Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
blau tips news of an open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, decrying the "recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular." The letter lays out the basics of the scientific method, and explains how certainly highly-regarded theories — such as the big bang, evolution, and Earth's origin — are commonly accepted due to the strength of the evidence supporting them, though "fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong." It goes on to "call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them." According to the Guardian, the letter "originated with a number of NAS members who were frustrated at the misinformation being spread by climate deniers and the assaults on scientists by some policy-makers who hope to delay or avoid making policy decisions and are hiding behind the recent controversy around emails and minor errors in the IPCC."
I find the noun "idiot" to be adaptable and appropriate.
Welcome to the internet, AC. I'm amazed that you've learned how to computer so quickly. I only have one question: Did you have to go to the imdb for that post, or did you simply type it out from memory?
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Perhaps that's true. I wish it were true. But I have seen very few discussions of consequences or cost/benefits that don't quickly descend into accusations of denial. Even the more moderate proponents of action seem more comfortable with dismissing people as 'deniers' rather than be challenged by criticism, no matter how considered, grounded, or restrained. For some reason it seems to be a subject that doesn't bring out the best in people.
fundamentalist wackos
Need I say more? We reasonably reject your ideas but your counter-argument is we're "wackos". I also like that you stacked a heavily flawed recent theory in the same category as a much more solidly proven theory. I can't believe in the one without believing in the other? Otherwise, I'm a wacko. Nice.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
How pray tell was this modded insightful? A generalization/perjorative and little else. Where are my mod points when I need them? PLease somebody mod this down. The Gods of Objectivity are screaming for it.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change Report - September 2009: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/expert-meeting-detection-anthropogenic-2009-09.pdf
p21 - "Sea ice around Antarctica shows little change – a fact, which is still not fully understood." Yet the changes in sea ice in the Arctic apparently are since they match the authors' preconceptions.
p22 - "Especially mountain glaciers are considered to be 'unique demonstration objects' concerning ongoing climate change." Unique as in something different and non-representative of the truth. A Ginsu knife cutting through a soft drink can is quite impressive but has little to do with how well it will cut meat compared to another knife that may not cut the can.
p22 - "Glacier extent (length, area) may have reached 'warm' limits of pre-industrial (Holocene) variability ranges and is far out of equilibrium conditions at many mid- and low-latitude sites." Restated - glaciers are no smaller than they were in pre-industrial times; somehow it doesn't sound particularly ominous when stated in this equally
p22 - "Complex air/ocean/ice interactions make attribution to exact causes difficult but 'warming' as a general cause appears to be evident." Why the quotation marks around "warming"? Evident means that it looks that way to a casual observer, but not necessarily to an educated one. Note the lack of "anthropogenic", and that exact causes are not known.
p25 - "Global scale surface temperature is recorded by an instrumental record of 150 years and reconstructed from palaeo data over several centuries. Both compare well with climate model simulations if driven with estimates of external forcing ..." "If driven with estimates of external forcing" being the operable phrase. The estimates of the external forcing functions were developed in response to the model and not independently, so of course the models are "accurate". Anyone can "predict" a horse race after the fact, and tell you which horse was in the lead at any point; they can even make up rules to explain the lead changes, but if these models are so good, why aren't these great modelers making money at the track, could it be that there is more money to be made in "studying" climate change? You think I'm making this shit up? Here is the sentence that follows: "Information about the expected responses to external forcing, so called ‘fingerprints’, is usually derived from simulations by climate models ..." The hockey stick results from applying none of the corrections for volcanic eruptions and other temperature lowering events in predictions. Eyjafjallajökull and Mount St Helens could result in significant downward revisions to the predictions.
p26 - "Thus, concise, exact, and intuitively understandable language needs to be crafted that helps express this range of attribution results." Translation: "We need to use the same words that a marketing person would choose", too bad "new" and "improved" aren't suitable. The appropriate conclusion, one that a scientist would make, is that the models need to be improved before they are the basis for making policy decisions. I am not saying we should do nothing - just do things for other, more tangible and rational reasons. Reduce fossil fuel consumption because we should save our reserves since it is easier to make plastic out of oil than anything else, or because you hate sending money to Arab terrorists and Venezuelan revolutionaries.
p26 - On precipitation models: "... the magnitude of the observed change is larger (significantly so) than that of the multi-model mean fingerprint, raising questions about instrumental data and climate model realism." The models don't predict th
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.