Has ClimateGate Changed Your Thinking ?

[Michael Hardner]

I say 'yes'.

[Riverwind]

I say 'yes'.

Did you intend the no vote to capture both skeptics who already had no faith in the process and alarmists who maintain absolute faith in the process?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. My goal is to assess the general impact of this event.

[Shady]

I say 'yes' as well. I have to admit that I was already somewhat skeptical. This hasn't helpd for obvious reasons.

[eyeball]

I said other.

Given a life time of trying to make a living according to the policies of government fisheries and forestry scientists my doubts about the political neutrality of science have very deep roots.

As I've said I'd really like to see the databases and emails of economists that shape and influence public policy. I'd especially like to see some real transparency at the intersections that the sciences of economics and politics cross.

As for climate change, a lifetime of making a living in the bush and out on the ocean have convinced me there is definitely a good case for taking a fairly robust precautionary approach to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. Right now I think the wait and see approach our government is taking is a recklessly short-sighted one.

The real fact of the matter is that we are taking a blind approach. Like so many other issues that complicate and confound us the issues of transparency and democracy and the lack thereof is at the very heart of this one too. Go figure.

Edited December 7, 2009 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

I said other.

Given a life time of trying to make a living according to the policies of government fisheries and forestry scientists my doubts about the political neutrality of science have very deep roots.

As I've said I'd really like to see the databases and emails of economists that shape and influence public policy. I'd especially like to see some real transparency at the intersections that the sciences of economics and politics cross.

As for climate change, a lifetime of making a living in the bush and out on the ocean have convinced me there is definitely a good case for taking a fairly robust precautionary approach to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. Right now I think the wait and see approach our government is taking is a recklessly short-sighted one.

The real fact of the matter is that we are taking a blind approach. Like so many other issues that complicate and confound us the issues of transparency and democracy and the lack thereof is at the very heart of this one too. Go figure.

I expect that the standards for economists are no different than for scientists, when it comes to the publishing of data. As has been posted elsewhere, these things are posted and the public seems to listen even less than they listen to climate science.

Globalization, GST and HST were all touted as good things, and only the former succeeded in passing in Canada.

[Riverwind]

I expect that the standards for economists are no different than for scientists, when it comes to the publishing of data.

Actually, they aren't. Peer reviewed journals in econometrics have very strict data disclosure rules and editors would never have tolerated the behavior of climate scientists. It is worth noting that many other disciplines have encountered similar credibility problems that have led to the reform of the system. We need a similar reform in climate science but that will require strong pressure from politicians because the climate science community is still refusing to acknowledge that a problem even exists. Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

I expect that the standards for economists are no different than for scientists, when it comes to the publishing of data. As has been posted elsewhere, these things are posted and the public seems to listen even less than they listen to climate science.

Yes, I suspect the standards are just as sloppy and corrupt for economists. The public is getting so jaded it can't be bothered to listen to just about anything it's told. That's the real shame of this climategate so far, the cynicism its bound to breed couldn't have come at a worse time for the environment or public attitudes about it.

Globalization, GST and HST were all touted as good things, and only the former succeeded in passing in Canada.

Globalization...you mean like free trade? You're kidding right? I'd say show me the data but...what good would that do me if I can't trust scientists anymore?

In the meantime the many trade barriers that still exist within our own borders sort of indicates what I suspect I'll find at the global level.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, they aren't. Peer reviewed journals in econometrics have very strict data disclosure rules and editors would never have tolerated the behavior of climate scientists. It is worth noting that many other disciplines have encountered similar credibility problems that have led to the reform of the system. We need a similar reform in climate science but that will require strong pressure from politicians because the climate science community is still refusing to acknowledge that a problem even exists.

Your point about system reform is interesting to me - do you have links/examples ?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I suspect the standards are just as sloppy and corrupt for economists. The public is getting so jaded it can't be bothered to listen to just about anything it's told. That's the real shame of this climategate so far, the cynicism its bound to breed couldn't have come at a worse time for the environment or public attitudes about it.

Globalization...you mean like free trade? You're kidding right? I'd say show me the data but...what good would that do me if I can't trust scientists anymore?

In the meantime the many trade barriers that still exist within our own borders sort of indicates what I suspect I'll find at the global level.

We need another thread on globalized trade.

[Riverwind]

Your point about system reform is interesting to me - do you have links/examples ?

See the discussion of publication bias in medical studies.

Positive results bias, a type of publication bias, occurs when authors are more likely to submit, or editors accept, positive than null (negative or inconclusive) results.[2] A related term, "the file drawer problem", refers to the tendency for negative or inconclusive results to remain unpublished by their authors.[3]

Outcome reporting bias occurs when several outcomes within a trial are measured but these are reported selectively depending on the strength and direction of those results. A related term that has been coined is HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known).[4]

In September 2004, editors of several prominent medical journals (including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA) announced that they would no longer publish results of drug research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies unless that research was registered in a public database from the start.[11] In this way, negative results should no longer be able to disappear[dubious – discuss]. Furthermore, some journals, e.g. Trials, encourage publication of study protocols in their journals.[12]

Obviously climate science is different from medicine and a different solution is required but the problem is not that different. Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

See the discussion of publication bias in medical studies.

Obviously climate science is different from medicine and a different solution is required but the problem is not that different.

Obviously economics has the same problem.

The impact of institutions on economic performance has attracted significant attention from researchers, as well as from policy reformers. A rapidly growing area in this literature is the impact of economic freedom on economic growth. The aim of this paper was to explore publication bias in this literature by means of traditional funnel plots, meta-significance testing, as well as by bootstrapping these meta-significance tests. When all the available estimates are combined and averaged, there seems to be evidence of a genuine and positive economic freedom - economic growth effect. However, it is also shown that the economic freedom - economic growth literature is tainted strongly with publication bias. The existence of publication bias makes it difficult to identify the magnitude of the genuine effect of economic freedom on economic growth. The paper explores the differences between aggregate and disaggregate measures of economic freedom and shows that selection effects are stronger when aggregate measures are used. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2005.

Link

Oh no, not the economists too! Now who do we trust?

Hmmm now where have I seen this business of combining and averaging data to show a desired result before?

Edited December 7, 2009 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Why humiliate ourselves any further? Can't we all just agree that some figures lie and some liars figure and that unfortunately ALL are now equally suspect because of this?

I have Big Brother's cameras aimed at me all the live long day at work because people don't trust me. I can live with that, its not a problem. I'm more than happy to comply. I fail to see why anyone else who's economic decisions can directly impact the environment and other people's ability to make a living shouldn't be subjected to the same sort of electronic monitoring, validation, reporting and auditing regime that I am.

Transparency really isn't as scary as it's been made out to be. I just look around at other fisheries now and shake my head at how obvious this should be.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Doesn't change a thing, before this the debate was how fast climate change iss happening as it will be when this is over.

ETA there is also the debate about how much of climate change is man-made.

Edited December 7, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Michael Hardner]

Why humiliate ourselves any further? Can't we all just agree that some figures lie and some liars figure and that unfortunately ALL are now equally suspect because of this?

I'm sure it would comforting to be cynical and say "we're all done for" but that's too easy, and not even necessary.

I have Big Brother's cameras aimed at me all the live long day at work because people don't trust me. I can live with that, its not a problem. I'm more than happy to comply. I fail to see why anyone else who's economic decisions can directly impact the environment and other people's ability to make a living shouldn't be subjected to the same sort of electronic monitoring, validation, reporting and auditing regime that I am.

The Climategate issue is yet another example of why monitoring doesn't apply to all situations. The papers were published for review, and the data was never provided. Cameras pointed at people typing on a computer wouldn't have helped.

Transparency really isn't as scary as it's been made out to be. I just look around at other fisheries now and shake my head at how obvious this should be.

There are trade secrets, and private information involved in these things.

[Wilber]

Did you intend the no vote to capture both skeptics who already had no faith in the process and alarmists who maintain absolute faith in the process?

I think this episode just demonstrates that one is a fool to be either.

[eyeball]

I'm sure it would comforting to be cynical and say "we're all done for" but that's too easy, and not even necessary.

Try telling this to scientists that are expecting fish stocks to almost entirely collapse in the next few decades.

The Climategate issue is yet another example of why monitoring doesn't apply to all situations. The papers were published for review, and the data was never provided. Cameras pointed at people typing on a computer wouldn't have helped.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, I am convinced that an adequately thought out regime of monitoring can be tailored for just about any situation.

There are trade secrets, and private information involved in these things.

Yes, I recall fishermen who were terrified they might have to give away their secret spots and favourite hoochie colour. All these issues and more can be addressed, it takes a little time to work through them but if fishermen given their renowned capacity for bullshit and lying through their teeth can live without their secrecy anyone can.

[Michael Hardner]

Try telling this to scientists that are expecting fish stocks to almost entirely collapse in the next few decades.

I could... try... What would they say ?

There is more than one way to skin a cat, I am convinced that an adequately thought out regime of monitoring can be tailored for just about any situation.

Yes, I recall fishermen who were terrified they might have to give away their secret spots and favourite hoochie colour. All these issues and more can be addressed, it takes a little time to work through them but if fishermen given their renowned capacity for bullshit and lying through their teeth can live without their secrecy anyone can.

Great - let's get started. How much did you make last year ?

[eyeball]

I could... try... What would they say ?

Blame fishermen, what else?

Great - let's get started. How much did you make last year ?

I caught 508444 lbs of fish worth $159,617.31.

I can break that down by species and piece count, statistical area, dates, time, location, depth etc.

I can probably even prove what coloured underwear I was wearing too. I'm pretty sure the camera's caught me hanging a rat over the side of the boat a few times...you tend to forget anyone is even watching after awhile.

[Michael Hardner]

Blame fishermen, what else?

So are they the "figuring liars" or are the fishermen ?

I caught 508444 lbs of fish worth $159,617.31.

I can break that down by species and piece count, statistical area, dates, time, location, depth etc.

I can probably even prove what coloured underwear I was wearing too. I'm pretty sure the camera's caught me hanging a rat over the side of the boat a few times...you tend to forget anyone is even watching after awhile.

How much did you make, though ? Are you comfortable telling me that ? How much did your wife make ? How many times did she go to the doctor and what did she go for ?

If you're willing to give up privacy, then I tip my hat to you. If we had more people like you, then we would collectively save billions we spend in trying to keep others out of our affairs.

[eyeball]

So are they the "figuring liars" or are the fishermen ?

There's no way to account for DFO's scientists but fishermen have certainly gone the extra mile to answer that question. The monitoring simply doesn't let you get away with anything. If I report that I caught 100 halibut then the cameras had better show that, and that's what I better show up with at the dock when the validator meets me, otherwise I risk the humiliation and cost of a full audit, a fine and having to take a human observer with me on my next trip.

How much did you make, though ? Are you comfortable telling me that ? How much did your wife make ? How many times did she go to the doctor and what did she go for ?

If you're willing to give up privacy, then I tip my hat to you. If we had more people like you, then we would collectively save billions we spend in trying to keep others out of our affairs.

You clearly still don't get it. We have not given up our privacy we have given up our secrecy. There is a huge difference. If we had less secrecy in the world we'd all be a lot less suspicious - OTOH if we had less privacy we'd probably all be suspects.

Edited December 8, 2009 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

You clearly still don't get it. We have not given up our privacy we have given up our secrecy. There is a huge difference. If we had less secrecy in the world we'd all be a lot less suspicious - OTOH if we had less privacy we'd probably all be suspects.

Explain in the context of my question, please.

You want to be able to see what private industry discusses with government, but not have others see what you discuss with government - is that right ?

[Sir Bandelot]

I said no, it does not change my thinking as yet. My thinking is this: Clearly there is something big going on if most of the ice around the world is melting faster than ever before. What's uncertain is the cause of this, whether it's man made or not. But since this involves a huge amount of oney, it's nearly impossible to know the truth, as various factions publish misinformation to further their agenda.

Given a life time of trying to make a living according to the policies of government fisheries and forestry scientists my doubts about the political neutrality of science have very deep roots.

I agree as I have worked directly with scientists for many years. It does not surprise me in the least that some scientists have manipulated the information. They are people just like anybody else, some are ethical in their work, others are corrupted. That is human nature.

Can't we all just agree that some figures lie and some liars figure and that unfortunately ALL are now equally suspect because of this?

I have Big Brother's cameras aimed at me all the live long day at work because people don't trust me. I can live with that, its not a problem. I'm more than happy to comply.

Sounds soviet. What next, a chivato on every corner watching you?

[Oleg Bach]

Did you intend the no vote to capture both skeptics who already had no faith in the process and alarmists who maintain absolute faith in the process?

Skeptics are pure evil - Those that deny that human consumerism on the grandest scale ever known to mankind are quite selfishly nuts...when they state that they are not responsible for their great industrial dog shitting on the nations of the world. I guess the denying ones are finding it troublesome that the fabulously rich state of existance is not forever. The part that will defeat achieving a clean and functioning healthy human environ - is the use of the word process...just like that god damned peace PROCESS....It is a decisionless abstract that goes on forever like a parasitic legalist involve in the process of litigation - there is no end to the bullshit. We must decide finally and in universal unison - That humanity has f%$ked up nature to the point where it is not about climate change but climate destruction..which in time is the destruction of nature - to bad humans did not have true human nature - instead they have artifice and denial like a disease.

[Riverwind]

Those that deny that human consumerism on the grandest scale ever known to mankind are quite selfishly nuts

So tell me how regulating CO2 emissions is going to do anything about 'consumerism on the grandest scale'? If anything regulating CO2 will actually increase consumption and environmental degredation because people will have produce more in order to pay the higher energy costs.

To give you one concrete example: the oil sands are not going to get shutdown because they are too valuable. But if they are forced to spend billions reducing CO2 emissions you can bet that the tailings ponds and other toxic waste will be quietly ignored. Personally, I think the environment would be better off if the tailings ponds were cleaned up and the CO2 emitted.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to have a rational discussion of such trade offs in a CO2 obsessed world.