Distinguishing Dogma from Science

Why “ClimateGate” Ain’t Nothing is a symptom of a deeper societal problem- a compulsive desire to direct the lives of individuals and business enterprises based on dogma that is unfalsifiable. The debate is over, declared a politician, not a scientist. Global warming is a fact, fact, fact. Just ask scientists who have looked into the data. They wouldn't lie. Or would they?

It doesn't matter to Chris Mooney who describes the revelations, contained in emails authored by scientists, as a "nasty, ugly sideshow." It is ugly. Deception is unattractive. But far from being a sideshow the scandal is relevant to what matters most- the credibility of supporting data and the integrity of those supplying the data.

Mooney makes his blind allegiance to dogma plain when he asserts that "no matter what a few scientists may have said in emails, we have to go to Copenhagen and deal with our warming, melting planet."

Right Chris. Head on over to Copenhagen with your fingers in your ears and blinders shielding you from any inconvenient facts. There's no point in an author, best known for a book loaded with political polemics, getting bogged down with sideshows having to do with the authenticity of scientific data.

HT: Salvador Cordova

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 at 12:13 am and is filed under Morality, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

118 Responses to “Distinguishing Dogma from Science”

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 12:40 am
It doesn't matter to Chris Mooney who describes the revelations contained in emails authored by scientists as a "nasty, ugly sideshow." It is ugly. Deception is unattractive. But far from being a sideshow the scandal is relevant to what matters most- the credibility of supporting data and the integrity of those supplying the data

Unlike Piltdown man, the scientists in question ARE the central authorities on the topic of antropogenic global warming. Piltdown man was a sideshow in evolution, but CRU is the inspirational epicenter of alarmist dogma.

We're finding dubious behavior by the leading lights, not some obscure irrelevant alarmists.

They've probably succeed because even sitting presidents get elected to power based on junk science being promoted by CRU.

Mooney spars with creationists and tried to marginalize them in front of audiences because of their skepticism over anthropogenic global warming. Mooney won't fair so well in the future because of his dogmatic attitude.

Einstein was quite open to admit when he felt he made a blunder. It seems the self-appointed defenders of science (like mooney who isn't even a scientist) think it unfashionable to admit they might be wrong. It seems they place a higher value on saving face then telling the truth.

Einstein was a true scientist, and a much better example for all.

In any case, in 2008 here is Jack Cashill prophetically impaling Mooney's "science". He debated Mooney in 2008. Now it looks like Cashill is vindicated (notwithstanding Cashill needs to use the phrase "Solar System" not Galaxy).

The Democratic War on Science

Some mischievous soul at William Jewell College, a smart Baptist institution outside Kansas City, invited me to participate Tuesday in a three-person panel called "Science, Politics and Policy."

I say "mischievous" because that person had to suspect the trouble I could cause for the star of the panel, Chris Mooney, an elfin journalist in his late 20s who had scored big in the literary/science complex with his 2005 book, "The Republican War on Science."

Before the evening was through I would make the case that if there really is a war on science in America today, it is being waged by the hard left with an able assist from a largely Democratic media.

Part of the war is real. Of the last thousand acts of violence against research science, leftists – animal rights activists, eco-terrorists, anti-nuclear provocateurs – perpetrated just about all thousand of them.

The war Mooney was protesting, however, was fully metaphorical. And as he would concede, it wasn't really a Republican war, but a conservative one.

William Jewell had flown Mooney in from Los Angeles for a day of presentations and a ceremonial dinner. The panel was something of a sideshow for Mooney. He showed up studiously disheveled and curiously unprepared, presuming, I suspect, that I was there to play the Washington Generals to his Harlem Globetrotters.

I had other ideas. But it was only after the forum began that I realized how rare it must be for people like Mooney to be challenged on anything. Indeed, his failure to anticipate my likely offense threw me way off my game plan.

At one point, for instance, Mooney casually told the audience that embryonic stem cell research was performed only on embryos discarded during in vitro fertilization.

I almost jumped out of my seat. I had read Mooney's chapter on the subject and quoted him out of his own book. As he had written, embryos retrieved from fertility clinics had proved inadequate for research purposes.

"Instead," I read, "scientists would have to obtain them through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, sometimes called 'therapeutic cloning.'"

At this point, Mooney again surprised me by insisting that embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning were two different things altogether.

Where to begin? Had Mooney forgotten what he had researched and written three years earlier? Likely so.

As I explained to Mooney and the audience, there would have been little fuss had scientists stuck to in vitro discards. Instead, they ventured into the process of creating life to destroy it – therapeutic cloning. This is what embryonic stem cell research is all about and why it is so controversial.

The discussion continued downhill from there. When I asked Mooney why he had dismissively compared adult stem cell research to creation science, he denied that he had made any such comparison.

A William Jewell biologist on the panel dared me to find such a quote. I did so in five seconds. "Conservatives have repeatedly hyped adult stem cell research," I read from Mooney's book. "The right's faith-based advocacy in this area has even been likened to 'creation science.'"

Several times in the book, in fact, Mooney had mocked the right's hope that adult stem cells might substitute for embryonic ones, calling it "dogma" and a "leap of faith," one that had been "resoundingly rejected by researchers actually working in the field."

Not so fast. As anyone who has followed this debate knows, November 2007 witnessed the remarkable discovery in two different labs that adult skin cells eventually could replace the use of human embryos in stem cell research.

When I raised this thesis-busting point with Mooney, he did not deny it. He just blew it off. After all, he was the rock star, the guy who had appeared on "The Daily Show" and "NPR's Science Friday." Not me.

If possible, the conversation on global warming grew even more detached from the real. In explaining my skepticism, I stuck to the easily graspable, starting with the historic record of the medieval and Roman warmings.

This information seemed to come as news to both Mooney and the biologist. "How do we know that?" the biologist challenged me. Equally skeptical, Mooney reminded the audience that the thermometer had been invented only 150 years ago.

I suggested that the Vikings did not name the island "Greenland" as part of some real estate scam. I then talked about the settlements there, the vineyards that stretched into Northern England, the town names, the historical artifacts, the memoirs and the various core samples that suggest these warming events were not local.

"But then it got cold again," the biologist said as though this information somehow undercut my own. This tag-team madness continued when Mooney challenged my evidence that it had gotten cold at all.

Sticking to the obvious, I referred the pair to the 16th-century winter landscapes of Dutch painter Peter Breugel and the 19th-century novel (and Disney special) about Dutch lad Hans Brinker and his silver skates.

"Why am I talking about mother-loving Hans Brinker?" I wondered. This was well beyond any defense I had thought to prepare.

I then reminded the audience, most of whom were too young to remember, about the "New Ice Age" scare of the mid 1970s brought to you by the same people now bringing you global warming.

Mooney tried to explain the 1940-1975 cooling away by presenting the theory of offsetting aerosol particles as fact. I reminded him, however, that in his own book he had acknowledged that this was just one theory out of many and, I added, a dubious one at that.

Mooney's conspicuous eye-rolling nearly achieved escape velocity when I ventured that global warming was affecting other planets in the galaxy. "How do you know this?" he asked, demanding chapter and verse on the spot.

I suggested to the audience that when they get the chance, they Google "global warming" and "Mars." When I did so afterwards, I got 463,000 hits. The first hit was from a 2007 National Geographic article, "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says."

The melting on Mars is one of those inconvenient truths that the literary/science complex all too often dispenses with by distorting to fit the prevailing party line or ignoring altogether.

As a parting shot, I showed an article that I had pulled from the previous Sunday's New York Times. The headlines said it all, "After Linking New Strain of Staph to Gay Men, University Scrambles to Clarify."

Refreshingly, the biologist came to my defense. He found the key scientific fact buried 14 paragraphs deep in the article: "Gay men were 13 times more likely to be infected."

In a science free of politics, he noted, there should be no reason to scramble and nothing to clarify.

My sentiments exactly!

That about sums up the sort of leadership there is in the AGW camp. The less they are challenged on the details, the better they look.

Mooney would otherwise be poster child for sloppy thinking except for the fact he spouts out what certain groups want to hear.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2009 @ 12:40 am

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Salvador:

Unlike Piltdown man, the scientists in question ARE the central authorities on the topic of antropogenic global warming. Piltdown man was a sideshow in evolution, but CRU is the inspirational epicenter of alarmist dogma.

Excellent point Salvador.

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 12:49 am

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Salvador T. Cordova: Einstein was a true scientist, and a much better example for all.

Einstein was just as human as the rest of the scientific community. Einstein submitted a paper to Physical Review in 1936. Physical Review sent the paper out for peer review. Einstein didn't like the idea, and when the reviewer suggested errors in the paper, Einstein withdrew it from the journal. Einstein quietly fixed the problem and submitted it elsewhere—never publishing in Physical Review again.

Scientists are no better than other people. They're proud, vain, silly, mean-spirited, concerned, self-sacrificing and righteous, in the same measure as most anyone else. There's nothing unexpected in the quote-mined emails, but time will tell.

As for anthropomorphic climate change, it's an inevitable result of exponential growth. Industrial humanity really should stop dumping their waste products into Earth's communal atmosphere. It's rather impolite.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 8:25 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Climategate ain't nothing? It means $$$$$$.

Mooney has a financial interest in this. He has books sales speaking tours and a reputation to uphold. Mooney is a small player.

There are other stakeholders.

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire”

The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.

As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.

However, the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in,” writes Broder.

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

Both Strong and Gore come from the Club of Rome clique, who in their 1991 Report, “The First Global Revolution” openly admitted how they were planning to exploit the contrived hoax of global warming in order to further their agenda.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote.

Gore’s defense against claims that he is peddling fearmongering about global warming to get filthy rich, and one dutifully supported by the NY Times’ whitewash report, is that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

However, Gore’s insistence that he is walking the walk, not just talking the talk, doesn’t seem to extend to his own private life in the context of energy conservation and CO2 emissions. While lecturing the world about reducing CO2 emissions and saving energy, Gore’s own mansion uses 20 times the energy of the average American home.

In February 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. These figures were not disputed by Gore.

“If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care,” said the Center’s 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. “But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.”

The clips below, taken from Alex Jones’ new documentary Fall Of The Republic, expose how Al Gore serves as the front man for the global carbon tax cap and trade scheme, which is designed to bankrupt the United States and drastically lower the living standards of the American people, while introducing nightmare levels of regulation and bureaucracy into their everyday lives. Get the full DVD here.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2009 @ 10:41 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Einstein was just as human as the rest of the scientific community. Einstein submitted a paper to Physical Review in 1936. Physical Review sent the paper out for peer review. Einstein didn't like the idea, and when the reviewer suggested errors in the paper, Einstein withdrew it from the journal. Einstein quietly fixed the problem and submitted it elsewhere—never publishing in Physical Review again.

Scientists are no better than other people. They're proud, vain, silly, mean-spirited, concerned, self-sacrificing and righteous, in the same measure as most anyone else. There's nothing unexpected in the quote-mined emails, but time will tell.

Zach, Einstein not publishing again in a journal that he was upset with is hardly the same as a climategate where falsehoods are repeated and promoted. Your own link indicates Einstein made a correction which is more than I can say for the climategate conspirators.

As for anthropomorphic climate change, it's an inevitable result of exponential growth.

There is no question the anthropogenic component of global climate change is of anthropogenic origin. The question is the magnitude and severity of this component.

0.1% seems in the ball park even after the exponential growth of humans.

I don't think it's right to starve and bankrupt the world to line algore's pocket. Eliminating the 0.1% influence seems like straining at a gnat.

If the climate change problem is not man made, we better be doing everything to make oil, coal, and gas dirt cheap.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2009 @ 10:58 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:01 am
By the way, this is the sort of renewable energy research I like:

Making Gasoline from Bacteria

But such innovation would put a crimp in Al Gore's plans and the politicians and businessmen with a vested interest in Cap, Trade, Tax and Waste.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2009 @ 11:01 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am
It not just science vs. dogma, it truth vs. $$$$$$.

GE, NBC, and Obama: Conflicts of Interest?

It’s no secret that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is on President Barack Obama’s economic advisory board. And that GE is the parent company of NBC Universal. It’s also well known that NBC News is in bed with President Obama, who even joked about it at a recent media event:

“A few nights ago, I was up tossing and turning trying to figure exactly what to say. Finally, when I couldn’t get back to sleep, I rolled over and asked (NBC News anchor) Brian Williams what he thought,” Obama said.

But does that constitute a conflict of interest for either GE or President Obama?

How about the fact that GE Capital received a federal loan guarantee of $139 billion via the Wall Street bailout?

Or that Immelt is a member of the board of the New York Federal Reserve, formerly headed by Obama’s treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner?

Or, and this is the big ticket item, that GE stands to make billions off the Obama administration’s Cap and Trade and Alternative Energy initiatives?

To Imelt's credit, he doesn't seem to meddle too much with the one good news channel he ows that is profitable: CNBC, the business news channel that is like the Wall Street Journal of TV. God bless CNBC!

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2009 @ 11:09 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:34 am
"Green" energy battery operated cars (like the electric cars that Obama wants to make using General Motors aka GM aka Government Motors) are dubious from the stand point of mechanics and physics and economics.

1. you need electricity to power them, lots of toxic waste to make solar panels, lots of coal to burn. 1 horsepower = 745.699872 watts

Average car (some guesses I saw) requires 20 horsepower to maintain speed, or approx 15,000 watts.

The is a reason the majority of airplanes don't run on electric power, it is not weight efficient. Weight efficient also means fuel efficient and safer.

2. unless one uses solar panels, hydro electric, wind, the energy isn't really renewable. With Cap and Trade on electric companies, vested interest stand to make $$$$$ if electric cars are forced on the populace. And the end result is that the energy might not even be renewable.

Where is Obama's dream of ending dependence on foreign oil trough this process? Fire up more coal generated electricity? 15,000 watts for several hours to recharge your battery powered car just to get to work? But that would be expensive since CAP and Trade will tax electric ocompanies that sell the energy to run electric cars.

What I see is s a commitment to dogma, $$$$$, but not real innovation and policies that might have more promise.

Gore seems like a nice enough guy, I can't say that his hypocrisy is deliberate, but it is there.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2009 @ 11:34 am

Mung Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:48 am
"no matter what a few scientists may have said in emails, we have to go to Copenhagen and deal with our warming, melting planet."

I'm melting!

Comment by Mung — November 25, 2009 @ 11:48 am

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Salvador T. Cordova: Einstein was a true scientist, and a much better example for all.

Zachriel: Einstein was just as human as the rest of the scientific community. Einstein submitted a paper to Physical Review in 1936. Physical Review sent the paper out for peer review. Einstein didn't like the idea, and when the reviewer suggested errors in the paper, Einstein withdrew it from the journal. Einstein quietly fixed the problem and submitted it elsewhere—never publishing in Physical Review again.

You're reinforcing Salvador's point but maybe you meant to do so. We all fall short of the perfection mark. Einstein was willing to make acknowledgments and corrections when he fell short. That's as good as it gets. The bone of contention with Mooney et. al is the circle the wagons mentality which inhibits open discussions and encourages contentiousness. It's much more than an "ugly sideshow."

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Zachriel: As for anthropomorphic climate change, it's an inevitable result of exponential growth.

Salvador made some telling comments in another thread. Quoting:

If the anthropogenic component is small but global warming real, we may have a serious mis-diagnosis of the real problem, and worse, we're prescribing the wrong cure for the problem!

The truth is advocates for policy changes based on global warming have very weak anthropogenic data supporting specific measures like Cap and Trade legislation. The reason lies in our ignorance of the extent to which climate fluctuations are influenced by natural forces as compared to human input. He also said this:

What I find troubling is the alarmists don't set benchmarks. Do they say: "Cut emissions to such and such level and the temperature will be X. Cut the emissions more and the temperature will be Y. " Do they say that?

Salvador nails it. Unless or until global warming advocates are willing to attach specific predictions quantifying effects of specific remedial measures to legislative mandates they are proceeding with junk science or worse, gutless science. Laws need sunset provisions allowing for periodic assessments of prior predictions and corresponding adjustments. When falsification is not allowed for by legislatiion we have politics, not science.

Zachriel: Industrial humanity really should stop dumping their waste products into Earth's communal atmosphere. It's rather impolite.

Combustion is not impolite. It enabled the industrial revolution, the resulting prosperity, modern technology, and the nice things you have at home. Manufacturers employ millions and are the bedrock of our standard of living. We can put new technology to work when it is available. That kind of remark looks like ideological roasting to others. Industrialists are no more impolite than scientists or politicians.

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Bradford: Einstein was willing to make acknowledgments and corrections when he fell short.

If Einstein had his druthers, they would have published a flawed paper. He was forced to make the changes because of peer review. His behavior may have been arrogant and petty, but it didn't matter, because even Einstein's papers are subject to independent, scientific review.

Scientists are no better than other people. They're proud, vain, silly, mean-spirited, concerned, self-sacrificing and righteous, in the same measure as most anyone else. That's why there's nothing unexpected in the quote-mined emails. Whatever you think of the emails, it doesn't change the data pointing to anthropomorphic climate change. It may change the political environment, though.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Zachriel: Einstein was just as human as the rest of the scientific community. Einstein submitted a paper to Physical Review in 1936. Physical Review sent the paper out for peer review. Einstein didn't like the idea, and when the reviewer suggested errors in the paper, Einstein withdrew it from the journal. Einstein quietly fixed the problem and submitted it elsewhere—never publishing in Physical Review again.

Whichever way you wish to spin the inicident, Einstein was quite open about other areas where he felt he made mistakes.

He talked about the "biggest blunder of his life". Jastrow gave accounts of Einstein having to make a retraction in a math calculations and Einstein eventually capitulating to the possibility that the universe was not in steady state, etc. etc. You took one incident in his life and blew it out of proportion to give the appearance Einstein was as low as the climate gate hucksters.

Contrast Einstein's willingness to change his mind with the refusal of the climategate conspirators to be open. They were caught plotting to hide their mistakes rather than correct them. Rather than trying to hide ones errors, they might have served the public interest by correcting them.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Zachriel: Whatever you think of the emails, it doesn't change the data pointing to anthropomorphic climate change. It may change the political environment, though.

The data needs to distinguish between anthropomorphic and natural factors. Until this is done intelligent countermeasures will be based more on politics than science.

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Bradford: Unless or until global warming advocates are willing to attach specific predictions quantifying effects of specific remedial measures to legislative mandates they are proceeding with junk science or worse, gutless science.

Journal of Climatology.

Zachriel: Industrial humanity really should stop dumping their waste products into Earth's communal atmosphere. It's rather impolite.

Bradford: Combustion is not impolite.

Of course it is impolite to leave your excess carbon in the shared atmosphere. That transfers the individual responsibility to the commons. Like dumping your sewage in the river and not taking responsibility for those downstream. Or peeing on Aunt Martha's rose bushes.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Zachriel: Of course it is impolite to leave your excess carbon in the shared atmosphere.

Alternatively they could refrain from doing so by employing more expensive technology. Rising costs can be passed on to the consumer or lay-offs might occur. Rather impolite if you're laid off.

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Bradford: Unless or until global warming advocates are willing to attach specific predictions quantifying effects of specific remedial measures to legislative mandates they are proceeding with junk science or worse, gutless science.

Zachriel: Journal of Climatology.

Are there specific benchmarks attached to Cap and Trade legislation predictions?

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Zachriel: Of course it is impolite to leave your excess carbon in the shared atmosphere. That transfers the individual responsibility to the commons. Like dumping your sewage in the river and not taking responsibility for those downstream. Or peeing on Aunt Martha's rose bushes.

It's only impolite if the excess carbon has a net harmful effect. So far, the evidence doesn't support it.

But I'll tell ya what, you get China and India to get on board, get the politicians to honestly give the evidence a fair reading and debate on all the major media outlets, and I'll think about making the sacrifice "just in case."

Comment by kornbelt888 — November 25, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
For those interested in any fudging of the climate models, see this breaking news

Comment by kornbelt888 — November 25, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

ID guy Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Zachriel:
Whatever you think of the emails, it doesn't change the data pointing to anthropomorphic climate change.

The problem is such data doesn't exist.

No one knows how much CO2 is supposed to be in the atmosphere.

No one knows how much CO2 is too much- meaning the threshold it causes the climate to change.

There is evidence the CO2 content was much higher than it is today- that is back before we were around.

Also I was under the impression that plants require atmospheric CO2.

Do you have something against plants Zachriel?

Comment by ID guy — November 25, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

MikeGene Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Zach:

Scientists are no better than other people. They're proud, vain, silly, mean-spirited, concerned, self-sacrificing and righteous, in the same measure as most anyone else. That's why there's nothing unexpected in the quote-mined emails.

Are you saying that scientists are just as likely to behave politically as anyone else?

Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
MikeGene: Are you saying that scientists are just as likely to behave politically as anyone else?

Of course, but that's not a very high level of involvement for most people, who concentrate their lives around work and family.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Zach: Whatever you think of the emails, it doesn't change the data pointing to anthropomorphic climate change.

Actually, Zach, it DOES change the data. The emails reveal that the computer models were disingenuous and purposely deceptive.

Google "hide the decline" and you'll see for yourself.

Comment by chunkdz — November 25, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
chunkdz: The emails reveal that the computer models were disingenuous and purposely deceptive.

Are you claiming that the one lab is doing the only research on climate change? That no one else has developed independent data or models?

Exponential growth always brings about change. Loggers and fishermen, having depleted most of the natural resources, have learned. Limited resources, especially of the commons, have to be protected or they will be pillaged.

These are the same arguments and caricatures as during the environmental movement. Because people demanded change in the West, important protections were implemented. Meanwhile in the Communist sphere, where people have much less a say, they trashed their environments. Spending on environmental protection saves money over the long run, and has positioned the West for long-term continued growth.

The physics shows warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases. The old ways will change whether you want them to or not. Those nations that develop green technology will export to those nations that don't.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
chunkdz: Google "hide the decline" and you'll see for yourself.

The quote-mines may only have significance within the political context. The scientific evaluation will take time.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Zach,

The quote-mines may only have significance within the political context. The scientific evaluation will take time

I actually agree with you for the most part the sad part for science is by then it will be to late.

Big Science is going the way of big religion right before our eyes. These emails are just the latest nail in the coffin.

I'm not exactly sure where we went wrong but I think it has something to with the transition from the lone scientist to science by committee.

What ever the reason in the end no one will trust science that does not produce concrete results that can be easly replicated.

I honestly fell we are on the cusp of a reformation.

The days of “studies show” and “ scientific consensus” are coming to an end.

This has profound implications for the ID discussion.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Zach: Are you claiming that the one lab is doing the only research on climate change? That no one else has developed independent data or models?

No I didn't claim that. In fact I'm learning that there's quite a bit of data out there refuting AGW. Pretty fascinating, especially among the attempts to suppress it.

But wouldn't you agree that CRU is a major, major player in all this? Their data has been used in congressional hearings, IPCC reports, and Al Gore's Oscar Winning Movie. Wouldn't it be right to put the brakes on a bit and reevaluate the research now that we know that CRU is lying?

Comment by chunkdz — November 25, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Exponential growth always brings about change.

The problem is this is a philosophical not a scientific statement and as they say “it’s vacuous” . I could just as easily say.

Decay always brings about change
Economic stagnation always brings about chance
Time always brings about change

The question is what kind of change that is what these scientists were charged with finding out.
Apparently they were more interested in protecting their grants or saving the world.

Either way science suffered. It’s sad that so few of their political and media allies seem to care

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2009 @ 9:22 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
fifth monarchy man: Big Science is going the way of big religion right before our eyes.

It depends on what you mean by "Big Science," but the future will include incredibly complex scientific and technological projects, requiring cooperation at all levels of science, government and society.

fifth monarchy man: What ever the reason in the end no one will trust science that does not produce concrete results that can be easly replicated.

Scientists are always skeptical of unreplicable results.

This is an era of change, which will mean more science, not less. Increasing specialization will result in a larger information divide between scientific communities and the public at large. Education will become more and more important.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
chunkdz: Wouldn't it be right to put the brakes on a bit and reevaluate the research now that we know that CRU is lying?

Quote-mines don't constitute enough evidence to support your accusation. The strong consensus of the climatology community is that humans are changing the climate. Scientific conclusions usually take some time to evaluate, quite unlike political judgments.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Zachriel: Exponential growth always brings about change.

fifth monarchy man: The problem is this is a philosophical not a scientific statement and as they say “it’s vacuous” . I could just as easily say.

No, it's not philosophical. Nor is it vacuous. It is, however, general.

fifth monarchy man: The question is what kind of change that is what these scientists were charged with finding out.

Exponential growth, given finite resources, can't continue forever. Something has to give.

Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Zach: The quote-mines may only have significance within the political context.

Lol! Thanks for linking me to a blog run by AGW proponents, including Michael Mann from CRU. Is the political context with which you choose to view the emails, Zach? Lol!

Zach: There's nothing unexpected in the quote-mined emails, but time will tell.

Nothing unexpected for you. But scientists should be horrified.

Comment by chunkdz — November 25, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Zachriel:

The physics shows warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases. The old ways will change whether you want them to or not.

What is lacking is sound science backing up proposed solutions. Giving authorities a blank check to legislate the way they see fit is an invitation to tyranny.

Those nations that develop green technology will export to those nations that don't.

That could be said about any technology.

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
chunkdz: Thanks for linking me to a blog run by AGW proponents, including Michael Mann from CRU.

Most would read the explanation before making accusations.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Zach: The strong consensus of the climatology community is that humans are changing the climate.

Consensus is not a scientific argument. And a consensus that is bolstered by suppression of opposing viewpoints is not a valid consensus.

Comment by chunkdz — November 25, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Zachriel: The physics shows warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases. The old ways will change whether you want them to or not.

Bradford: What is lacking is sound science backing up proposed solutions.

What is proposed is a market solution that puts the onus on those creating the pollution. The solutions would then be market-driven (at least in part).

Zachriel: Those nations that develop green technology will export to those nations that don't.

Bradford: That could be said about any technology.

Of course. But some technologies are fundamental; in this case, technology that can take years to create, and infrastructure that will entail a large portion of the world's GDP. Just as environmental controls were a key to long-term growth and stability, green energy will be the next phase.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Zach: Most would read the explanation before making accusations.

Read it, found it rather unthorough. And given that Mann refused for years to share his code so that his model could be replicated he loses some points in credibility.

Comment by chunkdz — November 25, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
chunkdz: Consensus is not a scientific argument.

It wasn't a scientific argument.

The Earth receives energy from the Sun, and reemits that energy at lower frequencies. This energy exchange needs to be in balance, or the Earth's temperature rises until it reaches a new equilibrium. Greenhouse gases block certain frequencies, which then causes the Earth to warm. There are various forcings, that have to be considered for a reasonable model. It only takes a few degrees change to disrupt agriculture, cause droughts, melt glaciers, destroy forests, spread disease, and raise sea levels.

This is very typical of human behavior. The Dust Bowl. Easter Island. Salinization of Paradise. Decimation of forests and fisheries. Don't worry, though. Climate change won't end life on Earth. It won't even end human life. It will just make billions suffer.

Comment by Zachriel — November 25, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
It wasn't a scientific argument.

That's what I just said.

Climate change won't end life on Earth. It won't even end human life. It will just make billions suffer.

Maybe, maybe not.

Comment by chunkdz — November 25, 2009 @ 11:01 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
It depends on what you mean by "Big Science," but the future will include incredibly complex scientific and technological projects, requiring cooperation at all levels of science, government and society

.

The sad thing is that from now on this sort of science will be suspect. That is unless some way is found to make the process more transparent and verifiable for the average Joe.

Climate-gate has conclusively demonstrated that the way science is done today is not sustainable. It is too easy to cook the books and shield yourself from scrutiny

Exponential growth, given finite resources, can't continue forever. Something has to give. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798.

Most of the time what happens is good old fashioned capitalist innovation. The resources that Malthus were worried about were things like coal, timber and corn. there is still no danger of runing out of those things.

Now days people and the environment are doing much better than they were doing in eighteenth century Europe despite exponential growth.

I’m not saying that this will happen in the case of Global warming it would be nice if we had some honest scientists looking into it. I guess that is too much to ask

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2009 @ 11:13 pm

dantedanti Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
all,

I don't claim to understand the whole climate change stuff. I've tried to read about it a bit, and it seems a bit complicated, so I'm not going to even try to pretend to understand it, but I'm going to make a few comments from my generation and demographic:

I dont think each side really realizes how shrill and dogmatically insane they sound. for most of you, that means you seem unwilling to even consider that our dumping our insane amount of waste everywhere could even possibly maybe even for a second have some sort of negative or harmful effects.

Now, I approach this in terms of my own life, and yes bradford, I am unemployed right now. frankly, though I have two cars, I greatly prefer to ride my good ol' schwinn everywhere. I find it horrible that the far majority of my city is totally unwalkable and totally unbikeable due to the dominance of the auto and how we've set up our cities in relation.

Where's the money trail there? Did schwinn brainwash me into thinking biking is better than driving? forget the pollution issue; wouldn't it be far far better for us if we set up our cities to not need autos except in certain very special situations?

Comment by dantedanti — November 25, 2009 @ 11:20 pm

Bradford Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Zachriel: What is proposed is a market solution that puts the onus on those creating the pollution.

That's all of us. If you purchase a manufactured item you are a contributor. If you use electricity at home you are a contributor. If you drive you are a contributor. If you breathe you are a contributor. This is the vague, blank check mentality that must be guarded against.

Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2009 @ 11:24 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Zach: Are you claiming that the one lab is doing the only research on climate change? That no one else has developed independent data or models?

Oh yeah, New Zealand has been doing some *ahem* research.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

If these dominoes continue to fall it will be good for science. But it will take a relentless, brutal smackdown from the scientific community at large.

Comment by chunkdz — November 25, 2009 @ 11:48 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
forget the pollution issue; wouldn't it be far far better for us if we set up our cities to not need autos except in certain very special situations?

Cities are set up this way.
You don't need an auto you want an auto.
You could do just fine with out one if you were to adjust your standard of living to the level of the average Somali tribesman.

If you want to have the lifestyle and freedom of an American but the carbon foot print of a Somali tribesman you will need to do some innovating. It’s that simple.

Experience has repeatedly shown that innovating is best done by free men in a capitalist system. It would be nice if we could legislate innovation but all legislation does is decrease freedom.

Maybe having a smaller carbon foot print is worth a loss of freedom and prosperity. However in order to make such a decision we need unbiased objective scientific information as to the effects of CO2.

To bad that is too much to ask these days.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 25, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

Bradford Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 12:22 am
dantedanti:

I dont think each side really realizes how shrill and dogmatically insane they sound. for most of you, that means you seem unwilling to even consider that our dumping our insane amount of waste everywhere could even possibly maybe even for a second have some sort of negative or harmful effects.

That's been considered of course. The issue for me is not the case for global warming. I'll stipulate that there is a case for it although recent news clearly indicates there are fanatics on the GW side who are willing to resort to shady behavior to advance their political cause. Why call it political? Because the science is lacking for the most important aspect of the discussion- support for specific legislative and treaty considerations detailing, in concrete terms, the expected results in language that is scientifically meaningful.

What Climate Gate shows is a lack of confidence on the part of GW advocates. Some are so afraid that a change in temperature patterns will sabotage their political proposals that they will stoop to altering data or pretend that those willing to do so are not doing anything noteworthy.

I don't need someone to tell me that pollution is harmful. We don't need to be told that humans can contribute to CO2 emissions. What we need is a treaty binding and enforceable on all nations which predicts what the bill will accomplish (CO2 will be cut by x%). The treaty needs a sunset provision because predictions can be falsified and adjustments are needed when this occurs. Then the projected benefits must be weighed against realistic assessments of cost. We do not have this now. If Copenhagen does not produce this kind of treaty it is a waste.

Comment by Bradford — November 26, 2009 @ 12:22 am

Bradford Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 12:38 am
fmm:

Maybe having a smaller carbon foot print is worth a loss of freedom and prosperity. However in order to make such a decision we need unbiased objective scientific information as to the effects of CO2.

We also need objective scientific information related to proposed remedies. This is where the public could get bamboozled. All the "science" is focused on the problem. And the solutions? Where is the specific predictive data attached to specifiable treaty provisions?

Comment by Bradford — November 26, 2009 @ 12:38 am

chunkdz Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 1:51 am
dantedante: I dont think each side really realizes how shrill and dogmatically insane they sound. for most of you, that means you seem unwilling to even consider that our dumping our insane amount of waste everywhere could even possibly maybe even for a second have some sort of negative or harmful effects.

Who here is unwilling to consider the harmful effects of waste dumping?

I think the issue here, dantedante, is that we would like very much to consider the harmful effects of carbon emissions, but the British group has tried to thwart FOIA requests for scientific data and colluded to silence opposing research, New Zealand has outright manufactured climate data with no explanation yet offered, and the U.S. government is silencing opposing opinions within the EPA.

It seems to me that the skeptics are the ones asking for the real data and getting stonewalled.

The integrity of science is at stake here. If scientists don't take a firm stand on this issue then science will suffer severely in credibility.

Comment by chunkdz — November 26, 2009 @ 1:51 am

Mung Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 2:09 am
If scientists don't take a firm stand on this issue then science will suffer severely in credibility.

Kenneth R. Miiller, save us!

Comment by Mung — November 26, 2009 @ 2:09 am

Jupiter Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 2:29 am
There appears to be a rough correlation between intelligent design conviction and global warming denialism. That alone is exceptionally interesting.

What is the reason for it? Is it because the two topics have similar features, or their proponents share similar psychological traits, or a combination thereof? Or is there some other factor at work?

Comment by Jupiter — November 26, 2009 @ 2:29 am

ID guy Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Jupiter,

The evidence for AGW just doesn't exist.

Sure humans pollute and by all means we should stop that.

No one knows how much CO2 is supposed to be in the atmosphere.

No one knows how much CO2 is too much- meaning the threshold it causes the climate to change.

There is evidence the CO2 content was much higher than it is today- that is back before we were around.

Also I was under the impression that plants require atmospheric CO2.

The planet needs greenhouse gasses- without them we wouldn't live very long.

So I would say the correlation is bad science- that is bad science says AGW and bad science says Common Descent via blind and unguided, non-goal oriented processes.

Comment by ID guy — November 26, 2009 @ 8:54 am

computerist Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:10 am
There appears to be a rough correlation between intelligent design conviction and global warming denialism. That alone is exceptionally interesting.

A contingency plan would be expected if planet Earth was designed for subsequent life. Under the ID premise Earth would be highly resistant or highly tolerant to any significant change to its natural environmental pattern. A designer would have known intelligent life would be, thus intelligent systems would be, including the combustion engine and its "devastating" co2 counterpart. Under the ID premise better predictions we can make. Ready are you for global warming? Hehehe…

Comment by computerist — November 26, 2009 @ 9:10 am

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:28 am
fifth monarchy man: The sad thing is that from now on this sort of science will be suspect.

You seem to think this is a new phenomena.

fifth monarchy man: That is unless some way is found to make the process more transparent and verifiable for the average Joe.

The scientific process is verifiable. If an experiment includes a finding by another scientist, it will usually uncover any discrepancy.

The average Joe has neither the time nor inclination to verify the facts. But any Joe who takes the time can independently verify the facts. But ignorantly waving of the hands is not an argument.

fifth monarchy man: Climate-gate has conclusively demonstrated that the way science is done today is not sustainable.

It is not conclusively demonstrated. But even if there is outright fraud, it's nothing new to human endeavor. Results are replicated by many other scientists, by many other methodologies.

fifth monarchy man: Most of the time what happens is good old fashioned capitalist innovation.

Well, technological innovation regardless of a particular economic system. Keep in mind that we're talking about a common resource. Capitalism can't solve the problem of water rights, for instance. That has traditionally meant regulation or war. Otherwise, any powerful upstream interest would simply take all the water and replace it with raw sewage.

fifth monarchy man: Now days people and the environment are doing much better than they were doing in eighteenth century Europe despite exponential growth.

Yes, because the old ways were abandoned and replaced with better ways, something that is nearly always resisted. The arguments and the caricatures are the same as during the environmental movement. Exponential increases in population and industrial pollution were projected to lead to a horrid environmental catastrophe. But people demanded change, and government regulation followed by technological innovation meant that the dire warnings never came to fruition. Meanwhile, China is choking on its own success and destroying their children's future in the interest of short-term growth. But they'll change. Whenever there is exponential growth, something has to give.

(By the way, the potential for exponential growth is the pressure that results in biological evolution.)

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 9:28 am

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Zachriel: What is proposed is a market solution that puts the onus on those creating the pollution.

Bradford: That's all of us.

Jovians use infinite-wave information generators.

Bradford: If you purchase a manufactured item you are a contributor. If you use electricity at home you are a contributor. If you drive you are a contributor.

Yes! Now you've got it! But you're not paying for your cleanup.

Bradford: This is the vague, blank check mentality that must be guarded against.

Of course. It's reasonable to balance cost and benefit. It's not reasonable to ignore the problem.

Bradford: If you breathe you are a contributor.

Breathing is carbon neutral. So is sighing.

Sigh.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 9:40 am

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:47 am
chunkdz: Oh yeah, New Zealand has been doing some *ahem* research.

The problem is that you are unwilling view your sources with skepticism, but immediately assume what you are predisposed to believe.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 9:47 am

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
fifth monarchy man: Cities are set up this way.

Many European cities are. Many American cities, especially the suburbs, are not.

fifth monarchy man: Experience has repeatedly shown that innovating is best done by free men in a capitalist system. It would be nice if we could legislate innovation but all legislation does is decrease freedom.

Sorry, that is not correct. A mixed systems has been shown repeatedly to be the best. Everything from Columbus to the development of rockets and computers to environmental protection were spurred by government programs.

fifth monarchy man: Maybe having a smaller carbon foot print is worth a loss of freedom and prosperity.

That's not the tradeoff required. Just look at a suburb. Going to get a gallon of milk is a huge expense in terms of fuel and materials. You have to take several thousand pounds of steel with you! Other cities have shops and homes within walking distance.

Green technology, especially green energy, is required to preserve and extend the modern standard of living. India, China and Indonesia are coming on line. The amount of resources required will be phenomenal, even with new technologies.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 9:56 am

ID guy Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Zachriel:
The problem is that you are unwilling view your sources with skepticism, but immediately assume what you are predisposed to believe.

It looks like the projector is working just fine.

Zachriel should practice what he preaches…

Comment by ID guy — November 26, 2009 @ 10:22 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Many European cities are. Many American cities, especially the suburbs, are not.

Sure they are you just need to adjust your economic expectations. Make do with beans and rice over an open fire instead of crab legs at the red lobster.

Everything from Columbus to the development of rockets and computers to environmental protection were spurred by government programs.

Discovery and development are not innovation.

Just look at a suburb. Going to get a gallon of milk is a huge expense in terms of fuel and materials. You have to take several thousand pounds of steel with you!

Get a goat or better yet do with out milk or drink powdered. It is what the African tribesmen would do.

Green technology, especially green energy, is required to preserve and extend the modern standard of living

.

We agree but these technologies will come for the most part from backyard innovators not government legislators. For example check this out.

No government grant or carbon tax just a guy with an dream

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 26, 2009 @ 10:32 am

Bradford Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Bradford: If you purchase a manufactured item you are a contributor. If you use electricity at home you are a contributor. If you drive you are a contributor.

Zachriel: Yes! Now you've got it! But you're not paying for your cleanup.

Yes and if we are all responsible for man made emissions then we all want plausible figures on the cost.

Bradford: This is the vague, blank check mentality that must be guarded against.

Of course. It's reasonable to balance cost and benefit. It's not reasonable to ignore the problem.

Far from ignoring the problem I've brought up crucial factors which have gone ignored up to this point. Knowing exactly what a treaty is intended to do in terms of putting predictive, falsifiable figures to carbon reduction results and sunsetting treaties based on the need for adjustments is common sense.

Comment by Bradford — November 26, 2009 @ 10:46 am

Bradford Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Why don't we see specific proposals from global warming advocates? Why don't we see numbers attached to them like for example, this treaty if put into effect is predicted to reduce atmospheric CO2 by x. Cutting emissions claims do not cut it. Science is in the details.

Comment by Bradford — November 26, 2009 @ 10:51 am

Bradford Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Jupiter: There appears to be a rough correlation between intelligent design conviction and global warming denialism.

Your statement is false but what is really interesting is the need to cover up or ignore scandals on the part of ID critics. If ID critics are pro-science then why don't they come out and demand an investigation into the most anti-science incident of the last century- the alleged fudging of scientific data.

Comment by Bradford — November 26, 2009 @ 10:56 am

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Zachriel: Many European cities are. Many American cities, especially the suburbs, are not… Going to get a gallon of milk is a huge expense in terms of fuel and materials. You have to take several thousand pounds of steel with you! Other cities have shops and homes within walking distance… India, China and Indonesia are coming on line. The amount of resources required will be phenomenal, even with new technologies.

fifth monarchy man: Sure they are you just need to adjust your economic expectations. Make do with beans and rice over an open fire instead of crab legs at the red lobster.

I note you ignored the argument. Much of the world still lives on beans and rice, but this situation is changing rapidly and the resources required will be vast. Or do you think only you should be entitled to lobster?

fifth monarchy man: Discovery and development are not innovation.

Again, you ignored the point. The development of space travel and computers, along with many other innovations, were spurred by government working with industry.

fifth monarchy man: Get a goat or better yet do with out milk or drink powdered. It is what the African tribesmen would do.

No doubt they'll sing in tune after the revolution. — Viktor Komarovsky

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 11:06 am

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Bradford: Yes and if we are all responsible for man made emissions then we all want plausible figures on the cost.

Unfortunately, a revamping of the energy system is not a single act with a single solution and a single cost. It will be global, and it will occur incrementally. The cost will be spread over generations.

The current proposed U.S. program is projected by EPA to cost a net of ~$100 per year per household, with significant reductions in CO2 emissions. Long term, of course, will be the incentive for industry to develop new technologies, with incalculable value.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 11:21 am

JJS P.Eng. Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am
My comments on this list of CRU observations by James Delingpole @ HumanEvents (HT: Michael Egnor)

1. Manipulation of evidence. In one email, the CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones apparently confesses to having played with data – most unscientifically – in order to achieve his desired end. "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." (Professor Jones has defended himself, somewhat disingenuously you might think, by saying that "trick" – in the world of science – has no negative connotations).

Fudge factors are great in the kitchen and for adjusting equations/models, but very bad for manipulating data (engineers are well-versed in fudge factors as we use quite a few empirical equations along with theoretical). It should be the models and equations that need to be manipulated to fit the data, not the other way around.

2. Concealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up. One scientist expresses his frustration that the global temperatures are not behaving as he feels they ought to behave: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." [emphasis mine]

I can feel for these guys who invested a lot of time, money and effort into developing these models only to have reality show they are wrong. That said, there is a right way to react to this situation and a wrong way. Ladies and gentlemen, CRU gives a great demonstration of the wrong way.

3. Destruction of evidence (following a Freedom of Information request – almost certainly an illegal activity): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

Sharing information does not come easy to anyone in the academic community. Emails and data are seen as personal information not to be disemminated to just anyone.

An aside: why do people use the company network to send personal emails? It usually tends to bite them in the @ss. (BTW: I'm no better )

4. Fantasizing violence against prominent climate sceptic scientists: "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.'

5. Gloating over news of the death of a prominent climate-change skeptic, Australian John L Daly, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site: “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

I realise that people usually talk a better game than they actually play, but I would like to offer this piece of advice to all trash-talking academics out there:

YOU'RE FRICKING NERDS!!!!!* Either act like it or be prepared to swallow your teeth 'cause there's always someone bigger out there who is not afraid to demonstrate it, and being nerds you should realise a lot more people are bigger than you. So zip the trash talk and stick to the facts!

(*This coming from an engineer/dork)

6. Attempting to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (ie the period from about 900 to about 1200 when global mean temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now): "……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."

See my comments for #1.

7. And, perhaps, most damningly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority: “I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

Being a libertarian, I don't consider this the "most damning" of all the emails. These scientists are free to submit their papers to whichever journal they wish. It just hurts them optically in the end if they "boycott" a specific journal just because a dissenting paper was published.

This really underlines a grand weakness in society today: the inability to take criticism and/or be offended. Those who ignore advice and think that they have a right to not be offended are a bunch of pencil-necked, hen-pecked, immature sissies. (Now that's trash-talking! )

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 26, 2009 @ 11:34 am

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
fifth monarchy man: Most of the time what happens is good old fashioned capitalist innovation.

Zachriel: Capitalism can't solve the problem of water rights, for instance. That has traditionally meant regulation or war. Otherwise, any powerful upstream interest would simply take all the water and replace it with raw sewage.

I note you also ignored the argument about the commons. When a resource is shared, then people have an incentive to take advantage before others do, before the resource is depleted or ruined. That's why the the world's fisheries are severely depleted, why rain forests are rapidly disappearing, and why good capitalists used to cart away slaves from Africa. Industries used to dump their waste into the atmosphere leaving the problem for others. The problems they created were someone else's problem. The cost was shifted downstream.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 11:35 am

ID guy Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Zachriel:
The current proposed U.S. program is projected by EPA to cost a net of ~$100 per year per household, with significant reductions in CO2 emissions.

Except we don't need to reduce CO2 emissions, only the soot.

Comment by ID guy — November 26, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

Bradford Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Zachriel: The current proposed U.S. program is projected by EPA to cost a net of ~$100 per year per household, with significant reductions in CO2 emissions.

If that's a Cap and Trade estimate on cost then it is very dubious. Besides that it is unilateral.

Significant reductions is a campaign phrase. Numbers and sunset provisions based on falsifiability are needed.

Comment by Bradford — November 26, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I note you also ignored the argument about the commons.

The answer to this problem is information and full discloser not a new tax.

If folks agree that CO2 is bad and if everyone knows that you are producing more than your fair share you will decrease your output with out giving up your freedom.

But for this to work most of us have to agree that it is bad for that you. For that we need objective scientific information. Too bad that is too much to ask these days.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 26, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Or do you think only you should be entitled to lobster?

So this is really about the socialist dream of equall outcomes afterall. I thought so.

I'm sorry that some folks live on beans and rice but it's not my fault and forceing everyone to live that way is not the answer.

Inovation is. That's how it has always worked.

Or you think you are the one entitled to decide who gets the lobster?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 26, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

Bradford Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
JJS:

I realise that people usually talk a better game than they actually play, but I would like to offer this piece of advice to all trash-talking academics out there:

YOU'RE FRICKING NERDS!!!!!* Either act like it or be prepared to swallow your teeth 'cause there's always someone bigger out there who is not afraid to demonstrate it, and being nerds you should realise a lot more people are bigger than you. So zip the trash talk and stick to the facts!

Don't be so hard on the swamp creatures.

Comment by Bradford — November 26, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Zach: Or do you think only you should be entitled to lobster?

Actually, today I'm having deep fried hot wings, bacon wrapped shrimp, deep fried turkey, honey baked ham, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, organic cranberry sauce, corn, lima beans, and pumpkin and apple pie.

And I'm not entitled to any of it. Just thankful!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Comment by chunkdz — November 26, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

dantedanti Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
why can I walk to the store in nyc but not in tampa, fl? seriously, you literally cannot walk to the store in tampa, fl (google us 19 and pinellas county). obviously, there are many factors at play, but overwhelmingly, the auto is the biggest and most influential. I suppose someone will find the money trial for me wanting to use my legs and for me thinking its healthier to do so.

since I have neither the time nor the skills to really assess climate change in relation to humans, is it bad that I have faith in the scientists who say its for real over yalls views? a few leaked, maybe out of context emails really don't convince me that there's some grand conspiracy going on.

inb4 liberal… i really just need, yes need for my health, to ride my bike and want to be able to take good mass transit instead of the "socialist" interstate

Comment by dantedanti — November 26, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
why can I walk to the store in nyc but not in tampa, fl? seriously, you literally cannot walk to the store in tampa, fl

Because free people made choices. It is as simple as that.

Even now you can choose to move to a place where the store is closer or you can choose to open a store down the block but you will have to give up other things. Things you might like to keep.

What you can't do (morally) is take away other folk's freedoms just so you get what you wan't with out having to make these trade offs.

a few leaked, maybe out of context emails really don't convince me that there's some grand conspiracy going on

Who said they should? All the emails do is show that the folks charged with finding out if Co2 is bad are cooking the books and sheilding themselves from scrunity.

That's all but that is a lot IMHO.
peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 26, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Bradford: Don't be so hard on the swamp creatures.

A little over-the-top, eh? Ah well. I guess I let these pencil-necked gangsta wannabes get to me. Maybe I need a stress ball or punching bag. Any suggestions?

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 26, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

dantedanti Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Because free people made choices. It is as simple as that.

are you familiar with the history of the auto industry in the states, including the criminal convinctions?

how many cities are walkable to even 40% in the states?

wouldn't it be better health-wise for our country if we promoted urban planning that centered around walkable communities?

keep calling freedom the choice between a ford and a toyota, i prefer the real choice of car, bike, walk, rail.

listen, i like most of you guys, its why i hang around here, brandford and mike gene have given me much to think about, amongst a few, BUT given that i dont understand and dont have the time to understand the climate situation, why should i trust yall instead of what appears to be a consensus in the scientific community that we are dumping is effecting things?

and again, im not buying that the emails indicate a conspiracy in the scientific community, and perhaps that they were taken out of context. im open on this issue but am reserved that what those emails say are as clear cut as everyone is making them out to be: for example the peer review situation seems to be common… professionals telling each other to avoid quack journals.

Comment by dantedanti — November 26, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

dantedanti Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
post problems for some reason

Comment by dantedanti — November 26, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
fifth monarchy man: If folks agree that CO2 is bad and if everyone knows that you are producing more than your fair share you will decrease your output with out giving up your freedom.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Some people just pretend it isn't a problem. If it's profitable, and they feel a pang of guilt, they just hire people to tell them what a great job they're doing.

fifth monarchy man: So this is really about the socialist dream of equall outcomes afterall. I thought so.

That is precisely contrary to my position.

fifth monarchy man: I'm sorry that some folks live on beans and rice but it's not my fault and forceing everyone to live that way is not the answer.

That is precisely contrary to my position. (But overharvesting of resources does put some responsibility on you.)

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

computerist Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
So howz about that polar bear population?

Comment by computerist — November 26, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Bradford: If that's a Cap and Trade estimate on cost then it is very dubious.

Waving your hands doesn't constitute an argument.

Bradford: Besides that it is unilateral.

Most developed nations are implementing similar systems. The developing world argues that it should be able to emit as much per capita pollution as the developed nations did on their way to prosperity. It will take leadership and technological innovation.

Bradford: Significant reductions is a campaign phrase. Numbers and sunset provisions based on falsifiability are needed.

The EPA report had links to relevant studies. However, the proposed U.S. legislation will reduce carbon emissions by 6% to 10% over the next decade. A global reduction of 50% will be required over the next half century to limit warming to 2° C, considered a critical threshold by climatologists.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Hey dantedanti

are you familiar with the history of the auto industry in the states, including the criminal convinctions?

So you are saying that the evil folks in Detroit conspired to make it so you can’t walk to the store? that is some conspiricy you got there

wouldn't it be better health-wise for our country if we promoted urban planning that centered around walkable communities?

No it would be better if we lived in a country where folks could decide to live in communities with the features that seemed best to them.

i prefer the real choice of car, bike, walk, rail.

Absolutely no one is denying you this choice.

but understand that choices have consequences and don’t expect the rest of us to pay for your preference with our freedom.

why should i trust yall instead of what appears to be a consensus in the scientific community that we are dumping is effecting things?

I don’t know how Co2 is effecting things but apparently the folks who were charged with finding out were dishonest.

You can’t have true consensus based on data that has been cherry picked and conclusions that have been shielded from review.

for example the peer review situation seems to be common… professionals telling each other to avoid quack journals.

That is not what happened. What happened was folks were making sure they reviewed each others findings and making sure that no contrary findings were published anywhere.

zach:

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Some people just pretend it isn't a problem. If it's profitable, and they feel a pang of guilt, they just hire people to tell them what a great job they're doing.

Funny how you discount the findings of science when it conflicts with your preconceived ideas.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 26, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
fifth monarchy man: Because free people made choices. It is as simple as that.

The building of the U.S. highway system was the largest public works project in history, a conscious decision by the federal government, as exemplified by Eisenhower's National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. The U.S. highway system certainly had benefits, but there were long range consequences that the political system was unable or simply unwilling to address. The current U.S. transportation system relies upon military force and political pressure to maintain a cheap supply of oil. Hardly a free market.

fifth monarchy man: but understand that choices have consequences and don’t expect the rest of us to pay for your preference with our freedom.

You shouldn't expect others to clean up your mess either.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

ID guy Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Zachriel:
A global reduction of 50% will be required over the next half century to limit warming to 2° C, considered a critical threshold by climatologists.

Based on what?

IOW what data makes that correlation?

We have ice-core data that shows the CO2 in the atmosphere was once 5 times higher than it was today- but there was still enough ice around to capture that data.

And what is the data that shows a slightly warmer Earth is a bad thing?

Comment by ID guy — November 26, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

dantedanti Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
alright, fifth monarchy man, Im going to try to answer each of your comments…

first the "conspiracy" of the auto industry to control how cities were designed is no secret, and criminal preceedings even resulted in guilty verdicts. the history is there to check out and can be interesting. our cities in our country were more a product of big company interests and not of freedom.

i think it odd that you think me asking for walk, bike, car, rail, which doesn't exist in about any way shape or form in my entire state due to the effects of big company shaping the city, is at odds with your "freedom": the choice between a ford or toyota. (I may have read you wrong here, but I'm not sure), I don't think taxes violate our freedom though, and I'm for paying higher taxes myself.

are you suggesting that its more healthy for people to be free to choose between a ford or a toyota but not between walk, rail, bike, car? you're choices have obviously (to me) been limited by big company interests, and yet you are toting this as some sort of odd, healthy freedom. I fail to understand. really.

the use of "cherry-picked" is rather interesting, given that all I've seen is a few cherry-picked emails to indicate a big secret amongst the scientific community. care to comment about this?

for the peer-review, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems common that scholars will boycott journals they feel are misrepresenting science… I mean can we around here say that we plan on buying any more of Dawkin's books? I don't, because he's fallen into science-abuse. I think it's typical that scholars do this sort of thing, and don't see any big deal about it.

and if any of you were interested, the interestate is still paid for primarily by federal dollars, and was set up under federal money. guess socialism is great when it satifies the interests the big companies gave us (forgive me of falling into these half-silly socialist vs capitalist ways of talking, I really don't prefer talking about it on those terms)

Comment by dantedanti — November 26, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
first the "conspiracy" of the auto industry to control how cities were designed

What does that have to do with whether you can walk to a store or not? If you don’t like where you live move. If you don’t want to move build a store. This is America after all

I think it odd that you think me asking for walk, bike, car, rail, which doesn't exist in about any way shape or form in my entire state due to the effects of big company shaping the city.

I’ve been to Florida and it’s not illegal to do those things there. If you make the choice to do so it will involve trade offs but so does every choice.

the choice between a ford or toyota. (I may have read you wrong here, but I'm not sure), I don't think taxes violate our freedom though, and I'm for paying higher taxes myself.

No you are misunderstanding me,

Your telling me what I can and can not do with my property is what interferes with my freedom. Decreasing my income with taxes decreases the things I have the freedom to do.

you're choices have obviously (to me) been limited by big company interests, and yet you are toting this as some sort of odd, healthy freedom. I fail to understand. really.

Our choices are limited in all sorts of ways. If you want to go after those who you believe stole your choices from you I’m all for it that is what the courts are for. Just don’t take the freedom of the rest of us while you are at it.

the use of "cherry-picked" is rather interesting, given that all I've seen is a few cherry-picked emails to indicate a big secret amongst the scientific community. care to comment about this?

I spent some time looking at the raw emails myself and found several that seem to me to be more damaging that those that have been published so far.

They are available for all. have a look if you think you are not getting the whole story. I for one would appreciate any evidence that this is not a systemic issue.

for the peer-review, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems common that scholars will boycott journals they feel are misrepresenting science…

But that’s not all they did they got folks fired just for publishing papers that questioned the “consensus”.

if any of you were interested, the interestate is still paid for primarily by federal dollars, and was set up under federal money.

Just because mistakes were made in the past does not mean we should repeat them.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 26, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
hey dantedanti

Check this out as a representative sample of the things in the emails

Somebody named Francesco complains that the CO2 numbers they were using in a particular model were obviously and unrealistically high.

Quote:

I do not think we should carry out the national assessment by
> using "unrealistic" CO2 numbers. I thought the numbers that come out of our
> exercises (from the impact side of things) were supposed to serve as some
> basis to be used in the process of decision making at the national and
> regional level. Am i out of line here

?

End quote:

To which Dave Schimel replied;

Quote;

We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).

'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

End quote:

this was in the third email I looked at. Hardly cherry picking. there is more where that came from.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 26, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

ID guy Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
By George, I think I've got it!

1- Set out to fight pollution because pollution is bad

2- Define something that isn't a pollutant as a pollutant (CO2)

3- Mandate the curbing of CO2 emissions

4- Step 1 fulfilled

You may have heard "On the 7th day man created God"- now we have "after that man became a climate controller"

"Where is that confounded bridge…." LZ

Comment by ID guy — November 26, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

ID guy Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
And we may be "carbon neutral" but are we "methane neutral"?

I think not…

Comment by ID guy — November 26, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
China sets goal to reduce carbon emissions of 40-45% per unit of GDP by 2020.

Comment by Zachriel — November 26, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Zachriel: However, the proposed U.S. legislation will reduce carbon emissions by 6% to 10% over the next decade.

Then the law should sunset after ten years while evaluations are made comparing predictions to actual data.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2009 @ 12:25 am

Zachriel Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 8:35 am
fifth monarchy man:

We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and resources provide an upper bound).

It's not that hard to understand. The trajectory is partly the result of what humans do in the future to respond to the problem. The question is what range of human actions should be considered. Should they consider 'unrealistic' options, or only those options that are reasonably likely. For instance, the researchers could consider the case where CO2 emissions stop completely next year, but that may arguably not be of value to policy makers.

In fact, zero-emissions can give a baseline to help determine whether anything people do can stave off ecological disaster. So Dave counsels that it is not their job to determine what is realistic. And by the way, what is realistic is also a complex question, so even if it were part of the calculations, it would have to be put complex analysis—economic, political, industrial, technological—, far beyond the purview of climatologists.

From these emails, it is clear they are attempting to provide the best possible data for policy makers.

Comment by Zachriel — November 27, 2009 @ 8:35 am

ID guy Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am
A scientist (geologist) talks about CO2 and global warming:

AGW-religion- never discuss the science

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4

Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4

Enjoy!

Comment by ID guy — November 27, 2009 @ 10:15 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am
The trajectory is partly the result of what humans do in the future to respond to the problem. The question is what range of human actions should be considered.

I agree, but you are missing the point. The issue in this email is why do they choose to use numbers that are unrealistically high instead of numbers that are closer to what is actually forecasted?

Then there is the telling admission that

we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

If we don’t have confidence in projections how are pledges to reduce CO2 meaningful and if we don’t have confidence in consequences why are we acting as if we do?

Remember this is just a random email pulled from the stack but to me it shows that the science is not as settled as we’ve been led to believe.

there is lots more where that came from.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 27, 2009 @ 11:16 am

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
From these emails, it is clear they are attempting to provide the best possible data for policy makers.

I'm sure policy makers appreciated their fanatical devotion to the cause.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Zachriel: From these emails, it is clear they are attempting to provide the best possible data for policy makers.

Exactly. Provide data for policy makers, and withhold data from anyone they deem "unpredictable".

That's not science.

In fact, it's an assault on science.

Comment by chunkdz — November 27, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

todd Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
As more and more of the fraud perpetuated by the 'scientists' at CRU is becoming evident, it has become clear who the 'denialists' of 'inconvenient truths' actually are! Paging Chris Mooney.

Comment by todd — November 27, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
fifth monarchy man: The issue in this email is why do they choose to use numbers that are unrealistically high instead of numbers that are closer to what is actually forecasted?

We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.

What it seems to say is that each scenario is run under certain presuppositions that should be consistent throughout the scenario.

Comment by Zachriel — November 27, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

computerist Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Its funny because up till this point I thought global warming science had at least some hard data to backup their claims vs. Darwinian Evolution science which has no hard data to backup their claims. I guess both were on the same track after all.

Comment by computerist — November 27, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

Jupiter Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Jupiter: There appears to be a rough correlation between intelligent design conviction and global warming denialism.

Bradford: Your statement is false…

Oh? I base my observation on the positions shown here, at Uncommon Descent, at the Discovery Institute website, and at other sites found in a first-pass googling. One ID supporter here agrees with me.

What supports your counter-claim?

Comment by Jupiter — November 27, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Jupiter: There appears to be a rough correlation between intelligent design conviction and global warming denialism.

Bradford: Your statement is false…

Jupiter: Oh? I base my observation on the positions shown here, at Uncommon Descent, at the Discovery Institute website, and at other sites found in a first-pass googling. One ID supporter here agrees with me.

Nice sample size you're working with, Jupiter. You must be employed by CRU or Michael Mann.

In any case, you're supposed correlation is irrelevant and a blatant attempt at trivialising AGW critics.

BTW, after this so-called ClimateGate, I no longer accept the term "global warming denier"; I am now a "global warming realist".

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 27, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
BTW, after this so-called ClimateGate, I no longer accept the term "global warming denier"; I am now a "global warming realist".

I like that JJS. I'll use the same unless you invoke copyrite privilages.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
What it seems to say is that each scenario is run under certain presuppositions that should be consistent throughout the scenario.

I agree the question is why choose to run a scenario that yields obviously unrealistically high CO2 numbers especially after you have been called on it. I can think of no reason except to enhance the assumed consequences

I’m not saying this one random email is enough to declare these folks dishonest. What I am saying is it puts the lie to the accusation that critics have cherry picked the emails out of context to make them appear worse than they are. You need to keep in mind this was just the third email I looked at.

There are hundreds I invite you to look for yourself. You will find that a good portion are devoted to discussions of how to silence the critics for example.

The actual code is now becoming available as well. From what I hear it is even more damming because it shows that the “trick” of hiding the unreliability of the tree ring data is used in all the scenarios.

I for one tend to believe in human caused climate change. I just don't like being lied to .

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 27, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

Mung Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I for one tend to believe in human caused climate change. I just don't like being lied to .

But it's for your own good!

Theistic evolutionist Kenneth R. Miller, in his book Only a Theory, admits to lying to his child, supposedly for "a greater good," though it's not exactly clear if that was the rationalization.

I guess that makes it easy to lie about ID, since "the scientific soul of America" is at stake.

Comment by Mung — November 27, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
fmm: I for one tend to believe in human caused climate change. I just don't like being lied to.

Mung: But it's for your own good!

Theistic evolutionist Kenneth R. Miller, in his book Only a Theory, admits to lying to his child, supposedly for "a greater good," though it's not exactly clear if that was the rationalization.

I guess that makes it easy to lie about ID, since "the scientific soul of America" is at stake.

This is where moral relativism leads. A cause exists. A follower finds the cause, not simply important, but essential. Another short step and you've arrived at the place where the end justifies the means.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
fmm: I agree the question is why choose to run a scenario that yields obviously unrealistically high CO2 numbers especially after you have been called on it. I can think of no reason except to enhance the assumed consequences

Combine this with the fact that Mann ignored the medieval warming period which inconveniently does not correlate to a CO2 rise.

This is not how science is done. It is how propaganda is done.

Comment by chunkdz — November 27, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

chunkdz Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
FMM: I for one tend to believe in human caused climate change. I just don't like being lied to.

Yeah, Anthony Watts echoed this by saying that uncertainty about AGW is a much better reason for public policy action than doctored science is. I would agree.

Comment by chunkdz — November 27, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
fifth monarchy man: I agree the question is why choose to run a scenario that yields obviously unrealistically high CO2 numbers especially after you have been called on it.

Except that's not what the email states. What it says is that for a given scenario, the assumption should be consistent throughout the scenario. There's no way to judge the actual CO2 trajectory—that is a policy decision— so they provide what-ifs so that policy makers can understand the appropriate trade-offs. Different scenarios will show varying levels of emissions based on what policies are chosen.

In addition, Schimel stresses that any advice they give must allow for the uncertainty in the models.

Comment by Zachriel — November 27, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Zachriel:

There's no way to judge the actual CO2 trajectory…

Moreover there is no way to judge the global temperture trajectory. Global temperatures can and have risen during geologic eras without a corresponding rise in CO2.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Bradford: Moreover there is no way to judge the global temperture trajectory. Global temperatures can and have risen during geologic eras without a corresponding rise in CO2.

NOAA: One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years.

Comment by Zachriel — November 27, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
If there is one instance of an increase of temperature and simultaneous decline of CO2 the point is established that non-CO2 natural factors play an undetermined role on climate fluctuations.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

Zachriel Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Bradford: If there is one instance of an increase of temperature and simultaneous decline of CO2 the point is established that non-CO2 natural factors play an undetermined role on climate fluctuations.

Of course there are other factors involved; in particular, the relationship is expected to hold only if the Earth is in radiative balance. Look at the graph. It's certainly not a mere coincidence. It's also consistent with the physics of how the Earth traps and radiates heat. That's two independent measures supporting the same conclusion.

Comment by Zachriel — November 27, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

Bradford Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
From Zachriel's link:

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years.

CO2 concentrations varied before mankind's impact on history. The point about CO2 and temperature trajectories is their inherent uncertainty. Hence the need for statutory adjustments in response to environmental feedback- built into proposed laws.

Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

Bradford Says:
November 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Jupiter, empty trash talking is a non-starter at TT. If you wish to be a critic follow the example of Zachriel who introduces intelligible arguments and cites supporting facts with links.

Comment by Bradford — November 28, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

dantedanti Says:
November 29th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
sigh.

I plan on reading through some of the emails, but given that many science organizations have come forward stating that climategate doesn't put any final nail in any coffin and that it seems some people are seizing upon this event way way to eagerly, I'm not putting too much weight on it all.

Comment by dantedanti — November 29, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

Bradford Says:
November 29th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Dantedanti, just ponder what would have happened if Michael Behe had written similar emails to William Dembski suggesting data fudging to support ID. I suggest to you that those downplaying Climate Gate would be in an ecstatic frenzy.

The only coffin that might be nailed is the one I have suggested from the outset. Its name is integrity. Calling a scientist on impropriety ought not depend on your position on global warming or Cap and Trade legislation. But then again I'm not a moral relativist.

Comment by Bradford — November 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

dantedanti Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 2:07 am
Bradford,

You and I agree somewhat on this point you've mentioned…

but that scientists can sometimes act just like regular ol' folk sometimes, being petty, silly, and ignorant, comes as no shock to me and seems so trivially obvious

Sure, people like Dawkins will keep going on being ignorant hypocrites, having double standards and hissy fits, and all the while people will take it seriously as science.

but really, don't we grown ups in the room know that this sort of things happens once in awhile, and though it's a shame, it doesn't necessarily speak poorly about the scientific enterprise? I mean really, are you just upset because your buddies would get blasted way more in the same situation for rather obvious reasons?

Comment by dantedanti — December 1, 2009 @ 2:07 am

Bradford Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 6:06 am
dantedanti: but really, don't we grown ups in the room know that this sort of things happens once in awhile, and though it's a shame, it doesn't necessarily speak poorly about the scientific enterprise?

As others have already pointed out scientists are as likely as the rest of us to be knaves, fools…

I mean really, are you just upset because your buddies would get blasted way more in the same situation for rather obvious reasons?

What should trouble you and others is hostility to the inclusion of scientific methodology within legal statutes by posers who portray themselves as defenders of science while their real agenda is political. I understand the impulse to support policies which concentrate more and more power in the hands of a few elitists who then tell the rest of us what is good for us. After all I was once a leftist myself. I grew out of it. Some never do.

The belief that the earth will experience a warming trend, which will have disastrous consequences for the earth by the middle of this century unless countermeasures are taken, can be argued based on data. But it is a falsifiable prediction. Nature can falsify this. But to be fair perhaps GW advocates are right about doom and gloom. I and others are willing to err on the side of caution and support legal provisions intended to discourage CO2 output. But support is not unconditional. The very reasonable quid pro quo proposed was that legal measures include sunset provisions allowing us to periodically reassess data and reevaluate our laws accordingly. Why would any pro-science thinker oppose this unless he has a political agenda he does not wish to reveal for fear of exposing unscientific intent? If GW advocates have a political agenda then let them come forth with it so we can dispense with the scientific hypocrisy.

Comment by Bradford — December 1, 2009 @ 6:06 am

Daniel Smith Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
If CO2 raises global temperatures…
And if we're entering a period of global cooling…
Shouldn't we be mandating larger carbon footprints?

Comment by Daniel Smith — December 1, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Maybe this thread should've been called "Distinguishing Greed From Science"

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s [emphasis mine].

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely

(emphasis mine)

-from Climategate: Follow the Money @ WSJ

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 1, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.

…The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.

If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.

-Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at University of East Anglia, writing for WSJ

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 3, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

Distinguishing Dogma from Science

118 Responses to “Distinguishing Dogma from Science”

Featured Books