Climategate Vindication

[cybercoma]

The important point that the deniers are missing is that this is about the rate of change being exponentially greater since industrialization. The earth could be cooler right now than it was at any given point in history, but every last climate model we have seen shows that the rate of change is dramatically greater and thus a cause for concern. There is not a single credible scientist that denies that.

[TimG]

The important point that the deniers are missing is that this is about the rate of change being exponentially greater since industrialization.

The important point that you are missing is you have ZERO evidence that a similar rises never occurred the past. Your claims that the current change is 'unprecedented' has no basis in science. If you look at the ice core data you will find plenty of examples of 1-2 degC shifts over 100 years.

The earth could be cooler right now than it was at any given point in history, but every last climate model we have seen shows that the rate of change is dramatically greater and thus a cause for concern.

Climate models are arcane beasts which very few scientists understand. Most scientists simply accept their outputs like the words of the pope. The opinion of most scientists on the usefulness of the models worth no more than a taxi driver's.

The scientists that do understand the models have a vested interest in exaggerating their usefulness since they would lose billions in funding if they admitted the models are basically crap.

Bottom line: if you argument rests on climate models then you have no argument.

Edited November 2, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The opinion of most scientists on the usefulness of the models worth no more than a taxi driver's.

Wow. Most scientists ? Cite ?

The scientists that do understand the models have a vested interest in exaggerating their usefulness since they would lose billions in funding if they admitted the models are basically crap.

Conspiracy theory. Once you feel the need to guess at the motivations of the scientists, then you're admitting you'd rather not make an argument on the facts alone.

Bottom line: if you argument rests on climate models then you have no argument.

That's not exactly what Richard Lindzen says. He says that the models are flawed, but not that models in general are an invalid basis for arguments about climate.

[TimG]

Wow. Most scientists ? Cite ?

Actually, I think the onus is on you to show why any scientist who has not specifically studied climate models would have any knowledge that would allow them to know if they are crap. If you actually ask scientists you will find that most simply 'trust the peer review process' and don't dare question what they have no expertise in. By asserting that scientists do have such knowledge you are the one making the untenable claim.

Conspiracy theory. Once you feel the need to guess at the motivations of the scientists, then you're admitting you'd rather not make an argument on the facts alone.

Is it a conspiracy theory to point out that drug studies funded by drug companies may not be reliable because of their source of funding? You need to grow up and stop pretending that scientists are immune to the corruption of money that everyone accepts as fact if a private company is involved. It certain conclusions would result in a loss of a career then no scientist in the world would ever publish those conclusions.

That's not exactly what Richard Lindzen says. He says that the models are flawed, but not that models in general are an invalid basis for arguments about climate.

Semantics. The models are flawed then they cannot be used for the purposes of making arguments about climate policy. Edited November 2, 2011 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Climate models over the last 20 years should be more accurate than previous models. Simply because we know more mainly due to the technology we use to record and measure with.

How can we really compare data in the last 50 years let's say, to data in the 50 years before that? And then 50 years before that?

Even if we go back 100 or so years, we really had no clue as to how space weather affects the weather on Earth. So to me, the models back then were seriously lacking in data because of what we knew at the time, and what technology was used to measure and collect data.

So models are going to be revised and changed as we learn more, so we should be expecting changes

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, I think the onus is on you to show why any scientist who has not specifically studied climate models would have any knowledge that would allow them to know if they are crap.

That's a little hard to follow... show that scientists you haven't studied the models have knowledge...

In any case, you made the claim so you would need to back it up.

Is it a conspiracy theory to point out that drug studies funded by drug companies may not be reliable because of their source of funding?

It's not exactly analogous, since the scientists in your example are directly employed ... but it still requires proof.

You need to grow up and stop pretending that scientists are immune to the corruption of money that everyone accepts as fact if a private company is involved. It certain conclusions would result in a loss of a career then no scientist in the world would ever publish those conclusions.

And yet we have scientists who are skeptical, who have excellent careers, including the most recent example from this thread.

[TimG]

That's a little hard to follow... show that scientists you haven't studied the models have knowledge...

Should be "who" not "you".

In any case, you made the claim so you would need to back it up.

It is self evident. People cannot know what they have not studied. Your claim that anyone with the label 'scientist' should be presumed to have knowledge of climate models is quite absurd.

It's not exactly analogous, since the scientists in your example are directly employed ... but it still requires proof.

Again. It is self evident based on knowledge of human nature. People do not willingly jeopardize their source of income. If a scientist's source of income depends on making people believe that the climate models are useful then that scientist will do whatever is necessary to make that case - even if they know it is a sham.

It is possible that the models are still useful even with risks inherent in the system just like some drug studies funded by drug companies are good studies. But it is not possible to discuss climate models without acknowledging that the funding system has been set up to ensure that whatever worth the models have it will be exagerrated.

And yet we have scientists who are skeptical, who have excellent careers, including the most recent example from this thread.

There are always mavericks who choose to stand out from the crowd and are established enough that they can afford to do it. That does not mean that vast majority scientists do not face financial/social pressures that limits the things that they are willing to explore. Your problem is you have this cartoon image of a scientist that does not exist in reality. I simply assume that scientists are human and have all human failings.

[Pliny]

Maybe eyeball can explain where he got the number. That number seems low to me, as I only know of a handful of climate scientists who still dispute AGW. Are you surprised at the number ? If so, you may be getting your impressions from the mainstream media which sometimes overstates the opposition to the AGW theory.

I think there might be a consensus of global warming which could explain the 98% number but I don't think it is 98% as far as anthropogenic global warming.

The mean global temperature has risen over the last century by .8 degrees centigrade. One would expect an exponential effect of warming as long as we continue to use fossil fuels but that has not materialized despite the best forecasting models. Thus "climate change" has become the preferred term and we can now talk about the weather, which was for years under the term AGW, a complaint against "deniers" by the "alarmists".

[Michael Hardner]

It is self evident. People cannot know what they have not studied. Your claim that anyone with the label 'scientist' should be presumed to have knowledge of climate models is quite absurd.

I don't think I made that claim - your claim was stated above.

Again. It is self evident based on knowledge of human nature. People do not willingly jeopardize their source of income. If a scientist's source of income depends on making people believe that the climate models are useful then that scientist will do whatever is necessary to make that case - even if they know it is a sham.

The source of income is publishing good results, not getting funding for bad results.

There are always mavericks who choose to stand out from the crowd and are established enough that they can afford to do it. That does not mean that vast majority scientists do not face financial/social pressures that limits the things that they are willing to explore. Your problem is you have this cartoon image of a scientist that does not exist in reality. I simply assume that scientists are human and have all human failings.

Again, you fail when you attack my perceptions or my motivations. I find the image of everybody in the world doing things out of greed and fear (versus doing a good job) cartoony.

[Michael Hardner]

I think there might be a consensus of global warming which could explain the 98% number but I don't think it is 98% as far as anthropogenic global warming.

I think that TimG's link supported that, then, if you include deforestation as an anthropogenic effect on its own.

[TimG]

I don't think I made that claim - your claim was stated above.

I made a statement that should be self-evident. You demanded 'proof' - i.e. you are claiming that it is possible for what I said to be not true - a position that is absurd for the reasons I stated.

The source of income is publishing good results, not getting funding for bad results.

The source of income is for publishing what the funders *believe* are good results. That is no guarantee that the results are actually any good.

I find the image of everybody in the world doing things out of greed and fear (versus doing a good job) cartoony.

Greed and fear is what keeps the world running. In fact, greed is seen as the basis for capitalism and is not necessarily bad. The bottom line is your image of all scientists as altruists is one that I reject entirely (although some examples likely exist). If scientists happen to do a good job it either a coincidence or because the incentive systems put in place encourage those outcomes. Edited November 2, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

Again, you fail when you attack my perceptions or my motivations. I find the image of everybody in the world doing things out of greed and fear (versus doing a good job) cartoony.

Cartoony? Michael, I would not expect you to tell us what you do for a living but I suspect you have always had a relatively secure and safe job.

If so, we should have you stuffed and mounted to put in a museum, just as proof that such workers exist!

I would venture that today huge numbers of jobs depend on "toeing the line". It's easy to insist that people should stand on principles without considering how they will feed their kids.

Many if not most of the people in 'science professions are contract workers. They are exceedingly vulnerable to having their funding cut. With the mixing of politics in the climate debate and the fact that so much of the funding comes from politically controlled sources I'm surprised that you find the idea of a scientist 'keeping his head down' 'cartooony'.

[Michael Hardner]

I made a statement that should be self-evident. You demanded 'proof' - i.e. you are claiming that it is possible for what I said to be not true - a position that is absurd for the reasons I stated.

Ok - looking back, I misquoted the statement by you. Here it is again:

"Most scientists simply accept their outputs like the words of the pope."

I concede that this isn't provable, albeit because you added that unprovable piece of prose at the end.

The source of income is for publishing what the funders *believe* are good results. That is no guarantee that the results are actually any good.

Results that are provably bad are rejected in peer review.

Greed and fear is what keeps the world running. In fact, greed is seen as the basis for capitalism and is not necessarily bad. The bottom line is your image of all scientists as altruists is one that I reject entirely (although some examples likely exist). If scientists happen to do a good job it either a coincidence or because the incentive systems put in place encourage those outcomes.

But greed and fear alone do not drive people. That's too basic a view of humankind. Do you not want to do a good job when you do your work ? There's no need to have a model of humanity that assumes people are purely good or evil in this respect, as the process ensures that the worst performers are weeded out.

[TimG]

Results that are provably bad are rejected in peer review.

Results fall into three categories:

1) Results which are provably bad.

2) Results which are provably good;

3) Results which cannot be proven to be good or bad.

The vast majority of climate science falls into 3). Results in category 3) are accepted as good if and only if they re-enforce the existing "consensus" on climate change. Results that dispute the "consensus" are only accepted if they fall into category 2).

That is why peer review is nothing but a mechanism to protect the consensus. And that is why passing peer review is no evidence that the results have any merit.

But greed and fear alone do not drive people. That's too basic a view of humankind. Do you not want to do a good job when you do your work ? There's no need to have a model of humanity that assumes people are purely good or evil in this respect, as the process ensures that the worst performers are weeded out.

I don't assume that people are purely good or evil. People want to do a good job and be recognized for that. The issue only comes up when doing a good job conflicts with the need to ensure an income. When people are faced with such conflicts they must:

1) Convince themselves that the "truth" is whatever preserves their income stream.

2) Find another line of work.

3) Deliberately lie.

Most people opt for 1) because it is easy to do in field where most results fall into category 3) above. The advantage of 1) is people can believe they are doing "good" while they are promoting a lie.

Edited November 2, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Cartoony? Michael, I would not expect you to tell us what you do for a living but I suspect you have always had a relatively secure and safe job.

Not at all - much the opposite. I am pressured to bend the truth but I know that it will potentially come back to me if I do.

I would venture that today huge numbers of jobs depend on "toeing the line". It's easy to insist that people should stand on principles without considering how they will feed their kids.

But there are limits. This is why people are personally held responsible for what they do in some cases, why we have Sarbanes-Oxley, why we have professional associations that demand that you blow the whistle etc.

[dre]

It is self evident based on knowledge of human nature.

Strong arument! Well played sir!

[Michael Hardner]

I don't assume that people are purely good or evil. People want to do a good job and be recognized for that. The issue only comes up when doing a good job conflicts with the need to ensure an income. When people are faced with such conflicts they must:

1) Convince themselves that the "truth" is whatever preserves their income stream.

2) Find another line of work.

3) Deliberately lie.

Most people opt for 1) because it is easy to do in field where most results fall into category 3) above. The advantage of 1) is people can believe they are doing "good" while they are promoting a lie.

Funny enough, we had thousands of emails stolen - and they included comments that were embarrassing and even that flouted Freedom of Information laws, yet no candid admission that the results were wrong. Why do you think that is ? Clearly, they didn't expect their emails to be hacked and yet the conspiracy didn't surface at all.

[wyly]

Cartoony? Michael, I would not expect you to tell us what you do for a living but I suspect you have always had a relatively secure and safe job.

If so, we should have you stuffed and mounted to put in a museum, just as proof that such workers exist!

I would venture that today huge numbers of jobs depend on "toeing the line". It's easy to insist that people should stand on principles without considering how they will feed their kids.

Many if not most of the people in 'science professions are contract workers. They are exceedingly vulnerable to having their funding cut. With the mixing of politics in the climate debate and the fact that so much of the funding comes from politically controlled sources I'm surprised that you find the idea of a scientist 'keeping his head down' 'cartooony'.

that same logic could be applied to every single person working in the energy sector and investors in the energy sector...every time there is a dip in energy values people lose their jobs and investment value they have a vested interest "toeing the line" denying CC or doing anything to stop it...

and I know a fair number of scientists and their jobs were never in danger...university researchers/prof are usually tenured positions and their jobs are safe regardless of their findings...

[wyly]

Funny enough, we had thousands of emails stolen - and they included comments that were embarrassing and even that flouted Freedom of Information laws, yet no candid admission that the results were wrong. Why do you think that is ? Clearly, they didn't expect their emails to be hacked and yet the conspiracy didn't surface at all.

take 3 scientists their lab assistants add three spouses wives and what are the odds of keeping the conspiracy a secret? now multiple that by the millions of scientists, assistants/students and spouses and the talk of conspiracy is lunacy...

[TimG]

no candid admission that the results were wrong. Why do you think that is ? Clearly, they didn't expect their emails to be hacked and yet the conspiracy didn't surface at all.

Are your even reading my arguments? It sounds like you aren't and just want to beat up strawmen instead. I have said many times that climate scientists fall into category 1) above:

1) Convince themselves that the "truth" is whatever preserves their income stream.

So they will obviously not admit that they are doing anything wrong since they have convinced themselves that what they want to believe is the "truth".

What is really damning about the Climategate emails is how they exposes scientists as narrow minded fanatics that are out to crush anyone who does not agree with their definition of the "truth".

Edited November 2, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

I good article on confirmation bias in climate science.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

When a study was published recently saying that 98% of scientists “believe” in global warming, I looked at the questions they had been asked and realized I was in the 98%, too, by that definition, though I never use the word “believe” about myself. Likewise the recent study from Berkeley, which concluded that the land surface of the continents has indeed been warming at about the rate people thought, changed nothing.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

Edited November 2, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

But there are limits. This is why people are personally held responsible for what they do in some cases, why we have Sarbanes-Oxley, why we have professional associations that demand that you blow the whistle etc.

Professional associations? Well, that's the official line, I agree.

BTW, have you ever looked into how many teachers in Ontario have ever lost their licence to teach? The number is so low as to defy the Laws of Statistics! It would probably be easier to win a lottery for a few consecutive weeks.

If I were dependent on research grants for my income I would never be a whistle blower as long as I had a dependent family. Especially with something like climate change. If I were to lie or at least, sign my name to whatever politically correct petition was put in front of me in my work environment the chances of being caught at it are extremely small. First off, the entire mainstream would have to stop believing in the alarmist credo before they would ever investigate such things. Second, they would likely only challenge the most noted scientific champions. Third, one can always plead ignorance and having made an honest mistake!

To do what you suggest would almost certainly have me unemployed very quickly! An easy choice, even if a morally difficult one. I know that most husbands who took your approach would likely be divorced very quickly. Women tend to look at such matters in terms of security first and feeding the kids, not your professional honour.

I think you minimize the real world consequences, Michael.

[Michael Hardner]

Professional associations? Well, that's the official line, I agree.

BTW, have you ever looked into how many teachers in Ontario have ever lost their licence to teach? The number is so low as to defy the Laws of Statistics! It would probably be easier to win a lottery for a few consecutive weeks.

Why do you think it's low ? That's a strange assertion - you seem to think that unprofessional behavior (worthy of dismissal) is happening all the time.

If I were dependent on research grants for my income I would never be a whistle blower as long as I had a dependent family.

Well then you've admitted something about your moral character I guess. I'd rather find another job than live my life as a liar, myself.

[Wild Bill]

Why do you think it's low ? That's a strange assertion - you seem to think that unprofessional behavior (worthy of dismissal) is happening all the time.

Well then you've admitted something about your moral character I guess. I'd rather find another job than live my life as a liar, myself.

I KNOW that it's low! My point was that you can't take professional associations being excellent wardens of their flock as gospel. Some are better than others, since they are made up of fallible human beings after all.

As for my moral character, using my model I would say that my choice would be very moral - putting feeding my children over my pride. Finding another job is not always as easy for everyone as you imply. You have given this impression before - that's why I asked if you were used to a secure job. Most people aren't, these days. Bully for you if you're ok, Michael!

You of course are entitled to make your own choice. We all have to manage our own lives so that we can sleep at night.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Wild Bill

[TimG]

As for my moral character, using my model I would say that my choice would be very moral - putting feeding my children over my pride. Finding another job is not always as easy for everyone as you imply. You have given this impression before - that's why I asked if you were used to a secure job. Most people aren't, these days. Bully for you if you're ok, Michael!

Micheal chooses to ignore the human capacity for self-deception. i.e. most people are not in situations where 'toeing the line' is a clear ethical violation that must be corrected. In most cases, it is possible to convince yourself that 'toeing the line' is the morally correct thing to do so there is no moral conflict to resolve. If facts later emerges that you should have know better you plead that your were just 'following orders'.