Another Saturday potpourri of science! I choose to think that the real theme in this diavlog is paradox. A string theory detractor considering that it may, just remotely may, be reconsidered? A curmudgeon becoming an optimist? Two agnostics putting up Christmas decorations? Wow...! Change is in the air.

I read the James Randi and Sean Carroll posts on global warming, and I went to the Information is Beautiful site that Sean C. referred to, and that George said completely discussed and refuted climate skeptics' arguments. Over the past month or two I have become a climate skeptic -- basically because of the religious fervor and intolerance of the pro-warming side. But the important point here is that the Information is Beautiful site does not, as I understand it, state the most prominent arguments of the skeptics. I had never encountered most of the arguments that it states are the skeptics' arguments. I am not a scientist and I don't want to claim, even remotely, that I can advance or even summarize their arguments, but as I understand it, their chief scientific argument (not mentioned on the IIB site) is that (1) it is not disputed that the direct effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is warming, but to a small extent and (2) the pro-warming forces cannot convincingly support their additional argument that the warming effect is multiplied by a process called positive feedback, by which increased CO2 emissions are claimed to cause a change in cloud cover. The

Quoting Chandlerian: ...Over the past month or two I have become a climate skeptic -- basically because of the religious fervor and intolerance of the pro-warming side. ...

Funny how posts like this make me feel extremely skeptical of their implicit claims of objectivity. "Religious fervor and intolerance?" You don't believe that, or if you do you judge one side's argument differently than you do those of the other. Regardless, even if that characterization were true, why would that change the meaning of the data? If your judgment is such that you can't make that simple distinction, why should anybody take any of the rest of what you've said seriously? I detect a certain level of gassing, and an unwillingness to enter into serious scientific debate here.

The protein-folding problem reminded me of a news brief relating to how a bacterium makes the decision whether, under environmental stress, to form spores or to enter a state called 'competence'...: When bacteria form spores, the mother cell dies, but not before it stores a copy of its DNA in a special capsule called the spore. The mother cell then breaks open and its DNA and remaining proteins are released to the environment. The bacteria on the road to spore formation don't always form spores. They can change their fate and escape into a different state called "competence."

In this state, the bacteria change their membranes to allow the easy absorption of material from the dying cells. This allows for the creation of a "competence intermediate state," in which the bacteria hope to survive even under these unfriendly conditions. When normal conditions are restored, bacteria return to normal life without having to make a spore. The advantage of this situation is the ability of quickly returning to normality, but there is also a disadvantage: Likely death if the conditions get even worse. As a result, each bacterium has a dilemma. Bacteria Provide New Insights into Human Decision-making

How does Nature do it? It's those Amazing Self-Organizing Systems, fellas.

Quoting AemJeff: "Religious fervor and intolerance?" . . .even if that characterization were true, why would that change the meaning of the data?

If we are talking about "the religious fervor and intolerance" of consensus scientists such as Michael Mann and Jim Hansen, doesn't it indicate how psychologically invested they have become in their own conclusions? Don't you think this would make it hard for them to change their minds if the data were to be shown to be different than they thought it was, or if it were shown that they were drawing invalid conclusions from the data that exists. The latter is what happened to Mann, who, it turned out, had no statistical training in college. See Wegman's report.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: If we are talking about "the religious fervor and intolerance" of consensus scientists such as Michael Mann and Jim Hansen, doesn't it indicate how psychologically invested they have become in their own conclusions? Don't you think this would make it hard for them to change their minds if the data were to be shown to be different than they thought it was, or if it were shown that they were drawing invalid conclusions from the data that exists. The latter is what happened to Mann, who, it turned out, had no statistical training in college. See Wegman's report.

What does that have to do with the description religious "religious fervor and intolerance?" Individual scientists get stuck on ideas all the time - take a look at the last thirty years of Einstein's career, for a perfect illustration of that. Ultimately the arbiter here will be the data - and there are a hell of a lot more eyes on that than those belonging to the people you named. Horgan said pretty well during the diavlog - (paraphrasing wildly) putting your trust in the science, in the process, is by far

Count me as another person who has become a climate skeptic as a result of Climategate. When I read emails like this: we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all). or this: The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't . . . The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! it's hard for me not to conclude that the evidence in favor of the standard theory is a lot weaker than people have been saying publicly.

Quoting AemJeff: Horgan said pretty well during the diavlog - (paraphrasing wildly) putting your trust in the science, in the process, is by far the best path to a valid conclusion. That's not trust in the specific individuals. And that's emphatically not religion.

Amen to that! My problem is that guys like Mann and Hansen have been claiming to represent the science, and to date the elite press and scientific establishment have been giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Or how about this statement tucked away deep inside the last IPCC report (on page 640, at the end of section 8.6, entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”: “A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.” I am sure this will come as news to most educated readers who have been following the story.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Amen to that! My problem is that guys like Mann and Hansen have been claiming to represent the science, and to date the elite press and scientific establishment have been giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Which is as it should be. They've actually done the work. There's no reason to think they shouldn't have quite a bit more than the mere "benefit of the doubt."

Here is another interesting quote, this time from the Wikipedia entry on climate sensitivity: The standard modern estimate of climate sensitivity - 3°C, plus or minus 1.5°C - originates with a committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney. Only two sets of models were available; one, due to Syukuro Manabe, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 2°C, the other, due to James Hansen, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 4°C. "According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5°C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5°C-to-4.5°C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since..."[5] In other words we are supposed to bet the planet on the basis of a thirty-year old seat-of-the-pants guesstimate.

Good dialogue this week. As someone who thinks global warming has been in part due to human causes and may be a concern but also thinks the alarmism has been ridiculous since Kyoto in 1998... First, say it isn't so, George.... As for John, he rightly criticized Scientific American's clumsy attack on Bjorn Lomborg, but it wasn't just "overkill," it was a complete joke. If you read through it line by line as Lomborg did, there is nothing from the four scientists that sticks. Instead, there was one error on nuclear power percentage of energy and a mistranslation from Dutch. John Holdren's screed was embarrassing as was his response to Lomborg's response. Lomborg's slam against Obama's alarmist advisor is maybe the best of the four. There, Holdren doesn't understand basic energy economics while Lomborg clearly does. Given John's disappointment with how Lomborg was handled by SA, I wonder why he would heap so much praise on Andy Revkin. I think he's fine as a general science reporter but while John said how unbiased Revkin has been, didn't he once say on bloggingheads why he couldn't write on Lomborg's views since readers would

If this is not evidence of conspiratorial intent on Michael Mann's part, it is getting pretty close. You be the judge: excerpt from email 0906042912
Mann writes: The modeling community leaders are probably about as skeptical about our paleo-reconstructions as we are of their sulphate aerosol parameterizations, flux corrections (or more worrying, supposed lack thereof in some cases!), and handling of the oh-so-important tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere interface…

So my personal philosophy is that more than one side here can benefit from extending the olive branch, and there are a few individuals in the modeling community who could benefit from slowing down on the stone throwing from their fragile glass tower

More to the point, though, I strongly believe the paleo community needs to present an honest but unified front regarding what we all agree we can definitely, probably, and simply not yet say about the climate of the past several centuries, and plan strategies that will allow us all to work towards improved reconstructions without stepping on each others toes. There’s a challenge there, but one I’m sure we can all rise to. I am grateful to Peck for realizing

For those who haven't had a chance to delve into the Climategate emails, here are some choice excerpts: CRU scientist Keith Briffa, whose work on tree rings in Siberia has been subject to its own controversies, emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: "I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series," adding that he was tired of "the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann] has produced over the last few years . . . and (better say no more)."

Cook replied: "I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike's recon[struction], particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. . . . It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively." (emphasis added)

In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: "Of course [Bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP [Medieval Warm Period -- in other words that it may have been as warm or warmer than it is today in the period before the industrial revolution], so I tend to view

It might be more profitable and prudent to focus not on particular scientists or whatever ways they may attempt to obfuscate details of small importance, but to give attention instead to hard data that seems to insist that the planet is warming at a rate unprecedented in many thousands of years, and is gnawing on our ankle while we diddle ourselves glassy-eyed-and-stoopid over this so-called 'Climategate'. On glacier disappearance : On Thinner Ice Graph (the information those who told you glaciers were enlarging left out) On the Arctic ice sheet: The rate of loss
Story Take the Northwest Passage! Effects of methane Not eating meat is better than buying a Prius

Andy Revkin wasn't attacked for "diverging" from an environmentalist position, he just wrote about prostitutes who were promising free services in Copenhagen. Prurient, but not in any way skeptical of any scientific theory. Wikipedia helpfully has a list of scientists with a contrarian position on global warming.

It might be more profitable and prudent to focus not on particular scientists or whatever ways they may attempt to obfuscate details of small importance,

Nothing to see here, move along!

Quoting AemJeff: Funny how posts like this make me feel extremely skeptical of their implicit claims of objectivity.

All sorts of things can make one doubt one's objectivity: From Wikipedia's Climate Doctor by L Solomon: "One person in the nine-member Realclimate.orgteam -- U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley -- would take on particularly crucial duties. Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known -Wikipedia......

......He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by

Quoting AemJeff: Horgan said pretty well during the diavlog - (paraphrasing wildly) putting your trust in the science, in the process, is by far the best path to a valid conclusion. That's not trust in the specific individuals. And that's emphatically not religion.

This is a sensible approach if the process is working as it ought. If the process has been corrupted and politicized, however, then it is no longer trustworthy as a means of producing true conclusions. The Climategate emails suggest that this is precisely what has happened.

Quoting Ken Davis: It might be more profitable and prudent to focus not on particular scientists or whatever ways they may attempt to obfuscate details of small importance, but to give attention instead to hard data that seems to insist that the planet is warming at a rate unprecedented in many thousands of years

If you read the emails, you find the climate guys privately admitting that we don't have a good idea of what global temperature was more than 100 years ago (e.g. "we know with certainty that we know fuck-all"). So we can't say with certainty that current warming is unprecedented in many thousands of years. This is why Climategate is important. It shows that whereas publicly people were saying "the science is settled" privately it was "we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all."

Quoting Ken Davis: It might be more profitable and prudent to focus not on particular scientists or whatever ways they may attempt to obfuscate details of small importance, but to give attention instead to hard data that seems to insist that the planet is warming at a rate unprecedented in many thousands of years, and is gnawing on our ankle while we diddle ourselves glassy-eyed-and-stoopid over this so-called 'Climategate'.

On glacier disappearance : On Thinner Ice

Graph (the information those who told you glaciers were enlarging left out)

On the Arctic ice sheet: The rate of loss
Story

Take the Northwest Passage!

Effects of methane

Not eating meat is better than buying a Prius

Good points, although you're trying to reason with wingnuts, which is always a dubious proposition.

Because it hasn't received much coverage in the popular press so far, John and George might have a look this Danish video series on a relatively new (25-year-old) peer-reviewed hypothesis concerning the link between cosmic ray flux and cloud formation in the lower atmosphere, which in turn effects surface temperatures on various time scales (decadal, century, 100,000 years). It tells the story of the genesis of the idea and the gradual accumulation of empirical and experimental evidence in its support by reputable groups of scientists in Denmark, Israel, and Canada. Happily, the basic ideas are relatively easy for the layman to understand: (a) cosmic rays precipitate clouds like we saw in high school cloud chamber demonstrations; and (b) there are observable variations in the sun's magnetic activity which deflect cosmic rays away from the earth as well as in the Milky Way's cosmic ray flux. This new theory is perfectly consistent with the CO2 greenhouse effect. Still it hasn't been well received by the IPCC community because it reduces the relative importance of CO2 emissions in the current warming. Reminds me a lot of the way the theory of continental drift was originally received.

Quoting harkin: Why can those seeking to minimalize the Climategate controversy only cite shill pieces which avoid the actual debate and its related science/data?
George references the 'most wonderful chart' at Information Is Beautiful by someone who falls on his face in his first statement:
"I’m fascinated by climate deniers. How could anyone deny the climate change is happening?"

It may be that in order to maintain his standing wherever he stands, George must follow the party line. And I agree that the kind of rhetoric quoted above only serves to make people like me (if there are people like me) disregard anything that follows it. I suppose there are folks who deny any climate change is occuring, but the term itself has become synonymous with AGW. This is a bait and switch tactic that is getting old and very easy to recognize.

Quoting Blackadder: If you read the emails, you find the climate guys privately admitting that we don't have a good idea of what global temperature was more than 100 years ago (e.g. "we know with certainty that we know fuck-all"). So we can't say with certainty that current warming is unprecedented in many thousands of years.

This is why Climategate is important. It shows that whereas publicly people were saying "the science is settled" privately it was "we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all."

Things we also know fuck-all about: turbulent flow, photosynthesis, how the mind works, batteries, everything else humanity does. Doesn't mean you don't keep working on it all. It seems the witch-hunt has found a good target in Mann. It will equate Mann with climate change, and then tear down Mann hoping that the hoi polloi will think that means CO2 is great for the atmosphere. Good luck. Every time you mention Mann, remember that Move On Betray Us Petraeus ad, and realize you're essentially doing the same thing--questioning an individual's motives to stop policy you personally don't like. CO2 and water are 2 things that routinely go up into the atmosphere in gas

Quoting harkin: Nothing to see here, move along!

All sorts of things can make one doubt one's objectivity:

From Wikipedia's Climate Doctor by L Solomon:

"One person in the nine-member Realclimate.orgteam -- U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley -- would take on particularly crucial duties. Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known -Wikipedia......

......He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he

Quoting Blackadder: This is a sensible approach if the process is working as it ought. If the process has been corrupted and politicized, however, then it is no longer trustworthy as a means of producing true conclusions. The Climategate emails suggest that this is precisely what has happened.

It's the only approach in the current environment. Particularly when so much of what passes for public conservation on the topic consists of the mindless repetition of smears.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: More to the point, though, I strongly believe the paleo community needs to present an honest but unified front regarding what we all agree we can definitely, probably, and simply not yet say about the climate of the past several centuries, and plan strategies that will allow us all to work towards improved reconstructions without stepping on each others toes.

This reminds me in some ways of the Senate health care reform bill. They seem to be saying, "We know it isn't what we envison for the future, it really doesn't fulfill our stated goals, but it's the best we can do currently so let's just pass the thing and deal with the fallout later." Legislation, any legislation, is better than none.

Excellent comment.

osmium;143603]Things we also know fuck-all about: turbulent flow, photosynthesis, how the mind works, batteries, everything else humanity does. Doesn't mean you don't keep working on it all.

Absolutely! keep working, keep doing research and be very careful about basing public policy on your findings

Experimenting with the atmosphere while knowing fuck-all (which is what we are doing now) requires humanity to get a grip on what could happen, and requires contingency planning. Planning for the worst, within economic means--it is the conservative thing to do. I frankly do not understand the objection, especially when you subtract out Al Gore and the retarded conservative/liberal manufactured divide.

Somewhere between doing nothing and dropping everything to save the planet from imminent destruction is where the solution lies. Everyone agrees that we need to get off of oil, so that's probably the best solution.

PS I'm not just responding to Blackadder (I'm a big fan, I especially liked your third season); I'm responding to the whole thing, mostly the links I've read that people have posted. I think some of the links are thoughtful, but most are just yakking. (Welcome to Blogistan, osmium.) Sometimes I'm reading some Week-In-Blog type link about how scientists are conspiring, etc, and I just wonder: if the blogger cares so much, why didn't they become a scientist? There is no barrier to being a scientist to anyone in America, other than just wanting to do it. You put in 5 years doing a dissertation, you get paid $25k (pretty standard everywhere) during these 5 years, enough to live on. Everyone is mean to you and treats you like an idiot, and you have to stand up in front of large groups and get demolished by asshole professors twice your age. At the end, you have your stupid 3 letters at the end of your name, and you make your way in the world. You realize that not only you, but everyone, essentially knows fuck-all. It is not clear to me where the climate scientists who think CO2 is good are. Perhaps one actually existing is

Quoting osmium: Things we also know fuck-all about: turbulent flow, photosynthesis, how the mind works, batteries, everything else humanity does. Doesn't mean you don't keep working on it all.
...
It seems the witch-hunt has found a good target in Mann.

Not sure I read where anyone said to stop working on it. Unless it is some sort of physical law...its not settled. Weather and ultimately climate are both related to "fuck"ing Kaos theory...there will really NEVER be any "settling". You may poo poo Gore now but, I believe, he is one of the reasons scientist felt they could start to approach things as a done deal, slam-dunk, anyone having any doubts is a bozo, etc. arrogance...followed closely by those who are easily swayed by fear, by those cherishing happy thoughts of saving the earth and those who wish to capitalize on it in one way or another, possessing the same arrogance. And sorry nobody was out "hunt"ing for Mann. He fell in their laps.

Quoting badhatharry: Somewhere between doing nothing and dropping everything to save the planet from imminent destruction is where the solution lies. Everyone agrees that we need to get off of oil, so that's probably the best solution.

We agree on that entirely. Coal is dirt cheap, and the price of energy translates directly into poor people getting fucked. Just like every real question, there is no easy answer except to be prudent and sail up the middle. But: I'm not responding to people who have a policy difference with me. It is when this dude's private emails are being gone over and people are playing armchair psychiatrist with "scientists" (did you know they are all "self interested"?) That is what brings me out of the shadows, where I belong. A plus side here is that I'm learning a lot about hockey sticks or whatever, things I would normally not pay attention to. But really, that graph is less important than people think (and it's probably right, btw, although I don't think it would matter if it wasn't). Politics is about push and pull, I know, I know--but I don't think there is any danger of dropping everything to work on climate

Quoting osmium: ...

You know what the irony is here, for me at least: I grew up in Tennessee, and Al Gore was my senator back then. All these objections to a climate change agreement get around to mentioning Al Gore eventually. In 1986, I was a young Frank Zappa fan, and I can't think of anyone I hated as much as Tipper Gore and her sanctimonious husband. (PMRC, etc, someone else must remember all that.) And now, here I am, finding myself essentially defending him and his over-simplified meow meow meow.

Really, I would much rather talk about Frank Zappa than carbon dioxide. Why am I posting this again?

Still hating Tipper after all these years. During the 2000 race I had a real urge to vote for McCain, just because I still couldn't stomach Gore because of his damned wife. But, broken hearts are for assholes.

Quoting osmium: Really, I would much rather talk about Frank Zappa than carbon dioxide. Why am I posting this again?

I'll bite: Frank Zappa is the worst!

Quoting badhatharry: Somewhere between doing nothing and dropping everything to save the planet from imminent destruction is where the solution lies. Everyone agrees that we need to get off of oil, so that's probably the best solution.

No one's trying to save the planet. Climate change doesn't threaten the planet at all. It threatens our current way of life. The whole purpose of policies intended to slow or reverse climate change is to maintain the high standard of living we enjoy today.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: This new theory...Reminds me a lot of the way the theory of continental drift was originally received.

Reminds me of phlogiston.

Quoting Ray: No one's trying to save the planet.

Climate change doesn't threaten the planet at all. It threatens our current way of life.

The whole purpose of policies intended to slow or reverse climate change is to maintain the high standard of living we enjoy today.

Exactly right. As with other efforts to reduce other forms of pollution, the way I think about it is that it is nothing more than us trying not to foul our own nest.

Quoting claymisher: I'll bite: Frank Zappa is the worst!

That's the spirit! I was 12. Can't imagine anyone getting into him as an adult, but I can put on Hot Rats and think "ah, them were the days."

Quoting AemJeff: Still hating Tipper after all these years. During the 2000 race I had a real urge to vote for McCain, just because I still couldn't stomach Gore because of his damned wife. But, broken hearts are for assholes.

Yeah, I voted for Nader. Not sure my conscience is clean on that, but Tipper can indeed Ram It, Ram It, Ram It Up Her (continue line here!).

Quoting AemJeff: It's the only approach in the current environment. Particularly when so much of what passes for public conservation on the topic consists of the mindless repetition of smears.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If we can't trust the process to produce true conclusions, then we shouldn't trust it to produce conclusions (which is not to say that we should trust just trust whatever Richard Lindzen or Steve McIntyre say either).

Quoting Whatfur: You may poo poo Gore now but, I believe, he is one of the reasons scientist felt they could start to approach things as a done deal, slam-dunk, anyone having any doubts is a bozo, etc. arrogance...followed closely by those who are easily swayed by fear, by those cherishing happy thoughts of saving the earth and those who wish to capitalize on it in one way or another, possessing the same arrogance.

Eh, I'd be willing to bet you get ahold of more personal emails you'd find they really think he's a tool. But who knows. A better indicator of political willingness than Gore is probably the growing number of consumers who will pay extra for "sustainability" and all that. Probably empty gestures, IMHO, but a useful data signal to tell you what might be politically possible, since whatever happens is going to involve a sacrifice on some societal level. The trick is to minimize the sacrifice. Don't know if the technology is there to completely mask it though.

Quoting Blackadder: I'm not sure what you mean by this. If we can't trust the process to produce true conclusions, then we shouldn't trust it to produce conclusions (which is not to say that we should trust just trust whatever Richard Lindzen or Steve McIntyre say either).

It's not clear that there are any problems with with what either of them have said. If there are problems, then it's still not clear what the implication of that would be. There's no reason to trust them any less than other working professional, regardless of the fact that they've been attacked.

A recent (12/16/09) piece by James Hansen which speaks to the current controversy: The Temperature of Science

Quoting Ken Davis: A recent (12/16/09) piece by James Hansen which speaks to the current controversy: The Temperature of Science

Excellent. I was just coming here to say: I'm tired of hearing about the hockey stick and about Mann. BhTV Climate-gaters: tell me what you've got on James Hansen. I want to hear it. I'm serious. Seems like a stand-up guy to me, but maybe I have on the rose-colored lab glasses. Is there anyone suggesting he's in a pocket?

Quoting osmium: Things we also know fuck-all about: turbulent flow, photosynthesis, how the mind works, batteries, everything else humanity does. Doesn't mean you don't keep working on it all.

No one's saying you don't keep working on it. But if someone was trying to justify legislation with potentially huge consequences for the economy, the environment, geopolitics, etc. on a specific theory about turbulent flow or how the mind works, it would be useful to know how strong the evidence is for that theory.

Quoting osmium: Every time you mention Mann, remember that Move On Betray Us Petraeus ad, and realize you're essentially doing the same thing--questioning an individual's motives to stop policy you personally don't like.

If, during the debate about the surge, someone had leaked emails from Petraeus indicating he thought the surge was a bad idea, this would be quite pertinent. If we're going to be making Iraq analogies, I think a better one would be to Abu Ghraib. When the Abu Ghraib story broke, some people said that this was a case of just a few bad apples, whereas others said that this indicated a systemic problem in our interrogation and prisoner treatment practices. It seems to me

Quoting AemJeff: It's not clear that there are any problems with with what either of them have said. If there are problems, then it's still not clear what the implication of that would be. There's no reason to trust them any less than other working professional, regardless of the fact that they've been attacked.

Have you read the emails?

Quoting Blackadder: I think not. To justify climate change policies, agreements, and laws you need to establish not only that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere, but that if it does stay in the atmosphere the net results will be more harmful than will the results of the proposed policies, agreements, and laws. That's hardly window dressing.

Oh you think not?? Well, sorry, I had it all wrong. Please use the space below to tell me where you think CO2 goes. (This is going to be good.):

Quoting Blackadder: Have you read the emails?

Yup. Do you know the first thing about the field? Do you know what the private correspondence among a group of people working in any other field looks like? Do you understand the connotations of terms like "trick" in this context? Do you understand the meaning of the term "siege mentality?" The work these people are engaged in has been turned into a political football. Gore's movie may or may not have been well advised - but the real source of the problem has been the manifestly corrupt campaign by CEI and the Heartland Institute (funded initially by Exxon/Mobil) intended to discredit their work and their reputations. Whoever has tried to obfuscate the relevant data should be called to account. That is the one and only issue that's been highlighted by the theft of data that allowed you to ever see those emails that so far seems of any real concern. The rest of this is bankrupt.

Quoting osmium: Excellent. I was just coming here to say: I'm tired of hearing about the hockey stick and about Mann. BhTV Climate-gaters: tell me what you've got on James Hansen. I want to hear it. I'm serious. Seems like a stand-up guy to me, but maybe I have on the rose-colored lab glasses. Is there anyone suggesting he's in a pocket?

The key difference between Hansen's group and Mann's is that we know what the Mann group was saying privately. Suppose that it was Goddard that had been hacked instead of CRU. Can we be confident that we would not have found similarly untoward stuff going on? We cannot. In fact, based on the public information available, I would say what we'd find in Hansen's emails would be worse than what's in the Mann stuff.

Quoting osmium: Oh you think not?? Well, sorry, I had it all wrong. Please use the space below to tell me where you think CO2 goes. (This is going to be good.):

Uh, what? I didn't deny that CO2 stays in the atmosphere. I denied that this alone was sufficient to justify major legislation and/or international agreements.

Quoting Blackadder: Uh, what? I didn't deny that CO2 stays in the atmosphere. I denied that this alone was sufficient to justify major legislation and/or international agreements.

What would be?

Quoting AemJeff: Yup. Do you know the first thing about the field?

Yes. I'm not an expert though, and thus am ready to defer to expert assessment up to a point. However, I consider an expert's private assessment to be more reliable than a public assessment. So if someone says privately that "we know with certainty that we know fuck-all," while publicly saying "the science is settled," I'm going to conclude that we know fuck-all.

Quoting AemJeff: Do you know what the private correspondence among a group of people working in any other field looks like?

Sure. A lot of the kinds of stuff in the emails would not be surprising if they were in the internal emails of, say, a political campaign. But I don't expect what a political campaign puts out to be an unbiased statement.

Quoting AemJeff: Do you understand the connotations of terms like "trick" in this context?

If the only problem with the emails was that a guy used the word "trick" then it would of course be much ado about nothing. Obviously people sometimes use the word "trick" in a way that doesn't imply deception (it's harder to defend the use of the word

Quoting Blackadder: Uh, what? I didn't deny that CO2 stays in the atmosphere. I denied that this alone was sufficient to justify major legislation and/or international agreements.

Good. Let's proceed from there. Hypothetically, give me a CO2 limit. Any number you say will have the same validity as one I say. A useful tool is to consider limiting cases: obviously CO2 is an essential component of the atmosphere; so now go to the upper end and tell me where too much is. One fun fact is that there is enough coal in the ground to power humanity for about 600 years. Coal is pre-made energy you dig out of the ground essentially for free. The problem isn't so much the USA, as it's China, which has a lot of coal, and a lot of people about to become middle class, and they are fixing to burn the shit out of that coal. So, the Chinese are about to shit in our drinking water, metaphorically. Of course, this is assuming there is a limit to how much CO2 there can be before we experience adverse effects. So: pretend you're in charge. What do you do?

Quoting Ken Davis: A recent (12/16/09) piece by James Hansen which speaks to the current controversy: The Temperature of Science

A good read. Thanks for the link.

Quoting AemJeff: What would be?

As I said before: "To justify climate change policies, agreements, and laws you need to establish not only that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere, but that if it does stay in the atmosphere the net results will be more harmful than will the results of the proposed policies, agreements, and laws."

Quoting osmium: Of course, this is assuming there is a limit to how much CO2 there can be before we experience adverse effects.

Which was precisely my point.

Quoting Blackadder: The key difference between Hansen's group and Mann's is that we know what the Mann group was saying privately. Suppose that it was Goddard that had been hacked instead of CRU. Can we be confident that we would not have found similarly untoward stuff going on? We cannot. In fact, based on the public information available, I would say what we'd find in Hansen's emails would be worse than what's in the Mann stuff.

Great, so now we're also going to F.O.I. the emails of every person in the military and every person in the corporate sector. Hopefully soon we will just be able to give everyone brain scans. Because words and thoughts and opinions translate directly into power and actions, don't they? I just wrote an email to my friends about how you should be fired from your job Blackadder. Obviously this will impact your life, because I have the power to write it in an email. I also wrote one about how every bit of scientific work I've ever done is a sham, because I'm feeling a bit depressed today. Seriously, why are you such a victim of the climate scientists? (Cue

Quoting Blackadder: Which was precisely my point.

That's a shaky limb you're standing on. Ok, everyone else: Want to back Blackadder up on that? There is perhaps no limit? Be an adult, tell the truth. Really?

Quoting osmium: So: pretend you're in charge. What do you do?

To answer this question we need to know what the likely results of the various alternatives will be. Unfortunately, the system is not currently set up to produce an accurate answer to this question. Funding goes to research designed to demonstrate that warming will have various negative consequences. You're far less likely to get funding for research designed to show that warming will have positive consequences, or that the alleged negative consequences won't occur. So the system is rigged to produce a particular answer (unless we stop emitting carbon we're all going to die!) If I had the power, I would fix this.

Quoting osmium: Great, so now we're also going to F.O.I. the emails of every person in the military and every person in the corporate sector.

I'm not saying we should do this. I don't think anyone should try to hack Goddard's server (or anyone else's, for that matter). What I said is that if this were to happen, you'd likely find the same sort of dirty laundry as with CRU. Do you disagree with this?

Quoting Blackadder: To answer this question we need to know what the likely results of the various alternatives will be. Unfortunately, the system is not currently set up to produce an accurate answer to this question. Funding goes to research designed to demonstrate that warming will have various negative consequences. You're far less likely to get funding for research designed to show that warming will have positive consequences, or that the alleged negative consequences won't occur. So the system is rigged to produce a particular answer (unless we stop emitting carbon we're all going to die!) If I had the power, I would fix this.

I don't think anyone thinks it's possible to stop emitting carbon. But people do think it should be mitigated. But more importantly, that is so paranoid. Funding goes only to demonstrate the negative consequences? So where did that idea originally come from--that increased CO2 is bad? You're saying this idea sprang fully developed from where? From all those people getting wealthy on it, of course. Research also only goes to show that water is wet. Another idea we should re-examine. The number of people involved in this conspiracy must be staggering, how

Start here Hansen's Y2K Error

It could be only damp if the temperature gets warm enough and hard as rock if it goes the other way no?

Quoting Blackadder: I'm not saying we should do this. I don't think anyone should try to hack Goddard's server (or anyone else's, for that matter). What I said is that if this were to happen, you'd likely find the same sort of dirty laundry as with CRU. Do you disagree with this?

Yes, and to walk it back a bit further, I didn't really see much dirty laundry in the ones from that other place. Yes, there's a "trick," they don't know "fuck-all." I mean, try to imagine these things said in emails by someone you haven't already pre-judged. "We don't know fuck-all about whether this 787 is going to fly." They call some guy an asshole and say they should keep him out of peer-review. They comment on the spinnability of John Horgan's friend. These are all shitty things. Once again: I don't support all that at all. Dude's career, she may be over. I fail to weep. But this isn't any science-wide conspiracy blowing the lid off the self-interest that dictates results. I mean, they did do research. A lot of it. Is it all tainted and wrong? I think it would be tough to work on something for decades and have it be all wrong, but obviously you

Quoting piscivorous: It could be only damp if the temperature gets warm enough and hard as rock if it goes the other way no?

Excellent summary, yes.

Quoting Blackadder: I do. Do you think that people operating under a siege mentality tend to produce good science?

No. On this we agree whole-heartedly.

Quoting osmium: I don't think anyone thinks it's possible to stop emitting carbon. But people do think it should be mitigated. But more importantly, that is so paranoid. Funding goes only to demonstrate the negative consequences? So where did that idea originally come from--that increased CO2 is bad? You're saying this idea sprang fully developed from where? From all those people getting wealthy on it, of course. Research also only goes to show that water is wet. Another idea we should re-examine. The number of people involved in this conspiracy must be staggering, how do they keep them all quiet?

I don't think global warming is a giant conspiracy. It's clear, for example, that the folks at CRU are sincere in thinking that the planet is getting warmer due to human causes and that the effects of this will be very harmful. Indeed, it is the belief in this that probably justifies (in their own minds) some of the tactics being used. You don't need a conspiracy to get a false scientific consensus on climate change. All you need is for the incentives to be structured in a certain way.

We need a lot more than the basic science to know what to do about global warming. To create a policy you need to have models. Politics is about distributing and prioritizing limited resources. It is all well and good to state we know about the greenhouse effect but it does a politician fuck all good if he or she doesn't know what that means to his or her constituents.

Quoting osmium: Yes, and to walk it back a bit further, I didn't really see much dirty laundry in the ones from that other place. Yes, there's a "trick," they don't know "fuck-all." I mean, try to imagine these things said in emails by someone you haven't already pre-judged. "We don't know fuck-all about whether this 787 is going to fly."

Until the emails came out I was a firm believer in the standard story on climate change (it wasn't an issue I'd looked into much, but I was willing to defer to the consensus view because of the good reputation science has in general for finding truth). So if my reaction to the emails is different than yours, it's not confirmation bias on my part. Also, if I read that a pilot or engineer or whoever had said "we don't know fuck-all about whether this 787 is going to fly" I would not be on that plane. Are you really telling me you'd act differently?

Quoting osmium: I think it would be tough to work on something for decades and have it be all wrong

It would certainly be tough on the people involved, which is part of the reason

Quoting Blackadder: Until the emails came out I was a firm believer in the standard story on climate change (it wasn't an issue I'd looked into much, but I was willing to defer to the consensus view because of the good reputation science has in general for finding truth). So if my reaction to the emails is different than yours, it's not confirmation bias on my part.

Also, if I read that a pilot or engineer or whoever had said "we don't know fuck-all about whether this 787 is going to fly" I would not be on that plane. Are you really telling me you'd act differently?

It would certainly be tough on the people involved, which is part of the reason they might not like to admit it. But if the idea is that putting a lot of research into a subject means it can't be wrong, then no, I don't agree. There was a lot of research put into phrenology too. Garbage in, garbage out. Years and years of garbage in, still garbage out.

If you've really had a conversion based on the East Anglia emails, then I totally respect that. But somewhere else up above you

Quoting themightypuck: We need a lot more than the basic science to know what to do about global warming. To create a policy you need to have models. Politics is about distributing and prioritizing limited resources. It is all well and good to state we know about the greenhouse effect but it does a politician fuck all good if he or she doesn't know what that means to his or her constituents.

Yeah, true, true, you're right. But models will always be fluffy and doubtable, unless they are the simplest thing possible. So are we in a Catch 22?--you can only really prove climate change by a model, and any model sufficient to explain the climate is going to have elements you can cast doubt on? Where does the burden of proof lie? Serious question.

Quoting osmium: If you've really had a conversion based on the East Anglia emails, then I totally respect that. But somewhere else up above you seem to be even doubting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with potentially harmful effects. I mean, that's a big conversion.

Yes and no. My previous belief was based almost entirely on a "trust the process" foundation. Kick that away, and it's not surprising that the effect would be rather large. For example, the standard story is that average temperature in the U.S. has gone up 0.6C over the last 100 years. Of that, 0.1C is actually present in the data. The rest is due to adjustments made to the data to account for various extraneous factors (e.g. changes in measurement time, location, and the quality of the instruments). Prior to last month, this didn't really bother me. Obviously you do need to make adjustments, and if you can trust the process to keep people from making bad adjustments to fit the conclusion they want, the the conclusion remains reliable even if most of the change isn't actually present in the raw data. Take away the assumption of a trustworthy process, by contrast, and the picture changes mightily. That's just

Quoting Blackadder:
...the standard story is that average temperature in the U.S. has gone up 0.6C over the last 100 years. Of that, 0.1C is actually present in the data. The rest is due to adjustments made to the data to account for various extraneous factors (e.g. changes in measurement time, location, and the quality of the instruments).

You didn't read the comments to the blog post, did you. Here's a quote from one of them: It is unfortunate (and a bit odd) that the NOAA decided to use Fahrenheit for this information and that you did not catch it before “publishing” here. But that still leaves about half of the temperature increase from adjustment factors, something still worth pointing out.

Quoting osmium: That's the spirit! I was 12. Can't imagine anyone getting into him as an adult, but I can put on Hot Rats and think "ah, them were the days."

os, you a fan of The Best Show?

Quoting claymisher: os, you a fan of The Best Show?

I'm slightly ashamed, but I've hardly ever listened to WFMU even though it seems like my kinda thing. Really I'm not far from you, but in Queens it's hard to pick it up, or at least it used to be on my old stereo. I guess that's an endorsement and I should give it a shot, shouldn't I?

Quoting osmium: I'm slightly ashamed, but I've hardly ever listened to WFMU even though it seems like my kinda thing. Really I'm not far from you, but in Queens it's hard to pick it up, or at least it used to be on my old stereo. I guess that's an endorsement and I should give it a shot, shouldn't I?

I remember as far back as 1986, when I was stuck interminably in a motel in Wayne, NJ, (for a job), WFMU was a beacon - the first night I noticed them, the DJ was playing a mix of Ramones and over-the-top speed metal, mixed in with Rocky and Bullwinkle segments. I was hooked immediately, and it always seemed to get better. In my experience, it's the most consistently interesting radio station in the country. And they have a web presence.

Quoting osmium: I'm slightly ashamed, but I've hardly ever listened to WFMU even though it seems like my kinda thing. Really I'm not far from you, but in Queens it's hard to pick it up, or at least it used to be on my old stereo. I guess that's an endorsement and I should give it a shot, shouldn't I?

Download the Nov 24th show and skip to 3:25:45 (that's three hours+ in). It's a hoot.

Quoting osmium: Eh, I'd be willing to bet you get ahold of more personal emails you'd find they really think he's a tool. But who knows.
...
.

So you are in a sense agreeing with me. I assume though your use of "tool" is derogatory where mine points to there relying on its function.

Quoting claymisher: Download the Nov 24th show and skip to 3:25:45 (that's three hours+ in). It's a hoot.

I enjoyed that a lot. I would be in awe if you could tell me it was you. I was totally into both Zappa and punk. But I was like 12. And maybe stupid, too.

Quoting osmium: I enjoyed that a lot. I would be in awe if you could tell me it was you.

I was totally into both Zappa and punk. But I was like 12. And maybe stupid, too.

"he didn't sound human ... more like a shape". Heh. Oh no, that's not me. That's ... well ... it's more fun if you just get into the show and discover these things as they come. But yeah, great music for 12-year-olds isn't the same as great music for adults.

From what I can glean, and I'll admit it's not much, both camps, for and against climate change, seem to be hankering for the sliver bullet. Given that we all agree that over the last few billion years the climate certainly has changed, and will continue to change, irrespective of whether we are here or not, so the question is are we accelerating that propensity for change at a rate and in a direction that is detrimental to our long-term well-being? Further, climate change is happening, albeit, slowly, so slowly that either camp can use the available evidence, with some measure of surety, to strengthen their position.
I'm not a climatologist so I can't voucher for either party, but I'm inclined to believe we are accelerating climate change, just like I'm more inclined to believe quantum mechanics than in astrology, but I'm neither a physicist nor an astrologer; I guess there's a certain amount of faith involved.
I'm also wary of the belief that we will solve the problem when we have incontrovertible evidence it exists, we did solve the Hitler problem I will concede, but ~50 million human lives were lost to that end, hardly what one would

Quoting Blackadder: ... the system is not currently set up to produce an accurate answer to this question. Funding goes to research designed to demonstrate that warming will have various negative consequences. You're far less likely to get funding for research designed to show that warming will have positive consequences, or that the alleged negative consequences won't occur. So the system is rigged to produce a particular answer (unless we stop emitting carbon we're all going to die!)

This has always seemed an exceedingly bizzare denialist talking point. Thousands of scientists and researchers in different institutions, countries, and cultures from all arouind the world are either dishonestly engaged in some mass conspiracy, or are all self-deluded under the influence of the overwhelming incentives of a "rigged system". The other side of the coin is pretty easy to see. After all, Exxon has been posting profits of nearly a billion dollars per week in recent years, and that is just one company in one sector of the hydrocarbon energy industry. There are clearly powerful interests with obvious and immense economic incentives to deny that portion of AWG that comes

In regards to climate sensitivity not being high (similar to the previous argument regarding the apparent small change in global temperature) http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/223615/983 As a logical extension of the argument, since climate sensitivity is not high the effect, if for bad, must be small, unfortunately this also is not accurate: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469 Look at the data yourself: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ Like I have said over and over, if your arguments against global warming are so compelling, then they should easily convince those pesky climate scientists: http://www.realclimate.org

I don't know. I'm the devil's advocate in this which pretty much sucks. My ideological bias is towards making the lives of people living now better. I'll concede the weakness of the bias as I know that if it wasn't for our terrible nature, we would still be living in grass huts.