Peter Gleick is under fire for releasing strategy documents of the Heartland Institute, a group that denies human-induced global warming.
Image: Courtesy of World Economic Forum on Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
On February 14, some media outlets received internal documents of the Heartland Institute, a think-tank funded in part by oil and coal companies that downplays the role of human activity in climate change. The documents contained putative evidence that Heartland was funding efforts to influence what elementary schools teach about climate science. On February 20, Peter Gleick, a nationally known expert on water resources, admitted that he had obtained the documents by posing as a Heartland board member. Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, and has loudly criticized climate skeptics for misrepresenting facts or engaging in unethical behavior. Ironically, he was also chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s ethics committee, a post he simultaneously resigned.
The incident set off a firestorm of claims and counterclaims. Climate skeptics argued that scientists—particularly climate scientists—cannot be trusted. Pundits and journalists fretted that the event would undermine the credibility of climate science, and perhaps scientists in general.
Scientific American asked Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist who has been a consistently moderate voice at the center of the climate and ethics debate, to shed some light on the heated situation. At the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Schmidt has developed widely used models that assess how the oceans and atmosphere affect each other. He is also a co-founder and contributor at RealClimate.org, a Web site that aims to put climate issues in a scientific context.
Do the actions of Peter Gleick undercut climate science and scientists?
The outcry against Gleick is symptomatic of the wider issue of focusing on individuals instead of the science. This is actually a potential opportunity to focus again on real climate issues. If all we’re going to focus on is who did what, when, instead of the science, the policy, the solutions, that would be a waste of time.
How should scientists respond to this incident?
The proper response to misinformation is better information. Heartland and other groups like them just repeat the same old nonsense over and over again. You can spend your time trying to show that they are corrupt in some way, but that doesn’t help. Everybody knows there are fossil-fuel interests that are fueling these groups. It’s not news to demonstrate that. As scientists, we're supposed to be ethical, and upstanding, and we’re supposed to have truth and light on our side, and generally we do, but that doesn’t mean that we’re not human, that we’re not sometimes prone to irrationality in the heat of the moment.
Is better information enough? Will people listen?
Better information is information that people notice. It’s information that’s tailored to what people are interested in. The response to denialism is not alarmism, it’s context. I think it’s surprising how genuinely interested members of the public are in scientific subjects, and how woefully inadequately they are served by their general sources of information. There’s a huge role for scientists and journalists and educators in providing better information. We can do a lot more. The vast majority of the public doesn’t know what to think about climate change.
Is part of being a scientist, today, finding better ways to communicate your information?
Of course. But not everybody needs to be on TV. Some people are just not good at that. However, there is a whole generation of younger scientists who are thinking, “Why aren’t we talking about this stuff more?” They should be encouraged. We have a responsibility to the public to provide that information. It’s not necessarily an individual responsibility for every scientist, but the more people that do it, the more interesting that information will be, and it will give the public more entry points to the science.
See what we're tweeting about
134 Comments
Add Comment"Social media, right now, is just serving tribalism. You can poke at people, make fun of them. All that does is rile people up and cause them to do stupid things. It doesn’t help public understanding. As a mechanism for wider public engagement, social media is a complete disaster, quite frankly."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose this applies to the Comments section here.
Yeah, I reckon you are right. I was going to make a comment, but I reckon I won't now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just want to say one thing though.... The people who claim that humans are not the major cause in speeding up of, an otherwise normal climate change, are crazier than Junebugs; they don't have a brain in their head.
'admitted that he had obtained the documents by posing as a Heartland board member'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) isn't that the same strategy the FBI used to infiltrate terrorist cells or which has been used to confound criminals, even a now jailed fund manager in Canada?
b) how negligent is that association if they don't even know their own board members?
c) how were the mails obtained from the climate research unit at East Anglia?
d) etc
That heartland group has been caught in the act of trying to influence schools by improper means and now they cry and whine?
And a bunch of officials, hypocrites and self-appointed rights-watchers make a fuss?
Talk about double standard, bigotted stupidity and brainless fingerpointing!
I believe the climate is changing. I believe Mankind is playing a not insubstantial role in that change. I believe that our modern industrial society NEEDS to be examined, and probably changed to mitigate whatever role that society is culpable for in said climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do I KNOW? Practically nothing, I'm afraid. You see, I am not a scientist. I have no access to raw data and even if I did I lack the training to catalog, cull and interpret said data. I depend on the give and take of free scientific information to help me understand the impact of and the measures that may be needed to help balance this situation so both planet AND Mankind can survive and prosper. Acrimonious statements and behaviors on BOTH sides of this very important issue clouds perhaps not my judgement or decision making capabilities, but maybe other individuals who are not as discerning as myself.
Keep it real folks, and to the extent that it is possible, keep politics out of it. Thank you and have a good day to proponents on both sides of this, perhaps the most important issue ever to face Mankind and this Earth.
You *have* access to most of the raw data - all of it if you care to pay licensing fees to the organizations who collect/compile some of it. They could hand you all the data in a big lump though and it would help you understand climate science as much as handing you a particle accelerator would help you understand physics. That is to say you would still know nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou present the issue as if it's somehow balanced between science and the anti-science promoted by politicians and corrupt businesses like Heartland, Exxon etc. That's *exactly* what Heartland wants, you to treat the subject as if there is some sort of controversy. That's precisely how anti-science groups try to get religious creationism (a.k.a. "intelligent design") taught in science classes. Fundamentalists and Heartland want people to think that political rhetoric and hand waving is as good as a testable theories and a massive pile of evidence.
People should *not* treat irrational, illogical claims that have no supporting evidence whatsoever as equivalent to science.
Climate science deniers and creationists haven't got a leg to stand on because if they did, they'd publish their alternative theories. They have no alternative theories so they don't. All they do is sit on the sideline and make irrational/unfounded criticisms of the real science.
Einstein's theory of relativity didn't replace Newton's theory because Einstein and his supporters mocked and denied all of Newton's work. It replaced it because Einstein presented an alternative explanation that made testable predictions.
Likewise AGW/ACC theory isn't going to be replaced as a scientific theory because Heartland (and the corporate donors listed on those documents) interfere with science education and public discourse. It will *ONLY* change when someone presents an alternative theory that fits the evidence better.
I still believe that Heartland execs should be on trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity. To intentionally spread lies and cast doubt on the most likely explanation for a problem that will negatively affect everyone on the entire planet is more of a crime against humanity than anything any dictator or political party has every pulled off.
We don't need "balanced views" on relativity because some lunatic claims that faeries hold the planets in orbit, and we don't need "balanced views" on AGW/ACC theory because some political groups with clear financial incentives commits fraud and spreads lies.
for somebody who implies that he is too unwise or uneducated or uninternetsavvy to use google search you write a good English - how about using that intelligence to find the data you so desperately want to find? still too difficult? look up "global dimming".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy personal opinion? you're trying to hard to be too impartial to be credible.
Impartiality is what is going to carry this debate into the real process of decision making, otherwise the people remaining "unconvinced" will simply make the implementation of those decisions next to impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does impartiality come through in my statement? I stated I believe in detrimental (probably) climate change. I stated that I believe modern industrial society plays a defining role in that change.
Implication runs both directions. I stated what I stated. YOU implied that I was unwise or uneducated. I stated that I was UNTRAINED. Isn't that one of your major complaints of deniers? That they are untrained or stupid? Why would you be severe with a person that has views much closer to yours than deniers ever will? What could be your motivation? The only thing that occurs to me (which I derived through implication principles) is your passion. Nothing wrong with that, as I suppose my passion levels are not on a par with yours. A word of advice: don't alienate someone whom is probably your ally because their level of passion makes them a poor cheerleader. That seems to be your calling, jctyler, and you're quite good at it from reading your other posts. Have a nice day.
One thing I find troubling about science, is the tribalism. Science is pretty simple. Make testable claims, and then test them. Science only advances when your test unexpectedly fails. After all, you can ALWAYS find confirming evidence. Search for the black swans and you learn something. Every science experiment should be about falsifiable claims. One black swan is all it should take to falsify a claim. As more is understood, the harder it is to find new frontiers. So it is the critical eye that has the most value to advancing science. To hide from criticism is to hide from the truth. Embrace the criticism and it will set you free. If you want the world to embrace AGW/ACC then show the world your predictions and go out of your way to show when your predictions fail. Tell us what that taught you; what your new predictions are. And let us all watch as your new predictions are tested. Let us all watch as science advances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWise words. Let's replace my verbosity with your eloquence and quit the acrimony. I think we can all agree that science works: so let it work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlossing over the real issue, i.e. the fake memo is typical of the AGW supporters & SA. Not even rated a mention in this article. How come? That is the real issue. Obtaining confidential information by deception is a much lesser issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant credibility? Stop lying.
I think that man made global warming is inconclusive. Why do I think that? Well, when thousands of temperature monitoring stations were eliminated without any factual reason for doing so, the action causes a reasonable person to ask why? To which no answer has been given.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou bring "Impartiality" into this to defend what you consider your, and therefore a valid, point of view? After you wrote to "Keep it real folks, and... keep politics out of it"? Science, which by my English dictionary, yes, to be sure I looked it up, is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, has proven present-day climate change to be real and a result of human activity. A near 100% of scientists accept the findings, the very, very few who don't have been shown to be off their rocker/discovered to be funded by exploitative corporations, even that stubborn Danish Lomborgsomething guy has finally admitted the evidence, and you try to bring impartiality into this? Politicians, religious zealots and people untainted by logic or education may doubt the results, the debate is CLOSED on the subject. So what the hell are you talking about? If you don't understand the evidence that is publicly available, this may result in you not believing, but your incredulity does not count as scientific reason to doubt climate change. Climate change is not a matter of belief, we are way beyond that, and to write that it is still a matter of point of view is completely misunderstanding what scientific results are based on. Modern climate change is real and man-made, full stop.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is what you would understand if you were impartial and kept to reality.
Or from a tangent, if you were impartial and kept it real, you would not even write what you wrote because you could not.
From which one must conclude this: if after all these years you still don't understand nor accept the proven, real and impartial climate change facts this also means that you are incapable of understanding that you lack the objectivity required to understand scientific fact = a catch 22 that makes it impossible for you to understand scientific fact and for me to explain it to you.
In other words, by what you wrote you prove that you are incapable of recognizing the very things you demand, impartiality and reality of fact.
Or, as I said before, that you are able to write proper English is not proof that you understand science.
"I think that man made global warming is inconclusive."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHINK?
"when thousands of temperature monitoring stations were eliminated without any factual reason for doing so, the action causes a reasonable person to ask why? To which no answer has been given."
Source?
Funny how the REAL climate change deniers (the ones who deny the natural change of climate) are all jumping the shark to attempt to justify Glieck's actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I could care less what he did. His actions still don't add one more shred of evidence to the debate. The fact that SCIAM even runs an article "Is is OK for Cliamte Change Supporters to LIE" tells you how far off the rails they have gone.
If you even have to ask yourself if it's OK to lie, you belong in:
1. Jail
2. Politics
3. Greedpeace, the World Wealth Fund or $ierra Club
4. Desmogblog
5. RealClimate.org
6. SCIAM's Editorial Board.
Disgusting that the editors even attempt to justify this whole debacle.
The tide of global warming hysteria turned after Copenhagen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVoices actually pushing for 'science' are slowly gaining volume.
Science and agenda do not mix.
"The tide of global warming hysteria turned after Copenhagen."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
"Voices actually pushing for 'science' are slowly gaining volume."
push, Push, PUsh, PUSh, PUSH
"Science and agenda do not mix"
Or it would be Scienda.
Carlyle has it precisely right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGleick admits to stealing the two real documents but the overwhelming evidence is that the fake memo, not mentioned here, was based on the stolen documents.
If that's the case, then Gleick offered only a partial admission of his crimes and conveniently crafted a reverse chronology to cover his tracks.
Several days before Gleick "confessed," a number of analysts had figured out that the leaked documents had likely come from him. How? Not because they knew he had stolen the real ones. Rather, because the writing style and specific phrases like "anti-climate" were pointing back to Gleick. Google is a wonderful thing.
The great deception continues when the guilty admits to a lesser crime while still lying about the true story of his dastardly actions.
Don't fall for his story hook line and sinker. Ask questions.
"Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist who has been a consistently moderate voice at the center of the climate and ethics debate"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this/facepalm. Seriously? Gavin Schmidt? Next to Gleick, he's probably the most dishonest AGW advocate, and certainly has no problem lumping in skeptics with Holocaust denialists and vaccine alarmists.
AGW advocates like to point to their "mountain of evidence," but science is the process of testing a hypothesis, not gathering evidence to support a political position. And what does the science say? The AGW climate predictions have consistently failed to materialize, from Hansen 1988 to the various IPCC projections that all overestimated temperature rise, as pointed out in the recent WSJ op-ed by a group of scientists.
Nullius In Verba.
It's amazing how many people don't know about the disappearing stations -- watch the video and notice what happens starting in the 1980s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/06/weather-stations-disappearing-worldwide/
You'd think all those billions we spend on global warming research we'd have vastly MORE weather stations today, but no.
do you know the difference between weather and climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? 24 years is now "weather?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEither the predictions are wrong, or they are not testable and therefore nonfalsifiable, in which case AGW should immediately be defunded on grounds of separation of church and state.
BTW, if you want to know how penitent the AGWers are over Gleick's forgery and fraud, Al Gore's press secretary has volunteered to handle his communications pro bono. Yeah, they're all about the scientific integrity.
I disagree completely. Impartiality is only warranted when comparing apples to apples. Comparing manufactured lies and distortions published in sensationalist media outlets to science is no different than comparing the Easter Bunny theory to relativity theory. The comparison doesn't warrant discussion let alone every sensationalist "news" outlet and every pandering politician wading in to demand that the controversy of the Easter Bunny theory be taught in science classes and claiming that those "evil scientists" are part of a worldwide conspiracy to suppress evidence of the Easter Bunny Theory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wasn't implying that you're stupid, I was making a valid point - having the data would be of no use to you (or me), any more than being given a particle accelerator would help either of us understand quantum theory. We (all of us) simply have no choice but to rely on the people who understand these systems to evaluate the data for us, and rely on the fact that if something significant is wrong with the science or the data, the thousands of scientists reviewing the data will spot it.
That process has worked exceptionally well for several hundred years. It worked well enough to get us to the moon and back, to Mars and back and to get Voyager out of the solar system. Given the level of public scrutiny (thanks to the unwarranted hysteria stirred up by Heartland and other filth) the climate science is probably some of the most thoroughly vetted science ever done.
Calling for impartiality when comparing the scientific process to publication of sensationalist crap from the National Enquirer/Faux "News" is ridiculous at face value.
If you're going to get on an airplane and trust it to keep you safe 30,000 feet above the ground, are you going to get on the plane designed using "facts" from Faux News shows and global conspiracy theorists, or are you going to get on the plane that was designed using computer models, simulations and testable, peer reviewed science?
Or do you really, truly think that the former warrants discussion and an impartial comparison to the latter?
the minimum for climate stats is 30 years
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd cut that crap about Gleick having committed a "crime" unless you mention the dimwits' stealing emails from East Anglia University in the same sentence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you comment on the heartland thingie not having pressed charges for diffamation? Why don't you ponder their IQ by not knowing the names of their board members?
LOL. SA IS SO CORRUPT THAT IT HAS NO CLUE HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT IT. LOL.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether you know it or not, that claim is quite simply false. Sorry but it's really getting old after years of people making that claim and it's still just as false as the first time Watts published the lie. It's a fabrication, a lie, it's bunk, it's not true, it's made up by a guy who knows nothing about climate science and everything about selling advertising space and books on his website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. A completely fresh analysis of temperature station quality and results, entirely funded by the Koch brothers and various other anti-science groups as well as Bill Gates. No government involvement, no grants involved, nothing but self-describe "skeptics" doing a completely new analysis.
What was their conclusion? Gee, surprise surprise, they not only concluded that the climate science is correct, they actually found using their techniques that the temperature as warmed a tiny fraction *more* than previously calculated.
They confirmed the validity and accuracy of the currently accepted mainstream science on temperature averaging process, the influence of urban heat islands, the land surface temperature station quality *and* that it's not simply decadal scale processes responsible for the increase in global temperatures.
Peer review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnough said - or enough for rational people anyway.
Remove the politically motivated histrionics and what do you have? No testable theory. No science. No evidence. Nothing.
What's really amazing is that the anti-science crowd used to lavish such affection on Mueller and Curry - yet now you don't seem to want to mention the results of the BEST project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, the anti-science Koch brothers funded completely fresh analysis of surface temperature station quality?
It wouldn't be because they got exactly the same results are the peer reviewed science no matter *how* they sliced and diced those stations, would it?
I tolerate a difference of opinions but I really do not like dishonesty. Please stop repeating that lie. Station quality was appropriately accounted for in the science. It's a lie, it has been since Watts first told it, it still is today.
Speaking of ignore-ance. Why does science insist on a non-terminus definition of infinity when we know that light curves and mathematicians draw Kline bottles, Gordian knots and tori to define the Infinite Universe, yet we use Michelson-Morely experiment as the basis for defending non-terminus "infinity"? If every star is a white hole and it has an associated black hole, then when we look down the tunnel at the huge sun which dwarfs our Earth, we see infinitely small, and by turning that observation 180 degrees, we see the black hole of the Cosmos *FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE* (the only way it can be observed by us), and both come back together in the mind's eye of the observer(our bodies/minds merely being atoms of the Universe observing itself?) I mean WHO SAYS infinity never ends, and why can't light come right back to the observer after it does a 180?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid the individual(s) who released ClimateGate email impersonate someone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what is known as 'identity theft". The ever-highly ethical Gleick will be fortunate to escape this criminal offense without serving time in prison.
Quite the shame...I was rather hoping the shifty coward would change his mind about entering into actual scientific debate before making an arse of himself and the political movement he represents.
Curry openly denounced the BEST project propaganda immediately upon publication. I can provide a link if you are unable to find it. Please feel free to ask.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile such a personal, self-inflicted crisis is newsworthy in and of itself, I agree that it doesn't teach anything on what is understood about climate nor how well it is understood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do find it disturbing though that the article and Dr. Schmidt's analysis make the point to bring up and even disparage the Heartland Institute in the context of this story. I'd never even heard of Heartland, but c'mon. The narrative that any organization (and should we be surprised that they exist?) could only advocate against the narrative - the earth is warming dangerously at least largely because of man-made CO2 emissions, and radical economic intervention is needed to avoid catastrophe - if they are funded by the fossil fuel industry or right-wing interests is a ludicrous proposition given the obvious challenge of predicting climate to any degree of certainty.
Science is about data, but the personalities matter in this case because progress will only be achieved when advocate scientists learn to back off from hyperbole.
Impartiality has nothing to do with competing sources. It has everything to do with trusting information from any source. As you clearly stated
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We (all of us) simply have no choice but to rely on the people who understand these systems to evaluate the data for us".
Unfortunately those people are currently riding the greatest gravy train in science right now. The idea that big oil funded think tanks are the only organisations to suffer from funding related bias is ridiculous. Couple that with the scientific communities propensity to close ranks and conduct ad hominem attacks against those who go against consensus AND the fact governments world wide are using AGW research to remove many billions of dollars from ordinary peoples pockets. It is no wonder that even good science is struggling to gain uptake amongst the very people whose actions can collectively help ameliorate AGW.
Having ex politicians and rich people who stand to get massively richer from renewable energy sources as spokespeople for AGW is an added blow to that sides ability to display a level of impatiality. The problem is not that too many people believe big industries attempts to deny AGW, because the reality is they are generally scene as greedy, scheming and untrustworthy. The real problem is the scientific community suffers from a lack of trust for similar reasons. "Trust us", they say. "We are scientists who live only for the data. Data that you have no hope of understanding even if we wanted to part with it (which we dont). The massive amounts of publicly provided funding dollars and research positions mean nothing to us".
So whilst the science is very likely as good as you can get, the ability to sell the massive disruption to peoples lives and wallets is currently based on condescension doled out by those profiting from it.
On a side note, anytime a climate scientist starts a sentence with "my computer model", you can tell what he is about to say has a 50/50 chance of being wrong. Mainly because as amazing as his model may be, it does not even come close to capturing the complexity, chaos and sheer size of a whole planets climate. Models are illuminating for testing localised hypothesis but as a predictive tool for planet wide effects they are bunkum.
None of this matters anymore folks. This modern society of ours has already apex-ed and we are now building speed on the decline. Open your eyes and look all around you. Every single system crucial to our survival has been ravaged and raped by greed and stupidity and guess what.. it's too late to do anything about it. If humans are still around in 50 years it will be nothing short of a miracle. In the meantime just enjoy your TV shows and have a happy meal. It will all be over soon enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust three little points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Heartland is a private organization, with no public funds, with openly declared intentions and with private records.
2) Climategate was about public funded deeds of people who tried to hide public access documents, according FOIA.
3) Anyway, global temperatures climaxed in 1998, and since then temperatures have started to descend(not much at first, but more so since 2002):
since 1998: http://bit.ly/AoFrg3
since 2002: http://bit.ly/xyy3nu
despite rising levels of atmospheric CO2:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
completely off topic, absolutely not relevant at all - you're wasting even the climate-change zealots time - want to look important? buy a magnifying mirror
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrotting out James Hansen's bull dog as a "moderate" to comment on another "scientific" wack job is either idiotic or mere propaganda. (I'm betting both.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an environmental scientist, I have seen the AGW fiasco evolve from Boulder, Colorado - the defacto national nerve center of global warming studies - since before Hansen sweated in DC before the cameras in another piece of agit-prop in 1988. I even count certain of my ex-profs as among the suspicious.
Since my Belief in climatology and trust in scientists has been abused by clowns like Schmidt and unRealclimate.gangsters, defending the indefensible like Michael Mann's charade of the 1990s "warmest decade ever!" - I am looking forward to a new dissenting administration to take power in Washington.
Using RICO statutes, unethical violations of transparency - as recommended to the IPCC by the IAC in August 2010 - such as conspiring to defeat FOA/FOIA requests by fellow IPCC gangsters can finally be rooted out.
Only thereafter might the beginnings of trust among scientists and the taxpaying public be possible.
Meanwhile, I am FOIA - I stand with FOIA and transparency in data and methods. My life is devoted to achieving it against the conspirators like the friends of Schmidt, his propagandists, like SA, and (partly) confessed evil doers like Gleick. I AM FOIA!
Orson
-SA ex-subscriber since the 1980s. (And never since then.)
PS - Schmidt's "nothing to see here, move along" fascism is wearing supinely thin to any real journalist. He has trotted out the faux explanation....six or seven times to embarrassments against "climate science"? I lose track after so many scandals. This alone is a new reason for SA subscribers to cancel - stop feeding dumb, useless animals. Good science lives, but no where near SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVirtually no one studying climate denies a human influence upon it. The dispute is over the degree, its sensitivity, and its cause. In my half century of experience, land use change exercises a greater direct influence on ground temperature change than anything else. Yet the IPCC virtually ignores it! And the best authority on its measurment - Roger Peilke, Sr., (formerly of Colorado State university and now a the University of Colorado, Boulder) - somehow is nowhere near the only serious independent effort - Muller's BEST project - to survey it. Why is that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile, famous and award winning science writer Matt Ridley has recently arrived at the informed opinion I arrived at myself some years ago. http://boos.audioboo.fm/attachments/2212212/matt-ridley-on-why-the-cure-for-climate-change-may-be-worse-than-the-disease.mp3?audio_clip_id=679624
Last November, Ridley gave a talk in Edinburgh at the Royal Society of Arts, with text and supporting documents here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf
Dissent keeps bad scientists from exercising too much power and at too great a cost from the people. 'Twas ever thus.
You, sir, do not know what you are talking about. Why not go here, it is brief, and get a clue first!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf
"This is what is known as 'identity theft"."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not. It's making up/impersonating. BIG difference. It's a technique used by the FBI to uncover plots. Go ahead, tell me you are against the FBI using this ploy to unmask terrorists.
A judge will ponder whether this ploy is user for criminal purposes or for uncovering forgery/stupidity/tampered evidence.
The ever-highly ethical Gleick's lawyers can't wait to go to court if only heartland would press charges.
"Quite the shame..."
Agree. I'd love to see the truth behind this, the heartland donors be redfaced, heartland looking the idiots they are, and you eating the print-out version of this whole comment section.
"I was rather hoping the shifty coward... made an arse of himself... political movement he represents"
On your level: you look the idiot you are because you prove you don't have a clue what a scientific debate is, it's your hyper-inflated ego which blocks your view of any evidence, your opinion is such crap that not even a halfway intelligent ten-year old interested in science would stop one second to ponder what you try to pass on as opinion, it is utterly idiotic to say he represents a political movement, finally, there is no debate anymore on climate-change, even its former worst ennemies that have a brain admit as much today, from Koch to Lomborg, only the most braindead roadkill still pretend there is a debate.
Why I bother? I still sometimes participate in these "exchanges" because I still ever less often meet corporate pillocks trying to block science-related legislation; guys like you are perfect sparring partners preparing me for those twats' pseudo-arguments.
To not understand man-made climate change, no sweat, I don't understand how a rocket works. But to refuse the scientific fact in the face of evidence and despite even former deniers Koch et al having changed their minds is only proof of utter stupidity.
The debate on climate change is closed.
Was Gleick right doing what he did? It was not righ how he did it, he should have tried for a legit way to obtain those documents.
Nevertheless, I would look forward to heartland pressing charges. Unfortunately, heartland stands to lose far more from the truth that they could gain from it, not least the loss of substantial donations which would kill their salaries so Gleick's impersonation might never go to court to save heartland's major forgeries. Got it? I doubt it. But that's ok, as I said I don't understand rockets and you don't understand... whatever that is that you believe you're good at.
"...the ability to sell the massive disruption to peoples lives and wallets is currently based on condescension doled out by those profiting from it..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe from the above that I agree in essence with what you are saying. Most scientists love to believe that regarding science the masses who may have recently voted for yet another idiot politician are suddenly open to scientific argument alone. They ridicule the powers that drive elections but refuse to find fault with themselves when they are "misunderstood" (not elected) by the masses.
Now Einstein, he knew how PR works. And look how many t-shirts he still sells today <g> Learning from Big Al...
"3) Anyway, global temperatures climaxed in 1998, and since then temperatures have started to descend(not much at first, but more so since 2002):"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIrrelevant unless you are a TV weatherman
The minimum for climate temps is 30 years? Seriously? That's what you're going with?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) This doesn't matter anyway because Hansen 1988 could not be anything close to correct without a truly unprecedented spike in the next 6 years
2) This means none of the projections have ever been testable, so they aren't science and all the claims based on them are unscientific
3) When it gets to 30 years, they will simply say "Oh, well, the minimum is really 50." The AGWers have always done this, like with Hansen's claim the West Side Highway would be underwater by 2008.
This is why AGWers are losing the public opinion battle. You can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time...
"And cut that crap about Gleick having committed a "crime" unless you mention the dimwits' stealing emails from East Anglia University in the same sentence. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one knows who sent the CRU emails, it may have been someone who had access. In any case, the CRU is taxpayer-funded, and is required to be objective and open rather than dodging FOIAs, deleting data, and suppressing skeptics, so the leaker was a whistleblower and should be praised.
"Why don't you comment on the heartland thingie not having pressed charges for diffamation? Why don't you ponder their IQ by not knowing the names of their board members?"
Haven't you seen Gleick's emails? They did know the names. Gleick committed identity theft by pretending to be one of the real board members, creating a gmail account with that members name, and asking that board members' emails also be sent to the account Gleick created. He is probably going to prison, this is higly illegal.
climate stats span a minimum of 30 years - East Anglia e-mails were stolen from hackers on digital break/enter - you're an ignorant bullfrog in full effort
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPraising a disgusting thief ... how pathetic. Dragging feet on requests from the big-mouth badger was all it was worth after thorough investigations were completed by five different organizations. And after all that, you return to the original first verse of the echo chamber ... double pathetic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this aspect you are correct, he used an existing name whereas I had understood he had made up a name. Why could he pull it off? Because Heartland did not have the most basic safety measures in place which is how Gleick was able to impersonate a board member. Heartland didn't even check with the board member. They believe everything that suits them it seems. That's how they also see science, if it suits them, they believe it, no need to check the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"He is probably going to prison, this is higly illegal."
You mean if Heartland goes through with the court case and will have to publicly disclose the original text and its sources, then have to answer all the questions the media will throw at them and have their donors defend their donations? I look forward to that, I seriously do.
You say that "3) Anyway, global temperatures climaxed in 1998, and since then temperatures have started to descend(not much at first, but more so since 2002)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI quote from
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_906_en.html :
"Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." *
in other words the ten warmest years in history happened since 1999 and temperatures have on average been going UP since <lol>
whereas your link meant to back you up is about trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide. <yuk>
IOW, based on meteoroligical facts many of which coming from weather stations that another genius here pretended have been dismantled every climate organization in the world says that the warmest years in recorded history happened in the last ten years and you go on record to say the very exact contrary?
You're something else! <g> Ever thought of disproving Einstein's funky theories?
___
* Naw, don't bother, I had to look it up anyway.
and your take on the East Anglia University climate research theft of internal mails is?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand while I always said that Gleick should have tried to obtain those papers in a proper way, there is quite a difference between uncovering heartland's stupidity and stealing a university's e-mails and then twiddling their content.
so apply your standard to everybody or shut up.
Here's the graph of predictions vs reality. You can believe Gleick's crowd and "the cause" or your lying eyes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
This is why forecasting scientists, who are actually <i>scientists</i> as opposed to environmentalists doing something vaguely resembling science in order to promote their political agenda, say there is "no scientific basis for forecasting climate."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
A lot people bringing up ClimateGate seem to be missing the larger point: Heartland has always explicitly promoted AGW skepticism -- they were "exposed" as doing exactly what their mission statement says they do. The ClimateGaters at NASA, CRU, and etc were supposed to be neutral and open, not dodging FOIAs, deleting data, and suppressing skeptics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know what's funniest in all this: that the "genius" Gleick thought he could get away with a clumsy identity theft and clumsier forgery, that he still claims he didn't forge the memo even though it matches his writing patterns and has his timestamp on it, how dumb and desperate this makes other climate "scientists" look by extension, that the only real revelation in the the leak is that Heartland's entire anti-AGW outlay is smaller than the IPCC's travel budget, that AGWer bloggers who were trumpeting this leak had it blow up in their faces so spectacularly, or that some AGWers are still hilariously feigning shock that a climate skeptic institute was promoting climate skepticism.
Peer review? The Warmists tried that. They only wanted their peers to review everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting comment. What would happen if the FBI investigated the Warmists for defraudin the government by taking research funds for projects that they knew were useless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Warmists are willing to lie, I doubt that they'd draw the line at theft or fraud.
You call science "propaganda"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey've published their results, the data, their processes just like all the climate scientists who analyzed the data previously.
Yet not a single one of the anti-science crowd can point out a single specific problem with the analysis.
Pretty cowardly if you ask me to just make wild claims without ever presenting any evidence. Though I guess in anti-science land spreading gossip and unfounded claims are called "heroism"
First of all, climate scientists have not and do not make predictions, they publish projections. There's a major difference and if you don't already know that then you have no business pretending to know something about climate science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, the Wall Street Journal is a sensationalist media outlet, not a scientific journal. Citing it as source for anything other than the latest alien abduction stories is disingenuous at best.
Third you call Watts a scientist, he is not a scientist and he has never published a single scientific paper. Watts is a self-promoting liar and a fraud and an intellectual coward.
The posts here show clearly that the anti-science types routinely deny reality, repeatedly demonstrate that they don't know anything about the science, the scientific process or the history of climate science. They continue to repeat claims that were long ago exposed as lies, some as long as a decade ago.
It's also very clear that the anti-science types truly believe in global conspiracy theories of unimaginable scale. Their wild claims imply that not only is every climate scientist "faking" their papers, but that every scientist, scientific institute, university prof, grad student, researcher, engineer - in short every human being who is capable of writing a critique of the science and submitting it to the scientific journals - they're either all too stupid to be able to find a problem with the science or else they're all conspiring to remain silent. Chinese scientists, Russian scientists, Germans, Australian, British, Scottish, Norwegian, Spanish, Brazilian... all of them in every country and every one of them at 32 academies of science all around the world, they're *all* in on the airtight global conspiracy to make Heartland look as dishonest, unethical, sleazy and stupid as they actually are.
Global conspiracy theories are the 21st century version of witch burnings. They want to burn the scientists at the stake because they make the politicians and corporations look bad.
In the end the science still provides the *only* reliable and trustworthy source of information we've got.
The anti-science types are so intellectually bankrupt and dishonest that they present NO testable theories, projections or evidence of their own. They simply pretend that by lying they can make the growing mountain of evidence magically disappear.
Can you really not differentiate between science and politics? It doesn't seem like a difficult thing to do, though I suppose it's easy to overlook major issues like that when rushing to get Heartland apologia published before the story fades from the headlines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can try to conflate science and politics as often and as loudly as you like, the reality will always be that they are two completely separate issues.
The science is the science. There is a large body of evidence, AGW/ACC theory fits the evidence, the morally bankrupt, cowardly anti-science types at Heartland aren't interested in promoting their own testable scientific theories or their own evidence, all they're interested in is using the power of the media circus to deny, introduce doubt, deny some more, try to imply there's something wrong with the scientific process, and pretend the scientific process no longer works the way it has for the last few hundred years.
The science is the science. The theory is testable, it fits the evidence, it hasn't been proven wrong. Neither Heartland nor any of the other anti-science lunatic organizations or individuals are putting forth any testable alternatives, therefore AGW theory is most likely the correct explanation for the rapid changes in temperature, ocean pH levels, ice loss and all the other indicators of a warming global climate.
I'd just like to say that I remember the first 'Earth Day' and at the recent aniversary, they didn't mention that the scientists all knew that mankind was very shortly about to cause another ice age. A few years later and it's global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow we find that raindrop friction may reduce atmospheric energy more than hurricanes. Could that be the reason we haven't seen all of the super hurricanes that the models predicted. (The same ones used in predicting climate change as the outcome of increasing greenhouse gas)
As an environmental scientist, I KNOW co2 is a greenhouse gas, I KNOW it can have an effect in the atmosphere, and I KNOW minor changes can cascade into greater ones.
What I also KNOW is that science doesn't have all the answers, and I KNOW that no model can predict something with so many variables. In the 70's we though computers would allow us to accurately and exactly predict the weather. Then came chaos theory, and away went that dream. I don't KNOW who will be shown to be right. After all, we scientists were all wrong when we preditcted mankind causing the next ice age.
I think those who call climate change deniers corrupt or crazy are just as close-minded as they claim others are. I'm a scientist not an idiot. I just know that no model is a crystal ball.
OK, so from what I keep hearing, the leading indicator of climate change, CO-2, is the big villain and we are responsible for its "incredible" increases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease explain then, how in a system of a million parts, with Co-2 occupying about 360 of them, it is the leading source of the changes in climate? (just a paragraph is all I need)
Put another way, envision a room of 10,000 light bulbs. 150 years ago, ~2 1/2 of them were CO-2, today ~3 1/2 are.
I have trouble with the concept that CO-2 is the leading indicator of climate change, because the concentration when viewed in the whole, doesn't seem high enough to cause the changes we discuss. Something else must be doing it...or several somethings...
I think Gleick and others forget that their arguments don't address that in a way that is easily understood: that CO-2 is the responsible agent.Definitively. Conclusively.
All we get in the public arena is that there is consensus. Well, there is a consensus that it might rain tomorrow, and it might not.
Gleick has clearly decided to begin lying for his side, the ends justifies the means, and all that. Sounds a bit like a crusader to me. Just clear out all those heathens in the Holy Land and all will be well.
Get back to the science. Offer clear, concise and logical analysis. Don't pretty it up for your peer group. Make it accessible.
And, above all, don't align yourselves with politicians. Those folks don't have a dog in this hunt. They are strictly out to further their own careers and power base. Stay away.
Glieck's mistake is the belief that this is a war. it's not, it's science. Get back to it, and ignore the rest.
The lie about global cooling as a scientific consensus was debunked back in 2005 or so. They've had all those years, why can't the shills come up with some fresh material?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe really serious problem with that lie is that it's so easy to expose as not just exaggeration but a total fabrication. The scientific papers that were published then are still available to anyone to review. For example, wmconnolley org uk /sci/iceage where people with a mind of their own can find links to the original papers and see what an obvious like the "global cooling prediction" claim is.
That site has a quote from the paper by Rasool and Schneider (as Connolley points out, Schneider was the second author but the lowlifes at Heartland like to pretend he was the primary author because it better suits their attempts to inject doubt about the science)
"Even if we assume that the rate of scavenging and of other removal processes for atmospheric dust [generally & confusingly used interchangably with aerosol in the article (WMC)] particles remains constant, it is still difficult to predict the rate at which global background opacity of the atmosphere will increase with increasing particulate injection by human activities. However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 oC. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
No sane and rational human being who possesses a basic comprehension of the English language can possibly call that statement "predicting a coming ice age".
But Heartland and it's mindless shills and drones can and do, as we can see in this thread.
I'm calling you on a lie. You're making the claim in the first person, therefore I'm calling it your lie even though it was Singer/Heartland that conjured it up originally.
You present no evidence that there was a consensus on global cooling and anyone with an interest in the truth has had well over a decade to look for the evidence and see that it does not exist.
You're citing Newsweek and other sensationalist media outlets and using the word "science" in the same sentence. Why would any rational person do that?
Why would you want to talk about the science? You clearly don't know anything about it (given that your analogy isn't just simple minded, it's pathetic), and you're clearly not speaking to climate scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what would be the point of the exercise? Do you jump into discussions of articles on quantum physics published in the popular press and demand that people explain how the Higgs field might affect cosmology?
Why not? Surely you can convert the masses of fundamental particles called for by the standard model into light bulbs per fortnight per foot of elevation and come up with some ridiculous comparison to the Higgs field. That would be just as much physics as you just represented as "climate science".
Why is it that the only science you pretend to have a deep understanding of happens to be the one closely tied to Heartland and fossil fuel interests?
The science is the science. The evidence is the evidence. If you have a scientific argument that invalidates AGW theory then publish it. If you don't have a scientific argument then why are you presenting it as such?
I'm guessing the reason you refuse to publish your alternative scientific theory of what's actually causing the current warming because to publish you have to go through all that bothersome stuff about presenting a testable theory and then all that hassle of comparing it to the available evidence.
I have no idea what your response means. I have no theories about climate change and have no knowledge of who or what Heartland is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was only saying that if the evidence is so clear, summarize it in a paragraph. How has CO-2 increasing 100ppm over 150 years bringing us to ruin?
Present the thesis, clear the air.
And, I added that Gleick seems to have succumbed to the perception that this is a war.Nobody talks to each other in a war. The knives are out.
I also think the science will bear out if that perception is defeated and associations that have been made politically (on either side) are exposed and abandoned.
The anti-science types on here demonstrate how morally bankrupt they/Heartland/fossil fuel industry/sensationalist media types are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow so? They all claim to have evidence "proving" that AGW theory is faked/wrong.
The climate is changing rapidly, no sane person can dispute the evidence of that.
Regardless of whether the driving forces are humans or natural, climate change is already causing serious problems and the problems are extremely likely to get much worse in just a matter of one or two generations.
So if human activity isn't driving it, what is?
These "geniuses" posting here, people who claim they can distill an entire body of science into a thought experiment using light bulbs, don't they have an ethical/moral duty to present their alternative theories in the scientific journals so that the world can be prepared for the coming changes?
Why does Heartland spend so much money spreading disinformation instead of doing something responsible and effective like sponsoring testable alternative theories in the scientific literature?
I tell you why they don't. Because neither they nor their shills posting here have any testable alternative theory. They're simply amoral intellectual cowards who wish to inject doubt into the discussion of science in order to benefit fossil fuel industry. When it comes to that responsibility to society, the anti-science types are AWOL.
I think the execs at Heartland, Exxon, Shell, BP and their shills who post here should show people the courage of their convictions. They should set up a website where they can all publicly declare their personal opposition to science and their opposition to taking any sort of action on climate change.
Then let history judge them. If they're right, it will be called a list of visionaries. If they're wrong, then we know who to send the bills to for statistically excess deaths from drought, famine, floods and other severe weather events.
With any luck the key signers will also be judged in the Hague, because that's where Heartland execs belong, on trial for crimes against humanity. They have all the resources needed to take constructive action on climate change but they choose instead to spread lies and disinformation about the people and institutions who *are* doing real research and putting forth their best efforts for humanity.
The US used to be a nation of people proud to stand up for their ideals. Now it's a nation of cowards like Heartland, afraid to associate their names with their reckless, amoral and destructive actions.
Me thinkst you do protest...too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIT is utter lunacy to compare the HI funding trickle to the cash tsumani enjoyed and exploited by the Warmists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Brits gave well over $250 million to warmist research, effectively killing off the funding available for any non-Warmist research projects. And that's just the Brits. Disgusting perversion of science.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/how-climate-research-starves-other-scientists-of-funding/#more-860
No wonder Gleick et al are freaked out. Anything that
You also haven't answered the question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow has an increase of ~100ppm of CO-2 put us on the course of ruin?
Summarize the science, what is your thesis?
I really want to know.
Why do you insult people on this blog for simply asking you questions?
This is clearly a settled matter for some, but not everyone thinks like they do. Explain it, don't go off on conspiracy theories.
Explain the science behind your position.
If you can do it, you will be a service to everyone reading this blog who are not scientists, or caught up in the emotion you so obviously have yourself wrapped up in.
"I was only saying that if the evidence is so clear, summarize it in a paragraph. How has CO-2 increasing 100ppm over 150 years bringing us to ruin?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are "not only saying", you are trying to make logic that you don't understand pass as stupidity. As if your brain was a measure for science. You remind me of my favourite science debunkers who still claim to this day that the sun revolves around earth and if you contradict them say "prove it".
Right then, touchtyping exercise on the fly in one sentence:
the climate change we actually experience is proven by meteorological statistics, some of which covering recorded history, others based on samples taken from all kinds of media; this increase has been most noteable in the last 15 years which holds the ten warmest years in recorded history; the speed of this change was a first clue that it was not to do with natural processes and when tracking the causes it was scientifically proved that the causes were human, for example from carbon dioxide, and the resulting greenhouse effect is presently driving Texas ranchers up north and killing tens of thousands of Africans and Asians even if the effect of global dimming may make it seem to the mentally challenged who mistake weather for climate that the world is cooling, but one has to be pretty stupid not to see the evidence, it is sufficient to read the main news, although I do admit that the level of US news is so fourth-worldish that cheap scandal-driven journalism has ruined any level of quality news pretense, which is probably due to the poor school system in the US.
There you go. And I even inserted an excuse for your poor education in the last part. Howsaboutdat?
Am I glad you didn't ask for sources or links but then you're a big boy and should have no trouble finding those themselves. Only deactivate your "I-only-want-results-that-go-with-my-IQ" search option and the rest should be easy.
And I don't care really if you believe the above, science is not religion, what I really want to know is where you will be in ten years so that I can slap your comments around your face.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=australian-wines-affected-climate-change>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut the climate deniers will of course object and say that the wine is still as good as ever
only that the bottling has become faster
and the wine cheaper
which should go fine with their shots.
Simple. The increase in CO2 is not linear as your (almost certainly disingenuous) question implies, and the response of the climate to changes in CO2 levels is also not linear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost people recognize the term "butterfly effect" and know that a non-linear system can experience changes far out of proportion to an "insignificant" change in operating conditions.
How does a 2 oz space blanket overheat a 250 pound human body enough to be life threatening? The blanket is only 0.0005 the mass of the human. That's the linear thinking you're hoping people will apply.
The blanket prevents heat from being radiated, just like CO2 does. The human body, like the sun, keeps putting heat into the system but less is being radiated, until far too much heat accumulates in the system. That's non-linear reality.
How can a pin drop deafen someone? That's a patented sort of Heartland question designed to encourage people to think "it's linear".
Place a microphone in front of a large PA system and drop a pin in front of it. The "insignificant" sound starts a feedback loop that can destroy the amplifier in seconds. That's the non-linear reality.
Politicians in general and Heartland/Exxon shills in particular tend to ask leading questions to try and get people think in linear terms. It's just one of the dishonest/deceptive technique they picked up from Siggy Singer.
You sound like a dictator. Your position would be, "If I can not persuade you with debate, I will persuade you with my guns".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour arguments are shrill & your language is offensive.
A sceptic is just that. Sceptical about the validity of the other persons argument. Unpersuaded. The sceptic does not have to provide proof by supplying some knockout blow that demolishes the proposition. It is reasonable for the sceptic to provide some reasons for his scepticism but even that is not absolutely necessary. If some religious nutter tells me the world is going to end on such & such a day, as a sceptic, do I need to provide proof that it is not going to happen?
I do not need to be a climate scientist to be sceptical about AGW. The arguments for me are unconvincing & certainly not allayed by the willingness of the proponents to accept lying & fraud in support of their cause.
Part of the problem with folks on this blog is that they are so suspicious of anyone who is not in total agreement with them,(their perception) they can't resist "twisting the knife" to make themselves feel superior.(My perception).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe explanation you suggest appears sound. I would suggest that if explanations like yours were used in more general news stories to explain why this phenomenon has such a potentially disastrous outcome for us, there would be less controversy.
As a laymen, I think science has an obligation to not only tell us the "what" but also the "why".
It's not enough just to tell me it's "proven". I think the facts are compelling that climate change is under way.
Unfortunately, the reality is, that most of us out here in the real world, don't believe everything we hear from either our leaders, or other authorities. You may not think that's not your problem, but it is. It is, because this issue, like so many, is now wrapped up in politics and policy. Science has a further obligation to stay above that fray and keep us informed.
I have an abiding fear that politicians will use whatever science offers as an explanation to create policy that will do more harm than good. Those folks have no special skill set to keep us out of harms way.
Today, I think it's science further obligation to make sure the public is informed (by scientists) to take the fog out of the spin that is created by the popular news and current crop of political leaders.
I also sent this reply to dttyler but it applies to you as well:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart of the problem with folks on this blog is that they are so suspicious of anyone who is not in total agreement with them,(their perception) they can't resist "twisting the knife" to make themselves feel superior.(My perception).
The explanation you suggest appears sound. I would suggest that if explanations like yours were used in more general news stories to explain why this phenomenon has such a potentially disastrous outcome for us, there would be less controversy.(the linear relationship error is a 1st year engineering student's error- I should have known better)
As a laymen, I think science has an obligation to not only tell us the "what" but also the "why".
It's not enough just to tell me it's "proven". I think the facts are compelling that climate change is under way.
Unfortunately, the reality is, that most of us out here in the real world, don't believe everything we hear from either our leaders, or other authorities. You may not think that's not your problem, but it is. It is, because this issue, like so many, is now wrapped up in politics and policy. Science has a further obligation to stay above that fray and keep us informed.
I have an abiding fear that politicians will use whatever science offers as an explanation to create policy that will do more harm than good. Those folks have no special skill set to keep us out of harms way.
Today, I think it's science further obligation to make sure the public is informed (by scientists) to take the fog out of the spin that is created by the popular news and current crop of political leaders.
<folks... are so suspicious of anyone who is not in total agreement with them...>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf climate scientists used common sense when explaining their results the public debate would be more productive. What made Einstein a hero with the public is that he could explain his stuff even to non-scientists, something climate scientists neglect to understand.
<if (common sense) explanations... were used in more general news stories to explain why this phenomenon has such a potentially disastrous outcome for us, there would be less controversy.>
Yes, and you immediately point to what I believe is the real problem:
<I think science has an obligation to not only tell us the "what" but also the "why".>
Even more importantly, in my unwashed opinion, they have an obligation to HOW they explain it. In proper English, scientists have a fundamental obligation to explain their science in terms THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS instead of being pissed off that the public does not simply accept their scientific declarations. The public pays for their work and therefore has an absolute right to an explanation in terms it understands. Therefore, in my opinion, climate change denial is essentially a result of climate change badly explained.
<I think it's science further obligation to make sure the public is informed (by scientists) to take the fog out of the spin that is created by the popular news and current crop of political leaders.>
Fully agree. This is the scientists' responsibility = "If you can't explain in plain English what you are doing you should not be surprised if you are misunderstood by the public".
And when the misunderstanding is deepened by some scientist publicly gleicking himself in both feet climate change sceptics rightly have a field day.
The evidence is what the evidence is. That's not dictating anything except the acceptance of reality. Most of the people on the planet don't need to be forced into that. Gravity exists, the theory is correct. Quantum theory is correct, that's how the universe really works. AGW/ACC theory is a scientific theory, no one has presented any compelling evidence that it is incorrect. It is testable, falsifiable, consistent with the evidence and therefore the most likely explanation for what is happening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs they say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is enabled to their own facts. The fact is that there is NO compelling evidence that seriously calls into question the theory that human caused CO2 emissions are causing rapid climate change.
A scientific theory is a statement that is testable and that must not be contradicted by observation/evidence.
If AGW theory is wrong then why do the shills and "skeptics" and grandstanding politicians not simply challenge the science in the scientific journals and refute the specific points? If they did then the argument would be over, scientists would have no choice but to discard or modify the theory to fit the observations.
That scientific process has worked for hundreds of years, it got us to the moon and back. It doesn't matter what anyone says, what matters is the evidence. It doesn't matter a fetid dingo kidney whether you personally like the messengers or the proponents or the opponents, the color of their ties or their choice in undergarments. The science is the science, the evidence is the evidence and no one so far has been able to disprove the theory.
The only alternative explanation implied by your position is a global conspiracy involving 99% of world's scientists, every scientific academy in the world, democratic, communist, socialist governments and NGOs and every reputable university. They've all got to be either conspiring to pretend the evidence is there and suppress any contradictory evidence or else they're all got to be too stupid to be able to review the published science and spot major, fundamental flaws in the analysis or data.
Everyone at NAAS, UCS, NASA, NOAA, including the vast majority of members of every scientific academy in the world (all 30+ of them) are not all morons.
Anonymous posters in public forums are not scientific geniuses.
That's the only possible way that the science could be so fundamentally wrong and the errors escape detection for over 100 years.
Reality sucks. Time for Heartland and their shills to produce evidence.
False/leading statements again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't give a crap whether you or any of the other shills agree with my personal opinions or not.
What matters is that Heartland and shills deny evidence and deny that the scientific process works but only if the science in question might affect the profit margins of established, moneyed interests.
The scientific process works. The only doubt about that is in the minds of the public, and the only reason that doubt is there is because lowlife scumbags like Heartland execs and Siggy Singer manufactures that doubt and blares it out over the sensationalist media.
People don't go to airports and shout "computer models are all biased and unreliable, don't get on the plane". But anti-science wackos employed by Heartland do.
The shills pick and choose, climate models are faked and created by scientists who have a hidden agenda to get grant money, but aerodynamic models are safe and sound and created by scientists who are pure and honest and decent church-going Americans.
And the "Americans" part is critical there because it's pretty almost exclusively the American public that has significant levels of doubt about the scientific process. Only Americans are that easily brainwashed by the sensationalist media.
You deny or cast doubt on reality, on evidence, on rational thought, on the process that has saved or improved billions of lives.
It's not which side of the argument you're on that is worth of ridicule and derision, it's which side of the evidence you're on. Flat earthers should be ridiculed because they deny the evidence and the scientific process. Creationists should be derided because they deny the evidence and the scientific process. Phrenologists should be laughed at because they deny the evidence and the scientific process.
Heartland execs and their shills deserve to be ridiculed and also belong in the Hague on trial because not only do they deny the evidence and the scientific process, they make every attempt to prevent others from being able to reach a rational conclusion based on the evidence and the scientific process.
Why is climate science special? Why do you want to impose special constraints or special requirements on it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not particle physics? Genetics? Astrophysics? Biology? Quantum electrodynamics?
Your words: "Even more importantly, in my unwashed opinion, they have an obligation to HOW they explain it. In proper English, scientists have a fundamental obligation to explain their science in terms THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS instead of being pissed off that the public does not simply accept their scientific declarations."
Why don't you demand that scientists explain in plain English the Higgs field and its significance to the standard model?
Why don't you demand that geneticists explain to the public in plain terms the detailed theories of mitochondrial DNA and how it works?
Why do you choose to single out climate science of all the sciences?
Why is it that the *only* field of science that "skeptics" are expert in is the field of climate science?
Why is it that if asked very basic questions on thermodynamics or fluid dynamics these "skeptics" almost universally are at unable to answer, yet they all *KNOW* beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theories of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics have been misapplied *every single time* they have been used to analyze the global climate?
Not just in one paper, not just in one analysis, they *KNOW* for certain that every bit of evidence or analysis that supports AGW theory is questionable, faked, manipulated, altered, folded, spindled, mutilated, written in purple crayon or obtained from unfriendly aliens from Xnarkx 3 who happen to be liberals bent on taking over the world?
They're all "experts" in the evidence, they can all recite what the Vostok ice cores prove or disprove, they can rattle off a litany of historical events like the LIA, MWP, the date,time and location of major volcanic eruptions etc.
They can demonstrate their "detailed knowledge" and "expertise" in so many ways, but if you ask them a simple question about their own personal opinion, they're at a complete loss for an answer?
Why is that?
Don't take my word for why, ask them yourself. Ask them for their own personal opinion as to what specific evidence it would take to convince them that AGW theory is correct.
Just make sure you're wearing a neck brace when you do that because the abrupt change in topic can do funny things to the spine like making heads spin.
For a start, if AGW is correct & if Co2 is the culprit, why is it that Arctic Ice extent has for the fifth straight season exceeded the low recorded in the 2005 to 2006 season. Alarmists predicted the Arctic could be ice free by this coming summer. Antarctic Ice is also stable despite claims to the contrary? Why has the rate of sea level increase declined?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, I am NOT a climate change sceptic, why the "friendly fire"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<Why is climate science special?>
Not special but it's the context.
<Why do you want to impose special constraints or special requirements on it?>
You mean why would I require climate scientists to explain their results in plain language to the public? Because I expect that from ALL scientists when addressing the public because it's the public which pays for their science. It's the least they can expect for their taxmoney. If scientists would understand that the climate debate in the US would be far more advanced.
The general public does not have the time and the specialised education to understand experts but they have a right to a PROPER explanation for their taxmoney. Or would you shell out 8000 bucks "because your wiper didn't work and so we replaced your engine"?
Guess who: "The fundamental scientific ideas are simple in essence and can as a rule be expressed in a language understandable by everyone."
Scientists need to understand and apply the implications of this quote.
<Why don't you demand that scientists explain in plain English the Higgs field and its significance to the standard model?>
I do. I even say that if they would try "simplifying" it might help them discover why the bleedin thing eludes them.
<Why don't you demand that geneticists explain to the public in plain terms ... mitochondrial DNA?>
Oh I do. Not expecting full details but a good general explanation. The US media are suckers for well explained facts. In the absence of these they go for the cheap stuff. That's how heartland gains territory. Lousy statements from scientists are quite responsible of the US climate change problem.
Most scientists are very intelligent. IN THEIR FIELD. But they need to get off that high horse from which they speak in tongues. You mention physics? They underrate the importance of mass = the public. How do you expect to develop serious momentum if you overlook mass?
<Why do you choose to single out climate science?>
As I said, I don't, but why drag geneticists and biologists into a debate on climate and Gleick's blunder?
<Why is it that the *only* field of science that "skeptics" are expert in is the field of climate science?>
Have I said anything to this effect? Do you have any reason to believe I am a climate change sceptic?
Mind you, I do overall appreciate your comments greatly.
Further to your claims that there are no credible arguments against AGW. There are plenty. Here are a few.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://icecap.us/index.php
Is The Window Closing?
The Skeptic’s Case
Even if the globe is warming, scientists are unable to tell us what the effect would be on a single country or indeed the entire globe on a reasonable timescale, so it's a load of hot air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLuckily, the earth stopped warming in 1998, so the science is settled anyway. Time for Gleick and the other weavers of tall tales to move back to ramping shares.
I quote "The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)" and you go on record to say that the earth stopped warming in 1998? Stupidity in its purest form.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to your link to scientific has-beens try this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming".
Your link is so worthless even this one is more credible:
http://www.venganza.org/
So was it a secret ballot? Many scientists are intimidated by the AGW mafia. How exactly was this poll conducted & what were the questions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have not explained why arctic ice extent is greater than the 2006 record low & moving to widen the gap daily even though Co2 continues to to increase. Every subsequent year has been higher. It was supposed to be thin one year ice that would not last so what happened to that model?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFail.
I see that only 489 returned completed forms from the 885 surveyed. Also it appears it was not a secret ballot. Well that took 5 minutes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisread again, slowly, try to understand the words: the names of those polled are known - the net is full of thousands of scientists who under their name support the evidence as opposed to the few dozens of intellectual dwarfs you quote - your comment is plainly bad willed, against all reason and evidence, therefore stupid by definition - you're part of a very small minority, the no-brainers - global warming is happening and it is man-made - I was expecting to hear new anti-arguments but it's the same old garbage as usual by the same brainless deniers as usual - the debate is closed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfirst you write: "So was it a secret ballot? Many scientists are intimidated by the AGW mafia."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistwo comments below you write: "Also it appears it was not a secret ballot."
What are you trying to prove:
a) that the ballot was secret and the scientists intimidated
and at the same time
b) that the ballot was not secret and the scientists not intimidated?
You don't belong in any discussion requiring a minimum of logic.
first you write: "So was it a secret ballot? Many scientists are intimidated by the AGW mafia."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistwo comments below you write: "Also it appears it was not a secret ballot."
What are you trying to prove:
a) that the ballot was secret and the scientists intimidated
and at the same time
b) that the ballot was not secret and the scientists not intimidated?
You don't belong in any discussion requiring a minimum of logic.
carlyle says: "You have not explained why arctic ice extent is greater than the 2006". Is it? In the face of all evidence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand also that "I see that only 489 returned completed forms from the 885 surveyed". Where does he see that?
This person proves to be a notorious liar, making up and perverting evidence, a mythomaniac pillock even by deniers' standards and which can therefore safely be ignored from here on.
There was nothing inconsistant between my two posts. In the interim I had discovered for myself that it was not a secret ballot & that the response was from about half of those canvassed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor one who is so adamant that he knows so much, you know so little. I presume you can read a graph. Get back to me if you need help.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards — work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/
There are other papers giving greater details but paywalled or member only type acess.
Hope this helps you understand how lies are perpetrated by the AGW marfia. If you do not appreciate sarcastic responses from your betters, learn some manners.
"In the interim I had discovered for myself that it was not a secret ballot"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy did this person assume then initially it was secret? pure bias!
"http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/"
to prove that the arctic ice is increasing this person quotes an article that is headlined "arctic ice extent low overall" and which ends "... but ice extent as a whole remained far below average."
This person who is obviously incapable of understanding plain English then offers graph-reading lessons, then offers the next link:
"http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/"
which confirms everything I posted before but contradicts everything this person posted. Another example of this person quoting an article that says the exact contrary of what this person wants to prove.
Finally this person concludes that "only 489 returned completed forms from the 885 surveyed" whereas it says in the original article that "489 survey respondents, representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards, responded". How this is meant to prove that the other half refused to reply or stands for climate change denial is erroneous, illogical and biased, the combination of which demonstrating this person's overall lack of any talent for coherent thought.
I can therefore safely maintain my conclusion, and the newest proofs from the comments of this person reaffirm the validity of this claim, that this person is a notorious liar, making up and perverting evidence, a mythomaniac pillock even by deniers' standards and which can therefore safely (and definitely) be ignored from here on.
Permanently quoting links proving the contrary of what he says... and then doing it again and again... and again... it takes enormous amounts of self-confidence to be that ridiculous in public! Or is that hyper-egotistical self-delusion? Seriously, how funny is that?
But, to his credit, proving once and for all how climate change deniers function. Thank him for that!
Simply can't resist the beauty of it. Here's the denier quoting:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/"
to prove that AGW is garbage.
And what does it say in the article he quotes?
"We found disagreement over the future effects of climate change, but not over the existence of anthropogenic global warming."
Priceless!
Adds a new dimension to ROFLAO
Most sane and semi-educated people (I've never been to college myself but I've read a few books) can spot cherry picking in action, and your amazingly blatant discarding of over 90% of the available data in order to claim it's not warming should be visible to anyone but the kids on the short bus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou threw away about 92% of the data because it doesn't support your claim. Isn't that exactly the sort of behaviour you accuse climate scientists of?
You dishonestly truncated data that goes back to the late 1840's. You threw everything prior to 1998 specifically because you need to start your trend line during an extremely hot El Nino year otherwise your claim is exposed as a deception.
You cherry picked 1998 specifically because if you start your trend line in any other year from 1848 to 1997 the trend line clearly shows it's warming, and plotting 20 year trends shows the rate of warming is increasing and plotting multiple 14 year samples (you chose, you live with it) shows the rate of warming is increasing even faster.
You cherry picked a 14 year subset of data *knowing* that to exclude decadal scale cycles you need to include 20 to 30 years worth of data?
Do you really expect people not to laugh when you post faulty dilemmas after that blatantly dishonest cherry pick?
Simple. Because ignorance and idiocy does not refute or substitute for science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou obviously don't know the differences between sea ice and land ice, old ice and new ice, or between ice extent and ice mass.
If you had specific evidence that is true then you wouldn't have regurgitated ancient claims from sensationalist media websites, you would have cited the actual source of the evidence.
Furthermore if you had any interest in knowing the actual truth about the matter you would have googled "ice extent" and gone straight to one of the primary sources of the data which is also the very first link google returns nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
There you would find an actual summary of the science:
"January 2012 compared to past years
Arctic sea ice extent for January 2012 was the fourth lowest in the satellite record. Including the year 2012, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent over the satellite record is 3.2% per decade.
Based on the satellite record, before 2005 average January ice extent had never been lower than 14 million square kilometers (5.41 million square miles). January ice extent has now fallen below that mark six out of the last seven years."
You anti-science types really need to come up with some new material, you're still repeating gossip and rumour from a decade ago and they're still as bullshit as they were the day Heartland etc. vomited them out.
You cite a sensationalist website created by a guy who wants to sell more copies of his crappy book as a scientific source? Really? Are you serious? You genuinely think that photos from the National Enquirer prove that a B17 crash landed on the moon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's how it works. If your anti-science book writing monkey has evidence, then ask him this: why does he not respond directly to the science? He can do it, you can do it, Heartland can do it, anyone who can present defensible logic or data that is directly contradicted by AGW theory to the scientific journals. You don't need a college degree, you don't need a PhD, you don't need to be a working scientist. If it passes the basic sniff test, his/your/their logic or data will be reviewed point by point there, not just by climate scientists but by anyone on planet earth who has an interest in the science - statisticians, mathematicians, physicists, anyone who wants to read it and comment on it.
If his/your/their logic pokes a significant hole in the scientific theories that AGW/ACC theory is based on, then climate scientists will have NO CHOICE but to accept that the theory is incorrect or incomplete.
In other words, shit or get off the pot. Stop yelling at people that you personally know what is true and what isn't true and subject your "knowledge" to a rigorous process *exactly as climate scientists have done for 100+ years now*
I'm willing to go with the evidence. I'm perfectly willing to go with the scientific consensus. If someone shows that the theory directly contradicts the evidence then it is not a viable theory and must be either modified or discarded.
Until he/you/they get off your collective asses and produce some actual evidence (other than photos from the National Enquirer or cherry picked data from icecap.us) then you have to live with the 90%+ confidence levels in the existing scientific theory.
Citing sensationalist rags like the National Enquirer or WSJ or icecap.us is just him/you/them running your collective mouths. Time to put up or shut up.
Here's a brilliant animated gif showing exactly how big a lie the "skeptic" claims of no warming is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
Apologies in a hurry (as usual) and shooting from the hip, got the j* handles mixed up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree completely that scientists should have to be able to explain to the public what they are researching.
Try explaining even ancient macroscopic technology like a klystron tube to the public in a way they can understand.
If scientists had to waste their time trying to explain to the general public vacuum energy, Higgs field, quantum weirdness in general etc. they'd never get anything done. The scientists don't report to the general public, they report to people who understand the nature of the research - and that is where the decision is made to fund/not fund projects. The people funding the research may be government, university, NGO or whatever, but they're the ones responsible for explaining to the public what they're working on, not the scientists.
The only reason the scientists were drawn into the idiotic media circus is because scumbags like Heartland and Singer started quoting factoids out of context and lying about them.
That's my point about (directed at "skeptics", misdirected at you) about knowledge of other fields of science. 99.9% of the "skeptics" don't know a thing about basic physics, basic chemistry or basic thing about any other science, but they're all experts in trivia - but only trivia that has already been extracted, taken out of context, misquoted, packaged and polished by Heartland, Exxon et al. and handed to the "skeptics" and shills to shout in public forums everywhere.
That's why they make stupid claims about "ice extent growing", not because they've personally read and understood a summary aimed at the general public, but because they were told that 5 years ago by Heartland or its drones and shills and they honestly think that by repeating it daily that will somehow make it come true.
Again, apologies for the friendly fire. Cheers.
Arctic Ice extent. Up Up Up Up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Versus the prediction: Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
The IPCC similarly claimed that the glaciers in the Himalayas were disappearing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWUWT readers may recall that when the “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035″ error was first revealed, IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri famously labeled claims of the mistake “voodoo science”and then had to retract that slur later. False. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/ipccs-pachauris-voodo-science-claim-comes-full-circle/
Clims about Antarctic ice are false. You can find plenty of claims to the contrary but are they true?
"The people funding the research ... are the ones responsible for explaining to the public what they're working on, not the scientists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree to a point. Governement or whoever funds science must be able to explain to the public why they fund what they fund. The moon missions are still IMO a prime example of great communication, the very reason why the public loved it.
I _believe_ then that any major field should have one or two people who understand the field AND have the talent to boil it down to its essence, i.e. simplify it into terms the layman, the outsider can understand. This is generally what PR people do for corporations, this is what science journalists should do for their readers, and a few scientists are pretty good at it also. But we live in the age of the Internet and people demand/deserve better information as in the past. They are not satisfied anymore by simply "being told", they want to know and understand. Therefore I _believe_ that any group of scientists should have someone who can liaise with the public, make them understand what it's all about. I've always been fascinated by Einstein's talent for "simplification" leading to superb PR and this is IMO a main factor that got his theories so widely accepted even if there are still only a handful of people who understand them to this day. Same for the Higgs. The best one I ever read was one I coaxed from two guys in a specialist forum and it turned out that with the right questions they managed to provide simple, clear and understandable answers of the whole concept, proving that it is possible. Part of the game is of course to find the right questions, and that is the whole difficulty of public communication. It's all in finding the right point of view, the one that lets you see what the right questions are = all my personal unwashed opinion.
OTOH I readily admit that I have a personal fascination with science communication as I consider it a vastly underrated aspect of modern research, and not only because the guys with the best PR get the most money.
If you have an election of any kind & only half vote, you can not claim to have received more than a 50% endorsement. Further, if it is not a secret ballot, the result is even more suspect. If however you are an AGW believer, it is more a matter of what ever you can get away with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ice losses from glaciers, the land ice from Greenland, the Himalayas & Antarctica have been vastly exaggerated. They must have been, otherwise where has the water gone. Especially if you believe that heat is also causing expansion of the oceans waters. The fact is thousands of glaciers are actually expanding. The fact that the face of a glacier is receding does not tell the full story either as increased ice can be accumulating higher up.
See: Based on century-long tide gauge records at Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present), Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914 to present) and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a "consistent trend of weak deceleration" from 1940 to 2000.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056
NASA mission calculates global ice melt and rising sea levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57373690-54/nasa-mission-calculates-global-ice-melt-and-rising-sea-levels/#ixzz1nqOqIWld
This equates to 18 cm over 100 years. Other studies show the rate of increase is slowing. This is virtually the same rate as has been experienced over centuries.
Yet we have AGW scientists like Australian, Karl S. Kruszelnicki, see PV : http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s2193276.htm
Today telling Australian listerners on ABC radio that we can expect sea level rises from five to seven metres this century.
There is also the little matter of satelite data showing greater sea level increase than actual measurements from tide gauges.
" Current rates of sea level rise from satellite altimetry have been estimated in the range of 2.9–3.4 ± 0.4–0.6 mm per year for 1993–2010.[26][27][28][29][30] This exceeds those from tide gauges. It is unclear whether this represents an increase over the last decades; variability; true differences between satellites and tide gauges; or problems with satellite calibration."
Sorry, two link rule. Uncapatalise the following link:
WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/CURRENT_SEA_LEVEL_RISE
"If you have an election of any kind & only half vote, you can not claim to have received more than a 50% endorsement."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) this is not an election, it is a survey of those people with a professional background fitting the topic; which cannot be said of the person using the quote;
b) to conclude that 90% of the scientists surveyed agreeing on AGW represent barely a 50% endorsement is utterly stupid.
"Further, if it is not a secret ballot, the result is even more suspect."
This pillock first said that it was a secret ballot and therefore suspect and now he says it is even more suspect because it is not a secret ballot.
Too stupid to understand the texts he quotes, perfect representative of the AGW deniers, believes that a working Internet connection is a sign of intelligence.
If he was shot in the head the bullet would go through a perfect vacuum.
Thankfully most readers here can actually read. I said no such thing. I queried if it was a secret ballot, the only kind that is credible, then later posted that I found that it was not a secret ballot. I suggest you keep away from guns. You would not know which end was which. But keep posting, you are an asset to my side of the debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thankfully most readers here can actually read."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand find out for themselves that this carlyle character is a liar.
"I said no such thing. I queried if it was a secret ballot, the only kind that is credible"
Nope, car-liar was saying in what he believed to be a subtle implication using a rhetorical question that it was a secret ballot and that many scientists are intimidated by the AGW mafia, then
"later posted that I found that it was not a secret ballot"
and went on to say that that is even more suspect than a secret ballot. So regardless of what type of ballot it is he compares it to an election, then concludes that since only those scientists who were climate pros were surveyed, that the others were against AGW, then quotes a text to prove that AGW is disregarded by scientists whereas in fact the text says that 90+% of the surveyed scientists know from results, research and stats that climate change is man-made, then car-liar comes back saying that he never said/implied/suggested/typed/wrote anything of any sort...
Car-liar, the ultimate AGW denier, cheap shot, trickster, tweaker, fiddler, fondler, GO GO GO CARLIE, we warmists need a few more like you.
(Well, that's a figure of speech, there aren't that many idiots left who don't accept the evidence... even Limbaugh fans wake up in the face of reality... <g> I'll confess to something: I think you're funny, seriously, I look forward to your comments, you're making my coffee-breaks the best thing since Kevin Bridges came on youtube - gogogo car-lie, ur ma hero with a big Z)
And for the AGW deniers: we know you are all a bit slow so let me explain the details:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscar-lie had initially implied that it had been a secret ballot because scientists would have been too intimidated by the "AGW mafia" (sic) to say what they really think in an open ballot. Then we rubbed his nose in it and he had to admit it had not been a secret ballot. To save face he now he pretends that his brain had actually never said what his little fingers had typed and wishes to distance himself from his keyboard, his left hand and/or his right hand and his brain's three hemispheres - subtle as a brick outhouse, my favorite AGW denier figurehead!
He does more for AGW acceptance than Gleick could ever have hoped to achieve with his heartland publication!
Car-lie, my climage change hero!
My initial post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this83. Carlylein reply to jctyler01:16 AM 2/29/12
So was it a secret ballot? Many scientists are intimidated by the AGW mafia. How exactly was this poll conducted & what were the questions?
What kind of twisted brain could misinterpret that?
I was obviously doubting that it was a secret ballot & I was correct. A non secret ballot is open to abuse. That is why, in a democracy we have secret ballots. Organisations who wish to intimidate, hate secret ballots.
As I said before, keep posting. You are right up there with the top intellects of your peer group.
Well? Got a sneaking suspicion yet that perhaps every time you open your mouth you are exposing your brain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgo carlie gogogo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.....The news articles I've read on this topic state that the initial release of the documents to Gleick was accidental. He only pretended to be somebody else in order to get copies of the documents to verify whether or not they were real. Not sure which version is true, but it is a consequential difference...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIE, do basic peer review, the foundation of the scientific method? Lol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe memos aren't fake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
Neither are the faries at the bottom of your garden. The site you quote makes even most warmists cringe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"consequential difference..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgood to know; makes quite a difference (while also proving on what level heartland operates, seems to be the same unprofessional level on which they deal with climate evidence)
to nmlevesque:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisignore car-lie who wrote "neither are the faries at the bottom of your garden"
cos he is one of them <g> (same as the anti-AGW "evidence" our pet climate rumpelstilzchen keeps quoting to prove the contrary of what he keeps pretending, they only exist in his imagination but shhhht, his therapist says he needs to make up stuff to compensate since more and more of his imaginary denier friends are leaving him)
breitbart gone, car-lie gone... <sigh> a society without cheaters and tweakers, what's the world coming to?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand in case you want to read something COMPLETELY different about managing the pollution :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climateagency.net/
strange find, strange angle, somehow... at the very least a change from the usual.
People who claim that the sun doesn't effect climate change.and has more of an effect than humans .. well , I don't want to revert to tribalism.. but I think you get my drift.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe people who hacked East Anglia did the world a favor. After years of snubbing an FOI request to a public institution.. the hackers released the documents that should have been released before. And lo and behold , lies and cover up. It is only because the statue of limitations had run out that those EA men weren't punished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeartland is a private organization.. no FOIA applies. So Gleick does illegal acts to steal information.. that prooves what? That HI has funding... so what. How does that affect the "theory" ... not a law of science btw..
of Climate hysteria?
The email that shows getting the info into schools has been implicated as another fake by Glecik too.
And so what? Even Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was banned in the UK public schools because of so many falsities. Yet shoved into the brains of US young children.
And Mark, the authore, implying "oil interests" fund HI.. another bunch of crock and you know. Back it up with facts. Yes, Koch industries gave money for CANCER research.. not climate change.. so try to imply they fund the studies.
People like Gleick do not help your cause or your religion. One lie piled on more lies. Adds up to one BIG LIE.
<The people who hacked East Anglia did the world a favor...>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreading your utter nonsense under the week would be a complete waste of time but reading your "comment" on a Sunday morning adds a new dimension to ROFLAO.
but let me guess: you're a clueless troll, a certified moron or the world's worst comedian.
As a kid I would read my dad's SciAms, and as an adult I was a longtime SciAm subscriber. I quit reading the magazine several years back after its editorship changed. After the change it became clear that SciAm was no longer a nonpartisan trumpeter of scientific advances. Instead, it had become a mouthpiece for political causes. This article is a glowing example of why I quit subscribing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI simply cannot believe SciAm is attempting to justify what Gleick did. I cannot believe SciAm is giving this forum to a criminal. There is no comparison between Heartland and Climategate. Climategate was an exposure of existing illegal and unethical activity; Gleick attempted to frame Heartland with illegal and unethical activity. That SciAm is doing anything other than straight-out condemning Gleick is a disgrace. Yet here it is, having a conversation about whether or not what Gleick did was truly wrong.
SciAm, you disgust me. But in playing this charade you are damaging your own reputation for decades to come. As "science" announces more conflicting and outrageous proclamations, and as more predictions are shown to be bunk, people who never paid attention to the issue are now becoming aware that AGW is a taxation and power scam. "Deniers" are the least of your problem, SciAm, when already close to 2/3rds of the population know AGW is a hoax. AGW is dying, SciAm, but the things you have written to keep it on life support will live on forever to shame you.
<As a kid I would read my dad's SciAms, and as an adult I was a longtime SciAm subscriber... people... are now becoming aware that AGW is a taxation and power scam... when already close to 2/3rds of the population know AGW is a hoax.>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver 95% of scientists believe climate change is happening, over 85% of them believe it is human-made, nearly 2/3d of the US population agree (read all the comments on this article before demanding links, sources etc).
What can we then conclude from your brainless rant? That reading scientific magazines alone is not sufficient to grow a working brain.
and to feed the capitalist in you, here's the Economist which cannot be accused of being a communist climate-change supporter:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/climate_change
(warning: contains logic and difficult words starting with psy and eco)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sherwood_Rowland
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy man - rest in peace - have fun up there
1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(based on papers from various sources obtained by careff, compiled and commented by poster - feel free to copy)
summary of memos on
Climate change denial public strategy summer/pre-election 2012
In the last weeks a number of events formed a rather unfortunate constellation for climate change deniers.
First were the latest polls showing that in February 2012 around 70% of the US population now believe in climate change, an increase of nearly 20% over the last two years and that more than 50% believe now that this is man-made.
(This of course goes against the interests of those companies that make serious profits from environmental abuse, in other words those highly interested in blocking environmental legislation. One only needs to consider that every month gained is washing millions into their accounts. Funding climage change denier organizations with a few millions per year is negligeable compared to the profits.)
(The Gleick incident showed the aware public that deniers will increasingly attempt to influence adolescents using tactics that the tobacco industry used with great success for a long time.) Then came the Gleick incident which was for a while compared to the University of East Anglia e-mail account hacking. (Unfortunately) The mails' content proved to be scientifically sound even if their style was not meant for the unscientific reader whereas the documents obtained by Gleick proved that the deniers resort to (dirty tactics). It has therefore become counterproductive to compare the two incidents directly.
Also, a number of unfortunate events have struck public opinion such as the continuous press coverage of endangered animals, i.e. the fate of the ice bear population, coverage of climate problems affecting American farmers, floods and devastated crops in Australia and the consequences on climate, sea life and the environment of the nuclear incident at Fukushima, all of which having a negative effect on any climate change denial campaigns.
(This affects mainly two own-interest groups. First are those industries that thrive on environmental abuse and which stand to lose substantial profits from updated environmental laws. Then there are quite a number of people drawing substantial paychecks for public relations work for these companies. These two groups focus mainly on that part of the population that is undecided and the goal is to switch their opinions to climate change denial and their votes to those political candidates favourable to the polluting industry.)
2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(This shows that there are in fact three interest groups within the denial movement: certain industries and companies , people paid for denial campaigning, e.g. PR consultants and certain media figures, and politicians. Advice is that industries can use anti-Americanism, PR should use opinion rather than fact and politicians should use the negative effect on the economy rather than anti-Americanism as too many incumbents are perceived as core American. Avoid drawing any attention to the increasing benefits and technological advance of the European green economy and industry.)
Politically, current events seem to prove the negative consequences of pollution. This gives the undecided voters a special weight in the context. Within this leaderless group deniers should now focus on shaping opinions by taking over the role of opinion makers.
This is even more important in the light of the latest findings that that more and more of these undecided voters turn away from pure opinion and press coverage and look for hard facts. As a result swing voters turn increasingly to scientific magazines and programs perceived as neutral for better information. It is therefore important for (the climage change deniers) that these people should find (denier) opinions and comments on magazine websites and that deniers should strongly express their views whenever possible on all media.
3.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has then been convened that (denier) organizations and interested companies step up opinion making. Furthermore, as by the sheer richness of data available it has become near impossible to counter those with denier-supporting data of any kind the tactic of choice will be the mass posting of all types of opinions and comments disregarding any and all facts on the subject to give the impression that climate deniers represent a public majority or at least a major and election-deciding group. (Denier spin) should stay away from rational discussions and instead use emotions, opinions, papers from deniers of all backgrounds, preferably from those with a degree, any degree, as long as it looks scientific or educated (turn engineers into scientists, describe scientists as technocrats), patriotism if the context is right and in general use anything make all comments look like educated opinions (insist on style rather than argument).
(Why this sudden interest?) If one looks at the general situation it becomes clear that the public seems to turn into a solid majority of climate change believers. This has to be avoided at all cost. The one advantage of denier spin is that the deniers profit from substantial financial support to promote their agenda while changists act on their own. The advantage of using office time and being paid to comment should be used for greatest effect, confident that many in the media will always give someone making a big splash more airtime or reading space than they actually deserve. Deniers will peferably approach those journalists known to prefer to be handed ready-made material instead of those doing their own research.
4.fin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Inner circle considerations included a tactic whereby a denier would pose as a warmist but admit to sometimes doubting the figures or the procedure or findings or misrepresenting articles and graphics even when providing the correct link as many readers/viewers will not bother to check the link. It is strongly recommended to create domains that offer official charts and such and have them explained in our (denier) sense as most civilians will not have the education to understand the data or be interested in in-depth analysis.
(The aware reader may have or will in the near future notice that quite suddenly denier comments will appear in the public place. An excellent illustration of this new strategy are the comments on articles in this magazine. Where usually both sides would argue from the the moment the article was published, the slicker denier comments have only appeared quite late (in general since 12 march) but suddenly and massively in a tactical attempt to drown educated opinion under the sheer mass of climate denial text. This can be easily verified by comparing the comments on various articles before/after 12 March.)
Ad hominem. You just lost the argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAd hominem. You lose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there is only one side to this debate. We should watch Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and accept that as the new E=MC squared. Then we are being asked, no, told, to swallow trillions of dollars of expenditures to alleviate what may have been exaggerated by a factor of 10 or more. We are told: 20 feet of sea level rise, no, maybe 2 feet by the end of this century, according to the IPCC. It gets less and less, not more. Should there not be debate then on an honest assessment of the problem, not as an End of The World as We Know It "tipping point" issue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should have a cost/benefit discussion. We are not, in a decade, or even 2 or 3 going to wean ourselves off of the Internal Combustion Engine and our present carbon based economy without massive economic disruption (read "jobs"). The green shoots of alternative energy are not sprouting because they all die without huge unaffordable subsidies, or are not yet invented, or are not economically or ironically, ecologically viable. So I am called a climate skeptic, or warming denier (even worse than a Holocaust denier, apparently), for asking the questions that any practical person would ask. Assuming what you say is true, which is debatable, how the hell do we get from here to where you want, and how much will it cost, for how much improvement? Then I get told: you're a denier and a tool for the gas industry. Huh? I'm a Doctor, and all I ask is tell me the real extent of the problem and how much is it going to cost!
If Dr. Gleick cannot argue his point without phishing or (allegedly) fabricating memos, then perhaps he is not scientifically persuasive. He needs to do a better job of arguing. The secretive and politicized processes which have pervaded the scientific climate community do not further the goals of educating the public.
Computer forensics have shown that the memos have been altered or complete forgeries. This is a scientific response to those that want the raw data to verify the studies? This is not how science works, except in the realm of AGW. Only the devoted acolytes do not see this as a huge red light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<We should have a cost/benefit discussion>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much are a few tens of millions of lives worth? The tipping point was reached around 2005 (my estimate). On the problem itself the debate is closed. Only undiluted idiots still constest it, the only thing open for discussion is its effects. The problem is undervalued and you will rue the day you posted your pseudo-cool rubbish
<If Dr. Gleick cannot argue his point without phishing or (allegedly) fabricating memos>
Only the twats from heartland institute ALLEGED tentatively that he fabricated the memos but never took him to court on it. At this time it is known that the memos he obtained were true. Heartland institute which is a paid mercenary to polluting industries is nothing but a PR machine to support those who kill the environment. Your garbage comment does not change any of that.
You're a climate retard and your comment reflects that.
<Computer forensics have shown that the memos have been altered or complete forgeries.>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave they? Submit a SINGLE proof, you lying twat. Not even heartland institue kept that one-day pretense up. In fact they never took Gleick to court. So:
a) computer and style analysts have shown that the memos were to the highest possibility true;
b) heartland institute admitted as much after two days of denial (even if denial is their profession, the evidence was too much to keep lying).
To come here and pretend then that "computer forensics" proved the memos to be fake is idiocy at the highest level. So either you are a complete idiot or you are lying through your teeth.
<This is a scientific response to those that want the raw data to verify the studies?>
Come on, you twat, ONE SINGLE PROOF or at least a SINGLE LINK to a single proof of the garbage you post. ONE.
<This is not how science works>
Go tell that to the heartland institute PR fabricators.
<except in the realm of AGW.>
Don't wonder off into territories you obviously know nothing about. Stay in your dump and keep playing pacman.
<Only the devoted acolytes do not see this as a huge red light.>
Since I have a few minutes left, what Gleick did was not very elegant, he passed himself as someone else. It's what the FBI does to uncover terrorist plots. It's not very nice, not very legal, but the result warranted it. The memos prove that heartland institute tries to influence school curriculums by spreading PR for polluting industries, regardless of the cost of human life and suffering. And you support that? You are a climate criminal and should serve your time in Bangladesh or the arctic.
You want to talk real criminals? Talk to the people who hacked into East Anglia University's computer to steal private e-mails. That is outright criminal. Not only that, they stole e-mails, then quoted them wrongly and had to retract their initial statements when it became obvious that they didn't understand the information they had stolen. Read a summary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
you have just missed a great opportunity to shut up about something you don't know anything about.
---
Quite strange that months after this Gleick article was published two people show up here. Looks like someone at a pro-pollution PR company has commissioned two paid twats to comment here in favour of pollution.
Or are you two guys this stupid on your own?