News Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Sorry!]

Did you read that e-mail?

Yes three times looking for specific claims to 'Let's skew the data to mess around with the public.' Couldn't find it. Maybe you could point me to which lines I need to read between?

As well, let's make this known, I have no doubt that politics have played a major role in the development of these theories and how they are portrayed to the public. I also have no doubt as to the exageration that some of the data goes through. I don't however think that this discredits global warming as a serious problem to the future of our planet...

You would be better of proposing to me that the Earth is naturally getting hotter (which I believe it is to a certain extent) than telling me that global warming is just a bunch of skewed results.

 

[Sorry!]

If you're talking about where he's talking about trying every trick to milk something out of it then this doesn't indicate skewed results. It indicates he was trying different methods to find results to fit their model, which scientists do all the time. As I said in my previous post it is also no secret that the global warming 'sector' of scientists do this or even what methods they use. Just because you weren't aware of it before these emails doesn't mean anything...

 

[Evo]

If you're talking about where he's talking about trying every trick to milk something out of it then this doesn't indicate skewed results. It indicates he was trying different methods to find results to fit their model, which scientists do all the time. As I said in my previous post it is also no secret that the global warming 'sector' of scientists do this or even what methods they use. Just because you weren't aware of it before these emails doesn't mean anything...

I was quite aware of it. See my posts about the climate scientist I dated that was always complaining about being made to fudge his reports to make it seem like agw was a real concern. It's not unheard of in science, unfortunately, it just points out that you can't believe the data that's presented in these types of sciences. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize that it's not necessarily what you're being lead to believe.

 

[Choronzon]

Yes three times looking for specific claims to 'Let's skew the data to mess around with the public.' Couldn't find it. Maybe you could point me to which lines I need to read between?

As well, let's make this known, I have no doubt that politics have played a major role in the development of these theories and how they are portrayed to the public. I also have no doubt as to the exageration that some of the data goes through. I don't however think that this discredits global warming as a serious problem to the future of our planet...

You would be better of proposing to me that the Earth is naturally getting hotter (which I believe it is to a certain extent) than telling me that global warming is just a bunch of skewed results.

So what I should take from your post is that even if the Scientists doing the research are unscrupulous criminals who have skewed data to match their conclusions (and then withheld the data), I should still accept those conclusions?

I could understand that if the misconduct was personal, but this was people messing about with scientific research while hoisting themselves up as protectors of the earth.

 

[Jasongreat]

=Bored Wombat;2454772]Instead of providing any evidence that this is any kind of blow, you just assume that it is.
And then you also assume that there have been some other "blows" in the past.

Please provide some evidence of either of these.

Blow #1- 1970's we were causing global cooling, then it started to warm up.
Blow #2- late 1990's early 2000's we were warming up more than anytime in history so they called it global warming by comparing to the temps in the 70's which at the time they were saying were colder than anytime in history.
Blow #3- Since they were just claiming to much precision, they changed the name to global climate change and therefore whatever happened, warmer or colder bolstered their claims or so they hoped.
Blow #4- Questionable practices are discovered in emails.
Blow #5- AGW scientists continue to say the evidence supports their position even though it doesnt, which seems very biased to a layman like myself.

I admit that this is just my opinion and that I am in no way a scientist, but these are all blows to their theory as far as I am concerned and I am sure that I don't even know about all of them nor would I think I am all alone.

 

[Choronzon]

No, as with all scientific research I advocate come to your own conclusion. Who cares what these clowns do with their lives... ? Most of the conduct is personal I think, I haven't read anything that shows they purposely skewed results maybe selectively chose results and decided to blow up the importance or perhaps took certain data here but then different data here and different data here to come up with a grande conclusion that is blown out of proportion but I still believe the problem still exists.

I would truly love to look at all the data and come to my own conclusion—but I don't understand most of it. That's why I rely on others to explain it to me to a certain extent.

If someone had asked me my views on AGW a year ago, I would have told them I was ~75% convinced. I don't feel that they have demonstrated it to me in nearly as comprehensive a fashion as Evolution by Natural Selection has been, and while the arguments opposed to evolution are obviously pathetically weak in my view, the arguments of those critical of AGW seem to have some merit.

I did admit to myself however, that AGW's skeptics often had pretty obvious ideological reasons to adopt that position, and thus viewed many of their claims with my own bias.

This past year however, has made me grow disgusted with much of the environmentalist crowd however, and it seems obvious to me that the Oil companies don't have the monopoly on greed in this debate.

I've now accepted that I can no longer trust the proponents of AGW, and will just move on. Honestly, I've never really cared all that much about CC, and have always felt that humanity would adapt to any changes in our climate that were likely to result.

 

[mheslep]

Except when the e-mails are this clear. There is no context you could put these in which could excuse them.
[...]
I had no interest in climate science before we met, but since it was his life, it was all I heard, he could no longer oversee his people, he could no longer do research, he had to write bogus pro agw reports to get grants, his last quota was $2 million a year. He quit a year later, he was disgusted.

See this 1997 response to the 'Eleven' Euro scientists trolling for signatures to 'Influence Kyoto' by NCAR scientist http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0311/fellow.html" . It lends support to the anecdotes described by Evo:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=40

Dear Eleven
[...]
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible.
[...]

 

[Sorry!]

See this 1997 response to the 'Eleven' Euro scientists trolling for signatures to 'Influence Kyoto' by NCAR scientist http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0311/fellow.html" . It lends support to the anecdotes described by Evo:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=40

Well, way to selectively quote what the guy was trying to say. He wasn't saying that results were skewed or that global warming isn't occurring and he definitely doesn't think that greenhouse gases have nothing to do with global warming.

His problem comes from them doing exactly what I originally stated which was 'over exagerating' it for political purposes. If you go through the data (as this scientist does) you can come to the correct conclusion that most of what they wanted him to sign for was unnecessary bogus... So this scientist is correct in his conclusion and he should be praised for standing up for science...
I am certain though this happens in all fields of science global warming has taken the international stage publicly though so it's bound to get a reaction and be more noticed...

I've been going through these e-mails where they specifically talk about skewing data and I can't find it... maybe someone could point it out since people here seem to have already read this in the e-mails. What sucks most about these emails being released is that some scientists will find out that their collegues were talking behind their back, some of it is pretty funny actually.

 

[Jasongreat]

His problem comes from them doing exactly what I originally stated which was 'over exagerating' it for political purposes. If you go through the data (as this scientist does) you can come to the correct conclusion that most of what they wanted him to sign for was unnecessary bogus... So this scientist is correct in his conclusion and he should be praised for standing up for science...
I am certain though this happens in all fields of science global warming has taken the international stage publicly though so it's bound to get a reaction and be more noticed...

IMO the problem with over-exagerating for political purposes is that while scientists and some laypeople will take the time to look through the research and reach there own conclusion, most laypeople see an exageration and go right to the assumption that they are lying. So if they are doing it for political purposes they are shooting themselves in the foot. There is no way to pass any legislation in the U.S. without the support of laypeople since there are far more of them than those that are college educated which can actually make sense of the studies on their own. Granted they may get the politicians to bite at first but once the next election cycle rolls around they will most likely find themselves without a job even if they were right about what they did and the politicians that follow will be far more sceptical of the science.

 

[Sorry!]

IMO the problem with over-exagerating for political purposes is that while scientists and some laypeople will take the time to look through the research and reach there own conclusion, most laypeople see an exageration and go right to the assumption that they are lying. So if they are doing it for political purposes they are shooting themselves in the foot. There is no way to pass any legislation in the U.S. without the support of laypeople since there are far more of them than those that are college educated which can actually make sense of the studies on their own. Granted they may get the politicians to bite at first but once the next election cycle rolls around they will most likely find themselves without a job even if they were right about what they did and the politicians that follow will be far more sceptical of the science.

This is all very true, I never said it was good science

 

[Andre]

Wow this thread took off for sure. Kudos for Evo.

It is very comforting that challenging global warming is no longer associated automatically with devious greedy treason to the future of the planet.

Also, if there is fraud talk, there is no way to discuss that here because of the lack of peer reviewed substantiation. However, one only needs to google 'enron' and 'Kyoto' to get an idea. And there are some old but never forgotten bills to settle in that direction. Maybe there is a reason for my signature line. I'm afraid that it will take a very long time for science in general to recover from the blow it is about to get. But I digress.

Anyway, the intend of the OP was to make a clear distinction between political and scientifical climate tipping points. I'm not aware of the motives of authoroties to declare tipping points periodically with a ten years term but I do know about the indication of paleo climate tipping points and I was hoping to show what the problems are with those in this thread and why you can't project those on current climate.

Anyone interested in science instead of politics?

 

[mheslep]

Well, way to selectively quote what the guy was trying to say. He wasn't saying that results were skewed or that global warming isn't occurring and he definitely doesn't think that greenhouse gases have nothing to do with global warming.

Were you responding to someone else? I didn't mention such.

 

[Sorry!]

Were you responding to someone else? I didn't mention such.

Well you posted it as a support to Evo's position. So far from Evo's position I understand that she believes that the scientific data has been skewed and that because of this global warming is not and will not be a problem.

 

[Evo]

Well you posted it as a support to Evo's position. So far from Evo's position I understand that she believes that the scientific data has been skewed and that because of this global warming is not and will not be a problem.

No, that is not my position. I think that the data is skewed due to unethical practices. Don't make the mistake of putting words into someone's mouth.

 

[Evo]

This all points to saying that you do not accept that global warming is a problem present or future and that the reason you believe this is because an ex-boyfriend of yours had confided in you that he had to 'fudge' data in his reports to be pro-agw.

This all points to me saying that I believe that some people that are resposible for getting the data to the government and the media are skewing the data. Like I said in a previous post

I was quite aware of it. See my posts about the climate scientist I dated that was always complaining about being made to fudge his reports to make it seem like agw was a real concern. It's not unheard of in science, unfortunately, it just points out that you can't believe the data that's presented in these types of sciences. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize that it's not necessarily what you're being lead to believe.

You are of course free to change your position or correct statements or make your position more clear but you shouldn't resort to being hostile and making apparent threats. (yes when you say to me don't make the mistake yada yada I take it as a threat because you're one of the mentors here that swings that ban hammer and lock thread sword really quickly I've noticed)

When I warn you not to put words into someone's mouth, that is exactly what I mean. I can't help it if you think that's hostile and making threats. It is a warning that we don't condone that here, it is not acceptable. And you are, of course, free to apologize for doing so.

From the guidelines

Consistent with our general forum guidelines, if you disagree with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks

Have you read the guidelines?

 

[Sorry!]

This all points to me saying that I believe that some people that are resposible for getting the data to the government and the media are skewing the data. Like I said in a previous post

When I warn you not to put words into someone's mouth, that is exactly what I mean. I can't help it if you think that's hostile and making threats. It is a warning that we don't condone that here. From the guidelines Have you read the guidelines?

Well I assume you can kindly point me in the direction of which words I have put into your mouth.

As well I have read the guidelines, I haven't attacked you at all, I've attacked a few of your points but hey if you don't like that then why are you posting in the politics forums?

 

[Evo]

Well I assume you can kindly point me in the direction of which words I have put into your mouth.

I quoted it post 75

So far from Evo's position I understand that she believes that the scientific data has been skewed and that because of this global warming is not and will not be a problem.

(bolding mine) I have never said this. Your post would intentionally mislead someone reading it into thinking I had actually said that. That's misinformation. That's a violation. I have not given you an infraction for that. But it's not going to be allowed to continue.

 

[Sorry!]

I quoted it post 75 (bolding mine) I have never said this. Your post would intentionally mislead someone reading it into thinking I had actually said that. That's misinformation.

So you don't believe that global warming isn't a problem? Kind of puts your position at odds since the main point I was really arguing the entire time was that global warming IS and WILL BE a problem and you have been replying to these posts with counter-claims. Anyone can read your posts on their own and I'm sure they will infere something close to what I've already posted.

Regardless, I don't think there's any need for your macho I have ban-stick attitude over such a trivial matter as someone mistakenly posting your position incorrectly, in my post I even put "I understand that..." A simple correction is all that's needed.

EDIT: I'll just put this here:

...intentional skewing of facts to create a false outcome...

Said when responding to my post about how I believe that global warming is a real problem regardless of how unprofessional these particular scientists acted.

 

[Evo]

So you don't believe that global warming isn't a problem? Kind of puts your position at odds since the main point I was really arguing the entire time was that global warming IS and WILL BE a problem and you have been replying to these posts with counter-claims. Anyone can read your posts on their own and I'm sure they will infere something close to what I've already posted.

And I'm saying that due to some people fudging it's harder than ever to know what information is completely accurate, somewhat accurate and/or does it even make any difference. I say, be honest, don't mess with the data. I am against dishonesty, even if the person believes they are doing it for a "good' reason".

 

[mheslep]

So you don't believe that global warming isn't a problem? Kind of puts your position at odds since the main point I was really arguing the entire time was that global warming IS and WILL BE a problem and you have been replying to these posts with counter-claims. Anyone can read your posts on their own and I'm sure they will infere something close to what I've already posted...

Yes I read Evo's post on my own, and yours. Here's my take: You misstated her position several times, denied you did so, then stated it might have simply been a trivial mistake, and ended with a complaint about the macho attitudes of mentors.

 

[Andre]

I agree I see that too

However, Sorry!

1: It would be nice to illustrate where exactly global warming is a problem now.

2: It would be nice to explain why you are sure that it will be a problem anywhere in the future, considering that there are some challenges for the IPCC to solve.

 

[Nebula815]

So what this hack shows really is a huge deal, I had been wondering if it was being blown out of proportion by GW skeptics or if the criticism were legitimate.

I think a problem for some in the research is that environmentalism is a religion (I do not mean environmentalism itself is a religion, just to some people it has become a religion). Michael Crichton wrote some articles talking about this (also a book, "State of Fear" that discusses it some). Basically he said environmentalism, of the religious variety, is a model of classical Christianity:

You have the initial period of harmony, when humans lived "in peace" with nature (akin to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden)

You have the moment of sin, when humans began manipulating nature to our own benefit (akin to Eve eating the fruit)

You have the coming doomsday, when the Earth will destroy all of humanity for its sins against Nature (akin to Revelations).

Crichton said that since so many humans need a religion to believe in, that when you suppress conventional religion in one respect, it oftentimes will pop up in another form, which for many, has turned out to be environmentalism and global warming.

It seems there are climate scientists who adhere to this religious variant of environmentalism unfortunately.

I think the religious variant of environmentalism, and the fact that this is politicized science, as it is science that directly influences policy, is what unfortunately makes it so prone to corruption and skewering of information.

 

[Integral]

I have seen no evidence of this being a political discussion. The title of the thread is not political in nature and as a matter of fact there in NO discussion of the title, only of the "stolen" emails.

I am moving this to Earth sciences where it should have been posted in the first place.

If this thread is to continue at least a nod needs to be given to the subject of the thread.

 

[Evo]

I have seen no evidence of this being a political discussion. The title of the thread is not political in nature and as a matter of fact there in NO discussion of the title, only of the "stolen" emails.

I am moving this to Earth sciences where it should have been posted in the first place.

If this thread is to continue at least a nod needs to be given to the subject of the thread.

This thread is about the political aspects of climate change.

There is nothing here discussing science, it is dicussing the current events surrounding it.

See the article from the Wall Street Journal Politics section. This is not about the science, this is about unethical practices and the politics involved. Monique already decided that this topic was not suitable for the Earth forum, which is for discussing the science only.

 

[Coldcall]

I agree with Evo.

This has become an ideological issue and the current discussion pertaining to the CRU email hack or leak is not about the actual science, but is about the process for doing science.

The fact that in the West we are being asked to spend trillions on the assumption (now very questionable) that we are primarily responsible for golbal warming makes it a political and cultural issue.

 

[seycyrus]

I have seen no evidence of this being a political discussion. The title of the thread is not political in nature and as a matter of fact there in NO discussion of the title, only of the "stolen" emails.

I am moving this to Earth sciences where it should have been posted in the first place.

I'll apologize upfront for offending anyone.

But this moderation seems to be very much in-line with tactics suggested in the stolen emails.

 

[seycyrus]

Ummm... and how often has it happened?

*AND*, how often is it going to happen in the future as predicted by AGW?

 

[Andre]

This thread is about the political aspects of climate change.

There is nothing here discussing science, it is dicussing the current events surrounding it.

See the article from the Wall Street Journal Politics section. This is not about the science, this is about unethical practices and the politics involved. Monique already decided that this topic was not suitable for the Earth forum, which is for discussing the science only.

There are two elements here, firstly the recycling of tipping point predictions and their political/ scientific merit and secondly the hack of a CRU computer exposing some sensitive e-mail discussions of which there is a locked thread in the Earth forums. Obviously that is not about science but about how climate 'science' is made. About the latter some more interesting opinions edit: removed links to non-mainstream sources.

 

[Evo]

There are two elements here, firstly the recycling of tipping point predictions and their political/ scientific merit and secondly the hack of a CRU computer exposing some sensitive e-mail discussions of which there is a locked thread in the Earth forums. Obviously that is not about science but about how climate 'science' is made. About the latter some more interesting opinions edit: removed links to non-mainstream sources.

Andre, we don't allow biased blogs as references. You can link to the individual news articles such as the WSJ.

Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html

Climate Emails Stoke Debate

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

 

[Evo]

I will be cleaning this thread up later. Any discussion of actual science needs to go into the Earth forum and will be deleted, feel free to repost any data related to climate science in the Earth forum, this thread will strictly be for discussion of the political and ethical aspects of climate science.