7858118
story
Comments: 715 + - Science: Russians Claim More Climate Data Was Manipulated on Thursday December 17, @12:10AM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday December 17, @12:10AM
from the let-the-flamewar-begin dept.
from the let-the-flamewar-begin dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicearth.gif); width:77px; height:80px;
earth
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
DustyShadow writes "On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley CRU survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century."
Related Stories
We are MicroSoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
-- Attributed to B.G., Gill Bates
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organization? (Score:4, Informative)
Proposed supporters of climate alarmism methods to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not only scientifically unfounded - in the absence of extraordinary characteristics of modern climate change, but also incredibly expensive in economic terms. Especially dangerous such measures, if adopted, are for the medium and low levels of economic development, effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world.
I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, that's not what this is about. This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening. Until we establish it is or isn't, will the economic institutions relax and let the institutions who contain the most appropriate experts publish, release and make conclusions from the data.
Credibility skyrockets when I read the subtext of the blog's heading (that is linked to by the story):
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com
Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph, please visit his page that he shamelessly plugs.
Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, way to skip right over the actual allegation. Do their claims, in and of themselves, have merit? Wouldn't take long to find out. But attacking the claimants sure is a handy shortcut in logical argument, isn't it?
If the CRU letters are any indication, I guess this is how "science" is done these days, now, anyway.
Welcome to the "new science." Guess we better all just get used to it.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, way to skip right over the actual allegation. Do their claims, in and of themselves, have merit? Wouldn't take long to find out.
I hate to break it to you but neither side has given me data. Saying so and so skipped over data from here and there does nothing for me when I can't see the data and do my own statistical analysis. If the IAE is so sure and has the data, why don't they publish the adjusted figures to show us just how much we were lied to?
No choice but to listen to those with the data publishing the reports. Does it suck? Yes. But oftentimes that's how studies with empirical data works--especially if it cost a lot of money to acquire that data. We're not talking about a repeatable experiment here to be verified in another lab. And for some reason, we're not demanding they open the sequencing data on the cancer gene [slashdot.org] we just accepted that story and we trusted those scientists. But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
Welcome to the "new science." Guess we better all just get used to it.
Grow up. Your faux apathy rhetoric is amusing after I listen to you accuse me of an ad hominem attack.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your assertion is that it is an appeal to authority type logical fallacy, in and of itself;
1) The scientists have the data, so 2) they must know more about the data than we do, so 3) we should trust them implicitly in their interpretations of that data.
This does not follow, because it totally ignores that the scientists with the data may have intrinsic bias, or even that they could be wrong. This is exactly why when you get a diagnosis from a doctor that says "Operate!", you get a second opinion.
The problem here, is exactly like you stated; The data to get the second opinion is not public. Unlike the patient who may need an operation, who's body is the evidence, and is available on demand for inspection by the doctor giving the second opinion, all the potentially qualified persons to give a respectable response to this question are blocked out because of finanical interests on the data.
Essentially, we have the global climate change fear mongers on one side, shouting "OPERATE!" (through drastic slashing of manufacturing technologies, draconian cap and trade taxation, repossession of private property, and a whole host of other proceedures of questionable value), and on the other, you have the alternative medicine quack that says "The pain is all in your mind" (EG, the non-scientists that say that human released carbon dioxide has no impact on the environment whatsoever, in spite of the fact that this is not supported by even the slightest bit of chemical evidence.)
The patient (which is represented by the public in this case) is then left seeking a REAL second opinion; Are cap and trade&Co really necessary? The patient WANTS a *REAL* answer to that question, but is continually fed the PR pamphlets from both (disreputable) extremists.
I for one, want the data to be released publicly. This is especially true if the data was collected using public funds, such as through NOAA, or in this case, through the russian government and russian taxpayer money.
Right now, the patient is basically pleading with reputable doctors for a second opinion, but the doctors have to turn them away, because the medical history is "Confidential."
Stop trying to sound high and mighty about how fantabulously reputable the CRU scientists are, when you know damned well that scientists are people, and people are faulty.
The *ONLY* way to settle this, is to release the data. Given the far reaching implications of the decisions that will be reached through interpretation of this data, FOR EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, I fail to see how the financial interests of the people who collected it can outweigh the invested interest of the rest of the whole world, who's economical and climatological futures hinge upon it.
If there is bad interpretation, and a misdiagnosis, sunshine will reveal it.
If not, Sunshine will also reveal it.
What we need is sunshine on the raw data; NOT specious arguments one way or the other on which side of the debate to "Simply Trust", when both have shown signs of being disreputable.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Good post. Maybe also worth noting is that all scientists depend on grant money, and winning grant money depends on politics. The best scientists have to compete with the most politically adept ones. If the public were more interested in science and less in empowering their own faction it would make things a lot easier.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
This does not follow, because it totally ignores that the scientists with the data may have intrinsic bias, or even that they could be wrong. This is exactly why when you get a diagnosis from a doctor that says "Operate!", you get a second opinion.
One problem with this analogy is that it's not just one "doctor" that's saying "operate", it's thousands [wikipedia.org]. How many more "second opinions" do you want before you accept that perhaps you actually need an operation? Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?
I do agree the data should be public - and AFAIK there already are a great many public datasets, at NOAA and other places. You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree). Just make sure you analyse a significant proportion of the data, and not just cherry-pick the bits that appear to agree with your conclusion, like so many deniers are guilty of.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of experts would have assured you that pholgiston and the ether existed. The consensus view in medicine has been wrong lots of times: routine tonsilectomy, eggs and other foods as contributing to high cholesterol, the effects of tobacco and alcohol - the last is particularly good because you can very easily see that many individual doctors use their medical knowledge to bolster their own prejudices and choices.
You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree).
Why should that restriction exist at all? Who decides what a relevant degree? Do you need to be a climatologist? a statistician? is my econometrics heavy MSc enough?
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically the data is incomplete, and you have to make guesses to fill it in. Oh, wait, I mean 'educated' guesses, since the only people you let guess are the ones whose guesses agree with yours.
If I want to become an expert on SQL, I go read the specs. If I want to become an expert on climatology, I go ask people to tell me how to guess which numbers will be useful to feed into the statistical analysis specs. I don't consider this crap as coming close to 'science'.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Is the data DANGEROUS? There is no justification for that behavior. They aren't temple priests, and they shouldn't act as if they were. Free exchange of information isn't a problem for an honest scientist.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Informative)
It's misinformation after misinformation. Almost all of the refusals to release data by the CRU come down to data shared by national weather services that they are contractually not *allowed* to share. Almost 100% of the data that they are allowed to share is publicly posted.
Now, there were a couple scientists who tried to find every excuse that they could not to share their particular data -- most notably, Phil Jones. But you only have to look at Jones' past to see why. He initially responded to all FOI requests -- including one by a financial trader named Douglas Keenan who fancied himself an amateur climate scientist (almost all of the professional climatologists are on one side of the issue, and its their ideological foes, generally people who don't know what they're doing, who are filing the requests). Keenan "discovered fraud" on the part of Jones's partner, Wei-Chyung Wang, and tried to get the FBI to arrest him. The university cleared Wang of all wrongdoing, but honestly, can you blame Jones for looking for any excuse not to have to deal with that again?
These are people who just want to work. They want to deal with litigious "amateur scientists" as much as they want a hole in their head.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Informative)
He initially responded to all FOI requests
It's worth pointing out that at one point CRU were getting over 50 FOI requests per week from climate skeptics. Maybe it's more now. That is a crazy additional workload for the CRU scientists who are paid to do actual research and not fill out FOI replies.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds nice, and all, but I call bullshit. First, if they were contractually obligated to keep their raw data secret, they could simply say so, instead of just stonewalling FOI requests. Feel free to post copies of the contracts and prove your assertion. Second, if they had the evidence -- the raw data -- that would shut the mouths of "deniers" once and for all, they'd release it in a heartbeat for the very reason you cite that they don't.
The bottom line is that the fact that we still don't have the raw data sets WEEKS after this story broke is damning. Either they don't have it, or they know that it doesn't show what they SAY it shows and are simply trying to avoid exposure, or they are cooking the books (some more?) to support their theories before releasing it. There's absolutely no excuse to not just simply but EVERYTHING on the table at this point, and let EVERYONE, professionals and "amateurs" alike, have at it.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:4, Insightful)
CAPSING random WORDS doesn't make your ARGUMENT stronger.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Funny)
But it does ADD to the CRANK factor of the POSTER and add to the general SLASHDOT milieu. Intermix with TLA for added effect, YMMV.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:4, Funny)
CAPSING random WORDS doesn't make your ARGUMENT stronger.
LIAR!
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, how's this for credibility: the Russians are believed to have been the ones who hacked into the servers [telegraph.co.uk] and then selectively released out-of-context quotes to try to discredit the CRU scientists. So gee, should I act shocked that they're continuing their assault? Russia is being the number one impediment these days to a global climate change accord, and it seems to go to the top. For example, they've been one of the main forces holding up a Copenhagen accord.
Back on the initial topic: 100 to 1 odds says that any data exclusions are due to bad data and incomplete records. This is the standard sort of mistake made by people who either don't know how the analyses are done or who deliberately want to mislead. The meteorological station calculations are NOT done by simply taking all data and averaging it. If you did that, the way that the amateur deniers think that contaminated data would enter the record -- such as stations becoming urbanized, being tampered with, etc -- would actually be true. But the data is first analyzed, problem stations detected (in an automated method), and eliminated from the record or normalized. And the preprocessing is itself studied to verify that it's valid -- for example, comparing individual regions to other climate analysis methods, comparing windy days with calm days to make sure the heat island effect has been properly eliminated, etc.
In short, claiming that many stations are being eliminated is complete nonsense because that's *supposed* to happen, and if you didn't do that, the record would be readily thrown off by human development and equipment faults. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this is all that this comes down to. And that quite a few people at the agency putting this out know this, but are deliberately using it for manufactured doubt nonetheless.
And let's all not forget that the CRU dataset is just one dataset using one particular type of datasource and one particular analysis. There are many datasources and many analyses, and of equal prominence to CRU's datasets are NOAA's and NASA's. No, the different datasets don't match up perfectly (for example, whether 1998 or 2005 was the hottest year -- they were close), but the datasets all yield similar results.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Except there has been no evidence shown whatsoever that it was a hack. No computer logs, nada. Moreover, the fact that a BBC blogger was emailed the file and decided not to publish it weeks before it became available on the russian site seriously undermines the hacker theory. Not to mention the fact that everything is collated into a FOI folder.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Informative)
However, that is NOT what the Russian IEA is claiming Hadley Center did.
The 21-page PDF (http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf) specifically explains how the English "scientists" discarded more-complete datasets in favor of less complete, used data from stations that were moved around (less reliable) and ignored stations that were, ahem, stationary, etc, etc.
So it's not a question of admitting all data & risking contamination - it's a question of intentionally choosing worse data when better data was available.
There's a translation of the "Conclusions" section of the PDF (can't blame the guy for not translating the entire document, it's a linguistic bitch). Not posting it here - too long - follow the link http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/ [climateaudit.org] and search for "Posted Dec 17, 2009 at 2:44 AM".
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Informative)
But Russia is only a part of the world and even if the IEA were right it doesn't affect anything else enough to change the fundamental conclusions about global warming.
Russia is regularly the "most warm" part when the monthly global numbers are released, and extrapolations made from stations in Siberia are often used to get numbers for the Arctic.
So, on the contrary, this does effect the global numbers released a lot.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is their peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal? Is that too "sciencey"? Why do people with no credentials insist that their claims merit as much attention as carefully researched and reviewed investigations?
They insist because they do not know. They do not know because they insist that they don't need to. It's a perpetuating result of the opinionated layman.
I urge all skeptics to become climate scientists. It requires the mere effort of education. I can assure you that many opinionated layman are pissed off at this very comment and insist that I don't make any sense right now.
So be it. Life is strange.
Parent
Nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were true, then you'd be able to find perfectly good articles were "censored". Perhaps you think that the CRU had the scientists bumped off and their hard disks melted. That would explain why there is no evidence, right? The scientists, the papers, EVERYTHING is gone.
Either that, or you'd be able to back up your accusation.
Let me guess. You have no idea what papers the CRU never published, AND YOU COULDN'T FIND THEM IF YOU TRIED.
Remember, you are not paranoid if everyone really is against you.
Parent
Well here's one (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were true, then you'd be able to find perfectly good articles were "censored".
Yes, here's one example [eastangliaemails.com].
Where are they? Well how should I be able to find them, when they could not publish them. Meanwhile we have a perfectly good report here from Russia that you are dismissing out of hand. How come *you* don't have to prove *that* is false? What happened to the scientific method here where someone else challenges a theory and you explain why the challenge is wrong using facts, instead of Ad-Hominem attacks?
There's that circle again, that you love to spin around so much. Whee!
Parent
Re:It's in the emails that were released (Score:4, Insightful)
"There is little doubt that the email and files that were released were from the CRU and they contain emails showing that some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints. Is it still a conspiracy theory when it's true"
In other words: an academic writes a negative review about somebody else's paper and sends it in to the editor! Shock me Amadeus! Wasn't academia supposed to be all about 110% supportive people, there are no bad papers, everybody's computation is right in its own special way? Don't tell me it ain't so!
Quoting: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil"
And what if said reviewer honestly thinks that the other paper is wrong and bullshit? Guess what: sometimes paper submissions ARE wrong and bullshit!
And also, sometimes negative reviewers do have a stick up their rear---the editors of the journals have seen this before, many many many many times. They can sniff this out, and when they think the negative review isn't really valid they will publish the paper nonetheless.
This supposed mighty "power to suppress" literally consists of writing a reply to the editor of a journal---unpaid labor---with a summary rating and technical evaluation. That's it.
Compare this to the power wielded by those who have large financial interests in actually obfuscating pretty clear scientific results.
Parent
Re:Because the game is rigged (Score:5, Interesting)
Now you just have to show that EVERY paper negative about AGCC was always rejected by every journal. Wow, some work, isn't it? It's going to take a lot more to prove a global conspiracy by nearly every scientist involved in the area than a single email by one person about two papers. Because otherwise, the only thing you've shown is that.... a single person rejected two papers based on personal bias against the conclusion.
Not to mention that the email said that they might still be published. In terms of a smoking gun, that's pretty damn weak.
Parent
Re:Because the game is rigged (Score:5, Informative)
Because otherwise, the only thing you've shown is that.... a single person rejected two papers based on personal bias against the conclusion.
He didn't even show that; he showed that a person with a stake in the matter wrote damning reviews of two papers. He may have written damning reviews because he didn't like the conclusion, but he may have written damning reviews because the papers were crap and riddled with errors. All the quote shows is that he wrote damning reviews.
Parent
Re:Because the game is rigged (Score:5, Informative)
In short, the topic that people are making all of this hullabaloo about failed peer review. Meaning that there were errors found in it that prevented publication. And so what do they do? They turn to the press and hype it up three ways until sunday, hoping people won't notice or care that a peer-review board found the claims bogus. You're burying the lede, trying to allege some sort of peer-review conspiracy, when the reality is that all that says is that a peer review board found the claims as inaccurate/without merit.
Want an inconvenient fact about this article? The selection of stations is not done manually. It's done in an an automated process that has been analyzed by dozens of peer-reviewed papers. The selection process is designed to eliminate bogus or artificially trended data, such as from urbanization, damaged equipment, etc. What the IEA is basically damning them for is not including data that an automated, peer-reviewed process found was bogus.
You simply cannot automatically assume that all stations are good and valid. Because they're just plain not. Heck, normally the deniers themselves are the first ones to point this out.
And lastly, why are we even listening to a report from the "Institute for Energy Analysis" in the first place? Are we going to frontline reports from the Institute for Petroleum Research next?
Parent
The definition of "bogus" (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the emails we read that definition appears to include "Data that does not agree with our hypothesis."
Parent
Re:Because the game is rigged (Score:5, Informative)
Typical denialist bullshit. Cherry pick a few sentences out of a whole email to make a scientist look bad. But the linked e-mail shows exactly why Dr. Jones is planning on going to town on his peer review: people are stating things about the Siberian data that the CRU has already accounted for in published research.
Mart
Parent
Re:Rigged against idiots, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
This was all settled years before it became a political football. When politicians figured out AGM had policy implications, they wanted *their* vote in the matter, but it was too late.
Parent
Why Are We Linking to James Delingpole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph ...
Yes as soon as I saw the TFA, my first reaction was, "isn't there any more reliable source from this other than James Delingpole?"
So if is there any reputable source that is publishing a story about this, could a link please be posted in the original submission.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Linking to James Delingpole? (Score:5, Informative)
So if is there any reputable source that is publishing a story about this, could a link please be posted in the original submission.
If you'd bothered to read past the byline, you'd see he links to the Russian translation [en.rian.ru] as well as the original published PDF [www.iea.ru] (in Russian).
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Informative)
These Russian experts in particular have a history of opposing international climate treaties (based on flawed expert analysis, as determined by other experts in the linked paper below):
http://www.edf.org/documents/3978_Review_InstEcAn_09082004B.pdf
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:4, Informative)
It's nothing new, either. Remember that Russia is one of the major oil-exporting countries, and significantly dependent on oil exports for its budget. Furthermore, it's a major provider of gas, too, particularly to Europe. If, under the guise of combating climate change, Europe moves to greener power generating and heating tech - solar, wind, or better yet, nuclear - that will leave Russia out in the cold, with no well-paying customers for its only valuable exports.
On the other hand, Russia actually stands to benefit a lot from rapid climate change, if current models are to be believed. For one, it has a legitimate claim to a huge chunk of resources under the polar cap, should the latter melt - that even leaving the disputed areas aside. Furthermore, Siberia would be one of the regions for which climate change would indeed be a regional warming - it is already heating up [wikipedia.org] much faster than any other part of the globe, and if it keeps doing so, it will become much more prospective for human settlement and agriculture, and in short-term perspective provide for easier access to the vast natural resources of the region.
At the same time, there are relatively few important coastal cities that would be threatened by ocean level rise - vast majority of the population is living deep inland [whrc.org].
So Russia would have much less trouble coping with the effects. The icing on the cake is that U.S. (because of its heavily populated coastal cities) and quite a few European countries would be in a very tough position, and those are perceived as historical global opponents, especially the U.S.
So, yeah. There are a lot of political reasons for Russia to downplay effects of climate change, specifically so that other countries reduce their efforts to combat it.
Parent
Yeah we can really trust the Russians (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, I mean they have an open society where anyone can say what's on their mind right? I mean Glasnost and all, eh?
Or maybe they have a shitload of oil and gas reserves that they'd really rather not have devalued by anyone actually deciding burning more fossil fuels would be suicidally stupid. Oh, was that the sound of one of Vlad's enforcers putting a bullet in the back of someone's head?
Get real people. Now the deniers are the Russians and the Saudis. Laughable what kind of crimes people will do for a buck.
Parent
Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (Score:4, Insightful)
How about I was pointing out the fact that they are experts in economics, not climatology or any related field?
And you were assuming they did not consult said experts why exactly?
Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field ... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?
A) Copenhagen shows that lots of money is flowing into this.
B) The part of the economy producing green tech doesn't slow down, it accelerates. Who cares what the net effect is as long as your sector is booming? Plenty of people liked to talk about kickbacks from Iraq. Well what about kickbacks to international concerns from small countries that get an economic windfall from cap & trade?
And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors!
Yes, I always thought it was odd when people were thinking the oil companies were the ones trying to stop cap&trade when they have so much to gain from it - thanks for exposing that myth. But the energy and fuel sectors are very much an industry, so you don't really seem to have a point here.
And they're cooking scientific findings why?
They aren't, the "scientists" are, for a variety of reasons which boil down to the age old canards of money or religion.
Parent
Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (Score:4, Interesting)
Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field ... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?
From academia: Tenure, speaking engagements, grants, articles, books, presidential advisory positions, paid contributor to MSNBC.... the list goes on.
From the media: Magazine/Newspaper subscriptions/Nelson ratings (bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads.) Government contracts (See GE, which owns MSNBC), You primary products becoming mandated and/or pushed by government regulation (See GE and their CFL bulb business), Interviews with top political leaders (how many times has President Obama been on Fox News? How many times on MSNBC?), Scoops/Tips/Leads to your journalists... the list goes on.
And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors! They are the vast majority of the 'green industry.
Great! So the problem is fixing itself. Why do we need government intervention again? Won't government just screw it up for these guys?
Parent
Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad for everybody except the specific industry that feeds off of the phenomenon, along with all the lovely government jobs that are created to enforce the parasite.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:4, Informative)
"Apparently someone tried, but was blocked by the people at East Anglia, as you can see from this quote: [eastangliaemails.com] "
So there were two articles submitted for publication. They were peer reviewed. Someone in East Anglia, as part of the peer review, recommended rejection. Where is the issue here? If you've some evidence that the articles did not deserve rejection, then you forgot to post it. If, in fact, the other peer reviewers recommended against rejection, then it seem likely that one or both of them got published.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are wrong. It's way more complex and far less certain.
OK, let me explain to you simply the climate science behind global warming. Understanding all the nuances of the climate system will take years (or more likely, is impossible for a single human brain), but anthropogenic global warming only needs three facts, two of which are probably reasonable, and the other which is not. Anyone will be able to understand this.
Fact 1: CO2 blocks some light from escaping the earth, causing energy to stay in the atmosphere that otherwise wouldn't. This is very well established, I don't think anyone seriously doubts this fact.
Fact 2: The earth is getting warmer. True, although the degree of change is small: within a degree or so.
Fact 3: Human produced CO2 has caused most of that warming. Unfortunately no one has ever been able to convincingly demonstrate that this is true.
The IPCC report tries to support fact three by saying that the computer models predict it. Unfortunately, there is no computer model that can accurately simulate the earth's climate. In order to bolster their claim, the IPCC report says, "we can't think of anything else that could cause such a warming other than CO2." What? Why not just show, "CO2 contributes X degrees to the earth's atmosphere, if we double it, then it will contribute X more degrees." There is no such statement because we don't know how much CO2 is actually affecting the earth's temperature. Would it make a difference of any significance at all if we completely stopped CO2 production? We don't know.
In fact, I challenge anyone here to show fact number 3, because I REALLY want to know about it. I've carefully read a lot of the literature looking for an answer to prove that link, but it really doesn't exist. Until it does, anthropogenic global warming remains nothing more than a conjecture.
If you have a way to establish that link, please show it.
Parent
Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (Score:4, Funny)
I find it amusing that while railing against the bias and closed minds of the establishment you refer to them as "warmers". Irony knows no bounds.
Indeed. I've always thought "alarmists" was a much more apt description.
Parent
Global Warming Debate is a deliberate red herring (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not.
The root question is, does it make sense to pump pollution into a thin atmosphere? No, of course not, it is wrong to keep doing so. Therefore, we need to take steps to stop.
There are monied interests deliberately prolonging this useless debate about "Global warming - real, or not?" Think about why they do that.
Pollution is wrong. Let's come together in some comopolitan city - hmmm, maybe Copenhagen? - and agree to end pollution.
It doesn't matter if global warming happens today or 10,000 years from now. What matters is ending air pollution.
Re:Global Warming Debate is a deliberate red herri (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not.
The root question is, does it make sense to pump pollution into a thin atmosphere? No, of course not, it is wrong to keep doing so. Therefore, we need to take steps to stop.
There are monied interests deliberately prolonging this useless debate about "Global warming - real, or not?" Think about why they do that.
Pollution is wrong. Let's come together in some comopolitan city - hmmm, maybe Copenhagen? - and agree to end pollution.
It doesn't matter if global warming happens today or 10,000 years from now. What matters is ending air pollution.
I agree. Pollution is bad. So let's concentrate on pollution to limit it and stop this silly war on CO2!
Parent
More smear campaign (Score:5, Informative)
They posted a PDF on their web site, issued a press release, and a British paper reported it without doing any source-checking.
For example, the article highlights a quote from an anonymous poster to a blog thread about the press release describing the web-posted report. How's that for "cherry-picking" your sources?
Re:Oh no! Not Private Funding! (Score:5, Informative)
We find no such thing. You are dishonestly stating things that are not in that linked e-mail at all. Dr. Jones points out that the problems in the Siberian data set are known and published about, and yet people keep submitting papers about it without referring to the existing literature. That's sloppy research, and he is right to recommend a rejection as a peer reviewer.
But don't take my word for it, here's the full text:
Mart
Parent
This is good news! (Score:4, Funny)
Finally, an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists:
"You know who ELSE doesn't believe in global warming? Russia."
This will be exaggerated (Score:5, Insightful)
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
There is the key word: often. That does not mean that all, or even the majority, of the stations shows this. Is the percentage of stations not getting much warmer the same as the percentage in the officially used data? They just leave that point dangling in the hope that we will infer that it is not the same.
Already people have taken this to say more that it does. Some blogs have already claimed that ALL of the stations used did not show warming. For example, here is a blatent bit of misquoting from a randomly googled blog [investors.com]:
The data from the unused stations reportedly did not show any substantial warming trends.
Oh dear. It is just a slight change, but it completely changes the meaning. And where is that skepticism that is supposed to be at work here? Why assume that the economic think tank is correct?
I will wait to find what the selection criteria was before taking this to be any proof of a global conspiracy.
Re:Evolution of an Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it more interesting how the argument against climate change has been evolving.
First we have "there's no such thing as global warming"
Then it's "okay, there is global warming but it's not man-made"
Then it was "okay it is man-made but there's nothing we can do about it now"
THEN it was "Wait- it's a lie after all. This is all about MONEY. Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people. If by get-rich-quick you mean don't get particularly rich or quick, and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20+ years for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly recruited into the mass hoax. I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists.)
Now it's taken a real conspiracy twist: "Climategate!!! [factcheck.org]" followed by "The Telegraph quoted a russian free-market lobbying press-release!!"
Sorry, but when the truth threatens the profits and practices of major industries, we should just expect these obfuscation and lies. And ignore them.
(And yes, smoking really does cause cancer. That wasn't a hoax either.)
Parent
Re:Why is there even a debate? (Score:5, Informative)
A number of problems with your argument:
1. Sea ice extent is not the same as sea ice volume. Extent measures surface area covered, but not the thickness. Survey of the thickness of the arctic sea ice (by both satellite and manually) have shown that the overall ice volume of the arctic is rapidly declining. See here for some data: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html [noaa.gov]
2. Finally, given the amount of noise in the signal and the number of years it takes to make a statistical difference show up, it is impossible to make any determination of current trends using only a few years. Climate trends need to be taken over decades, not a few years. The shorter the time period, the more likely you are just measuring differences in weather and not necessarily climate.
Parent