ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Michael Hardner]

No I am saying that we cannot make major policy decisions like signing binding treaties until we start holding some public inquiries into the science and the IPCC process and find out how far the corruption has gone.

Well, we haven't ratified anything significant before these treaties happened, so it's not like the East Anglia inquiry will hold it up.

As for 'proof' of catastrophic AGW. It won't happen. They have models, and they can only use words like 'likely cause'. What will be the effect of GW on the earth ? No one can say.

Some of the alarmists know this too, but it's impossible to initiate political change on a global scale without some panic behind it. Of course, that doesn't make it right - but if you believe that the end justifies the means then it does make it right.

[Riverwind]

researchers compete for funding such is life in free market economy, got a good proposal you get funding a crappy proposal you get zilch

Actually, that is not how the real world works. In the real world you get funding if your proposal provides what your customer believes they need. Good/bad has nothing to do with it. This means scientists have a financial interest in creating a 'need' that requires research funding. In fields like climate science it is a lot easier to create that need if people believe a climate catastrophe is coming. The email I quoted provides a clear example of this conflict of interest in action.

[Riverwind]

As for 'proof' of catastrophic AGW. It won't happen. They have models, and they can only use words like 'likely cause'. What will be the effect of GW on the earth ? No one can say.

It all comes down a question of whether we can trust our scientific institutions to provide good advice based on the science. When it comes to climate science I feel the field has been corrupted by a combination of money, ego and the desire to 'save the world'. This means we cannot trust the advice that our scientific institutions are giving us. We need to acknowledge this fact and figure out how to fix them. If AGW is really a threat then we need to root out the corruption as soon as possible. Edited November 25, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Show me even one paper that proves catastrophic AGW and you may have a point. The fact is there is no "proof" if catastrophic AGW. All we have is a bunch of scientists picking papers they like, ignoring papers they don't and then claiming that there is a 'consensus'. A 'consensus' that is largely an artifical creation since scientists are pressured into sticking to the IPCC party line even if they personally disagreed. The evidence is in the emails.

the onus is on you...hundreds of peer reviewed papers support the CC scenario, projections are repeatedly coming out too conservative when measured against observed data...

peer reviewed papers opposing the consensus of 97% of climatologists?...you have nothing...oh sorry, there was those 7 papers in the 70s that called for cooling...

[Riverwind]

the onus is on you...hundreds of peer reviewed papers support the CC scenario, projections are repeatedly coming out too conservative when measured against observed data.

No the onus is on you to provide evidence that the process used to evaluate those papers was fair and not baised toward promoting alarmism. Remember we have emails *and* computer code that shows that leading climate scientists knowningly manipulated their results in order to make them better fit the catastrophe paradigm.

Also the paper count is a meaningless number. One sceptical paper can invalidate a 1000 alarmist papers because all of the alarmist papers depend on the same assumption.

BTW - don't bother replying with the RC obfuscation that it was only a single graphic that was affected. Here is a comment from some of the code that they tried so hard to keep secret (we now know why).

printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’

printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’

printf,1

printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’

printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’

printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’

printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’

printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’

Edited November 25, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

It all comes down a question of whether we can trust our scientific institutions to provide good advice based on the science. When it comes to climate science I feel the field has been corrupted by a combination of money, ego and the desire to 'save the world'. This means we cannot trust the advice that our scientific institutions are giving us. We need to acknowledge this fact and figure out how to fix them. If AGW is really a threat then we need to root out the corruption as soon as possible.

It seems to me, though, that GW was THE issue that politicized science in the late 20th century. It wasn't political when the scientists first advanced that global warming was happening, but that came soon after when the oil companies starting funding their own studies.

A clean-up of science isn't going to happen. GW is a reality as you yourself seem to acknowledge. Nobody knows, or can know what can come of it anyway.

Now what do you think we should do ? Waiting for human nature to correct itself is not a realistic option.

[Riverwind]

Now what do you think we should do ? Waiting for human nature to correct itself is not a realistic option.

You have to remember that AGW activists have deliberately confused the public by mixing science and policy decisions and claiming that the science tells us unequivocally what policies we need to adopt. No rational discussion of policy is possible until it seperated from the scientific claims. Specifically these are the scientific questions that we need to answer:

1) Does CO2 cause warming?

(unequivocal yes according to the science)

2) Are humans causing the CO2 levels to increase?

(near unequivocal yes)

3) How much warming is likely to occur given what we are doing now?

(1 degC from GHG theory. More if one uses unverifiable climate models - this is where the scientific debate is).

4) What are the consequences of this warming?

(No certainty here - we have no idea).

The policy decisions really depend on the answers to 3)+4) yet the alarmist constantly use the argument that 1)+2) are certain therefore the IPCC answers to 3)+4) are also certain.

It is a nonsense argument but many people do not realize they are being tricked.

That is one of the reasons why I am so dismissive of the "1000s" of peer reviewed papers because the overwhelming majority do not provide any answers to question 3). However, the science that was compromised by the corruption captured in the UEA emails is directly related to the question 3) which is why it matters.

As for what do we do:

1) Invest in R&D for emission free technologies that are as cheap as reliable as fossil fuels.

2) Make plans to deploy the technologies when they are found (nuclear is the only option that comes close at this time).

3) Start building the infrastructure required to protect our cities from climate change (i.e. dikes, dams, etc).

Emissions reduction targets and deadlines are a waste as are renewable energy mandates. International treaties are also a waste of time.

In the meantime, we need to put the scientific establishment under the microscope. Find out how far the corruption goes and set up a system of checks and balances which will prevent such corruption from occurring in the future.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

You have to remember that AGW activists have deliberately confused the public by mixing science and policy decisions and claiming that the science tells us unequivocally what policies we need to adopt. No rational discussion of policy is possible until it seperated from the scientific claims. Specifically these are the scientific questions that we need to answer:

1) Does CO2 cause warming?

(unequivocal yes according to the science)

Decent question but it just shows how one side (or the other) can distort a question. The important follow-up question is "If so, how much?" That's important because if the answer is an unqualified yes, then that implies a direct linear connection between warming and CO2 concentrations.....and we know without a doubt that is not true because some years are hot and some years are cold.

2) Are humans causing the CO2 levels to increase?

(near unequivocal yes)

Again, the follow-up question is important. "If so, how much is natural, how much is human".

3) How much warming is likely to occur given what we are doing now?

(1 degC from GHG theory. More if one uses unverifiable climate models - this is where the scientific debate is).

4) What are the consequences of this warming?

(No certainty here - we have no idea).

Edited November 26, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Pliny]

nothing prevents the publishing of peer reviewed papers...so show us all the peer reviewed papers disproving AGW...you can't...

If there is no interest to review them then they won't be published. Why would there be no interest? Perhaps because it has been determined the debate is over.

It is an interesting thread. The debate has re-opened since some of the data from the IPCC has been called into question. And, as Riverwind suggests, we really should find out how deep the rot is.

[DogOnPorch]

All I know is that it should be about -20C where I live right now. Instead, it is +10C.

[Riverwind]

Decent question but it just shows how one side (or the other) can distort a question. The important follow-up question is "If so, how much?" That's important because if the answer is an unqualified yes, then that implies a direct linear connection between warming and CO2 concentrations.....and we know without a doubt that is not true because some years are hot and some years are cold.

I really captured this issue in Question 3). I divided the questions the way I did because I wanted to show that there are some aspects of the science which are truly settled. Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Decent question but it just shows how one side (or the other) can distort a question. The important follow-up question is "If so, how much?" That's important because if the answer is an unqualified yes, then that implies a direct linear connection between warming and CO2 concentrations.....and we know without a doubt that is not true because some years are hot and some years are cold.

there is a direct linear connection but this does not eliminate the effects of natural forces...el Nino's, la Nina's, solar activity all still have an effect raising and lowering temps year to year...the overall long term trend is warmer...effects of CO2 is added to natural forcings it does not eliminate them...

Again, the follow-up question is important. "If so, how much is natural, how much is human".

environment Canada puts human contribution at 23.9 Gigatons...and it is cumulative, CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries unlike water vapor which cycles out in about 2 weeks...

[Riverwind]

environment Canada puts human contribution at 23.9 Gigatons...and it is cumulative, CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries unlike water vapor which cycles out in about 2 weeks...

The natural system is constantly cycling CO2 as plants grow and die with the seasons. The volumes of CO2 exchanged during the natural cycle completely swamps the human contribution so I think the claim that CO2 has lifetime of centuries is BS. But I have not looked into further because it does not mean much other than being a alarmist talking point. Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

All I know is that it should be about -20C where I live right now. Instead, it is +10C.

that could be short term local weather as well and have little to do with climate change...when it becomes a long term trend then it points to climate change as the cause...

one reason I left my last home was because of the brutal winters, not a winter went by when there wasn't 1-2 weeks of -40 weather...my family that's still there say they haven't experienced a minus -40 winter since I left 9 yrs ago, maybe it was me

[wyly]

The natural system is constantly cycling CO2 as plants grow and die with the seasons. The volumes of CO2 exchanged during the natural cycle completely swamps the human contribution so I think the claim that CO2 has lifetime of centuries is BS.

there was a balance in a natural state that the planet could absorb, adding a gas to the atmosphere faster than it can cycle out will upset the atmospheric mixture...

and yes it can stay for centuries that's not BS, about half is estimated to cycle out per year but like radiation has a half-life, CO2 decreases slowly as well it's very stable compared to H2O...and we never give it time to absorb/cycle the CO2 we add ever increasing amounts...

[Riverwind]

there was a balance in a natural state that the planet could absorb, adding a gas to the atmosphere faster than it can cycle out will upset the atmospheric mixture.

The CO2 added each year is something like:

CO2 = C02 from humans + CO2 from nature - CO2 to nature.

The actual numbers are something like: 1 = 3 + 99 - 101

The natural flows have a much large magnitude and we have no idea how fast the CO2 would be reabsorbed of the human component went to zero but the flows are large enough to allow a fairly rapid reabsorption.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[DogOnPorch]

that could be short term local weather as well and have little to do with climate change...when it becomes a long term trend then it points to climate change as the cause...

one reason I left my last home was because of the brutal winters, not a winter went by when there wasn't 1-2 weeks of -40 weather...my family that's still there say they haven't experienced a minus -40 winter since I left 9 yrs ago, maybe it was me

Repeated warm winters over the last several years has created an insect problem which killed off all the pine trees (lodgepole in particular) in this area which has been present since the last ice age. The boreal forset is quickly being replaced by birch and poplar, etc. If that ain't change...nuthin' is.

btw...I'm well aware that one particular winter might be milder than the other...thanks, though.

Edited November 26, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Riverwind]

The boreal forset is quickly being replaced by birch and poplar, etc. If that ain't change...nuthin' is.

Observing change tells you nothing about why it is happening. Way to many people seem to think that if there is evidence of warming then the IPCC must be correct. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[DogOnPorch]

Observing change tells you nothing about why it is happening. Way to many people seem to think that if there is evidence of warming then the IPCC must be correct. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm just painting what I see. I'm not saying anyone is correct. However, the price of doing nothing if something is actually happening that IS our fault is beyond measure.

Here's my current favorite example...

[Jack Weber]

Lord Christopher Monckton on Michael Coren's show...I'm not a conservative by any means,but it's a compelling case for rational thought on the matter....Take the time to watch it all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg

Edited November 26, 2009 by Jack Weber

[Riverwind]

Here's my current favorite example...

His argument is bogus because he presumes there is no cost to 'doing something'. That is a lie that has been spread by the environmentalists who do not understand how difficult it to produce and distribute the energy our society needs. The fact is going to an emissions free economy would require a significant drop in standard of living and dramatically increase the amount of human suffering and poverty. A price that cannot be justified given what we known now.

Here is an analysis that debunkes the latest wind, solar and unicorns piece that appeared in Scientific American.

So let's think about how much this would cost. $200 trillion over 20 years amounts to $10 trillion a year, spread over world economies. The US share of this would be something around 21%, based on the ratio of US GDP to world GDP. So let's say that the US would need to fund $2.1 trillion a year. Let's compare this to current taxes. In 2008, US Federal, State, and Local taxes combined amounted to $4.1 trillion according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. In order to collect $2.1 trillion more, a tax increase equal to slightly more than 50% of all taxes currently paid would be required. If the additional tax were collected as a percentage of "personal income" (which includes wages, social security income, rents, dividends, etc.), it would amount to 17% of personal income. It seems unlikely that a tax of this magnitude, or even half of this magnitude, would be agreed to by tax payers.

There are a number of weak areas in this system:

• There are not likely to be enough rare minerals (and even not-so-rare minerals), to make all of the desired high-tech end products. Recycling will help, but it is likely that the system will run into a bottleneck in not very many years.

• The system will use a huge number of electrical transmission lines. These transmission lines are subject to all kinds of disturbances--hurricane or other windstorm destruction, forest fires, land or snow slide, malicious destruction by those not happy for some reason (perhaps those unhappy by wealth disparities). Fixing lines that need repair will be challenging. We currently use helicopters and specialized equipment. These would need to be adequately adapted to a system without fossil fuels.

• If electricity is out in an area, pretty much all activity in an area will stop (except that powered by local PV), and there will be no back-up generators. Residents will not be able to recharge vehicles, so they will quickly become useless. Even vehicles coming into an area may get stranded for lack of recharge capability. Food deliveries and water may be a problem. The current system at least offers some options--back-up generators, and cars and trucks powered by petroleum that one can drive away.

• Operating the system will require a huge amount of international co-operation, because the transmission system will cross country lines. If one country becomes unable to pay its share, or fails to make repairs, it could be a problem.

• All of the high tech manufacturing will require considerable international co-operation and trade. This could be interrupted by debt defaults by major players, or by countries hoarding raw materials, or by difficulty in producing enough ships and airplanes to handle international trade.

• The system clearly can't continue forever. It could be stopped by a lack of rare minerals, or international disputes, or lack of adequate international trade. The system doesn't provide any natural transition to a truly sustainable future. For example, food production is likely to still be done using industrial agriculture, with the food that is produced shipped to consumers a long distance away. It will be difficult to transition to a system which is truly sustainable at the point the system stops working

In other words, we ain't giving up low tech coal and gasoline anytime soon and it is rather silly to suggest we should. Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Moonlight Graham]

So in essence the scientists are playing politics, is that really news worthy?

This isn't just politics, its plain fraud. It's corrupt manipulation of data and research.

[DogOnPorch]

His argument is bogus because he presumes there is no cost to 'doing something'

I believe he had COST $ in both boxes.

[Riverwind]

I believe he had COST $ in both boxes.

His argument is basically pascal's wager. i.e. it costs us nothing (or at least not a lot) to do something and be wrong but the cost would be astronomical it we do nothing an be wrong.

I am saying the cost 'doing something' is guaranteed to have an astronomical cost and the cost of 'doing nothing' is extremely unlikely to have an astronomical cost. Given the difference between guaranteed astronomical cost upfront or the possibility of an astronomical cost in the future we are much better off doing nothing.

Of course, one does not have to reduce things down to the binary equation of do everything/do nothing. But doing enough to stop catastrophic warming if the alarmists are right is simply not an option (see the article I linked to). So we have to adapt and any money spent on limiting carbon in the short term will be money wasted.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[DogOnPorch]

No worries. I'm not trying to change your mind, Riverwind. Massive amounts of pollution. Overpopulation. Deforestation. Mass extinctions. Something for the grandkids to fret over anyways...much like our debt and everything else.

There ain't no time to wonder why...whoopie...we're all