I hate reading this stuff. It reminds me of both how utterly fucked we are and of how ignorant people are of what their habits are doing to the environment.
Timo, what is your opinion regarding Steve's latest article? It's probably not much different than the opinion you stated in your earlier post, but I think it bears repeating since some people obviously didn't read it.
Is this supposedly lost data the only original data that has ever been collected for climate change research? Is it true that the loss of this data means that climate change is some sort of political hoax? Were these the only people in the world with original climate change data? Do scientists normally give out all of their original data to anyone who asks for it? Do they have absolutely no propriety interest in original data at all? What is so important about this particular set of data?
Never underestimate our ability to create technology to get us out of a jam. I hope we don't have that as an only option, but if we are headed for trouble, humans have a unique ability to come up with technological solutions. Look at food production. Who would have ever thought that we could feed 6 or 7 billion people? (poverty and distribution issues aside)
There is entirely too much shadiness going on in this global warming debate.
I would love to disbelieve global warming. In fact, for many years I was a big denier and tried to tell myself that the data was anomalous, that it could be explained by sunspots, volcanoes, etc., but I finally came to accept that climate change is a fact.
I've also come to accept that nothing will be done about it. There are too many vested interests that make too much money from burning fossil fuels and who would stand to lose too much if they had to change their business practices. Therefore, they've unleashed a PR campaign that blinds people like Steve to the truth so that they can continue to make their money while the climate is ruined.
I agree that climate change is a fact. However, I don't think that we understand all of the factors that go into climate change. I'm not suggesting that greenhouse emissions are irrelevant. I am fairly certain that they are a factor. The key is determining what all of the factors are, and how much greenhouse emissions play a role.
And I agree that nothing will be done about it. It's too bad, since it can't hurt to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if it turns out that fossil fuels have a minimal impact on global temperatures (and I believe that the impact is greater than minimal), I'd still love for us to be more efficient and be less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
And I agree that nothing will be done about it. It's too bad, since it can't hurt to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if it turns out that fossil fuels have a minimal impact on global temperatures (and I believe that the impact is greater than minimal), I'd still love for us to be more efficient and be less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
Also, there is the fact that they are a finite resource, and it would be beneficial to have made as many strides as we can towards lessening our dependency on Oil to stretch what is left, however much that is, and for when our supply of the stuff eventually runs out.
Why is the British Press the only ones taking this story seriously?
Why is the forum not more concerned over this perversion of science?
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. --snip-- There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
If science is not transparent and subject to proper peer review (not echo chamber peer review) it is not science. It becomes politics. AGW is looking more and more to be a product of politics and not science.
Read through some of the emails that were hacked/liberated (still don't know if it was an inside job or not). The 'scientists' discuss issues such as avoiding FOI requests, deleting data to avoid FOI requests and how to marginalize not only dissenting views but even how to marginalize respected peer review journals that publish dissenting views.
If the things you believed were based on lies it's OK to question them when the lies are exposed.
Timo, what is your opinion regarding Steve's latest article? It's probably not much different than the opinion you stated in your earlier post, but I think it bears repeating since some people obviously didn't read it.
Sigh.
Is this supposedly lost data the only original data that has ever been collected for climate change research?
Nope.
Is it true that the loss of this data means that climate change is some sort of political hoax?
Nope.
Were these the only people in the world with original climate change data?
Nope, they may be the people with to most comprehensive set for the last 150 years though, but I don't know about that.
Do scientists normally give out all of their original data to anyone who asks for it? Do they have absolutely no propriety interest in original data at all? What is so important about this particular set of data?
In general, scientific data is publicly available to everyone after the people who payed for the data have gotten (enough of) their articles published. This is an integral part of the scientific method and allows for third party verification and repetition of the experiment, the results and the research methods. E.g., I have a couple of colleagues who work on data from the Planck satellite, and they will get kicked out of the collaboration and lose their jobs if they show me any of that data. In 15 month the data collection will be ended, they publish their papers and everyone gets a peek at the data. OK, I should qualify "everyone"; since there are real costs to preserving and sending out peta/exabytes of data, "everyone" usually means member universities and students/scientists thereof.
So, if you read the article that was posted by Tick, it boils down to this: Scientists collect a ton of data and clean it up, e.g. I would think correct for urbanization of the weather station, remove obviously false/buggy measurements (like -65 536 C) etc. Now this cleaned data set is used to make science and after a given time it becomes publicly viewable. The original data set gets thrown away probably because of budgetary reasons and now, 30 years later, people want to see the original data set.
The only reason you'd like to see the original data would be to see whether the "cleaning" process introduced some bias. But you can already do that because the "cleaning" procedures are not what's missing! Of course, you could posit that the data has been intentionally tampered with. This, however, overlooks the fact that in the 80's there was no political or other reason to fake a result. And even if there was, they could have just as easily cooked the original data! And lastly, the data from the last 150 years is not nearly the only thing that climate change research relies on (and I'm not going to repeat in detail my previous argumentations).
So it all comes down to this: Science tells you stuff.
Now, if you respond differently to this depending on whether it's:
that you are a descendant of the apes
that vaccinations work
that the day is 23 hours 56 minutes 4.1 seconds long
or that the climate is getting hotter and man is responsible,
Timo's post was well thought out, factual, and topical. There was not a shred of a personal critique. Joe, your response was judgmental, somewhat caustic and added nothing of value.
Just my friendly reminder that we should keep things more civil around here! I'm not the poster child, but if I can make an effort, others hopefully will join me.
Now, if you respond differently to this depending on whether it's:
or that the climate is getting hotter and man is responsible,
then you have a problem.
Here's where my issue is. I'm by no means an idiot, but I just haven't seen all these studies that prove this. Maybe it's because they're all locked up in pay-pre-view scientific journals and not freely available. The only way I hear about these things in through the media, who have biasing stories down to such an art form they I can't trust them for anything.
I don't understand why everyone is so worried about this. I have the solution!
We just build a giant pipe from Earth through the atmosphere into outer space. Then we pump all the greenhouse gas emissions through the pipe into outer space! Viola! I am so smart. Look how easily our technology can fix global climate change!
Idea: Sequester carbon in huge amounts of biomass, preferably hemp (yields more ethanol). Convert sequestered carbon into nanotubes by CVD, build Pipelevator now that materials with sufficient tensile strength are available. Siphon excess gasses out to exosphere, lift heavy metals and other wastes to orbital recycling plants.
Yeah, build a hatch at the top of the tube and pressurize CO2 in an underground reservoir. When someone orbitside opens the hatch, the pressure gradient evacuates the CO2 reservoir and carries whatever else is in the tube into low orbit. At least, I think that would happen...
Alternately, use pressurized CO2 being pumped spaceward to drive turbines on its way. Lots of green power.
Doubles as a launch tube for commercial space tourism ventures. Exorbitant fees paid by millionaires for space tourism help finance construction and maintenance of SALVATION TUBE 9000 (TM) and yield profit once initial construction is paid for. Invest now!
The only way I hear about these things in through the media, who have biasing stories down to such an art form they I can't trust them for anything.
I know, and I truly sympathize. For a layman it really boils down to "just trust us", I mean even if you had access to the scientific papers and data, you wouldn't be able to truly verify them without putting in the proverbial 10000 hours. Even if you are smart, you can still be hoodwinked unless you are an expert. So you have to trust us or become one of us.
Let me assure you of one thing at least: One does not get to be a prominent scientist, such as those who are pushing the climate agenda, by fudging (intentionally or otherwise) the research. Every single time you publish a paper, you effectively put your whole career on the line. Think about that. Think about the mindset, attention to detail and responsibility this requires. I mean, you fuck up a server update and a thousand customers lose their data -- just get a new job at a different firm or switch to different sub branch of IT/whatever. If you are a scientist and get caught cheating, you will not find a job or publish a paper again. Scientists take science very seriously.
This is not to say that there isn't bad science or incompetent scientists but rather that "truth will out" in the long run and climate change is a long established fact, as is global warming (see e.g. this graph of satellite measurements over the past 30 years).
You also have to understand that most "anti"-climate research people will not dispute these facts, rather they want to argue about scientific method and the conclusion that man is very, very probably responsible. That sort of behavior just strikes me as fruitless pedantry about "who left the cage unlocked" when you're faced by a hungry tiger. Even if man isn't responsible for the North-East passage being open, we have to try and do something.
Science again gives you a lot of options and opinions differ on what to do long term. In the short term, the consensus appears to be seriously limiting the emission of carbon dioxide. This is very probably not only because it is one of the known green house gases but also because it is a realistic goal and economically and technically achievable.
This chart suggests a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. What would make CO2 spike in the pre-industrial days? What is our man-made impact versus natural fluctuations? As a non-scientist, I never know if people like this are quacks. It's just way too complicated a subject to dip your toe into. That's why I'm content to go along with the scientific consensus. I don't think that the whole puzzle has been figured out, but I see no harm in erring on the side of caution, especially given the current evidence.
You also have to understand that most "anti"-climate research people will not dispute these facts, rather they want to argue about scientific method and the conclusion that man is very, very probably responsible. That sort of behavior just strikes me as fruitless pedantry about "who left the cage unlocked" when you're faced by a hungry tiger. Evenifman isn't responsible for the North-East passage being open, we have to try and do something.
If man is not responsible for climate change than how can we believe man has the power to reverse said changes? This is the very argument being made!
If man is not responsible for climate change than how can we believe man has the power to reverse said changes? This is the very argument being made!
There's a difference between "has the power to cause something to happen" and "caused something to happen." Either way, it's a moot point. The consensus is that man is responsible for climate change.
I know, and I truly sympathize. For a layman it really boils down to "just trust us",
Here's the problem with "trust us." We trusted when "you" when "you" said nuclear energy was the answer to all our problems. We trusted when R-12 refrigerant was invented. And what about the Tragedy of Bashtarle!
...Okay that last one was from Giant Robo, but it still gets to my point. The world is out of trust for scientists. I think a lot more effort needs to be put into scientist-layman relations.
Comments
Is this supposedly lost data the only original data that has ever been collected for climate change research? Is it true that the loss of this data means that climate change is some sort of political hoax? Were these the only people in the world with original climate change data? Do scientists normally give out all of their original data to anyone who asks for it? Do they have absolutely no propriety interest in original data at all? What is so important about this particular set of data?
I've also come to accept that nothing will be done about it. There are too many vested interests that make too much money from burning fossil fuels and who would stand to lose too much if they had to change their business practices. Therefore, they've unleashed a PR campaign that blinds people like Steve to the truth so that they can continue to make their money while the climate is ruined.
And I agree that nothing will be done about it. It's too bad, since it can't hurt to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if it turns out that fossil fuels have a minimal impact on global temperatures (and I believe that the impact is greater than minimal), I'd still love for us to be more efficient and be less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
Why is the forum not more concerned over this perversion of science? Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
How about this great one from last year? The world has never seen such freezing heat
If science is not transparent and subject to proper peer review (not echo chamber peer review) it is not science. It becomes politics. AGW is looking more and more to be a product of politics and not science.
Read through some of the emails that were hacked/liberated (still don't know if it was an inside job or not). The 'scientists' discuss issues such as avoiding FOI requests, deleting data to avoid FOI requests and how to marginalize not only dissenting views but even how to marginalize respected peer review journals that publish dissenting views.
If the things you believed were based on lies it's OK to question them when the lies are exposed.
So, if you read the article that was posted by Tick, it boils down to this: Scientists collect a ton of data and clean it up, e.g. I would think correct for urbanization of the weather station, remove obviously false/buggy measurements (like -65 536 C) etc. Now this cleaned data set is used to make science and after a given time it becomes publicly viewable. The original data set gets thrown away probably because of budgetary reasons and now, 30 years later, people want to see the original data set.
The only reason you'd like to see the original data would be to see whether the "cleaning" process introduced some bias. But you can already do that because the "cleaning" procedures are not what's missing! Of course, you could posit that the data has been intentionally tampered with. This, however, overlooks the fact that in the 80's there was no political or other reason to fake a result. And even if there was, they could have just as easily cooked the original data! And lastly, the data from the last 150 years is not nearly the only thing that climate change research relies on (and I'm not going to repeat in detail my previous argumentations).
So it all comes down to this: Science tells you stuff.
Now, if you respond differently to this depending on whether it's:
- that you are a descendant of the apes
- that vaccinations work
- that the day is 23 hours 56 minutes 4.1 seconds long
- or that the climate is getting hotter and man is responsible,
then you have a problem.Just my friendly reminder that we should keep things more civil around here! I'm not the poster child, but if I can make an effort, others hopefully will join me.
We just build a giant pipe from Earth through the atmosphere into outer space. Then we pump all the greenhouse gas emissions through the pipe into outer space! Viola! I am so smart. Look how easily our technology can fix global climate change!
/fix environment
Alternately, use pressurized CO2 being pumped spaceward to drive turbines on its way. Lots of green power.
Let me assure you of one thing at least: One does not get to be a prominent scientist, such as those who are pushing the climate agenda, by fudging (intentionally or otherwise) the research. Every single time you publish a paper, you effectively put your whole career on the line. Think about that. Think about the mindset, attention to detail and responsibility this requires. I mean, you fuck up a server update and a thousand customers lose their data -- just get a new job at a different firm or switch to different sub branch of IT/whatever. If you are a scientist and get caught cheating, you will not find a job or publish a paper again. Scientists take science very seriously.
This is not to say that there isn't bad science or incompetent scientists but rather that "truth will out" in the long run and climate change is a long established fact, as is global warming (see e.g. this graph of satellite measurements over the past 30 years).
You also have to understand that most "anti"-climate research people will not dispute these facts, rather they want to argue about scientific method and the conclusion that man is very, very probably responsible. That sort of behavior just strikes me as fruitless pedantry about "who left the cage unlocked" when you're faced by a hungry tiger. Even if man isn't responsible for the North-East passage being open, we have to try and do something.
Science again gives you a lot of options and opinions differ on what to do long term. In the short term, the consensus appears to be seriously limiting the emission of carbon dioxide. This is very probably not only because it is one of the known green house gases but also because it is a realistic goal and economically and technically achievable.
This chart suggests a strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. What would make CO2 spike in the pre-industrial days? What is our man-made impact versus natural fluctuations? As a non-scientist, I never know if people like this are quacks. It's just way too complicated a subject to dip your toe into. That's why I'm content to go along with the scientific consensus. I don't think that the whole puzzle has been figured out, but I see no harm in erring on the side of caution, especially given the current evidence.
...Okay that last one was from Giant Robo, but it still gets to my point. The world is out of trust for scientists. I think a lot more effort needs to be put into scientist-layman relations.