Climategate Is Still The Issue

[Chinahand]

I have to say I'm not sure how to properly respond to Mr Corbert's video. It is wrong. It misrepresents. It exaggerates. But people believe it more than the climate scientists who are working to understand what will happen to the world as a consequence of CO2 levels rising to more than twice the peak level seen over the last 500,000 years.

 

Pongo there is a huge debate about the sensitivity of the earth to a doubling of CO2 - with, from off the top of my head, a range of between 1.5 and 5 degrees C being argued over by perfectly respectible scientists - denialism definitely exists, but that is outside a perfectly normal scientific debate which is pushing human knowledge to understand our climate. The consensus is somewhere in the region of 2 degrees and that will hurt the planet more than a little. Very very few respectable people see a rise of less than 1.5 being possible and as far as I can see from the field, and I follow it quite alot, the science is getting stronger rather than weaker - clouds aren't coming to our rescue!

 

The impression given is almost diametrically opposite to this. People put up pictures of weather stations put in ridiculous places - but ignore satellite data which is imune to such effects and shows basically the same trend of warming.

 

I've covered this all before - and the graphs haven't changed much in the last 5 months - this year will either be the hottest year ever measured, or the second hottest.

 

Try reading this which attempts to put Climategate into context. The science hasn't changed, the data from CRU is still seen as being robust and useful, but its only one data set and the others show the same thing.

 

Pongo, I find your points 1 & 2 totally tabloid with very little basis in science. 3 & 4 are also weaker than you claim. Certainly trying to get oil independence is a part - but more money is spent lobbying to drill in Alaska than to switch to renewables. And basically the oil lobby is vastly better funded and media savy than the scientists and still embyonic renewables companies.

 

The main reason that renewables is getting traction is because they have reality on their side and pretending climate change isn't an issue isn't tenable from our scientific understanding of the planet.

[pongo]

Neither points are unarguable because they're phrased in a way that makes them ambiguous. They also contradict each other, depending on how much influence 'very much' is.

 

These are not mutually exclusive points. Politics and economics is often about ambiguous ideas and a range of possible conclusions. Except for people who believe unquestioningly and completely in some particular beliefs system - the same as religions or political dogmas. And talking to a true believer can be like talking to an evangelical or a political activist: The same good-vs-evil, end-of-the-world ferver; the same tendency to angrily exclude and discount anything to the contrary.

 

The case for man made climate change, and the worst case scenarios, has been adopted and incorporated into a political and business agenda. Any scientist who questions it risks the scientific funding equivalent of ex communication.

 

Real Climate provides some context - with links!

 

Climategate exposed a group of people systematically interpreting their data to support a beliefs system and potentially destroying data which contradicted the basis of their funding. You have to be prepared to apply the same degree of healthy scepticism as you would if they were talking about woo-woo.

 

I haven't got an opinion about whether man made climate change is real or the extent of it. I'm just interested at the way in which the issue has been adopted as a truth and co-opted into the political and economic agenda.

[Chinahand]

Climategate exposed a group of people systematically interpreting their data to support a beliefs system and potentially destroying data which contradicted the basis of their funding.

No I really don't think it did. That is how it has been spun, but these allegations have almost no basis. This is where I most disagree with what Corbert says - there were multiple enquiries and data hasn't been destroyed, the conclusions the scientists made were robust, and the statistical analyses they did have been built upon and added to the corpus of knowledge that shows current climate changes are unprecidented and significantly influenced by man.

[pongo]

Climategate exposed a group of people systematically interpreting their data to support a beliefs system and potentially destroying data which contradicted the basis of their funding.

No I really don't think it did. That is how it has been spun

 

Would you definitely have given them the same degree of latitude if their research had been related to astrology, psychic spoon bending or predicting the future ?

[Chinahand]

I don't get your point Pongo - I didn't give them a degree of latitude - it was investigated and their science was found to be valid. Academic fraud is serious - science takes it seriously - Google Marc Hauser. The CRU's results were found to be valid.

 

Astrology, psychic spoon bending, predicting the future aren't good science. Science doesn't respect them, but it does respect the CRU. In the thread on predicting the future I said it needs investigating further and have posted the investigations of scientists showing there were problems.

 

In this thread I'm highlighting that the investigations of scientists have not shown up significant problems. OK lets add for honesty - there have been issues with data sharing - and the result is increased openness - almost anybody can go and get the datasets.

 

And guess what - they show a planet significantly influenced by man made CO2 with it producing a multitude of results, some positive, but many more negative.

 

What Mr Corbert is saying is not the conclusion of sciencists. Science can and does deal with academic fraud and I simply don't buy the conspiracy theory that data says one thing and the evil climatologists are covering it up. That is bullshit.

 

It is reasonable to say that the earth is likely to warm by between 1.5 and 5 degrees C in the next 70 years - there are more risks from extreme temperatures and it is not impossible that it could be worse than this. As far as I'm aware the number of informed people who would disagree with this statement is tiny. 1.5 degrees will still hurt, and when this is added to the fact most of our energy is from non-renewable sources it makes an awful lot of sense to me to change our energy mix.

 

That's the beef of the argument and Mr Corbert doesn't want to engage with it, he's after muddying the waters, and I am certain that's for political reasons.

[Slim]

These are not mutually exclusive points. Politics and economics is often about ambiguous ideas and a range of possible conclusions. Except for people who believe unquestioningly and completely in some particular beliefs system - the same as religions or political dogmas. And talking to a true believer can be like talking to an evangelical or a political activist: The same good-vs-evil, end-of-the-world ferver; the same tendency to angrily exclude and discount anything to the contrary.

 

We're not talking about good vs evil, or one belief system vs another. We're talking about correct vs incorrect. This isn't the same as a religion or political dogma, because it's science based on evidence.

 

 

The case for man made climate change, and the worst case scenarios, has been adopted and incorporated into a political and business agenda. Any scientist who questions it risks the scientific funding equivalent of ex communication.

 

That's simply not true, there's plenty of debate over aspects of climate change. Chinahand has answered the political and business points.

 

Climategate exposed a group of people systematically interpreting their data to support a beliefs system and potentially destroying data which contradicted the basis of their funding. You have to be prepared to apply the same degree of healthy scepticism as you would if they were talking about woo-woo.

 

Perhaps it did if you're only source for the story was the tabloids.

 

I haven't got an opinion about whether man made climate change is real or the extent of it. I'm just interested at the way in which the issue has been adopted as a truth and co-opted into the political and economic agenda.

 

You're being silly.

[pongo]

it was investigated and their science was found to be valid.

 

But if you read around the issue, then it is does not seem to be that simple. Critics of the review process argue that the science was never really investigated - that it was mostly about re contextualising the nature of the emails - that critics of the science had no significant input - that the reviews processes began from the position that there is a scientific consensus about the degree and extent of any man-made-global-warming. Doubts about the review process have been reported by respectable and mainstream media.

 

Climategate exposed a group of people systematically interpreting their data to support a beliefs system and potentially destroying data which contradicted the basis of their funding. You have to be prepared to apply the same degree of healthy scepticism as you would if they were talking about woo-woo.

 

Perhaps it did if you're only source for the story was the tabloids.

 

But it is not only the tabloids who have reported the 'climategate' emails. You have subtly injected a note of propagandist condescension here - by using specific words - since tabloids, in this context, is clearly a pejorative term.

 

Both sides of the man-made-global-warming debate are guilty of this sort of word play. The whole issue is utterly politicised in this manner.

 

You're being silly.

 

Well that's me told then.

[Slim]

Well that's me told then.

 

Well, you are. You're comparing rigorous scientific process with religious dogma. You're comparing critics of climate science with the accepted studies as if they're somehow equal sides of a similar argument. This is simplistic and it shows an ignorant of the amount of science out there. That's one of the big problems climate science has, it's a very large and complex subject, and these broad brush conclusions by people who really don't know better are damaging.

 

You say you have no opinion, but clearly you do. You think you're on the fence, but this really isn't a fence sitting scenario. It isn't 50/50. Examine for yourself the number of studies, look at who's working on them. Look at the different areas of science that all come to similar conclusions. There's a massive amount of work, and not all of it is 100% accurate, but picking a few isolated problems and claiming that somehow means there's unfairness across the board is very silly indeed.

 

So yes, you're being silly.

 

PS. I can't believe you made the claim that Chinahand hasn't 'read around the subject'.

[pongo]

PS. I can't believe you made the claim that Chinahand hasn't 'read around the subject'.

 

I am referring specifically to the reviews into 'climategate'. If you read around the issue impartially you will see that what I have written is absolutely true. Even journalists who broadly support the case for man-made-global-warming have argued repeatedly that the reviews did not properly address the issues raised - and that this reflects in some way the nature of the problem with the way in which the much of the establishment has approached this entire subject. The scientific establishment seems to be basically too arrogant to take any of the criticism on board.

 

For example, Roger Harrabin's article for the BBC. He is not arguing here against the case for man-made-global-warming. But you can read that he is critical of the reviews - and of the underlying approach of the establishment in general. This is not a sceptical point of view.

 

You're comparing rigorous scientific process with religious dogma.

 

Only when people seem to fit the so called data around what they already believe and use it as evidence to support their beliefs.

 

You think you're on the fence, but this really isn't a fence sitting scenario. It isn't 50/50.

 

Talking about "the fence" you make the issue into a one thing or the other argument (whether that is 50/50, or a 40/60 or a 20/80 - whatever). You present it as an either or. It isn't necessarily.

[Chinahand]

But it is not only the tabloids who have reported the 'climategate' emails. You have subtly injected a note of propagandist condescension here - by using specific words - since tabloids, in this context, is clearly a pejorative term.

 

Both sides of the man-made-global-warming debate are guilty of this sort of word play. The whole issue is utterly politicised in this manner.

The newspaper reporting of climate science in the last year has been abysmal in the UK, not just in the red tops, the Wail etc, but even in the so called qualities. The scientist have fought and fought this - but even though stories were retracted, shown to be wrong etc etc the fact the damage has been done.

[VinnieK]

Astrology, psychic spoon bending, predicting the future aren't good science. Science doesn't respect them, but it does respect the CRU. In the thread on predicting the future I said it needs investigating further and have posted the investigations of scientists showing there were problems.

 

Huh? "Science doesn't respect them"? Science doesn't say anything about them other than "Conclusive proof/observation has not thus far been forthcoming", that's all science can say in this instance. Respect doesn't come into it (not least because "Science respects this", "science doesn't respect this" doesn't mean anything), and anything else is personal opinion. It might well be opinion that's based on observation of the general trend for such claims to be debunked or unverified, but still it is no more than opinion.

 

Besides which, when regarding the value of a single experiment or series of experiments or scientific conduct, the subject matter is irrelevant as is any other evidence supporting the conclusions of the experiments being scrutinized, or some vague notion of 'respect'. All that matters is the experiment itself.

 

To be honest, and on a related note, you invest too much in the virtues and integrity of the scientific process to the point where it starts looking more like a romantic impression of itself. Yes scientific fraud is serious, but it happens nevertheless and even the biggest most bestestmost journals aren't immune to falling for it. Secondly, peer review is not some god like determination of truth: Peer reviewers do sometimes (whisper it) take it easy on big names who've submitted papers, assuming that everything will be in the right place, and both peer reviewers in general and big journals are more likely to give new researchers a hard time and less likely to approve a particularly controversial paper (on the simple idea, sometimes subconscious that even if the work looks valid, not many want to risk the chance of being on the receiving end of the bruhaha that would arise if it turned out to contain flaws). Also, peer reviewers are not always 'big experts', sometimes they're just people working in a relevant field and may hold less exprience than the people behind the article they're judging, and so on. This is all uncontroversial and pretty standard criticisms of the peer review and commercial journal system and only a fool would pretend that there aren't inefficiencies and bias built into the system.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's the best system we've got and generally it works more or less alright. However, whilst I believe that CRU's work has not been seriously undermined by the e-mail scandal, they did drop the ball and seriously so. Talking about edging people, even 'denialists*' out of certain journals and so on is stupid, despicable and deserves to be roundly condemned. It's also no wonder that it set alarm bells ringing in the minds of many, and I believe Pongo is right: I think you would probably be shouting blue murder if the same e-mails had been released, but belonged to an institute whose work ran counter to your own beliefs - if not astrology and spoon bending then an institute with connections to the oil industry that had questioned climate change, or even some minor details of the idea of man made climate change.

 

*can I issue a personal appeal for people to stop bandying around the term "denialist". It is a deeply silly term that has no place in any conversation that has even the slightest pretence of being 'scientific', and is a rather ham fisted and distasteful way of emotionally linking everyone who criticises current theories of climate change, not matter how moderate they might be, with holocaust deniers.

[Slim]

I am referring specifically to the reviews into 'climategate'.

 

I know you are. I'm still surprised that you'd accuse chinahand of not reading up on the subject.

 

For example, Roger Harrabin's article for the BBC. He is not arguing here against the case for man-made-global-warming. But you can read that he is critical of the reviews - and of the underlying approach of the establishment in general. This is not a sceptical point of view.

 

I know what your on about, but I'm referring to your stance that you're not convinced either way by climate change.

 

Only when people seem to fit the so called data around what they already believe and use it as evidence to support their beliefs.

 

There you go again, 'so called data'. Doesn't take much to expose your ignorance in my view. I'm giving up here, I'm not getting anywhere either as you seem fixated on 'climategage' as if it's the crux of the whole issue. That's not just silly, it's sad.

[pongo]

I know you are. I'm still surprised that you'd accuse chinahand of not reading up on the subject.

 

I'm not accusing him of anything. If he has read around the issue he will no doubt agree that there was a widespread opinion amongst well respected commentators that the 'climategate' reviews did not adequately address the doubts which the issues raised. It's an uncontroversial point and I am surprised that you don't get it.

 

you seem fixated on 'climategage' as if it's the crux of the whole issue

 

But this is a thread about 'climategate'. In that sense this isn't directly a thread about man made climate change, it's a thread about the way in which man made climate change has been presented - which is what 'climategate' is about.

[Slim]

I'm not accusing him of anything. If he has read around the issue he will no doubt agree that there was a widespread opinion amongst well respected commentators that the 'climategate' reviews did not adequately address the doubts which the issues raised. It's an uncontroversial point and I am surprised that you don't get it.

 

I do get it Pongo, but that doesn't mean I agree. There is not widespread opinion at all. The CRU hack exposed some issues, and those issues are regretful but hardly a smoking gun. Lessons have been learned, and it's time to move along. To give it any more credence is just more distraction.

 

 

it's a thread about the way in which man made climate change has been presented - which is what 'climategate' is about.

 

 

Only if you consider 'climategate' to be the entirety of the science that backs up man made climate change. It isn't, by a long way.

 

 

[VinnieK]

Only if you consider 'climategate' to be the entirety of the science that backs up man made climate change. It isn't, by a long way.

 

Surely that's not the discussion being had in this instance. Rather it's how the debate surrounding Climate change has been framed and the nature of that debate, in which context 'Climategate' is an important event (regardless of the outcome of the inquiries and their outcome).