You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 08:28:49 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: "Climategate"  (Read 8181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

"Climategate"
« on: December 05, 2009, 07:18:26 PM »
Quote
The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which some have dubbed "Climategate",[1][2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, in the United Kingdom. An unknown individual stole[4] and anonymously disseminated over a thousand e-mails and other documents.[5][6][7] The university confirmed that a "criminal breach" of their security systems took place,[4] and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised."[8] Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.[5] Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that the leaked e-mails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be genuine.[9]

Critics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion[10] by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.[11] Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.[12] Jones called charges that the e-mails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous",[4] and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.[13]

On November 24, the University of East Anglia announced it would conduct an independent review of the matter,[9] and, one week later, announced that Phil Jones would stand aside temporarily as director of the Unit during the investigation.[14] The review will be headed up by Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

This has finally really started to hit the news in the UK (for the first few weeks it was sold as a mere hacking story) and reaction has been as expected... the sceptics are calling this the deathknell of the man-made cimate change theory showing that "consensus" scientists have distorted data, locked reports and perverted the term "peer reviewed" all for a political purpose... the supporters argue it's a storm in a teacup and the seemingly damning quotes are out of context.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with one of the leading sceptics as to the real import of the story. We all know that the vast majority of funded scientific research is going to find the results those funding it want. It's basic logic and human nature. The sceptics are paid to dispute man made climate change, those who support it often rely on the vast sums invested into preventing climate change for their jobs. It's why it's so damn hard to find legitimate information on say passive smoking... both sides throw such much money at it it clouds the issue (and that includes seemingly respectale orgs like the WHO and American Lung Association). It's a sad fact of life that often in science money talks.

No, for me the real story here is that it seems almost certain from the emails that this group tried to block prima facie legitimate FOI requests. Now this is worrying. I don't care how biased your own studies are... if others can't replicate them then they won't have a leg to stand on. Likewise regardless how biased your mindset is; if people can replicate the results (and the nature of the study itself isn't in doubt) then you're probably quite close to the truth. Preventing that from occurring prevents the scientific method from working. I'd also note that of the emails I've seen it is those referring to this area which are most damning and hardest to explain away as merely "out of context."

Anyone else following this? Thoughts? How do you think it will effect the upcoming conference... with the Saudi minister in attendance already saying it will sink any plans for a treaty.

Offline Vekseid

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2009, 08:00:22 PM »
Bunch of idiots with no clue about what the word 'climate' means celebrating the discovery of a decade-old email from a guy who wanted to make a graph prettier. Not falsify the data, just present it in a fashion that hid the temporary decline - not ethical, but does not invalidate honest data. They want to see the world drown under their vacuous stupidity and/or sociopathic greed.

There is a global temperature rise, though there are periods of decline, the current one coinciding with a rather extreme solar minimum. I wonder what these people will be saying fifteen years from now, during a solar maximum. Besides claim "that's not what I meant when I said global warming was a hoax!"

Offline Vekseid

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2009, 08:26:29 PM »
And - gah, yes, there's plenty to go after regarding CRU's attitude, here. Genuine, honestly-collected data is valuable and if gathered for a public purpose should generally be shared openly. There's nothing to  be gained from hiding most things.

That, however, is an issue with the CRU and/or East Anglia University, not climate change in general.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2009, 11:53:33 PM »
I am neither a scientist nor an expert on the science of climatology.

That said, I've always been skeptical about the shift of terminology; global warming to climate change. The skeptic in me suspects there is something of an effort to shift the language from warming to change so as to fit the theory into more possibilities and occurrences.

More simply, if you call it 'global warming' and temperatures decline, the theory loses credibility. If you call it 'climate change', whenever the weather changes, the theory is advanced.

I do believe this shift of language is intentional, and meant for the public to more easily accept and digest, rather than based on a more exact terminology.

I'm deeply suspicious of the intentions of people such as Al Gore and adherents to the theory. I fear it has more to do with controlling populations, money and land than about an impending global disaster.

Offline Vekseid

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2009, 06:09:58 AM »
Global warming is a fact rather than a theory - global average temperatures are increasing over the long term. No one disputes this, though some people dispute it is caused by humans.

Global warming is one major cause of climate change, which is a far more nuanced phenomenon, but ultimately is what we are worried about. Warmer weather in the midwest causes colder weather in Europe, for example, and vise-versa, due to the Rocky Mountains. In October, the midwest was a lot colder than average, while the rest of the world a lot warmer.

Ultimately, the solution will probably come in the form of carbon recapture for various useful purposes. Algaculture, farmers reinjecting cooled exhaust into their soil, and so on.

Offline Jude

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2009, 07:36:43 AM »
This is just another example of uneducated people pouring over complicated academic documents, not bothering to verse themselves in the literature, or looking at the situation with any impartiality.  Of over a 1000 emails and 3000 documents stolen, they managed to find 3 problems which are very explainable if you give the scientists the benefit of doubt.  It's incredible they didn't find more, and everything they do have they're taking out of context or assuming a nefarious plan in their analysis in order to come to their conclusion (just as they're accusing the scientists of fixing the hypothesis and then making the research fit it).

Just like in the mammogram controversy, Science is yet again getting covered from an incredibly ignorant point of view.

And yes, you can put together a scientific research team and have them come up with a study which shows something that's untrue.  You can make an entire institute on putting together crappy experiments that using poor operational definitions to purposely misconstrue observable implications in order to give your side of the argument "evidence."

That's why it's important to not pay attention to any one institute or group of research.  Believe it or not these people are not the only scientists who study global warming and came to the same conclusion.  They're 3-4 scientists out of the entire mainstream scientific process and yet the community as a whole has still reached the same conclusion independently.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 07:40:21 AM by Jude »

Offline Vekseid

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2009, 10:21:00 AM »
As I understand it, there are scientific problems with the CRU's data gathering and software - consortium's link is rather relevant, but the hoopla over these e-mails is completely drowning it out. Rather than focus on real, substantive problems, we have people who couldn't solve a logic problem if their life depended on it trying to influence scientific research based on gut feelings.

Eventually, someone's life is going to depend on it. It doesn't take much to be a scientist, for crying out loud, but consortium's link presents it in a nice, simple, graphical form: Test what you think you know, be prepared to be wrong.

That's it. That's all it takes.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2009, 10:48:10 AM »
As I understand it, there are scientific problems with the CRU's data gathering and software - consortium's link is rather relevant, but the hoopla over these e-mails is completely drowning it out. Rather than focus on real, substantive problems, we have people who couldn't solve a logic problem if their life depended on it trying to influence scientific research based on gut feelings.

Eventually, someone's life is going to depend on it. It doesn't take much to be a scientist, for crying out loud, but consortium's link presents it in a nice, simple, graphical form: Test what you think you know, be prepared to be wrong.

That's it. That's all it takes.

I should point out that the article I link to is written by one of the major climate change sceptics... informative as it is (and while I agree with him on this point) it's far from unbiased... and it could well be that his "legitimate" FOI request was in reality just part of a harassment type campaign to frustrate the scientists in question. A lot of the facts are murky at this stage... and may never be cleared up.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2009, 04:24:54 PM »
That's why it's important to not pay attention to any one institute or group of research.  Believe it or not these people are not the only scientists who study global warming and came to the same conclusion.  They're 3-4 scientists out of the entire mainstream scientific process and yet the community as a whole has still reached the same conclusion independently.

Sorry for the double post.

The deeper you look into this specific incident the worse it seems on the face of it. Now, that could well be simply because the only people really writing in detail about climategate are the sceptics so there's been no real rebutals and the arguement (on the internet at least) is heavily weighted to their side, but it's starting to look slightly more damning then first thought.

These aren't just any 3-4 scientists... these 3-4 scientists are all leading authors of the IPCC reports, which puts them at the very top of the man-made climate change hierarchy. I've seen figures ranging from 43-54 as to the numer of leading authors in total... but regardless this throws real doubt as to at least the ethical qualities of just under 10% of the leading climate scientists on that "side" of the debate. That's assuming of course that nothing comes out of the NASA FOI request which has been blocked for two years (seemingly following the same pattern) and that this pattern of behaviour isn't found amongst the whole group. Secondly, this group in particular supply one of the four sets of data the IPCC reports are ased on... and I've found unsourced claims that this data set is the most important one. Accept that if you will, regardless it looks like one of, if not, the most important set of figures regarding climate change has been at the very least massaged.

And another very worrying note... the suggestion that the peer-review process, the bedrock of scientific study, had been corrupted.

From the emails:

Quote
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Some are calling this a smoking gun... that this shows that the sceptics are being forced out of peer-reviewed literature. That if a journal does publish them then this group (that rememer is 3 or 4 of the leading IPCC authors) will attempt to blackall them, reducing peer-review to a group of friends and colleagues rubber stamping each others work along with multiple pats on the back.

I'm not so sure it's that strong, but it looks pretty damning. Then again, creationists/ID theoriests could likely raise the same arguement and the counter is pretty simple; if a journal pulishes an article which is clearly wrong then it no longer deserves to be refered to as peer-reviewed.

Whatever your thoughts, I think we all have to accept it's a pretty worrying idea...

For anyone interested http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a pretty indepth blog on the issue. It's entirely sceptic and thus heavily biased, but it also goes into the most detail I've seen about the nitty-gritty of the data... the codes used, the chance that it's likely a leak etc etc. Good website if nothing else to see exactly what the fuss on the sceptic side is about.

Offline goalt

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2009, 08:52:56 AM »
The only real scandal here is the part with the hacking.

Also that people continue to tack 'gate' onto the end of anything.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2009, 10:31:10 AM »
The only real scandal here is the part with the hacking.

At this point it looks more likely it was a leak as opposed to an external hack.

Also that people continue to tack 'gate' onto the end of anything.

Too right...

Offline Jude

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2009, 10:41:39 AM »
The deeper you look into this specific incident the worse it seems on the face of it. Now, that could well be simply because the only people really writing in detail about climategate are the sceptics so there's been no real rebutals and the arguement (on the internet at least) is heavily weighted to their side, but it's starting to look slightly more damning then first thought.
There are rebuttals out there, they're just harder to find and no where near as strong as the skeptic's arguments about things, because they're from a more rational, scientific point of view.  I follow several science podcasts which talked about the incident and went into things.  They had some criticisms to give on how the scientists were behaving so it wasn't all positive feedback, but that more or less went into how they were behaving "catty" and "petty" within the emails and acting against the spirit of openness science more than any empirical failures.

Quote from: consortium11
These aren't just any 3-4 scientists... these 3-4 scientists are all leading authors of the IPCC reports, which puts them at the very top of the man-made climate change hierarchy. I've seen figures ranging from 43-54 as to the numer of leading authors in total... but regardless this throws real doubt as to at least the ethical qualities of just under 10% of the leading climate scientists on that "side" of the debate. That's assuming of course that nothing comes out of the NASA FOI request which has been blocked for two years (seemingly following the same pattern) and that this pattern of behaviour isn't found amongst the whole group. Secondly, this group in particular supply one of the four sets of data the IPCC reports are ased on... and I've found unsourced claims that this data set is the most important one. Accept that if you will, regardless it looks like one of, if not, the most important set of figures regarding climate change has been at the very least massaged.
No scientist is published, accredited, and has their work accepted without it being peer-reviewed though.  That's the thing about science, the reputation of the scientist doesn't matter as long as their data and experiments are prevented clearly enough that they can be replicated and tested by others.  Which is essentially the peer review process.  So it really doesn't matter if a couple scientist's reputation is called into question, unless you have no faith in the scientific establishment as a whole, which seems to be the case with skeptics and a large chunk of society.  You know, until they turn on a computer, or one of their relatives are dying, then they're perfectly happy to utilize the fruits of science while rejecting the parts they don't want to believe for reasons of ideology or personal utility.  Each portion of information, practical or otherwise, that science collects comes from the same process.

Quote from: consortium11
And another very worrying note... the suggestion that the peer-review process, the bedrock of scientific study, had been corrupted.
You're only getting this information from a biased resource which is really misunderstanding the situation.

Quote from: consortium11
Some are calling this a smoking gun... that this shows that the sceptics are being forced out of peer-reviewed literature. That if a journal does publish them then this group (that rememer is 3 or 4 of the leading IPCC authors) will attempt to blackall them, reducing peer-review to a group of friends and colleagues rubber stamping each others work along with multiple pats on the back.
All the emails are implying, is that they feel that the Climate Review magazine, or whatever it was, was no longer impartial.  They were going to stop publishing there and rely on other journals because they felt they weren't getting a fair shake there, and that the editorial board, etc. was ideologically motivated.  If you do a bit of research, you'll find out that in the aftermath of this experience the editorial board and a lot of people with that specific group have resigned over this, now that it's out there that prominent scientists feel they're not fair.  If anything some of the peer-review processes in particular journals have been tainted against science, in favor of anti-science, political-driven ideology.

Quote from: consortium11
I'm not so sure it's that strong, but it looks pretty damning. Then again, creationists/ID theoriests could likely raise the same arguement and the counter is pretty simple; if a journal pulishes an article which is clearly wrong then it no longer deserves to be refered to as peer-reviewed.

Whatever your thoughts, I think we all have to accept it's a pretty worrying idea...

For anyone interested http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is a pretty indepth blog on the issue. It's entirely sceptic and thus heavily biased, but it also goes into the most detail I've seen about the nitty-gritty of the data... the codes used, the chance that it's likely a leak etc etc. Good website if nothing else to see exactly what the fuss on the sceptic side is about.
I'm not against being skeptical about global warming.  I loved Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on it.  It brought up some legitimate questions and interesting points of view.  It certainly shook my certainty on the subject.  I'm skeptical of everything, especially emerging scientific consensus.  The problem is, you have to be skeptical based on statistics and empirical evidence, you have to go about questioning on the basis of facts, and counter science with science.

Releasing out-of-context bits and pieces of emails from over 4000 dollars that were taken illegally, then claiming they're the death knoll in global warming just isn't intellectually honest.  If this incidence bothers you, that's good.  It should.  Everyone should look over this evidence and feel a little unnerved by it.  But to assume anything concrete and to take what the bloggers and skeptics are saying uncritically is unfair.  You have to do well-rounded research and come to a conclusion of your own on the matter.

Few people are aware of the sort of nonsense that conservative ideologues have perpetuated on this subject, the efforts to mislead and confuse, and how long we've been collecting evidence on this for.  This is a good place to start:

The American Denial of Global Warming

EDIT:  The "Climate Review" journal I was referencing was called Climate Research, and the specific facts from Wikipedia are these:

Quote from: Wikipedia
In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Michael Mann wrote:

    "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[32]

Michael Mann said to the Wall Street Journal that he didn't feel there was anything wrong in saying "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist."[32]

Mann was not alone in expressing concern about the peer review process of the journal. Half of the journal's editorial board, including editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, resigned because they felt that publication of the paper in question represented a breakdown in the peer-review process. The publisher had refused to allow von Storch to publish an editorial on the topic, but later the president of the journal's parent company accepted that the paper's major findings could not "be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. [Climate Research] should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 10:50:38 AM by Jude »

Offline goalt

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2009, 11:17:11 AM »
Really, 'skeptic' is a misnomer when it comes to climate change. The word has implications, at least to the general public, of rational disagreement.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2009, 12:28:10 PM »
Also that people continue to tack 'gate' onto the end of anything.

Especially since most of the people applying the suffix weren't around for the original.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2010, 06:01:50 AM »
I don't see how it is a misnomer.  I've done research into articles and papers on this subject multiple times, and every time I do, the science supporting global warming seems less and less certain or predominant.

"Skeptic" has been changed an adapted in the same way "Liberal" has in US politics; it's a vague term that covers everything but essentially is used in a pejoritive way to mean "bad person" and has nothing to do with the root of the term.

These days "skeptics" range from flat out climate change deniers, those who accept it exists but think that humans have no impact on it, those who accepts it exist but think that humans have a limited impact on it, those who accept it exists and that humans have a great impact on it but think that cutting caron emission by 90% isn't a price worth paying and those who accept it exists, think humans have a great impact on it, think we should be doing something serious about it but don't like the way it's being used as a stick to beat developed nations... or the way the environmental movement has been highjacked by the left in general.

Let's also remember who got the two biggest rounds of applause at Copenhagen... Hugo Chavez and Robert mugabe... oth of whom talked about Western imperealism and the evils of capitalism rather than climate change itself...

Offline Mnemaxa

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2010, 09:51:06 AM »
What I especially like is the fact that these personal emails are considered to be scientific documents.  They're not.  They're personal emails, from one person to another.  Conveniently ignored fact.

Online RubySlippers

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2010, 10:02:32 AM »
I just want PROOF I mean real PROOF that such drastic measures as proposed such as Carbon Caps and moving to green technology when not clearly necessary since we have coal and nuclear power. True in several decades we need to power vehicles with something other than oil.

But since we can't use normal scientific method to test any of this we have to not just jump into expensive solutions that may or not be necessary.

Offline Hemingway

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2010, 01:51:02 PM »
It's more or less pointless to ask for "real proof" when there's already consensus among the majority of the world's scientists. When you set standards that high, no amount of evidence is going to change anything.

I've more or less given up, personally. When people treat climate change like politics and religion, there's not much you can do. When people think that one year colder than the previous trumps a century of steadily increasing temperatures, it really does feel hopeless. But the real tragedy, in my view, is that even when people begin to die because arable land is submerged under the rising sea, or turned into a barren wasteland by an insignificant increase in temperature, the more fanatical opponents will still not think it's our fault.

Offline Jude

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2010, 03:16:26 PM »
I just want PROOF I mean real PROOF that such drastic measures as proposed such as Carbon Caps and moving to green technology when not clearly necessary since we have coal and nuclear power. True in several decades we need to power vehicles with something other than oil.

But since we can't use normal scientific method to test any of this we have to not just jump into expensive solutions that may or not be necessary.
I assume you haven't researched the literature.  How else do you think scientists come up with these recommendations if not by using the scientific method?  I think your complaint is about the degree of certainty.  The farther removed from a replicable, simple singular experiment a scientific study is, the less probably it is.

I can understand not being convinced by individual studies, but when you look at the body of literature and information on the subject, it's impossible not to realize just how vast the consensus is.  It was emerging in the early 90s, now it's fairly well established.

Doubt has been cast on the movement for political reasons by partisans associated with Reagan Conservatism in the United States, and this is an indisputable fact.  The very same "scientists" who attempted to fudge the science on Reagan's Nuclear Defense System are largely responsible for the origin of the "the science is still unsure" bullshit.  Then there's the "link between cigarettes and cancer" deniers who are also involved.  Here's a "neat" example:

Quote from: Wikipedia
In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

A large portion of the skeptics out there have been fed ideas by ideologically motivated anti-science interests.  It's another example of the crusade against science in recent years exemplified by the creationists, the anti-vaccination movement, the young earth people, alternative medicine, so on and so forth.

Most of that is relatively harmless and will eventually fix itself.  The difference is that when it comes to global warming we've only got one earth to ruin and if we have to wait til clear signs that science is as authoritative on this subject as it is on others to emerge, a lot of people will die.  No one knows if we'll even be able to survive as a species if we let things get that bad.

A skeptic is someone who believes in rational discourse and the scientific method.  They have express criticism for things that they see as uncertain by using those tools, but they don't go off course and abandon rationality in the name of faith or ideology.  Global Warming Skeptics do exist, but the vast majority of the global warming skeptic community is actually comprised of people who are really anti-global warming evangelists.

EDIT for an important addition

So far, I've yet to see any independent reviewer of all of the emails conclude that any wrong-doing occurred actually occurred.  The AP read every single leaked email, including several that were critical of them, and still concluded that nothing scientifically fraudulent occurred.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 03:26:04 PM by Jude »

Online RubySlippers

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2010, 04:16:04 PM »
There are alternatives I suggest read Super Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner. They have talked to scientists and they found floatation devices that would cost maybe one billion dollars that could cool the ocean water enough around the US to weaken hurricanes. An idea for a space hose to pump harmless ,and its reversable, gasses to reproduce the effects of a volcanic eruption that could reverse global warming and other measures.

All far cheaper than the costs of measures planned and we could try these first.

Offline Jude

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2010, 04:35:08 PM »
There are alternatives I suggest read Super Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner. They have talked to scientists and they found floatation devices that would cost maybe one billion dollars that could cool the ocean water enough around the US to weaken hurricanes. An idea for a space hose to pump harmless ,and its reversable, gasses to reproduce the effects of a volcanic eruption that could reverse global warming and other measures.

All far cheaper than the costs of measures planned and we could try these first.
That book is written by a journalist and an economist; neither of them have any background in climate science or engineering.  They're talking about the plausibility of ideas without the proper education to make these judgments about how practical or possible they are.  Many of the ideas suggested in the book have already been discredited or are otherwise presented in a misleading fashion.

That's not to say I'm not all for discussing our other options.  I personally think that people who are against Nuclear Power yet claim to also support the efforts against Global Warming are fundamentally not serious about the issue.  The dangers of Nuclear Power are nothing we can't handle with the proper safety precautions (as evidenced by three-mile island).  It's just an of the left ignoring science to spin their extremist environmentalist agenda.

Both political ideologies are guilty of ignoring the facts when it's convenient.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 04:37:02 PM by Jude »

Offline Schwarzepard

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2010, 05:33:26 PM »
Speaking of science, ideology and ignoring facts...

Parts 1 through 5 are particularly enlightening (starting a bit down the page, not the first video) for those who wish to challenge preconceived notions.

http://www.climategate.com/lord-monckton-al-gore-debate-me

Offline Revolverman

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2010, 06:09:32 PM »
I'm more worried about CFCs, and acid rain chemicals then carbon myself, but yet you never hear about the far more toxic chemicals we pump into the atmosphere.

Online RubySlippers

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2010, 06:43:33 PM »
That book is written by a journalist and an economist; neither of them have any background in climate science or engineering.  They're talking about the plausibility of ideas without the proper education to make these judgments about how practical or possible they are.  Many of the ideas suggested in the book have already been discredited or are otherwise presented in a misleading fashion.

That's not to say I'm not all for discussing our other options.  I personally think that people who are against Nuclear Power yet claim to also support the efforts against Global Warming are fundamentally not serious about the issue.  The dangers of Nuclear Power are nothing we can't handle with the proper safety precautions (as evidenced by three-mile island).  It's just an of the left ignoring science to spin their extremist environmentalist agenda.

Both political ideologies are guilty of ignoring the facts when it's convenient.

They admit they are not scientists they are economists. Global Warming is an economic issue and they pointed out why not look at cheaper options that are reverseable first, then see if harsher actions are needed. That would cost more. I'm just concerned the cost to fight global warming using the most extreme options on the list first is not the way to go.

Offline Jude

Re: "Climategate"
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2010, 07:17:48 PM »
Speaking of science, ideology and ignoring facts...

Parts 1 through 5 are particularly enlightening (starting a bit down the page, not the first video) for those who wish to challenge preconceived notions.

http://www.climategate.com/lord-monckton-al-gore-debate-me
The rhetoric at the start of that video about Al Gore being scared is absolutely ridiculous.  He sounds like a high school jock making chicken noises at someone.  Al Gore isn't the issue either.  Global Warming isn't about one person.  Attacking the messenger and not the message is a classic fallacy.  It's only relevant to call into question his credibility if the data he's spreading the message he's created is of his own creation; Al Gore is not important.  He's gotten too much attention and focus in the Global Warming debate and arguably has overstated the case several times.  I think it would be better for the country if he shut up about it and went away.  His self-serving semi-autobiographical nonsense in an inconvenient truth greatly weakened the film in my opinion.

But anyway, Lord whatever goes on to say misleading things about the MWP, claim that 99% of scientific pursuits are funded by governments (I have to wonder what definition of science he's using to get that figure), make outrageous claims that politicians/governments are what's backing global warming (when he is/was a politician), and he has clear conservative bias if you just glance at his history.  He has no scientific background whatsoever.  Here's a little segment from his wiki page to help you see how credulous he is.
Quote from: Wikipedia
He warned that US President Barack Obama intended to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist world government on the world"
They admit they are not scientists they are economists. Global Warming is an economic issue and they pointed out why not look at cheaper options that are reverseable first, then see if harsher actions are needed. That would cost more. I'm just concerned the cost to fight global warming using the most extreme options on the list first is not the way to go.
You have to understand the problem and the solutions proposed in order to be able to make a judgment; that takes scientific knowledge.  They got the science wrong on a lot of the points according to a wide variety of sources, so clearly their training as an economist and a journalist affected the quality of their work.

Having an economist on board is important, but your response is essentially saying you don't need an architect to design a building you intend to see constructed, just some financial math whizzes to deal with the budgeting and management to direct the flow.
I'm more worried about CFCs, and acid rain chemicals then carbon myself, but yet you never hear about the far more toxic chemicals we pump into the atmosphere.
Those might be a valid problem as well, but that doesn't diminish carbon as a serious issue.  That's a separate unrelated point to the discussion entirely.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:22:49 PM by Jude »