A snootful of e-mails

Posted by Paul Decelles November 23, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.

The climate noosphere is in an uproar about a bunch of e-mails there were hacked from a global climate site. The e-mails are allegedly from prominent climate scientists and date from the late 1990's. According to this article in the NY Times at least some of the e-mails don't show climate scientists in a very favorable light. For instance one e-mail talks about using a statistical trick, another e-mail calls global warming skeptics "idiots".

Of course skeptics are chortling over what they see as proof that global warming is a hoax and that climate scientists are trying to hide stuff, while the climate scientists involved in the e-mail exchanges seem to view the exchanges as normal give and take between scientists.

I have actually looked at some of the e-mails and quite frankly a lot of it really does look like the kind of give and take that people taking a particular position might have. Somehow I doubt that a similar hack of climate skeptic e-mails would be any different.

It is clear that the scientists involved are aware of the skeptics and how skeptics might react if certain data sets are not properly explained:

"Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!"

Well at any rate, I think this is typical scientific e-mail give and take in a highly politicized arena (been there myself) and I don't think that global warming skeptics should make too much of this stuff. Besides if they are crying foul because some one who disagrees with them in a private e-mail refers to them as idiots then maybe they ought to get thicker skins.

Don't take my word for it. You too can sleuth evil climate scientists e-mail by going to the following site and enter your favorite search term!

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

Of course I would love to have an equivalent set of e-mails between global warming skeptics - maybe working for a large oil company or perhaps a certain large business group that will go unnamed -and I just bet a little judicious browsing would yield lots of choice quotes. But of course hacking e-mails is wrong, a minor point seems to have been lost in this whole tea pot tempest.

For full disclosure, I have used the word idiot at least 27 times in my e-mail career, all of them of course quite justified.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

liggyon (David Lignell) says…

Paul,

Here's a quotation that may, at first, appear harsh. Still, my experience says that truth tends to outlast its naysayers. I am hopeful, in regard to the mounting evidence of global warming, we won't have to outlast any more species...even those belonging to the species Homo sapiens.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

- Max Planck (German theoretical Physicist who originated quantum theory, 1858-1947)
November 23, 2009 at 10:10 p.m.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…

That's always been one of my favorite quotes.
November 23, 2009 at 10:32 p.m.
75x55 (anonymous) says…

Kool-aid, flowing like the mighty Mississippi....

or perhaps the Nile - one of those rivers...
November 23, 2009 at 10:45 p.m.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…

We are all gonna die in 2012 anyway...
November 23, 2009 at 11:49 p.m.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…

4125, surely you can use more evocative imagery. I can believe that you're there, but you're not getting us to really see it with you. Show, don't tell.
November 23, 2009 at 11:55 p.m.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…

Of course when scientists rely on government funding in order to do their research and insure their jobs, it's easy to make one suspect. This comes after all the hooplah during the 1970's regarding the return of the 10,000 year ice age (probably before your time). At that time, the climate was supposed to get warm before the world got cold. Scientists told us it was true. It was front page on the New York Times. This scared the hell out of me when I was young. In reality, it was all B.S.

"Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said."

I call B.S. on Dr. Mann's last statement. Tree rings have been used to determine temperature fluctuations throughout the years, including the mini ice age during the middle ages. To throw it away because it puts into question their theory, is the B.S. Also, most thermometers are NOW in urban population centers, which gets warmer than out lying areas. This puts into question their theory.

A plausible theory as to why Stradivarius violins have exceptional tone is due to a sharp dip in temperatures between 1645 and 1715 that coincided with a reduction in sunspots and the sun's overall activity known as the Maunder Minimum. Researchers say those factors may have slowed tree growth, thereby creating the ideal building material for violins later manufactured.

The Earth may be getting warmer. It seems like it may. During Biblical times, mounts where the sheep grazed are now barren wastelands of dirt. Climates change, and that's a fact. To say man is the cause is a theory that should be scrutinized, expecially when our local government is paying for "carbon credits" on a voluntary basis, though it cost local taxpayers alone $15,000, all based on a theory that we are the root cause and out of guilt. Doesn't make sense.
November 24, 2009 at 5:26 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Hey Prune,

I was an undergrad during the early 1970's and while there was some discussion about a possible cooling trend this was based on past history which suggested that we ought to be entering a cooling period any time now. If that scared you then well you were clearly much more easily scared than I was about such things.

As for tree rings. The problem with using tree rings as a temperature proxy is that other aspects of climate affect tree ring growth as is discussed in this paper from 1997:

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/835...

As for the thermometer issue, scientists have attempted to control for land use issues and the heat island issue alluded to with your comment about thermometers being in urban areas(A very convenient myth by the way) is debunked here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

Of course you will disparage Realclimate as being run by those evil fear mongering climate scientists kind of like creationists disparaging their oponents as "evilutionists". As for your last point, of course climate changes, but to put our children and grand children at risk in what amounts to a grand uncontrolled science experiment hardly seems prudent to me.

We can argue about the politics of how to respond to global warming, but prudence should be something that transcends ideology.
November 24, 2009 at noon
BigPrune (anonymous) says…

Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

As for the 10,000 year ice age you don't seem to remember too much about, I was and have always been a news junky. It was headlines for years. Perhaps being a college age kid, you didn't pay too much attention.
November 24, 2009 at 12:29 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Word on the skeptic street is that the e-mails were leaked, not hacked. Why would they do this?

HadCRu is a British government organization. They have freedom of info and other laws regarding the work being done on the British dime. Lately, they have been getting into some hot water regarding the original raw data of the tree ring sort.

After years of delay, the data was released and found wanting in its scope and reliability. I won't defend either side in the issue. The data may be fine, maybe not, I dunno. The fact that there are questions and that the data has been sequestered is troubling.

If HadCRu was going to be compelled to release all its data, e-mails, correspondence, memos, etc. preemptive releases might have a smoothing effect. A gradual release is better than a complete data dump. Stories can be concocted gradually to explain the improprieties, one at a time.

You can see what works, and what doesn't.

And you can even hide in the fog of war. The e-mails were hacked. Nefarious characters have invaded our space, etc.

I look at all this as a classic case of politics and science making strange bed mates. Guys who 15 years ago were poking coring tools into trees in Siberia are now neck-deep in big time science. I think that it is heady stuff for the HadCRu folks and they aren't handling it well.

The big problem for all climate science is that HadCRu is a major center of climate data. The tree ring data is a major component of the IPCC narrative. Spinning will happen on both sides. Cynicism will overtake the masses. And the good name of science will be dragged down further by the mess.

Note to all researchers: Be careful of widespread notoriety. That sword cuts both ways. You had better have all your data in FTP files ready to ship immediately if you start making claims that impact the world's economy. This ain't a kid's game anymore when you want coal, oil, and natural gas industries to go away. There's even a chance the press will turn on them.

Liberal bias or not, newspapers like nothing better than a good controversy. The press needs something to sell and they need it ASAP. They are dwindling and just might lash out at HadCRu and others in order to stir up as much muck as possible. Could become a major mess. Rivaling the usual controversies: abortion, evolution, education funding, etc. Then science will be completely lost amid the noise and confusion.
November 24, 2009 at 4:40 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Hey Prune!

Well maybe since I was a biology major and a news junky who was also working at the time in a lab devoted to the effects of carbon dioxide on crop growth I was getting a more realistic perspective on the ice age thing.

Mann is right about the word trick.....it often times does refer to a clever mathematical idea used to solve a problem. I use it in this context all the time. Nothing sinister about that. But hey, you can read the e-mails as well as I can but from what I see the skeptics are taking things out of context.

Have a good T day by the way.
November 24, 2009 at 4:52 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Unless, Paul, the context is that of an overblown reliance on data that is hidden, massaged, manipulated, and protected from the usual scientific scrutiny.

Then the e-mails are nefarious.

Don't get me wrong. I dunno. But, the pounce of Foxnews and some newspapers might lead to an avalanche of negativity.

If that happens, Al Gore will assume his usual role as buffoon. Whatever truth is, Paul, it will never be discovered by the process. Is the globe warming because of anthropogenic CO2 to an extent that we should be worried about? No one knows.

Senators Gore and Inhofe will not lead us. Nor will potus, poteu, not any other politician.

It must be the test, Paul. It won't happen, so stand back and watch the fur fly. I tell my students not to treat the current discourse as science. It can't be. It is too fraught with agenda.

And so, as a scientist, don't defend either side. Call it what it is. Power to control peoples' lives. The raison d'etre of politics. We are scientists, we know. We are the government. We are here to help you.

I'm making pasta tonight and the Cutthroat porter has kicked in. I'm outta here.
November 24, 2009 at 6:14 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

The best summary of the state of climate science that I've read so far.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com...
November 25, 2009 at 3:32 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Actually I find this site a bit too political for my taste, I generally prefer the NOAA site at http://www.noaa.gov/

Also I read realclimate.org at http://www.realclimate.org/
and to get the skeptic's position:
http://www.climateaudit.org/

I also just stumbled on accuweather's nice climate blog at
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/

They provide nice commentary and up to date summaries of research without a lot of political spin.

Also you might check out a report that was on All Things Considered this afternoon about how the review process for scientific journals has allegedly gotten corrupted in the climate arena.

Here's a link.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
The audio is also available there.
November 25, 2009 at 6:04 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Reading the npr link illuminates the difficulty that climate science is having with politics. Even Hansen thinks that he is being muzzled by the political atmosphere.

Duh. Mr Hansen started all this 20 years ago when he testified to a senate committee in July, and connived to have the air conditioners turned off. Everybody sat in a senate meeting room sweltering as he described the perils of global warming. Oh, it was global warming he was peddling, not climate change.

Honestly, Paul, I think this has gotten out of hand. Nobel prizes, academy awards, Davis prizes, publicity all over the place, and the chance that science can be conducted is nil.

Given the current difficulties with health care, Ashcanistan, Acorn, unemployment, and others in the wings just getting ready to emerge, Global warming is a lost cause. With this seamy e-mail stuff and level temperatures, this dog is being removed from the hunt. Have you noticed that satellites are reaching their end and not being replaced?

Weather satellites mostly. They aren't paying and the government is letting them fade away. Remote sensing is not a hot commodity like it was 20 years ago. Its just too darn expensive. And so is CO2 reduction. I don't see us passing any sort of carbon tax.

Health care, wars, global warming, and alternative energy are just a few of the current issues that simply don't pay. Business isn't going after them, or are being kicked out. The economy is not producing anything new that will improve everybody's lot. What is happening is that government is shifting the power around. But this is different than elevating all boats.

This is fighting over the scraps. E-mails are trivial. The fact that we have come to this type of argument is important. It means that global warming is a political problem and it will be dealt with politically. If I were a climate scientist, I would mourn the loss of my science, even though it was crap to begin with.
November 26, 2009 at 7:13 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Well I think we agree about the politicization of climate change and lots of science in general. As for the satellites, I gather that there is a push to replace those satellites and that NOAA is pushing for new satellites. What ever one thinks of the current spat about what's going to happen with climate, what we can infer about the past suggests to me that we need more and better remote sensing, not less.
November 26, 2009 at 10:57 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Intelligent decisions based upon data from sensors is expensive.

Proscribing behavior is less argumentative and more effective and cheaper. So, reduce the cost of satellites, replace them with computer models, impose social awareness and proscribe behavior.

My current favorite is the government telling us that we will climb out of our energy problems through innovation guided by the government. Ha.
November 27, 2009 at 8:34 a.m.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…

Mourning over the politicization of a scientific disclipline (and climate science IS based on data, concepts that are replicable, testable, etc. based on models that are constantly being refined as new data is collected, similar to the models used in weather forcasting) is an understandable response to the pressures placed on climate science, but is this really any different qualitatively than the pressures on so many other scientific disciplines?

The hard reality of most science is that it involves a competitive sprint for funding, which comes either from corporate sources or government sources. Think about the pursuit both of you have no doubt been involved in in your careers, particularly of late: Compiling colleagues professional pedigrees, doing comprehensive literature searches that frame why you should be funded, assembling matching funding if needed, demonstrating that your grant administration strategies meet the grant criteria, filing reports on a regular basis, making results available in the right circles, then pursuing the next round of grants to continue the program.

Sounds almost like running for political office, no? I'm not saying that projects involving a lot of money should be administered with fewer checks and balances, (that's for the cinema's depiction of science, no?) I'm just saying that the very nature of science as it is most commonly practiced makes it a social and political creature. Remember T.S. Kuhn's book, right?

But all that aside, the emails in question are ABOUT the science, and are not the science itself. If there are discrepancies about the models, they can and will be adjusted, just as they have been continuously doing all along. Ask Dr. Feddema in the Geography Dept. who is involved in the refining of those models if you don't believe me, and while you're at it, ask him about the robustness of those models, and how they are constantly testing their assumptions by "bracketing" them and making multiple runs to test those assumptions, refining the resolution of the data, pouring in new data as it comes in, etc.
November 27, 2009 at 9:20 a.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Hey, Doug, describe a test in climatology for me.

A test is an experiment where a model has been hypothesized.
That model includes known and semi-known and unknown variables.
Hold as many variables constant as possible. Those that cannot be controlled, measure them.
The semi-known variables are candidates for uncertainty in the results.

Unknown variables can vary from random noise at a small level, to R-squared of 1%.

Model in, control, measurement of result.

When a convergence is shown, publish.
If there is no convergence at all, publish
If there is fuzzy, in-conclusion, ask for more money.

Ask for money.
Ask for money.
Scare people, ask for money.

Become a petty tyrant.
Demand money.

Cover your butt.
Ask for money.
November 27, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.
boltzmann (anonymous) says…

Devobrun,

It seems to me that you are operating under a far too narrow definition of science and of testability as, in addition to leaving out climatology, it would exclude a large number of fields such as geology, astronomy, and a good deal of biology, to boot. These are all cases, where it is impossible to set up an experimental test over which you have complete a priori control over the variables. That does not mean that hypotheses in these fields are not testable. In all of these fields, one can construct hypothesis based on the subset of existing observations. Tests come when one analyzes additional/future observations that were not included in the hypothesis development for phenomena that would falsify or limit the validity of your hypothesis.

As an example of such a test in climatology, consider the hypothesis that the recent rise in CO2 is human in origin. It is well known that the C13 to C12 ratio in CO2 depends upon its origin. CO2 from biological origin (such as fossil fuels) has a lower C13/C12 ratio than CO2 in the atmosphere - this is because photosynthesis has a slight preference for the lighter isotopes. One would predict, based on the hypothesis above, that, if the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels (or rain forests) the C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere (currently about 0.01) would decrease over time. Therefore, a test of the hypothesis would involve measuring the 13C/12C ratio over time to see if it is increasing - a decrease or stasis would invalidate the hypothesis. This ratio has been measured over time and it has found to have increased significantly since the mid 19th century, thus providing supporting evidence for the hypothesis.

I also find your characterization of a signifiant population of scientists as money grubbing charlatans as offensive and arrogant, but that is a personal observation, not a scientific one.
November 28, 2009 at 10:20 a.m.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…

In the first Earth Day in 1970, UC Davis's Kenneth Watt said, "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." International Wildlife warned "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war" as a threat to mankind. Science Digest said "we must prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor noted that armadillos had moved out of Nebraska because it was too cold, glaciers had begun to advance, and growing seasons had shortened around the world. Newsweek reported "ominous signs" of a "fundamental change in the world's weather."

http://www.crichton-official.com/spee...
I liked that guy's books. He was pretty darned smart.
November 28, 2009 at 11:03 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Of course there are doom-sayers of all stripes. I seem to recall that Watt had the idea that carbon dioxide would lead to global cooling I believe this supposed to be do to increased albedo due to more water in the atmosphere. All those pronouncements were in the the days before we had reasonable climate models.

As for Crichton, he spins a good yarn but as for his grasp of climate science see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...
November 28, 2009 at 4:52 p.m.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…

boltzmann,
devobrun has had these things pointed out to him over and over again by many folks and he just ignores the obvious truth of your and many other peoples' points. Seems that if you can't test it like an electronic circuit in his eyes, it ain't science. And if it ain't science, it's politics, clear and simple. Seems to not like the real world because it's all outside of his control.

And be careful, he likes to pidgeonhole people based on assumptions that are wildly off more often than not.

Now I'll say something that will no doubt get his gander: no matter how much data we gather on our planet's functioning, it will not conform to the level of certainty that drops below the level of unknowns that devo will be comfortable with. So guess what--we do the best we can do as scientists, as communities, as nations, as humans on this planet. Sometimes we do the wrong things for the right reasons and vice versa; we have no other choice really, do we?

Climate science fits this description, as does life itself.
November 28, 2009 at 6:07 p.m.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…

Paul,
a blogger, one of you believers in anthropogenic global warming, who blogs at the guardian (where the e-mails were first publicized) describes the e-mails as a "crisis" and "trainwreck" for global warming believers, and says that trying to minimize them is a mistake:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...

***
careful Devo,
if you're conservative, you're assumed to be scientifically ignorant! only the global warming hysterians are the annointed enlightened ones. how dare you question. Michael Crichton also described how global warming is more religeous than scientific now.
November 28, 2009 at 8:34 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Thanks for the tip bearded. I certainly agree with the lead statement in the article:

"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science"

On your other point, scientific literacy should not have anything to do with ideology. For example one can accept the reality of "anthropogenic global warming" but disagree politically about the best approach to handling it. For instance is cap and trade really workable? How about carbon offsets?

The sad thing is that climate change has gotten so politicized that people end up getting funneled into opposing camps and the science gets lost somehow.
November 28, 2009 at 9:53 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Boltzmann, all of your observations are opinion. That's OK since this is not a scientific forum.
My definition of science is certainly more restrictive than yours and that of most of science today.
It is my opinion that the sloppier the boundaries you put on science, the more likely that science will be used for purposes that are social and political. That is happening.

Climatology has a resulting engineering branch. It is called tyranny. You might think that tyranny is way too strong a term for social engineering, but I don't. The only way that climatology can be applied to our lives is through top-down management of human behavior. Experts advise politicians. Politicians impose power over people's decisions. The concept of individual freedom is diminished.

When scientists move from the laboratory into the media, the senate committee meeting room, the halls of political power, they cease to be scientists. This is what climatology has become.

----------------------
As for money grubbing charlatans. I would call them power-grubbing realists. They are smart, effective, and rise to managerial levels. They are tasked with growing an institution and even a field of science. They have people of like mind who collaborate to help form societies. In today's world, the goal of the scientist is to become known as a founding father, either of a research institution, a society, or even a whole new branch of science.

Its politics. Local (within the institution) regional (within a society) and international (IPCC). Power is much better than just money. The David award that Jim Hansen got in 2007 gives him $1 million dollars, and long term scholarship money for grad students and prestige. This is the goal of modern science. Become prestigious, spawn students who go out and spread the gospel.

Don't be offended by me, Boltzmann, be offended by people like Jim Hansen. They exist. I didn't make them up.
All fields of endeavor have leaders. When those leaders engage in hiding data or manipulating data to boost their prestige, I call foul. When they conspire to limit, or reject alternative opinions, I say, not science. When the results of their work are implemented at a level of global economies, I say watch out. This is dangerous. And that is where we are in climatology. Computer projections based upon fuzzy science, being implemented on an international scale.
November 29, 2009 at 7:41 a.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Doug, we do have a choice. It is the most obvious and truthful statement that we should know.
It is : I don't know.

This is a better stance than overwrought computer models that we have today. Models that cannot be tested. Models that include parameters that are not measured. Models that include parameters that are poor estimates of reality. Models that are known to be false, but "are the best that we have".

I say it is better to realize that evidence-projection science that runs through an algorithm is not very good. We have gone too far in our reliance on best -that-we-have scenarios.

It's time that everyone wakes up to the danger of placing too much stock in sophisticated models.
--------------------
The credit markets are a current and painful reminder that sleepy application of computer models to evaluate risk is dangerous. Sophistication in the credit world became a way of hiding risk. The world economy is paying the price.
Oh, the various instruments that were created were tested all right. And they were bad. Failure on a grand scale.

--------------------

The same thing is doomed in climatology. Carbon tax. Carbon credits. Carbon footprints. Models, sophistication, shell games. Its crap based upon science that will be tested and maybe with dramatic consequences. Failure of free markets and their replacement by soviet-style bureaucrats.

--------------------

But what really worries me is that the public perception of science will fall until science reaches the level of used-car-salesman. Everyone's a winner, bargains galore. Act now.
Hey buddy, wanna buy a computer program. Guaranteed to satisfy. Pretty graphs, Never mind the units or the scale of the axes. Its bigger, its better, its 3-D, its modern science. You too might win a Nobel, or an Academy Award.
You might wanna get some contact lenses.
And maybe a new suit, or somethin'.
Lemme introduce you to my pal over here, he's got what you need.
Gotta look good for You-Tube, or TEDS.
Yeah baby, who loves ya now?

Loose that frumpy wife you met in grad school.

Notice how they look at you and point you out discretely at the Society meetings?

And that young researcher from Paris. wow.

Ain't science grand?
November 29, 2009 at 8:18 a.m.
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…

Okay Devo, but what if you are wrong?
November 29, 2009 at 8:35 a.m.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…

(Hyperbole alert on)
Seatbelts and airbags are tyrannically imposed upon us by those social engineers who want to keep their government/corporate grant jobs testing dummies in fake car accidents.

Same goes with motorcycle helmets: at least we have legislated ourselves around that one so we as a society can pay for the head injuries that result instead, to the tune of a million bucks per.

That little warning about cigarettes on each packet: tyrannical BS imposed by that monster the National Institute of Health, and the unconstitutional restriction on free speech that limits alcohol and cigarette advertising.

And speaking of which, don't get me started about the insane requirements placed on trial drugs by the FDA--just a political ploy to enrich themselves.

Building codes? Water and air quality standards? Highway building standards? Radio frequency laws? Food contamination laws? Noise ordinances? Heck, throw in laws against murder, rape and pillaging, too, and the Geneva Convention: these are not part of a social contract arrangements that protect basic standards of humanity; they are tyrannical impositions of the guilded few who are lording it over the rest of us to get richer and richer at our expense, right? And so much of it based upon fuzzy science, being implemented on an international scale!
November 29, 2009 at 8:38 a.m.
nbnozzy (anonymous) says…

Let's get down to the nuts and bolts of global warming. Does "man" have an impact on the environment? Somewhat. Does he have the ability to change the temperatures. NO. Mother Nature does what she wants to and no amount of fear mongering by Al Gore or any of the other "scientist" will alter that.

Use some common sense people.
November 29, 2009 at 8:48 a.m.
boltzmann (anonymous) says…

Devo, I gave an example of testing in climatology - as you requested from Doug. The results of such an experiment are not "opinion". Exactly, what is the principle flaw in that particular test? Do you argue that it shows nothing. If you restrict science to what the Great Devobrun says it is, there is not much left.

And, as a scientist, I find your rantings about your view of scientists insulting and asinine.
November 29, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Boltzmann,

Of course the skeptics are never held to the same standards and that gives them a powerful advantage with the public.
November 29, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

georgiahawk, wrong about what?
----------
Doug: "Seatbelts and airbags are tyrannically imposed upon us by those social engineers". Yes. They might be a good idea, but laws to make people do it is tyranny. Don't wear a seat belt. Get in a crash. Die, see if I care.

"the insane requirements placed on trial drugs by the FDA". Its called testing, Doug.

Murder, rape pillage, Doug? Take a powder. Transgression against others is the purview of law. Imposition of behavior that effects only the individual is tyranny.
---------
boltz: you sited data of isotope ratios. This is a test? I'm to take from this data that:
"Therefore, a test of the hypothesis would involve measuring the 13C/12C ratio over time to see if it is increasing - a decrease or stasis would invalidate the hypothesis"

The hypothesis being that CO2 is increasing because of the burning of fossil fuels.

There are no other reasons that the ratio increases?

Sorry, your "test" is an assertion. The first law of statistics is that correlation does not mean causation. A test would be increasing fossil fuel burning, followed by decreasing fossil fuel burning, followed by.......until all the other uncorrelated but confounding factors averaged out. This would then be followed by careful temperature atmospheric measurements via large scale measurement systems, probably a satellite. All this would, of course, take centuries. OK by me. Do it. Just don't leap to tyranny in an effort to justify your existence. Patience little one.

You site a correlation of one data set of increased fossil fuel burning with an increased ratio of isotopes. Top notch science, that's what that is. Yessir.

Boltzmann, you should be insulted. You are a naif. Big time science is happening at Harvard, JPL, and all over the world. It is big business. It is money, power, and it sounds like you are not in the game. I'm sorry.
Oh, FYI, I turned down a job at JPL in 1984 because I didn't want to raise kids in LA. Also, I thought that JPL was full of just the kind of political crap that I've been talking about. Best decision of my life. My kids are grown, successful (in many ways) and I didn't have to live under a canopy of smog. I mean smog both literally and figuratively (visa vi career).
November 29, 2009 at 6:55 p.m.
boltzmann (anonymous) says…

Devobrun says"

"Sorry, your “test” is an assertion. The first law of statistics is that correlation does not mean causation."

I'm sorry that is just wrong. This was not a test of a correlation. The hypothesis had nothing to do with the correlation with isotopes. It was a falsification test of a logical consequence of the hypothesis. If the CO2 in the atmosphere is due primarily to burning matter of organic origin then there should be a corresponding decreases in the C12/C13 ratio. This is a prediction. The test measured this ratio and showed that the C12/C13 ratio was indeed decreasing, as the hypothesis would predict. This is supporting evidence for the hypothesis. Of course it is not a proof, as we don't "prove" things in science we just look for experiments that could falsify our hypothesis. This is how the scientific method works. Maybe not in your world, I guess, but yours is a minority view.

"A test would be increasing fossil fuel burning, followed by decreasing fossil fuel burning, followed by…….until all the other uncorrelated but confounding factors averaged out. This would then be followed by careful temperature atmospheric measurements via large scale measurement systems, probably a satellite. All this would, of course, take centuries. OK by me. Do it."

That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Well maybe right after "Seat belt laws = tyranny"

"Patience little one."

I'm not even going to dignify that insulting comment with what I am thinking.
November 29, 2009 at 7:22 p.m.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…

There is two constants in the universe: academic bull punky and puffy-chested naysayers. They cancel each other out and the world goes on.
November 29, 2009 at 7:29 p.m.
boltzmann (anonymous) says…

Actually there are three - you forgot sarcastic bystanders. :)
November 29, 2009 at 7:39 p.m.
Godot (anonymous) says…

Once trust has been violated, it can never be regained:

"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.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...

I guess an entirely new team of "scientists" will have to start the project all over....hopefully this time they will wait until after all the data is in and has been confirmed by several trials by several different groups of scientists before they reach a conclusion.

It stands to reason that Phillip Jones, Michael Mann and others involved in the AGW racket will be facing criminal charges.
November 29, 2009 at 7:47 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

boltz, if the CO2 ratio of C12/C13 decreases, then the ratio of C12/C13 decreases. Period.
Since one cause of this decreasing ratio could be from fossil fuel burning, you may assert that it is caused by that source. The test would be to vary the fuel burning and see if the ratio varies accordingly.
If there are other reasons for variation in atmospheric C12/C13, then they would average out. One test of atmospheric carbon isotope ratio is not convincing.

Are there other possibilities? That is, are there reasons for changing C12/C13 ratio that are unrelated to fossil fuel burning? +-
What role does deforestation have here?
What is the state of algae in the ocean how is its life cycle effected by increased fertilization? Do they effect the C12/C13 measurement?

These are but two confounding biological activities correlated to increased fossil fuel burning, but not responsible for the increase in burning. If they are a major contributor to this issue, then stop cutting down the Amazon and Indonesian forests. Stop heavily fertilizing Midwestern farmland.

Each of these variables should be tested while holding the other carbon emitters constant. You can't can you? You can't conduct a proper test. The time frame of the test is impractical. The effects on people makes them impractical as well.
----------------

My stand on climate change and most of modern fuzzy science is that the proper statement is that we don't know. There are precious few tests in climatology and now those tests are being questioned as a result of the poor conduct by people at HadCRu.
The data is suspect.
The raw data is missing .
The motivations of the researchers are suspect.
The cozy relationship between the scientists and the politicians is suspect.
The models are suspect.
The suggested remedies are suspect.

I don't think that climatology is behaving properly in a scientific sense. I think that climatology has been in a fight with other fuzzy sciences for money and prestige over the years and they won. They absorbed paleo-, eco, geo, and many other disciplines into their realm. All these other fuzzy science have gotten money and power by relating their data to global warming.

The race for money, published papers, publicity has caused many people in the fuzzy sciences to glom onto global warming. It is a way for justification of their research. It is a sad time for science as I said before.
November 30, 2009 at 7:13 a.m.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…

Devo says:
"Doug: “Seatbelts and airbags are tyrannically imposed upon us by those social engineers”. Yes. They might be a good idea, but laws to make people do it is tyranny. Don't wear a seat belt. Get in a crash. Die, see if I care."

Fine. Then pay the million dollar bill for the guy who had the head injury or severed spine because he didn't want to wear that tyrannical seatbelt, or better yet, just let him die, even tho he was hit by a drunk driver, who, by the way didn't want to be impinged by the tryannical laws against that, or by that ridiculous law that forces people to drive on one side of the road. The audacity of shoving good ideas down peoples' throats in ways that impinges their personal God-given freedoms for the stupidity of the masses who they share the world with! Community? Social contract? Just give me a gun and a box to hide in.
November 30, 2009 at 8:36 a.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Doug, I'm a bit surprised that it took you this long to get around to my use of the word tyrant (or tyranny). One man's tyranny is another man's savior. And thus, we have battles over social and cultural laws.
As you say, "The audacity of shoving good ideas down peoples' throats in ways that impinges their personal God-given freedoms for the stupidity of the masses who they share the world with! Community?"

And what is good ideas?
And what is the limit of personal freedom?
And who determines the stupidity of the masses?
And to what degree do we share the world?

May I borrow your wife? I'll return her tomorrow.

Ridiculous question? Exceeded the boundary of the social contract?
Yes, but these are the questions that have increasingly been answered by transferring power over people toward the government. The government decides where it never did before. The ultimate (at least so far) is imposition on the production of CO2. Laws that limit CO2 are laws that will regulate your life more than you know.
And why? Because of a flaky computer model trained on flaky data from scientists who are suspect. I don't buy it. While it might be true, it probably isn't the way they are telling it. I think they are over stepping the boundaries of what they should be saying regarding global warming.
I think that are wielding power that is tyrannical.
November 30, 2009 at 1:53 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

porch: "Why do you claim “we don't know” and discourage data collection?"
I claim that we don't know because we can't properly control or measure confounding variables in systems with as many degrees of freedom as the climate.
I only discourage data if the data is meaningless. This is unusual. What I greatly discourage is making robust claims about crappy data fed into computer models. This has been my complaint all along. Fuzzy headed scientists claiming to know much more than they really do.

Now, as for gathering data. I don't have to gather my own data. I can use the data from HadCRu. Oh, wait, I can't. It wasn't made available.

As of about an hour ago, HadCRu announced that it would release all raw data that it had via FTP files. There is a problem. Not all the original data is available. Some of it was pitched, lost, or just simply gone.

So, I propose that the existing data be compared to original source records (from Russia, U.S., and all over the world).
All verified data will then be reanalyzed using the same algorithms that were used before. The results are then used to train GCMs and new model runs are made. All this must be done under the scrutiny of the entire scientific world. The data to which I refer is the data used by Keith Briffa regarding tree ring proxies. Also, the data from HADCRuT should be verified. This is the compilation of point temperature measurements from around the world.

I'm not saying that there is no global warming. I'm not saying that we don't pump CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm not denying Stefan-Boltzmann radiative transfer. I'm saying that the process used to date to predict future climate is fraught with problems. It is unbelievable. It is crap.

These people need to do better, and there are a lot of scientists, politicians, and just plain people who agree with me. The stakes are way too high to believe the lousy data, creaky old computer models, and the administrators of the data who now don't engender trust.
_________

The ingredients of a cake and the recipe are the data and the hypothesis. Fine as far as it goes. But now you must test the hypothesis by following the recipe, using the ingredients and bake the $@&#%$(#*#$&%^ cake.
Now you've done cake. Thanks for the analogy.

___________

I never said that I was doing science on Paul's blog. See the above paragraph. I didn't bake a cake either.
We are discussing the limits of science. The rules of science. The process, the methods. All are philosophical in nature. Even the definition of science is not scientific. There is more to the world than science. There are other ways of establishing belief besides science. All is not science. Its just that when doing science, one must test. That is what separates science from other endeavors.
November 30, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…

The data isn't available? Think again:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

And guess what? The HadCRU data is a tiny drop in the bucket. Despite what you're claiming, the climate science community of thousands of qualified IT professionals, climatologists, mathematical modelling folks, dendrochronologists, glacial core drillers, phenologists, oceanographers, physicists, chemists, and many other professional scientific disciplines have been pouring objective data into these models and tweaking them over the past 30 years. The robustness of the data is so strong that potential glitches like the HadCRU data MIGHT or might not be does not affect the overwhelming evidence of the impact of human-based emissions on the overall global climate.

And your alternate theories about carbon isotope ratios being cutting down rainforests and overfertilizing midwest farmland are also part of the equation. And guess what? They are also a big part of the list of issues that are being looked at as needing to change if we have any chance whatsoever of stopping this juggernaut. But take the fossil fuels off the table? How much stock do you own with these guys?

But you know all of this, devo. I guess you've succeeded in getting the attention of yet another group of intelligent people trying to reason with you, which I'm increasingly beginning to believe is the goal behind all of your efforts. For someone who seems so averse to the idea of a social contract, you sure find a funny way to get your fix. Wait a minute, maybe your methods DO make sense now!
November 30, 2009 at 4 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

lost data:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...

I believe that the data is inaccessible. Grow up.

Porch, it is BS because you keep telling me what I said and think and you are wrong. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Of course observation and hypothesis is part of science.
It is also part of the legal system and many other erudite endeavors, like literature criticism, art history, and many others.
What science can do and what science does which is unique to science is the test.
No you don't understand my philosophy and the reason is that you do a poor job of reductive thinking.
You seem averse to reducing ideas, methods, and thought in general into components.
First you observe.
Next you organize and categorize your observations.
Next you look for patterns.
Then you use existing theory to explain and look for deviations from theory.
Then you either sharpen, or modify your data collection to emphasize the aberrations from theory.
Then you provide an explanation that can be tested for falsity.
Then you test the explanation (hypothesis).
This is reduction.
Results of the test are not confirmatory. They are either falsifying the hypothesis or not. The more tests under the widest set of conditions without falsifying the hypothesis strengthens ones belief in the hypothesis.
But the quality and quantity of the test is the scientific thing, porch. It is the thing which sets science apart from other things. The fact that gathering evidence and hypothesizing is part of the process is important, but not unique.
Get it? See the emphasis? Do you see why reading Shakespeare and supporting a thoughtful hypothesis like his use of flying imagery in Hamlet is supported by evidence, but not science?
Oh, one more thing. If the hypothesis is falsified, then modified, then falsified then modified and so on.......you are not converging to a theory. You are wasting time and money. Thus you are building a monstrosity called a GCM.
November 30, 2009 at 4:48 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Doug: referring to deforestation, etc. "They are also a big part of the list of issues that are being looked at as needing to change if we have any chance whatsoever of stopping this juggernaut."

But they are not properly part of the GCM.
Nor is a proper model for thunderclouds.
Nor is a proper model for cyclical ocean currents like ENSO.

The model is huge and not complete. The model grows, but doesn't converge.
The model is not truly understood by any one person because it is too big. Sorta like those models that were used on Wall Street a coupla years ago to evaluate risk in the credit markets.
----
"I guess you've succeeded in getting the attention of yet another group of intelligent people trying to reason with you"

Of course I'm trying to get people to reason with me. What else?

I might learn something.

You might learn something.

I might sharpen my argument. I might change my argument.

Your link to the realclimate doesn't answer the question regarding the missing data.
Your assertion that it is a tiny drop in the bucket is wrong.
The thousands of professionals will start fessin' up when the leaders fall. Rats on a sinking ship.
----
Averse to the social contract? I teach high school for $75 per day. Last Monday I took 8 students to the Ballard Center north of town and delivered a truckload of food. We stocked the shelves, bagged some for immediate delivery and cleaned up.
I just asked for and was granted a postponement of federal jury service until July because I didn't want to shortchange my students. I look forward to serving my country.
I am married and have 3 kids. My wife is a physician, my eldest son is also. My daughter is a nurse in inner city Chicago, and my other son is a graduate student in biomedical engineering at Rutgers. We pay our way.

My contract with society is to keep my nose clean and serve the public. I ask in return that busy bodies who think they know more than I do to leave me alone. No thanks to your fuzzy thought process, and your intrusion into my life.
I don't think that climatologists know what they are talking about.
I think that federal legislation regarding carbon emissions will be an economic catastrophe. I don't want to pay for it. I love the fact that I can express my attitude in public and won't get arrested.
Freedom is to life as the test is to science.
November 30, 2009 at 5:27 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

"You have criticized both evolution and global warming based upon your promotion of his theories"

I don't deny it.

Why do you imply that I deny Popper?

-----
"You're stating that, unless we can put the Earth in a shoebox and run repetitive trials on weather, unless we can account for every variable and datapoint, then we should discount that global warming is happening at all and not do something to modify our contribution to it."

That is putting words in my mouth. You are characterizing. And you are exaggerating.

I think global warming is happening. I think that drawing the conclusion that it is a primary result of CO2 emissions is wrong and unsupported by theory. I think that it is not as rapid as portrayed and not as dangerous either. New hypotheses in climate are a result of computer models, not just Stefan-Boltzmann models. Their veracity is questionable due to shady data, and most important, improper testing.

We don't have to know every variable, just a lot more than we have. We don't have to completely ignore alternative methods of energy capture or storage. We must be calm and use things like an energy budget to evaluate these technologies.

As it stands, we are told that the earth is in the balance. Terror and destruction at every front will descend upon us if we don't act now. Alternative energy ideas should be adopted regardless of their efficacy.
This is bad advice. It is promulgated by people at Hadley. They are not trustworthy.
You seem to be defending them.
My experience as an engineer is that nothing works out exactly as planned. Theory is a great place to start, but you had better be prepared to adapt. At a minimum, climate change will see this too. Prescriptions to cool the planet will not work as planned. Alternative energy techniques will come with their own troubles. Racing into this global warming business is dangerous, and won't work out as I, or you, envision it. These are all opinions. They are based upon a less sanguine view of science, government, and modeling than you have.
November 30, 2009 at 6:17 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

OK, porch, your last post is my invitation to leave.
Clearly my comment regarding my life addressed your questioning my "social contract". I was defending my social contract.

These comments have nothing to do with the philosophy of science, Karl Popper, or climate science.

By conflating Karl Popper with some perceived view of my "social contract" you have crossed over into absurdity.

I argue with you because I wish to see the workings of the type of mind that defends Hadley. I see that it doesn't work very well.

Sorry to be so personal and demeaning, but you have said things that just don't make any sense.

Examples: "You teach high school students to disbelieve evolution and global warming because they don't serve your philosophic and religious beliefs"

I don't teach students to disbelieve global warming or evolution. You put words in my mouth, and actions about which you know nothing.

"You do damage to the next generation of scientists by telling them that science is nothing more than another religion or philosophy"

Nothing more than another religion. A little distraught?
Science is an avenue to learning about the world. Becoming sloppier in any endeavor is not maintaining rigor. And is not desirable. I think science is getting sloppier. Science as defined by Popper is more rigorous, and therefore, more useful. Rigor yields results. That is what I teach my students.

So, I'm outta here, because you have stooped to implication, unsupported assertion, and loss of rigor.
I can neither learn from you anymore, nor could you learn from me, since you express so much hatred.

See ya around, porch. And cool off. This is a blog for Rah sakes.
November 30, 2009 at 6:37 p.m.
leedavid (anonymous) says…

Paul reads a couple of the emails and from that appears to the public to have some knowledge. Shame really because if he had read just a few more he would have seen data was altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant 'global warming' for 15 years – and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Look...we all know the earth is warming, it was covered with ice at one point. Something melted that ice and we know the dinosaurs did not drive SUV's or have coal plants. Now we find the left cooking the books to advance their theroy. Poor polar bears....LOL
December 1, 2009 at 5:45 a.m.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…

I've read a few of the emails- just at random, - they definitely have an agenda going on to discredit any skeptic. It seems that is all they are doing.

I saw an AOL poll - to see if Congress should investigate. Though the poll isn't scientific, 87% wanted hearings. We just have to see how transparent, righteous and honest the left really is if they do not have hearings and investigations into all of these people who have been colluding for so long.
December 1, 2009 at 7:15 a.m.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…

I wonder if the scientists can tell us today if we'll have a white Christmas this year? I wonder if these scientists can tell us when and where the next F-5 tornado will hit Kansas?........I wonder if these scientists can tell us why parts of Manhattan island aren't under water like Dr. Hansen predicted would be the case today, back in 1988.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.
December 1, 2009 at 11:35 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Folks,

John Tierney over at the NYTimes has some commentary on the e-mail issue. So hop on over to

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/sci...

and see what you think....

Tierney tends to be skeptical about global warming but he tends to be thoughtful in his approach.
December 1, 2009 at 4:13 p.m.
MyName (anonymous) says…

@Godot:

The data was thrown out in the 80s, when global warming wasn't even an issue. Or did you even RTFA you linked?

And you want to talk about trust being violated? Why don't you start with the people at NASA who taped over the original moon landing broadcasts. Sometimes people just do stupid things with data, especially before the early 90s when magnetic media wasn't exactly cheap.
December 1, 2009 at 4:47 p.m.