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

[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.

 

[Naty1]

Recent reports suggest IPCC man made global warming data has been a fabrication for political purposes:

From the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

If true,even in part, heads will roll and law suits likely will be plentiful!

 

[Evo]

Sorry an incorrect post was moved that didn't belong here. I will try to move them back to the Earth forum later. There is some glitch.

 

[Coldcall]

RE: The leaked or hacked CRU emails. (as of yet there is no evidence of any hacking)

In my opinion the mainstream media have focused on the wrong aspects contained in those emails. The "nature trick" email is no smoking gun because i think its reasonable that they were actually discussing a mathematical shortcut.

However, the really worrying part in the CRU emails revolves around how a small cabal of climate scientists colluded in order to suppress a fully critical peer review process. No contextual understanding is necessary in order to come to that conclusion based on any neutral reading of those emails.

Further more there are the emails which discuss amongst other things:

1) Deleting important emails and data relating to FOI requests. (This is illegal)
2) Convincing the FOI officials that because those applying for the release of info were agw sceptics, the requests should be rejected. (It should not matter one jot about the motives of the FOI requests).
3) Discussions about getting sceptical scientific colleagues removed from peer review boards.
4) Discussions about getting certain editors of scientific publications removed because they were not agw alarmists.

So leaving aside the emails about "tricks" and "hiding declines", the fact that these scientists seemed so intent on removing any critical probing of their data and findings is the real disgrace and will permannently stain the repuation of the scientific community.

Can anyone imagine Bohr and Einstein writing letters to their on-side colleagues colluding in order to bias the peer review process over foundational qm? Neither of those two intellectual giants would ever have dreamed of such disgusting and anti-scientific behaviour.

In contrast the CRU scientists are a complete disgrace to their profession. Dr Phil Jones should resign and all their previous studies should be analysed to an inch of its life so that we can ascertain if their work stands up to scrutiny.

 

[Count Iblis]

So leaving aside the emails about "tricks" and "hiding declines", the fact that these scientists seemed so intent on removing any critical probing of their data and findings is the real disgrace and will permannently stain the repuation of the scientific community.

I don't think so, given the fact how the sceptics are regarded within the climate science community. No reputable scientist would want their data to be reviewed by people who they regard as completely incompetent.

In this case there are emails in which some suggestions were made, but no action was taken. So, there is nothing more than some private talk amoung scientists. And what they say is not out of line with what happens in any other discipline.

You can even take Einstein and consider his reaction after his paper on gravitational waves was rejected by the Physical Review. That reaction was not really very professional.

 

[Evo]

The people whose e-mails and data files were released are working on a statement to defend themselves. When it comes out, I'll post it here.

 

[sylas]

The people whose e-mails and data files were released are working on a statement to defend themselves. When it comes out, I'll post it here.

There are already a number of statements available. I've been holding my peace on this here for the most part because I'm not sure what good it can do, and it is not entirely clear to me what guidelines we should be operating under. But in any case:

The initial hack was at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and the files were all stolen from their system. They have released three simultaneous statements; and I also provide an earlier comment and a response from another directly involved scientist. Here are the formal responses:

• Formal statements from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research at the University of East Anglia; and from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia; and from the CRU as an organization. See http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate.
• An earlier initial press release from the CRU, and statement from Professor Jones: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update.
• A formal set of questions and answers from Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, who is prominent in the stolen files, but not actually at the CRU: Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails; at desmogblog.

The most comprehensive discussions of the stolen emails is taking place at a couple of blogs. Normally blogs are not appropriate sources at physicsforums; and if mentors deem this inappropriate I will not object to removing the following links. However, in my opinion this is a case where the blogs are directly relevant; they are maintained by people involved directly in the affair in various ways, from the side of the CRU and from the side of their critics. Realclimate is an education blog seeking to explain the mainstream climate science perspective by active working scientists who are very prominent in the field, and Climate Audit is a blog specifically aiming to give a detailed examination, or "audit" of various conclusions of scientists as represented at realclimate. In both cases, the comments at the blogs give a picture of the two very different reactions; as the majority of commenters at each blog tend to align with the views of the blog itself.

Edit: removed blog links.

Both blogs were directly involved, both by virtue of extensive mention of the blogs and their authors in the stolen files, and by direct involvement with the hack. As well as the original theft from CRU, the so far unidentified hackers attempted to compromise the realclimate blog, and replace its content with a message pointing to the files; and they also made early announcement of the files at climate audit.

I may comment more on my own view of the whole affair at some point -- which you can probably guess -- but for the time being these are the most directly relevant statements available.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

I don't understand however how everyone can look at what the scientists said in a select few e-mails and go automatically against them and what they talk about. Meanwhile they forgot completely that the people who released the files hacked into a government research facility and stole confidential information; for political purposes. I guess it's because one seems 'just' and one doesn't however how is releasing only specific emails which make the unit look bad and forcing people to take them out of context a 'just' thing to do...

Actually if you read the responses Sylas posted you can see that the scientists are responding pretty much the same way I did before. Everything they did in relation to 'hide the decline' or 'tricks' was already known to the public... they never tried to keep any of it secret but since most people who are skeptical of climate change don't actually do the research into climate change (just sit on their couch and say its bull----) they wouldn't know about those papers and the reasons behind them saying 'tricks' they used. Of course these people will jump when e-mails get released where scientists are using these words in probably not the best of ways but, something to keep in mind is that, they aren't writting these e-mails to you or to ever been read by the public, they were writing them to other climate scientists who understood exactly what was meant in the e-mails. Considering the reputation of many skeptics I would hate to see their e-mails released on the web for everyone to see.

I think however that Phil Jones should probably lose his position as director (that is his position correct?). Suggesting to delete e-mails is just not the way science should be conducted. Although they do have a reason for wanting to delete the e-mails he never should have suggested it at all... it's a good thing they didn't listen (or some of the skeptics on here would have a point about how them deleting their e-mails proves they have something to hide).

 

[Astronuc]

Some interesting commentary from climate scientists who "recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change." They don't say humans are causing climate change or global warming, but that human activities are probably contributing to the change. On the other hand, they offer caution as to remedial actions.

A fundamental point that needs to be understood is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto protocol) are implemented, they will have an effect on the climate so small that it cannot be detected.

None of these proposals will change what the climate is doing enough to notice.

Those are good reasons not to artificially force energy prices up. While raising energy costs might damage the economy, it would disproportionately hurt the poor, especially those people living on the world's social and economic fringes.

While no direct evidence of ecological damage from carbon dioxide has been found, that is no excuse for reducing environmental protection.

We shouldn't undo the good things that have been done to clean the air and water. More should be done, especially in developing countries.

Beyond quality of life issues, human life itself is significantly more threatened by polluted water, polluted air, habitat destruction, unbridled population growth and a host of related ecological problems than it is by global climate change on the scales that we have seen in the past 28 years.

Millions of children around the world die every year due to water borne diseases. Tens of millions of people are forced to breathe air that is blackened and made toxic by fumes from leaded gasoline, industrial pollution and cooking fires.

Women and girls in some developing countries are forced to walk miles each day from their villages to the receding edges of the forests to harvest green wood and other low-energy biomass for the fires they use to cook their meals and heat their homes.

A U.N. report estimated that 1.6 million people — most of them women and children — die each year due to indoor pollution from cooking fires.

While the extent of human impacts on global climate change remains uncertain, research by our colleagues at UAH confirms that deforestation and land conversion are changing regional weather patterns and the local climate over some parts of the world.

We should also do what the U.S. does best: We should encourage and support the scientists and engineers who will develop new sources of low-cost energy. Just as transportation was "de-horsified" in the last century, we believe energy in the 21st century will continue to be de-carbonized.

Ironically, actions that artificially inflate the cost of energy might hamper those efforts, as healthy economies can better afford to find and develop alternative energy sources and cleaner energy technologies.

We should also enhance the national and international infrastructure for dealing with climate and weather events, including droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. We know these events will continue to happen whether the climate changes or not. Everyone would benefit if we were better prepared when they happen.

Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately. Perhaps, at some point in the future, we might even be able to reliably forecast what the climate will do in future generations.

— Dr. John R. Christy & Dr. Roy Spencer
Earth System Science Center
The University of Alabama in Huntsville

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

That's not propaganda, but a thoughtful discussion.


Perhaps the problem is the communication (or propaganda) by proponents of AGW/GW (be they alarmist scientists and policymakers) and dismissive skeptics or opponents of AGW/GW.

 

[sylas]

I think however that Phil Jones should probably lose his position as director (that is his position correct?). Suggesting to delete e-mails is just not the way science should be conducted. Although they do have a reason for wanting to delete the e-mails he never should have suggested it at all... it's a good thing they didn't listen (or some of the skeptics on here would have a point about how them deleting their e-mails proves they have something to hide).

Looking at more of the context of that remark is very revealing, in my opinion, and you can certainly do so with the stolen emails. I am in two minds about whether it is proper to trawl through them. But there's an unfair attack on the victims of the theft, IMO, and perhaps this can justify looking at more context to see how unreasonable it is.

The formal statement by Professor Jones concludes with the following:

My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.

We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.[/color]​

He's right; and it would have been better to write always with the view that emails can get stolen. He is right to express regret. Most of the stuff in the emails that looks bad is merely being misunderstood; but there are also things said that were better not said. I don't think that is a resigning offense. These were private emails, and in context they are quite understandable even when not always laudable. There is no indication of any actual fraud, hoax or public deception.

I think resignation is the wrong thing entirely; and (IMO) merely plays into the probable desire of the hacker to disrupt and distract and otherwise do damage to the work of these scientists and of the CRU.

Enough of the stolen emails were released to get some real insight into what went on BEFORE the remarks that appear most damaging.

The deluge of improper FOI demands

The University of East Anglia was at this time subject to an extraordinary deluge of vexatious and frivolous freedom of information demands. Some readers will disagree with my choice of adjectives; what is on record is that they were getting up around hundred demands in rapid succession; and most of the demands were rejected (all of them? I don't know). The rejection was appealed, and the rejection was upheld. That is, the demands really were deemed to be invalid. The more you look at the background the worse it looks for the individuals making those demands; not for the scientists who were being harassed.

Enormous amounts of time and energy were wasted, and given the new legislation in the UK which had not been fully tested in the courts, scientists were rightly concerned about decisions that might extend beyond what was a reasonable release of information. Releasing data, of course, is a good thing; and the CRU is acting as well as they possibly can given their own legal constraints.

Deleting emails before they became subject to some vexatious FOI demand is not illegal. There's been all kinds of conflicting statements made about this, much of it really nonsensical; but the discussion in the stolen emails does show people intensely frustrated by certain specific demands that THEY certainly considered to be merely vexatious harassment, and which as it turns out, they were able to demonstrate to be basically frivolous to the officers in charge of handling the FOI requests.

Steve McIntyre, for one, will disagree; and to declare my own bias up front, he is in my opinion near the rock bottom of climate denial. He did have the potential to be a credible skeptic -- which is a GOOD thing in science -- and that potential was wasted. This is, of course, a personal judgment and I to not propose to argue for my view. I understand not everyone will agree with me; I declare my own bias.

Deletion of private emails not yet subject to a FOI request is a step to consider, IMO. There is no indication that any data or other actually relevant scientific information was ever destroyed, and this is emphatically denied by all concerned. It would be a bizarre thing to do, frankly, and even with the matter of emails it seems people didn't actually end up bothering to delete anything.

If you really want to get a feel for what these guys have been putting up with, then you can try getting hold of the stolen emails, and reading the 5% or so of them (that is, about 50 emails) that have the string FOI, or "freedom of information". Don't just pick the ones that look worst; look at the whole history of what was happening. I don't expect to persuade anyone already with a strong view (and I am in that category also, I admit).

How to engage as a scientist in these circumstances

I do agree with Phil Jones and others that many emails were ill advised in how they were expressed. I expect folks will be more cautious in future. But in my honest opinion it is the skeptics involved in this who end up looking like complete tools when you read the whole sequence. I don't mean all skeptics; I mean the ones specifically involved in the harassment of scientists.

Skepticism is in general a good thing. I admit to thinking that a lot of skepticism on climate is credulous naivety; but in general I am still happy to take it all as genuine good faith concerns from people who think I am the one who is naive, and simply address the associated science questions on a case by case basis as long as people find a value in it, in the proper science discussion forum. Nothing about this emails affair will change that.

IMO what the hacked emails affair reveals is a much darker side of the conflict; a malicious and aggressive disruption of the work of scientists, and THAT is the backdrop to ill considered remarks about deleting emails. And with the hack, from persons unknown, the harassment has extended to being outright felonious.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

Looking at more of the context of that remark is very revealing, in my opinion, and you can certainly do so with the stolen emails. I am in two minds about whether it is proper to trawl through them. But there's an unfair attack on the victims of the theft, IMO, and perhaps this can justify looking at more context to see how unreasonable it is.

The formal statement by Professor Jones concludes with the following:

My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.

We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.[/color]​

He's right; and it would have been better to write always with the view that emails can get stolen. He is right to express regret. Most of the stuff in the emails that looks bad is merely being misunderstood; but there are also things said that were better not said. I don't think that is a resigning offense. These were private emails, and in context they are quite understandable even when not always laudable. There is no indication of any actual fraud, hoax or public deception.

I think resignation is the wrong thing entirely; and (IMO) merely plays into the probable desire of the hacker to disrupt and distract and otherwise do damage to the work of these scientists and of the CRU.

Enough of the stolen emails were released to get some real insight into what went on BEFORE the remarks that appear most damaging.

The deluge of improper FOI demands

The University of East Anglia was at this time subject to an extraordinary deluge of vexatious and frivolous freedom of information demands. Some readers will disagree with my choice of adjectives; what is on record is that they were getting up around hundred demands in rapid succession; and most of the demands were rejected (all of them? I don't know). The rejection was appealed, and the rejection was upheld. That is, the demands really were deemed to be invalid. The more you look at the background the worse it looks for the individuals making those demands; not for the scientists who were being harassed.

Enormous amounts of time and energy were wasted, and given the new legislation in the UK which had not been fully tested in the courts, scientists were rightly concerned about decisions that might extend beyond what was a reasonable release of information. Releasing data, of course, is a good thing; and the CRU is acting as well as they possibly can given their own legal constraints.

Deleting emails before they became subject to some vexatious FOI demand is not illegal. There's been all kinds of conflicting statements made about this, much of it really nonsensical; but the discussion in the stolen emails does show people intensely frustrated by certain specific demands that THEY certainly considered to be merely vexatious harassment, and which as it turns out, they were able to demonstrate to be basically frivolous to the officers in charge of handling the FOI requests.

Steve McIntyre, for one, will disagree; and to declare my own bias up front, he is in my opinion near the rock bottom of climate denial. He did have the potential to be a credible skeptic -- which is a GOOD thing in science -- and that potential was wasted. This is, of course, a personal judgment and I to not propose to argue for my view. I understand not everyone will agree with me; I declare my own bias.

Deletion of private emails not yet subject to a FOI request is a step to consider, IMO. There is no indication that any data or other actually relevant scientific information was ever destroyed, and this is emphatically denied by all concerned. It would be a bizarre thing to do, frankly, and even with the matter of emails it seems people didn't actually end up bothering to delete anything.

If you really want to get a feel for what these guys have been putting up with, then you can try getting hold of the stolen emails, and reading the 5% or so of them (that is, about 50 emails) that have the string FOI, or "freedom of information". Don't just pick the ones that look worst; look at the whole history of what was happening. I don't expect to persuade anyone already with a strong view (and I am in that category also, I admit).

How to engage as a scientist in these circumstances

I do agree with Phil Jones and others that many emails were ill advised in how they were expressed. I expect folks will be more cautious in future. But in my honest opinion it is the skeptics involved in this who end up looking like complete tools when you read the whole sequence. I don't mean all skeptics; I mean the ones specifically involved in the harassment of scientists.

Skepticism is in general a good thing. I admit to thinking that a lot of skepticism on climate is credulous naivety; but in general I am still happy to take it all as genuine good faith concerns from people who think I am the one who is naive, and simply address the associated science questions on a case by case basis as long as people find a value in it, in the proper science discussion forum. Nothing about this emails affair will change that.

IMO what the hacked emails affair reveals is a much darker side of the conflict; a malicious and aggressive disruption of the work of scientists, and THAT is the backdrop to ill considered remarks about deleting emails. And with the hack, from persons unknown, the harassment has extended to being outright felonious.

Cheers -- sylas

I do agree with you sylas but one thing that is important in this whole thing (since this is the politics forum) is how this looks on climate science in general. Jones requesting that multiple persons delete e-mails in my opinion (regardless of the circumstance) does not look good in public light. I agree about McIntyre as well but it still does not look good in public light. What climate scientists have to do now is try to get back into favourable light (which is pretty hard considering they weren't exactly in favourable light prior to the e-mails and people are jumping on this bandwagon). I think that while deleting the e-mails is completely legal it never should have been requested. Sure making requests in the 'heat of the moment' is possible but someone in his position should not be doing those types of things.

If you look at the responses from the other scientists about the request none of them agreed with it and they point back to how it was Jones who wanted it done... it just does not look good on him at all.

 

[Sorry!]

Some interesting commentary from climate scientists who "recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change."

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

A major part of climate science is to attempt to go as far back as we can measuring the temperature. I believe in order to get our own time period we have gone back 2000 years. It's not as if they are comparing our temperature now to what the temperature was say 50,000 years ago in the middle of a glaciation.

 

[Astronuc]

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

A major part of climate science is to attempt to go as far back as we can measuring the temperature. I believe in order to get our own time period we have gone back 2000 years. It's not as if they are comparing our temperature now to what the temperature was say 50,000 years ago in the middle of a glaciation.

It is well established that there are warming and cooling cycles. As far as I can tell, the discussion/argument is whether or not there is a current warming trend and how much of that trend is due to do human activity.

It appears that there are those who argue - there is no warming trend - and some of those claim scientists are falsifying or fudging their work to show that there is a warming trend.

Then there are those who argue that there is or might be a warming trend - but it's entirely natural - and therefore we don't need to do anything differently, i.e., we can ignore any consequences and just proceed as before, or the consequences are no big deal and we don't need to take extraordinary actions.

There there are those who argue that there is a warming trend and we must take mitigating actions to stop or even reverse the warming trend, and we must take extraordinary measures to deal with the extraordinary consequences.

And there are those who argue that - wait! - the Earth is actually cooling - and we don't need to worry or we need to enhance the heating.


Ultimately - one has to look at the quality of the argument and evidence.


Now some say - well heck it was warm way back when and the earth/life survived. True. But we also know that many species became extinct. Based on that there are some who are concerned that current warming might lead to widespread death of the human population. Now some might see that a bad thing (bad in the sense that people suffer and die), but others might see that a good (reduces competition for limited resources).

At present, humanity has committed a lot of infrastructure and investment that simply cannot be picked up and moved - certainly not economically. That seems to be a principal concern with respect to rising ocean levels. There is also the related issue the more energy in the atmosphere means more active/extreme weather (hurricanes and tornadoes) which means more property damage/destruction and injury or death. That's a quality of life (human suffering) and economic issue.


So which argument is correct? And what is the appropriate course of action?

 

[sylas]

I do agree with you sylas but one thing that is important in this whole thing (since this is the politics forum) is how this looks on climate science in general. Jones requesting that multiple persons delete e-mails in my opinion (regardless of the circumstance) does not look good in public light. ...

Exactly. It doesn't look good. The remarks, even though made privately, were ill advised and he has rightly expressed regret.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here. So what to do now?

Option 1. Self justification?

Despite my attempt to give a kind of apologetics for those unfortunate remarks, I don't actually think it is going to be very useful to make a big public issue over it. There's more than could be said; but you will never convince people who don't want to be convinced, and people who want to forgive him will do so anyway. A few folks on the fence might be persuaded that he's not nearly as bad in reality as is being suggested by his harshest critics, but in the meantime we just fling lots of mud all over the place and waste yet more time.

Option 2. Self immolation?

I disagree very strongly with calls for his resignation. George Monbiot has been the most damaging such call, given his strong record as an outspoken supporter of the science that Phil Jones represents, and I think George has it wrong.

Resignation of one scapegoat won't satisfy the loudest critics; they want to push these stolen files as the magic bullet to expose the whole hoax and fraud from top to bottom; it will merely give more leverage to try and get more resignations and character assassinations. It won't actually help anything for the CRU; in fact it will just be more disruption to their core business for no actual benefit I can see; certainly it will give no let up to the attacks (look again at the emails and what has been going on already for years).

And, frankly, it is simply over the top as far as justice is concerned.

For what it is worth, the University has already expressed their strongest support for him. From Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims in guardian.co.uk, 24 Nov 2009:

Trevor Davies, the University of East Anglia's pro-vice-chancellor with responsibility for research, rejected calls – including from the Guardian commentator George Monbiot – for Jones to resign: "We see no reason for Professor Jones to resign and, indeed, we would not accept his resignation. He is a valued and important scientist."[/color]​

Quite so.

Option 3. Measured regret, and get on with the job.

This is what has been chosen; and it is the right choice. The statements given acknowledge the problems with wording in some emails, and expresses regret. From the same story in the Guardian:

Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."[/color]​

That no deletions occurred seems a natural conclusion, given that the email actually suggesting this was not deleted! And note... we have only been able to see the emails that the hacker decided to show. It is, explicitly according to comment given with the file by the unknown hacker, a selection.

My suggestion: let the scientists get back to working on the science, as soon as possible -- and wish the police good luck in finding the hacker.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[turbo]

I have read several dozen of the emails stolen from CRU. I don't find them damning because they discuss methodology, robustness of results, etc. That's how science is done among peers. You need to critically examine the data AND the analysis to identify weaknesses and potential problems. Also, if the data don't fit your model well, you have to consider how the model might have to be modified to accommodate observations. If none of these things had been done with due diligence, then CRU's opponents would have some justification for claiming "fraud".

One troubling aspect, IMO - there seems to be a very small number of emails for such a large and on-going project. My 2 collaborators and I generated far more emails than that during a short 2-year project identifying and classifying interacting galaxies. Was the release selective or cherry-picked by the hacker(s)? We may never know unless the management at CRU chooses to discuss the extent of the theft and the completeness of the posted email files. The timing of the theft and release of the emails seems to be connected with the upcoming Copenhagen summit, so we should treat the integrity of the release with some suspicion.

 

[seycyrus]

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities ...

And there we go back to the defined qualifiers "likely", and "very likely" and the suspiciously undefined "most".

Didn't you say something about 90% in another thread?

 

[seycyrus]

I have read several dozen of the emails stolen from CRU. I don't find them damning because they discuss methodology, robustness of results, etc. That's how science is done among peers.

Oh please. You DO NOT tell people to go and delete their emails.

 

[sylas]

Ultimately - one has to look at the quality of the argument and evidence.

For the kinds of questions you appear to be asking here, we can do that, in the science related forums.

I can see the reasons for it, but it can get tricky to attempt a clean distinction between science and politics. The conclusions of science impact upon policy choices. Even if we have incomplete and uncertain information; we should expect our governments and other decision makers to use the best information available, including best information about what is certain or uncertain. Not only about climate, but about anything!

But you can't decide the answers on the basis of politics; that way lies disaster. Policy may help decide what questions are worth investigating, for the benefit to policy makers or to society. Science, however, does not decide the answers based on the policy you'd like to support.

Hence: science forum discussions need to be based simply on the merits of argument and evidence, on a case by case by case basis. Getting into political implications or alleged improper motivations for particular conclusions is not appropriate there.

Here: what to do when there's a disagreement on a question of science? A policy argument predicated on a particular conclusion on the science (this can work either way!) can sometimes be given as an implicit statement about the science; a cheap way to make an unargued assertion about (on the one hand) how climate change will be massively expensive, or (on the other hand) about how climate change is not caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

And there we go back to the defined qualifiers "likely", and "very likely" and the suspiciously undefined "most".

Didn't you say something about 90% in another thread?

Uhm, no, I never said anything about 90% of climate change being attributed to human activities... I don't think at least. Instead of posting random non-sense you should just post the actual statement.

 

[Sorry!]

Oh please. You DO NOT tell people to go and delete their emails.

If you read turbo-1's other post you would see that he does agree that the request to delete e-mails was out of line, he also shows his position on why he doesn't think it is very damaging to climate science as a whole.

Clearly you must fall into his, 'already against AGW and won't change no matter what happens.'

 

[seycyrus]

Uhm, no, I never said anything about 90% of climate change being attributed to human activities... I don't think at least.

My comment was directed at the way the IPCC's statement has defined "likely" and "very likely". I thought incorrectly, that you and I had exchanged comments about this in another thread. My apologies.

But since you insist on being blatantly offensive, I will call you on your strawman, and ask you to point out who exactly **"... thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities."** - Bold mine

This post here strikes me as not knowing enough about the science in question or even in science in general.

Oh is this another cleverly hidden personal attack? Way to go! And in response to such a short post on my part... What, did I give your girlfriend a hard time in the past or sumthin?

 

[seycyrus]

If you read turbo-1's other post...

But I wasn't responding to his other post.

Clearly you must fall into his, 'already against AGW and won't change no matter what happens.'

I'm certainly against the exaggerated stance of the IPCC's current statement.

 

[Sorry!]

My comment was directed at the way the IPCC's statement has defined "likely" and "very likely". I thought incorrectly, that you and I had exchanged comments about this in another thread. My apologies.

Very nice.

But since you insist on being blatantly offensive, I will call you on your strawman, and ask you to point out who exactly **"... thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities."** - Bold mine

How is this a strawman? I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote. Actually I'll make it easier:

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

(so I guess that makes you the one making the fallacy... interesting how that works out.)

Oh is this another cleverly hidden personal attack? Way to go! And in response to such a short post on my part... What, did I give your girlfriend a hard time in the past or sumthin?

You are the one who is being hostile in your posts(towards myself and turbo, how was I to know you mistaken me for someone else?) I was just responding in kind. As well I highly doubt my girlfriend would have taken any interest in you at any point in the past so it's probably not very likely that you did that. Sorry, no.

 

[Sorry!]

But I wasn't responding to his other post.

But your responding to his position, which he made clear in two posts. This is like reading the first page of a report and attacking the entire report only to find out that your attack is answered later on in the report anyways.

I'm certainly against the exaggerated stance of the IPCC's current statement.

Which one.?

 

[seycyrus]

How is this a strawman? I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote. Actually I'll make it easier:

Are you just shooting to make noise? I copy/pasted your original comment with ellipses to designate omitted parts. I admit that I can't figure out the multiquote (will a personal attack soon follow?), but i try my best.

I read your statement several times. You raised the specter of
**"Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities..."
**

so that you could shoot it down in the next sentence. That's a strawman. Can you show me such a person who has made that claim regarding the beliefs of climate scientists?

You are the one who is being hostile in your posts(towards myself

Those two sentences were hostile? These two?
**
And there we go back to the defined qualifiers "likely", and "very likely" and the suspiciously undefined "most".

Didn't you say something about 90% in another thread?
**

Unlikely.

... I was just responding in kind.

You were responding in kind? Show me where I called into question your comprehension of science.

As well I highly doubt my girlfriend would have taken any interest in you at any point in the past so it's probably not 'very likely' that you did that. Sorry, no.

Since it is obvious to both of us that I do not know you or your g-friend in real life, it is likewise obvious that my comment was implying that you were carrying this hostility towards me as baggage from something else you have read.

 

[Sorry!]

Are you just shooting to make noise? I copy/pasted your original comment with ellipses to designate omitted parts. I admit that I can't figure out the multiquote (will a personal atatck soon follow), but i try my best.

I read your statement several times. You raised the specter of
**"Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities..."

This is not a straw-man at all. I was responding to Astronucs post about how scientists view climate change not as solely caused by humans. I was agreeing with his post and pointing out that probably no one on these forums thinks that way. If any do though they are far-removed from the reality of science. You must be reading deep, deep in between some particular lines to make up what you're claiming.

Since it is obvious to both of us that I do not know you or your g-friend in real life, it is likewise obvious that my comment was implying that you were carrying this hostility towards me as baggage from something else you have read.

I know.

 

[seycyrus]

This is not a straw-man at all.

It's the definition of a strawman. You raised the spectre of something that doesn't exist for the sole reason of making your own point. Your raised a weak argument so that you could counter it with your own argument.

Now, would you please point out where, in THIS thread, Turbo discussed the deleted emails?

Would you please point out where I questioned your comprehension of science, so that I can understand how you responded *in kind*.

 

[Sorry!]

It's the definition of a strawman. You raised the spectre of something that doesn't exist for the sole reason of making your own point. Your raised a weak argument so that you could counter it with your own argument.

Now, would you please point out where, in THIS thread, Turbo discussed the deleted emails?

Would you please point out where I questioned your comprehension of science, so that I can understand how you responded *in kind*.

In kind refers to the hostility of the posts not the same subject matter of the posts...

As well I was mistaken it was sylas that posted, it jumped to his post when it showed the last poster was turbo-1 so I assumed that was turbo's post.

My post is not a strawman
Astronuc posted

Some interesting commentary from climate scientists who "recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change." They don't say humans are causing climate change or global warming, but that human activities are probably contributing to the change. On the other hand, they offer caution as to remedial actions.

(bold mine)

Along with an article, I supported his posting of the article by saying:

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

A major part of climate science is to attempt to go as far back as we can measuring the temperature. I believe in order to get our own time period we have gone back 2000 years. It's not as if they are comparing our temperature now to what the temperature was say 50,000 years ago in the middle of a glaciation.

He responded to me in support of my post as well as what his take is on the views of people related to climate change.

So again, point out, how this is a strawman fallacy, using logic this time.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Global climate change - as it is now called - is a scare tactic. There is nothing new about this. I will point to an obvious example in the 1950's concerning the Red Scare. There may have been legitimate arguements in which communist did exist and were infiltrating the US government.

However, the argument that global climate change is going to doom us all has no merit because it offers no solution. The lack of any real imagination to solve the supposed problem should have been like an alarm going off.

On a similar not, Linus Pauling and others had strong evidence to support that above ground nuclear tests were harmful and could become more harmful if allowed to continue. Something was done about and it did not drag on for decades. That is the exact opposite of global climate change.

 

[Sorry!]

Global climate change - as it is now called - is a scare tactic. There is nothing new about this. I will point to an obvious example in the 1950's concerning the Red Scare. There may have been legitimate arguements in which communist did exist and were infiltrating the US government.

However, the argument that global climate change is going to doom us all has no merit because it offers no solution. The lack of any real imagination to solve the supposed problem should have been like an alarm going off.

On a similar not, Linus Pauling and others had strong evidence to support that above ground nuclear tests were harmful and could become more harmful if allowed to continue. Something was done about and it did not drag on for decades. That is the exact opposite of global climate change.

See seycyrus, this is a strawman fallacy. The post has 3 different strawman fallacies in one. Is based on no facts about climate change and is merely speculation/personal opinion on the matter.

 

[Evo]

The most comprehensive discussions of the stolen emails is taking place at a couple of blogs. Normally blogs are not appropriate sources at physicsforums; and if mentors deem this inappropriate I will not object to removing the following links. However, in my opinion this is a case where the blogs are directly relevant; they are maintained by people involved directly in the affair in various ways, from the side of the CRU and from the side of their critics. Realclimate is an education blog seeking to explain the mainstream climate science perspective by active working scientists who are very prominent in the field, and Climate Audit is a blog specifically aiming to give a detailed examination, or "audit" of various conclusions of scientists as represented at realclimate. In both cases, the comments at the blogs give a picture of the two very different reactions; as the majority of commenters at each blog tend to align with the views of the blog itself.

Edit, no, both are biased blogs and aren't allowed.

 

[Evo]

That no deletions occurred seems a natural conclusion, given that the email actually suggesting this was not deleted! And note... we have only been able to see the emails that the hacker decided to show. It is, explicitly according to comment given with the file by the unknown hacker, a selection.

That's what they need to prove right now, that they did not delete those e-mails. The e-mails in question appear to be missing. Hopefully they intend to produce the e-mails they were told to delete and clear this up.

When you know that you may have to release information and you intentionally delete the information, it's certainly not looking good, even if they can say that it's not illegal if there is no court order, it is definitely unethical. I know that I get notifications from our legal department that information is going to be requested and to not delete any e-mails I find on my computer that relates to the pending request. We have to adhere to government oversight, shareholders, etc... I have had to furnish e-mail correspondence and files and testify in court before on behalf of my former employer.

 

[seycyrus]

In kind refers to the hostility of the posts not the same subject matter of the posts...

There was no hostility in *my* post. Therefore you cannot be responding *in kind*.

As well I was mistaken it was sylas that posted, it jumped to his post when it showed the last poster was turbo-1 so I assumed that was turbo's post.

So... you attacked me personally because I responded to turbo's post and not to some other post that you thought he made, but he never did. Got it.

My post is not a strawman

It's the definitions of a strawman.

So again, point out, how this is a strawman fallacy, using logic this time.

I used logic last time. You used a strawman. The fact that you used it to argue a moot point does not make it not less so.

 

[seycyrus]

See seycyrus, this is a strawman fallacy. The post has 3 different strawman fallacies in one. Is based on no facts about climate change and is merely speculation/personal opinion on the matter.

You don't know what a strawman fallacy is, apparently.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You don't know what a strawman fallacy is, apparently.

From what I can tell Sorry was using his 'strawman' to communicate a point and not to actually refute an argument. If he is not refuting anything then it is not a fallacious argument.

Now if we could please discuss the topic and stop discussing the discussion it would be helpful to not have to sift through the noise.

 

[Coldcall]

Count Iblis,

"I don't think so, given the fact how the sceptics are regarded within the climate science community. No reputable scientist would want their data to be reviewed by people who they regard as completely incompetent."

Steve Macintyre is no incompetent. He has forced numerous corrections to climate data inaccuracies and mistakes. So if you are claiming he is incompetent then what does it make Mann, and Hansen whose errors he corrected?

Just because Macintyre is critical of the methods used by the warming alarmists is no excuse to withold publicly funded climate measurements.

Oh please don't compare a genius like Einstein to people like Mann and Hansen, that is really a joke.

 

[Count Iblis]

Count Iblis,

"I don't think so, given the fact how the sceptics are regarded within the climate science community. No reputable scientist would want their data to be reviewed by people who they regard as completely incompetent."

Steve Macintyre is no incompetent. He has forced numerous corrections to climate data inaccuracies and mistakes. So if you are claiming he is incompetent then what does it make Mann, and Hansen whose errors he corrected?

Just because Macintyre is critical of the methods used by the warming alarmists is no excuse to withold publicly funded climate measurements.

Oh please don't compare a genius like Einstein to people like Mann and Hansen, that is really a joke.

Macintyre did not really correct a major eror, the hockey stick is still an accepted fact. All he did is point out that the result may be less statistically significant as proof that GW exists based only on the data that went into the hockey stick.

It is similar to astrophysicists doing loads of data processing on the shapes of far away galaxies in a cluster to extract the dark matter signal (dark matter would warp the apparent shape of galaxies via weak gravitational lensing). If some dark matter skeptic comes along and criticizes some statement by these astrophysicists on this being proof that dark matter really exists, because this is not 8 sigma proof but only 4 sigma, so be it.

 

[Evo]

Macintyre did not really correct a major eror, the hockey stick is still an accepted fact. All he did is point out that the result may be less statistically significant as proof that GW exists based only on the data that went into the hockey stick.

It is similar to astrophysicists doing loads of data processing on the shapes of far away galaxies in a cluster to extract the dark matter signal (dark matter would warp the apparent shape of galaxies via weak gravitational lensing). If some dark matter skeptic comes along and criticizes some statement by these astrophysicists on this being proof that dark matter really exists, because this is not 8 sigma proof but only 4 sigma, so be it.

No, that's really not the same. Obvbiously we're not going to get into a discussion of everything that was found wrong with Mann's hockey stick here, that's been discussed in other threads.

I'm really amazed to find people on here saying that "hey everyone intentionally skews their data, it's ok". Even if that were true, it does not make the presented skewed results correct, does it? I believe that's the point, the data should not be intentionally skewed and presented to the public or to governments to push their agenda.

How does one interpret the intentions of the following e-mail?

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! ...

 

[Evo]

One of the released e-mails

From: Mick Kelly (mick.tiempo@gxxxxxxxx.com)
To: (P.Jones@uxxxxx.uk)
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

Mick

On the subject of integrity in Science

This is a quote from Feynman's famous 1974 commencement speech at Caltech:

It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

 

[Sorry!]

Evo you just don't give up huh? Selecting proper data to represent your theory based on the fact that other data you do not believe to be correct is not 'skewing' results. That's what science is all about, you may not agree with it and think that a scientists has to accept all results from all tests no matter what happens but I highly doubt we would have come as far scientifically as we have. If you knew ANYTHING about McIntyre then I doubt you would be posting on here that because the climate scientists want to not give information to him would strike you as 'skewing data' (which you make it seem like because you post reference in the same post as the one you talk about them skewing data). Just because you never paid attention to the side-details (the parts where they pointed out they had extra data that showed confunding results) they include in their reports, lectures, etc. etc. where they show why they believe that data is invalid doesn't mean they never did that... because they did.

 

[mheslep]

... There is no indication of any actual fraud, hoax or public deception...

Whether or not there's any actual misconduct, there's every indication that the authors and subjects of those emails would gladly entertain obscuring results contradictory to their hypothesis. They fall well short of the standard set by Feynman, posted by Evo in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2461921&postcount=105".