Climate Researchers Fight Back

tomduck writes "The Guardian reports that climate researcher Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post newspaper in Canada in a libel action for publishing 'grossly irresponsible falsehoods.' The Post claimed he cherrypicked data to support his climate research, and tried to blame the 'evil fossil fuel' industry for break-ins at his office in 2008 to divert attention from mistakes in the 2007 IPCC report. This comes fast on the heels of another Guardian article describing lessons learned from the exoneration of UEA scientists involved in the so-called Climategate affair. Are climate scientists finally fighting back against their critics, who they were previously more inclined to ignore?"

Comments

Who exactly is fighting back?

[eagl]

Real climate scientists have been fighting for years... It is the climate evangelists that have been ignoring everyone else up until now.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[MightyMartian]

I don't give a crap about the "climate evangelists" (whatever exactly that is). But if the National Post is simply playing fast and loose with the facts surrounding a scientist, and basically libeling him in the process, I hope they pay, and pay dearly. If you want to debate the merits or faults of a scientific theory, you debate the merits or faults, you don't go around invoking conspiracy theories, and if you are going to stoop to that level, you probably shouldn't actually go accusing the scientists directly, but rather keep it all nebulous. The pseudo-skeptics need to take a page from the anti-evolution crowd. When talking about the evil conspiracy, don't name names, don't make specific accusations, keep it nice and general and that way nobody can go to a lawyer and drag your ass into court.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[oldspewey]

Bear in mind, the National Post is the closest thing Canada has to a Fox News network. I've seen numerous instances of the NP playing fast and loose with facts and using lightly-camouflaged op-ed to subtly (or not so subtly) discredit people.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ccarson]

It's ironic we're talking about "fast and loose with facts" when the topic at hand is how the climate warming/cooling (which is it folks?) researchers who for years distorted findings for additional research money and to regulate private industry under the auspices of championing environmental agendas.

Their credibility is shot.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[megamerican]

I am not defending what the National Post did in any way but their libel nor does the findings by the House of Commons completely exonerate the scientists of the UAE.

While the House of Commons showed there was no proof of "tampering" of the data in the climategate sample it was because the UAE deleted all of the raw data in question.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

There was no way to prove if the data had been tampered with because the data was deleted. The only thing that was left was their "value added" data.

I don't know if what the UAE did could be considered science because science is supposed to be an open and completely transparent process. When you throw out your raw data instead of releasing it when legally and morally obliged to you shouldn't be able to be called a scientist any more.

That's why the head of the CRU at UAE resigned his post.

They also engaged in trying to get skeptics from being published in scientific journals, among other things.

I absolutely wish we could debate the science and be 100% objective in its analysis when you put humans into the equation it simply isn't possible.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ryantmer]

Not sure why this is modded Troll... Unfortunately, it's quite true. While not blatantly stupid as FOX News, the National Post does use its fair share of twisted facts. In addition, it's well-known as the more right-wing national newspaper in Canada (the Globe and Mail being more left wing), and would therefore be more inclined to present facts in a right-wing-friendly way. Got to love the "free" press.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[SiaFhir]

Let's not forget the National Post was created by Conrad Black. Nuff said.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[spun]

It's climate change, idiot. The climate will become more extreme, as more energy is pumped into a chaotic system. Their credibility has been exonerated, if you read real instead of faux news sources you would know that. If private industry tries to crap in our air, they will be regulated. I don't crap in their corporate headquarters. Corporations need to be held responsible for their actions, and pay for the damage they force on others. If you don't like it, tough. We all have to share this planet, and we all get a say in what we do with it. Why cede control to a bunch of greedy, sociopathic corporations? This is our planet, and we are not going to let short sighted, selfish, greedy individuals screw it up.

You want to advocate for the right of the powerful to harm the powerless, be my guest, I support free speech. And I'm sure you'll support my right to say, "fuck you, I'm not taking this lying down." This is war, man. They declared war on us when they started polluting and not paying for the consequences. But we will finish it, and in the end, the people and groups that caused the harm will be forced to pay for the solutions. That's called justice, it's a nice useful concept you might want to look into.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ipquickly]

Why would you troll like that?

Do you stop using reiserfs(or any other advancements within it) because of Hans?

Conrad Black's articles are some of the most insightful in the paper.
And he is in for what some would call "white-collar crime" and others would call a "misappropriation of justice".

I presume you must have never read any of his articles.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[VGR]

Real climate scientists have been fighting for years... It is the climate evangelists that have been ignoring everyone else up until now.

I'm getting tired of reading this nonsense. As someone with a degree in environmental science, I feel the need to point out a few things:

• No one goes into the field expecting to make a lot of money. There are no tales anywhere of environmental scientists who got famous enough to get a gig hosting Nova or doing Nike endorsements. People choose environmental studies because they find it interesting. Anyone who went into it for the money would rapidly be bored to tears.
• Even a meager application of Occam's razor should make it immediately clear that the people accusing the climate science community of scaremongering/profiteering are themselves some of the most aggressive profiteers the world has ever known: the fossil fuel industry. (There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is something very wrong with stifling competition.)
• Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer.

Which is more likely: that scientists got together and colluded to invent a crisis thinking it would make tons of money roll in, or that the wealthy are projecting their greed onto the less greedy? Occam's razor.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Shetan]

It's climate change, idiot.

I think it's even more specific than that. It's about human influenced climate change. Climate Change is a fact. The climate on this planet is constantly changing and has been changing naturally for as long as we have any way of measuring. The causes may be something as simple a cyclical changes in the energy output of the sun, volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, or a multitude of other natural phenomenons. There's not much we can do to change the normal cycle of climate change. The question is what impact we are having on the climate with the stuff we are pumping in to the atmosphere and what, if anything, we should be doing about it.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[chris mazuc]

There was no way to prove if the data had been tampered with because the data was deleted. The only thing that was left was their "value added" data.

You don't know what you're talking about

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[frogzilla]

Nobody is talking about cooling. Where do you get that? No one is distorting findings for money. The problem with this issue is the intensely political response to the science. It's not the scientists causing the trouble or the controversy. Scientists do have a responsibility to present their findings honestly and in a straightforward manner. The policy makers and general public make this a difficult topic to deal with because they bring their personal concerns (political concerns) into the discussion. Unfortunately for the naysayers out there, anthropogenic climate change is real. The planet is warming. It is caused by the incredibly short sighted emission of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon over the past few hundred years. Since it should be apparent to everyone that stopping the emission of carbon is not likely we need to decide what we are going to do to mitigate the worst effects, the magnitude of which we don't know yet and are working hard to understand. Whether you are on the left or right of the political spectrum this is the reality you need to think about. It really is time to begin planning a response to the likeliest changes and spending more effort on understanding the system. If this doesn't make sense to you, you need to go away from your computer for a while and think about it. Your political beliefs and deeply held personal convictions are irrelevant.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[MightyMartian]

If they're true, how are they libelous? The issue here is specific accusations which the person insists are fabrications and distortions intended to damage his reputation. If they're true, and the National Post can demonstrate it, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they're false, then the National Post libeled him and needs to pay for that.

If you throw some skeptic in my face and I turn up the fact that he's in the employ of a big energy company, or in the case of a few of the skeptics, are pretty much professional shills, then how is that libel?

Take anyone associated with the Heartland Institute. It's a shill-for-hire organization. It's not libelous to point out that these guys started out being tobacco company shills, then turned to climate change skepticism.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ravenshrike]

The shoe industry is involved in climate science? Or are you talking about the oil industry which makes 7-10% profit per year, 5-8% less than what the federal government taxes their product at, plus the additional state taxes upon their product.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Chris Burke]

No one goes into the field expecting to make a lot of money.

Yeah, I always find it hilarious when people suggest money as the motivation for climatologists. Oh sure there's lots of politicking that goes on over acquiring grant money, but that's just the money you need to do your research. If there was nothing to research, why would you care about the grant money? It's not like you can use it to buy a Porsche. If you just wanted to do neat but useless stuff on someone else's dime, you'd study something DARPA cared about.

Which is more likely: that scientists got together and colluded to invent a crisis thinking it would make tons of money roll in, or that the wealthy are projecting their greed onto the less greedy? Occam's razor.

Well, Occam's Razor is about refraining from needlessly multiplying entities. Environmental scientists, being nerds, are much less likely to get laid than the MBAs running the fossil fuel industry. Ergo, the science conspiracy theory involves the least multiplying entities. The scientists did it, QED!

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[glueball]

No one is distorting findings for money.

This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[dmwst30]

One example can't be extended to all of 'em, logic fail. Please try again.

Try climateaudit.org or http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ in general.

Neither is in the pay of anyone, and have links to many, many more like themselves that are merely studying the science. This issue is big and important enough that it should be able to stand up in the full light of day.

Or talk to Judith Curry, one of the few climate scientists that are willing to point out the flaws in the current process, e.g. here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/squeaky-clean.html?showComment=1271462868897#c1343322932444511542

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[tmosley]

Which is more likely: getting a grant to disprove global warming, or getting a grant to produce evidence of global warming?

Who lives in the granting agencies? What are their biases? This is what strikes at the heart of the problem. For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.

Remember, Occam's razor was originally invented to prove that God exists.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Burnhard]

Which is more likely: that scientists got together and colluded to invent a crisis thinking it would make tons of money roll in, or that the wealthy are projecting their greed onto the less greedy? Occam's razor.

Please, you're abusing Occam's Razor with gay abandon. You've forgotten that a lot of energy companies, which also happen to be fossil fuel companies, are looking forward to all their new "green" subsidies. You're also forgetting that the bankers are rubbing their fat, bloated little hands with glee at the possibility of trading carbon permits. In fact that well know environmentalist organisation Goldman Sachs is taking the lead here. Yes, the great blood sucking vampire on the face of humanity is very enthusiastic about all of this global warming hysteria and is right behind you (bending you over).

But anyway, the point is quite a simple one: predictions of future catastrophe are based on models and those models didn't even last 10 years before they were shown to be wrong. So what are you doing supporting this hypothesis? I mean, put your Scientific hat on and ask yourself what has to happen in order to falsify it?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[frogzilla]

Well said.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[yotto]

Magazines are generally not considered news. Magazines exist to sell magazines, not give you news. And no offense to Senator McCain but Obama pushes paper. Plain and simple.

Likewise, there were FAR more Palin covers than Clinton covers. Guess why?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[schon]

are you talking about the oil industry which makes 7-10% profit per year

That's right - the poor, impoverished oil companies, which only make hundreds of billions of dollars each year - how can they ever survive on such meager earnings?

5-8% less than what the federal government taxes their product at, plus the additional state taxes upon their product.

And as we all know, all of that tax money goes directly to the evil climate scientists, right?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Anomalyst]

Sorry, the data, collection points (or lack thereof) and analysis methodology make AGW an unlikely hypothesis.

"The NASA findings indicate a mean worldwide temperature of about 58.496 degrees F., topping the previous record, set in 1995 of 58.154."

Ya gotta love the touch of using 'about', followed by a world temperature quoted to 1/1000 degree F. why we are justified in assuming such preposterous "accuracies" from processes that have half degree error bars? How do they estimate the Earth's temperature in 1938 to within a half of a degree. I would like to see the procedure used to do that, and the measures employed.

[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. ...
It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.

And, oh yes, the person at the center of the CRU meltdown, Phil Jones, now admits there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18992&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD There are many reasons to doubt AGW as a legitimate climate change candidate. The shrillness of its proponents not being the least. The FSM is as likely a cause. The sunspot minimum makes a far more beleivable.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[SnarfQuest]

Anyone who was alive during the 1870s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between phrenology and personality.

... Flat Earth ... N rays ... Cold fusion

Sometimes scientific theories turn out wrong. Just because many others think you are an idiot, doesn't mean you aren't an idiot. Scientific theories need to be evaluated under a bright light, not hidden away in a closet, especially when hundreds of billions of dollars are going to be taxed every year based on that theory.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Obfuscant]

If you want to debate the merits or faults of a scientific theory, you debate the merits or faults, you don't go around invoking conspiracy theories, and if you are going to stoop to that level, you probably shouldn't actually go accusing the scientists directly, but rather keep it all nebulous.

So you agree that all those AGW advocates who attack every opponent by questioning their objectivity and ethics ("he's paid by Big Oil, that's all you need to know") or calling them idiots or worse, are in the wrong. That those who react to every letter in the editor in the local paper that questions AGW with a vitriolic response questioning the author's parents and lineage are behaving poorly.

I know who you thought you were attacking, but the facts show that the opponents to AGW are a lot more civil about it than most advocates. For the advocates, the debate is OVER, the FACTS are the FACTS, there is no room for doubt, and anyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragger. Yes, AGW is "so easy even a caveman knows it".

The pseudo-skeptics...

Yes, such a civil response, you can't even admit they exist.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[bezpredel6]

No one goes into climate science to make tons of money, so I would guess majority of climate scientists value other things, like making a difference and being right. I do not see how such motivation would make people less inclined to cheat (just a bit!) than one to make more money? especially if the perceived enemy has $$ interests, something that poor grad students do not.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[TapeCutter]

"Real climate scientists have been fighting for years..."

Yes, RC have been fighting climate trolls with facts for years but it hasn't stopped the slander and libel. You may think someone is wrong, you may even be of the opinion they are an idiot but when economic alarmists like Monckton engage in systematic character assination by throwing around unsubstantiated charges of criminal behaviour they have crossed the line.

The fact that due to a constant stream of credible death threats the likes of Michael Mann and Jim Hansen need FBI protection to speak in public is testimony as to how serious the character assinations have become.

My only question is why has is taken so long for one of these high profile targets to defend themselves in a court of law?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[schon]

Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer.

This isn't that surprising - the reason the similarities are so striking is because the oil companies are hiring the exact same people the tobacco industry used.

I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Obfuscant]

No one goes into climate science to make tons of money, so I would guess majority of climate scientists value other things, like making a difference and being right.

Unless, of course, you are a climate scientist who is employed by a big oil company or any other industrial research division, in which case you are clearly seeking money.

Please, every time I hear about how pure the academic scientists are because they aren't in it for the money I want to puke. They may not have gone into the field for the money, but they need money to stay in the field, and guess which of the following two grants will get funded and which won't: 1) man is not the cause of global warming/we're along for the ride on a system controlled in large part by solar output and other effects, give us money to study what they are, or 2) MAN IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, WE MUST BE STOPPED, WE WILL ALL DIE IF YOU DON'T FUND THIS RESEARCH.

It's a fact: research money goes to fund the squeeky wheel. AIDS activists raise a stink, more money goes to AIDS researchers. Global warming is a crisis we have to solve, more money goes to global warming research. If you are in the field, you are just as likely to bias your research to get the limited grant money as you are to bias your research because big oil bought you off. So, now, the ball's in your court. Either stop automatically branding every industrial scientist as unethical and in the pockets of the oil companies, or admit that there is money going to fund the academics, too. If "big oil" scientists cannot be trusted because of how they get paid, neither can academics.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Burnhard]

Mod this guy up. Insightful!

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Obfuscant]

And I'm going to reply to myself just to clarify the point: every time an academic scientist points his finger at an industrial scientist and claims "bias" because of the money, he's got three fingers pointing back at himself, because HE gets paid from money that wouldn't be available unless global warming was a crisis that we must find the solution for.

It's time to stop claiming bias and look at the data. An industrial scientist's findings aren't automatically bogus based on the source of his paycheck any more than an academic's are.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[MightyMartian]

You think basically accusing the overwhelming majority of climatologists in the world of being part of a left-wing conspiracy to destroy the industrialized world is civil?

And yeah, I think it's legitimate to question the motives of a scientist whose in the employ of big oil companies when he declares that there's nothing wrong with throwing lots and lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, when that would seem to benefit his employers and himself directly. It doesn't really do climatologists much financial good whether climate change is real or not. Their scientists, and damned few people ever got rich being one.

I'm not saying the science is perfect, but when the vast majority of researchers in a field of research say "This is real", I tend to give it more weight than a few naysayers. I mean, should evolution be considered questionable because there are an exceedingly small number of people in fields of expertise that relate to biology in one form or another say it's wrong.

I'm not saying we shouldn't critique it. But, as with evolution, General Relativity and the like, it would be nice if the naysayers weren't either cranks or con artists.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Barrinmw]

I lost faith in the climatologists when they stopped calling it global warming and went for the more neutral "climate change." If that isn't an example of politicizing their own debate then I don't know what is. I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty. That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it. Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Mr. Slippery]

Or are you talking about the oil industry which makes 7-10% profit per year, 5-8% less than what the federal government taxes their product at, plus the additional state taxes upon their product.

Oh, pity poor Exxon/Mobil, with its profits on the order of $40 billion dollars a year. This one oil company could only outspend the entire fscking EPA by a factor of slightly less that four-to-one and still maintain a profit. We can see how it is that the poor oil industry only constitutes half of the top ten, and only three of the top five, of Fortune's Global 500.

The taxation levels on oil products are far, far too low. If we paid at the pump for the environmental damage and the foreign policy costs of our oil addiction, gasoline would be at least twice as expensive.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[NeutronCowboy]

And, oh yes, the person at the center of the CRU meltdown, Phil Jones, now admits there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS.

Are you still on that? You might want to at least link to the actual interview where that quote is supposedly coming from, which is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

And here is the relevant quote in question:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Quite a bit of a difference from what you and that ncpa article are claiming, isn't it? Like always, it pays to go to the source itself. Unless, of course, you have no interest in what's actually happening, and are merely interested in finding your present ideas confirmed.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Mr. Slippery]

Scientific theories need to be evaluated under a bright light, not hidden away in a closet

Yes, they do. And climate theories have been evaluated under a bright light. And unlike N rays, or cold fusion, the consensus of knowledgeable experts has emerged that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon.

especially when hundreds of billions of dollars are going to be taxed every year based on that theory.

No, the economic implications have nothing to do with the science. There is no "especially" here. In fact, your invocation of it illustrates the motivation behind much of the denial: for whatever reasons of political philosophy, many people find the prospect of carbon taxes disturbing, and so are psychologically motivated to deny the evidence.

It's rather like a guy having a heart attack who keeps dismissing it as indigestion; it's not necessarily that he's ignorant of the symptoms, but nobody wants to think that a heart attack could happen to them.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Mr. Slippery]

And, oh yes, the person at the center of the CRU meltdown, Phil Jones, now admits there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS.

Which, when looking at a trend over 1,000 years, means diddlyshit. If you cherry-pick your start and end point in any data that moves up and down, you can find an increase, decrease, or whatever. (Did it not strike you that fifteen years is an odd length of time to pick?)

"There's been no warming over the past three days of spring! Seasonal warming is a myth! In fact, today was cooler than yesterday! We must be headed into winter, not summer!"

You might -- if you actually cared about the facts -- Google a little and see what Jones is actually saying:

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

There are many reasons to doubt AGW as a legitimate climate change candidate. The shrillness of its proponents not being the least.

The only "shrillness" I see is that of so-called "skeptics". Great Ghu, man, did you read the page to which you linked? Did you not notice your own SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS while misrepresenting Jones's position?

Have you no sense of shame, sir? Or at least of irony?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Vancorps]

It sounds like you think they called it climate change to bow to political pressure when it was actually a reflection of how opinions have shifted. The vast majority of climatologists agree that the earth is heating up. The only area being questioned is how much we as humans are responsible and there is plenty of room for debate there.

The obvious conclusion is that humans aren't the sole cause but are speeding up the natural process. This is also based on a lifetime of observation as any elderly person can tell you about the proper winter's they've had growing up compared to winter's today. Even in my much more limited experience I remember a lot more snow and much colder winters in Vermont and the records hold true. This evidence fits with the data aggregated so its naturally why I'm inclined to believe it.

Also, they do still use tree rings today along with ice composition.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[10101001 10101001]

Which is more likely: getting a grant to disprove global warming, or getting a grant to produce evidence of global warming?

The latter. Why? Because there's already been tons of attempts to disprove global warming (that's, you know, what scientists do). It's the fact that it's been tested so much with so many diverse ideas and still fundamental stands that it's a theory. The bigger question is, if you wanted to make a lot of money, which path would make you more: coming up with a way to conclusively disprove global warming (translating into something fossil fuel companies would find worth millions of dollars) or yet another study gathering data that will likely enforce the global warming finding (but one of a pool of hundreds of grants from a government which probably cares more about funding some anti-crop-pest research). The fact that global warming hasn't been disproved suggests either no one has yet been smart enough to disprove it, no one who could cares enough to disprove it (neither for the monetary, the intellectual challenge, nor the prestige that'd come from it), there's some big conspiracy stopping the former two from happening, or global warming is real. Only the first and last options seem realistic (especially since two very much counters three).

Who lives in the granting agencies? What are their biases? This is what strikes at the heart of the problem. For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.

Find a billionaire who has AIDS. I'm sure if your proposal is sound, they'll be willing to pony up the money. Hell, even if it's not sound, they still might given they're likely desperate for a cure.

Remember, Occam's razor was originally invented to prove that God exists.

That's the law of unintended consequences for you. Of course, given the fact that education for God has lead to various theories that remove the need for God, is it any surprise that there might be a push against education by those with an agenda? A conspiracy, conscious or subconscious, is sometimes the simplest explanation. Trying to invoke reverse psychology, though, makes things interesting.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[NeutronCowboy]

For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.

Either your execs are lying to you, or are incompetent at marketing. Any drug company would pay through the nose to get a look at a guaranteed cure for AIDS.

Which is more likely: getting a grant to disprove global warming, or getting a grant to produce evidence of global warming?

Depends on who you talk to. Grants for research aimed at investigating evidence for AGW would come from the government or private outfits like the Sierra Club. Budget of NSF: $6 billion. Budget of EPA: $10 billion. Budget of Sierra Club: $100 million

Grants for research aimed at investigating evidence against AGW would come from Big Oil or Big Coal. Profit of Exxon in the last quarter: $6 billion. Profit in 2009 of random coal company in China, Datong: $200 million.

If I wanted grant money to make a living, I would know exactly who I would talk to. And it isn't the NSF or the Sierra Club.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[NeutronCowboy]

Anybody alive during the 70's should also remember a distinct similarity between the vehement AGW campaign and what was then a vehement AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling) campaign.

I really would like to see a quote for that. Just one. Cuz when I was alive in the 70s, we were already talking about Global Warming.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[butalearner]

There are many reasons to doubt AGW as a legitimate climate change candidate. The shrillness of its proponents not being the least. The FSM is as likely a cause. The sunspot minimum makes a far more beleivable.

Sunspots increase solar radiation, so I guess the minimum is the reason that temperatures have stayed relatively constant then?

Regardless of whether AGW is real or not, the thing that pisses me off about the whole scenario is the number of people using it to reject anything that leads to energy independence. By all means, let's continue chugging oil and making Big Oil execs and their Saudi prince friends filthy rich. I don't particularly care if AGW is real, but if it speeds up solar and nuclear energy research and deployment than I'm all for it. You can even say FSM did it, if it makes you happy and reduces our trade deficit.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Xveers]

This isn't that surprising - the reason the similarities are so striking is because the oil companies are hiring the exact same people the tobacco industry used.

I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?

They aren't being hired in order to kill the global warming issue (that won't work) they're just working on getting enough FUD out there, murky enough water for them to get through their tenure as CEO and retire with an awesome severance package. It costs a company let's say 10 million a year to hire these guys and run their operations (number pulled from thin air), whereas for them to recognize the issue and go with the flow would mean billions of billions of dollars to realign their company. Any sane CEO looking out for his own rear will go pay the little bit to stall and leave someone else with the problem.

The only question is how long they can keep tossing the potato before it ends up being too hot and gets dropped in a lap

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Barrinmw]

http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-shows-extensive-growth-in-march-2010/ Arctic sea ice may be on their way back up from the 2007 lows which may have been explained by underwater volcanic eruptions warming the sea water there...interesting... Also, global warming would be a blessing in disguise, it would make much more of the planet habitable then is today ie Large Swaths of Canada and Northern Europe/Asia. Global cooling is far more dangerous to human kind in that it causes large scale famine. By keeping the earth in a warmed state, we would potentially prevent any mini-freezes that would lead to the deaths of millions of people.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[schon]

"Failed"??

Yes, failed. Unless you're going to claim that that smoking really doesn't cause cancer?

Last I checked they are mostly still in business selling cigarettes and making profits.

What exactly does that have to do with the topic at hand, other than displaying your lack of reading comprehension?

Sounds like they won that one to me.

Read my post, including the part that I quoted. The fact that they have a highly addictive product has no bearing on whether their attempt to discredit legitimate science worked or not.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Vancorps]

Of course warmer weather also means increasingly intense storms as there is more energy for them to feed from.

I don't think change is a bad thing, but rapid uncontrolled change can be quite destructive. Naturally, our ability to effect the change occurring is up in the air but I imagine largely falls on budgetary priorities.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[FatSean]

Yeah, that's why they changed the name. Couldn't have had anything to do with the evolution of theory :)

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[TapeCutter]

Here is the raw data, now will you please stop linking tabloid hit pieces and repeating their propoganda?

Note the raw data in the link has a few minor holes, this is due to the fact some national weather services (eg: France) will only release their data on condition you keep it private. If you intend to perform a reconstruction be aware the raw data is chock full of anaomolies such as undocumented station movements and typos. OTHOH Jones and his unit have spent the last couple of decades ferreting out and documenting these anomolies so you may want to consider using the more complete and more accurate HadCRUT data set or NASA's similarly painstakingly cleaned GISTemp data set.

As you may or may not be aware historical temprature reconstructions are fairly insensitive to the holes and anomolies mentioned above, meaning that the raw data in the link is more than sufficient to reproduce any of the historical temprature reconstructions in the literature. If this is still insuffitient to shake your faith in tabloid journalisim, you could try some of the other raw data and master repositiries.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ajaxlex]

The difference is that the cooling position was mainly advanced by sensational media, while real scientists (at the same time - 1970s) were already starting to predict global warming - Just like they are today. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[budgenator]

The point is

Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

they actually delete their copy of the data, but more embarrassingly they also destroyed the documentation of exactly how the value-added dataset they produced was actually produced.
They can not at this time,

1. reacquire the original raw data, it's been changed
2. re-quality-control the raw data, they're not completely sure how they did it
3. re-homogenize the data again they're not completely sure how they did it

and they really need to go back to square 1 and reproduce what they've done; reproducibility is a corner stone of science. It's the Apocalyptic Global Warming crowd that needs to prove that

1. The Globe has warmed significantly
2. the warming is unprecedented and therefore man-made
3. the warming is not do to UHI, Urban Heat Islands, or land use changes
4. reducing CO2 to pre-industry revolution levels will return temperatures to pre-industry revolution levels also;

I'm perfectly happy using more accurate satellite data, but that only goes back to 1979 so it can never support or refute AGW historically.

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

That's almost right, the data there undergoes continuous quality control, new data is added and old data is revised when they find a problem, (and there are plenty of problem datums in there) so it's not exactly the same. If you want it you can go to NOAA and download the ghcn, Global Historic Climate Network, but be advised it's about a 1.8GB compressed download and decompresses to about 5.8GB of data. On a modern computer, running Linux, some Perl scripts, revision control and a database like postgresql you can do anything the bigboys in climatology can do and from what I've seen do it better. The data itself has a lot of documentation with it, a lot of it is wrong or misleading, if you like challenges, GHCN will do it.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[BikeHelmet]

The taxation levels on oil products are far, far too low. If we paid at the pump for the environmental damage and the foreign policy costs of our oil addiction, gasoline would be at least twice as expensive.

If your government forced them to clean up spills rather than screwing over hundreds of thousands of people, wildlife, and entire ecosystems, that'd drive the price up too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[TapeCutter]

"No one goes into the field expecting to make a lot of money

Indeed, the IPCC has a paltry $5-6M budget and has never paid a red cent to any of the scientists who perform the tedious review work.

"Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer."

Yes, in fact some of the same people and think tanks play staring roles in both campaigns and have recently been joined by creationists who employ similar methods in their disinformation campaign.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Anybody alive during the 70's should also remember a distinct similarity between the vehement AGW campaign and what was then a vehement AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling) campaign.

Are you sure you aren't confusing "Global Cooling" with "Nuclear Winter"?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[budgenator]

I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?

Your assuming that the Oil Companies want to defeat the apocalyptic global warming crowd, rather than selling even more profitable "green" fuels that will sustain their companies long after petroleum has peaked.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

The term changed from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'. Why is that? If they(politicians such as Al Gore) didn't mean Global Cooling, why didn't they stick with the former term.

Scientists have shown that the Earth's climate has been fluctuating for millions of years. It's been through several ice ages. How can you expect the Earth's climate not to fluctuate given that it changes distance from the Sun constantly? Scientists have claimed that the Sun will eventually run out of energy. I really doubt the amount of energy it emits will be constant until that time. How can you make the claim that the climate should follow a repeatable pattern?

If the problem is Global Warming from Man-made pollution, then why not use the term 'Pollution' to describe the problem rather than use a term that describes a symptom of the problem?

Even if humans were proven to be the cause of 'Climate Change', we wouldn't stop doing the things we're doing. Do you really think it's feasible to throw away all of our vehicles, live without electricity, or gas, destroy all of our airplanes, tankers, weapons. Even if we were able to live completely off of Solar and Wind energy, that would still pollute because the materials are pollutants, and it would take energy to create them.

The fact is that in order to survive, some sacrifice has to be made.

The general politic rhetoric with this topic is "Humans are destroying the planet, therefore we have to tax you." No politician has ever given a solution to the alleged problem, you didn't propose a solution in your response, and you even admitted that there isn't a good solution. This is why people are irritated with the rhetoric.

I challenge you to propose a definitive, feasible solution.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Chris Burke]

I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?

They failed eventually, but the scam worked for a long time and made their sponsors ridiculous piles of money. Far more than they ever stood to lose by having the truth come out. Sure they failed to keep the gravy train going forever, but that's still a damn good return on investment.

For the oil companies, this is perfect. They know the oil gravy train is going to stop eventually regardless, which is why they're already "energy" companies. They just need to muddy the waters long enough to maximize their profits. They'll still be in business after the oil runs out, but they'll be richer if they can keep the switch off fossil fuels from happening sooner than it has to.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[MichaelSmith]

The question is what impact we are having on the climate with the stuff we are pumping in to the atmosphere and what, if anything, we should be doing about it.

If natural global warming was deemed a threat to us we would have to look for ways to offset it. We are not children you know. It doesn't matter who "did it".

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ipquickly]

You must of had some yourself.

From: No Doubt About It: All But Fox News Tipping Obama's Way.(11/01/2008)

Two studies out in the past couple of days show that it's not just conservatives who see a strong tilt by journalists in favor of the Democrats: A nonpartisan media monitoring group and a liberal-leaning research organization both confirm the pro-Obama, anti-McCain bias of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Jeremy Erwin]

That's why the head of the CRU at UAE resigned his post.

Nope. Phil Jones is still the director of the CRU. source. For a time, he had stepped aside, but that's standard practice during witchhunts.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[grege1]

Ten thousand scientists in two dozen countries, democratic, communist, totalitarian, capitalist, socialist all working together in concert to trick the world for personal or political gain. If you believe that, then there is no hope for you or anyone else who truly thinks that this conspiracy theory has any credence.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Abcd1234]

I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.

That's not a skeptics view. That's an idiot-who-doesn't-understand-statistics view.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ArcherB]

Ten thousand scientists in two dozen countries, democratic, communist, totalitarian, capitalist, socialist all working together in concert to trick the world for personal or political gain.

If you believe that, then there is no hope for you or anyone else who truly thinks that this conspiracy theory has any credence.

They are the only ones left. Those that didn't carry the torch lost funding, lost credibility and had to find other lines of work. All that is left are the scientist who played ball with those that pay the grants, the politicians!

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Sorry, the data, collection points (or lack thereof) and analysis methodology make AGW an unlikely hypothesis.

"The NASA findings indicate a mean worldwide temperature of about 58.496 degrees F., topping the previous record, set in 1995 of 58.154."

Ya gotta love the touch of using 'about', followed by a world temperature quoted to 1/1000 degree F. why we are justified in assuming such preposterous "accuracies" from processes that have half degree error bars? How do they estimate the Earth's temperature in 1938 to within a half of a degree. I would like to see the procedure used to do that, and the measures employed.

I just did something funny; I ran those numbers through google converting them from F to C. I got something funny considering science is generally done in celsius.

58.49600 degrees Fahrenheit = 14.72 degrees Celsius 58.15400 degrees Fahrenheit = 14.53 degrees Celsius

Seems to me including at least two decimal places would be expected from the scientific community and since they are likely to be based on much of the same instruments and post-processing techniques, the error bar for the temperature change would no doubt be _much_ smaller than the one relating to how close to the actual global temperature those measurements really were. (And it is the former, not the latter, that is important)

Your ass is flapping in the wind spewing fecal matter all over the place, all that over a simple Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ArcherB]

Um, you seemed to have ignored the first two thirds of his comment. You know, the part about how NASA assumes that we are .001 of a degree warmer than we were over seventy years ago. Really? We were accurate to 0.001 of a degree when measuring the world's climate average back when the Charleston was all the rage and cars still had wooden tires? And you are seriously willing to give up rights on that assumption?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ShakaUVM]

>>I don't particularly care if AGW is real, but if it speeds up solar and nuclear energy research and deployment than I'm all for it.

Indeed. Nuclear is currently the only cost effective alternative to coal. If any of these solar breakthroughs on /. ever come true, then maybe solar will be cost competitive in the future. Right now, the gov't has to heavily subsidize solar.

But Greens hate nuclear power. California has a ban on new nuke plants (and are working to shut the existing ones down). They've blocked tidal and wind development. Hell, the Sierra Club shut down a large solar installation in the desert here.

Something seriously needs to be done in terms of lawsuit reform before we can get anywhere near sanity with our energy policies.

Greens are more responsible for global warming than any other group on the planet.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ArcherB]

There are many reasons to doubt AGW as a legitimate climate change candidate. The shrillness of its proponents not being the least. The FSM is as likely a cause. The sunspot minimum makes a far more beleivable.

Sunspots increase solar radiation, so I guess the minimum is the reason that temperatures have stayed relatively constant then?

Regardless of whether AGW is real or not, the thing that pisses me off about the whole scenario is the number of people using it to reject anything that leads to energy independence. By all means, let's continue chugging oil and making Big Oil execs and their Saudi prince friends filthy rich. I don't particularly care if AGW is real, but if it speeds up solar and nuclear energy research and deployment than I'm all for it. You can even say FSM did it, if it makes you happy and reduces our trade deficit.

No one is saying "let's burn oil like there is no tomorrow". What people are saying is that it is cheaper to drill for oil than to catch the unicorn farts required to power our cars, heat/cool our homes, and drive our economy.

I agree with the whole "let's cut our dependence on foreign oil bit", but we are not going to do that by banning all domestic energy production. It will take the reasonable efficiency proposals from the liberals and combine them with the feasible domestic energy policies of the conservatives. This means that we drill ANWR and offshore. This means that we tax that oil and use the money for alternative energy research (AND NOTHING ELSE!). It means that we increase automobile efficiency standards. We build nuclear plants. We build wind farms. We do ALL of what is reasonable, not just what one side or the other wants.

But lets not do it in a such a way that gives more power to the government to control our lives.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Barrinmw]

They don't even know how to add clouds into the mixture, the entire premise behind global warming being man made is that there is a feedback loop that increases the water vapor amount since water vapour is a much larger contribution to global warming then everything else. Except...wouldn't increased water vapor mean increased cloud cover? And don't clouds reflect heat? But...they don't understand it enough to include in their calculations how much the clouds will affect it. Sounds like they jumped to conclusions without having enough data.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ArcherB]

Not sure why this is modded Troll... Unfortunately, it's quite true. While not blatantly stupid as FOX News, the National Post does use its fair share of twisted facts. In addition, it's well-known as the more right-wing national newspaper in Canada (the Globe and Mail being more left wing), and would therefore be more inclined to present facts in a right-wing-friendly way. Got to love the "free" press.

What difference does it make which slant is has as long as they are reporting FACTS? Are you telling me that facts presenting a "right-wing-friendly way are somehow no longer facts?

My God man! You've let your partisan colored glasses make you think that facts you don't like are not facts.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Xyrus]

I lost faith in the climatologists when they stopped calling it global warming and went for the more neutral "climate change." If that isn't an example of politicizing their own debate then I don't know what is.

What are you talking about? The changed the terminology because most of population, including the mediatainment knowledge-pudding dispensing machine, couldn't muster the neurons to figure out that GLOBAL WARMING != WARM EVERYWHERE. Apparently the concept of global average temperatures increasing and the sometimes non-intuitive results were just too damn complicated and confusing.

In an effort to make things less confounding, they chose climate change. The thinking was to use a term that was temperature neutral and perhaps lower the instances of Joe Simpleton's response of "It dar be cold here, ain't no global wooormin'!".

I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.

No, you don't hold a skeptics view. You hold an ignorant view. You're statement clearly shows you don't know anything about computer modeling of complex phenomena. You also demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between meteorology and climatology.

You see, a real skeptic is someone who is educated and understand the material they are skeptical about. You're more like the pitchfork and torch wielding peasant; uneducated but fervent in your beliefs.

That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it.

Again, your criticizing something you don't understand. Try studying (at least) meteorology.

Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.

o_O

It wasn't just tree rings. Look, we don't have climatological data from satellites going back millions of years, so scientists from various branches use proxies. In the case of climatology, scientists use MULTIPLE proxies in order to get a general idea of what the Earth's climate was like.

Now in order to get an accurate picture, and indeed, to even use the proxy it has to "check out" with all the rest of data. If a proposed proxy doesn't match (within reason) the other data then it is tossed out.

In this particular case, the tree ring data held up well as a proxy compared with other sources of data (sediments, isotopes, etc.). However, just recently (within the past 100 years) the tree ring data started to diverge significantly. More to the point, it started to diverge from the actual temperature record (this is being researched). So what do you do? Use the human temperature record which is far more robust and accurate or do you use the RECENT tree ring data which seems to be expressing a flaw?

Upon further research it may turn out that tree ring data is not a good proxy and the whole data set will be thrown out. Any research based on that data set will have to be redone. The process is called science.

Be that as it may, you can't really be a skeptic without having any knowledge of subject your being skeptical about (at least in a scientific aspect). There are legitimate skeptics out there. The ask good solid questions and bring up salient points. But basing your skepticism on your own ignorance of the subject material is like building your house on quicksand.

~X~

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Abcd1234]

And yours is nothing more than an insult with absolutely no refutation of his argument.

You're right, I didn't. Why? Because no refutation would matter. The difference between short term noise and a long term trend is basic, fundamental statistics. Any introduction to climate science, economics, or any number of other fields would cover this topic. If he wanted to learn the difference, he could find out for himself.

But, of course, he doesn't want to learn the difference. And even if someone explained it to him, he'd ignore it. Why? Because he's already decided global warming is false, and climatologists don't know what they're doing. At that point, confirmation bias will ensure that he never learns anything that disputes this conclusion, simply because he *doesn't care to learn*. Which is, of course, why he latched onto the stupid "durr, they can't tell me the temperature next week!" meme. He already *wants* to believe global warming is fake, and so an idiotic statement like that rings true.

Of course, that's the difference between a real skeptic and a denier. A skeptic hears a claim, then attempts to go out and learn something about it for himself. A denier listens to both sides, then picks the arguments that confirm his beliefs.

You did nothing but attempt to insult him and made your self look like an ignorant ass in the process.

Says ArcherB, the long-time conservative noisebag and Slashdot troll.

Please. Go back into your hole, noisebag. You clearly have nothing of value to contribute.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[sumdumass]

Stop being disingenuous. In the years running up to the "15 year period", the global warming crowd was claiming SEE, SEE, the earth is getting hotter, this is the hottest yet and it's because you drive an SUV. Now what has changed since then is not the amount of GHGs being pumped into the atmosphere as one would expect, but instead what has changed is the rise of temperature that was being blamed on the excess GHGs and one of the people making the claim admitting that the warming has stopped for some reason (other thenGHG buildup changes).

So why don't you tell us what claims you want us to listen to. Is it only the claims made today? Only claims made tomorrow when today's claims are once again not aligning with the observable facts? Or do you fancy rewriting history and ignoring everything that doesn't jive while just cherry picking what you think makes it work? And before you start claiming that the claims weren't made by scientists, you better remember James Hansen of NASA's fame which admitted to falsifying claims because he thought the ends justified the means. Why continue in his footsteps?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Barrinmw]

Ok, so the fact that certain cloud types would exacerbate global warming and the other kinds would counter it, they know exactly which kinds will form in the future due to increases water vapor in the atmosphere and they know where these clouds are going to form right? Right? Cause if this is true, these people are superhuman and can actually see into the future.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Barrinmw]

I never said global warming wasn't happening. I even agreed that the earth is in a relatively warmed state. I just contend that there is too much error in our current data and models to accurately say what is going to happen in 100 years and whether or not what they are predicting is a bad thing. Yet you can just go along, believe all the data they show you, believe their stance without questioning. Good thing real scientists aren't like you. Hell, Newton wouldn't have come up with his laws of motion if he just went with the data cause all the data showed that things wanted to slow down and stop.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[WeatherGod]

Here is a very good article examining the source of the AGC myth and how it compared to AGW in scientific literature at the time.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Areyoukiddingme]

You seem to think the tobacco industry's purpose in hiring those people was to prove the science wrong. It wasn't. It was to deflect as much of the blame as possible, so that they could pay as little as possible in restitution. They paid for their own research. Their own researchers (not those people) established the link. They knew it was real, for decades. They had hoped the results would be otherwise, but they weren't. So it was time for some damage control. Weighing their multi-decade profits vs the settlements they ultimate paid, it's clear they did not lose.

The oil industry is perfectly willing to do precisely the same thing. They're hedging their bets that the science will not be definitively proven. They want enough sound and fury surrounding the issue that they can avoid getting stuck with the bill. Having the science fail to be definitively proven would be ideal for them, but anybody who thinks only one move ahead in a chess game loses.

Do you think all of the noise you hear about choosing high mileage vehicles or carpooling or riding mass transit is funded entirely by environmentalists untainted by oil money? Don't be ridiculous. Keeping awareness of the other options high is necessary in order to spread culpability. If the entire Greenland ice sheet melts down tomorrow, they can say "You all CHOSE to keep buying Explorers and paying us $80 to fill the tanks. It's YOUR fault."

Everything I ever needed to know, I learned in kindergarten. You don't have to pay a penalty if you can convince the teacher that the other kid was just as responsible as you are.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Totenglocke]

Which is more likely: that scientists got together and colluded to invent a crisis thinking it would make tons of money roll in, or that the wealthy are projecting their greed onto the less greedy?

Actually option 'C' is more likely than either of your options - government paid scientists off to justify raising taxes on businesses they didn't like and to curb behavior (such as driving cars) that they don't like.

Ever stop and think about how "global warming" wasn't a crisis until Al Gore (who has about as much science education as Obama has economics education - in other words, none) discovered it and brought it to the attention of the DNC?

Temperatures may or may not be changing (evidence seems to say that they're fairly stable), but there's zero reason to think that human behavior has anything to do with it - THAT part of GW is 100% manufactured for political purposes.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Jerry]

The whole CRU fiasco, the "peer review" scam, attacks on other experts in the field who disagree, all for a high sounding political purpose - to save the world from destruction by AGW, reminds me of the Lysenko Affair in the USSR. In that case the entire field of biology was set back in the USSR nearly 30 years because an unproven theory was anointed as truth by selective and staged experiments, cherry picking data, cooking, trimming, etc., because Lysenko had the blessings of the Politicians to control thinking and research on genetics in the USSR.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[NeutronCowboy]

If you want to flame, at least be on-topic. Where was I talking about something that happened 70 years ago? Where was I talking about what NASA said? This is about Phil Jones. Pay attention.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[NeutronCowboy]

Thank you. At least there's some paper I can link to if this gets pulled out again.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[thelamecamel]

guess which of the following two grants will get funded and which won't: 1) man is not the cause of global warming/we're along for the ride on a system controlled in large part by solar output and other effects, give us money to study what they are, or 2) MAN IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, WE MUST BE STOPPED, WE WILL ALL DIE IF YOU DON'T FUND THIS RESEARCH.

If either of those grant applications would get funded in your country, then the entire grant system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt - they are both putting the conclusions before the research. Science is very different to lawyering - with lawyering your conclusions come first (i.e. your client is innocent) and you gather as much evidence for your conclusions as possible. Scientists on the other hand have the luxury of adapting their conclusions to fit the data. Sometimes this means a null result, but often this is worth publishing too and will get you more grants.

A variation on your first suggestion that doesn't imply bad science would be "to investigate the effect of solar flares on Earth's temperature and climate". In fact there has been a lot of publicly funded science on this topic, and I think a significant connection was pretty much ruled out back in the 90's (though I haven't checked).

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[NeutronCowboy]

So what about the people in the seventies who were already talking about an impending global warming crisis? You know, the ones who were valiantly working against the popular misconception that global cooling was a real danger? By the way, there was sarcasm in there. I'll let you figure out which part was sarcasm.

Accusing someone of bias is the easiest way to stop an argument, because everyone is biased in some way. Furthermore, there is a big, fat difference in being paid out of a giant pool of money that goes for studying the mating habits of dung beetles and whether ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from 200000 years ago, and getting paid by a corporation whose bottom line depends on the outcome of the study. Equating the two is disingenuous.

Is the research from big oil regarding climate change automatically wrong. No. But if it just so happens that the outcome of the study is the one that supports the companies bottom line, I'm going to look a) very carefully at how it arrived at that conclusion, and b) compare it with the conclusions from people who aren't affiliated with said company.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Bing Tsher E]

Likewise, there were FAR more Palin covers than Clinton covers. Guess why?

Because Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate, whereas Hillary by that point was an also-ran.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Jeremy Erwin]

This paper predicts massive cooling-- on the order of 1--10 K. What's more, it would be anthropogenic!

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Mike Buddha]

Which, when looking at a trend over 1,000 years, means diddlyshit.

Actually, it does matter when the alarmists are saying that global warming is anthropogenic, in particular since the rise of oil use in th 1940s. 15 years is 30 percent of the "hockey stick" that alarmists throw around like the gospel.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[dbIII]

Unless, of course, you are a climate scientist who is employed by a big oil company

The weird "thinktanks" and PR companies funded this way don't have any climate scientists and instead have odd failed journalist confidence tricksters such as Lord Monckton.
Those oil funded climate scientists putting forward a contrary view that you say we should be listening to do not actually exist. You are pushing a fairy story.
What all the deniers miss here is that if a climate scientist can prove it's all wrong they will have as much fame as Einstein - that's a pretty big incentive to prove it's wrong but no proof is forthcoming.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

Actually the term "climate change" was dreamed up by Frank Luntz for the Bush administration because it didn't sound as scary as global warming.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

As I said above, the term "climate change" was an invention of Frank Luntz for the Bush administration, not something that climate scientists came up with. You can Google it.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

I imagine the reason they're being sued is because they didn't present facts regardless of how the are spun.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[laughingcoyote]

They are the only ones left. Those that didn't carry the torch lost funding, lost credibility and had to find other lines of work. All that is left are the scientist who played ball with those that pay the grants, the politicians!

An interesting and extraordinary claim, that tens of thousands of scientists are in concert with politicians worldwide. I will be awaiting your extraordinary evidence, which I'm sure will be forthcoming shortly.

It's especially interesting that these politicians got this vast conspiracy together to piece together such elementary concepts as:

• Burning fossil fuels creates a great deal of carbon dioxide. For example, take octane: 2C

  8

  H

  18

  + 25O

  2

  = 16CO

  2

  + 18H

  2

  O. Takes me right back to high school chemistry.

• Carbon dioxide creates a blanketing atmospheric effect. That's not even to high school astronomy, I don't think-but if you're skeptical, I hear Venus is nice this time of year.
• We burn an awful lot of fossil fuel. If you don't believe that, I dunno what to tell you, but here's an idea of "a lot" from the Department of Energy.

I'm not entirely sure why you think a conspiracy is required to advance such simple principles. Seems like a whole lot of work for no reason.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[laughingcoyote]

Sorry to reply to myself, but apparently Slashdot can't properly interpret the div tag with subscripts. The "line breaks" in the middle of the chemical formula are meant to be subscripts, I don't know why they didn't appear that way.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[iris-n]

You are obviously not an academic and have no idea how the grant process work.

First of all, you don't use the conclusions of the study as a justification to fund the study; that would be highly illogical. You write a general project "i want to study the ice cores

fuck that, you're probably just a corporate shill and I'm wasting my time.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

You ought to go out and read some of the grant applications. Very few if any of them mention trying to prove anything about global warming.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

... what has to happen in order to falsify it?

Temperatures dropping for 30 years in the face of rising greenhouse gases without some other factor such as lots of big volcanic eruptions or a really significant change in the Suns output causing it would do it for me.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[rrohbeck]

I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?

They were very successful in swaying public opinion, i.e. consumer behavior, against the clear scientific consensus for decades. If the fossil fuel industry can get away with windfall profits from rising prices for a similar time span because consumers don't get the truth they have reached their goal.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

Lyndon Johnson was briefed about the potential for global warming from CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel burning in 1966. Al Gore was still a teenager then. This year (2010) January and March set new all time* records and the Jan-Mar period also set an all time record.

*All time in the instrument record that started in the mid 1800s for ground based measurements and in the 1980s for satellite records.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[drewhk]

Nuff said.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[drewhk]

"What difference does it make which slant is has as long as they are reporting FACTS?"

This will be decided by the judge (or jury, whatever they have) and not you.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[drewhk]

Naah, he will never read them, because that might shake his faith!

I am DISGUSTED by these people -- they call themselves nerd but do not care to look up the TREMENDOUS amount of available data and stuff.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[h4rm0ny]

But Greens hate nuclear power.
How do you define "green"? I suppose you would make part of that definition "opposed to nuclear power", but that just makes the term meaningless. I consider myself "green" and a staunch environmentalist and I'm strongly in favour of nuclear power. Lots of it, right now, please. Some people who call themselves environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power. They're dying off though. Many of us have been pro-nuclear power all along.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Gadget_Guy]

In other words, climate changes is being run by socialists (who want everyone to drive equal cars), PETA (who doesn't want people eating helpless animals), and the Sierra Club (who wants plants to have rights).

Let me get this straight. You think that socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club have managed to buy out virtually all the climate scientists of the world? Where did they get the money for that? And what evidence do you have for this? For such a massive conspiracy, there would have to be a large paper trail. There would be evidence of these organisations funding research groups, just like we see evidence of anti-climate change think tanks being funded by industry at places like SourceWatch.

I guess you are saying that SUVs don't produce more CO2 than smaller cars, that cows don't produce massive amounts of methane and that deforestation has no effect on the ability of this planet to convert CO2 to O2. Well you would be wrong. On one hand you have these proven scientific facts, while on the other hand you have unproven conspiracies that have been supposedly committed by people who I doubt would have the organisational skills to pull it off. Which seems more likely?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Trepidity]

No, the economic implications have nothing to do with the science.

I don't think that's entirely true. If a lot of money is riding on a prediction, the concerns are different than if it's less immediately important whether a particular hypothesis is correct or not. The risk/loss functions differ, so how you should go about procuring/evaluating evidence differs. Unless you think the scientific method is exempt from decision theory?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[grege1]

Perhaps my taking the piss out of conspiracy theorists was too subtle. Next time I will have to be more blunt.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ShakaUVM]

>>How do you define "green"?

Let's call it Greenpeace and/or the Sierra Club, or some intersection thereof.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[h4rm0ny]

I'm not saying we shouldn't critique it. But, as with evolution, General Relativity and the like, it would be nice if the naysayers weren't either cranks or con artists.

Nice parting shot - 'naysayers are cranks or con artists'. I'm afraid that supports what he's saying. If you read through and story about AGW on /., what you see are a lot of skeptics questioning facts and a lot of believers throwing around insults, accusations of corruption, idiocy or being supporters of the Republican party. The difference is pretty dramatic. Also, there are endless strawmen used against skeptics. Repeatedly anyone who expresses skepticism of that the bulk of global warming can be shown to be caused by man are then presumed to be saying there is no global warming. People doubting AGW are then presumed to have some particular political slant for the mass consumption of fossil fuels. For example, I have significant doubts about AGW, and am highly pro-nuclear and renewable resources. But for other environmental and political reasons than AGW. Yet I say one thing against AGW on /. and I am suddenly showered in comments about peak oil, my SUV driving and any other assumptions people here want to make about who I am and what I believe.
The GP is right. If someone doubts AGW on /. or elsewhere, then for every one supportable counter argument someone posts that references the facts, another five will post commenting on the skeptic's intelligence, political bias and even, hillariously, that they must be in the pay of the Oil industry. I've even seen my legitimate comments deleted from a national newspaper's website (the Independent, in the UK), not for any tone or rudeness, but for actually pointing out genuine mistakes (not just debatable conclusions) in the article writer's piece. If Science were a matter of polite, focused discussion, rather than about factual accuracy, then the AGW proponents here on /. would have lost the debate long ago. As it is about factual accuracy, then all the hate and insults many of them produce really just contribute nothing.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[h4rm0ny]

Yeah, I always find it hilarious when people suggest money as the motivation for climatologists.

I don't. Having known a number of senior academics, I can tell you that what is going through half of their heads is "money". And the other half is "publicity / fame". Well, most of them. The mathematicians all seemed to be in it for the love of disappearing into their own private world and fairly oblivious to everything else. But a lot of academics? Yes - they'll start publishing on anything that will currently get them published / grants. And the woolier the subject, the more this seems to be the case. It's silly to compare the money a career academic can make (quite plausibly in the £40k / US$50k, which a lot of people actually consider a pretty comfortable salary, thankyouverymuch), with big industry money and say that money couldn't be a motivation for climatologists. So the size of the pies is different... That doesn't mean it ain't a motivation.

The correct comparison to make is not between a scientist arguing in favour of AGW and unrelated jobs in big industry, but between that same scientist and another one arguing against the popular and accepted theory / movement (which tends to go down very badly). Then you can see whether or not money is a plausible motivation. Not saying it would be - people don't need to be corrupt - but I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous to laugh away such an idea.

The academic community works frighteningly like Slashdot - people shuffle round reinforcing each other's ideas like a giant echo chamber, until another meme takes hold and replaces the current favourite. And as I say, the woolier the subject, the more this is so. Mathematicians - very little susceptibility. Physics noticeably more so. Then you work your way along the spectrum to get to things like Educationalists which are almost entirely fad-driven. Climate science is far from as bad as that - there's a lot of solid science in it, but it's distinctly further along than maths and to the right of most areas of Physics, for example. There is plenty of room for dubious motivation in that academic community, I'm sorry to say.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[mrjb]

"global warming would be a blessing in disguise, it would make much more of the planet habitable then is today ie Large Swaths of Canada and Northern Europe/Asia. Global cooling is far more dangerous to human kind in that it causes large scale famine."

You, sir, are talking out of your arse. Maybe you should take a look at the world hunger map- Hunger is more prevalent in hot places than in colder areas.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[h4rm0ny]

Temperatures dropping for 30 years in the face of rising greenhouse gases without some other factor

Good luck with that. The planet's climate is massively complicated. To the degree that we don't even know for sure what might or might not even count as a factor. And who is even to say that 30 years is the right time period to pick? It could take more than that for a particular oceanic system or biological impact to show what it's long term effect would be. Falsifying AGW? Very far from easy, which is one of the points the GP made.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[RockDoctor]

For example, my company has the technology to cure AIDS, but we can't get the time of day from any granting agencies, because they will only fund vaccine research.

Find a billionaire who has AIDS. I'm sure if your proposal is sound, they'll be willing to pony up the money. Hell, even if it's not sound, they still might given they're likely desperate for a cure.

No, no, no, no.

1. Find a billionaire (caveat : who has children (caveat : that he gives a shit about)).
2. Get the child(ren) infected with AIDS.
3. Send your marketing department around to the billionaire. (It doesn't matter if the child hasn't told the father that they've got AIDS ; you can always be the bearer of glad tidings. Or you can find another marketing shill to do the dirty work.)
4 ???
5. Profit!

"Blackmail" is such an ugly word. I much prefer "extortion".

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[RAMMS EIN]

``I lost faith in the climatologists when they stopped calling it global warming and went for the more neutral "climate change." If that isn't an example of politicizing their own debate then I don't know what is.''

Actually, I think it is simply a more accurate expression of the real concerns. Speaking for myself, average temperature rising by a few Kelvins isn't really what I am concerned about. However, effects such as more heavy rain, floods, and cyclones do have me concerned, and if climate were to change in such a way as to cause large-scale destruction of ecosystems, I feel that that would be a Bad Thing, too. Also, if the concern were really global warming, than perhaps a global drop in temperatures by 20 Kelvins would be cause for celebration. I hardly think that this is the case.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[h4rm0ny]

Let's call it Greenpeace and/or the Sierra Club, or some intersection thereof

Greenpeace are to environmentalists, what the Taliban are to Islam or Stalin was to Socialism. I know I'm coming a little close to the No True Scotsman problem when I dimiss them, but I'd say most "real" environmentalists are sick to death of them. They're against whaling - that's good and I approve of them fucking up that industry as much as possible, and they make some decent points about GM crops (in amongst their more dubious points about GM crops) but most of them should stat the Hell out of debates on the environment generally.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[RAMMS EIN]

``If "big oil" scientists cannot be trusted because of how they get paid, neither can academics.''

Thanks for pointing that out.

Perhaps your post will help more people realize that it's not about the people, it's about the work. The validity of the results does not depend on who funded the research or on the bias of the researchers - it depends on the methods that were used to arrive at the results.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[digitalchinky]

A few billion people have managed to convince themselves that an invisible 'god' actually exists. In that regard your post is null and void good sir.

I think a few thousand scientists could easily have a similar agenda - not necessarily in the interests of pure science. It might be political, could be about keeping a roof over ones head and food on the table, gravy train, peer pressure, say what the boss tells you to say, whatever.

A few bad apples on both sides of the argument have bent the raw data to suit their own agendas, very much to their collective detriment. So much so that the words 'climate scientist' can now sit with pride of place beside the word 'homeopathy' - which is to say that I don't give a crap what either side is saying anymore.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

No, you are an idiot for making the false claim that "they are switching to Climate Change". People who call you an idiot will tell you that you are an idiot because they have always called it Climate Change and Global Warming. They have not stopped calling it Global Warming. Now fuck off please.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

You are an idiot too. He made the claim that they stopped calling it Global Warming, which is a blatant lie. It shouldn't even be necessary to provide links showing that scientists are referring to it as Global Warming. That's how much of a moron he is.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

Morons like the GP will resort to vulgar insults

The irony. But idiot denialists have always been hypocrites.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

et me get this straight. You think that socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club have managed to buy out virtually all the climate scientists of the world? Where did they get the money for that?

Like all good socialists, they don't have money. Instead they used any and all influence they have anywhere, from government to university boards to physical attack in some cases, to attack anyone not on their side.

There are NO scientists funding their own research anymore (used to be a basic requirement of being called "objective"). It just doesn't exist. Corporate research departments, like IBM's or Philips' have are the closest thing to impartial organisations we have in this day and age. Or perhaps, one should say, they're not objective either, but they're the only scientists not 95% dependant upon the government. So they're the only ones who might come up with a viewpoint independantly of the government.

And what evidence do you have for this?

You know, much more proof than is available than just walking into just about any university's "human sciences" (in case you don't know "climate" is not an exact science at all) department and talking to just about anyone is not really needed.

Or just ask a student you how they think of unemployment. Or just look up a few articles on the split of political parties in any university. You'll notice, that the percentages are entirely different than those in the general population, nearly exclusively democrat (and not "sensibly" democrat, loony democrat).

Unless of course, you think that somehow there are barely any republicans that have any measure of intelligence at all. That would, of course, make you a racist.

For such a massive conspiracy, there would have to be a large paper trail. There would be evidence of these organisations funding research groups

As previously stated, very nearly all university research is sponsored by the quintessential political organisation : the government. Despite this, there is no shortage of socialist (and communist) organisations funding research in large universities. The paper trail is ineed lengthy and obvious for all to see if you just take a look.

Of course, you believe money only corrupts if it's from the other side. I understand the dilemma of someone who's genuinly pro-agw ... just about all the research money comes from pro-agw groups or parties, or from anti-agw groups or parties, and there are hardly any scientists at all that receive no funding (so the only real option you have is to take some numbers and see if you can correlate them yourself. And as anyone who's tried to correlate co2 concentration and temperature over 2000 years of history knows : they don't correlate. They "seem" somewhat related on the graph but the best correlation number I can get (by time shifting either forward or backward in time) is about 0.2, which is not enough by far)

It's also an absurd misconception that oil giants are against global warming legislation. Well, this may be true for the truly idiotically evil amongst them (*cough* aramco *cough*), but you should sit back for 2 seconds and think about such giants as BP, Esso, and Shell. The ones that get blamed, because greens are not interested in anyone, no matter how evil, that isn't in their backyard. That they can't nail and shame publically. And so aramco gets a free pass, as does venezuela.

BP, Esso, and Shell, despite what people seem to think, do not make their money from mining oil (not the biggest part anyway). They make their money from reprocessing oil. Biofuels, for example, are mostly, if not all, processed by these guys (esp. in Europe). Since their oil sources are in serious decline (mostly due to political factors : the world-wide nationalization of oil fields. It doesn't just happen in Venezuela). Furthermore their margins on selling actually mined oil are growing thinner by the month, due to price pressures from both sides (supp

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

Stop being a fucking moron. Stop mindlessly parroting right-wing denialist propaganda. The "clouds are not taken into account" nonsense was refuted ages ago. Now fuck off.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[caroboom]

Taken out of context, yes. But scientist do not really need to be pro or against global change to get funding (I speak from experience here). You just write a grant, in which you claim you will solve the key questions. And anyway, in general, your resulting paper can usually be free of any possible unfunded claims you made in the grant proposal (contrary perhaps to public perception, non-private grant agencies nearly never make any attempts to get you to change your conclusions, and this is unfortunately sometimes worse with private funded research. Now guess where we find most research that rejects climate change....) I do not go second guessing my doctors desisions, please also trust your local climate scientist a bit. There should be checks and balances, but that has nothing to do with the current witch-hunt like attitude of some people.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[top_down]

Even a meager application of Occam's razor should make it immediately clear that the people accusing the climate science community of scaremongering/profiteering are themselves some of the most aggressive profiteers the world has ever known: the fossil fuel industry.

LOL. Occam's razor is not a substitute for evidence dude. Without proof you are just another conspiracy theorist.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[16K Ram Pack]

1. We know that some scientists in the past have deliberately falsified results, so we know that scientists are capable of doing it over this. I'm not even interested in that, though. I'm just interested in whether the science is correct.

2. That's a gross oversimplification. I could easily say that every environmentalist is a socialist who is using it as a way to increase the size of the state because I know of at least 1 socialist group who have quite openly said this.

3. OK. Show me a link from the tobacco companies to Bishop Hill or to McIntyre & McKittrick?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ipquickly]

To the idiot who modded me "off-topic", go read the damn article.

I not only mention the NP(the paper being sued) but I say my opinion on the climate debate(the controversial issue that this dispute is about) as well as mentioning Fox (the media-outlet the poster I responded to was comparing the NP to).

But that's a problem with anything climate related being posted here.
Anyone who disagrees with the idea that the earth is warming up, or even asks questions (just as proper science requires) gets modded down by those who (instead of following scientific guidelines) prefer to do the "feel good thing" and suppress anyone who (in their view) doesn't want to "save the planet" in the only manner that they see fit.

I care about the environment, but it's stupid people like that who do more harm than good. They make lazy people who can't or won't research this topic for themselves question the validity of reputable research just because some bad apples have a clearly evident bias.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Xyrus]

First off, they changed the name to sway peoples opinions, that's not science, that's politics.

No, they didn't. How the hell is climate change any better than AGW to the public? How many times have you heard idiotic talking heads on TV proclaim something similar to "It's been so cold, so much for global warming!".

In scientific circles, the names are used interchangeably. They both mean the same thing to people who actually understand what it is they imply. Climate change is a dumbed down term for the masses, since it appears most people can't understand that just because temperatures are going up overall DOES NOT MEAN tmeperatures are going up everywhere.

Second, it is not logical to look at one complex system and say we can't go more then a week out, and then look at another infinitely more complex system and say we can go 100 years out.

Oh yes it is, and we do it all the time. For example, take a look at orbital dynamics, quantum mechanics, or fluid dynamics. All of these are complex systems that we regularly model to make long range predictions. There are models that are used to predict engine wear for cars, to predict the breakdown rates of motor oils, to predict the expected lifetime of airframes, etc. . All of these take a complex system and model it, usually through monte carlo type simulations, to get an idea of what will happen.

I understand that climatology and meteorology are not the same. The main difference is meteorology looks at the short term and climatology looks at the long term of the same thing - weather patterns.

No they don't. Meteorology looks at very short term high frequency features of the earth's atmosphere to create high accuracy forecasts. Due to this, the calculations become noisy very quickly so forecasts are only somewhat reliable after you get more than a few days out.

Climatology, on the other hand, looks at the macro scale features of the Earth's climate and how various aspect impact the climate. Weather does not play a direct role, only the macro type weather features such as average precipitation and such.

To put it simply, meteorology is like trying to predict the path of an air molecule in a balloon. Climatology is trying to predict the overall state of the balloon. Since climatology is looking mainly at the large scale features of the planet, it is A LOT less noisy than meteorology.

And since all current data that Climatologists are getting is the same as the meteorologists, they should both have the same error in their data, and since the climatologists go further into the future, that error would be propagated much more.

No. Climatologists use data going a lot farther back the meteorological data. It's also coarser, both spatially and temporally. You ignorantly claim that this implies greater error, when in fact it is just the opposite. Large scale long term phenomena are EASIER to predict because the data is smoothed out.

As a really simple example, you know it is colder in the northern hemisphere in winter. In fact, you can, with very high confidence, say which month is the coldest month of the year. Even with a very very basic climate model you can determine this.

However, if you were to say on which a blizzard would occur, that's meteorology. Predicting that with any sort of confidence is equivalent to random chance.

So maybe instead of coming out and saying this is what is happening to the planet, they would find out if their data is good enough to use, but they didn't, they released their findings using said tree ring data without knowing for sure if it was ok to use, that is not science. You don't use data for scientific conclusions unless you know its good data, not it might be good data.

Again, you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding about the subject material. Then you go ahead and discredit and or dismiss the legitimate science and

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Gadget_Guy]

Like all good socialists, they don't have money. Instead they used any and all influence they have anywhere, from government to university boards to physical attack in some cases, to attack anyone not on their side.

Wow. This is dynamite stuff, if it is true. So who are these mythical socialists then? Let's name names and get it all out in the open. Otherwise you will sound like the grandparent poster who spouted the same sort of unsubstantiated vague and paranoid ramblings without a single fact to back it up.

There are NO scientists funding their own research anymore (used to be a basic requirement of being called "objective").

When was that ever a basic requirement of being objective? Most of the pure scientific breakthroughs of the modern science happened at Universities because it is precisely those places that can afford to work on scientific problems that do not have any immediate application.

Corporate research departments, like IBM's or Philips' have are the closest thing to impartial organisations we have in this day and age.

Why don't you trust the motives of publicly funded institutions but will blindly trust corporate research.

And what evidence do you have for this?

You know, much more proof than is available than just walking into just about any university's "human sciences" (in case you don't know "climate" is not an exact science at all) department and talking to just about anyone is not really needed.

Or just ask a student you how they think of unemployment. Or just look up a few articles on the split of political parties in any university. You'll notice, that the percentages are entirely different than those in the general population, nearly exclusively democrat (and not "sensibly" democrat, loony democrat).

So when I want evidence that PETA (amongst others) are managing to influence climate change scientists, you come back with the fact that educated people tend to vote Democrat. That is not proof of anything.

Unless of course, you think that somehow there are barely any republicans that have any measure of intelligence at all. That would, of course, make you a racist.

No it wouldn't, because Republicans aren't a different race. Kind of an unfortunate mistake, given the statement you were making!

As previously stated, very nearly all university research is sponsored by the quintessential political organisation : the government. Despite this, there is no shortage of socialist (and communist) organisations funding research in large universities. The paper trail is ineed lengthy and obvious for all to see if you just take a look.

Then I will ask you what I asked ArcherB. What evidence do you have for this? If it is lengthy and obvious then point it out to us. Who are these socialists and communists who are funding research in large universities (despite them not having any money as you had already stated)?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Chris Burke]

I don't. Having known a number of senior academics, I can tell you that what is going through half of their heads is "money". And the other half is "publicity / fame". Well, most of them.

But that's grant money, as in money they don't get to take home with them. It's only use is to fund their research (pointless if the field is just made up), and to increase their standing with the university. "Fame" in the general sense is not something basically any scientist has or will get, and "fame" within the academic community comes from publishing papers that push the state of the art in a given field. Not any paper, not papers that simply agree with established groupthink and add nothing, but papers that change how science views the subject. One of the best ways to do this is to establish a completely new theory, especially if it means replace existing theory with something better. That's how you attain academic immortality.

The fastest way to become an academic pariah is to consistently fabricate data to support the conclusion you were asked to achieve.

I don't think this motivation points in the direction being implied.

It's silly to compare the money a career academic can make (quite plausibly in the £40k / US$50k, which a lot of people actually consider a pretty comfortable salary, thankyouverymuch), with big industry money and say that money couldn't be a motivation for climatologists. So the size of the pies is different... That doesn't mean it ain't a motivation.

Indeed it's terribly silly to compare the two. The size of the pies isn't just different, their fundamental nature is different because grant money is not money you get to stash. That $50k is a decent living to be sure, but if you're comfortable with just that, rather than a vastly more lucrative industry job, then obviously personal income isn't a primary motivator for you, certainly not to the point of fabricating conclusions out of thin air. You'd have to care about the science to take that job.

The correct comparison to make is not between a scientist arguing in favour of AGW and unrelated jobs in big industry, but between that same scientist and another one arguing against the popular and accepted theory / movement (which tends to go down very badly).

Lots of papers are published that take issue with the mainstream theory and are readily accepted and their conclusions often taken into consideration in future research. In other words, they don't go down badly at all. However, that's only if the papers are actually any good, and actually understand the existing evidence, and actually present new evidence supporting their argument. Which means accepting that there really is good evidence for AGW that you can't just wave away, you need to come up with a better explanation and that isn't easy to do.

There's plenty of disagreement in academia and in climate science. It's silly to say otherwise. The disagreement doesn't extend to any arbitrary argument regardless of merit; the debate isn't between "global warming is valid science" and "no it isn't" like it mostly does here*. There are scientists who believe that the climate change is not anthropogenic without losing the respect of their peers, but they don't publish a paper demonstrating this because they can't demonstrate it yet.

The academic community works frighteningly like Slashdot - people shuffle round reinforcing each other's ideas like a giant echo chamber, until another meme takes hold and replaces the current favourite

It is frightening how people characterize the smörgåsbord of opinions on /. as mindless groupthink when it suits their purposes. Yet here you are, posting on /., contributing your contrary opinion. So there goes that. In academia that's even less accurate since you act like these "memes" are just made up on the spot and that things like evidence never matter at all. Sure things are made up in random slashdot

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Burnhard]

What about it not rising in the face of rising greenhouse gases say, for 10 years?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Reservoir Penguin]

As someone who actually lives in Northern Asia (Siberia) I get a good laugh when someone suggests we will benifit from GW. How is turning millions of sq.km of permarfrost into one gigantic mud patch, destroying cities, factories, power stations, roads, pipelines built on permafrost (like Yakutsk population 200K) is gonna benefit us? At least for Russia melting of the permafrost would be a disaster of gigantic proportions.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Barrinmw]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html A pretty interesting article about tree ring data and how it was used.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Barrinmw]

"Climate change is a dumbed down term for the masses, since it appears most people can't understand that just because temperatures are going up overall DOES NOT MEAN tmeperatures are going up everywhere."

I don't understand how you yourself can write something that proves my point and not understand it. They are using phraseology instead of scientific fact to try and sway opinions.

Quantum Mechanics? Yeah, you do know its impossible to model a quantum scale system with more then a few thousand data points longer then a system right? And even with all the data they collect, they can't even tell you where those points are going to be in 5 seconds let alone a year.

And yes, they are able to use models to predict engine wear and tear, except where do they get their data from? Heavily standardized and hardly any uncertainty experiments. Which is drastically different then trying to correlate things in the natural world that give you very uncertain data with large margins of error.

In my area, normally its December that is the coldest month, but last year, it was November...coldest month in recent history in fact...weird... Of course the more "general" you make something the more likely you are to be right, its called fortune cookies. The climatologists saying "The earth is going to be warmer in 100 years" are like a fortune cookie saying "You are going to meet an interesting person today" Two things, its super general so even if its .1F higher in 100 years then it is now, their prediction was right, also if they are wrong, they will be long dead and it has no effect on their livelihood now.

So the common people criticized scientists...yet in the history of science people haven't used their own political power to try and sway people's thinking cough Newton cough Hooke cough.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html

Interesting article about the Hockey Stick Diagram and the author says where he gets his info from.

Anyway, even if Global Warming is man made, that doesn't mean its a bad thing. There was a time in the history of our planet where there was no ice at either pole, where CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher then they are today and the earth survived, in fact, it flourished during that time. We may lose some land along the coasts and some small islands, yet that doesn't compare to the habitable land we gain in Canada and northern Europe/Asia. And there is the whole part of the ice melting in Alaska has reduced the weight on the earth causing land to rise from the sea...

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hsthompson69]

"Now in order to get an accurate picture, and indeed, to even use the proxy it has to "check out" with all the rest of data. If a proposed proxy doesn't match (within reason) the other data then it is tossed out"

That's classic confirmation bias. Throwing out data when it doesn't match your preconceived notions (as evidence by data you collected previously) is cherry-picking.

If a proposed proxy doesn't match, it deserves further investigation. Furthermore, if a proposed proxy has a discontinuity (matching for a long time, then suddenly unmatching, like Briffa's tree-rings), you cannot just throw out the data from that series that you don't like - the whole series is suspect (and the fact that other proxies match it for historical periods may actually cast doubt on their accuracy).

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

10 years is way to short to see it. If you look at the historical temperature record there are a number of 10 year periods with a dip in temperature but that doesn't change the long term upward trend.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ep32g79]

wrong mod selection.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Gadget_Guy]

You just repeat what you've said before

Yes, I had to. I had originally asked ArcherB to provide some proof to the unfounded claims that climate research was funded by socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club. I never did get that proof. All I got was you making even more unfounded claims, as if you agreeing with the original poster was some sort of proof. So naturally I had to ask you to show some evidence too. As yet, neither you nor ArcherB have been able to substantiate your allegations.

The only response I have had from you was an attempt to deflect conversation by rambling on about something that is completely unrelated. Seriously, I asked you for evidence of your claim of "socialist (and communist) organisations funding research in large universities", and you respond with "do you seriously believe universities have a pro free-market bias?". Who the hell mentioned anything about pro free-market bias? How did that suddenly enter this discussion? I certainly didn't mention it. And to bring this back on topic, I don't think that climate research CAN be either for or against the free market. There is very little free market up there in the clouds!

Now once again. Name the socialist and communist organisations that are funding the universities in order to control climate research.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Xyrus]

That's classic confirmation bias.

No it isn't.

If you have several proxy data sets that indicate warmer or cooler temperatures including the flora/fauna record and you have one that is out of sync, then in all probability that data set is suspect.

Throwing out data when it doesn't match your preconceived notions (as evidence by data you collected previously) is cherry-picking.

Oh yes, that is cherry picking. But that isn't what happened.

The tree ring proxy data matched very well with all other proxy data sets UNTIL around the 1950's. At that point, the tree ring data started diverging significantly from the temperature record that WE as human beings were recording with THERMOMETERS. That is why the tree ring proxy data from that point forward was abandoned, because it did not accurately reflect the OBSERVED temperature record.

If a proposed proxy doesn't match, it deserves further investigation.

Indeed. In fact, it could be a lot more telling when a reliable proxy suddenly starts becoming unreliable. We have had significant impacts on our environment aside from CO2 so perhaps it's related.

Furthermore, if a proposed proxy has a discontinuity (matching for a long time, then suddenly unmatching, like Briffa's tree-rings), you cannot just throw out the data from that series that you don't like - the whole series is suspect (and the fact that other proxies match it for historical periods may actually cast doubt on their accuracy).

If there were only one other proxy, I would agree with you. If there no other findings or observations, I would agree with you. But that is not the case.

In the case of tree rings, yes perhaps there was just a strong correlation with the other proxies by chance over the past thousands of years or so. Perhaps further research (which is ongoing) will show that tree rings really aren't that good and the whole set will be thrown out. But it is very unlikely that all the proxies are incorrect. That would be astounding for other reasons, and not many of them would be good ones.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you threw out Briffa's work entirely. That still does not negate the thousands of other research papers, models, data sets, etc. that have nothing to do with tree rings.

It's science. You may well be vindicated on further research. You may not. It may turn out that a skeptic will finally provide a model that shows adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will not appreciably affect global temperatures. Maybe a brilliant climatologist will eventually show how the current warming trend can be easily explained by a coincidental matching of parameters and it ill go back to normal in 20 years. Maybe it will turn out that there really is a global Illuminati backed scheme that through climate scientists they are working to take over the world. Science, after all, is not perfect.

However, until new research indicates otherwise (or less likely, irrefutable proof of a global conspiracy) I'm going to stick with the scientific consensus.

~X~

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Xyrus]

I should take the word of a UK paper's equivalent of Glenn Beck as scientifically sound explanation and reasoning?

o_O

If you'd actually read the research papers where the data was used, it tells you exactly how the data used (including why they don't use it as a proxy for modern data). There's no conspiracy or mystery here.

~X~

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[uncqual]

Although, IMHO, it's all futile in the end and reflects the misplaced arrogance of humans. I'd short humans and go long on bacteria and cockroaches.

The climate on Earth will change to the point that today's humans can't live on it without their population slowly declining - eventually to zero. Humans evolve poorly for a variety of reasons:

• They bear children in small numbers and relatively late in life (fewer generations per unit of climate change compared to, say, bacteria or cockroaches).
• There aren't very many humans on Earth (individual humans require a lot of resources to prosper so, compared to bacteria and cockroaches, there can't be as many of them) resulting in fewer opportunities for beneficial random mutations to arise.
• For as long as they can, humans will fight their only (albeit, remote) hope for survival -- their own evolution via natural selection -- by focusing on keeping individuals alive rather than keeping the species viable. Therefore those humans who are, by chance, genetically better suited to survival in the changed climate will have to compete for resources with those who are not as well suited but were "artificially" kept alive to breed (although this is a political and emotional bias, albeit perhaps rooted in genetics, and eventually this will end as survival instincts overcome political correctness it will likely happen too late even if humans could evolve quickly enough to adapt).

About the only hope for long term (many millions of years) survival of humans seems to be to continually populate planets/chunks of matter elsewhere in the universe that happen to, in that particular era, have an environment well suited for human existence. However, this seems quite unlikely to happen -- at this point, there are no planets known to humans which even come close to meeting this requirement so humans would have to travel and explore way beyond where they've even sent man made objects so far and, I suspect, only a tiny percentage of environments qualify and humans are unlikely to find one before they are focusing all resources on short term survival rather the space exploration.

That said, yes, humans can probably accelerate or delay the demise of their species (maybe by tens or hundreds of thousands of years?) and maybe this is worth something to some folks -- although caring one way or the other seems rather illogical to me. No matter what, the end game is going to be painful for those who have to play it -- either way, the last generations of humans will likely live horrible (by current standards) lives and die horrible (by current standards) deaths as they desperately fight a losing battle for survival. Not pretty, but inevitable IMHO.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[TimurLeng]

No one is saying "let's burn oil like there is no tomorrow". What people are saying is that it is cheaper to drill for oil than to catch the unicorn farts required to power our cars, heat/cool our homes, and drive our economy.

I agree with the whole "let's cut our dependence on foreign oil bit", but we are not going to do that by banning all domestic energy production. It will take the reasonable efficiency proposals from the liberals and combine them with the feasible domestic energy policies of the conservatives. This means that we drill ANWR and offshore. This means that we tax that oil and use the money for alternative energy research (AND NOTHING ELSE!). It means that we increase automobile efficiency standards. We build nuclear plants. We build wind farms. We do ALL of what is reasonable, not just what one side or the other wants.

But lets not do it in a such a way that gives more power to the government to control our lives.

The question I always wanted to ask a member of the "drill baby, drill" crowd and never had a chance to do so:
Which part of "fossil fuels are a finite source of energy" don't you either understand or reject?

Hope I finally get an answer to that one, as it is "drilling a hole inside of me".

And then of course I just love that part:
>But lets not do it in a such a way that gives more power to the government to control our lives.

Now what's up with that "cloaking every nonsense claim in an anti-government statement" and that in turn is supposed to give it credibility?!

Please let's not forget that it was those supposedly anti-government folks who brought us the Department of Homeland Security, Warrantless Wiretaps and used a blatant lie to justify invading a country that had never attacked American soil.

Talk about excessive abuse of government powers!

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Burnhard]

Ok, so what about, say, 500 years. Or how about 1,000, or 10,000? The choice of timescale is totally arbitrary. There may be decadal cycles, multi-decadal cycles, cycles over centuries, millenia, etc. Your 30 year significance test is local in time, isn't it? You can't establish a fact of the matter from that alone.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[MichaelSmith]

As far as life on Earth goes I agree with you, but my bet in the long term is on space travel, and I really believe that our unique cerebral cortex will keep us alive in the long term.

Living off Earth gives us the ability to leave our mistakes behind. The separation between populations which is enforced once you are away from Earth will restart evolution. Many experiments will fail but others will succeed. What ever happens you I will not see the outcome.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hsthompson69]

"In fact, it could be a lot more telling when a reliable proxy suddenly starts becoming unreliable."

How can you assert it's a reliable proxy when it "suddenly" becomes unreliable? More to the point, explain to me how you would differentiate between a "good proxy gone bad" and a "bad proxy gone bad" - given that correlation earlier might either be a fluke or an indication that other matching proxies are also bad.

"Even if, for the sake of argument, you threw out Briffa's work entirely. That still does not negate the thousands of other research papers, models, data sets, etc. that have nothing to do with tree rings."

That's called cherry picking. Throwing out data that does not agree with your hypothesis, and saving data that does agree with your hypothesis is not science. Science isn't done by thousands of confirming experiments -> it's done by designing just one experiment that shows a problem.

"Maybe it will turn out that there really is a global Illuminati backed scheme that through climate scientists they are working to take over the world."

Or maybe it will turn out that all the variation we've seen is simply natural, and ascribing man made origins to it was simply wishful thinking combined with a confirmation bias. No conspiracy needs to exist for AGW to be wrong.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[ShakaUVM]

Sierra Club is pretty mainstream, and they've been shutting down alternative power generators for environmental reasons. The Green Party in Germany (pretty mainstream) was/is opposed to nuclear power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_%2790/The_Greens). They have 10% of the votes in their parliament, and celebrate nuclear plants shutting down.

Believe me, man, I'm with you. I think anyone that calls themselves an environmentalist and is opposed to nuclear power is a hypocrite. I'm just saying the reality of the situation is that leading environmentalists tend to be, well, ignorant hypocrites.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[tgibbs]

Neither is in the pay of anyone, and have links to many, many more like themselves that are merely studying the science.

Every crank can claim to be "not in the pay of anyone." All that means is that they are amateurs who lack the knowledge, experience, and other qualifications required to do the work professionally. They aren't getting paid for their work because nobody thinks it is worth paying for.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

The choice of timescales is not totally arbitrary, just somewhat. Climatologists use 30 years a lot because it is long enough to incorporate several cycles of the quasi-decadal phenomenon we know about such as ENSO, the PDO and solar cycles reducing their influence. Longer term cycles don't have much influence on that short of a period. For example Milankovich Cycles do have influence on 10,000 year timescales but their effect can be largely ignored on a 30 year scale.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Bryansix]

First off define pollution. I'm all for stopping pollution but since when is CO2 a pollutant? I guess I'm guilty of polluting then. I better stop breathing. Your wildly inaccurate statements start with your careful choice of words to paint a nice little fence around the issue and then proceed to Napalm the crap out of it! The problem is you drew the fence completely in the wrong place. We are not talking about pollution. We are talking about CO2. IF (and that's a big if) CO2 has anything at all to do with global warming, do you know the best way to solve the problem? Sulphur dioxide particles! You put them in the atmosphere high up enough where they will stay for a good long while and they deflect a portion of the suns rays before they can warm up the earth. Will you ever see a proponent of the AGW theory support this plan? Maybe because Obama is pushing it now but I doubt any of the climate scientists will jump on the bandwagon.

Secondly your fanatical attack on corporations is completely and totally misdirected. First off you talk in generalities about "a bunch of greedy, sociopathic corporations". You refuse to name names. Why? Is it because you know in the back of your mind the truth that people work at these companies. People who will be put out of a job if legislation goes through which does not balance the importance of the environment with the importance of the economy. You know why else? If alternatives are forced down our throats before they are ready then you know who's pocket book will be hurting? YOURS! That's right! You will have to pay more for EVERYTHING! So before you go off and attack corporations for being evil, think for a second about the actual PEOPLE and not just this object you made in your mind.

With all that said, we for sure should move completely away from fossil fuel as fast as humanly possible except for different reasons. First we will not be dependent on unstable countries who hate us for our fuel. Second, we will ensure a safe a stable source of energy for the future generations. Lastly we will cut down on REAL pollution like particulate, noxious gasses, and carbon monoxide. Who wouldn't want that? What we don't want is the false war against CO2 which sustains all plant life and help plants be more drought resistant. Why would anybody want that?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Bryansix]

It's not conspiracy. It's pervasive culture. Repeat something often enough and anybody will believe it. Money doesn't have to change hands. This has been happening much longer then you can possibly imagine.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Bryansix]

Why is your post channeling Saul Alinsky? You still didn't refute anything and you also tried to make fun of the poster and put him down ( Ad Hominem) as much as possible so that anybody reading this thread would feel childish for supporting him. You sir are the troll!

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[tmosley]

Nope, I looked at it myself. The payoff for things like that is years off (like ten years at least), and very expensive (multiple millions of dollars). We have the ability to get to a payday with medical devices within a few months to a couple of years AT MOST. Money coming from those applications will allow us to expand to the point that we can pursue drug applications in earnest.

Also, you really think the oil and coal companies want to spend ALL of their profit on research? The budget of those GRANTING INSTITUTIONS goes towards GRANTS. You can think what you want, but the fact is that Big Oil and Big Coal don't spend much or any money on climate research, because any results from such research would immediately be labelled as biased. So instead of that, they just spend money on lobbyists to try to protect themselves from those who would shut down the engine of society forever in the name of some phantom future.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

There's also a link. Talk about proof of very far going leftist bias in universities. The link tells of "actual research", you see. Well you'd know that if you'd actually read it.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Totenglocke]

I never said no one had heard of it, I said that it wasn't a crisis until Al Gore realized the political power of screaming "We're all going to die from GW!!!! Only by electing Democrats can humanity survive!!!".

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Gadget_Guy]

I am asking for evidence of your claim that socialist and communist organisations are funding climate research at universities. You have given me one political science study that you disagree with (thas has nothing to do with the topic at hand). You have completely missed the point, but I can't tell if this is due to stupidity or a deliberate desire to push your own prejudices.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Burnhard]

What about the cycles you don't know about? Choosing a significant cycle time is only useful if you fully understand the system. Otherwise, it's still completely arbitrary.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[h4rm0ny]

Points taken. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a large groundswell of people such as myself (and yourself) who consider ourselves environmentalists in a very real sense, but don't get called as such by the media or even actual political parties and campaigning groups that prefer to identify Environmentalist = Us.

Which is a shame.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

Are you completely retarded? What about the IPCC? They consistently use the term "global warming".

Scientists still call it global warming. You are just a disgusting liar and a fucking moron who willfully rejects facts.

You are trying to make it sound like scientists aren't sure about global warming, so they call it something else. But the fact is that global warming is an observed fact, and it's still called that. It's a change of the climate (climate change), specifically global warming.

Now stop being a dishonest asshole and STFU.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[sesummers]

Seems to me including at least two decimal places would be expected from the scientific community

What would be expected from the scientific community is that they present result data with only the precision of the measurements used to compute it. I learned that in eighth grade science class. Why didn't you (and the climate "scientists"?) Aggregated data from hundreds or thousands of thermometers with precisions of at BEST a tenth of a degree, many of which are in dark painted boxes exposed to sunlight, or near air conditioners, or black-topped parking lots, does NOT produce results accurate to hundredths of a degree. Showing numbers like 14.72 can be intended only to fool the public into believing their data is far more accurate than it actually is. It apparently works. On you, anyway.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

Denialists are idiots. It's that simple.

And you prove it by spewing more lies and FUD. Typical denialists. Lying hypocrites.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[bipbop]

I recall the term "climate change" from the 90s, when I first learned about the IPCC in high school (it's the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"). I've looked up the IPCC to sanity check my memory, and it has existed in that name since 1988. I've also checked your claim about Frank Luntz; it appears that he did decide to use the term "climate change" for political reasons, as you say. But he definitely did not invent the term, as it was around and in common use long before the Bush administration.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Xyrus]

How can you assert it's a reliable proxy when it "suddenly" becomes unreliable? More to the point, explain to me how you would differentiate between a "good proxy gone bad" and a "bad proxy gone bad" - given that correlation earlier might either be a fluke or an indication that other matching proxies are also bad.

As I said, if out of a set of say 10 proxy data sets you have high correlation, and suddenly one starts deviating it is far more likely that the deviating data set is the culprit, not the other 9 data sets. Especially if the correlations hold over the period of thousands of years.

If you wish to discuss the merits of using particular data sets for particular research, you're going to have to do your own research, get it peer reviewed, and published. But you're going to need more than "gut-feel" to make a convincing argument. If you think that the proxy data sets are ALL worthless, you better have a VERY solid case to demonstrate that hypothesis.

Note that I'm not saying that it isn't possible. It could very well be so. However there is a fairly substantial amount of research out there that seems to indicate otherwise.

That's called cherry picking. Throwing out data that does not agree with your hypothesis, and saving data that does agree with your hypothesis is not science.

Again, yes, that would be cherry picking. And again, that is not that was done. There was a measurable inaccuracy in ONE data set by comparing the proxy to THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE RECORD. So instead of using KNOWN INCORRECT DATA, they used THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE RECORD.

That's not cherry picking. Cherry picking would be using the incorrect data set (and only that data set) to show that the globe has been cooling since the beginning of the 20th century. They were correcting a KNOWN FLAW in the data by using ACTUAL TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS.

Your point from before was somewhat valid. If the dataset indicated recent issues, why use it at all? People are actually researching why the tree ring proxy ONLY RECENTLY started exhibiting this behavior compared to it's behavior related to the other proxies over the past thousands of years. It could very well turn out that it was just luck and that tree rings will be removed as a legitimate proxy. But that is something the scientists have to research and answer.

Science isn't done by thousands of confirming experiments -> it's done by designing just one experiment that shows a problem.

What? You're joking right? You did not seriously write this? Did you perhaps mean to write something else instead? If not, then what you wrote about science shows that you clearly do not understand how science is conducted.

If you truly believe that then it is no wonder why you're having a hard time. Science is coming up with a hypothesis, gathering data, testing the hypothesis, AND REPEATING IT. You don't "find problems". You come up with an idea and you test it for validity. Then you make sure OTHERS can test your hypothesis, independently, to further verify your hypothesis. If this is done enough times and validated each time, you have a theory.

That's what peer review is about in scientific journals. Scientist post their hypotheses and research backing that hypothesis (or contradicting that hypothesis depending on their standpoint) and give it to other experts in their fields to verify using their own means and methods. If it passes muster, then the paper is published. If not, it is sent back to the author with (sometimes harsh) criticism.

Or maybe it will turn out that all the variation we've seen is simply natural, and ascribing man made origins to it was simply wishful thinking combined with a confirmation bias. No conspiracy needs to exist for AGW to be wrong.

What? Why on Earth would wanting man to be the cause of climate change be "wishful thinking"? Given all the other spectacularly idiotic problems we've created for ours

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hsthompson69]

"Science is coming up with a hypothesis, gathering data, testing the hypothesis, AND REPEATING IT. You don't "find problems". You come up with an idea and you test it for validity. Then you make sure OTHERS can test your hypothesis, independently, to further verify your hypothesis. If this is done enough times and validated each time, you have a theory."

I think what you're writing is not what you mean to say. The whole point of developing repeatable experiments is to find problems -> science is not a process of finding more evidence that fits your theory, it's the relentless process of searching for any evidence that could contradict your theory.

For example, you have a theory that all swans are white. Finding 1000 white swans leads you to posit this theory. From here, searching for more white swans isn't going to help your theory any -> if you search for only white swans, and find 900,000 more white swans, you've added very little to the robustness of your theory. On the other hand, if you spend a whole bunch of time looking for just one black swan, and don't find it, you're getting warmer. Find that one black swan, though, and the theory goes poof.

Asserting that you have 10 proxies that all agree very closely, then one of them starts "disagreeing" is not an excuse to ignore the "disagreement" -> it's a clarion call to start questioning the other 9 proxies.

Oh, and BTW, citing peer review for AGW, when most of the AGW reviewers never even asked for the data behind the papers (Jones, et. al), doesn't help your cause.

"Natural variation? Can you show this? Can you show definitively that additional CO2 has no impact on global temperatures? Basic physics would seem to indicate otherwise. I also suppose acid rain and ozone depletion were "natural variation" as well."

Natural variation is the null hypothesis in this case -> the burden of proof is to show that a) the "additional CO2" is generated by man, and b) that the "additional CO2" is the primary driver of temperatures. Just because we cannot clearly identify a detailed alternative hypothesis does NOT mean that your hypothesis is true.

Oh, and google "acid rain myths" and "ozone layer myths". The answer is yes, they were natural variation.

"And even if it were natural variation, how does that make things any better?"

Simple - it means we should spend more time on adaptation than prevention of something we cannot prevent. It's like misdiagnosing the reason for automobile fatalities -> if you think it's caused by weather conditions, which may or may not have a small perceptible effect, and you work your butt off trying to stabilize weather conditions, you're going to miss the simple things like seatbelts and airbags.

"Until that time, I will continue to follow the scientific consensus."

Which is your right, of course. I just wonder how many scientists will have to "non-consent" for you to finally change your mind. 100? 10000? 10%? 50%?

Do you even know how many scientists there are, and how many of them believe in your "consensus"? My guess is that this is simply a repeated sound bite, but I could be wrong.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

I'd be perfectly happy to vote for R's (and I have in the past) if they would let the science drive their ideology rather than the reverse. I challenge you to come up with an actual quote from Al Gore that says anything like the words you tried to put in his mouth.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

You have to operate on the knowledge you have. In science there is no such thing as fully understanding the system in anything but the simplest of cases. Future discoveries may change your understanding but to just throw up your hands and say we don't know enough is not that useful.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

Ok, but you have to admit it's a pretty generic term in the first place.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[bipbop]

Sure. I wasn't trying to take a side in the debate, though personally I'm on your side. I was only fact checking.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

one political science study that you disagree with

Am I to understand you agree with it ? Because if you do ... we've really got nothing to discuss. If you believe the only reason someone could fail to believe in socialism is being dumb ... then you're just looking to justify leftist bias in universities, that would mean you do not see it as a problem.

The mere fact that studies like that get published is an indication btw, of not just leftist bias, but
1) a large leftist majority
2) who feels no qualms about ridiculing and attacking anyone of different bent.

Or do you disagree with this assesment ? Do you think it's "just" a normal study. Something that is "evidently true".

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Burnhard]

So in your opinion, speculation on the possible weather 100 years from now, based on flakey evidence of a system that isn't `knowable' anyway and that actual reality shows to be at odds with current understanding, spending billions of dollars on trying to reverse some change that is almost certainly wrong and that you almost certainly have no control over, is better than mitigating any negative changes if and when they occur, at 1/10th of the cost? Hmmmmmm.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Gadget_Guy]

Am I to understand you agree with it ? Because if you do ... we've really got nothing to discuss.

We have nothing to discuss because you continue to make broad, unsubstantiated accusations, and when pressed for evidence you keep changing the subject. Like you just did again.

We have nothing to discuss because you can't even understand the articles to which you have linked. Nowhere did the reported studies mention socialism. Nowhere does it say that people with higher intelligence do not vote for right wing parties, just that more of them vote for left wing parties. Nobody has claimed that if you don't believe in socialism then you are dumb. You also haven't shown how this is supposed to be biased. If there are people are saying that there is a link between intelligence and politicial allegiance, is it wrong to study it and see if that it true? If so, then we might as well give up on psychology completely. Was there anything wrong with the methodologies? Or is it just the results that you don't like? Do you think that a study should be supressed because you don't like what the outcome?

Finally, we have nothing to discuss because this thread is getting way too old and despite me trying to steer it back on topic, it has nothing to do with climate research.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

Who says the system isn't knowable? If it wasn't would we even be able to predict the weather tomorrow? The fact is that it's been an area of pretty intense study since at least the 1950's and we know more about it now than we did then but not as much as we will in the future. In science if reality is at odds with the current understanding that understanding moves to encompass the current reality. You obviously don't believe it has but I see no reason to seriously doubt climate scientists.

What evidence do you have that it will cost more to respond to it now than to wait until we're desperate? Most economic estimates I've seen project a cost of 1-2% of GDP for moving hard toward renewable energy sources. If the science is right we could incur far greater costs by waiting.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

AC is right.

You obviously believe climate scientists are driven by political ideology rather than science so there's no point in arguing with you. My personal opinion is that climate scientists do all they can to get it right and the political question is what do we do about it.

I'm not very happy with either party myself.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Ponyegg]

If natural global warming was deemed a threat to us we would have to look for ways to offset it. We are not children you know. It doesn't matter who "did it".

I'd agree, it's not a case of who 'did' it, rather more a case of who's continuing to do it.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Troed]

I'm sorry, what?

You don't need more than a few minutes spent on this with an objective mind that knows the basics in statistics to falsify the "thousands of tree rings" study Mann came up with to rectify his earlier (and falsified) hockey stick. It's actually really really easy:

Proxies have lags. They will have peaks and valleys at different times. Averaging them together (which was done) will thus produce a false stability in the averaged curve, with less variations than what was actually true.

If you then graft a modern temperature record onto the end of such a false variationless dataset you will get a valley, or a peak, that looks "unprecedented".

I'm absolutely amazed as to the lack of knowledge in statistics with most of these so-called "climate scientists". By all means, collect the data. Just let someone else handle and interpret it.

(Neither Briffa's "one single tree in Siberia" nor Mann's "our oaks are not temperature proxies" datasets should ever be quoted in climate science)

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Troed]

... what if Earth's normal state _is_ to have "slight warming", but interrupted by regular volcanic eruptions cooling it down?*

(The "unprecedented" warming we have now would then be "caused" by unusually few volcanic eruptions lately)

*) Yes, this hypothesis has a lot of empirical support

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[tehcyder]

researchers who for years distorted findings for additional research money and to regulate private industry under the auspices of championing environmental agendas

You have to feel sorry for all those poor scientists who have to work on little more than minimum wage for the FUCKING HUGELY PROFITABLE OIL INDUSTRY.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[tehcyder]

Unless of course, you think that somehow there are barely any republicans that have any measure of intelligence at all. That would, of course, make you a racist.

LOL, you really are a moron, aren't you?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[tehcyder]

They are the only ones left. Those that didn't carry the torch lost funding, lost credibility and had to find other lines of work. All that is left are the scientist who played ball with those that pay the grants, the politicians!

I'm going off to browse the Time Cube guy's site, it will bring a breath of fresh air and intellectual rigour back.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[chris mazuc]

they actually delete their copy of the data, but more embarrassingly they also destroyed the documentation of exactly how the value-added dataset they produced was actually produced.

You have a reference for that?

I think its a little more than amusing that you're screaming at the top of your lungs that the data has been deleted and we have no way of reconstructing it because they deleted the documentation, yet you are 100% positive they are WRONG.

It's the Apocalyptic Global Warming crowd that needs to prove

If you're looking for proof in science, you're doing it wrong.

1. The Globe has warmed significantly
      2. the warming is unprecedented and therefore man-made
      3. the warming is not do to UHI, Urban Heat Islands, or land use changes
      4. reducing CO2 to pre-industry revolution levels will return temperatures to pre-industry revolution levels also;

Of course you would never stop to think about the uncontrolled experiment we're running right now. You know, the one where we are dumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day. After all, humans are way too small to affect our environment, right?

I think the burden of proof should be upon the polluters to show that doing this to our planet is in fact not harmful. Too bad there is too much momentum to take a step back and have an objective look at what we're doing as a species.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

We have nothing to discuss because you can't even understand the articles to which you have linked. Nowhere did the reported studies mention socialism.

No, they just call acknowledging the obvious economic truths about free markets a mental illness.

Which, I suppose, is technically something else. Heh.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Obfuscant]

You think basically accusing the overwhelming majority of climatologists in the world of being part of a left-wing conspiracy to destroy the industrialized world is civil?

I didn't accuse anyone of any such thing. I said that IF YOU ARE GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY QUESTION SOMEONE'S ETHICS BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID BY COMPANY A, THEN YOU ARE ACCUSING YOURSELF OF THE SAME THING BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING PAID BY SOMEONE, TOO.

Every time an ivory-pure academic points his finger at a scientist who works for "big oil" and says "his opinion is bought and paid for", then he's just as likely to be guilty of the same thing.

By the way, the ONLY climatologist I know personally is firmly in the "nope" camp. Vast majority?

And yeah, I think it's legitimate to question the motives of a scientist whose in the employ of big oil companies when he declares that there's nothing wrong with throwing lots and lots of CO2 into the atmosphere,

And you must also think it's legitimate to misquote your opponents when you want question their ethics, because you're doing it now.

It doesn't really do climatologists much financial good whether climate change is real or not. Their scientists, and damned few people ever got rich being one.

Put the canard away. Climatologists have to fight with every other science for grant money. Grant money doesn't go where there isn't a need. You know that. You ought to know that. When there's a limited supply of money, the money goes where the crisis is. If global warming isn't a crisis, then someone else will have a greater need for money and they'll get the grants. Even if they don't get rich off a grant, it pays for their food and shelter and travel and papers and boosts their status.

I'm not saying the science is perfect, but when the vast majority of researchers in a field of research say "This is real", I tend to give it more weight than a few naysayers.

And when those who say "this is real" keep resorting to the kinds of personal attacks that I see them making, I assume they aren't real scientists and have nothing much of value to add to the discussion. "We are right because you work for big oil" isn't science, it a personal attack.

But, as with evolution, General Relativity and the like, it would be nice if the naysayers weren't either cranks or con artists.

And you've just proven my point. Anyone who doesn't agree is, according to you, a crook or con artist. Do you really not understand what science is supposed to be?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Obfuscant]

Furthermore, there is a big, fat difference in being paid out of a giant pool of money that goes for studying the mating habits of dung beetles and whether ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from 200000 years ago, and getting paid by a corporation whose bottom line depends on the outcome of the study. Equating the two is disingenuous.

No, there isn't that much difference. Either way, food gets put on the table and wives and children are clothed and housed. If global warming studies aren't important (because we aren't causing it and can't stop it, e.g.) then they don't get funded. If the dung beetle scientists can create a crisis over dung beetles ("they're critical for agriculture in this region and they're dissappearing! We have to find out WHY!") they get the money. The climatologist loses grant money and has to start teaching again. Or find a another line of work.

In other words, scientists in academia have just as much impetus to produce certain results as any industrial scientist does to opposite. By claiming that industrial scientist are likely to sell out, academics are admitting that they are just as likely to do so, to.

Is the research from big oil regarding climate change automatically wrong. No. But if it just so happens that the outcome of the study is the one that supports the companies bottom line, I'm going to look a) very carefully at how it arrived at that conclusion, and b) compare it with the conclusions from people who aren't affiliated with said company.

No, you are most likely to point a finger and claim "paid for", based on history of the pro-AGW activists. If you personally look at the data and evaluate it, that's good, but that's not the norm. I know. I work in "academia" and see how these people behave close up. I am more often ashamed of them using my employer's name when they sign letters to the editor because of their uncivil and insulting behaviour than I am proud of them for showing their scientific abilities.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[budgenator]

they actually delete their copy of the data, but more embarrassingly they also destroyed the documentation of exactly how the value-added dataset they produced was actually produced.

You have a reference for that?

what part of

According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

didn't you understand? Additionally I didn't say they were wrong, but I will say that because they can't show that their premises are correct, their conclusion becomes questionable.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[riverat1]

Earth's normal state varies depending on what epoch you're talking about but since before the genus Homo evolved around 2 million years ago the CO2 level has been below 300 ppm so we have a condition now that humans have never faced. Large volcanic eruptions can have a short term effect (a few years) but it takes a supervolcano such as Toba or Yellowstone to have much long term effect.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Troed]

I'm not sure that's what science tells us. CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is a somewhat hotly debated issue - today - but in reality we have both older direct measurements than what's normally reported, as well as a problem where we graft direct measurements onto proxies (i.e, the same problem as with tree ring proxies for temperature) without discussing what that means.

There are proper papers discussing diffusion of CO2 levels in ice cores available, but as a primer this writeup should do: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

(disregard the site, the information is valid and sourced)

We also need to remember that for modelling reasons we claim CO2 to be well mixed in the atmosphere, even though we know from satellite measurements that it isn't (AIRS) - of special interest, of course, is that it's lower at the poles.

If we switch from the dubious ice core proxies for historical CO2 levels, things become much more interesting. It seems we're currently in a very CO2 starved atmosphere where most plant life (and animals) evolved when CO2 levels were much higher. On the order of ten magnitudes higher even: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2002-051.html

As to the issue of volcanoes, you're correct, but thinking of single eruptions. If we instead talk about "volcanic activity" the issue becomes clearer. There are always eruptions happening at someplace on earth, but the level of activity waxes and wanes. Here are some telling quotes from a book on the effects just the volcanoes on Iceland have on the (european) climate: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6387

(again, disregard the site - it's not the source)

There's no such thing as a "scientific consensus" (Popper spins wildly in his grave) with regards to our climate. Usually those words are uttered by the same people who claimed acid rain would kill all plant life, that we would all die from exposure to UV radiation through the ozone hole (and no, we didn't "fix" it - it has a completely natural sun influenced cycle) or any one of the other scares from the "humans are a pest and the earth would do a lot better without us"-movement.

I'd rather do science.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[Burnhard]

It's a simple economic argument: in 100 years time, we'll be much richer (that's an assumption of course) and so the cost of any mitigation will be that much less than it is now. Moreover, we'll have a century of technological advance behind us which will also reduce costs. At the moment not only do you factor in the amount spent on the issue, you also have to factor in the opportunity costs for growth for the money you *aren't* spending in other areas.

Yes, I'm sceptical of Global Warming but I'm not pro-fossil fuel necessarily. I think arguments about energy security are preferable to destroying public trust in the integrity of Science, which is what this issue is slowly doing. Your point on whether it's "knowable" is a straw man unfortunately because complex systems like the weather are unpredictable, literally. That is why you can't predict them further than a few days.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[chris mazuc]

Did you bother to read what I quoted before lashing out at my supposed lack of understanding? I was asking for a reference regarding the CRU destroying documentation. Everything I have read referred to only the data itself being deleted.

they also destroyed the documentation of exactly how the value-added dataset they produced was actually produced.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[budgenator]

Did Jones proceed correctly while homogenizing the data? Most climatologists still believe Jones' contention that he did not intentionally manipulate the data. However, that belief will have to remain rooted in good faith. Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve.

'One of the Biggest Sins'

For Peter Webster, a meteorologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this course of events is "one of the biggest sins" a scientist can commit. "It's as if a chef was no longer able to cook his dishes because he lost the recipes." A Superstorm for Global Warming Research, By Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter

Sorry about using too strong a voice, I've seen too much of either your a true believer of the church of AGW or your an infadel heretic deserving a fate worse than dead.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[jon3k]

"Which, when looking at a trend over 1,000 years, means diddlyshit. "

Kind of like the warming period over the previous 85 years means diddlyshit, right?

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[jon3k]

So your opinion is based off anecdotal evidence from the elderly which goes back (I assume) less than 100 years? Even if they're right - does that even mean anything? 100 years ago is *nothing* compared to cooling and warming periods the earth has seen.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[jon3k]

The great part about being a sceptic and arguing with global warming supporters is that I can write you off but you can't afford to write me off :)

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[jon3k]

Well given your reasoned response and stimulating intellectual counterpoints I've decided that I know believe in global warming. Thanks for changing my mind.

(I've never seen so many expletives modded 5 in my life)

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

That's your problem right there. You are basing your opinion on blind belief rather than looking at the facts. So when the facts clearly contradict your beliefs, you have to come up with excuses, such as "but they are calling it climate change rather than global warming, so that means I'm right after all!"

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

You are the one who falsely claims that they have stopped calling it "global warming" just because the facts don't match your ideology/religion.

I reached my conclusion based on scientific fact. You reached yours based on rejecting scientific fact.

Re:Who exactly is fighting back?

[hkmwbz]

I am insulting you because you are a fucking moron. You keep trying to make the facts fit your superstitious beliefs by making up excuses such as "they are no longer calling it global warming, so it must not be warming anymore" despite the fact that they are, in fact, still calling it "global warming". I just explained to you how the IPCC is still referring to it as "global warming", and only a complete retard would repeat a completely false claim even after being met with facts.

what was it I said that was dishonest?

You claimed that they have stopped calling it global warming. As I have explained to you, this is a blatant lie.

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you could say that... the situation between climate scientists and the anti-climate-change crowd is heating up?

Re:Hmm.

[StikyPad]

I'd say relations between the two are cooling.

Re:Hmm.

[ArsonSmith]

Lets just change it to Relations Change to cover our funding bases.

Re:Hmm.

[Pharmboy]

So you could say that... the situation between climate scientists and the anti-climate-change crowd is heating up?

I read somewhere that the situation isn't really heating up, and that the information was cherry picked to make it LOOK like it was. Besides, the relationship between anti-climate people and scientists naturally heats up and cools down, so you can't really attribute the the current state to these articles, it could be part of a larger, natural cycle...

Are climate researchers....

[ProdigyPuNk]

...going the way of Scientologists ? http://www.xenu.net/

IMHO, if the guy's data is on target, it should stand on it's own without needing backup via lawsuits.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[skids]

It would stand on its own, were the media to actually report what the data says. Since they seem to pay no attention to facts, I don't see a problem to poking them with a sharp lawyer and seeing if they'll pay attention to that.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[maxume]

So people can just say whatever they want about him, with him having no recourse whatsoever (lest he make you think that maybe he really does have something to hide, if he objects to a newspaper publishing that he is a fraud)?

Re:Are climate researchers....

[MightyMartian]

The National Post is free to publish anything it likes critiquing climate change. What it can't do, any more than anyone can do, is libel someone in the process. If I attack child molesters, there's nothing with that. If I declare that you're a child molester, well, that my friend is actionable. They're declaring this guy a fraud, in the general community a pretty serious charge, but in the scientific community it's the most serious charge, and unless they have actual evidence to back up their claims, they very well could be forced to pay damages and publish an apology for their statements. Editorialists and columnists do not have unlimited privilege to libel people.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[skids]

"Forced to publish an apology"... now that is something I'd love to see, a judge/magistrate forcing an apology out of a media outlet as part of a punishment. Of course, the judge better be sharp enough to demand it's an above-the-fold apology. None of this "the sky is red" front page headline then "sorry the sky is blue" on page D-19 under the high school prom announcements.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[calmofthestorm]

Isn't this somewhat routine in libel cases?

Re:Are climate researchers....

[kf6auf]

The newspaper, not surprisingly, has the ability to reach a lot wider audience with what it says that this guy does. The libel laws are there for cases like this when someone lies / misrepresents the truth. Even arguing that he can inform the public of his side easily on the internet, what about everyone who read it in print, or who won't read what he writes because it won't be picked up by newspapers they read?

There needs to be an incentive to not lie about things in print. Saying that lies can be corrected doesn't necesarily fix the harm that was done.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[skids]

I've never seen a front page headline that says "We are sorry, We lied." Have you?

Re:Are climate researchers....

[jayme0227]

The difference is the matter of resources. The CoS had far more resources than the individuals it harassed with lawsuits. The fact that this is an individual filing a lawsuit against an organization makes it harder to make that comparison.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[calmofthestorm]

Consider that it's pretty damn hard (and should be) to get a newspaper for libel, at least outside the UK, so it's not something you'd see often (and I'd expect, as you note, that it would be in the fact corrections area or letters to the editor)

More generally, requiring apologies in cases of slander/libel cases is standard, as it allows the guilty party to repair the victim's reputation, at least to some degree.

Consider that most of us in academia would rather be caught killing someone than forging data. Though in this case, the rest of the scientific community knows that the allegations are false anyway.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[gangien]

Right, let's sue everyone who gives false information. That's a great way to get your side of the story out. They should do what most scientists do, afaik, publish corrections and send letters, and try to educate people, and stuff alone those lines.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, let's sue everyone who gives false information.

I think that sounds like a really good idea, actually.

The willful misinformation of the American population is causing us a lot of problems. Making people accountable for their public lies spread through media would be a step forward.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Reality Master 101]

Well, they're not going to say, "we lied", but news retractions are fairly common. A high profile case was CBS news retracting Dan Rather's statements. You can google numerous other examples, large and small.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Trailer Trash]

If I declare that you're a child molester, well, that my friend is actionable.

Unless, of course, the accusation is true.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[gangien]

yeah just what we need 50234502340230423042304023 lawsuits about people publishing 'false' information.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[MaskedSlacker]

This is politics, not science.

Climate research hasn't been about science in well over a decade.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[AK Marc]

Unless, of course, the accusation is true.

That's not necessarily true, even in the US. It's never about what's "true" but what can be proved. Unless you can prove the accusation true, then it's likely that you will lose. The truth is a defense, but you have to be able to demonstrate that truth or it doesn't count.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Locke2005]

If I declare that you're a child molester, well, that my friend is actionable. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Also, statements of opinion are not usually regarded as defamatory, and neither is use of hyperbole.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[publiclurker]

Funny, your opinion seems to be total bullshit. You must be afraid of having to own up to the damage you've caused.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[AK Marc]

Well, the choice is to let them lie about the data, lie about what the scientists are saying, lie about the scientists themselves, methods and personal life. And answer that lie with silence. That gives them credibility. The people publishing the lies don't care to publish the responses, so the accusations will remain unanswered, leaving many people misinformed (by purposeful lies)

Or, sue them for the illegal lies they are telling so they stop and don't misinform people for profit anymore.

You are recommending the first. My only question is why?

Re:Are climate researchers....

[jmac_the_man]

It seems like the reason nobody is reporting the actual data is because THE SCIENTISTS IN THE STORY DELETED IT.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Bigjeff5]

It would stand on its own, were the media to actually report what the data says.

The only way they can do that is if these guys actually release the data, which they don't do likely because it will be ripped to shreds by other scientists. What you end up with are conspiracy theories instead.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[gangien]

So you're gonna sue someone, every time they say something wrong? Who determines the facts anyways? Should people have gotten sued if they published that the earth was round/flat when that was debated(if it was, I'm not sure on the history of that)? What About the people that believe the earth is 6000 years old? what about the scientists who think something right now, but are later found to be way off?

If you really want to push your issue forward, I really don't think filing a lawsuit is the answer. You should debate them and challenge them.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[rickb928]

"It would stand on its own, were the media to actually report what the data says"

The media is pretty much int he tank for global climate change, or global warming, or whatever you're calling it now. Virtually every mainstream media outlet has been pouring out stories about devastating climate change for nearly twenty years now, and probably a bit longer.

When I say 'media', I mean NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Orlando Sentinel, Portland Press Herald, Bangor Daily News, Sacramento Bee, Time Magazine, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Scientific American, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, and many many more.

What newspaper is similarly touting the naysayers? The tabloids and contrary print media that report on climate change 'deniers' is outnumbered at least 10 to 1, and probably more.

Most people get all up in arms when Fox News starts reporting on global warming naysayers. One damned network against a half-dozen or more competitors.

It doesn't seem to take much to upset the global warming crowd. ANY opposition is an affront to them, a personal attack to be answered in the most extreme and violent language available. Actual data is immaterial. The naysayers are demonized, discredited as scientifically illiterate imbeciles, and marginalized as either shills of the responsible industries or seeking to profit from their outbursts.

The complaint that the media is somehow NOT reporting on the data is ludicrous and entirely contrived, does not conform to the reality, and is false on its face. Get a real argument next time, ok? What a bunch of crap.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[vague disclaimer]

It is rare - but the Daily Express in the UK - and one or two others - had to publish a front page apology to the parents of missing kid Maddie McCann when they strayed way too close to accusing them of murder.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[canajin56]

Many many issues have retractions. It's rare a judge orders it to be first page, so they normally hide them, but they're there all the time. Still, it has happened where a judge felt the damage was so severe that it warranted a front page apology.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

Yet the media is not reporting on the raw data as the raw data was deleted. Instead the data that is being reported on has been altered to fit the model*. Without having the raw data to fall back on and reassess the model it throws doubt upon the entire theory, at least in those who are able to think for themselves. If the original raw data was still available then the theory could be proven or dis-proven. As it currently stands we merely have 2 sides yelling at one another calling the other group a bunch of morons.

Personally I am a bit skeptical of the man made climate change theory. My skepticism comes from the lack of raw data and if I am completely honest, a bit of conspiracy-theory-tin-foiled-hattedness. As they say, "follow the money." Who is it that is profiting from the climate change argument? Simple answer: climate change scientists. The same climate change scientists who deleted the raw data.

* How much it has been altered is unknown. Perhaps it is only a little, perhaps it is a lot.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[budgenator]

Consider that most of us in academia would rather be caught killing someone than forging data. Though in this case, the rest of the scientific community knows that the allegations are false anyway.

I've never seen where anyone who seemed rational to me said any professional climatologist intentionally changed data in a premeditated manor to influence the results of the output to support a preconceived hypothesis. I have seen where data was allegedly made up by third parties such as when someone didn't go outside in 40 below weather to read a thermometer that was possibly surrounded by man-eating polar bears; and I've seen where a minus sign was obviously missing from METAR reports and drifting buoys. I've seen evidence that supports the notion that some of the data homogenization programs didn't preform properly such as reducing an urban thermometers reading to eliminate UHI by matching rural thermometers, then raising them all back up. I see that confirmation bias may have lead honorable men to be too excepting of data and computer outputs rather than forgery.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[shadowbearer]

  Unfortunately, the problem with news retractions, as another poster noted, is that they are usually buried; so it's likely that most people wouldn't notice a retraction in this particular case, especially after so long a period of time has passed.

  People who were following this might also note that the retraction, if there is one, was posted effectively as the results of a lawsuit, and might not care to read more about why exactly it was posted, assuming that it was solely because of the lawsuit and not because of any real inaccuracy.

  My personal opinion is that in cases such as this, with such a far-reaching and important impact, the author and/or editor of the original story should be forced by the judge to post a story in the same section of the paper detailing how they deliberately misled people and explaining why, and pointing people to places where they can find out the truth for themselves.

  Would it cost the author and/or editor their jobs? Possibly. Would it destroy their integrity as journalists*? Almost certainly - which it should. (Although if a full apology,etc is posted it might actually save their reputations)

  * Posting deliberately misleading articles should definitely cost them their jobs, if people who run the newspaper or magazine value both journalistic standards of integrity, and the reputation of their company. Unfortunately it seems like fewer and fewer do anymore.

  (I'd like to note that although many of slashdot don't like them, New Scientist magazine, to my knowledge, always follows strict journalistic standards rules. Not only that, but they keep a sense of humor about their screwups, which is another thing missing in much of journalism nowadays... )

SB

Re:Are climate researchers....

[shadowbearer]

  There needs to be an incentive

  Carrot vs stick? ;-)

  How about the incentive is, you keep your job, and can continue to work as a journalist?

SB

Re:Are climate researchers....

[TapeCutter]

"Right, let's sue everyone who gives [deliberately malicious] false information. They should do what most scientists do, afaik, publish corrections and send letters, and try to educate people, and stuff alone those lines."

Climate scientists have been doing that since the 50's, I have personally followed such efforts since the late 70's but there is way too much of it to have read more than a tiny fraction.

To me it's gratifying to see that at least one well known climate nerd seems to be at a point where he is sick and fucking tierd of playing nice while recieving a constatnt stream of death threats due to systematic character assinations appearing on a daily basis in the MSM. I hope he is spectacularly successfull and his example is followed by an avalanche of rabid lawyers from the other top climate scientists who have been maliciously targeted by these political hacks and industry shills. With a bit of luck it will culminate in "coal trials" similar to the "tabacoo trials" of the past.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[TapeCutter]

"IMHO, if the guy's data is on target, it should stand on it's own without needing backup via lawsuits."

It does stand on it's own but the lawsuit is not about the veracity of the his data it's about a systematic campaign to assasinate his character with baseless allegations of criminal and/or unethical conduct.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[hkmwbz]

Yet the media is not reporting on the raw data as the raw data was deleted.

This is of course a blatant lie from a batshit insane climate denialist.

Personally I am a bit skeptical of the man made climate change theory.

That is because you are a batshit insane climate denialist and a liar, and you will automatically reject all proper facts.

As they say, "follow the money."

Yes, you fucking moron, please do that. And realize that the anti-AGW crap you are spewing is made up by powerful corporations that are spending millions to get fucking morons like you to spread their blatant lies for them. You fucking moron.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

Yes, I forgot the persuasive power of abuse. Clearly your intelligence is unparalleled and should not be questioned. So, where pray tell is the raw data? if you can find me a link to the raw unaltered data then I retract my statement

A liar? Nothing that I wrote there is a lie unless you can, as stated above, produce the raw unaltered data.

I will admit, and concede that both sides of the debate (yeah, this is supposed to be a debate, not merely an abuse session) stand to profit. The oil companies, etc. can expect to profit from the status quo, and the "OMFG THE WORLD IS GONNA END" crowd are profiting from scaremongering.

Yes I know that this too will be modded down, because it has become apparent that actual thought is discouraged on Slashdot these days and we must follow the herd mentality.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[AK Marc]

So you're gonna sue someone, every time they say something wrong?

So, when someone lies constantly to discredit you, get you fired, and declares that your life's work is a sham because you are a liar, a cheat, and a thief, you'd send them a thank you card?

Who determines the facts anyways?

The courts. At least when it comes to whether someone spoke untruths with the intent of harm.

Should people have gotten sued if they published that the earth was round/flat when that was debated(if it was, I'm not sure on the history of that)?

I think you are completely missing the point. No one is saying you can sue over an opinion. If your opinion is that the world is flat, I can state the world is round and you are wrong without anything being actionable. But if I state that your opinion is wrong because you rape babies, then there is something that is actionable. Do you not understand the difference? Because that's what this is about. They are making very specific "factual" claims about the author that are lies made for the sole purpose of causing harm. They aren't addressing the issue of flat vs round, but claiming that the person on the other side of the debate has broken laws or ethics rules when they have no evidence at all that it happened. It's lies with the intent to harm that are actionable, not some disagreement of opinion about global warming.

If you really want to push your issue forward, I really don't think filing a lawsuit is the answer. You should debate them and challenge them.

Debate? What debate? The owners of a media outlet are pushing lies in order to squash the other side of the debate. What forum do you think you can debate them in? You think you can have a reasonable debate with someone that's already stated a lie that, if true, would get you fired and possibly arrested? If they wanted to debate, they wouldn't have started with life-ruining lies stated publicly in order to discredit their opponents.

So, I assume that if someone were to break into your house, shoot your wife, and steal your TV, you'd try to hunt them down so that you could pay their cable bill for them? Really, how far do you go out of your way to encourage someone that's already broken the law to harm you?

Re:Are climate researchers....

[MasterPatricko]

Seriously.

There are about five links to the "raw unaltered data" on this Slashdot comments page alone. Here's another one.

NOAA GHCN

Have fun, its about 6GB of numbers.

Stop spreading this ridiculous story of "the data isn't available" ... for anyone who can be bothered the data has ALWAYS been available.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[spidr_mnky]

Don't make light of false information. It's a terrible thing, especially when intentionally promoted.

Being wrong accidentally is unfortunate, but being wrong on purpose is malicious. I can appreciate your point that scientific debate should happen outside the court room, but don't act like it's an overreaction to take legal action in response to libel.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[drewhk]

Like they were not doing this for years... Tell you what?

IT
DOES
NOT
WORK

The fashion nowadays is to hack into universities mailboxes, falsely quote interviews, etc.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[drewhk]

"Should people have gotten sued if they published that the earth was round/flat when that was debated(if it was, I'm not sure on the history of that)? "

Then there would be PROOF on the side of the sued person to support his statements.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[drewhk]

YOU IDIOT!
Here you are, PLENTY of RAW datasets:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER
http://eca.knmi.nl/
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm
http://icoads.noaa.gov/

Let me repeat:
YOU IDIOT

Re:Are climate researchers....

[RAMMS EIN]

You wrote:

It doesn't seem to take much to upset the global warming crowd. ANY opposition is an affront to them, a personal attack to be answered in the most extreme and violent language available. Actual data is immaterial. The naysayers are demonized, discredited as scientifically illiterate imbeciles, and marginalized as either shills of the responsible industries or seeking to profit from their outbursts.

And then, Gandalf_Greyhame wrote:

As it currently stands we merely have 2 sides yelling at one another calling the other group a bunch of morons.

and

As they say, "follow the money." Who is it that is profiting from the climate change argument? Simple answer: climate change scientists. The same climate change scientists who deleted the raw data.

I think all that nicely illustrates the problem. You claim that the climate change crowd uses strong language and demonizes and discredits the other side, rather than looking at actual data. Then you and Gandalf_Greyhame proceed to do exactly the same.

And you are right. The publicly visible discussion isn't about the actual data. It's a full-blown flamewar, made of one part fallacious arguments and three parts abuse.

The media, for their part, are doing what they have always been doing: carrying and shaping stories so that they can maximize profits and/or other goals that they may have, such as support for their favorite ideology. The media are useful, but they are not the bringers of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Even if they try for that, I don't think it is reasonable to expect a reporter to know everything about everything they write about.

So, if you are looking for the truth, I can only advise you to, first of all, think carefully about what you will accept. Will you accept the words of people you don't know at face value? How about people you do know? What if the person has a degree, is a renown authority in some field, or even in the field he is making claims about? If you are looking at data, will you accept data from possibly flawed measuring devices as truth? What about data reported by others? What about data that you know has been combined, averaged, or otherwise processed? If you are looking at arguments, will you accept arguments if they seem to make sense, or only if they are logically sound? What if they are based on statistics - will you simply accept the outcome, or do you need to see all the parameters and results, or at least the p-value? What probability is enough for you? How much faith do you have in models and their implementations, and what criteria do you have for accepting predictions obtained from a model? Models are everywhere, but even very commonly accepted models such as Newtonian physics have been shown to be flawed. Does this mean data obtained from such models should be ignored?

With your acceptance criteria firmly in mind, you will be able to sift through the vast body of statements about climate change. Depending on your criteria, you will probably end up with (A) a bunch of contradictory conclusions, (B) a number of conclusions that agree, or (C) the conclusion that none of what you reviewed is good enough to warrant any conclusion. If you end up with a number of agreeing conclusions, congratulations. You can now live your life in accordance with those. If not, or if you gave up because it's just too much work, there is one more question for you: What are you going to do - are you going to err on the side of caution and limit your environmental footprint just in case, or are you going to decide that, since you aren't convinced that you may be harming the environment, you are not going to burden yourself?

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

I have yet to finish reading through it all (to be honest I only just started and started with the antarctica.ac.uk link) and I would like to bring to your attention the missing data sets contained therein. Actually there are only a couple of stations that have recent figures at all, and of those that do have recent figures (within the past decade) they are missing a number of monthly, and even yearly, figures.

Perhaps I am an idiot. I will admit that. But with your help I now have a much greater ability to form my own opinion on the subject.

Missing data sets are still a worry however.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[hkmwbz]

Missing data sets are still a worry however.

No data sets are missing.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[hkmwbz]

You are a fucking moron. The "raw data deleted" nonsense is based on the fact that a small part of a local copy was deleted to save space as they were moving. The original raw data is still where they licensed it from. You fucking moron.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

your Jedi mind trick doesn't work mate, look at the data (as I said I have only looked at the antarctic data sets so far) and you will find months and even years of data that is not there

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Valdrax]

The media is pretty much int he tank for global climate change, or global warming, or whatever you're calling it now. Virtually every mainstream media outlet has been pouring out stories about devastating climate change for nearly twenty years now, and probably a bit longer.

The media is in the tank for controversy and sensationalism. Always has been; always will be. All the media wants is what any other business wants -- a product that sells well and costs a little as possible to manufacture (e.g. by forgoing actual journalism).

Re:Are climate researchers....

[rickb928]

The mainstream media is in the enviable position of being able to pick their product. Soon they will not be able to ignore the alternative media (Fox, blogs ad infinitim, etc.) And will spend much time presenting rebuttals. No original reporting. Investigative work is already shifting to alternatives and well-skilled amateurs.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[hkmwbz]

You are wrong. No data sets are missing. Stop spreading lies.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temp_html/maat.html go there and tell me that there is no missing data. Truly you have been drinking the kool-aid and have succumbed to the church of climatology if you can see no missing data. This is not uncommon, and if (as I stated earlier) you looked at the other stations, you will see even more missing data points.

LOOK before you speak

Re:Are climate researchers....

[hkmwbz]

LOL. You are indeed a fucking moron. Typical brainwashed right-wing denialist fucktard. Fail.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

So, unable to dispute the simple evidence placed before you, you resort once again to name calling. Truly this must be the mark of a superior intelligence.

Anyway, its been fun, but unless you are able to refute what has been said (that means provide evidence that I am indeed wrong, not simple name calling) than I fear that our conversation must come to an end.

Funny thing is, it is people like yourself who make me question the global climate change issue as it is obvious that you believe with a religious fervor. That and the fact that they have oversold it.

Simple timeline, all with the exact same data:

1970s: The evidence shows that since the turn of the century global temperatures have been steadily decreasing and the world is heading towards an ice-age

1980s-1990s: The evidence shows that since the turn of the century global temperatures have been steadily increasing and we are heading towards disaster. The polar caps are melting

2000-Current: Global climate is changing. The polar caps are getting thicker and this is because of temperatures increasing.

This is all using the same data. Yes, scientific models change over time, but I still can't help but feel that they are playing poker and telling the everyone that they are holding 2 aces in their hand when there are 3 of them on the table.

Re:Are climate researchers....

[BgJonson79]

If lies are illegal, then Canada doesn't have free speech. Is this the case?

Re:Are climate researchers....

[hkmwbz]

As I said, you are talking nonsense. For example, scientists never claimed we were entering an ice age in the 70s. That was a fabrication by the media based on fake quotes, and not what scientists were actually saying. And your "polar caps are getting thicker" nonsense is just another lie. You are indeed an ignorant, dishonest moron.

For non-Canadians

[Bullfish]

The National Post is Canada's newspaper equivalent to the US Fox TV news... We don't have an equivalent right-wing TV news. The Post has been bashing the notion of climate change (and other liberal facts they don't like) here for quite a while. I suspect this case won't really go anywhere, but it is interesting.

Re:For non-Canadians

[mevets]

I guess you don't get Global, it was faux before there was faux. Only in Toronto could a TV station with a 100km broadcast range call itself "global".

Re:For non-Canadians

[MightyMartian]

I've just got to ask, what's a "liberal fact"? Facts don't have political leanings. Facts aren't ideological. That's like saying gravity is right wing or red shift is centrist.

This has been the most vile aspect of the Conservative war on science. Anything that disagrees with the corporatist-social conservative-fundamentalist Christian confederation that is modern conservatism is labeled as "leftist" or "liberal". I've debated guys who insist biological evolution and geology are "liberal" sciences. It's absurd.

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is actually true, it is a scientific theory. It is a-religious and a-political and just generally a-ideological. It's like trying to attach an ideology to hammers or torch wrenches.

Re:For non-Canadians

[skids]

Parent was playing on the "reality has a well known liberal bias" joke. Sans inflection.

Re:For non-Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- S. Colbert

Re:For non-Canadians

[oldspewey]

I've found Global to be a few steps up on CTV when it comes to objectivity ... not that either of them should be held up as shining examples of journalistic rigour.

Re:For non-Canadians

[ThermalRunaway]

> It is a-religious and a-political and just generally a-ideological. This is not always the case. While the *theory* on paper isn't ideological, the reasoning behind the conclusions and how the theory was formulated, and the agenda for pushing whatever the results of the theory are IS very political. Your argument is like saying guns and missiles are just chunks of metal, they aren't political, therefore the war in Iraq is a-political and there is no agenda behind it.

Re:For non-Canadians

[DeadDecoy]

The worst part about this manipulation of language is that you cannot have a debate with these people because their bias is tightly ingrained into their language. E.g
me: The evidence for human-influenced climate change looks interesting.
other: It probably came from a liberal source. Where do you get your 'facts'; here subscribe to my sources.
The insidiousness of this, is that the manipulation of language has shut down their cognitive thought process. The argument is over before it began because it doesn't coincide with their pre-established views. Climate analysis is no longer a science, but a politically charged war for natural resources and the large sums of money that are involved.

Re:For non-Canadians

[MightyMartian]

Your analogy is bizarre. War is a political exercise. Chemical or nuclear explosions are not. They can be used in a war, but they are a-political. The fact that you can produce a large explosion that can kill people doesn't mean the forces and materials involved have a political bias, any more than a strip of wood does, even if its used to make a bow that can kill people.

Re:For non-Canadians

[quantumplacet]

along those same lines: facts are apolitical, but any given interpretation of those facts is unlikely to be as unbiased.

Re:For non-Canadians

[david_thornley]

The theory is apolitical. The reasoning behind the conclusions is apolitical. The theory was formulated by examining facts, trying to figure out how they fit together, and gathering more facts. The motivations were the usual scientific motives of desire for truth, prestige, and grant money. (Prestige is not only satisfying to the ego, but helps in getting a job one likes.) Note that the desire for truth is usually pretty strong, as in general anybody smart and disciplined enough to be a scientist could make a lot more money doing something else.

There is a lot of politics going on around climate theory, and there are very legitimate disputes about what to do about it, but it is generally accepted among honest and informed people that the burning of fossil fuels since about 1850 has caused more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has warmed the planet a little, which has caused various changes in climate.

Re:For non-Canadians

[Belgaren]

I've just got to ask, what's a "liberal fact"? Facts don't have political leanings. Facts aren't ideological. That's like saying gravity is right wing or red shift is centrist.

Ask Ruby Dhalla, MP.

In a recent letter to the editor in the Toronto Sun she accused one of their writers of disseminating "incorrect facts" about a bill she had proposed.

Forget political leanings, here in Canada facts can, apparently, be wrong!

Re:For non-Canadians

[slimjim8094]

I've debated guys who insist biological evolution and geology are "liberal" sciences.

To be fair, that doesn't sound like a debate. It sounds like you were talking at them while they focused as hard as they could into not comprehending anything you said.

I'm not sure which would be worse.

Re:For non-Canadians

[ThermalRunaway]

Yes exactly, I'm saying that the facts of temperature data, etc, aren't political (well unless they were altered). But the theory of man made climate change is not a-political, even if the facts it is based on are. My point is, an explosion is also a-political, but the use if that explosion may not be. So you can't just make a blanket statement that a "scientific theory" is a-political like the original poster did.

Re:For non-Canadians

[Bakkster]

Facts and theories are, in fact, a-political. How they are arrived upon and used are quite often political.

The guns in your example are equally a-political. It is the cause behind the war that is dependent upon politics.

Re:For non-Canadians

[zz5555]

Most of the thousands of climate researchers are out of the public eye and, guess what? They get the same answers as the results from researchers in the public eye. The amazing thing is that you can throw away all the data that came from the climategate researchers and it doesn't change things at all. It's also amazing that there have been lots of people trying to refute the climate change theories over the last 100 or 150 years and they've never been successful. And after reading all those climategate they haven't been able to find any evidence of the researchers trying to skew the data.

By the way, I know you changed your reference to IPCC later, but you're correct that the IPCC skewed the data that was presented. I know that at least in the data on the expected sea rise that they took more conservative values than are generally accepted, and then applied that a point before 2100 rather than take the rise all the way to 2100. They didn't want to be alarmist :).

Re:For non-Canadians

[mevets]

Nice try. Parry Sound didn't have electricity in the 80s, much less TV. I spent some time up north in those years, nothing but bikers, whores and hockey players. Staring stoned at your goldfish bowl is not TV, but is a bit more informative than Global.

Re:For non-Canadians

[Dishevel]

Here where I live we have CARB (California Air Resources Board). These guys issued a report on diesel particulates that claim it kills thousands of Californians a year. Written by a guy with a doctorate from a website run by a pedo on the run in Israel. When the head of the board found out she hid it and pushed ahead legislation based on the report that is going to kill off companies. She is biased and it is happening in more places than just here.

Re:For non-Canadians

[MightyMartian]

The theory essentially states that the input of large amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that have been sequestered for millions of years in the space of just a few centuries contributes directly to climactic changes, and that those changes will become more pronounced in the future.

Now we can debate the merits of the theory, we can debate whether the theory actually explains the data and whether or not the theory's predictions are valid. There is nothing ideological about any of it. The theory may be wrong, but not because a general ideological grouping declares it false, it will be wrong because it does not explain the data and does not properly make predictions about what we can and will observe.

How people use the theory is another thing entirely. Theories, or at least their names, have been co-opted for ideological ends before (genetics was condemned by the USSR as a corrupt western science during the Stalin era and everyone knows about social Darwinism, which has little or nothing to do with Darwin's actual theory).

Re:For non-Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts don't have political leanings? How naive.

A liberal fact: Unprotected sex leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancies, resulting in increased costs of treatment, and more abortions. Protection protects you 99.9% of the time.

A conservative fact: Abstinence means you never have morning after regrets or worries.

A liberal fact: Dumping uncounted tons of pollutants into the atmosphere has to have a negative consequence

A conservative fact: Water vapor has more of an effect on global warming then carbon.

Re:For non-Canadians

[dietdew7]

Another thing they do is set up straw man arguments.

Re:For non-Canadians

[hsthompson69]

Actually, to be perfectly truthful, anthropogenic climate change isn't hardly a theory at all - it is a completely malleable supposition that provides no falsifiable hypothesis whatsoever. In order to be a scientific theory, one must have a hypothesis, and have specific, falsifiable predictions.

In the case of AGW, the "predictions" are legion - cold weather == global warming. warm weather == global warming. And the error bars are so ridiculously huge, they can always say that the observed data is "within the range of our predictions".

If someone really wants to build an AGW hypothesis, give us an example of data that would falsify your hypothesis instead of insisting that AGW is true until it is proven otherwise.

Re:For non-Canadians

[MaskedSlacker]

I've just got to ask, what's a "liberal fact"? Facts don't have political leanings. Facts aren't ideological.

There is a long list of both Fascist and Marxist dictators that would disagree quite strongly with that statement.

Re:For non-Canadians

[MaskedSlacker]

You mean like when they said the Himalayan glaciers would vanish in 2050 based on an unsourced quote in a news article?

Re:For non-Canadians

[publiclurker]

Considering your feeble attempt at associating the reporter with a pedophile instead of showing fault with the data is a good example of why your opinions are not worthy of anyone's time.

Re:For non-Canadians

[LordLucless]

The motivations were the usual scientific motives of desire for truth, prestige, and grant money.

desire for grant money = politics

Re:For non-Canadians

[Mashiki]

Liberal facts = The truth we tell people which is what we believe is the truth. Did you work for Chretien too?

Re:For non-Canadians

[Dishevel]

I just thought it was awesome that the website that gives out the fake PHD's is run by a pedo on the run in Israel. Since I pointed out the the guy was not only a pedo but also was current living in Israel dose that make me an Anti-Semite as well? I think maybe you might be a little to invested on one side of the Global Warming (Climate Change) debate and can't see truths when they do not conform to your preconceived notions on what the truth must be.

I believe that recycling is good, having good low emission vehicles to choose is good, that th3e climate dose in fact change, that man may have some effect on it, that oil is not evil, big corporations with some oversight are good and that big government is bad.

Balance is a good thing. Helps you to see truth and accept it. Ideology is bad and makes you blind to anything other than agreements and attacks.

This is why you saw my post and only saw me use a scary word like pedo near climate change supporters and felt attacked.

I shall send help for you shortly.

Re:For non-Canadians

[517714]

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is actually true, it is a scientific theory. It is a-religious and a-political and just generally a-ideological. It's like trying to attach an ideology to hammers or torch wrenches.

A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data. If you cook the books on the empirical data, you must affect the results. Anthropogenic global warming theory has as much validity as the so-called intelligent creation theory. Sifting out the man-made component of global warming is like separating cockroach turds from black pepper - only those who have a non-scientific motivation claim to be able to do it.

Satellite data suggests that the temperature rise globally (not at weather stations) is less than 0.2 C per decade over the last thirty years - that is no none says it is more, some say less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements Far less than the dire numbers the AGW people would have us believe; while I am not willing to dismiss that as insignificant, the rise rate does not exceed that of previous periods and statisically it is impossible to separate the manmade component (if any) from the normal variations.

Re:For non-Canadians

[NeutronCowboy]

You mean the incorrect info that was discovered by other climatologists, and corrected by those other climatologists? That one? Which showed science in action? Tell me again how that demonstrates what's wrong about all those climate change alarmists?

Re:For non-Canadians

[MaskedSlacker]

I was being cheeky, but my primary complaint with alarmists is that they are alarmists.

This was not science in action--this was a bureaucratic error by the IPCC in including "data" from a non-scientific source (and then misciting even that in the summary of their report, though the report had the correct number).

There was no science in the initial production of that number so its hard to call this science in action--rather politics in action, though you're right that it was corrected by other climatologists.

This goes back to another comment I made about climate research being politics not science--I'm criticizing both sides, deniers and alarmists. The constant politicking is destructive, and pointless.

Re:For non-Canadians

[johneee]

Apropo of nothing, where do you get a torch wrench? I've gone from never knowing they existed to wanting one desperately in about a second and a half.

Re:For non-Canadians

[Jeremy Erwin]

A fact can be misleading: a red herring that tends to make pursuit of the larger truth more difficult. However, in some dialects, "an incorrect fact" is a piece of data that has been claimed to be true, but really isn't. It's not the most elegant turn of phrase.

Perhaps the American equivalent would be "myth"--though this tends to irritate mythologists.

Re:For non-Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the dinosaurs. The "liberal" safety net didn't help them. In fact, the truth is that reality has a provable conservative bias

Re:For non-Canadians

[MindlessAutomata]

Red shift is actually communist, not right wing.

Re:For non-Canadians

[bm_luethke]

"This has been the most vile aspect of the Conservative war on science"

That is an interesting way of looking at it given the posts above you that say that anyone who thinks AGW may not be that strong is a right wing hack.

Sadly this is the issue with the *politicization* of science - many on each side think theirs is the obvious and the other side is waging war on them. Your right, science stands or fails on it own. Conservatives have no war on science - indeed, we find that as the harder core left has made it into office funding for basic space exploration (and no, I do not mean the recent Obama NASA announcement - I personally like the privatization of it and many other conservatives I know do too), energy physics, and a whole host of ideas that have been funded through arguably conservative presidents have been drastically cut in place of research into why carbon emissions are bad, AGW, and other highly politicized topics (and to be fair when Bush took office a similar thing happened there too). Talking about a Conservative war on science is only perpetuating the problem from the other end.

Conservatives have a war on left thought masquerading as science as much of the AGW proponents do. Liberals have a war against conservative thought masquerading as science as many of the Oil Companies produce. In reality we should have a war one *all* of that, one side isn't the lamb here fighting the good fight.

Until we come to that understanding things are going to deteriorate in our scientific knowledge. Not only that but as that pseudo-science becomes more and more prominent it is going to take MUCH more work to root it out. We can already see that with the almost universally agreed upon fallout from the so called "climategate" - that is the CRU data set is flawed and has to be removed from models and redone (we are basically arguing how and why at this point, not if). Conclusions that were considered solid and based on other data is turning out to be entangled with it in a primary matter. It's not the first time, I recall when Jane Goodall's data on Apes was discovered to be simply wrong, that she had either left out major finds or fabricated data because she was afraid how it would make them look to others. So much science at the time was based on what she did that it took years to unravel and no one is sure if it even is now decades later. We know what her motives were and why in that field her name is mud (sadly in the media she is still a major voice), but in this case it is so widespread that many could be truly earnest in thier desire to produce good works but GIGO rules here. In both cases there were plenty of warning signs that *should* have resulted in the problems being outed at the start but a combination of politics, money, fame, and pressure from those needing it to be true silenced it.

Even if their complaints with his conclusions are 100% correct (doubtful - AGW skeptics are taking this to mean AGW is wrong, it doesn't say that. It simply means we are back to not knowing as much as we thought we did - though people claiming the science is still rock solid aren't helping when it obviously isn't) I suspect that this newspaper will loose unless they have something fairly strong that this individual was dishonest. Wrong is not dishonest, at least as far as US law is concerned (I suspect Canada is similar just because most first world countries are) they are going to have to prove to some degree greater than 50% that he knew he was not telling the truth. That's hard to do - if they had said incompetence then they may get away with it, but even then that is hard to show too, but they claimed dishonesty.

Re:For non-Canadians

[riverat1]

Considering the likely consequences of not doing something about global warming I think denier is a perfectly apt term for those who try to obstruct action without regard to the scientific reality.

Re:For non-Canadians

[riverat1]

No, weather of any type != global warming. The statistical accumulation of weather data over a long enough period to filter out the effects of natural variability (things like El Nino and the PDO) and solar cycles is (descriptive of) climate. Climate science is the study of climate and the physics behind the observed climate (with some chemistry, geology, astronomy, biology, etc. thrown in).

Increasing temperatures over a climatologically significant period (CSP) == global warming.

You can falsify global warming by showing a decrease in temperatures over a CSP. You can falsify the anthropogenic part by showing that human activities are not responsible for nearly all of the increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere or by showing that the increase in greenhouse gases is not responsible for the increase in global temperature.

Re:For non-Canadians

[riverat1]

Just because someone considers something a fact doesn't make it so.

Re:For non-Canadians

[hsthompson69]

A few points -

1) Your statement of falsification of the "anthropogenic part" is asking to prove a negative, which is not possible. The burden of proof is upon the affirmative. You can build a good theory of anthropogenic warming by asserting that it is falsifiable by an increase in CO2 but a decrease in temperatures, or asserting it is falsifiable by the observation of other planets without humans on them do not show the same sorts of temperature increases/decreases at the same time earth does, or asserting that it is falsifiable by any historical evidence of similar hot and cold periods before large scale industrial activity on the planet.

Maybe if you were more specific in your statement instead of just saying "showing", you'd be closer to an actual scientific hypothesis.

2) Define a "CSP". If it's anything like 15 years, we've seen global cooling since 1998. One of the big problems that AGW supporters fall into is asserting that a single event like Katrina, or a decrease in arctic sea ice for one year represents an affirmation of their hypothesis, yet denying contrary evidence like the coldest winter on record, or increasing arctic sea ice.

I guess we could put it this way - ignorance of all of the natural variability factors that determine climate does not mean that the parts we are ignorant of are created by man. All too often, AGW supporters assert that every joule of energy must be accounted for by the strictest measure, or their assertions must be true. This is not a scientific hypothesis, it's "heads I win, tails you lose".

Re:For non-Canadians

[jav1231]

My problem is with comments like "deniers." I, for one, won't deny any evidence that proves the Earth is getting warmer. It's the causation that is completely muddied. Some scientists don't hold to the idea that man is the primary causation. They, in turn, get tuned out. That's not "scientific." And now we're seeing evidence the Earth is in fact not warming at the rates many thought it should have. The data is simply conflicting proving what all climatologist CAN agree on: Climate change must be looked at over TIME! It takes long periods of time to know what the climate is really doing AND in the history of Earth our mild climate is a statistical anomaly. It was disingenuous to politicize this issue.

Re:For non-Canadians

[TimurLeng]

Well I somewhat disagree here.
In an idealized world you can have a-political facts.
But fact is that we live in a human world, and as Akira Kurosawa already made clear in his famous movie Rashomon, the truth is in the eye of the beholder.

In a world of 10 commandments you had absolute truth.
In the world of a trillion factoids, everybody can support his/her own version of reality.

Re:For non-Canadians

[riverat1]

1) Ok, you want positives. Explain how CO2 levels have increased without taking into account human caused emissions. Come up with some mechanism to explain the long term temperature trend without taking into account the changes in greenhouse gas levels. It think your examples are too simple to be useful. Any falsification is going to have to be as complex as the the theory to be useful.

2) The definition of a CSP is somewhat arbitrary and depends on exactly what you're talking about but the one I've seen used most often by climate scientists in regards to temperature trends is 30 years. Non-scientists on both sides of the issue who do not understand it that well do make the error of asserting that short term events are some sort of proof but climate scientists just consider them more data for the long term trends.

Re:For non-Canadians

[hsthompson69]

1) You're asking me for a theory - not defending your own by making it falsifiable. (That being said, CO2 emissions lag temperature changes, as it is outgassed from the oceans at a rate dependent upon the temperature, which is primarily driven by solar activity, FWIW.)

2) 30 years, fine. So by that argument, are you willing to accede that AGW is in error if we continue to increase CO2 emissions over the next 15 years, and still have lower temperatures? Or if we can find any post-industrial revolution period of 30 years where CO2 was increasing but global temperatures were decreasing (for example, 1935 - 1965)?

I'm not saying making up a good falsifiable hypothesis is easy by any means. But it is the only way to do science.

Re:For non-Canadians

[riverat1]

CO2 is outgassed by water as it warms and solar activity absolutely does have an effect on global temperatures but the observed changes in solar activity have not been large enough to account for all of the observed warming and ocean acidity has been increasing because of increased absorption of CO2.

If the 30 year temperature trend line becomes negative and it's not caused by something like a major volcanic eruption then I could accede that AGW is in error. But there has been no cooling even in the past 15 years, just a bit of a plateau. The cooling trend (1944-1965 by my reckoning) can be explained at least partially by the increase in industrial activity releasing aerosols, particularly SO2 that overrode the warming signal from increasing CO2.

Re:For non-Canadians

[hsthompson69]

"observed changes in solar activity have not been large enough to account for all of the observed warming"

Which could mean that we are simply unable to observe properly at this point in time. It doesn't mean that the alternative is human CO2 emissions.

"If the 30 year temperature trend line becomes negative and it's not caused by something like a major volcanic eruption then I could accede that AGW is in error."

Excellent. Talk to you in 15 years (since even a plateau at this point is unaccounted for given rising CO2 levels) :)

"The cooling trend (1944-1965 by my reckoning) can be explained at least partially by the increase in industrial activity releasing aerosols, particularly SO2 that overrode the warming signal from increasing CO2."

An interesting hypothesis. Do you know of any proxies to SO2 concentrations that we could map backwards in time?

Re:For non-Canadians

[riverat1]

Don't you think solar astronomers put a lot of effort into knowing everything possible about the Sun? Anyone who comes up with something significant about it that we haven't measured yet will probably win a Nobel Prize. It would have to be something we don't have a clue about now. Until such a thing is discovered the simplest answer is to assume it doesn't exist. To say there's something about the Sun we don't know about that's causing global warming is putting the cart before the horse.

The plateau is accounted for by natural variability just like in other similar dips in the record.

Industrial aerosols being partially responsible for the cooling after WWII is something I first heard about 10 or 15 years ago. I don't know of any SO2 proxies and I'm not sure they are available. A reasonable place to start learning about the subject would be the Wikipedia article on global dimming.

Re:For non-Canadians

[hsthompson69]

As noble and talented as solar astronomers are, there is still plenty for us to learn about the sun. Just this past year they've discovered more subtlety in the magnetic currents than they had anticipated. Asserting that we have ignorance is humility, not putting the cart before the horse. Asserting that we know everything, and that the "debate is over" is arrogance.

"The plateau is accounted for by natural variability just like in other similar dips in the record."

Now this is just blatant hypocrisy -> why should dips be considered "natural" but increases be considered "man-made"?

" I don't know of any SO2 proxies and I'm not sure they are available."

Which means that although industrial aerosol cooling may be possible, there really is no falsifiable hypothesis here yet. Design an experiment that would falsify the hypothesis, and then you're doing real science. I would imagine that the real problem here would be a significant lack of data for historical periods -> we've only had satellites up to observe more details for the past 30 years, hardly enough to generate a robust record.

Re:For non-Canadians

[riverat1]

I never said we knew everything however most of the work being done now is on details, not the big things. In the absence of evidence that we are missing something big, and no global warming is not that evidence, you go with what you know.

I believe the dip in temperature in the 1950s-1970s was at least partially human caused.

Aerosols such as SO2 are relatively shortlived in the atmosphere so you have to keep pumping them in to keep the levels up. Also they can be somewhat localized. That makes it a difficult field of study. But we're learning more all the time.

Re:For non-Canadians

[hsthompson69]

Ah, the precautionary principle -> use what little you know, just in case you might be right.

The problem with that, of course, is that there are often dire consequences for getting it wrong with the limited information you have. For example, based on a "7 country study" (when 21 countries were actually available) Ancel Keys decided that dietary fat might cause heart disease, and kicked off the low-fat/low-calorie craze of the past 30 years that has caused epidemics of obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic diseases (google "gary taubes berkeley").

A lot of the work now in climate is being done on the big things -> proxies, forcing, radiative balance, UHI, the surface record, ocean oscillations. Since any one of these things and certainly the combination of these things can completely change the picture. Even the IPCC has error bars that when shown, are ridiculously huge.

If the dip in temperature in the 50s-70s was human caused, should we once again cause that cooling to fight our warming?

Furthermore, if aerosols such as SO2 are so localized, and they're only generated over land, doesn't that ignore the 75% of the planet that is water?

The fact of the matter is that we don't have a any reliable proxies for the past 100 years. We've only had satellites up for 30 years, and our surface record is incredibly unreliable, even today. We barely have a sea monitoring network, and the data problems (transparency, backup, traceability) are legion.

We should be humble enough to realize that we don't have good data sets for climate (even modern ones have plenty of problems), and our ignorance greatly outweighs our knowledge at this point. To gain more knowledge, we need to do more science, which means coming up with falsifiable hypotheses so we can learn.

Ultimately

[symes]

It is good peer reviewed journal articles and making the data available for public scrutiny that will determine right from wrong, in as far that there is a right from wrong in such matters - I doubt a court room would come close to what other scientists can do to each others work. Do they really think a lawyer could even get close to understanding the statistical models these guys use? The other issue is public perception and the potential damage false accusations can inflict. And I also doubt that a court room would appease public sentiment. I can understand why they might feel aggreaved and hope they win - I just don't think the excercise will cover the big issues.

Re:Ultimately

[MightyMartian]

Public scrutiny is an interesting concept. I wouldn't, for instance, have the vaguest idea what to do with the raw data coming out of CERN, would you? Meaningful scrutiny comes from people with the skills to scrutinize. While I'm all for public release of data, one of the fears of scientists in this case is that you'll get a whole bunch of people who don't really have the skills to interpret the data making wild declarations, or possibly worse, people who do know how to interpret the data overstating or inventing problems with sufficiently clever arguments to fool layman. This is what has happened in the anti-evolution movement, where a few reasonably skilled anti-evolution types like Michael Behe have in fact used their skills to create bogus arguments that sound scientific.

Re:Ultimately

[skids]

Good peer reviewed journal articles may determine the right from the wrong on the science.

However, if you are an ordinary citizen, hack journalist, or politician, you don't read those. No, the headlines determine the "truth."

Besides, there were allegations here that went beyond the meat of the science and into workplace ethics. If some rag says you sexually harassed your coworkers or embezzled money, and you didn't, you sue. That is what is happening here.

Re:Ultimately

[maxume]

Maintaining ivory towers isn't going to make public reactions to bluster any more robust.

(whereas release of the data can pretty much only increase serious scrutiny; Like anything involving humans, it will be messy at the edges, but that isn't a potential problem with it, it is something that comes with it, no matter what)

Re:Ultimately

[MightyMartian]

I never said we should maintain ivory towers, but if the fraudsters in the anti-evolution movement are any indication, a lot more pure unadulterated bullshit is going to come down the pike once those numbers are made available. The chief difference is that the fraudsters in the anti-climate pseudo-skeptic community are backed by some of the largest corporations on the planet, where with the anti-evolution crowd its largely moron school boards and a couple of millionaires funding outfits like the Discovery Institute.

Re:Ultimately

[cdrguru]

The problem is, you aren't ever going to get that.

Disclosure of the full dataset that is available doesn't get you much, because the model (the programs) is so complicated. So you have something that is unintelligible to anyone that isn't working on it. That is a large part of what the whole "climategate" furor was over. The data wasn't released because it was impenetratable and obtuse, when it was relased it was found to be impenetratable and obtuse - and very, very hard to understand in the "right" way.

Peer review? Ha. Right now there are two sides to this and neither one is being terribly objective and forthright. Each side is pretty much saying that the data either shows something terrible or it doesn't show that at all. Nobody is taking a "scientific" approach to it, mostly because the results from the data aren't really reproducible. Again, this is because the data and the model are very obscure and complicated. There is also a lot of tweaking and processing going on with the data.

Whether or not this tweaking is generating the results or the data stands on its own is something that nobody is really interested in right now. Just about everyone already "knows" the answer and is sure the other side has ulterior motives. Science by conjector, science by concensus and science with irreproducible results isn't really science. But we've known that for a long time.

If things are as bad as some people believe, why aren't they taking action? If every car, every airplane, every factory, every power plant is pushing things further and further into what was quoted recently as a 200 foot rise in sea level, why aren't the believers (and the scientists themselves) stopping every flight they can? Why don't we have guys in coal powerplants taking them over ala China Syndrome at gunpoint to shut them down?

There is either a serious lack of courage of conviction, or the folks saying the sky is falling aren't really all that convinced. When I see action I might be more encouraged to believe that they really know something.

Re:Ultimately

[The Spoonman]

whereas release of the data can pretty much only increase serious scrutiny

How do you figure? How precisely does giving the People of Walmart access to scientific data increase scrutiny? The one thing I find most amazing about Climategate is this apparent perception that the climate change issue is a new one. Like it hasn't been thoroughly researched over the last 40ish years by scientists in many disparate disciplines. As the parent suggests, the deniers have access to the published papers, and they still fail to "believe" in climate change. How is having raw statistical data going to change that? And, frankly, if they're so concerned about the quality of the data couldn't they....hmmmm, I dunno...collect their own? Why do the actual scientists have to do the work so deniers can just tear it down?

Re:Ultimately

[Reality Master 101]

Disclosure of the full dataset that is available doesn't get you much, because the model (the programs) is so complicated. So you have something that is unintelligible to anyone that isn't working on it. That is a large part of what the whole "climategate" furor was over. The data wasn't released because it was impenetratable and obtuse, when it was relased it was found to be impenetratable and obtuse - and very, very hard to understand in the "right" way.

Which is exactly why I don't trust computer models as "evidence" of anything. If it's that complex and difficult to understand, then bugs in the model become a significant probability. If they want people to trust their models, then they need to use STANDARD modeling software that has been thoroughly peer-reviewed, and any published results have to be absolutely reproducible using the published dataset.

To me, the most shocking thing in Climategate was that not only was the data not published, but the source code to the model wasn't published, either. That is simply an unacceptable way to do science.

Re:Ultimately

[zz5555]

"Nobody is taking a "scientific" approach to it, mostly because the results from the data aren't really reproducible. Again, this is because the data and the model are very obscure and complicated. There is also a lot of tweaking and processing going on with the data."

I don't think you know what's really going on. There are a number models and most of the scientists (at least claim to) understand them. However, they all pretty much agree, so it is all reproducible. And there isn't any tweaking other than adding the known physics. But that's how all sciences work (or are supposed to).

"If things are as bad as some people believe, why aren't they taking action? If every car, every airplane, every factory, every power plant is pushing things further and further into what was quoted recently as a 200 foot rise in sea level, why aren't the believers (and the scientists themselves) stopping every flight they can?"

So you've got scientists who, for the most part, just want to do the science. Let's say there are 5000 of them worldwide. And they're supposed to do, what? Bomb the airports and factories? Does this seem sensible? All they can do is release the facts as they know them to be and hope the populace and politicians can make the correct decisions. On the other side you have corporations who are making lots of money. Who do you think is going to win in this game?

Re:Ultimately

[maxume]

It doesn't necessarily increase scrutiny, it just is more likely to increase it than it is to decrease it.

As far as why do you give the deniers an easy time? Because that's the way science should be done, that's why.

Re:Ultimately

[tsm_sf]

Maintaining ivory towers isn't going to make public reactions to bluster any more robust.

It's all well and good to demand transparency and accessibility for data etc, but where is the money going to come from? Who's going to pay for online hosting? Who's going to pay for the researcher's time?

Also, what format will the data take? Will we standardize on one form for every department, or will we be serving up raw data straight from the instruments? We've seen people complain about lack of access to raw data, but will they complain about needing to write their own parsing software or will they demand access to the source of whatever tools the researchers used? Who's going to pay for that? What if the tool is expensive and proprietary?

Like I said, the idea of openness is a good one, but it's being presented as an unplanned, unfunded mandate. A lot more thinking needs to go into this, and I don't see anyone capable of such stepping up to the plate.

Re:Ultimately

[Sulphur]

BS causes climate change.

--

Is it sue season yet?

Re:Ultimately

[ArsonSmith]

The problem being, when you spend a lot of money to get some empirical data that you then spend a lot of time and money analyzing. Which you turn around and use that to get more money to collect more data you start to fall into the hmmmmm, category is there conflict of interest.

Then when people start to point out legitimate problems with the collection methods of your first data set that invalidate your claims, then problems with both the collection and analysis of your second data set and you just demonize them as much as you can for fear of losing your next funding requirements it pushes it just a little farther into the "Hmmmm" category.

Re:Ultimately

[CorporateSuit]

This works both ways. When only one side has all the data, it can make whatever claims it wants to, and there's nothing anybody can do about it, because they're the scientists, and anyone who questions them is a moron.

Forget that these scientists have zero large-scale, successful predictive models, and only a few models were sporadically successful out of thousands of localized tests.

When the scientist comes out and tells me that I must submit to his incorrect predictive model, I'll call him a fraud and won't drink his kool-aid. I'll also roll my eyes whenever anyone argues on behalf of said scientist, because they're reciting his definitively-misinterpreted data. I'm not the science-hating chump. The man in the uniform trying to get his face on Time after he's been nothing but wrong with the data he hoards is the science-hating chump.

If they ran the LHC the same way they run climate data, the reports would look like: "The Higgs-Boson has been found by the LHC, we simply need to find out which particle it was!" or if Thomas Edison had acted this way, our lightbulbs would still last a few hours and be made of platinum filament.

I never understood how the Greeks could believe in their Pantheon as they seeming made up the stories as they went along... until I started reading evolutionary advocates trying to string together how their gods DNA, natural selection, solar energy, primordial soup, and enough Kronos shapes life in a cruel, but loving way. Just ask one how butterflies evolved (egg, caterpillar, crysalis, butterfly) and you will probably hear some completely fabricated machination of their imagination -- completely unsupported by any sort of research or study -- which makes for a good bedtime story, but a large percentage of these people WILL THINK THAT IS HOW IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW HE JUST DESCRIBED IT... This exercise does not work for entomologists, because they probably won't be making it up as they go along, rather they've probably read or studied it.

If it was real science, then when I ask "What do you estimate the average temperature for next solar cycle to be? What factors could throw a wrench in this estimate, and how much would they affect the outcome? (Volcanoes, solar flares, etc.)" and then in about 10 years, we could check their work. If they just say "no way to tell!" that's because they don't have a good enough grasp on what they do to make a predictive model or trying to enforce power over others. "4 degrees increase in temperatures, which could increase by .2 degrees for each solar flare or decrease .4 degrees for each year without major solar flare activity. This can also be modified by subtracting .001 degrees for every reduced percent of annual human carbon output." would be, for example, a proper, observable, testable prediction -- the sort of prediction that COULD be made by any idiot on a computer who had the data that climate scientists have at their disposal. At least then they could find out what sort of data we're MISSING. We could get more "That's odd..." moments when the data should fit but doesn't. Lately, the best they've done is "temperatures will probably rise next year" during a warming trend.

Color me unconvinced, and let's see what "uninformed masses" can do with the data they've gathered. Perhaps a few of them won't make the same mistakes the experts are making.

Re:Ultimately

[MightyMartian]

Climate research is not even remotely close to Biology/Evolution as a science. Most (though not all) of climate research is based on computer models, which is very shaky evidence at this stage of our technology. Unfortunately, climatology is somewhere between science and religion right now, because it's highly politicized.

It's a statistical science. But then again, so is radioactive decay. I take it, to be consistent, that you're now going to declare that we can't possibly measure half-lives of many isotopes because it relies on models.

What you've done is another favorite anti-evolution tactic, an attempt to declare a particular field of research insufficiently "sciencey", that somehow its tools inadequate or prone to bias, while ignoring that similar tools are used in all other sorts of research.

What you're exhibiting is a classic case of compartmentalization.

Re:Ultimately

[The Spoonman]

It doesn't necessarily increase scrutiny, it just is more likely to increase it than it is to decrease it.

Although I only tangentially work with the scientific community, it's been my experience that if an actual scientist asks another actual scientist for their data, they'll usually get it. However, the general public...not so much. Why? Well, one only has to read the "evidence" presented in the Climategate scandal to see what happens when people who don't understand the science cherry pick what they read in order to make their case.

As far as why do you give the deniers an easy time? Because that's the way science should be done, that's why.

Really? So, I don't have to do any work to be a scientist, I just need to write letters requesting data that's been arduously collected over years by someone else? No, that's not how it should work.

Re:Ultimately

[The Spoonman]

Congratulations...you've just posted the dumbest comment I've ever seen on Slashdot. I build systems. Sometimes the systems fail and I have to fix them. Obviously, I build the system so it would fail so I would continue to have a job...yeah, ok. I think there's a hole in your tinfoil hat.

Re:Ultimately

[Pamplona Slowpoke]

I hadn't realized that I wasn't logged in. I'm re-posting my previous comment.

As a person who regularly shops at Wal-Mart I would like to respond. In Hester Prynne's day they made her wear a scarlet "A". If only the scientists who had crossed over into advocacy would do the same I would have a lot more trust in their models and conclusions.

The computer models they use to estimate the effects of increased CO2 are modeling second order differential equations. If they were modeling x^3 + 6x^2 + 42x + 42 I would have all the confidence in the world in their science. However, they start with 6x + 12 and are modeling x^3 + 6x^2 + Cx + D. I have no confidence that these scientists have discovered the answer to life, the universe, and everything where both C and D are 42. I have come to this conclusion seeing comments in computer code describing efforts to hide the decline and seen exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melt to spur politicians into action.

As the parent suggests, the deniers have access to the published papers, and they still fail to "believe" in climate change.

Science is repeatable. It has to be so or otherwise we would have cold fusion. But we have come to learn that the original raw temperature data set was "lost" in a move at the Hadley CRU and that we should just trust their new and improved cleaned and scrubbed data set. There is no way that anybody could start with the original data, apply the same cleaning and scrubbing methodology and arrive at the same conclusion. It is therefore not science in any sense that trillions of dollars should be spent based upon analysis of said cleaned and scrubbed data. But this temperature data is one of the most important in the world and for the life of me I can't understand why.

Re:Ultimately

[maxume]

No one is going to pay any attention to the guy who just writes a letter, so that is the wrong direction (but nice job trying to pigeonhole what I said). Of course you have to work to be a scientist. But once you start publishing conclusions that are based on some given set of data, it only increases your credibility if you are willing to actually share that data, and discuss the messy details of how you obtained it.

So the point is that things like institutional inertia and hoarding need to be minimized, not blithely ignored. So if a guy wants to go over some research data and check it for correctness, he can. Even if he is just some computer programmer:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece

(By institutional inertia, I mean the thing where there is actually a science establishment that ends up directing where funding ends up, simply by existing; there probably isn't any way of eliminating it, but "he doesn't have a PHD so he won't be able to do anything with it anyway" should always be treated as the bullshit it is)

Re:Ultimately

[ArsonSmith]

I'm glad you're honest. I've seen systems built with an intent to fail. Contractors are often times good at this to preserve their contract.

Also, thanks for proving the point of demonizing the skeptics.

Re:Ultimately

[frogzilla]

They do use standard modelling software. Most major climate models are composed of pieces of the other ones. Many research groups use a small number of ocean models. The source codes are all available for download. In some cases straight from the web, in other cases you just have to ask. Why is this all so difficult to understand? The data are all on the web too. It was all and is all on the web.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Really this is getting pathetic.

Re:Ultimately

[Reality Master 101]

Really this is getting pathetic.

Are you seriously stating that ALL climate information and ALL source code, prior to climategate, was freely available at all times, and the freedom of information requests were just for information that was already freely available?

Re:Ultimately

[Reality Master 101]

It's a statistical science. But then again, so is radioactive decay. I take it, to be consistent, that you're now going to declare that we can't possibly measure half-lives of many isotopes because it relies on models.

What are you talking about? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?

What you've done is another favorite anti-evolution tactic, an attempt to declare a particular field of research insufficiently "sciencey", that somehow its tools inadequate or prone to bias, while ignoring that similar tools are used in all other sorts of research.

And what you've done is a favorite religious tactic, which is dismissing anyone as a heretic who dares to question "the authorities", while not even understanding your own authorities at all.

If you think climatology is as solid as physics, chemistry or evolution, then you are simply ignorant of how they all work. In fact, don't take my word for it. Go ask a climatologist research if they think their theories and models are as provably accurate as, say, relativity theory, molecular theory or evolutionary theory. I refuse to believe there is one out there that is so dishonest that they would say their level of knowledge is on par with physicists or chemists.

Re:Ultimately

[The Spoonman]

No one is going to pay any attention to the guy who just writes a letter, so that is the wrong direction (but nice job trying to pigeonhole what I said).

Not my intention. At this point the only way to get a scientist's data is to ask for it. I realize that you want the data to be freely available so that anyone can get it without asking. And, that as a correlation, more people will be able to scrutinize it. The reality is, though, that if it's available people...say those who work for Faux News...would cherry pick bits, report it their minions...I mean viewers...who will then go out into the world claiming that so and so scientist's data is completely flawed and with people like that, no amount of evidence or fact will ever change that point of view.

But once you start publishing conclusions that are based on some given set of data, it only increases your credibility

It will? With whom? The general public? The same general public that has access to vast amounts of evidence of climate change and doesn't "believe" in it? The same American populace, 42% of whom don't "believe" in evolution? How is having access to the data going to increase credibility?

if you are willing to actually share that data, and discuss the messy details of how you obtained it.

In the scientific community, the only credibility that matters is from your peers. When a scientist publishes a papers, they document clearly the steps they took to acquire the data used and present that results of that data and conclusions drawn from it...they don't publish every single piece of the data. They don't need to, data is only useful in aggregate. If you don't trust the findings, why would you trust it more if every single datum were included, too? That data could be flawed. The only way to confirm that would be...gather the data yourself. Since you have the methodology used, you can gather it in exactly the same fashion and see if you come to the same conclusions. THAT is good science!

So the point is that things like institutional inertia and hoarding need to be minimized, not blithely ignored. So if a guy wants to go over some research data and check it for correctness, he can.

Sorry, no, that's not a valid argument, nor the way it does or should work. Scientists don't work in a vacuum. They have teams that review each other's data and collection methods daily. They have peers within their departments who do the same. Before a paper is published, it goes through a process where the data, the methods and the findings are all checked and double-checked prior to it being published at a paper to ensure correctness. Most issues in science, however, concern the correctness of the methods (was the experiment framed properly) or the conclusions. Very rarely do people within the scientific community complain about the acurateness of the data itself. If you agree with the findings and it's consistent with other research, why would you? If the findings are inconsistent with all other research, flaws in the data itself will be found before the paper leaves the building. All of that being said...

Even if he is just some computer programmer:

Mistakes DO happen. They are, however, rare. Remember, when a paper is published, it's not just the reputation of the lead on the project that's at stake. The reputations of all of the team members, their departments, their collage, university, agency or corporation are also at stake. If there's a significant mistake in the data, it'll be found before it is seen by outsiders. The mistake in your article above a) was not a mistake in the actual collection of the data or the data itself, just how it was reported and b) didn't change the findings of the study, either.

(By institutional inertia, I mean the thing where there is actually a science establishment that ends up directing where funding ends up, simply by existing; there probably isn't any way of eliminating it

Re:Ultimately

[The Spoonman]

No problem. BTW, they're not skeptics, they're deniers. Skeptics can be convinced by facts and evidence. Deniers cannot. Big difference.

Re:Ultimately

[vague disclaimer]

. How is having raw statistical data going to change that?

Besides, the raw data (and the source code for the models used) is readily available - Real Climate even made a handy index page with direct links to it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ (note the very first link).

Re:Ultimately

[NeutronCowboy]

True, on its own, data should be made available. Information that circulates increases in value.

But I think we should be aware that it is easy to abuse data, and there are currently a lot of people out there who are very keen on abusing specific data sets. That decreases the value of data.

Re:Ultimately

[NeutronCowboy]

I have come to this conclusion seeing comments in computer code describing efforts to hide the decline and seen exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melt to spur politicians into action.

Then you have seen about 0.000001% of the code used in Global Climate models, and none of the peer-reviewed papers that deal with Global Climate Change.

It is therefore not science in any sense that trillions of dollars should be spent based upon analysis of said cleaned and scrubbed data.

All data is always scrubbed and cleaned, because you never, ever deal with raw data. At the very least, you normalize it and throw out data points from faulty measurements.

And that's why I don't think that releasing the raw data behind all the work that's been done so far is going to accomplish any good. Because few people understand what goes into the scientific analysis of a data set.

Re:Ultimately

[517714]

Good peer reviewed journal articles may determine the right from the wrong on the science.

However, if you are an ordinary citizen, hack journalist, or politician, you don't read those. No, the headlines determine the "truth."

Besides, there were allegations here that went beyond the meat of the science and into workplace ethics. If some rag says you sexually harassed your coworkers or embezzled money, and you didn't get caught, you sue. That is what is happening here.

I fixed that for you.

Re:Ultimately

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he's correct. Show me a QCD complete model of radioactive decay, with a Feynmann graph calculated to all orders. Heck, show me that quantum electrodynamics is renormalizable and admits and embedding of the overly simplistic quantum mechanical models of atoms into it. I'll be impressed if you can even manage a full QED calculation of the energy spectrum of a hydrogen atom.

Here's the thing: We make simpler models of infinitely complicated systems ALL THE TIME. Radioactive decay is calculated on a massively simplified model of an atom (spherical symmetry holds in a system with a non-isotropic nucleus? I don't thinks so!) so simple that we can do the calculations analytically. But massively massively simplified. We model all kinds of things this way in physics all the time. And not a single honest physicist will tell you that we know everything about it - we don't have a theory of everything, a unified theory. The standard model is even woefully lacking (Gravity?) and as to provable, you've got to be kidding.

Climatology is at least on a par with solid state physics, or lattice QCD. Here we make huge simplifications in the modeling of a complex system, run the entire analysis on computers and completely ignore certain external forces that we believe to be negligible (Sun spots are to climate change as gravitational self-interaction is to lattice QCD). If you think relativity, molecular theory or evolution are 'provably accurate' you're in for a hell of a shock - just go and talk to someone who's actually done research in any of those fields.

Re:Ultimately

[NeutronCowboy]

What are you talking about? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?

Pretty much. Have you ever tried working out the math for just the hydrogen orbit? Now try working out the math for a nice, simple alpha-decay. For one particle.

As for whether climatology is as accurate as physics.... no. No one claims that. I'll give you another analogy though. I'm gonna flip a coin. Heads or tails? Getting it right is going to be pretty much a crapshot. You can try and calculate it, but good luck with that. However, if I ask you how many heads there'll be after 1000 coins flips, and ask you for only a 95% confidence interval - what's it gonna be? And how sure would you be of your answer?

Just because something isn't provably correct doesn't mean it isn't useful. Or do you not use any software that isn't provably correct?

Re:Ultimately

[Reality Master 101]

No one claims that. I'll give you another analogy though. I'm gonna flip a coin. Heads or tails? Getting it right is going to be pretty much a crapshot. You can try and calculate it, but good luck with that. However, if I ask you how many heads there'll be after 1000 coins flips, and ask you for only a 95% confidence interval - what's it gonna be? And how sure would you be of your answer?

And I'll give you an analogy of climate science. Let's say I drop balls into the top of a box that bounce around on pegs. They will come out the bottom at any one of 20 slots. But I only show you 10% of where the pegs are, and the other 90% of the box is covered. The pegs are also shaped in crazy shapes. And the pegs are movable and tied together with elastic (i.e., they all interact together). Now calculate the distribution of where the balls will come out. Sure, you could model that and make a prediction, and call it statistical science. But that's a long way from modeling reality.

Re:Ultimately

[Pamplona Slowpoke]

All data is always scrubbed and cleaned, because you never, ever deal with raw data. At the very least, you normalize it and throw out data points from faulty measurements.

And that's why I don't think that releasing the raw data behind all the work that's been done so far is going to accomplish any good. Because few people understand what goes into the scientific analysis of a data set.

If requiring the release of the raw data does nothing else, it should prevent cherry picking of data. If you have "lost" the raw data then you have "lost" your claim to calling it science as the normalized data set isn't repeatable.

Re:Ultimately

[maxume]

I don't think there is any conspiracy among scientists.

I think they are humans and have human failings, and I think that being as open as possible with their data is one way to counter some of those failings.

Your comment reads like you have a lot of direct experience working on projects. Do you?

Re:Ultimately

[ArsonSmith]

Does that make you a skeptic denier then? Since skeptics can be convinced by facts and evidence. Deniers cannot

Re:Ultimately

[ShakaUVM]

>>It's a statistical science. But then again, so is radioactive decay.

Bad analogy.

In terms of what they do, Climate science is closer to Economics than probably any other discipline. They don't really do science in the traditional sense, of empirical observation of controlled experiments and hypothesis testing. There's no control for our environment (unless there is a Douglass Adams Earth-2 lying around in storage somewhere), and they don't really test hypotheses, but rather backfit their models to existing data, which is very easy to become very accurate on. (Hell, I could write a model that was 100% accurate for the last 100 years, and would have no predictive power at all.)

Climate Scientists, like at RC.org, like to pretend they're real scientists - they even posted a rather defensive article on it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/, but even in that article they admit they can't validate their work, nor can they control their experiments, and these are the two things that make a discipline science.

So RC.org is full of shit. Though anyone familiar with them knows this already - they're anti-scientific partisan hacks who love to hide beneath the mantle of science.

Re:Ultimately

[shadowbearer]

  Relativity, molecular and evolutionary theory continue to undergo modifications even to this day. Nobody in those fields will say that those theories are the end-all of their particular forms of science, either, although they work pretty damned well.

  (I'll grant you that relativity is still standing up pretty well, although few in the field will state categorically that it will not be eventually refined - NOT dismissed, just refined, as Newton's theories were, but refined, as our understanding of the structure of the universe gets better. Molecular theory undergoes constant revisions as our understanding of subatomic reactions evolves; evolutionary theory, while still strong and likely to stay so, has been refined quite a bit since Darwin - there's a lot of strong evidence that viruses and bacteria, and as a consequence larger organisms, can exchange genetic material outside of reproduction, for one. I could post a lot more but I'll leave that for you to find on your own. )

  That is why those are called theories and not fact.. Facts are something we measure, like the increase of C02 and it's effects. Theories are the explanations we come up in order to try and figure out what is going on.

  (I think you are doing MightyMartian a disservice - look at some of his other posts in this article, you and he are arguing much the same thing, and dismissing much of the same BS. In any case, he is correct about climatology being a statistical science, at this point, given that most of our data agglutination relies on statistical mathematics. Not that I disagree that GW is happening, or about the main cause of recent warming, which is human industrial activity. )

SB

Re:Ultimately

[hkmwbz]

Forget that these scientists have zero large-scale, successful predictive models, and only a few models were sporadically successful out of thousands of localized tests.

Pure and utter nonsense. Stop spreading your blatant lies, you fucking moron.

Re:Ultimately

[Xyrus]

? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?

While the example is poor, your rebuttal questions shows you know jack about climate models.

You can have a simple 1D climate model that will demonstrate planetary warming based on a handful of well understood parameters. Of course, a 1D model won't tell you a whole lot more than that. In fact, you can drive a full climate model on just small group of critical prognostic quantities. Check out Model E for example (which is a publicly available climate model complete with the data sets to drive it). The model restart files can be stripped down to something like 7 main components.

But what if you want some finer grained information? How does the atmospheric chemistry effect ozone in the stratosphere? How strong are the cooling effects of sulfur dioxide? What is the impact of a .1% change in albedo at the north pole due to pollution? While some of these things only make slight impacts, together they may accelerate or slow down climate change. But in order to study such things, scientists need to gather data AND add more components to the climate model that they're using.

The core of a climate model is, relatively speaking, is very simple. But if you want to study other aspects of the climate you have to add to that core, or roll your own. Be that as it may, even the most basic climate models, which again can use just a few parameters, show that increasing tropospheric CO2 yields a warmer planet on average.

But can you imagine what would be said if a climate scientist held up a simple model? Your argument would then be "it ain't got 'nough parememeters so it kent be right!".

If you think climatology is as solid as physics, chemistry or evolution, then you are simply ignorant of how they all work.

So are you it seems. The climate models ARE based on chemistry, physics, fluid dynamics, atmospheric dynamics, etc.. It's not like they just sat around and said "Hey, let's through a bunch of FORTRAN together and make some shit up." A point argued out of ignorance is still ignorant.

Go ask a climatologist research if they think their theories and models are as provably accurate as, say, relativity theory, molecular theory or evolutionary theory

The theories, yes. The various formulas you come across in climate science are very well established, drawing on everything from EM theory to chemistry. The theories are very solid.

But models are never solid. Anything that includes chaotic interaction (of which, all your mentioned areas have) can never be perfectly modeled. Hence the need for running large ensembles and using statistical methods to get useful information out of them (though depending on what your looking for, you may not need to go so far). This is also why models come with expectations of error and a thorough analysis of the error.

I refuse to believe there is one out there that is so dishonest that they would say their level of knowledge is on par with physicists or chemists.

That's going to come as quite a surprise to all the physicists and chemists in the field. You seem to be under an impression that climate science is somehow an independent field from physics and chemistry, which is most certainly not the case. Read down any roster of climate research groups. You'll find people from fields as diverse as astronomy to computer science.

~X~

Re:Ultimately

[MasterPatricko]

What makes you think there are "zero large-scale, successful predictive models"? What do you think the hundreds of papers published every year are based on? What do you think the IPCC collated into the AR4?

If it was real science, then when I ask "What do you estimate the average temperature for next solar cycle to be? What factors could throw a wrench in this estimate, and how much would they affect the outcome? (Volcanoes, solar flares, etc.)" and then in about 10 years, we could check their work. If they just say "no way to tell!" that's because they don't have a good enough grasp on what they do to make a predictive model or trying to enforce power over others. "4 degrees increase in temperatures, which could increase by .2 degrees for each solar flare or decrease .4 degrees for each year without major solar flare activity. This can also be modified by subtracting .001 degrees for every reduced percent of annual human carbon output." would be, for example, a proper, observable, testable prediction -- the sort of prediction that COULD be made by any idiot on a computer who had the data that climate scientists have at their disposal. At least then they could find out what sort of data we're MISSING. We could get more "That's odd..." moments when the data should fit but doesn't. Lately, the best they've done is "temperatures will probably rise next year" during a warming trend.

Do you honestly think the scientists are so stupid as to not have some way to check their models? Why do you think historical data is so important? You create a model, and wait for it, you run it for past conditions, and compare with what was actually measured at that time in the real world! Astounding! No need to wait for 10 years into the future, when possibly it doesn't matter anymore! Believe it or not, scientists have been doing this ever since computer modelling of the climate was possible 30 years ago. If the models were shit, we'd know. They aren't perfect but we have a pretty good idea of what they are missing already and that is why we are able to place error bounds on the future predictions. The "That's odd..." moments have already happened, with clouds, solar activity, volcanoes, everything. The climate modellers aren't just pulling numbers out of their ass.

Just remember, its their job. They WILL do it better than you can, otherwise why the hell are you posting on Slashdot when you could be doing useful research.

Re:Ultimately

[quokkaZ]

Climate models have had notable successes:

1. Hansen's model from the early 80s predicted about the right amount of surface temperature change they we see today

2. This model successfully predicted the cooling effect of the Pinotubo volcano in the early 90's

3. Climate models all predict the cooling of the stratosphere and the warming of the troposphere agreeing closely with observation.

4. When the UAH satellite record diverged from both the instrumental surface temperature record and the models (much to the delight of the deniosaurs) it transpired that the calculations in the UAH record contained errors and the climate models were right. The UAH record now agrees pretty much with the surface record and the models.

5. The climate models predicted the rapid warming of the poles especially the arctic. They have been proved right with dramatic warming of the arctic.

Finally, climate models are PHYSICAL models - not statistical models. Drawing some silly distinction between climatology and say physics is a nonsense. It is physics, chemistry, geology etc etc. applied to the study of climate. Attempts to designate it as a second class science because certain people don't like it's conclusions are contemptible.

Models and computer models and physical computer models are used all over science and engineering. Heard of finite element analysis? The three body problem ? Just because a model doesn't tell us everything, it doesn't mean it tells us nothing. In fact it may tell us rater a lot with high confidence.

Re:Ultimately

[drewhk]

HERE IS YOUR FUCKING RAW DATA (because you are unvilling to search it for yourself -- and call yourself a skeptic...):

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2 [noaa.gov]
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/ [noaa.gov]
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/ [ucar.edu]
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER [antarctica.ac.uk]
http://eca.knmi.nl/ [eca.knmi.nl]
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1 [zamg.ac.at]
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd [nasa.gov]
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE [nasa.gov]
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/ [colostate.edu]
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html [pol.ac.uk]
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html [unizh.ch]
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm [csiro.au]
http://icoads.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]

Re:Ultimately

[drewhk]

Data IS available, even if you DO NOT CARE to find it.

Re:Ultimately

[drewhk]

"Relativity is provably accurate because we can actually make a prediction and then test it [space.com]. It's provably accurate until it is proven inaccurate. Unlike climate science, which is nearly impossible to prove or disprove in the real world."

You are WRONG. As a descriptive science (like biology and geology) it is all about collecting and organizing a large amount of data. While you can argue about the PREDICTIVE part, the descriptive part IS science.

Re:Ultimately

[drewhk]

We do not have to answer this, because you can easily find it out FOR YOURSELF.

If you really care.

Re:Ultimately

[riverat1]

Large chunks of data are available. For instance all of the NASA/GISS data and NOAA data and source code are available. This concentration on possible flaws in the CRU data is a distraction because you could throw it all out and it wouldn't change a thing.

Re:Ultimately

[riverat1]

They did not lose any data, they deliberately erased or threw out their copies of the data because they didn't need them anymore. You have to remember this was back in the 1980s when electronic storage was several orders of magnitude more expensive than it is now and the media was several orders of magnitude larger than now. The cost of keeping it is something you have to acknowledge.

If you took the original raw data and applied their methodologies to it you may not come out with exactly what they did but it would be so close that you could consider the two equivalent.

Re:Ultimately

[riverat1]

... and you didn't get caught, you sue.

I'm not so sure about that. Do you really want the scrutiny of your behavior a lawsuit would invite? Best to lay low I think.

Re:Ultimately

[riverat1]

The NASA/GISS and NOAA data and models have been available for at least 5 or 10 years. That's more than enough for anyone to chew on for a long time. You've got to remember the WWW as we (sort of) know it only got going a little over 15 years ago.

Re:Ultimately

[riverat1]

Over 200 feet of sea level rise is what you would get if all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melted. But it would take CO2 levels over 600 or 800 ppm and thousands of years for all of it to melt and no sane scientist has said otherwise. What they are projecting is 3-6 feet of sea level rise by 2100 with BAU.

Re:Ultimately

[argStyopa]

But let's be completely honest, shall we?

"Besides, there were allegations here that went beyond the meat of the science and into workplace ethics. If some rag says you sexually harassed your coworkers or embezzled money, and you didn't, you sue. That is what is happening here."

If some rag says you sexually harassed your coworkers, and you DID, you STILL sue. (You might, for example, recall a certain president who categorically 'did not have sexual relations with this woman!'? He then promptly mobilized the massive public-relations engine that worked for him as well as energizing political fellow-travelers to work on his behalf - all to 'defend' himself from scurrilous and scandalous accusations that were PERFECTLY TRUE.)

The tactics of the accused, when they know they're guilty seem to be (in no particular order):
deny, obfuscate, attack the accusers, semantically marginalize the accusation, strawman argument, and finally plead for sympathy.

Allegations are not proof.
Then again, arguing against the allegations is ALSO not proof.
That too may be what is happening here.

"The time for study is over"

[mevets]

Said Canada's environment minister John Baird in 2006. He then proceeded to eviscerate all government funding for climate research.

Re:"The time for study is over"

[oldspewey]

... which is a form of honesty, when you think about it.

Re:"The time for study is over"

[Nemyst]

I doubt Canada will be proactive in environment for as long as the Conservatives are in power. They have no interest to do it, seeing as their major voting populace comes from the prairies, which make piles of money from oil...

Not that the Liberals would do much more; Ignatief has no backbone whatsoever, nearly worse than Dion.

Climate lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

"exoneration of UEA scientists"

No one is buying the white wash. Just so you know.

Are climate scientists finally fighting back against their critics, who they were previously more inclined to ignore?

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Exonerated?

[16K Ram Pack]

They had 1 day of testimony. And their results still aren't reproduceable.

That doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, but UEA can't prove it's happening.

What climagate ?

[unity100]

there was no 'climagate' but private interests and right wing news organizations (ie fox news) picking and exaggerating on some piece of criticism in climate research. the kind of inside criticism in scientific community which is not only normal, but generally mandated to be there, in order for a research to be considered valid and scientific.

the same kind of news organizations which easily went as far to say 'what global warming, it is snowing here' while doing serious news pieces.

Re:What climagate ?

[Areyoukiddingme]

the same kind of news organizations which easily went as far to say 'what global warming, it is snowing here' while doing serious news pieces.

That would be where they have people fooled. Fox "News" broadcasts very little news at all, even according to its own opinion. The vast majority of their programming is officially editorial, by their own statements.

That's not to say they have any qualms at all about lying during actual news pieces either, since they went to court to defend their right to do precisely that, and won.

Re:What climagate ?

[Frosty Piss]

Quit focusing on "Fox News". The fact is, original data was destroyed, and the metadata has been manipulated. Questions about these things have yet to be adequately answered. This has nothing to do with Fox News. And it's a shame that Climate Scientists have not been more open, it generates distrust about a very real problem (Global Warming) and allows Global Warmings' detractors to gain footing.

Re:What climagate ?

[unity100]

it has a lot to do with fox news.

fox news, rupert murdoch is doing the mouthpiece work of private interests, incessantly.

Re:What climagate ?

[unity100]

what kind of judicial system a country has to have, for some news channel to win the 'right' to lie while delivering news, one wonders ...

Re:What climagate ?

[alan_dershowitz]

Because lying itself isn't against the law. Lying under certain circumstances, such as under oath in a court or fraudulently representing yourself in a business deal, is. The specific court case OP is referring to had to do with whistleblower status of two local Fox affiliate reporters who were fired for refusing to voluntarily redact claims made in an expose on rGBH hormones in cow milk. A replacement report was run that countered their claims.

link

The court found that the reporters were not eligible to be protected under whistleblower status because it is not against the law to lie on television and therefore they were not whistleblowing any crime.

There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that protection of the freedom of the press is taken very seriously in the USA. A law that created metrics for "truth" of reporting would be abused to silence reporters by government via self-censorship. The other reason the court didn't find the other way is because courts in the USA cannot find someone guilty ex-post-facto to established law, so even if this case made a point about lying on television, the court can't just up and make up a ruling and find Fox guilty. The court case was not about the legality of lying per-se.

This case was a terrible side-effect of legitimate concern for freedom of press in my opinion. Maybe there should be some sort of requirement for truth in reporting, I haven't thought about all the possible side effects or benefits of such legislation, so I'm not saying I think news organizations should be "allowed to lie" or anything like that.

Re:What climagate ?

[unity100]

so, i can basically come up, say that barack obama is a muslim, or dick cheney eats babies, as 'news', and then get away with it.

Re:What climagate ?

[alan_dershowitz]

Libel is against the law. I don't know if someone can say being a Muslim is damaging to their reputation, though. The issue here is that there are things in which facts are in dispute even among reasonable people, so there is a hesitance to push the issue.

Re:What climagate ?

[unity100]

ok libel is against the law ...

so lets say that i start saying that us constitution wasnt adopted in 1787, but in 1532.

can i get away with that ?

Re:What climagate ?

[Areyoukiddingme]

As has already been said, libel is against the law. You can, however, say that in your OPINION Barrack Obama is a muslim, or he is like a muslim. Either option is perfectly legal. Similes and opinions are unlimited. That's precisely how Fox delivers much of their not-news. Editorials are opinion, by definition. Their talking heads are very carefully trained in the phrasing to keep them legal, while essentially saying any smear they like.

Oddly enough it's also legal to say Dick Cheney eats babies. Metaphor is legal if it is sufficiently hyperbolic in nature that the mythical "reasonable person" can be expected not to take it as true. Fox uses metaphors - it's the reason many of their commentators sound like hysterical lunatics to the unaccustomed ear. They're intentionally using outlandish language because it's easier to defend in court if someone sues. The fact that it serves their purpose by expanding the field of opinion so far that even a very nasty policy sounds reasonable compared to the utter absurdities spouted as metaphor is just icing on the cake. But it's a tricky tightrope. Metaphors draw lawsuits and if the plaintiff is well-healed enough to press the issue, it gets expensive to convince a judge and jury that they're "reasonable people" who wouldn't possibly have taken that metaphor as literal truth, and so should acquit them and award them attorney's fees.

When they lie, they prefer to lie about circumstances or situations or nameless groups, never specific people. Lying about a specific person by name is actionable and tends to go in favor of the plaintiff. Lying about groups of people is also illegal, but is considerably less likely to draw a lawsuit, unless that group of people is a corporation. Fox went into detail about their policies in that lawsuit, and they were perfectly frank about their purpose. They have their attorneys evaluate feature stories before airing them specifically to check for anything in them that might offend an individual or organization with sufficient money to file a lawsuit and fund it long enough to seriously impinge on their bottom line. If there is a risk of that, they can the story. The Bovine Growth Hormone story got canned because it's manufactured by a multinational megacorporation that can afford expensive lawyers. Quite simple, really.

It could be that the story was true. Fox will can it anyway. Litigating truth against a megacorp has gotten so expensive that even other megacorps avoid it when possible.

You can guess where that leaves individual citizens, not to mention the truth.

Re:What climagate ?

[Areyoukiddingme]

No.

At any given moment, the facts presented in the last 72 hours of television news, on all channels, can be summarized in a handful of sentences, half of which have been oversimplified to the point of being useless or wrong, and the other half of which are simply totally wrong.

Television is not news. It is entertainment.

And 90% of everything is crap. Glad to see you're working hard to maintain the ratio.

Re:What climagate ?

[sincewhen]

Well, according to the news report on Fox, it was the correct decision by an excellent judicial system.

Re:What climagate ?

[riverat1]

I doubt you'd be hauled into court over that but most people would consider you an idiot.

Re:What climagate ?

[riverat1]

The fact is their copy of the original data was thrown out, not the data at the original sources. You may not be able to recreate the original research exactly but if you went and got copies of the data on your own and used their methodologies to analyze it you would come out with something so similar to the original that it wouldn't make a difference.

Re:What climagate ?

[unity100]

i still make many people believe or doubt it if i repeated it long enough and to a wide enough audience.

Re:What climagate ?

[riverat1]

Unfortunately many people are gullible like that.

Re:What climagate ?

[tgibbs]

Quit focusing on "Fox News". The fact is, original data was destroyed, and the metadata has been manipulated.

The actual fact is that the original data is still in the possession of the meteorological services that acquired it and own it. CRU never even had the original raw data, so they were never in a position to destroy it even if they wanted to. So who told you that CRU destroyed the data? Fox News maybe? Perhaps you should start getting your news from a more trustworthy source.

Re:a bit naive...

[skids]

The higher they raise their prices, the more hybrids/electrics/bicycles get bought.

Re:Where the Money Goes Matters

[skids]

Nah, we have to spend more time arguing about global warming. I mean, we have ocean acidification, fragile monolithic electricity grids, and an escalating oil crunch all of which point towards doing most of the same things we would have to do to fight global warming. If we don't sit around arguing about bar charts, we might actually have to get off our asses and go do some of that stuff.

That Old Tune?

[e2d2]

Anyone that's done a little research knows the scientists there really did some questionable stuff. They would also know that they've (CRU/IPCC) been taken to task by others in the scientific community for doing so. This suit is about bad journalism. But it does not change the facts about the shenanigans at the CRU.

Re:That Old Tune?

[geekoid]

what shenanigans? you means the stuff peopel don't understand and therefore they believe uit was wrong? Like leaving data out that wasn't used in the analysis?

This is a mocktraversy

Re:That Old Tune?

[Bigjeff5]

Ah, so I suppose the 650 climatologists who spoke out against the IPCC report at the Climate Summit last January don't understand all this fancy "science" stuff, huh?

The debate is far from over, regardless of what any environmental evangelists or political activists tell you. This goes for both the AGW alarmists and the AGW deniers, though it's the alarmists who have been pushing to get laws passed while they have the advantage. Beware anybody in science who says "the debate is over". They're definitely lying, and they're probably trying to pull one over on you.

Like leaving data out that wasn't used in the analysis?

There happen to be a lot of questions about exactly why such a large chunk of data was collected and then left out of the study. There are plenty of valid reasons, but "we didn't want to" isn't really one of them.

Re:That Old Tune?

[chrb]

Anyone that's done a little research knows the scientists there really did some questionable stuff. They would also know that they've (CRU/IPCC) been taken to task by others in the scientific community for doing so.

There was a small amount of criticism from the scientific community regarding small details, but the consensus was that the leaked emails did reveal a conspiracy, and did not alter any of the science. See: Nature, Scientific American New Scientist, the Royal Society.

Re:That Old Tune?

[hkmwbz]

Ah, so I suppose the 650 climatologists who spoke out against the IPCC report at the Climate Summit last January don't understand all this fancy "science" stuff, huh?

Exactly. Who are these 650 "climatologists"?

Re:That Old Tune?

[WeatherGod]

[[ciitation needed]]

Whether it is true or false, posting such statements without attribution is just elitist and smug because you assume that everyone else in the conversation are aware of the same information that you have. It does no good to people in this forum to not provide sources for your statements.

Re:That Old Tune?

[WeatherGod]

I would also like to add to that list the statement from the American Meteorological Society: http://ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html

Re:That Old Tune?

[chrb]

the leaked emails did reveal a conspiracy

did not.. sheesh..

Re:That Old Tune?

[e2d2]

True. But supposedly "in the know" geeks really should Google a little bit because this is not hidden information. Also, if they haven't fully explored the issue, why the hell are they commenting when they don't have the facts? But yes I was being a dick and deserved the flamebait mod. You make a good point and next time I'll post some useful links instead of just being a jerk.

So here are a few posts on the CRU software in question:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/cru-data-cooking-recipe-exposed/
a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/fudge-factor-uk-programmer-explains-problems-with-cru-climate-data/"

This is really my main beef with them because it violates everything I know as a programmer. You can't rely on bad code. So they should acknowledge it and do it again correctly. That's it. I'm not a scientist but I am a programmer and this is not the way you do it. I'm not saying they are deliberately doing anything, but these guys have some explanations to make.

Re:That Old Tune?

[WeatherGod]

Ok, and each of those links do not support your main assertion of "can't reproduce the same results with their data". If anything, I am quite amazed by the amount of information given in the README file. I frequently find myself bashing my head against a wall trying to figure out why I can't process some piece of data correctly or something or another, but I don't keep a diary like this guy did.

One of the links was a rant about a squared error value going negative and saying that any programmer would have caught that and knew how to deal with it. Well, in the README file, the guy did notice it, recognized that he was grabbing error values instead of obs and fixed the data to properly mask them out as they should have been in the first place. So, what's the problem?

In the end, it shows that he persevered in being able to reproduce much of the original data despite changes in the grid layout, system upgrades and software changes.

Re:a bit naive...

[cluge]

> they have to pay out will come from their backers - the oil industry

Do you any evidence of this, or do you just "know"? If I was to put on your conspiracy hat and "follow the money" I see trillions of dollars and power going to government agencies, scientists that "study" the problem are getting more and more funding. Western governments desperately need money to pay for social programs that are unsustainable, and "climate science" is a perfect excuse to tax more. Who exactly is using who?

> Look at how much the oil industry have had to pay to take over governments

You seem to confuse taxation with "pay off".

>dismiss science

Science is a methodology, what's being dismissed is evidence that contradicts the pervasive theory.

> The longer you resist, the more you will suffer.

Whose therapist said that?

-cluge

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[mevets]

Of course we can't; not until the planet is uninhabitable will we know with absolute certainty (ie. can make the statement). We do know the effect of greenhouse gasses, and that we are pumping an unprecedented level of them, on a continuous basis, into the atmosphere, and that the environment is warming.

The best evidence that the environment is warming is the sudden interest in Arctic ownership and access. The same governments and businesses which undermine climate change are jockeying for rights and access here. Do they know something we don't?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[geekoid]

Short time?
You mean 750,000 years of data? That's not a short time.

Plus, there is a ton of data. Read up. Culd new data come in? maybe but you don't sit around and wait for data to support your theory. YOu go with th data you have and modify as new data cmoes in.

Would this make sens:
I believe gravity is happening, but we shouldn't go around saying its because mass bends space until more data comes in.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't see the relevance... In climate data, that "suggests" global warming, and then the assumption that it is our doing.

Either you're hopelessly biased or you don't understand science. Science is the process by which we hypothesize various things, then test to see which one has the most support, via a semi-formal method. Science never "proves" anything absolutely. It doesn't prove that gravity exists or how it works. It just very, very strongly suggests it.

In order for a rational person to believe anthropogenic global warming is not happening they need to either reject science entirely or they need to have a competing theory with more support. You just hypothesized that the changing climate is the result of natural processes, but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence. That is simply not the consensus of the experimentation and modeling I've seen to date, by a huge margin.

There is always room for an alternate model of global warming. Creating such a model and then creating falsifiable tests to see if it holds up has been a large endeavor among many very well funded scientists. The thing is, none of them have panned out or produced results that compare favorably to man-made global warming. For you to not accept that global warming is most likely strongly influenced by human actions you have to picking and choosing as to when you believe in the scientific method and when you don't.

How dare you?

[roman_mir]

How dare you, using the word 'loose' correctly like that on /.? Astounding arrogance, who do you think you are?!

Real climate scientists?

[Benfea]

You mean like Ross McKitrick? Or do you perhaps mean one of the guys who actually manages to be less qualified, less prominent, and less competent than even McKitrick?

Free Speech

[Lord Ender]

Let anyone say anything. HOWEVER, the media should be required to state clear disclaimers before reporting "facts" which they have not attempted to verify.

Mod Parent Down...Troll Alert

[catchblue22]

...libtard slashdolts...

Ad hominem attack

-the so called climate research data is corrupt and is a geopolitical hoax

Unsubstantiated ad hominem attack indirectly attacking the honesty of scientists.

-the perpetuation of this faux science was simply to perpetuate funding streams...

Ad hominem attack, questioning the motivations of scientists.

-the prime motivation is still what its always been, the create new financial "tools"

Again, an ad hominem attack, seemingly attacking the motivations of scientists.

Now as one measely volcano on the surface of a planet full of them spews ash into the sky and shuts down northern europe for a week with no ability to really know what the future brings in regard to more ash and sun blocking, volcanism and solar activity have become the obvious answers to climate drivers for even the most intellectually challenged on the street.

I'm not sure what a single volcano does to undermine the idea of greenhouse gas forcing. This statement is a muddled red herring.

All of course except for the so called "scientists" who are really nothing but massage artists and belong working in a brothel

Ad hominem attack on scientists. Working in a brothel??!!! WTF

What has been will always will be in human terms you fucking ninnies and I fucking told ya so.

Grammatically nonsensical sentence.

If this incoherent rant is what passes for a score 5 Interesting comment on Slashdot, I have something to say to the moderators. This is a troll comment.

Re:CRYSTAL BALL TIME

[RazorSharp]

I'll have to paraphrase, but there's a saying that you should have run into throughout your many years of Slashdotting: "Never blame conspiracy when incompetence is just as plausible." Your theory is so absurd that that it's lacks any credibility. A global scientific conspiracy motivated and funded by . . .?????? The nice thing about science is that it's not your encyclopedia or a journal or the consensus opinion of a handful of professors, science is a method for discovering knowledge. Not all knowledge is obtainable but when it comes to physical phenomena the scientific method has proven itself to be the most reliable path to understanding.

Climate scientists work within the framework of the scientific method to understand a system so complex that it is really impossible to understand 100%. But their research brings them much closer to understanding how the earth's climate functions than you or I could ever know. When studying basic logic one learns that when trying to assess a case that is beyond one's understanding it is best to 1) rely on expert opinion if there is a consensus or near-consensus 2) suspend belief if expert opinion is deeply divided 3) become an expert yourself through years of research.

Your conclusion that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy is illogical because #1 is the case, there is a near consensus among climate researchers that humans are accelerating climate change by way of pollution and the effects on future generations could be catastrophic. Because #1 is true we know #2 is false. I'm assuming #3 is also false because if you were an expert in the field and you truly believed the crap in your post you wouldn't be posting as an AC and you would have actual evidence to back up your claims rather than just wild speculation.

Re:inevitable...

[zz5555]

Man, glad the climate scientists didn't do that.

I know who they are

[Nicolas MONNET]

> I don't give a crap about the "climate evangelists" (whatever exactly that is).

I know who they are, they usually hang out in fields scaring crows.

Any AGW scientist

[OrwellianLurker]

Any AGW scientist who isn't completely transparent in their research gets no trust from me. When scientists play politician, people will lose trust. They should be researching, educating, and advising-- not politicizing science.

Re:Any AGW scientist

[calmofthestorm]

The problem isn't scientists playing politician but politicians playing scientist. Of course, lack of transparency is despicable and needs to be dealt with. It sickens me that the publications resulting from research paid for with my tax dollars is often locked behind paywalls.

That said, transparency is somewhat difficult. I have about 50 GB of test results from some research I should be working on at the moment. I can publish it online, but without the software that I use to read the file format it's useless. I wrote that too and could publish it, along with instructions on how to use it, but honestly it would still be very impenetrable to someone not an expert in the field. Now algorithms/ML research is a lot less controversial than AGW, but the point stands. Science is extremely difficult to do right, and to understand. I'd be hopelessly lost if I tried to interpret the CRU data, and I have a very good understanding of scientific and mathematical methods compared to the average person.

People spend years of their life to wrest the tiniest piece of information out of the universe. It's extraordinarily presumptuous to assume that someone can in an hour go through all that information and come up with a logical conclusion. We're talking about a lifetime of work here. Think about your life: could someone with no related knowledge really sift through all you've done in the past ten years and judge it, in the amount of time we're talking about here?

My point isn't that they did or didn't do anything wrong. My point is that neither I, nor Glen Beck, nor a court of law, is qualified to judge this question. To quote from TFA, I have no objection to climate skepticism, it's climate change denial that I oppose. It's very clear to someone with a scientific background to identify the common thread in science denial whether it's evolution, climate change, or the big bang: it's a refusal to even consider the possibility followed with spouting off some Aristotelian-style sophistry. A scientist says "maybe the climate isn't changing" and investigates by looking for arguments. A denier insists the climate can't possibly be changing and anyone who disagrees is part of a massive conspiracy and writes analogies and syllogisms and rhetoric. There are a few scientists who dispute AGW. They aren't the ones involved in fomenting this McScandal.

If my research were as controversial as theirs and anyone who bothered to look at my work in the same detail would be able to manufacture a scandal too, at least if the general public cared about optimizing information gathering. Scientific programming by its very nature results in impenetrable codebases that don't build and extremely complex data sets.

So I don't claim to be qualified to judge. But my sympathies are with the scientists involved because I have an in in science and I find the idea of an oil industry conspiracy far more plausible than a climate change conspiracy, if we really need conspiracy theories to explain ignorance.

Re:Any AGW scientist

[dbIII]

Get about twenty people together doing anything and somebody plays politician.

Re:Any AGW scientist

[calmofthestorm]

It's not possible to teach those who refuse to learn.

Re:Any AGW scientist

[hsthompson69]

"A scientist says "maybe the climate isn't changing" and investigates by looking for arguments. A denier insists the climate can't possibly be changing and anyone who disagrees is part of a massive conspiracy and writes analogies and syllogisms and rhetoric."

Actually, a scientist should say, "maybe the climate is changing due to man's activity, but if I find data , and , it would disprove my theory". Science is the relentless skepticism of one's own ideas.

A "denier" who examines the data, finds flaws, presents them (Steve McIntyre), but is then charged with being a part of some massive oil conspiracy and attacked ad hominem for being a "denier" is a more valuable to the process of discovering truth than an AGW cheerleader.

There is plenty enough reason for even lay people to be skeptical of the arguments made for AGW, even without advanced degrees in physics or math. The first clue is when people start saying "the debate is over", but there has been sufficient reason for even a high school drop out to question the wild assertions made. Granted, a lot of these are filtered through a simplistic press that sensationalizes and exaggerates (turning 20cm of sea level rise into 20m, for example), but many of the high institutions worshipped by AGW supporters (IPPC, CRU, etc) have long ago turned the corner from scientific investigation to PR machines trying to push a foregone conclusion.

Perhaps the real problem here is that we can all agree that these hypotheses may be possible, but we just can't all get our heads together on how big the error bars are. Asserting complete confidence in something that is obviously limited by measurement and calculation accuracy seems to be a poor way to convince people your theory is true.

Re:Any AGW scientist

[calmofthestorm]

These are all good points you guys are making. I apologize if I came off overly exasperated, it's just very frustrating to try to hold intelligent debate on AGW with all the I WAS COLD LAST WINTER and AL GORE MADE UP GLOBAL WARMING TO SERVE THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY crap that floods the internet, and, to a sad degree, the media.

Essentially, the denial of well known results gets in the way of the skepticism about less well established ones.

Re:Any AGW scientist

[hsthompson69]

Well said. Argument by sound bite/slogan/talking point really doesn't advance either understanding or knowledge.

One of the most frustrating things for me is the incredible room left for misinterpretation with just even some of the basics, like "what is the current temperature of the globe RIGHT NOW". The measurements and adjustments to temperature of the surface record make for a final "global temperature" value that is difficult to describe, and even harder to agree upon. A good example of the really basic definitions at the root of disagreements (in this case, the definition of "average" temperature") can be seen here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjPJnEtfUE

Background - the National Post

[Qwavel]

People need to understand the National Post. It is a prominent and important national paper in Canada, but it is a bit like Fox in the U.S.

It was created and payed for by Conrad Black - a well know Canadian Conservative (bit and little 'c') who I believe is still in jail - specifically in order to promote his Conservative values. He was very clear about this (I personally heard him articulate this in a TV Ontario interview by Steve Pakin) and about his disdain for any attempt at objectivity in journalism.

So, the idea that the National Post would concern itself with journalistic standards does not make sense in light of its genesis.

Poly-sci humor, tonight at tha Apollo....

[TiggertheMad]

red shift is centrist

Funny, I always saw red shift as moving toward the left...

Re:Poly-sci humor, tonight at tha Apollo....

[Sulphur]

Red is right, and blue is left.

--

They will think to change times and seasons.

Re:CRYSTAL BALL TIME

[zz5555]

You're exactly right except everything you just said was wrong :).

The globe is still warming and it's well known not to be caused by volcanism and solar activity because:
1. Volcanoes are known to release about 1% as much CO2 as humans release into the atmosphere. There are other things that volcanoes release, but those tend to cool things down, so they can't cause warming.
2. The amount of energy coming from the sun has been steady, or slightly decreasing, for the last 40 years. So that couldn't cause the warming.

Misleading title

[zill]

From the story title I was expecting a group of scientists in lab coats karate kicking an iceberg back to the south pole.

Boy, was I disappointed.

Re:Background - the National Post

[shutdown -p now]

In this case, frankly, it doesn't matter what the newspaper is. If they truly libeled the guy, then they should pay for that. If not, then they're free to publish whatever they want.

I can only say that it's good that this has finally landed in a court, so that the issue can be resolved with all due diligence, rather than by a mob with torches and pitchforks acting on the heat of the moment. Whatever decision comes out of it, I'll trust it much more than any /. speculation, whichever way it is slanted.

Re:Lies, and Damn Lies

[zz5555]

Um, why don't you go to their website and download their data and models and do just that? Contrary to what you may have heard, they released all the data they were allowed to. There was data that was owned by various governments that it was illegal for them to release, but everything else was released. Sure, you won't understand it because you don't have the education, but when has that stopped you from commenting before? :)

When is a fact not a fact?

[Aczlan]

If a fact has been altered, is it still a fact? Or does it become an opinion at the point that is it altered?
Using temperature data as an example, raw data as recorded by stations is a fact but after it has been altered to account for urban heat island effect, more temp sensors in the city than in the country or any other data, would it not become the theory of the person who altered the data?

Aaron Z

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Bemopolis]

a)The Medieval Warm Period is based on European records; it thus could be a local phenomenon, rather than a global one.

b) It has been hypothesized by William Ruddiman that the depopulation caused by the Black Death led to lower anthropogenic CO2; the Little Ice Age would thus be a short-term reversal of global warming, which would in fact reinforce the AGW theory. It is necessary to emphasize that this is only a hypothesis.

Re:CRYSTAL BALL TIME

[Locke2005]

Cow farts have also increased over the past 100 years, due to the fact that there are more and bigger cows. How do we know global warning is not due to bovine activity? To say nothing of cow, sheep, and termite farts!

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[jjoelc]

We may have only been taking direct temperature readings for a relatively short time, but there is stall a LOT of data from indirect sources that show us a pretty long history of the temperatiies across the globe. Ice core samples, tree ring ananysis, amber deposits, geologic studies, archaeological evidence, etc etc.. Combining all of that data gives us a pretty clear record of what temperatures were like, what the atmosphere was like, and the correllations between the two.. Doing the math on how much crap human society is pumping into the air, and otherwise polluting the system is not necesarily a simple thing to do, but it IS pretty straightforward.

Does all of this mean they are right? Not absolutely, no. But if you do something 49 times, and the SAME thing happens every time.. Wouldn't you bet that the same thing is going to happen the 50th time you do it?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I see you've sited[sic] just as many sources as the post you're antagonizing.

I didn't cite any sources. I explained why conceptually the idea of believing an alternative hypothesis needs to be supported, just as all the studies linking global warming to human behavior are. That is to say, "I don't see enough support for this theory so I'm going to assume it is something else at random" is unscientific.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Dalambertian]

The best evidence that the environment is warming is the sudden interest in Arctic ownership and access. The same governments and businesses which undermine climate change are jockeying for rights and access here. Do they know something we don't?

You don't know about the fight for arctic oil? That probably has something to do with it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=arctic%20oil&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=6sl&tbo=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=nws:1,qdr:w&ei=5BPSS9D1IYKKlwfV3bXuDA&sa=X&oi=tool&resnum=5&ct=tlink&ved=0CCwQpwU

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Oh good, I am glad someone posted skepticism regarding the current climate change data and mankind's influence on the environment. Now the holy war can begin. =)
...
...
...
/popcorn.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You just hypothesized that the changing climate is the result of natural processes, but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence.

How do you explain the Early Medieval Warm Period, then?

Did you completely miss the point of my post? It's fine to point to possible flaws in the theory of man influenced global warming, but that does nothing at all to promote the belief that the current global warming is caused by any other phenomenon. You need to create a hypothesis as to what is causing global warming and then create and perform falsifiable tests of that hypothesis, and then have those tests repeated. Note this theory has to account for things like the unprecedented rate of change we are now observing.

Now I can go and address how the early medieval warm period fits into current theories of man influenced global warming according to the varied sub theories, primarily that the phenomenon was localized and not representative of global temperatures or the mediterranean heat sink theory. I'm not aware of a CO2 theory for it. I don't really have to though as others seem to have jumped in.

In order for your theory of AGW to be considered correct, it has to explain all the data, including the inconvenient facts about the past.

No, in order for a rational person to consider it to be the most correct understanding to date (science always advances) it has to explain everything better than any other theory. That's the central point of my post that you seem to be missing. Otherwise you're like the young earth creationists who say the big bang theory does not fully explain dark matter, thus we should not believe the theory and god must have done it. A scientist "believes" the most supported theory. A scientist does not dismiss the best supported theory in favor of another theory (like "some sort of natural causes" or "god did it 6000 years ago") until that theory is better supported and better fits the evidence.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[alan_dershowitz]

In order for a rational person to believe anthropogenic global warming is not happening they need to either reject science entirely or they need to have a competing theory with more support.

No, they don't have to have a competing theory. They have to demonstrate that the anthropogenic global warming theory has axiomatic, logic, data or interpretation flaws sufficient to undermine findings, or that it is an unfalsifiable theory. That is sufficient to disregard the theory.

I am not saying this is the case with AGW, just that you do NOT need a competing theory before you can disregard another.

the headlines determine the "truth"

[huckamania]

Not true. The headline for this article says that the UEA were exonerated and I don't believe it at all.

As I said when climategate first started, this is only the beginning of the end. There is much more that has come out recently and there will be more in the future. You'll know when the end is near when the RWP, MWP and LIA are restored in the climate history. It was pure hubris that removed them from the record. I'm sure most of the climate scientists would like things to go back to 2008, a banner year to be sure, but if you want to repack an opened can of worms, you're going to need a bigger can.

Glad to see that almost no one is using the term 'climate change' anymore. There is nothing to be ashamed about when using the term 'global warming', if that is what you believe in.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[tmosley]

More people were killed during Stalin's purges. Why didn't their deaths cause a little ice age?

Why wasn't the world frozen back when the global population of humans only ten million or so?

Basically, that's one dumb hypothesis.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Citizen of Earth]

That is simply not the consensus of the experimentation and modeling I've seen to date, by a huge margin.

The biggest difficulty with this issue is that no "experimentation" has been performed, only modeling. Experiments give you facts, but experimentation here involves cloning an exact copy of the Earth and running different scenarios for thousands of years. Models are unreliable because they give you whatever answer you program them to give you. You can say that we have one experiment running now with the real Earth, but we don't know the results of that experiment; we are only guessing about the final outcome. This is the biggest difference between evolution and AGW; evolution has millions of final outcomes but AGW has zero.

Re:Lies, and Damn Lies

[gonzonista]

Way back in the last millenium, I attended a seminar put on by Dr. Weaver. At that time, he was an untenured professor doing climatology. Dot Com was about to explode and oil was less than $15/barrel. Nobody except a few grad students like myself knew or cared about his research.

He reported on ice core drilling in Greenland and mentioned that periods where the average temperature was higher coincided with a higher standard deviation in temperature. In other words, when the average temperature is warmer, the variability of the weather increases. Coupled with climate theory that predicts increasing temperature with increasing CO2 concentration, you get a pretty reasonable argument that the weather is going to get bad in the future.

At that time, he was part of a research institute and what he had to say was just part of his research. He was doing his job and didn't have any incentives from any lobby groups outside academia because at that time, there weren't any. There were no Wall Street backroom boys slipping him dollars, nor was any greenwash organization encouraging him.

I have a hard time believing he falsified data given the circumstances and time. If you are still skeptical, I encourage you to try reading some of the papers he put out or contact him or the climatology center to get a look at the data.

What's not to understand???

[mswhippingboy]

Point A:
Let's dispense with any questions about whether so called "greenhouse gases" can actually cause the "greenhouse" effect.
Scientists can produce the greenhouse effect in laboratories. This is not speculation, this is empirical evidence. A little knowledge of chemistry (which I believe is still considered "hard" science), and you can understand why. Without the "greenhouse" effect life would not exist on Earth, but would simply be a frozen rock. The greenhouse effect is what keeps the planet warm. We also know empirically that the more CO2 and/or methane that is pumped into a closed system, the greater the effect. Again, this is all elementary earth science. If one is ignorant (or in denial) enough to dispute that there is such an effect, then there is really no point in discussing the issue father, because in their case, facts don't matter.

Point B:
We know that certain activities produce greenhouse gases. Burning fossil fuels, cows farting and others all generate quantifiable amounts of CO2 and methane. Again, this is not in question. This can be, and has been proven in laboratories many times. We can also calculate how much CO2 is produced each year though surveying the amount of fossil fuels consumed, so there is no wiggle room here either.

Point C:
We know plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. We can also, without doing any guesswork, quantify how much CO2 is absorbed by the density of plant life across the globe. We know without a doubt that the amount of plant life is decreasing as the area of rainforest is decreasing at the rate of about 30 million acres per year. Therefore, it is an absolute fact that the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plant-life is decreasing at an alarming rate. Again, no one (in their right mind) can argue with this fact.

I'm sorry, but there is just no reasonable justification for denying that there is an increasing greenhouse effect taking place on Earth and that humans are contributing to it. Even if you choose to ignore the measurements taken over the last several years that show the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing and write it off as a natural cycle of the earth. Points A through C are not disputable. Even if there is a natural cycle taking place, wouldn't it be prudent (knowing points A though C) to try and slow the process down by limiting the amount of emissions and reversing the deforestation?
Do people really have to shoot themselves in the head to know that a bullet going through soft brain tissue is likely to cause some damage?
I'm all for a healthy debate, but can we check ignorance and stupidity at the door please?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I see, so that means that you will support my hypothesis that money going into your bank account is contributing to the likelihood of a large meteor destroying all life on earth, and the only way to counter it is if for all of those funds to be diverted and go into my bank account instead.

That's an interesting hypothesis. So what falsifiable experiment have you performed that supports your hypothesis? I performed one yesterday when I put money in my account and no meteor destroyed life on earth. So my theory is better supported than your hypothesis so far. I'll repeat my experiment in two weeks.

I think what you're missing is that you are challenging a supported theory in both cases. You need to provide a MORE supported theory to change what I and scientists everywhere believe.

If they really wanted to discredit the guy

[outsider007]

They should have just accused him of being chinese.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

No, they don't have to have a competing theory.

To believe anything else including natural causes cause global warming or that it isn't happening, yes they do.

They have to demonstrate that the anthropogenic global warming theory has axiomatic, logic, data or interpretation flaws...

That would reduce the support for the theory, but not cause any reasonable person to change their mind unless it makes it less well supported than some other theory.

...or that it is an unfalsifiable theory

You can't prove a theory is unfalsifiable. For something to be a theory it has to have had an experiment performed and repeated that would have falsified it. Otherwise you're talking about a hypothesis.

I am not saying this is the case with AGW, just that you do NOT need a competing theory before you can disregard another.

If you're a scientist, yes, you do need a competing theory because for something to be a theory it has to have passed a falsifiable test.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[frogzilla]

No one is assuming anything (*). Scientists are analysing data and trying to understand what's causing the patterns that they observe. At the moment the best fit includes significant forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If that changes the scientists will incorporate the new knowledge and change the "theory". This is how it works. They aren't assuming that it's caused by the anthropogenic gases, they are finding that it is caused by them.

Also, the climate does shift "on its own". That natural variability is taken into account.

There are many data available. They come from different, independent measuring systems. This is well established.

I can understand the lay person's reluctance to just accept pronouncements delivered from authority. We used to do that more but now that's not an acceptable reason to believe something. However, to assume that everyone doing this research is wrong and worse knows even less about it than you do is not going to help. If you won't trust scientists to do their research why do you trust anyone? Is every specialist in the world is just somehow making things up as they go? Every engineer worthless, every medical doctor guessing? These people spend years at universities studying. Is that worth nothing? The entire system would have to be a sham. Physics and mathematics would have to be wrong.

Also, the magnetic poles have nothing to do with this.

* OK there are assumptions but they are constantly being tested and revised. When possible assumptions are eliminated by developing better theoretical underpinnings based on observations and evidence. It really does work that way and every specialist does it. They have to or they wouldn't be able to proceed.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The biggest difficulty with this issue is that no "experimentation" has been performed, only modeling.

Experiments don't have to be replicating a situation. For example, you can theorize that we'll find a mechanism by which genetic traits are passed on as an experiment to test the evolution of species. If one can show no such mechanism exists, the theory of the evolution of man is falsified. Making any prediction which would falsify a theory is an experiment. Whenever new data comes in the theory is supported or fails and has to be changed or support moves to a competing theory.

This is the biggest difference between evolution and AGW; evolution has millions of final outcomes but AGW has zero.

Not really. Much of the support for the evolution of man has been in the form of fossils we dig up and tests we perform on them. Likewise historical data we find about temperatures around the world from ice cores to tree rings. We have lots of data coming in that does fall in line with the predictions made and a small amount that is anomalous and requires further work on the theory.

Re:a bit naive...

[TapeCutter]

"Science is a methodology, what's being dismissed is evidence that contradicts the pervasive theory."

No, what is being dismissed are red-herrings invented by lobbyists at think tanks such as the heartland institute. Effective propoganda is much cheaper than launching scientific instruments into space. The fact that you imply peer-review is hopelessly corrupt demonstrates how effective that propoganda can be.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[alan_dershowitz]

I don't know what else to say other than you are wrong. You're just wrong. If you demonstrate that a theory is not viable, you are not obligated to keep trying to tweak the broken theory in absence of a competing one. That's closer to how astrology works.

If you're a scientist, yes, you do need a competing theory because for something to be a theory it has to have passed a falsifiable test.

If you find a sufficiently serious methodological flaw in a theory after it is presented (such as bad data for instance,) it is no longer a valid theory.

Re:CRYSTAL BALL TIME

[zz5555]

As the article you linked to says, this has already been accounted for and it accounts for something less than 18% of the greenhouse effect. It's well known how effective each greenhouse gas is - that's just everyday physics and has been tested in labs and known for decades. CH4 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but there's much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere than CH4. So CO2 causes more warming than CH4. Now no one says that CH4 isn't a problem, it is. But CO2 is well known to be a bigger one.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Its not 7500000 years of data. Its some years of modern temp readings, and then a lot of modeling of 2nd and 3rd level data to *infer* the rest. These models are subject to.... uncertainties to say the lest. The black and white nature of the debate here is not all that scientific.

But hay they are scientist... we should just trust them, they know what best.

Like hell. I am a scientist, and i don't trust me. In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

You need to create a hypothesis as to what is causing global warming and then create and perform falsifiable tests of that hypothesis, and then have those tests repeated.

No, I don't. The Null Hypothesis is that what's happening is natural. In claiming that any and all climate change is man made, you are the one holding the burden of proof, not me!

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Bemopolis]

Well let's see: There's the fact that the Black Death wiped out 100 million people, one-fifth of humanity. So, you were not only wrong in thinking that the deaths of one-tenth of one-twentieth of the world's population has more of an impact than one-fifth, but even your raw number is off by a factor of five.

Oh, and then there's also the fact that humanity surpassed a population of ten million in 7000 B.C. or so. You know, just after the Pleistocene Epoch, known for its (ahem) glaciation.

Also, there's the fact that Stalin sent his 20 million victims to the Gulag via fossil-fuel vehicles, or ran them over in petrol-fueled tanks. SO there's some carbon offsets for you.

I guess what I'm saying is, basically, that's one dumb post of yours.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Bigjeff5]

We do know the effect of greenhouse gasses, and that we are pumping an unprecedented level of them, on a continuous basis, into the atmosphere, and that the environment is warming.

That's the thing, we do know we are affecting present temperature change, what we don't know is whether or not that has any serious impact on long-term climate.

For example, we know for a fact that there was a period in Earth's history where oxygen levels were around 2% and CO2 levels were closer to the present day Oxygen levels of 20%. We also know for a fact that there have been significant ice ages (10-50 thousand years in length) in recent geological history (as early as 16 thousand years ago). Current climate models do not accurately predict these climate changes given present conditions and working backwards, how the hell are we supposed to trust them to predict future climate as a result of present conditions and trends?

There is also very little evidence to suggest that increased temperatures - even significant increases - are detrimental to earth's ecosystem when taken as a whole. The hottest periods in Earth's history have also been the most productive, with most mass extinctions occurring during cold periods.

In light of that, why are we freaking out? Yes, we have a duty to be responsible with Earth's resources, but we should not be over-reacting. We have plenty of time to figure out how far we can go before we go too far. We certainly aren't there yet.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Bigjeff5]

I believe gravity is happening, but we shouldn't go around saying its because mass bends space until more data comes in.

Except the "mass bends space" model works a hell of a lot better than anything else, so given your own statements should we not be using that until something suggests otherwise?

The real crux of the whole thing is that science is never "finished", and anybody who tells you "the debate is over" regarding anything scientific in nature is a charlatan and is probably selling something.

Gravity is an absolutely perfect example, and we know a hell of a lot more about it than we do about Earth's long term climate mechanisms. Do we really want to be setting laws based on a field of science that is, at best, in its early adolescence? Frankly, I'd suggest we just use caution and wait until we know more, instead of setting draconian laws based on incomplete science. And yes, despite the mountains of data collected, climate science is still very incomplete.

This is an uphill battle

[teklob]

I do not envy Mr. Weaver in this case. IANAL but as I understand Canadian libel law, not only must he prove false claims were made, he must also prove they did damage to his reputation. So he will essentially be required in open court to trash himself.

In addition, I believe this sort of lawsuit is counter productive. I agree that the science should stand on its own, and now, despite his lawyers claims that the libel has 'gone viral,' the supposedly libelous story will witness a new level of exposure.

Also, according to the article, he is suing the paper, three writers and will attempt to sue commentors on the paper's website. I say to him, good luck.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[chrb]

Finally, someone who understands the scientific methodology. Yes, to "disprove" global warming, sceptics would need to come up with a model for the observed data that has a lower error than the existing models. It is amazing how many sceptics justify their "science" by talking about Al Gore and conspiracy theories. That is not how science works. Make a new model. Show that your model fits the data better than the existing model. If you think the observed data is wrong, then construct and verify your own data set. Show that your new dataset has a lower error than the existing dataset. Repeat ad infinitum. That is how science works.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Chris Burke]

No, they don't have to have a competing theory. They have to demonstrate that the anthropogenic global warming theory has axiomatic, logic, data or interpretation flaws sufficient to undermine findings, or that it is an unfalsifiable theory. That is sufficient to disregard the theory.

Not exactly, because any flaws in a theory should be weighed against the success of the theory before you decide whether to use it or not. We know for certain that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have fundamental, axiomatic flaws. Like, neither works in the other's universe. Yet these are the two of the most successful theories of the 20th century, they're incredibly useful, and it would be foolish to disregard them simply because they contain logical flaws.

Science is always about having the best theory to explain observations, fully understanding that it is most likely flawed or incomplete or outright wrong. But for a theory to last long enough to be called a "theory" in scientific circles, there's enough evidence for it that it is highly unlikely to be outright wrong.

I am not saying this is the case with AGW, just that you do NOT need a competing theory before you can disregard another.

You're right at least in the general sense that many hypothesis can be safely rejected with no alternative explanation needed. But when the theory does do a good job of explaining observations, you pretty much do need to suggest an alternative that explains the data at least as well before the existing theory will be abandoned.

AGW does have a lot of evidence to support it. That doesn't make it the bona fide truth, it makes it a pretty good model. There are certainly flaws in the models and the data, but that's what models are for: making predictions despite being imperfect. Alternate theories, like it being due to volcanoes and solar radiance, which for anyone playing at home were thought of and accounted for long before you'd heard of the ideas, don't explain the data as well. So if you're doing real science, you'll probably find yourself having to come up with a better model of your own before you could seriously say that AGW shouldn't be the preferred theory. That was the GP's point, I think.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[chrb]

How do you explain the Early Medieval Warm Period, then?

Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

how do you explain the Little Ice Age?

Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

Do you think people were putting enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then to cause it?

Do you think that for AGW to be the cause of the increase in global temperature over the last century, it must also be the cause of every temperature variation ever?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Bigjeff5]

a)The Medieval Warm Period is based on European records; it thus could be a local phenomenon, rather than a global one.

That was true ten years ago, today records from Australia and Africa (and others) show similar warming trends in the Medieval time period, confirming that it was a global event.

b) It has been hypothesized by William Ruddiman that the depopulation caused by the Black Death led to lower anthropogenic CO2; the Little Ice Age would thus be a short-term reversal of global warming, which would in fact reinforce the AGW theory. It is necessary to emphasize that this is only a hypothesis.

It has been pretty well established that the Little Ice Age was caused by a sudden release of glacial meltwater from North America rushing into the Gulf Stream, which brings warm water from the equator north to warm the European coastal waters. This influx of cold water effectively shut down the Gulf Stream until the glacial ice receded far enough north that it was no longer flushing cold water into the Gulf Coast.

Which do you think had a bigger effect, a halted Gulf Stream, or millions of dead people (who happen to release CO2 into the soil and air as they rot, btw)? There are also studies that suggest this event had a significant impact on global temperatures, but that would only be natural given a 300+ year cold period - the majority of the temperature changes were local.

This was a local event, but it was also completely natural and a result of the previous ice age and sudden spike in global temperatures. By the way, the global temperature spike 16 thousand years ago makes the current temperature rise irrelevant, and it happened during a time when there were all of 5 million humans in the world. There are obviously much larger forces at work than a little bit of CO2. Besides, there are a lot more people in Europe during the MWP, yet there are a number of studies on Europe's climate that suggest it was significantly warmer prior to the Little Ice Age than it is now. They didn't even have a significant level of fossile fuel burning like we do today. Doesn't that kinda put a crimp in AGW, at least regarding that time period?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Bigjeff5]

No, in order for a rational person to consider it to be the most correct understanding to date (science always advances) it has to explain everything better than any other theory.

You still must recognize that it is wrong. It's like Relativity, we know for a fact it is wrong, but it explains almost everything, so we use it.

AGW predicts global temperature trends for the last 150 years pretty accurately. It does not accurately predict the global temperature trends for the last thousand years, and it gets worse the further back you go, so we know we can't rely on it for future predictions beyond a relatively small number of years. I'd trust AGW out 50-100 years at the very most, beyond that it's useless.

Before we start basing law on this stuff, how about we get something that is a little more accurate, yeah? Another 5-10 years would be wonderful, just look at what we've learned in the last 10 years. Another 10 years and we could probably have something that accounts for most all the data.

Re:Lies, and Damn Lies

[Bigjeff5]

You can't verify the results without all the data, so a partial release is about as worthless as no release at all.

That has been the problem, it's not joe-public who needs the data, it's scientists who have not been allowed to view all the data, which hamstrings the entire peer-review process. You can't review their methods if you don't have access to the data they used, plain and simple.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[chrb]

I don't know what else to say other than you are wrong. You're just wrong. If you demonstrate that a theory is not viable, you are not obligated to keep trying to tweak the broken theory in absence of a competing one.

Actually the GP is correct. In order to replace a theory, you need to present a better theory - one that accounts for the observed data, and that does so with a lower error than the current theory. You can point out all the little problems that the current theory has, and that is useful work, but you will not invalidate the theory by doing this. Pointing out problems with Newtonian physics did not invalidate the theory. It was only succeeded as a theory when Einstein came up with a better theory - relativity - that matched the observed data with a lower error. Right now, there are known problems with relativity - the theory does not match the data in certain situations - but relativity does not become invalidated as a theory until someone comes up with a better theory.

If you find a sufficiently serious methodological flaw in a theory after it is presented (such as bad data for instance,) it is no longer a valid theory.

No theory is perfect. How serious must a flaw be to invalidate a theory? It is a debatable question. Newtonian physics has some "serious" flaws - is it not a theory? If a theory is the best theory you have - it explains the data with a lower error than any other existing model - but there are known errors, it does not suddenly become a non-theory when someone points out a problem with the theory.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

And you think that because New Scientist says it, it must be true? I notice that the first article you link to doesn't mention the dairy farms in Greenland. I do, however, agree that we're not simply recovering from the Little Ice Age; from all that I've been able to gather, that ended somewhere around 1850 or so.

Do you think that for AGW to be the cause of the increase in global temperature over the last century, it must also be the cause of every temperature variation ever?

No, I don't. However, the poster I was replying to seemed to think that was true, and I was trying to point out that that Just Isn't True.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[NeutronCowboy]

Look up ice cores. I'm kinda frightened by the fact that you're making inferences about climate science without being even aware of one of the major ways that people are getting temperature data.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

You can't prove a theory is unfalsifiable

Sure you can. You can prove that there is no experiment that can be performed (if experimenting is possible) or observation made that can't be interpreted as proof that the theory is right. As an example, if it gets hotter in the summer, that's considered as proof of AGW. If it gets colder in the winter, all of a sudden, that becomes proof of AGW. No matter what happens, the AGW fanatics twist their theory to show (after the fact) that it's proof of their theory. At that point, the theory becomes unfalsifiable, and in the sense of Popper, a meaningless noise.

Re:Lies, and Damn Lies

[Bigjeff5]

I've seen those Greenland ice core temperature graphs; they don't look good for AGW alarmists, which is probably why you never see them. They show that temperatures were significantly warmer about 15 thousand years ago than they are today, followed by a slow, steady decline. There is a significant dip that coincides with the "Little Ice Age", then a fast rise to current levels, which are still within the limits of the original steady decline, if a touch on the high side.

They basically show little to no link between humans and climate, at least for the European area, which is where you would naturally expect to see it the most (though if temperatures continue to rise for too much longer, that goes bust).

The core data for the 50 thousand years prior to that is even more impressive - temperatures changed by massive amounts over the course of hundreds of years. The temperature readings for the last 15 thousand years are a bunch of short peaks and valleys, showing the temperature fluctuations, while during the ice age temperature changes were much smoother but much more drastic. It's no wonder so many species went extinct (including several species of humans).

Frankly, I'd much rather have the minor fluctuations of a warm period than the steady but drastic changes of a cold period. To give you an analogy, it's like the difference in frequency of AM radio compared to FM - One is long and smooth with huge variations, the other is tighter with small but very quick fluctuations.

Re:Background - the National Post

[Bigjeff5]

Congratulations! You've just committed the well known (though still often used) fallacy known as "Poisoning the Well".

Just because the National Post is a dirt-bag organization (I have no idea if they are or aren't, just making a point) does not have any bearing on the validity of their statements.

It does not mean you can dismiss their statements out of hand, it simply means you need to approach their "facts" with a healthy dose of skepticism. The less trustworthy they are, the bigger your dose. ;)

This same fallacy is often committed on Slashdot with regards to Fox News. In other forums this happens with CNN and MS-NBC or the BBC, or just about any newspaper or news magazine or news organization. Having a bias does not invalidate the arguments at all, and merely claiming that they have a bias does not invalidate any of their arguments either. It is disingenuous to dismiss an argument out of hand for no reason other than the source of the argument.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[NeutronCowboy]

The Null Hypothesis is that what's happening is natural.

Sigh. No. The Null hypothesis is that all the data that has been collected is the result of random processes and therefore indistinguishable from random noise.. Trying to make any other claim with any collected data needs theoretical and data support.

I'm starting to understand why people can't get their head around the data that's been collected.

Re:CRYSTAL BALL TIME

[NeutronCowboy]

Not to mention that CH4 stays in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks or so. If you stop putting it into the atmosphere, it disappears pretty quickly.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[IRWolfie-]

Maybe you should leave the research and opinions to climatologists and geologists before trying to link the poles shifting to global warming.

Re:Lies, and Damn Lies

[zz5555]

Why can't they get the data by buying it from the various countries' Met offices? All the climate scientists can buy that data, what's prohibiting these others? Many of these other scientists get plenty of funding from the energy companies, so it's not like they couldn't afford it. If the Met offices won't sell the data to the other scientists, then the beef should be with the various Met offices. If these scientists don't like paying for the data, they should talk to their respective governments. Governments seem to want the Met offices to support themselves by selling this weather data and they're the ones that won't let it be released.

Or are you saying that any climate scientist needs to subsidize every other scientist that wants to use this data? I'm not in the climate field, but if anybody told me that I had to pay for other scientists to get computer time in order to check my work, I'd be plenty pissed.

The only other alternative would be that you'd prefer that this data just not be used. But that would hamstring science.

The fact is that at least a good number of anti-AGW scientists do have access to this data and they still haven't find anything profoundly wrong with the results from the mainstream climate scientists. And haven't for decades. This isn't to say they haven't done any good. It's healthy in science to have skeptics, as long as they are capable of understanding the science.

Re:Lies, and Damn Lies

[gonzonista]

I don't think that there should be any long term correlation between humans and climate because the bulk of growth has happened in the last 50 years.

As for core data, it is not the actual temperatures but the variance of temperatures that is of concern. If I remember the seminar correctly, a comparison was made between temperature deviations back in the 90s and in a period where the temperature was 2C warmer. Standard deviation was much higher during the warm period, indicating more severe weather changes.

If more relevant data exists now, then colour me stupid. But for the moment, I am assuming that less carbon means less weather fluctuation. If I am wrong, all it means is that my bank account is smaller.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Jeremy Erwin]

You're judging a scientific paper on the basis of a slashdot paraphrase?

A closer look at the claim and the suit

[Garwulf]

I posted this on the CBC news website:

Okay, I'm going to try to do a bit of an analysis of Weaver's claim. Now, I am not a lawyer - I'm a writer, a researcher, a publisher, and I work part-time doing writing and editing for a faculty of law. So, any errors are my own.

This is essentially a far-reaching libel claim. This means that two things have to be proven: first, that the National Post made a deliberate misrepresentation; second, that the Post did so with malice - they did it specifically to cause harm. If both can't be proven, the claim doesn't stand in court.

So, Weaver is launching a two pronged attack here - the first is against the Post itself for certain articles. The second is against some of the posters commenting on those articles.

First, the National Post itself: this will become a battle of sources. If the Post defends itself on that one, it will attempt to demonstrate that Weaver did say those things, and he's actively trying to rewrite history. So, the Post will have to bring out original rough notes for the articles to back-date Weaver's comments. So long as they can do that, even if the Post did say something wrong, then they can demonstrate that the errors were not deliberate, and the libel claim will fail.

Second, the NP forum posts: this one strikes me as a boneheaded move, frankly. There is simply no way to prove that the forum posters made any deliberate misrepresentations. Even if some of the comments were vicious, there isn't any way to demonstrate that an anonymous voice on a forum was knowingly lying.

Finally, malice: again, another very difficult thing to prove. This would require a paper trail or somebody able to testify that there was a targeted attack. Right now, the claim itself has innuendo, but not a trail to prove an attack.

For those who want to take a close look of their own, the claim is at http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/andrew%20weaver%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[hkmwbz]

I read the PDF, and it turned out to be a conscious and organized effort by the NP to crush Weaver. He will win.

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[Garwulf]

Well, that is Weaver's claim. The question is whether he can prove it.

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[Kirijini]

This is essentially a far-reaching libel claim. This means that two things have to be proven: first, that the National Post made a deliberate misrepresentation; second, that the Post did so with malice - they did it specifically to cause harm. If both can't be proven, the claim doesn't stand in court.

Yeah, thats the of the United States, but this suit was brought in Canada. Canadian defamation law doesn't require a showing of malice, because intent to harm is presumed.

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[hkmwbz]

Did you read the PDF? He quotes the National Post itself.

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[Garwulf]

Huh. I wonder if that's a recent change.

I'm in Canada, and that's how my lawyer explained it to me, as I recall, back around 2001/2002 (somebody had screwed me over, and then tried to shut me up with a threat of a libel suit - it didn't work).

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[Garwulf]

Yes, I did read it. Here's what I mean, though: his claim says that in the National Post articles, he's falsely quoted as saying X, Y, and Z. If I was the National Post's lawyer (obviously, I'm not), I would have the authors of the articles pull out their original notes, and say to the judge, "but he actually DID say X, Y, and Z," and try to demonstrate that Weaver is changing his story, and trying to use the lawsuit to silence inconvenient facts.

And, I would point out, right now we have only Weaver's side of the story, and the National Post's article archives. We do not yet have the Post's response. So, Weaver's case isn't proven yet.

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[hkmwbz]

That's the point here. He did not say those things. According to the PDF, they are pure fabrication. Speculation based on a campaign to destroy his reputation.

Re:A closer look at the claim and the suit

[Garwulf]

Here's the point I'm making - the PDF is his CLAIM. That's what he is trying to prove in court. He still has to prove it.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[hkmwbz]

Denialist crap is denialist crap. Educate yourself:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[hkmwbz]

You are talking nonsense. You are the one with the black and white debate.

Ah, guilt by implied association

[hackiavelli]

"Sometimes scientific theories turn out wrong" is just as meaningless and empty a statement about global climate change as "sometimes scientific theories turn out to be right". I could say laypersons doubted heliocentrism, plate tectonics, and evolution too. Would that prove global warming is real?

Certainly, your list of "scientific theories" is dubious at best. Flat earth and phrenology aren't scientific ideas by any standard and cold fusion and N-rays were discredited less than a year after they were publicized.

Re:Exonerated?

[hkmwbz]

Yes, their results are reproducible. The evidence clearly shows that global warming is happening. Quit being a fucking idiot.

Re:inevitable...

[hkmwbz]

Read about what? Yet another disgusting denialist liar lying through his teeth? Wow.

Credibility

[J'raxis]

Using the legal system to silence or punish your intellectual opponents does wonders for your credibility...

Re:Credibility

[calidoscope]

That's the most insightful comment in this whole discussion.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You can't prove a theory is unfalsifiable

Sure you can. You can prove that there is no experiment that can be performed (if experimenting is possible) or observation made that can't be interpreted as proof that the theory is right.

I don't think you know what "prove" means.

As an example, if it gets hotter in the summer, that's considered as proof of AGW. If it gets colder in the winter, all of a sudden, that becomes proof of AGW. No matter what happens, the AGW fanatics twist their theory to show (after the fact) that it's proof of their theory.

That neither proves nor disproves the whether or not AGW is falsifiable or not. Those are simply conditions that might be forecast in different areas in different circumstances to support or refute the theory, but are not falsifiable tests of the theory. Just because one thing is not a falsifiable test of a theory does not mean there can be no falsifiable tests, let alone that you can prove there can be no falsifiable test.

Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

ha

[unity100]

that was quite enlightening. thanks.

and

[unity100]

all i see here is, unbridled capitalism infiltrating and skewing judicial system in america as well as anything else. and its bad. the one with the most money buys the law, literally.

Re:a bit naive...

[smashin234]

Peer-review is not supposed to be the end of science. But in global warming we hear "Consensus! Peer-reviewed!" But that is besides the point.

Even saying that, the IPCC WG4 has only 70% of its references from peer-reviewed sources. And even if that is not enough...

Science is supposed to be duplicated and experimented with and replicated before its set in stone as solid. Global warming from greenhouse gases is set in stone. The amount this is warming the Earth is NOT. Feedback effects and factors are not set in stone. This is still being studied.

And when this science is making decisions that will effect every nation in the world, the litmus test must be that much higher. Even one mistake is cause to look it over in detail simply because so much money is involved in the end. Did you know that Al Gore's company that sells carbon credits is worth 3 billion dollars? Propaganda exists on both sides of this argument whether you want to believe it or not.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm only quoting the claims of the AGW people.

What's with the CO2 obsession?

[calidoscope]

Generating CO2 is just one of many ways that man can affect the climate, there are several other gases that strongly attenuate IR, all sorts of aerosols and don't get me started about contrails.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Marble1972]

...but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence

a) You're appealing to ignorance (a logical fallacy).

Just because a competing theory doesn't exist, or has 'less evidence' at a particular point in time, doesn't mean the original theory is right.

In order for a rational person to believe anthropogenic global warming is not happening they need to either reject science entirely or they need to have a competing theory with more support

b) You're still confusing science with truth.

Go look up some famous maverick scientists from history who tilted at the consensus, and work out by your definition, whether the initial lack of evidence for their hypothesis made them more irrational than the orthodox majority.

Re:a bit naive...

[sincewhen]

If I was to put on your conspiracy hat and "follow the money" I see trillions of dollars and power going to government agencies, scientists that "study" the problem are getting more and more funding. Western governments desperately need money to pay for social programs that are unsustainable, and "climate science" is a perfect excuse to tax more.

I don't want to step into your disagreement, but the funding of science and research is several orders of magnitude below that spent on health, defence and social security. You could argue that it would be in some scientists' interests to overplay this threat to improve their funding, but the amounts involved are trivial compared to other government expenditure.

Re:a bit naive...

[TapeCutter]

"But in global warming we hear "Consensus! Peer-reviewed!"

Yes because that's how science is done, consensus is just another word for old fashioned term "the republic of science" which IIRC was coined by Popper. The "consensus" is simply 3 points that have been widely accepted by science for at least a decade now.

1. The Earth is warming.
2. Human emissions are responsible for the majority of the warming.
3. Failure to reduce GHG emissions will be detrimental to civilization.

Note that points 1 & 2 are what you agree is "set in stone".

"Global warming from greenhouse gases is set in stone. The amount this is warming the Earth is NOT. Feedback effects and factors are not set in stone. This is still being studied.

The IPCC, Al Gore, and the vast majority of climate scientists will wholeheartedly agree with that. The common meme that they don't is a result of effective propoganda.

"Did you know that Al Gore's company that sells carbon credits is worth 3 billion dollars?"

So what? The only thing that indicaes is there are a lot of companies and individuals who are at least trying to do something. Al Gore is in a no win situation, if he does put his money where is his mouth is then he is a "scammer", if he doesn't then he's a "hypocrite". It's easy to find examples of both claims from political hacks. Note that this does not mean that I think planting trees is an effective way to reduce emissions but he certainly has the right to invest in whatever he believes.

"Propaganda exists on both sides of this argument whether you want to believe it or not."

Yes there's plenty of examples at greenpeace, so why not point them out rather than repeating the opposing propoganda?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[chrb]

New Scientist [wikipedia.org] says it, it must be true?

Do two "controversies" (in reality, minor criticisms) in 54 years prove that New Scientist is an untrustworthy source?

The New Defense of Responsible Journalism

[itsybitsy]

"A new ruling by the Supreme Court in Canada will allow journalists and bloggers greater protection from defamation lawsuits, establishing the new defence of responsible journalism.

If sued for defamation, journalists will be able to defend themselves by proving that they acted in the public interest and that they acted in a responsible way to gather the information. This rule will still apply even if particular facts are found to be false." - Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Press Freedom"

http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/09/the-new-defense-of-responsible-journalism

Distorting findings for money

[catman]

Sure they are. Just not for grants from politicians.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

Exaggerate much? I don't think any climate scientist has ever claimed that "any and all" climate change is "man made", just that the current warming trend is mostly due to human actions.

Re:Exonerated?

[16K Ram Pack]

So, they've published the method by which they modified the raw temperature data? Last thing I heard, they'd lost it.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm only quoting the claims of the AGW people.

First, I don't think there are "AGW people". Second, I'd be quite surprised to see an climate scientist claim some increase or decrease of temperature somewhere was a falsifiable test of global warming theory. I see the occasional sensationalist nonsense from reporters that usually has a vague quote from a scientist about global warming in general, but not actual scientists. If you have citations I'd be glad to look at them.

Here's some advice for you. Don't look at what "global warming people" have to say. Just research climactic models and find the one you think is best supported by the scientific evidence; not the one you want to believe, but the one that has best predicted our findings so far. That is science.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence

a) You're appealing to ignorance (a logical fallacy).

Wow did you fail your informal logic class!

An appeal to ignorance requires no support for a theory, but a theory, by definition has support. That is to say, because it is a theory it has made at least one prediction that would have falsified said theory, otherwise it would be a mere hypothesis.

b) You're still confusing science with truth. Go look up some famous maverick scientists from history who tilted at the consensus

A very important part of science is coming up with alternative hypothesis that you think might, after experimentation be better models. The thing is, while it is always useful to create and test these, if you "believe" them to be a more accurate theory before the experiments have been completed, then you are not being a scientist nor are you being rational. Now I understand people get carried away with their pet ideas and want to believe. It is a strong drive in human thought, but not a logical one. Since you seem interested in logic, it is the classic argumentum ad consequentiam. This has also one of the biggest problems in modern science. People believe their pet hypothesis and then skew numbers or fake data not out of malice, but because they illogically think they are right despite the scientific method not supporting that idea. A scientist or rational person believes the result of the scientific method even while they work to refine and change the best result of the scientific method.

You can run, but you can't hide

[TimurLeng]

Pro global-warming climate scientists have been hiding away in the closet for decades.
Fighing battles in court for years on end to keep their research data secret from prying, undeserving eyes.
Acting like the all knowing high priests of a cult of earth salvation, where the ignorant masses are required to put their blind faith into the words of that cult, which at times seems more geared towards the occult, than to the laws of reason.

I for one accept the notion that the earth's climate is warming up and that man has a role to play in that.

But the abysmal arrogance of many in the climate community is at times bewildering to me.
They are being paid with taxpayer money for their research, yet they file lawsuits to keep their data hidden aways a "private intellectual property"?

They gather away at closed door international meetings, with politicians and leaders of industry, where they elect non-scientific spokespeople and political appointees to make deals that affect us all - and those deals are then presented to the general public in a "take it or leave it" kind of way.

Researches who "fudge" their data, and claim they have a right to do so, because they think they are entitled to "correct nature" when it fails to confirm their predictions.

More than once I thought that its the climate researches who are the heirs of the tobacco industry in this fight.

When it's not true or unverified.

[h4rm0ny]

See subject. Not difficult.

To get more grant funds? To do what?

[tgibbs]

Please, every time I hear about how pure the academic scientists are because they aren't in it for the money I want to puke. They may not have gone into the field for the money, but they need money to stay in the field, and guess which of the following two grants will get funded and which won't: 1) man is not the cause of global warming/we're along for the ride on a system controlled in large part by solar output and other effects, give us money to study what they are, or 2) MAN IS DESTROYING THE PLANET, WE MUST BE STOPPED, WE WILL ALL DIE IF YOU DON'T FUND THIS RESEARCH.

Why do you think people go into science, particularly academic science? It doesn't pay all that well--you don't make the sort of money that you could make as, say, a lawyer. Most scientists live pretty modestly.
People go into science because they are fascinated with discovery, with learning new truths about the world. So what would you say about a scientific career dedicated to knowingly maintaining and promulgating a falsehood? Ask any scientist, and he will tell you that it is pretty close to his idea of Hell.

Yet the global warming deniers want us to believe that not one or two, but hundreds of scientists in countries all over the world are doing just that, and indeed are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain this falsehood. Why? So that they can continue to get more research funds to continue researching something that they know is wrong.

That is idiotic.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Chris Burke]

Just because a competing theory doesn't exist, or has 'less evidence' at a particular point in time, doesn't mean the original theory is right.

No, but it does mean that the theory is the best one we have. And that this theory has a lot of evidence means it's a good theory. Not "right", but "good".

Also, your argument does not constitute evidence that the theory is wrong. It merely means it is possible it is wrong, which we all already knew.

Go look up some famous maverick scientists from history who tilted at the consensus, and work out by your definition, whether the initial lack of evidence for their hypothesis made them more irrational than the orthodox majority.

In every case they developed theories that explained the existing evidence as well as the existing theory. Meaning their theories did have evidence. They just lacked the additional evidence that would demonstrate that their theory made even better predictions than the old one.

You can't claim Newtonian physics is incorrect, and not make the same predictions Newtionian physics makes that are borne out to our best ability to measure. That's not being a maverick, that's being a cook. Einstein wasn't a cook; he understood the evidence and he knew he had to come up with something at least as good as Newton. Had he failed to come up with an idea that explained what Newton explained, he would have known he'd failed at explaining what Newton couldn't.

Climate theory isn't Newtonian physics by any means. But AGW still has a lot of evidence for it, and no competing hypothesis has been able to do nearly as well. In order to rationally put forth an alternate hypothesis, you need to account for that.

Curious about Satelite Data

[Barrinmw]

If CO2 makes it so that heat is kept on the planet instead of going out into space, then that means that the satellites would get an infrared reading lower then what is actually on the ground. So that means to correct the data to see what they actual ground temperatures are, they would have to assume that carbon dioxide is preventing heat from escaping and add in the lost heat. So doesn't that mean that their assumption that Carbon Dioxide is warming the planet has skewed their data collection?

Re:Curious about Satelite Data

[rMuD]

There are several articles about the Earths energy budget based on Satellite data claims that the heat is missing and they don't know where it went, but they are SURE! that the Increase of C02 is trapping 100% more energy than they can account for.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141121.htm
But in the past decade, there has been a growing divergence between the satellite readings and ocean observations that indicate the build-up of heat is slowing. This "missing" heat could, in part, be the result of instrument error or incorrect data processing, but much of it may be going into the deep ocean or elsewhere on Earth that is beyond the reach of current sensors.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/nsf-hm041510.php
Satellite measurements indicate that the amount of greenhouse-trapped solar energy has risen over recent years while the increase in heat measured in the top 3,000 feet of the ocean has stalled.

Although it is difficult to quantify the amount of solar energy with precision, Trenberth and Fasullo estimate that, based on satellite data, the amount of energy build-up appears to be about 1.0 watts per square meter or higher, while ocean instruments indicate a build-up of about 0.5 watts per square meter.

That means about half the total amount of heat is unaccounted for.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

The possible problem isn't the controversies themselves but the suggestions that the magazine isn't exactly careful about how they represent science. I get the impression that the critics believe that it's more interested in attention-grabbing headlines than accuracy. Mind you, I'm not accusing them of that myself, as I'm not very familiar with it. Just wondering...

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

Somewhere in this thread is a claim that the MWP was man-made and that the LIA was caused by the drop in human CO2 output caused by the Black Death. No, it wasn't made by a climate scientist, and I certainly hope that none of them would be foolish enough to make that claim, but some of their supporters obviously are.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

Here's some advice for you. Don't look at what "global warming people" have to say. Just research climactic models and find the one you think is best supported by the scientific evidence; not the one you want to believe, but the one that has best predicted our findings so far. That is science.

The one I support is the one that can start from known conditions twenty years ago and come up with what's happening today.

Oh, that's right: there isn't one.

Would Like to See them Try This in the US

[Stormy Dragon]

Given how many climate scientists refuse to release their raw data, the discovery portion of a US civil trial would be extremely interesting.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

Well, I didn't think much of those claims when I saw them. I try to really hear what actual scientists have to say on the subject before I form an opinion. 20 years ago or so when I first started looking at GW I'd let my imagination run away with me a bit but I've learned over the years to listen closely to the scientists. I've never seen one make either of those claims.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

I've never seen one make either of those claims.

I would hope not. Still, after seeing them change the theory to show after the fact that it "predicts" colder winters, I wouldn't be astonished if they had. And, as the first place I saw that claim was here, I had no idea if the poster were quoting the CRU or simply talking out of his ass.

Weather v. climate & false declines.

[Valdrax]

I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.

That's because you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. The former is far easier to make intelligent predictions about than the latter. You can think of climate as the global, long-term average of local, short-term weather. This is why 2009 can be tied for the warmest year on record AND have record-breaking snowfall during the blizzard in the mid-Atlantic US states that year.

Think of it like baseball. It's far easier to predict what someone's batting average will be like next year than it is to predict whether they will hit the ball on their next swing. Whether a person hits the ball or not has a lot of uncertainty, but the batting average is a clear predictive trend.

That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it.

You're confusing science "journalism" for science. That's a huge mistake that has unfortunately clouded many public policy-science debates. The list of sins by science reporters against public understanding of science are frankly too long to enumerate here. Just because newspapers want a sensational story doesn't mean that actual academics are in huge disagreement.

Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.

This is another example of another tempest in a teacup created by the media and people with a political axe to grind.

The "hide the decline" fiasco originated in an attempt to deal with a specific set of tree ring temperature proxy data that does not match actual temperatures on record. Proxy records are used for approximation and aren't perfect, and it's well known that after 1960 latewood tree rings show a decline in temperatures despite the fact that all of our other records, including direct temperature measurements by thermometers, show a trend of warming.

That's the "decline" that was being "hidden." Not an actual decline in temperatures -- a false decline from bad proxies. You don't stick with bad data when you have proof its bad. (Unless you're one of these types who actually prefers tree rings to thermometers or who just desperately clings to *any* data that conforms to your world-view no matter its relative merit.)

You can read more about it here.

Partisans & skeptics

[Valdrax]

So you agree that all those AGW advocates who attack every opponent by questioning their objectivity and ethics ("he's paid by Big Oil, that's all you need to know") or calling them idiots or worse, are in the wrong. That those who react to every letter in the editor in the local paper that questions AGW with a vitriolic response questioning the author's parents and lineage are behaving poorly.

Yes. I'd agree. Partisan idiocy is partisan idiocy no matter the party or position.

I know who you thought you were attacking, but the facts show that the opponents to AGW are a lot more civil about it than most advocates.

Could you show us those "facts?"

What you're probably experiencing is selection bias. Your favored news sites, blogs, etc. that cater to a more "skeptical" crowd probably tend to receive much more polite responses from people who agree with the position than don't. On the other hand, if you favor "believer" sites, you'll tend to see more polite responses from people who agree with that position and more trolling / hate from the opposite. Compare the comments section on Fox News's website v. Huffington Post after a climate change story runs, and you'll see the population difference. Also, you could simply be remembering idiocy from people who disagree with you more because it riles you up more. People tend to focus on the negative in their memories.

If you've got an objective, demographic study that actually show that as a population, one side is more vitriolic than the other, than I'd love to it, but I'm going to have to be a little skeptical about it until then.

For the advocates, the debate is OVER, the FACTS are the FACTS, there is no room for doubt, and anyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragger.

Well, the scientific literature *is* pretty conclusive if you've dug into it deeply. I'll say that most people who believe climate change is happening *haven't* and are just appealing to authority, much like the people they bash.

It's like the evolution debate. The science is solid and clear and supported by 99% of the people working in the field. However, the main "debate" largely rages on both sides between in the uninformed masses of people who aren't scientists and who are just repeating catechisms at each other.

The pseudo-skeptics...

Yes, such a civil response, you can't even admit they exist.

That depends on how you're using the word. There's a difference between a "skeptic" and a "denier." A skeptic questions a position and wants to find out the truth. They will work to try to find that answer and can be won over if the facts suggest their position is wrong.

However, most laymen on both sides of the AGW "debate" are just believers and anti-believers attempting to thump dogma with little regard for truth-seeking beyond gratifying their own confirmation bias. Those people aren't skeptics no matter what their stance is.

Scale isn't the point. Interest is.

[Valdrax]

But that's grant money, as in money they don't get to take home with them. It's only use is to fund their research (pointless if the field is just made up), and to increase their standing with the university.

You're missing his point. It doesn't matter that you don't get to take the grant money home. What matters is that without the grant money to support your research, you don't have a job to justify the separate salary that you do get to take home. No grant money; no research; no justification for employing you. The scale doesn't matter -- merely the dependency on attention / approval from the right people to keep your job.

Not that I'm of the opinion in the slightest that climate change is all cooked up just to get grant money from whatever liberal overlords want to fund it for whatever mysterious purposes AGW deniers concoct in their fevered nightmares of government control. I'm just not going to go so far as to whitewash the fact that research is sometimes driven by concerns of whether or not one can get funding to actually do it. The need to earn a modest salary to make ends meet as a middle-class academician is arguably a far more powerful motivator than seeing another few points on oil investments that just buy luxuries for a rich man. (Hence why many scientists turn into industry shills, actually.)

Who benefits from global warming

[tgibbs]

Also, global warming would be a blessing in disguise, it would make much more of the planet habitable then is today ie Large Swaths of Canada and Northern Europe/Asia.

Yes, some people may benefit from global warming, particularly those that live in northern climates, which may experience a longer growing season.

Who loses? People who live near the oceans (where most major US major cities reside). People who live in countries that currently have a temperate climate and as a result enjoy high agricultural productivity (the United States for example).

Some people will believe anything....

[tgibbs]

Yet the media is not reporting on the raw data as the raw data was deleted.

No, because it isn't true. The original raw data is still where it always was--in the possessions of the meteorological services that acquired it. Anybody who bothered to look into the issue at all quickly learned that CRU never had the original raw data--just copies, so they were never in the position to delete the original data even if they wanted to.

You might want to think about who told you this falsehood, and what their motivation might be to lie to you in this way.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[tgibbs]

Global climate reconstructions do not support the existence of a global medieval warm period. See, for example,
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

The recent cold winter in the United States Southeast and Western Europe didn't cause anyone to change the theory in the least because it was not inconsistent with it in the first place. Globally the time period in question was not that cold.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

What I'm referring to is the way the AGW supporters suddenly started to say that cold winters were caused by Global Warming after we had a cold winter. I might have been impressed if they'd thought of it ahead of time, but as it is, it looks like they're making ad hoc modifications to make it look like it predicts what just happened.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

Well, again I think you're listening to some AGW supporters, not the climate scientists. All the scientists say is that it's not inconsistent with the theory. Climate theory never tries to "predict" anything on such a short term as one year or even a decade. It's not in the nature of the science to be able to make such a prediction. There is too much short term noise in the climate system to make such an assertion. Human nature being what it is some people (generally not scientists) do make such assertions.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

No climate model can start from known conditions 20 years ago and predict what will happen today (as in April 24, 2010 or even the whole year 2010). That's not what they're designed to do. What they project instead is something like "Given this plausible input scenario (mainly changes in GHG levels) we would expect global 30-year-average temperatures to increase by 0.1 C in 20 years with the temperature trend line having a slope of +0.055 C per decade". That's the sort of predictions climate models make.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

No climate model can start from known conditions 20 years ago and predict what will happen today (as in April 24, 2010 or even the whole year 2010). That's not what they're designed to do.

If they're not designed to be able to extrapolate twenty years, why should we believe what they say about twenty (or more) years into the future? The point is, if they can predict how the climate will change in the future, then giving it conditions in the past should allow them to predict the present. If, as you admit, they can't, why do you think their results about the future are accurate?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

What are you expecting climate models to predict? If you expect them to predict an extraordinarily cold 2009-2010 winter in the US Southwest then you have no idea of what they do.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

No, I didn't mean that. I meant that after it was clear that the winter was going to be extra cold, there were articles in the press about how climate researchers suddenly came out with the idea that GW caused both hotter summers and colder winters; more of a general case than a specific. (And yes, a highly-specific prediction like that would have been a tad fishy, I'll agree.) It's just that I might actually have been impressed favorably if somebody had come up with the idea three or four years ago that in the long run such a thing would happen. As it is, it looks like AGW is turning into a "theory of everything," so that there's no outcome (except, maybe, a complete lack of change) that the supporters can't claim is proof that it's right. YMMV and clearly does, but that's how it looks to me, and to a number of people I know.

Re:Exonerated?

[hkmwbz]

No, they didn't lose anything. You are thinking about the "raw data deleted" nonsense, which is in fact just another lie. A small part of a local copy of some raw data was deleted to save space when moving. But the original raw data was still at the place they licensed it from. So no, they haven't lost anything.

Re:Exonerated?

[16K Ram Pack]

So how do you get from the raw to the modified data?

Re:Exonerated?

[hkmwbz]

What on earth are you talking about?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

Well, if someone had thought to ask climate scientists about it three or four years ago I'm sure they would have given the same answer they did this year, that natural variability does not preclude such a result. At the same time that it was so cold in the US Southeast there were temperatures recorded that were 10 F above normal in Western Greenland and Northeast Canada and globally it was not that cold.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[techno-vampire]

...natural variability does not preclude such a result

On that, at least, we can agree.

...globally it was not that cold.

One thing I've been wondering: just how do climate scientists calculate the global temperature? How much, if at all, does the set of stations used vary from year to year?

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[riverat1]

The Wikipedia article on the instrumental temperature record has a section on calculating global temperatures but it's not very specific.

I think the thing to remember here is that we care less about the absolute global temperature and more about how the temperature changes over time. If the methodology they use to calculate a global temperature is consistently applied we should get an accurate measurement of how it has changed.

Re:I don't see the relevance...

[Areyoukiddingme]

It's certainly true that general relativity and quantum mechanics are both somehow fundamentally wrong as models of the universe and simultaneously immensely useful. That's because their equations have predictive powers that can be verified against the real universe to an absolutely absurd number of significant digits. The communications lag between Earth and Mars is predicted by general relativity, then validated experimentally. The mass of a proton is predicted by quantum mechanics, then validated experimentally with extraordinary precision.

But it's disingenuous to compare anthropogenic global warming to either theory because of its utter failure to achieve anything like that level of predictive power or accuracy. AGW fails to predict temperatures to even 3 significant digits. AGW's best models produce predictions with error bars wider than the predicted trend, so wide that it is completely reasonable to question whether there is a trend at all. Climate signals are incredibly noisy, to the point where much of the claimed expertise on the part of climatologists is in interpreting input data well enough to apply useful filters to it.

And that's precisely why Slashdot has stories to post lately, and long and fulminating comment threads on each one. The data is sparse and noisy and the people applying filters to it have so little confidence in their results that they've been hiding that raw data, and continue to hide that raw data, claiming they'll waste vast amounts of time in defending their filters from the unwashed masses if the masses get a hold of it. Their protests ring hollow. If their filters are so difficult to defend, even in their own minds, the obvious conclusion is they could very well be inappropriate or wrong.

To compound the issue, those same people hiding data have been hiding the implementations of the filters themselves. When one of the prominent people hiding his filters finally comes clean and publishes them and a mathematician exercises them against a sample data set consisting of generated red noise and gets results that match the usage of that filter on the real data, the utility of the filter is definitely called into question.

Re:inevitable...

[hkmwbz]

What?