How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry you are wrong. The issue at hand is how scientists systematically supressed skeptical points of view. In this example, there is most certainly a duty to get the skeptics side of the story. The fact that many in the scientific establishment take your point of view is why I have little respect or trust for the scientific establishment.

Which skeptic - a blogger or someone who was trying to get something published ? Be specific.

The problem here is what people in power should be doing in order to get to the bottom of these issues. They should be getting the skeptic side. They didn't. That shows the people in power have no interest in the truth and are only interested in sweeping the issue under the table.

There is no homogeneous 'skeptic side'. If there is an accusation that they were trying to block a reputable scientist from being published, then what side is required ?

I find it extremely hard to believe that you would be willing to accept such low standards for inquires for any other issue like policing or media hacking. Why are you so willfully obtuse when it comes to the climate science issue?

This begs another thread at this point: the questions raised were most definitely about the validity of the science. If that were not the case, why do we have people like Wild Bill here who still think that there was data fraud ? As such, it's up to the scientists to defend their statements and explain them.

If you disagree, then explain who specifically should be involved and why.

[TimG]

Which skeptic - a blogger or someone who was trying to get something published ? Be specific.

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. The emails detailed how Phil Jones used his position as lead author of the IPCC report to keep their papers out of the report. When he was not able to keep it out entirely he used his position to added unreviewed editorial comments that implied the paper was not relevant. The emails that Mann deleted would have exposed how Jones and others broke IPCC rules in order to blackball this paper.

Many of the emails dealt with tree ring proxy series where the record after 1960 did not match the instrumental. The emails discuss how scientists conspired to hide/ignore this divergence in order to ensure the IPCC and other reports had a tidy story to present. What needs to happen is adult scientists in a position of power need to stand up and clearly state that such deliberate hiding of adverse of data is unacceptable. So far, no one has done that and, as result, the entire scientific establishment is seen as part of the problem.

BTW, the papers that dealt with this proxy series were conveniently left off the list of papers that the UEA inquiries looked at. That is one of the reasons why I say the inquiries went out of their way to avoid looking at the real issues.

Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

Not all scientists are saints. Some are evil wizards with no respect for anything other than their own personal power. One can admire a highly educated person but to worship them might in some cases be a grave error.

[Michael Hardner]

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. The emails detailed how Phil Jones used his position as lead author of the IPCC report to keep their papers out of the report. When he was not able to keep it out entirely he used his position to added unreviewed editorial comments that implied the paper was not relevant. The emails that Mann deleted would have exposed how Jones and others broke IPCC rules in order to blackball this paper.

Is it inappropriate for somebody to keep a paper out of a report if they feel that it's deeply flawed ?

Many of the emails dealt with tree ring proxy series where the record after 1960 did not match the instrumental. The emails discuss how scientists conspired to hide/ignore this divergence in order to ensure the IPCC and other reports had a tidy story to present. What needs to happen is adult scientists in a position of power need to stand up and clearly state that such deliberate hiding of adverse of data is unacceptable. So far, no one has done that and, as result, the entire scientific establishment is seen as part of the problem.

The tree ring temperatures matched up until fairly recently, so it doesn't make sense to discard it entirely. I would call discarding of tree ring data 'hiding of adverse data' more than including it.

BTW, the papers that dealt with this proxy series were conveniently left off the list of papers that the UEA inquiries looked at. That is one of the reasons why I say the inquiries went out of their way to avoid looking at the real issues.

The tree ring data idea is a red herring.

[Oleg Bach]

Going for supper now - it's impressive to see great focus on the part of those envolved in this discussion. Poor old me with my bad case of omni-presense....I can't focus on one thing at a time - I have a daughter that is bringing me over a nice meal - and a wife that is waiting for me to join her for the evening meal...maybe being a little un-focused is a sign of gluttony/

[TimG]

Is it inappropriate for somebody to keep a paper out of a report if they feel that it's deeply flawed ?

That is not a call Jones is entitled to make. The IPCC has a process that, on paper, is supposed to ensure every peer reviewed paper gets a fair evaulation. But Jones ignored this process and proceeded to delete the emails that provided evidence that he broke the rules. And now the climate science establishment is lining up to ignore the fact that the rules were broken. In fact, we know Jones knew he was up to no good because he asked that everyone delete the emails.

The tree ring temperatures matched up until fairly recently, so it doesn't make sense to discard it entirely. I would call discarding of tree ring data 'hiding of adverse data' more than including it.

Whatever you want to call it is dishonest and has no place in reports intended to drive public policy. The failure of the climate science establishment to clearly denounce such practices has led many to conclude they cant be trusted. The bottom line is this is reason why many think data was falsified. It may not be precisely correct but it is close enough.

BTW - the only evidence that we have that tree rings are temperature proxies is the correlation between current temps and the rings. The adverse data means there is no correlation which means we have no reason to believe they are temperature proxies.

The tree ring data idea is a red herring.

Why? The inquires examined papers produced by UEA. They did not examine any of the papers that are disputed by sceptics. The list was not random. It was provided by UEA. You really find this acceptable? Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

I believe Climategate was proven untrue.

By whom? It looked more to me like the AGW people made alibis and excuses for themselves, had a drink of their own bathwater en masse and then the choir declared to the minister that there was no problem with the gospel!

They claimed to prove themselves innocent! The very idea is ridiculous!

[Wild Bill]

The inquiries were not a sham. Skeptics wanted to invite non-scientists to grill the scientists on their theories, but that makes no sense at all: the science was and is sound - the bloggers will never accept that and it doesn't make sense to have unqualified people criticizing qualified people.

That said, there's a missing link there between the public and the scientists - and that's a void we need to fill.

Correct me if I got the wrong idea, Michael. You seem to be implying that those against the man-made climate change issue are all bloggers or rightwing talk show hosts.

Do you really believe this to be true? That there are no or very few real scientists who do NOT subscribe to the AGW position?

If so, I can see why you believe the "science has been done and the debate is over! We are right and everyone else is wrong! It's time to make policy!"

[CPCFTW]

Climate science in general is a deeply flawed industry.

First of all, to get a career involving researching climate science, you basically have to have a raging boner for mother earth and nature. Many of these types of people have nightmares of a concrete world without trees which they believe would be hell on earth. Often they also value the lives of trees and animals as much or more than that of a human. These species traitors are predisposed to the idea that the ends justifies the means, and therefore have no qualms about lying and skirting the rules to ensure they can create a future in which our children can live like ewoks in the trees. They view themselves as saviours of the earth and our future, so they forgive themselves for their misdeeds.

Another compounding issue is that there is virtually no private sector demand for climate science research. Almost all climate science research is government or NGO-funded. This means that researchers only have a job as long as governments and the public believe that climate change is a big issue. The government would not fund climate science if research showed that 500 years from now our emissions will raise mean temperatures by 0.1 deg C and have no adverse effects on the world. The industry depends on people believing that man-made climate change will cause a calamity. This means even those people in the industry who are not mother nature zealots would be discouraged from being a skeptic. Their career and livelihood depends on people believing in the specter of global annihilation.

It's really not a field that anyone should have much faith in.

Edited August 8, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Bonam]

It's really not a field that anyone should have much faith in.

Science is not about faith. The data, studies, analyses, and conclusions are publicly available. Anyone who cares to educate themselves on the topic can evaluate the information for themselves. Scientists cannot put out fabricated data, flawed analyses, or unsupported conclusions without being called out on them pretty quickly, at least not in a crowded and scrutinized field like climate science (I could publish whatever crap on plasma science I wanted and likely no one would notice that it was BS for years since it's such a small field with literally just a handful of scientists).

I shake my head whenever people talk about "believing in the science" or "having faith in the science" or "trusting the scientists". That completely misses the entire point of how science works.

[bush_cheney2004]

(I could publish whatever crap on plasma science I wanted and likely no one would notice that it was BS for years since it's such a small field with literally just a handful of scientists).

Yea...two jokers scientists tried that with room temperature cold fusion back in 1989. It was a fun ride while it lasted.

[TimG]

I shake my head whenever people talk about "believing in the science" or "having faith in the science" or "trusting the scientists". That completely misses the entire point of how science works.

You highlighted the problem in your post: science is field of narrow specialities. When bloggers come along and find serious flaws in a paleo paper there is only a small community that actually understands the issues well enough to know whether the criticisms have merit. The knee jerk response of most scientists is to have blind faith in a fellow scientist rather than taking the time to learn the issues and come to an informed POV. This means they end up defending actions that they should be condemning.

[CitizenX]

Citizen X, you are the one who lost out on this thread by succumbing to the urge to insult.

Wild Bill now has a valid reason to ignore you and move on, and so none of us have got to the bottom of the questions here

You are right I lost my cool , and for that I am sorry. I should have just ignored his comments. But now I'm sure I am on his ignore list, and that's fine with me. I obviously can't learn anything from him or even have a logical rational conversation with him, so I don't see it as a loss.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CitizenX

[Remiel]

Just when you did not think CPC could get any dumber...

Anyway, I was reading an article the other day which suggested that climate scientists, of all people, have had a relatively good track record of predicting where wars would break out in Africa. I wonder why, .

[CitizenX]

I think what's happening with the climate change lack of action is a classic example of Game theories, Tragedy of the commons scenario in action. The Tragedy of the Commons diplay’s its destructive power whenever some of us cooperate for mutual benefit but others see that they could do better for themselves by breaking the cooperation by defection or cheating. So they can, until everyone else starts thinking in the same way, when the cooperation collapses and everyone ends up worse off. Through following the logic of self-interest, they have somehow landed everyone in a position where self-interest is the last thing that is being served. It makes its presence felt in the over exploitation of resources, rainforest clear cuts, territorial disputes and many of other circumstances where greed leads to the breakdown of cooperation.

I saw a good example at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The tragedy unfolded as each nation remained determined not to commit to the economic sacrifice that reducing carbon emissions would entail, until in the end there was no firmly enforceable agreement at all.

We could avoid the Tragedy of the Commons if we were to change our behavior and become more moral or more altruistic, caring for our neighbors at least as much as we do for ourselves.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CitizenX

[Bonam]

We could avoid the Tragedy of the Commons if we were to change our behavior and become more moral or more altruistic, caring for our neighbors at least as much as we do for ourselves.

No, any proposed solutions must realistically take into account human nature, rather than trying to alter it or relying on it to be altered.

[Bonam]

You highlighted the problem in your post: science is field of narrow specialities. When bloggers come along and find serious flaws in a paleo paper there is only a small community that actually understands the issues well enough to know whether the criticisms have merit. The knee jerk response of most scientists is to have blind faith in a fellow scientist rather than taking the time to learn the issues and come to an informed POV. This means they end up defending actions that they should be condemning.

Really? I kinda feel like the knee jerk response of a scientist reading about an issue they care about is to learn enough to be able to understand and evaluate the issue for themselves. The core of science, of being a scientist, is curiosity, and the antipathy of being a scientist is believing anything on faith.

[TimG]

Really? I kinda feel like the knee jerk response of a scientist reading about an issue they care about is to learn enough to be able to understand and evaluate the issue for themselves. The core of science, of being a scientist, is curiosity, and the antipathy of being a scientist is believing anything on faith.

But that is not the way it works in practice. Even if a scientist does understand some of the issues their default position is to take the side of another scientist in any dispute - a position with is based on nothing more than faith. Judith Curry is an example of scientist who took the time to learn the issues herself and realized that the sceptics have some valid points which are getting ignored because of this knee jerk 'defence the scientists' response within the community.

[TimG]

The tragedy unfolded as each nation remained determined not to commit to the economic sacrifice that reducing carbon emissions would entail, until in the end there was no firmly enforceable agreement at all.

Of course you forget that the only "commitment" that was on the table would exempt the majority of the world's population and the areas of greatest growth in emissions. Rejecting an ineffective and unjust deal is no tragedy.

The massive wealth transfers that were on the table in Copenhagen are one of the reasons why many people believe that the real goal CO2 emission control is to impose communism on the world economy through a back door.

Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

Of course you forget that the only "commitment" that was on the table would exempt the majority of the world's population and the areas of greatest growth in emissions. Rejecting an ineffective and unjust deal is no tragedy.

The massive wealth transfers that were on the table in Copenhagen are one of the reasons why many people believe that the real goal CO2 emission control is to impose communism on the world economy through a back door.

I tend to agree. Whatever problems the science of climate change might have, its bullet proof in comparison to the politics of climate change and the crazy "solutions" that people propose. Sending hundreds of billions to dictators of third world hellholes is gonna reduce our CO2 emissions how, exactly? Anyway, the "rich" Western nations have been milked to death already, there is no more wealth to transfer. And it's the countries that we keep hearing are going to be "affected most" by climate change that should be most eager to do something about it, instead, they are the ones that seek exemptions from having to do anything.

[eyeball]

Climate science in general is a deeply flawed industry.

It's really not a field that anyone should have much faith in.

Like they can in...oh lets say, economic science maybe?

Talk about an industry that's steeped in it's own publication biases and bullshit.

[dre]

the real goal CO2 emission control is to impose communism on the world economy through a back door.

:lol: cough cough.

[Michael Hardner]

The IPCC has a process that, on paper, is supposed to ensure every peer reviewed paper gets a fair evaulation. But Jones ignored this process and proceeded to delete the emails that provided evidence that he broke the rules. And now the climate science establishment is lining up to ignore the fact that the rules were broken. In fact, we know Jones knew he was up to no good because he asked that everyone delete the emails.

Link, please.

Whatever you want to call it is dishonest and has no place in reports intended to drive public policy. The failure of the climate science establishment to clearly denounce such practices has led many to conclude they cant be trusted. The bottom line is this is reason why many think data was falsified. It may not be precisely correct but it is close enough.

Why is it dishonest to include tree ring data, and honest to exclude it ? That's ridiculous. Tree ring data correlates well to temperature until recent times when some other factors (e.g. pollution) made them diverge.

BTW - the only evidence that we have that tree rings are temperature proxies is the correlation between current temps and the rings. The adverse data means there is no correlation which means we have no reason to believe they are temperature proxies.

That's not true at all. As I said, current temps and tree rings are diverging. They have been used as temperature proxies for a long time.

Why? The inquires examined papers produced by UEA. They did not examine any of the papers that are disputed by sceptics. The list was not random. It was provided by UEA. You really find this acceptable?

Why would the UEA examine skeptic papers ? Their papers weren't under investigation - it's outside the domain of the UEA process.

[Michael Hardner]

They claimed to prove themselves innocent! The very idea is ridiculous!

I ask yet again: where do you get this information ?

The accusations that came out for Climategate were based on quotes taken out of context, and were proven to be incorrect. Now, we hear that the UEA should have been asking skeptics to present their papers for review - what kind of investigation is that ?

[Michael Hardner]

Correct me if I got the wrong idea, Michael. You seem to be implying that those against the man-made climate change issue are all bloggers or rightwing talk show hosts.

Within the public realm, I'd say this is mostly true.

Do you really believe this to be true? That there are no or very few real scientists who do NOT subscribe to the AGW position?

Yes - within the realm of climate science there are only 3 or 4 scientists who don't absolutely agree with the mainstream position.

If so, I can see why you believe the "science has been done and the debate is over! We are right and everyone else is wrong! It's time to make policy!"

I have never said "it's time to make policy". It's clear that you have taken no time to understand my position, and your disrespect and arrogance is therefore at least as bad as the scientists that you decry.

I have said it's time to discuss policy. BUT - we have to agree on facts otherwise everything is an opinion, everything is your guess versus mine, and nothing can be built upon.

For the record, I think that the same problem that causes public ignorance of the science also causes some members of the public to over react: the media is the self-appointed proxy for real scientific knowledge and we the people allow that to happen.