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?

[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?

[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?

[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 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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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....

[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....

[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?

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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[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 :).

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

[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

[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

[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~

"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: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...

[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.

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.

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: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? :)

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.

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

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: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.