Climate-gate

[adoucette]

This isn't a small group of randomly picked scientists. It includes the LEADERS IN THE FIELD to whom our governments pose questions about determining the future of society.

It's still a small group of scientists in comparison to the many thousands of climate scientists at work in dozens of different areas of climate science.

Many of them are Paleoclimatologists whose impact on the climate science debate is minimal at best. The others I generally know who they are and I know what they work on and AFAIK there is no indication that, for instance, the HadCrut temp series is compromised.

Why?

Because it is actually a bit cooler than other global temp series like the GISS one that Hansen is in charge of.

Again, the emails make entertaining reading, but it's mostly smoke and very little substance.

These scientists should have NO PERSONAL OPINION on AGW or what to do about it in the same way that judges, prosecutors and police are expected to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a personal agenda. That is clearly not the case here.

You're kidding, right?

These people work with it every day.
They study it.
Of course they should have personal opinions on AGW and what to do about it.

You don't think that's exactly why Congress calls on someone like Hansen to testify?

Because he doesn't have an opinion?

 

[RJBeery]

You're kidding, right?

Not at all! It's OK it interpret the data with an opinion after the fact, but that opinion should not determine what data you collect, how to present it, and to whom you expose it. The scientific process demands that sunlight shine in every nook and cranny.

 

[Photizo]

The scientific process demands that sunlight shine in every nook and cranny.

Exactly; and that 'sunlight' needs to be shone within the mind itself to reveal how prone/adept humans are at deceit and self deception.

 

[Yazata]

One thing that 'Climategate' has revealed to me is the extent to which "science" continues to consist of appeals to authority.

We even see it among scientists, at least to the extent that access to vital data-sets are controlled by agenda-laden research teams. Other scientists have little choice but to trust the numbers.

And unfortunately, the situation that laypeople find themselves in is far worse. Laypeople not only don't have access to the raw data, they aren't in any position to follow extremely technical arguments and form their own informed opinions about how it's being interpreted. They can only trust that what the priests in white coats are telling them is objective and true.

In other words, from the street-level, science is still largely a matter of faith. To most people, science isn't all that different than religion.

The 'Climategate' revelations have been kind of devastating in that regard. They have strengthened the impression among the general public that scientists aren't entirely honest. (That's probably not an inaccurate impression either.) Objective fact seems to blur together with political rhetoric, leading towards grand conclusions that scientists might already personally prefer for reasons that may be largely unscientific.

I find myself growing increasingly skeptical.

 

[Aqueous Id]

One thing that 'Climategate' has revealed to me is the extent to which "science" continues to consist of appeals to authority.

We even see it among scientists, at least to the extent that access to vital data-sets are controlled by agenda-laden research teams. Other scientists have little choice but to trust the numbers.

And unfortunately, the situation that laypeople find themselves in is far worse. Laypeople not only don't have access to the raw data, they aren't in any position to follow extremely technical arguments and form their own informed opinions about how it's being interpreted. They can only trust that what the priests in white coats are telling them is objective and true.

In other words, from the street-level, science is still largely a matter of faith. To most people, science isn't all that different than religion.

The 'Climategate' revelations have been kind of devastating in that regard. They have strengthened the impression among the general public that scientists aren't entirely honest. (That's probably not an inaccurate impression either.) Objective fact seems to blur together with political rhetoric, leading towards grand conclusions that scientists might already personally prefer for reasons that may be largely unscientific.

I find myself growing increasingly skeptical.

Perhaps you can find an haven of orthodoxy outside the real world if the existence of science causes you so much grief.

Or, you can take up arms, enroll yourself in an accredited college doing climate research, and become the new enlightened Pope of Science yourself!

Funny, it would seem much easier just to give up the false doctrines (are you a creationist?) that underlie the denial of Science in favor of an ideology.

 

[RJBeery]

Perhaps you can find an haven of orthodoxy outside the real world if the existence of science causes you so much grief.

Or, you can take up arms, enroll yourself in an accredited college doing climate research, and become the new enlightened Pope of Science yourself!

Funny, it would seem much easier just to give up the false doctrines (are you a creationist?) that underlie the denial of Science in favor of an ideology.

And I suppose your response to discovering corrupt policemen would be to say "either become a cop yourself or STFU about it"?

No, we are entitled to demand more from both policemen and scientists, and this truth remains regardless of the ultimate reality behind the AGW debate...

 

[Aqueous Id]

And I suppose your response to discovering corrupt policemen would be to say "either become a cop yourself or STFU about it"?

Corrupt cops - as in protection rackets or brutality coverups?
In what way are the debates among scientists akin to extortion and violence?

No, we are entitled to demand more from both policemen and scientists, and this truth remains regardless of the ultimate reality behind the AGW debate...

What are the origins of the connection between climate science (or science in general) and corrupt cops? For example, do you demand that hydrologists show proof of the water pressure in your faucet, or that physicist prove that electricity is flowing through your lights?

The greenhouse effect (attributed to Fourier, 1824) is nothing new.The anthropogenic contributions have been a concern for decades. What connects this field of science to corrupt cops only now, other than the political and creationist antics in trying to gain popularity?

 

[RJBeery]

Corrupt cops - as in protection rackets or brutality coverups?
In what way are the debates among scientists akin to extortion and violence?

The analogy is due to their respective privileged positions in society, not having anything to do with violence. If anything I'll take a corrupt cop over a corrupt scientist from whom political leaders are taking advice while making Trillion-dollar economic decisions...

 

[Yazata]

Perhaps you can find an haven of orthodoxy outside the real world if the existence of science causes you so much grief.

The issue I raised concerned science's credibility among non-scientists.

When people don't have personal possession of all the necessary data, and when they don't have the specialized technical training to evaluate that data, then about all that they can do is to either accept what they are told on the basis of faith, or else not do that.

The devastating effect of 'climategate' is that it suggests that scientists haven't always been entirely trustworthy on the climate change issue. That risks shaking people's faith in science generally. Driving more people towards skepticism about science may not be a good thing.

Funny, it would seem much easier just to give up the false doctrines (are you a creationist?) that underlie the denial of Science in favor of an ideology.

In this climategate instance, science and ideology may have already merged. That's precisely the problem.

The public has started to question whether all the dramatic conclusions are actually implied by the science, or whether the science is being manipulated in order to provide rhetorical support for desired ideology.

 

[adoucette]

Not at all! It's OK it interpret the data with an opinion after the fact, but that opinion should not determine what data you collect, how to present it, and to whom you expose it. The scientific process demands that sunlight shine in every nook and cranny.

But that's NOT what you said though is it?

These scientists should have NO PERSONAL OPINION on AGW or what to do about it

Which is ludicrous.

 

[Aqueous Id]

UOTE=RJBeery;2863458]
The analogy is due to their respective privileged positions in society, not having anything to do with violence. If anything I'll take a corrupt cop over a corrupt scientist from whom political leaders are taking advice while making Trillion-dollar economic decisions...
[/QUOTE]

OK I guess I see your point. You believe that the content of the e-mails reveals a fundamental attempt by scientists to influence public opinion against the discovered evidence and as a result the economy suffers to the tune of G$.

Do you believe the e-mails reveal corruption, if so, why?

Do you have a sense that this corruption is endemic among scientists in general, and if so, why?

Do you believe the climate is changing, and that human activity is accelerating the process?

 

[Aqueous Id]

....
The devastating effect of 'climategate' is that it suggests that scientists haven't always been entirely trustworthy on the climate change issue.

That risks shaking people's faith in science generally. Driving more people towards skepticism about science may not be a good thing.

In this climategate instance, science and ideology may have already merged. That's precisely the problem.

The public has started to question whether all the dramatic conclusions are actually implied by the science, or whether the science is being manipulated in order to provide rhetorical support for desired ideology.

Do you believe that the e-mails demonstrate bad faith on the part of the folks who wrote them?

Do you believe the media was fair and accurate in its reports about the content of the e-mails?

Do you believe that the segment of the public who question climate science are motivated by the e-mails, or by other pre-existing sentiments?

 

[billvon]

The analogy is due to their respective privileged positions in society, not having anything to do with violence. If anything I'll take a corrupt cop over a corrupt scientist from whom political leaders are taking advice while making Trillion-dollar economic decisions...

Right. Because a corrupt scientist might try to divert funds to his own project. A corrupt cop will just kill you.

 

[RJBeery]

Do you believe the e-mails reveal corruption, if so, why?

Do you have a sense that this corruption is endemic among scientists in general, and if so, why?

Do you believe the climate is changing, and that human activity is accelerating the process?

1) Yes

2) No

3) Probably

My apologies. I had lengthy explanations for each answer but then it occurred to me that I was being dragged into another AGW discussion. In my experience these are fruitless and frustrating. If you want my opinion on the subject wrapped up in a single run-on sentence, after which I will unsubscribe from this thread and go to bed, here it is:

Although climate change is a natural process, humans may be affecting it in subtle and unknown ways, which provides a tremendous opportunity for those with a particular ideology to advance a global political agenda if they can only convince enough of the useful idiots in the world that humanity itself hangs in the balance unless we do "<SOMETHING> RIGHT NOW", usually involving remedies that will have a net effect of redistribution of wealth and power to those warning us of the impending doom.

 

[adoucette]

And I suppose your response to discovering corrupt policemen would be to say "either become a cop yourself or STFU about it"?

No, we are entitled to demand more from both policemen and scientists, and this truth remains regardless of the ultimate reality behind the AGW debate...

True, but finding a few questional emails between a small group of climate scientists in a world which has many thousands of such scientists also has to be kept in perspective.

The IPCC reports are based on the work of many teams of internatinal scientists and the Working Group reports are based on the published work of thousands of more scientists, in dozens of different climatic fields and so even if all the info and reports and data from this small group was tossed out entirely, it would not change the fundamental basis of the IPCC report.

Every large group of people will have some that exhibit less than stellar behaviors but that is no reason to dismiss the work of the much larger group.

Indeed, can you show us ONE thing that has been found in these emails that has caused even a small revision to established climate science?

Arthur

 

[wellwisher]

We need to separate two things, which tend to become merged, based on the political games being played. The first thing is the science connected to the base premise of global warming. The second thing are all the implications and extrapolations of doom and gloom. The first can be curve fitted since it is based on historical data. The second is all based on models and speculation about the future, using fear to help sell anything.

The earth has warmed one degree therefore, the sky will fall, the ice will melt, the land will sink, earthquakes will happen, there will be floods, there will be droughts, donuts won't cook properly, etc.

Over the decade, there was a lot of business speculation in terms of green and alternative energy, with billions of dollars to be made, if they could mess up the current energy industries. One way to do this was to extrapolate a slight temperature rise, into endless doom and gloom scenarios, which all need to point a finger, so they could gut established energy industries. Al Gore even came up with the green credits scam to you can still use traditional energy, but you had to pay protection money. They anticipated the scam was going to work quickly since there was so much doom and gloom, there should have been enough panic.

What we need to do is look at all the previous doom and gloom science projections from 5, 10 and 20 years ago, to see what actually happened as predicted, to get a batting average. This batting average will give us a handle on the amount of current doom and gloom projection that will all turn out to be political science. Then we need to make sure we don't continue to fund incompetence no matter how well connected.

 

[arfa brane]

What we need to do is look at all the previous doom and gloom science projections from 5, 10 and 20 years ago, to see what actually happened as predicted

What do you actually know about what was predicted 5, 10, or 20 years ago? I guess you're aware, being an intelligent person, that 20 years isn't long enough to determine a trend?

The first thing is the science connected to the base premise of global warming.

That's fairly unequivocal--the climate has warmed recently, the evidence for that is overwhelming. Furthermore, it's happened in the past too, the evidence for which is also fairly reliable (if you have any faith in scientific measurements).

Think of it this way: a prediction that the earth will be struck by a large meteor is consistent with the evidence that the earth has been struck in the past by large meteors (why should it stop happening just because humans want civilisation?).

Would you qualify the above as a doom and gloom science prediction?

 

[arfa brane]

In other words, from the street-level, science is still largely a matter of faith. To most people, science isn't all that different than religion.

I have to ask: do you have faith in your cellphone, or the car you drive?

What kind of prayers do you offer to the God of Science when you call someone, or start your car? How about that Internet connection?

 

[Yazata]

I wrote:

"In other words, from the street-level, science is still largely a matter of faith. To most people, science isn't all that different than religion."

Arf replies:

I have to ask: do you have faith in your cellphone, or the car you drive?

What kind of prayers do you offer to the God of Science when you call someone, or start your car? How about that Internet connection?

Imagine laypeople who are in no position to form scientific conclusions for themselves, and who are in no position to accurately judge the truth and falsity of conclusions that are presented to them as fact by the ostensible authorities.

How would you describe laypeople's cognitive behavior in that kind of situation?

My opinion is that individuals untrained in science have little choice but to either accept what the authorities' are saying on faith (a situation not unlike religion) or else assume a general skepticism towards everything the authorities tell them.

Pointing to physical science's engineering applications is one response, I guess. It doesn't really challenge my point directly though, since from the layman's perspective pointing to the products of engineering isn't unlike pointing to the miracles of the saints. The man on the contemporary street is in no better position to fully understand or explain what's happening than a medieval villager. Modern miracles do have greater persuasive force though, since people can witness modern miracles for themselves every day and aren't always just hearing about them from somebody else by hagiographical hearsay. That's one reason why faith in science has replaced faith in religion so dramatically in modern people's minds.

But has all the recent and rather apocalyptic climate-change science really produced any engineering applications?

There still seems to be a powerful article of faith lurking in all this -- If science can produce laptop computers, then everything said to laymen in the name of 'science' must therefore be accepted by them as true. Even unrelated claims about areas of science that have little or nothing to do with laptops.

But is it always wise for laypeople to hold to an unshakeable faith that the people in white-coats will speak only truth? Even if for the sake of argument that belief was accurate, is it realistic to think that the public is ever going to ever be that submissive?

When laypeople see believers pressuring respected journals to reject articles written by heretics, and when they start to suspect that data-sets may have been manipulated to make them better conform to desired conclusions, many observers are going to start to question the 'disinterested' objectivity of the whole thing.

Remember that most people have no way of separating the wheat from the chaff. They are in no position to recognize what's established science and what's just speculation. They have no way of knowing which conclusions are actually implied by objective and unbiased data and which are persuasive rhetoric intended to herd the public towards supporting desired social policies.

The result of climategate is almost certainly going to be some significant increase in public skepticism concerning scientific authority.

 

[arfa brane]

Pointing to physical science's engineering applications is one response, I guess. It doesn't really challenge my point directly though, since from the layman's perspective pointing to the products of engineering isn't unlike pointing to the miracles of the saints. The man on the contemporary street is in no better position to fully understand or explain what's happening than a medieval villager.

I disagree.
Most people manage to form concepts about how things work. For instance, most people understand why the car they drive needs fuel and why the fuel tank eventually empties, why they need to "start" the engine, what the battery is for, etc.
Most people understand how cellphones work, even if they aren't electronics engineers. Admittedly the layperson's concepts are simplified, but it's the understanding that matters; most people don't think of cars or cellphones as "miraculous devices".

But has all the recent and rather apocalyptic climate-change science really produced any engineering applications?

Has the prediction of the earth being struck by a large meteor produced any? How about the theory of Evolution?

Remember that most people have no way of separating the wheat from the chaff. They are in no position to recognize what's established science and what's just speculation.

Because there aren't any engineered "climate devices" that miraculously inform the layperson? Climate science is complicated, it's perhaps one of the most complicated problems we have to deal with. It's no real surprise that there isn't a good, simplified version everyone can understand, like the way people understand "signals" being sent down a wire or optical fibre.

That's what the real problem is with the status of climate science--it's new and the scientists are still finding out things they didn't know about. But there is a simple formula: increase the capacity of the atmosphere to store and re-radiate heat, and the planet warms up. The rest is a lot of complicated detail, because the climate is not just an atmosphere.