Hackers & Global Warming

Remove all ads!

Oh, yes, really a reliable source there. Isn't he the liberal version of Bill O'Rilley or something?

Yes, let's listen to the people who know what they're talking about. See, there's the problem. Real scientists disagree with AGW. This isn't some "let's ignore the evidence" BS. This is a "Your 'evidence' is a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, not evidence." Remember, most of those climate models ignore major known warming and cooling trends in history.

That one's pretty nice, and covers most of the facts well, but I think their conclusion ignores their own presented facts and draws an overly-rosy picture. While I'll agree that the "Nature trick" comment is likely innocent (and honestly I didn't think much of it when I first saw it), there's a lot more damning stuff that's come out than that.

Eh, yes and no. And, honestly, more no than yes. You see, the climate models rely heavily on what's called "interpolation". That's when you have, for example, temperature data for the entire world, except for these few regions of open ocean and some of the Sahara. Well, you don't know what those temperatures are, but you do know what temperatures other regions similar to them, and especially surrounding them, are at, so you do some mathematical "guestimation". You fill in the blanks with systems of averages, taken from statistically determined data points to provide the most continuous and likely temperature data for the blank regions. The problem is, those aren't the actual temperatures for those regions, which means you have just injected a certain amount of error into your model. Now, every model has error of some kind or another, so no surprise there, but the more data you have to interpolate, the more error you have. Add to that the facts that many of the temperature collection methods are up for debate, that the rules that govern the system are still theoretical, and not tested or proven, and that, even in a well-studied field like fluid mechanics, where the laws have been tested, simulations like this require substantial testing against confirmed data before they're accepted (because errors are so very, very easy to make in complex systems like this), and the major product of climatology looks less like equations with remaining degrees of freedom and more like educated guess-work.

 

And, speaking from the perspective of someone who's worked with similarly interpolative programs, I can say that can be accurate terminology for a legitimate technique. Of course, we had the advantage that we knew what the system was supposed to be doing, so if the model was improperly emphasizing a minor trait of the system and making it a major feature, we knew to correct it. Unfortunately, climatologists don't have such a guideline, which is why I said it was only "likely" innocent, and not surely so.

 

Not really. He's more of a moderate Democrat. I suppose that for some conservatives, that would make him a liberal (there are "some" conservatives who are ignorant enough to believe that all Dems are liberals), but to a liberal like myself, no he doesn't seem to be all that much of one. I just liked his take on it.

It doesn't matter what they think; it matters what the special interest and lobbyists think. They pretty much write the final laws here. C&T will never make it out of the Senate without huge give-aways to big business. There will be large loop-holes, which you will be able to drive the Artic Circle through once they finish it. But given the current size of the Artic Circle -- and what it will be in the future -- that's not saying much. And I'm sure there will be some niffty "trick" that will make it "seem to disappear."

 

I've been following Australia's political situation rather closely recently (I even made a thread about it!), so yes, I know what the opposition is doing. You should have a look at their approval rating - it's rather funny.

Our opposition is a joke, and the Greens gain in strength and senate seats at every election. The main reason we don't have a carbon trading scheme is because the government didn't want to negotiate with the Greens because they knew that they'd play hardball and actually call for significant cuts, while Turnbull was happy to negotiate and come up with something that would work for business. His party used it as an excuse to shoot him down. This whole situation had very little to do with climate change (although there are certainly a lot in the Liberal party who think it isn't happening), and more to do with Turnbull's leadership failure. It certainly doesn't reflect the view of the Australian public. The opposition is going to be crucified for this decision if the government/Greens play their cards right.

You're also still talking as though something big and terrible has actually been revealed by the hack. It hasn't. While, yes, I agree that they should have kept their data, this doesn't change anything overall. It's only the shrill right wing that are claiming that the entire of climate change science has just collapsed in a mess of lies. Those with credibility are saying that nothing has changed (or if you disagree, link to someone credible).

I have no trouble with verifying what they're talking about, mind you. Go ahead, if you have the skills and knowledge to do so, that's great. The problem comes when a lot of the 'verifying' is being done by people who want them to be wrong, or just don't know how to tell if they're wrong or not. That seems to be the sort of people who are making the biggest deal out of the hack.

pplr:
Well, yeah, I was certainly being over the top (and maybe misused 'priest'), but still, from all I can tell, the American public seems incredibly hostile to science - or ignorant, at least.
Hmm, well, this is off-topic, but I just googled and found this gallup poll. The result is a little depressing.

I'm not saying that all Americans are scientifically illiterate ... but I don't think I'm misspeaking by saying that a large portion of the population is, especially compared to other Western counties.

I'm pretty sure elections are funded privately and with taxpayer's money. The donations are nowhere near as big a deal as in the US though, and I think there are strong limits. Except as a scandal, you don't really hear anything about campaign funding.

Oh wait, there's a wiki article, so I can stop talking out of my arse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_donations_in_Australia

But all the same, it getting voted down in the senate is far more to do with the Liberal party's moderate/right wing schism and dissatisfaction with Turnbull's leadership than anything else. Many businesses that would have been affected were supporting the amended bill.

NOG:
Yes, there are climate scientists who disagree that climate change is human-caused. The poll I linked clearly showed that. It also clearly showed that they were in the minority by a vast number. I'm not saying we should dismiss them, but I'm saying that if we need to pick a side here (and we do), going with the overwhelming majority and acting on the evidence they've provided is the most sensible route.

(That you linked to a Fox News article written by some guy who wrote a book called 'Freedomnomics' didn't really help your point, I think)

Edit: My rage is mostly reserved for those who dismiss it all as lies and a conspiracy, which is stupid. Wilful ignorance is horrible too, but the 'lies-and-conspiracy' crowd are poisoning the debate for ideological reasons. Those having rational arguments and discussion are fine in my book, and most of this thread has been that. Snook's post struck me strongly as a lies-and-conspiracy one.

 

Aik, I encourage you to revisit the old thread I linked to. There's a lot more on the letters there, but most of the links are dead now.

As for the scientists, it's not so much the other climatologists I pay attention to, as the other scientists who cry foul when the climatology community attempts to re-write climate history to support their views. The claims of "unprecidented warming" are 100% bogus, and the estimates of mass-extinctions are hard to support given that all currently existing species except a few breeds of mosquitoes survived the last major warming period a few hundred years ago. Now, for those already in danger, warming may present an additional stressor that could tip them over the edge, but the idea that it will completely re-write the face of the world is preposterous.

 

I don't really feel like arguing, but this article popped up and I figured it was relevant: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/14/2771612.htm

I don't think it's preposterous that warming could rewrite the face of the world. If places go under water because the ice caps have melted (and they have and are) - I think that counts.

 

One thing confuses me on that report:
Emperor Penguines don't need ice. They have dry land. Now, I could believe warming oceand may impact their food supply. Maybe. But not mating habits.

As for sea level rise, the numbers are much more down-to-earth than most people fear. I think 1 foot over the next century is what's being talked about? Now, sure, that's not insignificant, but it's not going to sink all of India, either. The way some of the AGW crowd talks about it, you'd expect to see a WaterWorld type scenario by the end of the century.

 

Hmmm... You'd think that would be an easy question to answer, but it's not. I received a fellowship from the university, and part of the agreement of the fellowship would be that I would do research. The fellowship paid for my education. Additionally, the fellowship also stipulated that I work for the university as a lab assistant, in which I taught undergrad science students in general chemistry and organic chemistry. Now that I was paid work in addition to the free education (not a lot - about $1,000 per month), so you tell me - was I paid to do the research or not?

I think there's a mis-placed decimal point there - either in the degree increase or the percentage listed. If 0.18 degrees accounts for just 0.3% of the total warming we've experienced, then the total warming is 60 degrees F. Or am I misinterpreting what that statistic is supposed to mean?

I don't think so - I'd consider someone like Keith Olbermann, Aianna Huffington or Rachel Maddow to be the liberal equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. Matthew is pretty tame by comparison.

 

Mmm, that is sticky, but I'd classify it as "not exactly". Which of course means any ownership concerns come down to what exactly your agreement with the University was.

The total current greenhouse effect is about 60 degrees F, yes. Of course, that should serve as a reminder that the greenhouse effect is actually necessary to some degree. There can be too much of it (theoretically), but there can also be too little. Too little greenhouse effect almost certainly contributed to the Ice Ages (along with other factors).

 

Woo Hoo, I can now officially call a Godwin.

I love these videos.

 

Here's something from Gregg Easterbrook on climate change. While the majority of this writer's time is devoted to economics, he does weigh in on environmental issues as well. In fact, he's written more than a few books. While he believes that global warming is real, he also believes that many of the doomsayers are exaggerating the affects it will have in the short term.

Spoiler

Heads of State Pause Their Limos at Their Personal Jets to Denounce Fossil Fuel Use:

As the Copenhagen climate summit grinds on with -- big surprise! -- nothing specific agreed upon, here's my summary of what you need to know about the global warming issue, bearing in mind yours truly is the author of an 800-page book about environmental policy (that book was so fast-paced, it only seemed like 700 pages):

• There is indeed a strong scientific consensus regarding climate change. The deniers simply aren't honest about this.

• The consensus is that in the last century, air has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit while the oceans have warmed a little and become slightly acidic; rainfall patterns have changed in some places, and most though not all ice melting has accelerated.

• That consensus is significant, but hardly means there is a crisis. Glaciers and sea ice, for example, have been in a melting cycle for thousands of years, while air warming has so far been good for farm yields. The doomsayers simply aren't honest about how mild the science consensus is.

• Predictions of global devastation -- climate change is a "profound emergency" that will "ravage our planet" -- are absurd exaggerations, usually motivated by political or fund-raising agendas.

• Climate change has serious possible negative consequences, especially if rainfall shifts away from agricultural regions.

• Global poverty, disease, dirty air and lack of clean water in developing world cities and lack of education are far higher priorities than greenhouse gas emissions.

• Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases.

• The United States must regulate greenhouse gases in order to bring American brainpower, in engineering and in business, to bear on the problem.

• A carbon tax, not some super-complex cap-and-trade scheme that mainly creates jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, would be the best approach.

• If the United States invents technology to control greenhouse gases, no super-complex international treaty will be needed. Nations will adopt greenhouse controls on their own, because it will be in their self-interest to do so. Smog and acid rain are declining almost everywhere, though are not governed by any international treaty; nations have decided to regulate smog and acid rain emissions on their own, because it is in their self-interest to do so.

As for the e-mails hacked from a greenhouse research center in the United Kingdom, e-mails are private correspondence. Copying them without permission is at the least unethical, and perhaps a crime. If you saw private letters on someone's desk, photocopied them and posted them on the Web, you would be considered a person of low character. Whoever hacked the climate e-mails is at the very least an unethical person of low character, and one should be wary of the agendas of unethical people.

That said, many climate scientists are rigidly ideological and believe dissent must be shouted down. This is partly because of money and privilege. The United States and European Union spend about $6 billion annually on climate change research, and every penny goes to alarmism, because it can be used to justify government expansion. Being a climate doomsayer is a path to cash and tenure -- even to celebrity, as making wildly exaggerated claims got Al Gore a Noble Prize plus stock in companies now winning government subsidies triggered by alarmism. The doomsayers are lauded by foundations, go to parties with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and attend taxpayer-subsidized conferences in Nice. They've formed a guild with intense focus on maintaining guild structure. The 1962 Thomas Kuhn book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is best-known for introducing the "paradigm shift" concept. Kuhn's larger argument was that science is not an abstract truth-seeking realm, rather, subject to fads and what is now called political correctness, and one in which many scientists are concerned foremost with safeguarding their sinecure by toeing the line.

Plus the alarmists need to divert attention from the inconvenient truth that 20 years ago, Gore and James Hansen of NASA began to say that without immediate drastic action against greenhouse gases, there would soon be global calamities. Nothing was done -- and no problem so far. That is no reason to be complacent -- warming-caused problems may be in store. But for the self-interested alarmists, this is a reason to shout down their critics.

Footnote: John Siemieniec of West Dundee, Ill., was among many readers to note the 140 private jets and 1,200 limos at the climate summit. World leaders and celebrities rode in comfort to a conference to wag their fingers about how somebody else should stop wasting fossil fuel.

 

That actually sounds like a very nice summary of the situation as I see it. And better put than I could do.

 

That's the thing though - Gregg Easterbrook is a writer - not a politician. I've read a lot of his columns and books over the years, and as a whole, his views are not particularly conservative. Heck, it's not like he's denying that global warming is real, he even goes so far as to say that part of the rise is due to human activity (try finding a Republican who will say that). However, he is skeptical regarding to potential short-term consequences of the rise.

In fact, in reading his points as a whole, it seems to me that he's arguing a middle ground, in stating that neither the GW deniers, nor the GW alarmists, are being totally honest in their positions.

 

Tal I partially agree with you, but bad science is bad science. Manipulating data, losing data, not being forthright with basic observables is simply bad science. The case for climate change can stand on it's own even with the poor data points -- it's just not as alarming. Unfortunately, some individuals decided that causing alarm was more important than integrity. Lack of integrity in scientific work is simply unacceptable and causes the entire spectrum of study to be questioned.

 

Does this mean we should dismiss every valid point he brings up?