'll have a point, till then though all this is meaningless for anything related to science hoopla raised by clueless but strongly opinionated diletants or ideologues. Not unlike "evolution" gate, "creationism", and such, but only just happens to fall into the focus of public and media attention at this time.

[waldo]

The uninformed need to have their opinions swayed, and if Climate Science doesn't think it's important to do so, then climate skeptics will.

This article from Huffington understates the amount of damage this revelations would do to those who have no context to how the scientific community works. Although I do think that the damage to the science has been overstated, the damage to public opinion hasn't.

we have Riverwind here on MLW, openly relishing in the relative scientific 'ignorance' of the general public... that any attempts by real scientists (or advocates) to correct the brazenly fallacious skeptic/denier manipulations of those hacked emails... correct it with actual attention to detail/context... will fall by the way, simply because the general public will not understand the complexities. Hence, the well orchestrated FUD campaign from the skeptics/deniers... they don't actually need to correct/factual... they just need to sling the mud and sit back.

[Michael Hardner]

we have Riverwind here on MLW, openly relishing in the relative scientific 'ignorance' of the general public... that any attempts by real scientists (or advocates) to correct the brazenly fallacious skeptic/denier manipulations of those hacked emails... correct it with actual attention to detail/context... will fall by the way, simply because the general public will not understand the complexities. Hence, the well orchestrated FUD campaign from the skeptics/deniers... they don't actually need to correct/factual... they just need to sling the mud and sit back.

The public doesn't need to understand the complexities, but they have to have a proxy who does understand them. If the skeptics have any point at all, then some scientist somewhere should represent them.

Unfortunately, this isn't science - it's science on the backs of politics so the claims of the skeptics have to be acknowledged and reviewed in a factual way.

[eyeball]

You have expressed a desire to soak the rich on many occasions. You also made it clear that cutting social programs to pay for environmental virtue was unacceptable.

Where else are we supposed to get the money? Lets get something straight first, you know I've said we should eliminate income taxes and increase consumption taxes. These consumption taxes should include carbon and pollution taxes.

As for social programs I simply pointed out some very specific ones like health, education and environmental protection that I wouldn't cut with out taxing the rich first. Before taxing the rich however I'd be willing to eliminate spending on anti-social things like military adventures, prohibition, corporate subsidies and such before taxing the rich, wouldn't you?

[eyeball]

What do you mean by a precautionary approach?

Start listening to what the experts say we need to do for starters.

As I said, I'm all for scientific/technological innovation to ameliorate our carbon footprint. You seem to support political/economic solutions that don't go beyond the Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

You're mistaken if that's all you think then.

There are LOTS of things we can stop wasting money on and divert towards finding solutions before taxing the rich. Failing this however where else are supposed to find the money we need, liquidate even more of the planet? That just won't work.

Edited December 9, 2009 by eyeball

[Pliny]

Start listening to what the experts say we need to do for starters.

The Politicians?

There are LOTS of things we can stop wasting money on and divert towards finding solutions before taxing the rich. Failing this however where else are supposed to find the money we need, liquidate even more of the planet? That just won't work.

Downsizing government is a good start. Don't you mean where else is "government supposed to find the money "it" needs.." or does the government just do things you like it to do?

You would hope the politician you vote for would represent you in government. Most often they don't. They represent getting re-elected for the most part.

Voting is for most people their only input into their governance. Some with special interests lobby for their causes and get some attention, maybe they even get the legislation they want. Almost 50% of the population don't use their vote so do not have any input to their governance. When the voting priorities become those of special interests then democracy is lost. Soon we will be like Europe with a dozen political parties all coming into being because "all" special interests want a voice in government. The individual gets lost in the equation.

[Pliny]

we have Riverwind here on MLW, openly relishing in the relative scientific 'ignorance' of the general public... that any attempts by real scientists (or advocates) to correct the brazenly fallacious skeptic/denier manipulations of those hacked emails... correct it with actual attention to detail/context... will fall by the way, simply because the general public will not understand the complexities. Hence, the well orchestrated FUD campaign from the skeptics/deniers... they don't actually need to correct/factual... they just need to sling the mud and sit back.

Michael Hardner is correct. The public doesn't need to understand the complexities, they need proxies who do.

The facts are that some of the fundamental data that scientists have been using in their models has been fudged. And that perhaps explains why their models have failed to predict the short term trend of temperature change.

You can show me all the peer reviewed studies you want but if there are errors that have been injected into the process all the peer reviewed studies in the world won't be right.

Surely you understand that it is important to ensure the data being used in subsequent studies is valid. Is this why scientists are scratching their heads about their results?

A re-evaluation of the whole area, in light of the drastic political measures being dreamed up, must be made before we really do create a disaster for ourselves.

[Michael Hardner]

A re-evaluation of the whole area, in light of the drastic political measures being dreamed up, must be made before we really do create a disaster for ourselves.

Further to that, we need to take these things one step at a time and not bundle the solution in with discussions of the problem, or we will lose people.

Progress has been made: there appears to be a popular consensus that warming is happening, which we didn't have 20 years ago, and there seems to be a general agreement that CO2 appears to be the cause.

The next step is to get popular consensus that human-caused global warming is indeed the cause of this. At present, less than 50% agree in American and 50% agree in Britain.

This is why the Climategate emails need to be investigated as a PR issue.

The next step would be coming up with a solution that solves the carbon problem. As Riverwind has pointed out, the Kyoto process appears to have serious flaws, perhaps because it's been set up as a global wealth-sharing system.

[Alta4ever]

This is why the Climategate emails need to be investigated as a PR issue.

THe emails need to be investigated on the merits of the content in them.

[Michael Hardner]

THe emails need to be investigated on the merits of the content in them.

I wasn't speaking to the mechanics of the investigation, but was talking about the primary reason that the investigation needs to happen.

[waldo]

Michael Hardner is correct. The public doesn't need to understand the complexities, they need proxies who do.

The facts are that some of the fundamental data that scientists have been using in their models has been fudged. And that perhaps explains why their models have failed to predict the short term trend of temperature change.

You can show me all the peer reviewed studies you want but if there are errors that have been injected into the process all the peer reviewed studies in the world won't be right.

Surely you understand that it is important to ensure the data being used in subsequent studies is valid. Is this why scientists are scratching their heads about their results?

A re-evaluation of the whole area, in light of the drastic political measures being dreamed up, must be made before we really do create a disaster for ourselves.

what fundamental data has been, as you say, "fudged"... you express certainty with reference to "facts". Present your "facts".

you were wrong in the other thread - you're wrong in this thread... put up something that shows the short-term warming is not consistent with "their models". You ignored the request to present your sources previously - will you ignore it this time, as well? Just you saying it... is just you saying it.

peer review isn't the absolute end-all, be-all to, as you state, "rightness". Peer review reflects the iterative growth of science... of scientific knowledge. It is expected that anything within peer-review publications is open for challenge. Quite regularly - the norm - is that there are often competing alternate presentations within peer-review publications. The so-called "rightness" (your term) reflective of peer-review, is the "rightness" of the prevailing view held towards the peer-review published science. If something comes along to alter that "rightness", that prevailing view, so be it - that's expected, that's wanted. No reputable scientist wants to knowingly participate in and support something that can't stand the weight of overwhelming critical review. That's what so frustrates the skeptics/the deniers... they got nuthin!

[waldo]

The next step is to get popular consensus that human-caused global warming is indeed the cause of this.

This is why the Climategate emails need to be investigated as a PR issue.

the deniers campaign plays to the relative scientific ignorance of the majority of the general public... the majority of the general public that is more interested in "infotainment"... the majority of the general public that needs everything dumbed down to 15 second sound bites. The deniers throwing shit and espousing falsehoods grabs the headlines perpetuated by the likes of mainstream disinformation conduits. In the end, swaying that "popular consensus"... absent the "scientific consensus"... is simply a zero-sum game to capture the "emotion" of that majority of the general public that can't be bothered to actually think and reason for itself. The deniers can have the unreasoned emotion...

[Michael Hardner]

the deniers campaign plays to the relative scientific ignorance of the majority of the general public... the majority of the general public that is more interested in "infotainment"... the majority of the general public that needs everything dumbed down to 15 second sound bites. The deniers throwing shit and espousing falsehoods grabs the headlines perpetuated by the likes of mainstream disinformation conduits. In the end, swaying that "popular consensus"... absent the "scientific consensus"... is simply a zero-sum game to capture the "emotion" of that majority of the general public that can't be bothered to actually think and reason for itself. The deniers can have the unreasoned emotion...

The fact is, though, that anyone with an opinion has taken some time - even 15 seconds - to look into it. You have highlighted a problem - that it's sometimes easy to sway popular support against certain scientific truths.

So what do you propose that we do about that problem ?

[myata]

What if nothing needs to be done? There's a wide selection of societies on this planet. Those with more intelligent, thinking and active populations would make more rational decisions and survive. The rest - go the way of, we know who, perhaps happily infotained on the way. Everybody gets what they desire and deserve, life progresses, in full agreement with the science of Darwin.

Not like it'll be the first time, either.

[Argus]

No, you're wrong, obviously.

Obviously not obviously.

The emails are only just private communications, no more and no less, and anybody could say pretty much anything in a private conversation with a collegue or friend. But the actual product of scientist's work is published research.

No, they are computer models based on data which they have pointedly and repeatedly refused to show anyone who might be critical of their work.

If you could point to example(s) of actual research being compromised, you'll have a point,

Given that the computer models are based entirely on data few have seen, given the emails repeatedly expressed the earnest desire to ensure no one saw that data, even to the point of deleting it if FOI requests came through, and given that, surprise surprise, some of that data has turned out be "whoops!" accidentally deleted, I consider that more than slightly suspicious that the research is compromised.

[Michael Hardner]

What if nothing needs to be done? There's a wide selection of societies on this planet. Those with more intelligent, thinking and active populations would make more rational decisions and survive. The rest - go the way of, we know who, perhaps happily infotained on the way. Everybody gets what they desire and deserve, life progresses, in full agreement with the science of Darwin.

Not like it'll be the first time, either.

You're assuming that the ones who think will survive. I have news for you - a lot of very dumb people can afford air conditioning.

You seem to be saying that it's not worth trying to reach out to those on a lower tier than you. I don't see this as being much different from saying that one doesn't want to pay taxes to help those who are less fortunate, myself.`

[myata]

You're assuming that the ones who think will survive.

Only statistically, based on the known previous record of evolution of life on this planet

I have news for you - a lot of very dumb people can afford air conditioning.

For a while.

You seem to be saying that it's not worth trying to reach out to those on a lower tier than you.

No, I said nothing about "lower", it just doesn't work that way. Some species survive, other perish, it's the way of life, there isn't really anything shameful about it.

I don't see this as being much different from saying that one doesn't want to pay taxes to help those who are less fortunate, myself.`

I'll draw the line at the notion of "conscious choice". If one chooses to be stupid and lazy, consciously and in full knowledge of the alternatives, I wouldn't want to be in the business of "helping", as it'd be very much useless waste of time and effort.

Edited December 10, 2009 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

I'll draw the line at the notion of "conscious choice". If one chooses to be stupid and lazy, consciously and in full knowledge of the alternatives, I wouldn't want to be in the business of "helping", as it'd be very much useless waste of time and effort.

Well, you're also making a conscious choice by not helping, not educating, not offering a solution. Unlike others who blog about AGW, you don't seem that worried about the fate of our planet.

[blueblood]

Well, you're also making a conscious choice by not helping, not educating, not offering a solution. Unlike others who blog about AGW, you don't seem that worried about the fate of our planet.

What fate? What's going to happen if CO2 goes up? I'd say look back at the dinosaur age for answers, CO2 was much higher then and from what I've seen it was a little warmer, there were a lot more plants around. However, with all of that carbon dioxide in the air, there was an ample environment for plants to grow, plants grew, then sucked out the CO2, then pumped out O2, which then cooled off the earth, and killed off some of the plants, and then the madness starts again.

Climate Change? it's been going on for 4.5 billion years.

[Michael Hardner]

What fate? What's going to happen if CO2 goes up? I'd say look back at the dinosaur age for answers, CO2 was much higher then and from what I've seen it was a little warmer, there were a lot more plants around. However, with all of that carbon dioxide in the air, there was an ample environment for plants to grow, plants grew, then sucked out the CO2, then pumped out O2, which then cooled off the earth, and killed off some of the plants, and then the madness starts again.

Climate Change? it's been going on for 4.5 billion years.

My conversation with myata presumes he believes that climate change carries inherent risks.

Your post actually doesn't negate that there are risks either.

[jbg]

Given that the computer models are based entirely on data few have seen, given the emails repeatedly expressed the earnest desire to ensure no one saw that data, even to the point of deleting it if FOI requests came through, and given that, surprise surprise, some of that data has turned out be "whoops!" accidentally deleted, I consider that more than slightly suspicious that the research is compromised.

Exactly.

Here's the best way to understand the problem. If one looks at a set of monthly data for a station, such as LaGuardia Airport in for July in New York (link) one can see that the daily average temperature data (averaged over a 30-year period) jumps around a lot on a daily basis. For example, July 18's average high is 87 and average low is 71. On July 31 the same figures are 82 and 69. On August 3 (link to August monthly) it's 85 and 72. These figures, with the "jumping around" are considered the "raw data". If one looks at a climatology chart for New York, for the entire period from July 9 to August 10, the mean temperature is taken as 77, with a high of 85 and a low of 68 (with a slight rise to 78 for about 4 days in the dead center of that period). Those statistics are "smoothed" or "adjusted".

Someone who wishes to challenge a "scientific" conclusion would want the raw data, not the "smoothed" or adjusted data. The deliberate dumping of the raw data creates opportunities for "cheating".

Edited December 11, 2009 by jbg

[myata]

Well, you're also making a conscious choice by not helping, not educating,

It's OK that it's conscious, as long as it's neither of the above mentioned. And I'm not counting on any help anyways.

not offering a solution.

The solution has been offered though. Everybody, willingly, take their part to fix the global problem. If some wouldn't see or listen, or unwilling to act, I seriously and honestly wouldn't know how to help them, and leaving it to natural selection may be the only remedy.

[Pliny]

Further to that, we need to take these things one step at a time and not bundle the solution in with discussions of the problem, or we will lose people.

Progress has been made: there appears to be a popular consensus that warming is happening, which we didn't have 20 years ago, and there seems to be a general agreement that CO2 appears to be the cause.

The next step is to get popular consensus that human-caused global warming is indeed the cause of this. At present, less than 50% agree in American and 50% agree in Britain.

This is why the Climategate emails need to be investigated as a PR issue.

The next step would be coming up with a solution that solves the carbon problem. As Riverwind has pointed out, the Kyoto process appears to have serious flaws, perhaps because it's been set up as a global wealth-sharing system.

Well, I am one of those that don't agree that CO2 is the cause. I would find it more credible if they found that the excitement of molecules by the transmission of cellular, microwave and satellites waves through the atmosphere were a source of global warming.

When I think of Waldo and wyly's arguments I think of how string theory and quantum mechanics are entirely born out of anomalies of the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity is a "theory". The fact it has anomalies means it is not entirely correct but it is assumed to be correct and models created in the study of physics are based upon it. Factually, real "scientists" still use the Newtonian theory of gravity to make space travel a possibility, the theory of relativity doesn't have too many practical applications but is the preferred model for theoretical study.

We have much to learn. Should we interfere with nature and attempt to adjust climate to what we think it should be out of a concept that we "may" be adversely affecting it.

Frankly, the brilliant ideas of politicians scare me more than the thought of global warming.

[Pliny]

what fundamental data has been, as you say, "fudged"... you express certainty with reference to "facts". Present your "facts".

A quick google will produce the desired results. I find it frustrating that anything I produce is quickly pounced upon as having already been discredited even though the scientists involved are real scientists.

you were wrong in the other thread - you're wrong in this thread... put up something that shows the short-term warming is not consistent with "their models". You ignored the request to present your sources previously - will you ignore it this time, as well? Just you saying it... is just you saying it.

I don't think I was wrong. All the references and real scientists I cite are apparently not credible.

peer review isn't the absolute end-all, be-all to, as you state, "rightness". Peer review reflects the iterative growth of science... of scientific knowledge. It is expected that anything within peer-review publications is open for challenge. Quite regularly - the norm - is that there are often competing alternate presentations within peer-review publications. The so-called "rightness" (your term) reflective of peer-review, is the "rightness" of the prevailing view held towards the peer-review published science. If something comes along to alter that "rightness", that prevailing view, so be it - that's expected, that's wanted. No reputable scientist wants to knowingly participate in and support something that can't stand the weight of overwhelming critical review. That's what so frustrates the skeptics/the deniers... they got nuthin!

I agree, no reputable scientist would want to be discovered to knowingly participate in and support something that can't stand the weight of overwhelming critical review. There have been a few e-mails that demand critical review of this very important subject and how it has been tainted with ideological ambitions and political opportunism.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well, I am one of those that don't agree that CO2 is the cause. I would find it more credible if they found that the excitement of molecules by the transmission of cellular, microwave and satellites waves through the atmosphere were a source of global warming.

Then get out, do some tests and prove your hypothesis.

When I think of Waldo and wyly's arguments I think of how string theory and quantum mechanics are entirely born out of anomalies of the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity is a "theory". The fact it has anomalies means it is not entirely correct but it is assumed to be correct and models created in the study of physics are based upon it. Factually, real "scientists" still use the Newtonian theory of gravity to make space travel a possibility, the theory of relativity doesn't have too many practical applications but is the preferred model for theoretical study.

You apparently don't know what a scientific theory is, but here you go.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

They don't use the theory of relativity becuase it requires so much more data, data that becomes irrelevant, but if they were to use it they would end up with a much more accurate result. That and relativity is math and math is the one thing in the sciences that can be proven. Relativity also has the ability to model a lot of phenomena in the universe that newtonian physics can't

We have much to learn. Should we interfere with nature and attempt to adjust climate to what we think it should be out of a concept that we "may" be adversely affecting it.

Frankly, the brilliant ideas of politicians scare me more than the thought of global warming.

We've been interfering with nature for thousands of years in every possible way except controling it directly. I'm all for it once we can control our climate, weather, etc we get to level one.