Ship of Fools: Obama and Climate Change

Thread: Obama and Climate Change Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024565

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

I listen to the radio sometimes while I work and today the news reported Obama mentioned climate change in his second inaugural address and it made me wonder why he has disappointed the ecomentalists (what a great word - thanks, Jeremy!) by failing to act more forcefully on the topic.

Near as I can tell there are two likely rationales: first is he is afraid to damage the US economy by instituting draconian measures.

The second and my preferred theory is that he, once he got in office, obtained the absolute best scientific advice and realized the jury is still out on how much humans have impacted the climate and he decided to just ignore the alleged problem, like any sensible person would.

I have a hunch others might have different takes on the situation so please have at it - TIA.

[the only topy I saw]

[ 22. January 2013, 01:20: Message edited by: moron ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Yes, 0.17% of climate change research papers reject climate change.

The jury must still be out [Killing me]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Yes, 0.17% of climate change research papers reject climate change.

The jury must still be out

Exactly.

The president has had a lot on his plate, and has had to fight tooth and nail for all he's accomplished so far. Maybe climate change shoulda been higher on the priority list, but there's no secret conspiracy behind why it's slipped behind. Simple politics & the "tyranny of the urgent".

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Paul Simon's Have a Good Time is prophetic. Here's a verse.

quote:
Maybe I'm laughing my way to disaster
Maybe my race has been run
Maybe I'm blind to the fate of mankind
But what can be done?
So God bless the goods we was given
And God bless the U. S. of A.
And God bless our standard of livin'
Let's keep it that way
And we'll all have a good time

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
The second and my preferred theory is that he, once he got in office, obtained the absolute best scientific advice and realized the jury is still out on how much humans have impacted the climate and he decided to just ignore the alleged problem, like any sensible person would.

So your preferred theory is that a massive conspiracy keeping secret from the public the ironclad evidence that climate change is hoax? Evidence that is available to the upper eschelons of the U.S. government but which is unknown to anyone else in the world?

If only we had some catch-all term for theories about conspiracies!

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
The second and my preferred theory is that he, once he got in office, obtained the absolute best scientific advice and realized the jury is still out on how much humans have impacted the climate and he decided to just ignore the alleged problem, like any sensible person would.

WTF?

quote:
Originally posted by moron

Ah, it all makes sense now.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The simplest explanation is that Obama is a politician dealing with political realities. He spent his first term trying to solve problems that were killing Americans by the thousands right now (lack of healthcare, for example) and trying to stop congressional republicans driving the economy off a cliff. He has a limited amount of political capital and I can understand why he might have put off dealing with climate change, which is very much a "frog in a pot of water being gradually heated" kind of problem. He does need to tackle it, but it's a hard fight to win in good economic conditions, because it requires spending now to avoid problems in the future, and the US political system is notoriously poor at that.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to commend the OP's choice of username. It seems somehow... appropriate.

[ 22. January 2013, 06:19: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I love the phrase in the OP, 'the absolute best scientific advice', whereas I suppose the rest of us are getting the second best, low-rent advice. But how do I ascend to the best? Is there a charge? Do I have to wear a tuxedo?

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Yes, 0.17% of climate change research papers reject climate change.

The jury must still be out

The clue is in "climate change research papers" - hardly a disinterested group.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Yes, 0.17% of climate change research papers reject climate change.

The jury must still be out
The clue is in "climate change research papers" - hardly a disinterested group.

So you see "disinterested" as a synonym for "ignorant?"

--Tom Clune

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Yes, 0.17% of climate change research papers reject climate change.

The jury must still be out
The clue is in "climate change research papers" - hardly a disinterested group.

That's exactly what creationists say about the lack of scientific papers endorsing ID.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Yes, 0.17% of climate change research papers reject climate change.

The jury must still be out
The clue is in "climate change research papers" - hardly a disinterested group.
So you see "disinterested" as a synonym for "ignorant?"

--Tom Clune

We all know from the former Soviet Union that scientists are not a disinterested group and are malleable to political influences, we would be kidding ourselves if that was not the case today. Was it not scientists at the University of Bordeaux who showed through their research that red wine was full of health giving properties?

It is healthy to be sceptical about the views of any vested interest. The fact that a group whose research grants are orientated around the existence of climate change should conclude in its existence is hardly surprising. And we have seen from the Climategate e-mails from the University of East Anglia the nature of these researchers who see climate change scepticism as an existential threat.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

following in aumbry's footsteps, I point UK members to the impartial editorial position of the BBC, and the impartial and balanced means by which it arrived at that decision.

Just to clarify...

are we talking about climate change, or man-made climate change?

Because I will agree that climate change is happening, I just wonder how much of it is man-made...

[ 22. January 2013, 10:54: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Yes, 0.17% of climate change research papers reject climate change.

The jury must still be out
The clue is in "climate change research papers" - hardly a disinterested group.

Although if you care to click the link you'll find that it actually simply refers to papers that have 'global warming' or 'global climate change' as keywords. So hardly a 'group' as such ...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
following in aumbry's footsteps, I point UK members to the impartial editorial position of the BBC, and the impartial and balanced means by which it arrived at that decision.

Just to clarify...

are we talking about climate change, or man-made climate change?

Because I will agree that climate change is happening, I just wonder how much of it is man-made...

Well, according to the best research, "quite a lot". Exactly how much is what the research is about. That there is a man made element is pretty much taken as granted.

It's exactly like evolution, really. That evolution occurs is taken as granted now. The exact mechanism and lineages are up for research. Which is perhaps why the lines trotted out by climate sceptics sound so much like those trotted out by creationists. For example, the "OK, climate is changing, but it's not because of human activity." line mirrors the "OK, evolution occurs, but only within 'created kinds'" line creationists use.

[ 22. January 2013, 10:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, according to the best research, "quite a lot".

Unfortunately, most climate-change affirming media news would give the impression that it was all man-made... which is far from the truth...

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
We all know from the former Soviet Union that scientists are not a disinterested group and are malleable to political influences, we would be kidding ourselves if that was not the case today.

Indeed but as deniers seem to come almost entirely from the political right, whereas affirmers come from across the spectrum, it seems quite obvious to me where the political influence acts.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
We all know from the former Soviet Union that scientists are not a disinterested group and are malleable to political influences, we would be kidding ourselves if that was not the case today.
Indeed but as deniers seem to come almost entirely from the political right, whereas affirmers come from across the spectrum, it seems quite obvious to me where the political influence acts.

To the extent that man-made climate change is promoted by a spectrum from Former Marxists to Big Business you are right.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The clue is in "climate change research papers" - hardly a disinterested group.
So you see "disinterested" as a synonym for "ignorant?"

--Tom Clune
We all know from the former Soviet Union...

I'll take that as a "yes."

--Tom Clune

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Because I will agree that climate change is happening, I just wonder how much of it is man-made...

Why do you wonder that? What cause do you have to doubt it?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The evidence for climate change

NASA link

The 4th IPCC report (Wiki article with links)

IPCC 4th Assessement Report

Here is a quote from the article

quote:
On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment" are over 90% and over 66%, respectively.

SPM = Summary for Policy Makers.

Here is a copy of the summary report.

To pick up on Marvin's question, what evidence is in dispute?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Because I will agree that climate change is happening, I just wonder how much of it is man-made...

This is stage B of a typical denialist effort. Stage A is to deny that a problem exists at all (e.g. smoking does not cause lung cancer). Stage B admits a problem, but denies any connection (e.g. lung cancer rates have increased, but that's not necessarily due to smoking). Stage C is happens when the connection is no longer plausibly deniable (e.g. okay, smoking tobacco does cause lung cancer, but we should consider very carefully before taking any action). Stage D occurs once stalling has gone on long enough, and involves just throwing your hands up in the air because it's too late or the problem is too complicated to do anything about now (e.g. of course everyone knows smoking causes lung cancer, so there's nothing we can at this point because everyone's got informed consent).

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is healthy to be sceptical about the views of any vested interest. The fact that a group whose research grants are orientated around the existence of climate change should conclude in its existence is hardly surprising.

Ah yes, those impoverished oil companies are being bullied by rich universities and their overpaid researchers. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry
It is healthy to be sceptical about the views of any vested interest.

not that there is anyone on the denial side with a vested interest.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
following in aumbry's footsteps, I point UK members to the impartial editorial position of the BBC, and the impartial and balanced means by which it arrived at that decision.

Just to clarify...

are we talking about climate change, or man-made climate change?

Because I will agree that climate change is happening, I just wonder how much of it is man-made...

The overwhelming evidence is that man is accelerating climate change dramatically. However, even were the evidence less clear, the do nothing attitude is ridiculous.
Cleaning our processes and reducing consumption make for a better planet regardless of temperature. Even should the temps become stable, we are sucking this planet dry.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Because I will agree that climate change is happening, I just wonder how much of it is man-made...
This is stage B of a typical denialist effort. Stage A is to deny that a problem exists at all (e.g. smoking does not cause lung cancer). Stage B admits a problem, but denies any connection (e.g. lung cancer rates have increased, but that's not necessarily due to smoking). Stage C is happens when the connection is no longer plausibly deniable (e.g. okay, smoking tobacco does cause lung cancer, but we should consider very carefully before taking any action). Stage D occurs once stalling has gone on long enough, and involves just throwing your hands up in the air because it's too late or the problem is too complicated to do anything about now (e.g. of course everyone knows smoking causes lung cancer, so there's nothing we can at this point because everyone's got informed consent).

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is healthy to be sceptical about the views of any vested interest. The fact that a group whose research grants are orientated around the existence of climate change should conclude in its existence is hardly surprising.
Ah yes, those impoverished oil companies are being bullied by rich universities and their overpaid researchers.

I am sure that if there were any climate change research departments funded by Big Oil they would come up with research showing global warming doesn't exist. So what?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is healthy to be sceptical about the views of any vested interest. The fact that a group whose research grants are orientated around the existence of climate change should conclude in its existence is hardly surprising.
Ah yes, those impoverished oil companies are being bullied by rich universities and their overpaid researchers.
I am sure that if there were any climate change research departments funded by Big Oil they would come up with research showing global warming doesn't exist. So what?

First off, what you mean by "if"?

Second, the implication of your assertion is that there is literally nothing else to study in the whole field of weather and climate other than climate change. There is no way anyone would be willing to study, for example, better hurricane modeling or upper atmosphere research without some kind of artificially manufactured crisis. A crisis which would require massive efforts to simulate: fleets of icebreakers to chop up and then tow south for disposal huge fields of arctic icecap, some way to melt glaciers without relying on warmer temperatures, etc. I'd suspect that manufacturing the evidence for the conspiracy (and buying the silence of every single participant) would be several orders of magnitude more expensive than the pittance involved in research. You're positing a "Bond villain" level of resources devoted to manufacturing a crisis. The return on this effort is a level of funding so "generous" most field research is carried out by unpaid or underpaid graduate students.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...

I am in no denial state about anything... I'm just up for being persuaded on the exact ratio (or whatever word we want to use)...

I'm have never advocated doing nothing, and accept fully that man is having an adverse efect on the global climate... as I say I am still open to just how much of an effect, which to be honest seems rather an ok position to be in...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The argument re proportionate effects (natural, human-made) is of less importance than getting some form of global co-operation over any effective remedial, or alleviating, journey.

It is now better than 90% probable that any such journey will require some means of tackling the build up of greenhouse gases caused by human behaviour. The fifth IPCC report is due out in 2014 and will have an updated section on Climate Change Mitigation.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
.... I'm have never advocated doing nothing, and accept fully that man is having an adverse efect on the global climate... as I say I am still open to just how much of an effect, which to be honest seems rather an ok position to be in...

So where does this wondering take us?

Let's agree the climate is changing, and let's say 75% of the change is natural climate variation and 25% is anthropogenic change. No matter what the breakdown, we still have to live with 100% of the impact. The intent of climate truthers is to convince people that since we're only causing a small part of the problem, there's no point in us doing anything differently. That's like saying it won't matter whether we end up in 3 feet of water or 4. If you happen to be 3.5 feet tall, it could make a hell of a difference.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The clue is in "climate change research papers" - hardly a disinterested group.

The implications of this sentence truly boggle my mind. Where am I supposed to get information about climate change from, if not from papers written about climate change? Am I going to get better quality information about climate change from the weekly football reports?

Seriously, what's the first choice for information on any topic that YOU'RE interested in? It's people who have indicated that they are interested in the same topic. When I want to look up something about classical music, I go to the books I have that have titles indicating their connection with classical music. I don't go "oh, classical music books, they're not exactly disinterested" and open up my X-Files Season Guide instead.

And are you suggesting that any opinions I express on law, science (especially chemistry and biochemistry) and music should be roundly ignored (on the grounds that I've done too much study of those things), but I should be listened to on engineering because I've shown no interest in it whatsoever?

The idea that the people who actually research a subject are the wrong people to consult on the subject is truly mind-blowing.

[ 22. January 2013, 22:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
To the extent that man-made climate change is promoted by a spectrum from Former Marxists to Big Business you are right.

Which translates as: "A suprisingly large range of people who don't naturally agree with each other still all think the same thing, but I don't want to use Occam's Razor to conclude that the most likely reason for them all thinking the same thing is that it's true, so let's suggest a conspiracy instead."

I know the majority's not always right, but quite frequently the reason a majority exists is because large numbers of people have all reached the same conclusion by their own independent reasoning process. It's far less likely that the reason a majority exists is because they're all in on it together.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
We all know from the former Soviet Union that scientists are not a disinterested group and are malleable to political influences, we would be kidding ourselves if that was not the case today.
Indeed but as deniers seem to come almost entirely from the political right, whereas affirmers come from across the spectrum, it seems quite obvious to me where the political influence acts.

If that's what you're hearing, then you're not paying attention, or are reading only very superficial media.

When talking about causes of global warming, it is yes, most accurate to include all the various factors that might be contributing.

But when talking about how to address the challenges then it is appropriate to talk about man-made causes, because those are the things we're most likely able to control/ impact.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, according to the best research, "quite a lot".
Unfortunately, most climate-change affirming media news would give the impression that it was all man-made... which is far from the truth...

It really doesn't matter whether it's 70% or 90% caused by humans. Because that's the bit we can most easily do something about. We can't stop sunspots, or whatever the deniers would claim is the 'real' cause; we can use less fossil fuel.

As for media giving the impression that it's all of it - well it is very nearly all of it, most likely 75-100%. If your roof is leaking and you see a large hole in it with water flooding through, you fix that first, not sit there wondering if there might be another hidden source of the problem and that your eyes are deceiving you.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

cliffdweller - your reply doesn't seem to have much relevance to the post of mine you quoted at the top of it - were you intending to quote someone else?

I'm saying most climate change sceptics are right-wingers. Does that not match with your experience?

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

Here we go again.

Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (aka Climate Change) claims to be a science, so let us judge it by scientific principles and methods. Good scientific method analyses data, propounds falsifiable theories and conducts experiments to test those theories. If the results do not accord with the theory, then the theory is not correct and must be abandoned or modified to agree with experiment. Another principle of scientific method is transparency so that experiments can be repeated and results checked by other independent scientists. All agreed so far?

The trouble initially is that there is no one theory, just a collection of computer models with a bunch of different assumptions that predict a variety of outcomes. The most prominent of these in the past was the “hockey stick” graph (information for Brits: this is an ice hockey stick with a sharp bend to a steep upward slant, not a curly grass hockey stick), the result of a series of papers by Michael Mann and others that reconstructed historic temperature records (there is a lot of criticism applicable to this, but I'll pass on this for the moment) and linked that to a model of future climate. These were published in 1998/99, just before the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The graph was given great prominence and became iconic in environmental circles.

The trouble with the hockey stick when published is that the model it was built on was not verifiable as the details of the model were not made public. Two concerned people, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (I'll be open here, Steve McIntyre is a mining engineer and Ross McKitirck is an economist by training (i.e. both good with numbers), but they have now learned more about climate science than most will ever forget), tried to get the data and models from Michael Mann, but met with a lot of opposition. They did eventually get them, and found errors with the methodology that meant that a hockey stick appeared almost no matter what assumptions were made because of a data normalisation procedural error in the complex computer code. By the time this was recognised and reported, the hockey stick was gospel and world wide and had been the centre of many a policy document, so criticism was hard to get heard. Amongst people who listen to all sides of the argument, the hockey stick is a busted flush – it doesn't meet scientific criteria for a reliable theory.

Nor has the hockey stick stood up to the other test of scientific method – tests of predictions against experiment, in this case later climate data. In this regard, all the models have failed and the climate has failed to co-operate and warm as predicted.

Peer review is an important part of scientific method, but the Climategate e-mail leaks make it clear that the “in crowd” of climate science perverted and corrupted this process and pressured journals to only allow a sub-group to be reviewers, who then rejected any contrary views.

So, in summary, climate science is politics, not science. Later reports from the IPCC have relied more on alarmist, environmental activist reports rather than peer-reviewed scientific papers (and the so-called “Secret Santa“ leaks of the IPCC AR5 working group drafts shows that it is getting worse, not better.)

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (aka Climate Change)

I presume the word you are looking for is Anthropogenic.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

Even if you throw out the "hockey stick", all you need to do is look at the Met Office to see that weather over the past ten or twenty years has been breaking all sorts of records - wettest, hottest, and so on. After all, this year in Australia they had to add new colours to the weather maps in the hottest parts of the country, and last year they had floods that covered an area bigger than France. That's a wild variation in weather - and that's just one area. It's happening all over the globe.
All you have to do is look at pictures of glaciers taken 50 years ago and compare them to what the glaciers look like now to see that they are far smaller - or talk to the people who are sailing across the Arctic where previously there was only pack ice.
But if we agreed that there was a problem, then we'd have to change our lifestyles to do something about it, wouldn't we?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I notice that the denialists, as above, focus a lot on the hockey stick and the emails business, and don't actually get into any of the scientific discussion about climate. I wonder why that is?

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (aka Climate Change)
I presume the word you are looking for is Anthropogenic.

Thank you! Duh. [Help]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I notice that the denialists, as above, focus a lot on the hockey stick and the emails business, and don't actually get into any of the scientific discussion about climate. I wonder why that is?

The emails business is classic "quote mining" - cherry picking comments to give a particular impression quite divorced from what the person being quoted actually thinks.

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
Even if you throw out the "hockey stick", all you need to do is look at the Met Office to see that weather over the past ten or twenty years has been breaking all sorts of records - wettest, hottest, and so on. After all, this year in Australia they had to add new colours to the weather maps in the hottest parts of the country, and last year they had floods that covered an area bigger than France. That's a wild variation in weather - and that's just one area. It's happening all over the globe.
All you have to do is look at pictures of glaciers taken 50 years ago and compare them to what the glaciers look like now to see that they are far smaller - or talk to the people who are sailing across the Arctic where previously there was only pack ice.
But if we agreed that there was a problem, then we'd have to change our lifestyles to do something about it, wouldn't we?

I focussed on one model as a type indicator with the problem of scientific forecasting. I (and many others) don't base the whole argument on the one case, but point out that the science in not "settled", there is no "consensus".

No-one can deny that the climate changes and will continue to change. There has been some "adjustment" of history in older records to make it appear that the warming is larger than it is. One of the criticism of Mann's hockey stick methodology was that the proxy methodology he used didn't show the Medieval Warm Period or the mini ice age, which should have cast doubt on the methodology immediately.

What is in dispute is the extent of future warming and the reasons for it - particularly the effect of greenhouse gases and particularly carbon dioxide. That is why I say that the debate is not scientific, but political.

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I notice that the denialists, as above, focus a lot on the hockey stick and the emails business, and don't actually get into any of the scientific discussion about climate. I wonder why that is?
The emails business is classic "quote mining" - cherry picking comments to give a particular impression quite divorced from what the person being quoted actually thinks.

KLB, you are listening to the justification after the event. To a lot of people, many of the statements in the e-mails sound like "It wasn't me" when caught with the hand in the biscuit tin.

There is definite evidence in the Climategate e-mails of (i) pressure to favourably select reviewers in journals, thus rendering the peer-review process a buddy-review process - not scientific (ii) "hide the decline" to skew data that did not agree with the models (iii) deliberate thwarting of Freedom of Information requests, and (iv) scientists being more concerned with PR and politics than with science.

My respect and trust of all those involved (already low) disappeared when the e-mails were hacked and leaked.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
There is definite evidence in the Climategate e-mails of (i) pressure to favourably select reviewers in journals, thus rendering the peer-review process a buddy-review process - not scientific (ii) "hide the decline" to skew data that did not agree with the models (iii) deliberate thwarting of Freedom of Information requests, and (iv) scientists being more concerned with PR and politics than with science.

My respect and trust of all those involved (already low) disappeared when the e-mails were hacked and leaked.

The emails are often used by anti-climate change people but I've only ever heard arguments based on abstract 'loss of trust' issues rather than specific examples of individuals directly influencing the scientific process. For me, i) and ii) are serious charges, if true, while iii) and iv) are the natural results of the massive and sustained assault on the scientific community perpetuated by certain denialist groups. If I was being harried and harrased as the scientists were I would have been about as eager as they were to cooperate with my harrassers.

Focusing on attempts to skew the peer-review process, and attempts to skew the data, are there any concrete examples of this uncovered by the emails, or is it just your 'impression' of them. If there is concrete evidence, can you link to it please? I've heard these claims before, but never backed up with actual evidence unfortunately so I'd be interested to see it if you have it. Otherwise I remain skeptical - sounding as it does like any other internet conspiracy theory which relies on the existence of a secret global cabal organising world events for nefarious gains.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Traveller, your first lengthy post putting you position is riddled with shards of truth. Where does your information come from? Not a reputable scientific body, I think.

I also think you're misusing the term 'model' but as far as I'm aware the Hockey Stick graph is not a model but a reconstruction from multiple proxy sources of data, requiring much statistical work. You're right to say the original Mann et al paper 1998 contained some errors. When discovered (by whom I'm not sure) the work was re-done and published as a revised paper in 1999, with little change to the overall result but a more robust basis. The work has since been repeated by many others to include more recent data and all show the same basic shape. Repeatability is important to science.

eg See New Scientist article: Climate Myths - the hockey stick graph has been proven wrong

Anyone wanting to understand any of this should be wary of non-science sources. Too many 'deniers' are opinionated but unqualified bloggers and columnists and find it too easy to mislead their readers - almost always people on the political right.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
Here we go again.

...The trouble with the hockey stick when published is that the model it was built on was not verifiable as the details of the model were not made public. Two concerned people, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (I'll be open here, Steve McIntyre is a mining engineer and Ross McKitirck is an economist by training (i.e. both good with numbers), but they have now learned more about climate science than most will ever forget), tried to get the data and models from Michael Mann, but met with a lot of opposition. They did eventually get them, and found errors with the methodology that meant that a hockey stick appeared almost no matter what assumptions were made because of a data normalisation procedural error in the complex computer code. By the time this was recognised and reported, the hockey stick was gospel and world wide and had been the centre of many a policy document, so criticism was hard to get heard. Amongst people who listen to all sides of the argument, the hockey stick is a busted flush – it doesn't meet scientific criteria for a reliable theory.

This is factually wrong. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick's criticism was itself flawed. Their argument that hockey sticks appeared no matter what data was plugged in was based on gross cherry- picking. They picked their best results and ignored the rest of them. The Mann method did not produce hockey sticks every time, indeed, far from it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
Peer review is an important part of scientific method, but the Climategate e-mail leaks make it clear that the “in crowd” of climate science perverted and corrupted this process and pressured journals to only allow a sub-group to be reviewers, who then rejected any contrary views.

Having read the e-mails in question - I repeat, having actually read them, not merely media reports about them - they don't make anything of the kind clear at all.

The main thing they make clear is that people are capable of seizing upon ambiguous phraseology, declaring it to have only one possible meaning which accords nicely with a pre-existing view, and deciding that this constitutes proof of something.

Frankly, THAT is not remotely in keeping with scientific method.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
My respect and trust of all those involved (already low) disappeared when the e-mails were hacked and leaked.

Does the phrase "confirmation bias" ring a bell?

--Tom Clune

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Traveller, your first lengthy post putting you position is riddled with shards of truth. Where does your information come from? Not a reputable scientific body, I think.

I also think you're misusing the term 'model' but as far as I'm aware the Hockey Stick graph is not a model but a reconstruction from multiple proxy sources of data, requiring much statistical work. You're right to say the original Mann et al paper 1998 contained some errors. When discovered (by whom I'm not sure) the work was re-done and published as a revised paper in 1999, with little change to the overall result but a more robust basis. The work has since been repeated by many others to include more recent data and all show the same basic shape. Repeatability is important to science.

eg See New Scientist article: Climate Myths - the hockey stick graph has been proven wrong

Anyone wanting to understand any of this should be wary of non-science sources. Too many 'deniers' are opinionated but unqualified bloggers and columnists and find it too easy to mislead their readers - almost always people on the political right.

Yes, it's quite comical to see so many non-scientists attacking climate studies for being non-scientific. I'm not sure if Dominic Lawson makes exactly that point, but he is rather typical of denialists, in not being a scientist, yet criticizing the science, and being right-wing. I wonder if this is a coincidence?

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
My respect and trust of all those involved (already low) disappeared when the e-mails were hacked and leaked.
Does the phrase "confirmation bias" ring a bell?

--Tom Clune

Yes, I am well aware of confirmation bias, and the reading of the Climategate e-mails also has that problem. I just wish that many of the proponents of climate change were as aware of the problem.

I started with the hockey stick, I'll stay with that. This is a pretty comprehensive review of the Michael Mann hockey stick methodology and results, together with the story of how it became apparent that Mann cherry picked his data to appear in the final report with a dramatic graph that, as I said, became a key driver of opinion change.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
I focussed on one model as a type indicator with the problem of scientific forecasting. I (and many others) don't base the whole argument on the one case, but point out that the science in not "settled", there is no "consensus".

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
I started with the hockey stick, I'll stay with that.

I'm having a little trouble following your argument. Is there just one case you're arguing from, or are there more? It seems a little far-fetched to believe that all of climate science has been radically redirected by one man with one graph.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, Croesos, I was having the same reaction. Climate science was running for decades before that hockey stick made an appearance. Just because that was something that was picked up and made a media hit hardly makes it the crux of climate science.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

...especially as the criticism of the hockeystick turned out to be flawed.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's called making a little bit go a long way!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Traveller

I suggest you read the New Scientist article linked by Clint Boggis. It is also worth reading this and its associated links.

Here you will find some funding facts about organisations with which Ross McKitrick is associated. Exxon money is at work.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
My respect and trust of all those involved (already low) disappeared when the e-mails were hacked and leaked.
Does the phrase "confirmation bias" ring a bell?

--Tom Clune
Yes, I am well aware of confirmation bias, and the reading of the Climategate e-mails also has that problem. I just wish that many of the proponents of climate change were as aware of the problem.

I started with the hockey stick, I'll stay with that. This is a pretty comprehensive review of the Michael Mann hockey stick methodology and results, together with the story of how it became apparent that Mann cherry picked his data to appear in the final report with a dramatic graph that, as I said, became a key driver of opinion change.

Traveller why accept an account from McKitrick, one of those involved and a critic of Mann et al? He's close to the argument but hardly impartial. I'd much prefer an impersonal, independent assessment of the issue.

For us non-scientists it's much more rational to accept the views of the overwhelming majority of qualified, published, working climate scientists and the unanimous (AFAIK) position of world's reputable scientific bodies than to irrationally assume they're all wrong and seek out minority view which might accord with uninformed personal preconceptions.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

This is only tangentially related to the climate change issue, but it does illustrate just how powerful the conspiracy is:

quote:
Dr. Geoffrey Thyne is no Ward Churchill. He’s a geologist and an academic with three decades of field work and experience as a research scientist in the oil and gas industry, including the last 13 years at Colorado School of Mines in Golden.

Thyne said in an interview that he was caught completely off-guard in late May when his bosses at the 135-year-old school threatened to fire him for comments he made to reporters on hydraulic fracturing — an increasingly controversial but equally common practice of injecting natural gas wells with high-pressure water, sand and chemicals to force open rock formations and free up gas.
...
Thyne said he was threatened with termination as a research associate professor at Mines, a position he still holds through the end of the summer, because of pressure put on the state school by powerful players in the oil and gas industry who were upset with his position that federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing may ultimately be necessary if oil companies don’t find other solutions. ...

Colo. School of Mines professor says he was threatened with firing over hydraulic fracturing comments

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0