Climategate (ctd)

@Richard Tol

Just wondering do you not believe in man made climate change or is it government interrference in combatting it i.e. the market will provide the solution?

@all

I brought up peak oil in another thread and I think it is something that could bring both camps together and with a common aim (coal being the exception) as most of the policies needed interlink.

Frank McDonald again keeps his hands formly planted over his mouth eyes and ears.

Prime example. A less well informed reader would understand from McDonald that Pachauri came under cirticism for an error in the IPCC AR4 with respect to predictions about glacial retreat.

When the actual scandal was his verified close financial ties with the academic and organisation at the heart of that “human error”.

When will he tell it like it ease, instead of filtering the facts for his readership? In other words, start acting like a journalist.

@Richard,

I guess I’m coming at this from a different perspective to some of the others above, but it’s fairly evident that the enthusiastic coverage of climate change issues in the Irish media, as elsewhere in western media, is on the wane in recent times.

At the Magill Summer School in 2007, Environment Minister John Gormley characterised climate change as the most urgent challenge facing us. However, I doubt even one as committed as the Minister to green ideology would repeat such a claim at the present time for fear of being laughed out of it. Climate change is not as ‘hot’ an issue for the mainstream media any longer for a number of reasons, not least because it has been overtaken by the recession which presents our political class with a whole other kettle of fish to fry than long term projections of climate change impacts. Political leaders and their electorates have more to worry about than whether a climate doomsday is around the corner and will arrive tomorrow as they struggle to deal with the economic doomsday that has come upon them today. Add to that the excessively cold winter of 2009/2010, which appears from recent opinion polls – given that direct experience tends to be a major function of any belief – to have lessened public perception of the threat posed by global warming. That’s before you even get to the loss of credibility of the IPCC process due to ‘climategate’, plus the well-publicised mistakes that were included in the IPCC 2007 report, as well as the failure of the Copenhagen summit coupled with a general falling off in public confidence in public and political institutions as a direct result of our experience of the global financial crisis.

I think there’s another point that columnists like Frank McDonald may be missing out on: that we are now at the stage in the climate change debate where the cost/benefit of either proposed mitigation or adaptation strategies must be closely scrutinised before they can be imposed, or will be accepted by the public. For example, governments or political parties promoting movements to a ‘green economy’ will have to justify subsidies to green industries or energy systems if they are to maintain public support for such measures. Either they make economic sense and will generate employment etc. or they will not, in which case they’re unlikely to command support against other competing priorities of society. Citing the dangers of climate change or the moral imperative of bequeathing a better environment to our children’s children is not sufficient justification for anything any more.

I believe that the climate change debate would have reached this point anyway even if the global financial meltdown had not happened, but the consequences of that disaster make it all the more imperative that environment policy actions are fully debated and well thought through before they are adopted.

“Re-establishing the IPCC’s credibility is absolutely critical to restoring public confidence – and to making progress in these highly complex negotiations, earlier rather than later. Of course, it will be impossible to satisfy the sceptics and deniers, such as “Politkeren”, who responded to my column on the Washington-based Heritage Foundation as follows: “Jerk! It’s only left-wing journalists and the IPCC who still believes (sic) in the global warming scam. Or try to make money by spreading the propaganda.” This is typical of the vulgar abuse frequently hurled nowadays by those who persist in denying there is any basis at all for the findings of so many scientists from all over the world.”

Strawman argument and still ignoring the critical need for scientific validity. There are passionate advocates on all sides. Why drag this in? Because it is better than using observations that are all under question by, yes, scientists.

There will always be people who can be anti-science or expect certainty in evidence and there is a type who can for example be pro-science on climate change and anti-science on GM foods.

Google will always deliver some nugget of comfort to extremists.

Of course it’s very important that scientists have integrity in their research and its presentation and apart from obvious cranks, are prepared to engage serious and equally dissenters of integrity.

The National Academy of Sciences, a group termed by The Wall Street Journal as “elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government,” on Wednesday issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind’s role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects.

The report, requested by Congress in 2008, essentially supports the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body whose most recent report released in 2007 was criticized for containing several errors.

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks,” the academy report concludes. The peer-reviewed study was done by 55 scientists from academia, industry and elsewhere vetted by the academy.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

@Michael H

I look forward to reviewing the new science that I have heretofore missed that proves AGW is happening from this report – no really I do want to believe.

However you could also be accused of the same tactic that is so often thrown at AGW-proponents by skeptics- that is when serious issues with evidence are raised –instead of addressing them, you keep trying to move on. Forget the devious CRU emails and the (small number of) exaggerated claims in the last IPCC report – look my latest report proves it even better? This has been going on since the original hockey stick debate!

It is beyond me why AGW skepticism-lite posts continue to defile this otherwise excellent and useful blog.

@toby – well said! As Stephen Jay Gould said:

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”

@Alan – I’m afraid there is little that is based on fact in your post. In fact, I can’t relate any of it back to the surface temperature records of NASA’s GISS department. The science isn’t junk and until you do better than that post full of claims that are not backed up by one iota of evidence, I’ll stick to the clear science of AGW.

@Alan,

CO2 rise and temperature rise are correlated – both have been rising steadily during the 20th century and into this one.

That in itself proves nothing. My age and the price of petrol have been steadily rising also. Correlation does not mean causation at David Hume pointed out two centuries ago.

But we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since the 19th century. The models of how the sun’s energetic short wave radiation is absorbed and reflected as long waves by the earth’s surface, and in turn absorbed and re-radiated by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is will understood.

As I said above, we are just ending the hottest decade since records were kept, and 2010 is shaping up as the warmest year ever (at least the hottest Jan-April ever!). What’s your explanation? This is not the right blog for climate science details – but there are plenty where we can discuss your views e.g. http://www.politics.ie

What does that even mean??

I suggest that you look up “think tank” in the dictionary.

@Ronan Burke

Agreed. Hopefully Richard will ask faux-science friends (e.g. Alan) to take it elsewhere. If anyone wants the latest in denialist pseudo-science, they can go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/ or http://climateaudit.org/

Excellent overviews of the science of climate change can be found at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ or http://scienceofdoom.com/
The moderators of these two sites come down sternly on overwrought accusations.

Attacking denialist arguments are like playing “whackamoley” – an argument refuted five years ago pops up again as if it was fresh. Rather than indulging in long-winded arguments, just go there. Sceptical Science has an excellent list of denialist arguments + refutations.

@Toby,

Hottest year ever? I must be losing my mind. I could have sworn there was about 100 frosty nights in the period Jan-April. Is it 1984, or do my lying eyes deceive me?

As for “absorbed and re-radiated by the greenhouse gases” – this contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The small amount of infrared radiation absorbed by CO2 can do no useful work. See the paper http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S0217979210055573.html for more details.

If Richard keeps posting stuff on Climategate, then why shouldn’t we comment? Last time I looked, it was a free country.

@Alan,

Jeez, man, when we talk climate change we are talking about global temperature averages, not about how frosty it was wherever you live.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ has global temperatures measured by satellite.

Again, if you want a physics lesson, go the Science of Doom site, where the poster/ moderator has an excellent series of posts on greenhouse gases and the rediative transfer equations. I have not taught physics for thirty years, and I am not a physicist, so I am not going to bother continuing a discussion on that topic. The moderator of the site will respond patiently to any of your discussion points.

I notice you refer me to a paper by two scientists whose work on “falsifying” the greenhouse effect has become somewhat of a joke. See
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

This site is for economic matters. I read it to update myself on matters of climate change and energy policy with regard to Europe and the Irish economy. I think if you want a discussion on the science of climate change, you should go elsewhere.

@ Toby

Are you even aware of the financial links between the the highly erroneous glacier “research” included in AR4, Pachauri’s research orgnaisation, TERI and substantial public monies that flowed in that direction on the back of the highly erroneous glacier research

This was more than an error. There is every appearance of financial conlfict or even impropriety. But not in Frank McDonald’s world apparently.

@Gekko,

Even if Pachauri was rampantly corrupt, it would not dent the validity of climate science, or of the series of IPCC reports, which do not consist of research but of a review and report of the scientific literature.

The Himalayan fiasco was a typo but reported by media megaphone as if it was 9/11. Other alleged “errors” have been debunked, but no media outlet has published a retraction. Similarly, the clearing of Michael Mann and Phil Jones by investigative committees was not reported at all, was misreported, or dismissed as “whitewash”.

Pachauri’s “conflict of interest” has been widely reported on denialist blogs. It seems to me it was Pacauri’s work that got him the IPCC job in the first place. Fine, let him step down. does that mean the thousands of other climate scientists are wrong or corrupt? Of course not!

@ Pope Epopt

I think you hae little notion of how science is funded. Climate science (or any funded academic) do not pocket grants or stick them in Swiss bank accounts.

They usually go to the institutions for which the scientists work, and go on laboratories, postdocs, postgrads, lab staff, travel and myriad other areas. The scientists get paid a salary by the institution. They do not use grant money to speculate on Wall Street – in fact, I am sure the institutions they served are audited quite thoroughly. The story of billions of moolah pouring in the pockets of climate scientists is pure fiction and black propaganda. You are free to disagee – but where is your evidence?

On the other hand, Koch Industries, run by David Koch one of the richest men in the world, has poured $50million into anti-science denialism and anti-environmental causes over the last 12 years. $4million per year is good going! Much of this money went to right-wing “Institutes” and think tanks, whose main function is to spead the no-taxation faus-libertarian message.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/31/report-koch-industries-outspends-exxon-mobil-on-climate-and-clean-energy-disinformation/

@Ribbit,

It is fascinating – the two sides to science! Generally speaking though, ‘data always trumps theory’. The second axiom overrides the first. And of course, we know from Godel, that certain truths can never be proved to be true. I think saying that all of science is logically inconsistent is a bit strong. It may be inconsistent, but it still works (most of the time!).

@ribbit,

I am a bit dubious about science as an “ideology”. Certainly science has a close affinity with liberalism, and science can best flourish in a liberal society with a free flow of ideas and discussion. Ideologies are pretty rigid, science must be the most flexible ideology ever invented.

Changing “facts” to suit the ideology happens all the time (just Google Lysenko), but that is ruled out of science. Or, if it happens, what is happening ceases to be science.

@Pope Epopt,

Nope, you clear that up pretty well.

FUD = Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt, I presume.

Maybe the warming may not be as bad as predicted.

Basing your views on AGW on the weather in Ireland doesn’t really get us anywhere. Leaving aside weather vs. climate, consider that at our latitude, we should have Dublin harbour ice-bound for much of the winter – but this clearly doesn’t happen. Science can and has accounted for this, where the layman may be ignorant of complexity.

@JeromeK

I did feel your views on science were a bit simplistic, and I may have come across too sharply. There are four major indicators of AGW:

CO2 levels
Global Average Temperature
Arctic Sea Ice
Sea Level Rise

Each indicator is inexorably offering confirmatory evidence for anthropogenic global warming year after year. None are laboratory-based indicators. Even if global cooling suddenly kicked in about 2015 and every indicator went into reverse, we would be foolish not to start making preparations now for the likelihood that global warming is happening and will increase.

I work for a telecommunications company researching smart-grids and energy reduction in telecommunications networks. My own work is more development than research, and not in those areas. And, no, I am not heavily invested in green technology. :))

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/05/guest-post-cap-and-trade-is-a-gigantic-scam.html

Economists associated with a scam? Shurely not, hic!

@Pat Donnelly,

Given that the first US President to mention climate change in a message to Congress was Lyndon Johnson, and the first confirmatory paper was written in 1988 by James Hansen, some of us might conclude that the “judgement” of political organizations has been positively glacial!
Jimmy Cater tried to wean the US away from Middle Eastern oil 30 years ago – how different might the world be if Reagan had adopted the same policy?

BTW, Koch Industries have their own PR. I don’t think they need you as well. Koch’s focus on right-wing causes is too well known.

@Alan, no doubt it is liberating in the same way that believing the ship you’re on isn’t liberating for a short time until you realise the ship is actually sinking and that you would have been better off facing reality than sticking your fingers in your ear and saying “lalalala” until everyone stopped bothering you.

@Alan

Funny how those who demonstrably misunderstand the scientific method are the quickest to chuck the accusation of ‘religion’ at anything approaching a scientific consensus.

You *want* to believe it’s a ‘big lie’. That want is why denialists think their research by Google is somehow valid. That want is why denialists pick their cherries. That want is why you just don’t get science.

the poster, richard tol, wrote an academic paper explaining that the costs of climate change mitigation would be higher than the benefits to be gained by an increasing average temperature.
To’s paper was liberally supported by references to other academic papers, written by ….. richard tol.

Hmmm.

Science is : “a technique of not kidding yourself”.

Climate change issues are risk-management issues.

Some people refuse to accept that there will be serious consequences in any timescale they care about, or think anybody should care about, which might be a century or less.

Others worry there might eventually be very serious consequences.

@Sarah,
No, saying that there is some sort of linear relationship between a trace gas and temperature in a chaotic system is nonsense. It simply can’t happen. From a purely system theoretic viewpoint AGW is way too simplistic. I’m sorry if this offends your scientific sensibilities.

@ Alan,

So your argument is based on a rejection of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect? Not sure what to say to that one really, it’s been part of the mainstream scientific consensus for more than a few decades at this stage. And it’s all perfectly within the theoretical realms of possibility.

As for the “wider scientific community” – I’m not really that bothered about the opinion of someone with a PhD psychology thanks very much. It’s ironic that you accuse me of discounting the views of Lindzen because even he accepts that humans are having an impact through increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions!

The rest of what you talk of is bad scientific attitude but it does nothing to negate the science of AGW. NASA’s GISS temperatures for example are transparent and available for all to access.

Sorry? I missed the part where I said that climate change didn’t happen before humans. What’s different about today is the RATE at which it’s happening and the lack of alternative explanations. As Sherlock himself said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. So yes you can separate out climate change as caused by solar activity etc from that caused by humans.

there is widespread disagreement among the wider scientific community.

I’m afraid that weathergirls and economists aren’t generally recognised as “scientists”, mate, at least not as you’re attempting to pass them off here.

Are you just going to discount the views of Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter etc etc as cranks and deniers?

Well, yes. Because they, um, are, y’know.

They are as interested in the truth as I am

Never a truer word was said!

the tireless voluntary work of Steve McIntyre

This would be the same “tireless” Steve McIntyre who was pulling the very same tricks in the service of the tobacco industry in decades past, before hopping on the anti-AGW bandwagon.

@Richard,

Richard Lindzen may be accomplished, but at 70 years old, one can hardly count him as being at the spearhead of a vital new science. It strikes me he is a fit subject for the Max Planck quotation:

“A 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.”

Nor does “accomplished” = “right”. There was hardly a physicist more accomplished than Einstein, but he was wrong about a few things – quantum mechanics and the cosmological constant being just two.

At least you did not try to count Steven McIntyre as a scientist. Small mercies.

@Toby
“There was hardly a physicist more accomplished than Einstein, but he was wrong about a few things – quantum mechanics and the cosmological constant being just two.”
Wrong that the cosmological constant was a “blunder” rather than a stroke of genius?

Accomplished does not mean wrong, either; neither does old.

@ RTol

Better attribution, please. I have said nothing about Lindzen’s age (a common characteristic though it may be of he and his cohorts).

“Distinguished” meteorologist, says you? I think that that notion died a death when he brought out his “Iris” theory. And his rather pathetic misleading remarks on the scientific basis of AGW in recent years has undone any remaining reputation he may have had. Great company that you keep in your GWPF.

Ireland has one of the strictest emission reduction targets in the world; if we were to try and meet those targets, the economic repercussions would be serious. That’s why climate is discussed here.

I hope that you’ll clarify that remark. It seems to imply that you think that if you throw enough mud at the (genuine) scientists who agree with AGW, then you can avoid the “economic repercussions” as you phrase them. Economists, eh?

@Richard,

I stand over my remarks about Lindzen as not being ageist. But you are far too kind to the man. If he was “trying to help” climate science, he had plenty of scope to make his criticisms from within the paradigm. Instead, he made common cause with shills and fakes like Steve Milloy and “Lord” Monckton.

It is also not unusual for scientific disputes to become bitter and personal. The two founders of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg and Schrodinger, despised each other. Newton vs. Leibniz reached high levels of fury. James Watson’s “The Double Helix” revealed just how human scientists are in their personal dealings. So Lindzen the Martyr does not wash. If he became an outsider, it was firstly by choice, and secondly, by his choice of allies.

I see you have your own case of cognitive dissonance in the description of climate science as a “religion”. You have been challenged about this before and failed to produce a scintilla of a tither of evidence.

As far as I can see, a new science has been born in the last 30 years – scientists who were geophysicists, geologists, or oceanographers are now united in a science of “climatology”. I think history will see it as exciting and interesting a period as the start of atomic physics, roughly 1900-1930.
Is this a science can can be refuted? Of course it is. Unlike denialism, which keeps recycling the same tried objections no matter how often they get shot down – and Lindzen is as guilty of that as anyone.

Obviously, finding yourself somehow “left out” of this exciting new discipline has left you with your own cognitive distress.

Monckon is a Viscount, which is a “lord” to some who are impressed by such fripperies. Once he was a flunkey at the court of Queen Margaret (Thatcher), which impresses the yokels no end.

I’ll justr refer to the excellent set of videos by Peter Sinclair “Climate Crock of the Week”, which are amusing even if you do not agree with them.

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-crock-of-week-lord-monckton.html

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-crock-continued-lord-monckton.html

I have frequently commented on your own ambiguous stance on climate change, where you state you believe AGW is happening, yet do your best to belittle or disparage the science behind it (“religious believers” etc.), without actually highlighting any data or factual evidence.

“Willing to wound/ yet afraid to strike/ just hint a fault/ and hesitate dislike” (Alexander Pope). I have long since abandoned any hope you will come clean on the issue.

@Richard,

I distinguish between “environmentalists” and “climate scientists”, though there may be overlap. I judge scientists by the science they produce, and I have seen little religious fervour among climate scientists, though a lot of enthusiasm and a tendency to be rambunctious, not surprising in what is a new field of science. However, I do not think there are any who would not be relieved if AGW was falsified. In the past, I have avoided environmentalists like the plague, and I have never made their religious views my concern. Maybe that will change!