Posts
Climategate 2
Two years ago, emails among climate scientists taken from the servers of the University of East Anglia were released to the world, which sparked a pseudo-scandal known as 'Climategate.' The emails, some taken severely out of context, were used to tar the whole field of research and create the impression that climate scientists are an insular group who break the law, falsify data, and suppress opposition in order to keep the global warming hoax alive so that [insert nefarious rationale]. In the intervening time, investigations have largely cleared the scientists swept up in the whirlwind, and the temperature record was recently re-affirmed by an independent analysis. Nevertheless, the storm of controversy had effects that can be seen to this day, with attempts to get all of Michael Mann's emails and files from the University of Virginia working their way through the courts, and commentators like Rush Limbaugh continuing to cite the emails as proof that global warming is a scam.
Now, in time for the holiday season, a new batch of emails has been released. However, like most sequels, Climategate 2 looks likely to be disappointing for those interested in stirring up controversy. The emails appear to be left-overs from the first batch released, and you can bet the scientists involved won't be caught flat-footed this time.
A quick digression: This business of trolling through emails looking for something salacious is understandable. After all, these are supposed to be the unguarded real thoughts of the people involved, and sometimes internal communications really do contain damning information (see: tobacco companies). But it's always struck me how this kind of storm could envelope any area of research. Every field has its contested concepts, its grandstanders, and its controversial figures. Scientific papers are not handed to us on tablets written by God, they are written by people who have to hash out the best way to tell the story--where to put the emphasis, what data to include, and how to contextualize it. In that respect it's a little bit like journalism or the law. (Hey, there's an idea. Imagine the stories we could get out of the internal communications of a decent sized law firm!) Probably nobody will ever care about my own work, but I sometimes imagine what kind of controversy could be spun out of my communications.
Hopefully we're all a little wiser this time. (But maybe not.)
More details:
The Guardian
BBC
15 comments:
Jared,
“…emails, some taken severely out of context.” No doubt true, but if only some were taken out of context, then most were not. Do you really think putting those emails taken out of context into context changes the totality of the issue?
“…create the impression that climate scientists are an insular group who break the law, falsify data, and suppress opposition in order to keep the global warming hoax alive so that [insert nefarious rationale].” Come on! You really have no idea what the nefarious rationale is? I doubt it. The issue of climate change has been co-opted by people with a political agenda to which I am adamantly opposed. I assure you, I would have very little interest in this issue if politics were not involved. By the way, I do think that some climate scientists are insular, break the law, falsify data, and suppress opposition.
“… investigations have largely cleared the scientists…” The investigations were conducted by people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. That those investigations were essentially a sham is obvious to anybody who honestly looks at the issue.
“…the temperature record was recently reaffirmed by an independent analysis.” It was indeed. So what? Data is data. I’m sure I don’t appreciate how difficult it is to get accurate and consistent data, so I’m glad somebody is doing that work. But I don’t think anybody was realistically questioning that the earth’s mean temperature has increased slightly over the past 150 years, since coming out of the Little Ice Age. The question is, is that increase outside of normal variability? If so, how much of it is realistically attributable to anthropogenic causes? And for the portion that is determined to be anthropogenic, what can we realistically do about it? Those are simple, fair questions that need to be honestly answered.
“Hopefully we’re all a little wiser this time.” Can’t argue with that. Wisdom is always a good thing.
Do you really think putting those emails taken out of context into context changes the totality of the issue?
Yes.
But I don’t think anybody was realistically questioning that the earth’s mean temperature has increased slightly over the past 150 years
Matt, meet Fred Singer and Anthony Watts. If your comment implies that these guys should not be taken seriously, then I agree with you.
Jared,
I am aware of Fred Singer and Anthony Watts. There are passionate advocates on both sides of this debate. I’m not surprised that you disagree with them, but unless you have evidence they are “insular, break the law, falsify data, and suppress opposition”, you should deal honestly with their arguments. I know there are mountains of data and issues get very complex, but unless you can distill all that complexity down to simple answers to simple questions, I’m not convinced that you have answers, and you will not win the battle for public acceptance.
Once again, the simple questions are;
1) What evidence do you have that the warming the earth has experienced since coming out of the Little Ice Age is unusual, or outside normal variability? Climate changing is the norm, so what evidence do you have that the mean global temperature increase we have experienced for the last approximately 150 years is abnormal?
Once that is established;
2) How much of the increase can be realistically attributable to anthropogenic causes?
Once that is established;
3) What can we realistically do about it?
Simple questions. There should be simple answers.
There has been a very heavy feeling in social science departments since the admission of data falsification by Diederik Stapel. In one class, we had actually reviewed and discussed a few of his studies, and were instructed, after the scandal, to disregard everything we had learned from his studies. In one particularly heated discussion in a social psychology class I was in, a student pointed out that people already distrust social science, and this is just the sort of thing that puts a black eye on the entire field when it comes to the public.
After a bit of an awkward silence, one student offered, "Well, at least we're not climate scientists." Indeed.
Wait a minute. Why should I have to deal with the arguments of Singer and Watts? You said that nobody seriously doubted that Earth is warming. I simply gave you two prominent examples. If you don't agree with them (that Earth isn't warming), then what more do I need to say?
As for simple answers, we've discussed these issues a number of times, and I've referred you to outside resources. So let's not pretend that if only somehow you could get simple answers from me, that you'll be satisfied. But despite the Charlie Brown-kicking-the-football nature of this, it's a useful exercise to compress my understanding of the issue into a few simple statements.
1. In addition to the temperature record over the last 150 years, scientists have looked at various indirect indicators of temperature in the past (such as ice cores, sediment cores, tree rings, etc). When compared to the global temperatures of the past 1500-2000 years, current global temperatures stand out as among the highest, and are likely actually the highest. This increase in temperature coincides with atmopsheric concentrations of CO2--a known heat-trapping gas--that Earth has not had for 3 quarters of a million years. This increase in CO2 is clearly the result of human activities, especially the use of fossil fuels. Known changes in the tilt and orbit of Earth cannot account for this increase in temperature. Further, measurements of solar output since 1970 have shown no appreciable increase, ruling out the sun as the direct reason for rising temperatures. Measurements of infrared radiation--especially at the wavelength that CO2 absorbs and re-emitts--show less escaping into space and more radiated back to the surface. Further, warming patterns are consistent with what would be expected for a greenhouse mechanism of warming, such as warming in the lower portion of the atmosphere and surface, and nights warming faster than days.
2. Human activities are probably responsible for most of the warming observed since the mid-20th century.
3. Find ways to reduce the net amount of CO2 released by human activities. This almost certainly means reducing use of fossil fuels through greater efficiency and alternative energy strategies. We should also take expected effects such as sea level rise into account in our long-term planning.
Jared,
Nice Charlie Brown reference, but I have honestly looked at the references you provided and others. They quickly get very complicated, and that’s the problem. It is not simple. There is no “smoking gun” proof positive that recent temperatures are higher than at any other time in the current Holocene, not to mention previous ones. There are data sets that suggest that, but there are others that show global temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate-Optimum and the Holocene Optimum as high, or higher, than recent temperatures.
Then you get into the “it can’t be this, and it can’t be that, so it must be anthropogenic CO2” argument. That is the same argument the IPCC makes in their most recent assessment report. I’m sure I don’t understand the argument as well as you do, but I think I do understand it somewhat, and I’m not willing to be our economy and modern way of life on a maybe. I remain unconvinced that recent global temperatures are abnormal relative to the current Holocene.
You answer to No. 2 was no answer at all.
I have no problem with what you propose in No. 3, as long as there is no compulsion involved. If people, acting in their own self interest, choose to do those things, I have no problem with it. But if you are proposing government compulsion to do those things, I am adamantly opposed. This is where the rubber meets the road. You can believe anything you want, as can I, but don’t use government to compel me to act according to your beliefs.
With regard to sea level rise, I have seen data that suggests it is so small recently as to be almost non existent, certainly not the 20 feet Al Gore talked about.
Matt,
I have honestly looked at the references you provided and others. They quickly get very complicated, and that’s the problem.
Fair enough.
Not every crime is solved by a smoking gun. Sometimes it takes consilience of evidence. And anyway, declaring something a smoking gun in this context is a subjective judgment.
With respect to #2, more here.
I'm sympathetic to your desire not to be compelled, but this is not a black-and-white question in my mind (do tax subsidies or breaks for particular industries constitute compulsion?), and anyway I don't want to enter the quicksand of discussing political philosophy.
Jared,
Thanks for another link. I always try to look at the links you provide.
Several years ago I thought I would read the entire IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (silly me). I ended up skimming over most of it. It is certainly hundreds of pages, perhaps thousands. Even the Summary for Policymakers is 22 pages long. Anyway, I printed the Synthesis Report. I still have it. Section 2 is titled “Causes of change” and then section 2.4 is titled “Attribution of climate change”, which is what you linked to. This is what I was really looking for. I can still see the highlighting I did as I read it.
I’d like to see a count of the number of time the word “likely”, or variants thereof, are used in that section. It is amazing. I’m going need something stronger than “likely” before I am willing to risk our fragile economy and modern way of life. And there really needs to be a two or three page summary that us non scientists can understand.
I certainly understand your desire to avoid politics, but that is the only reason I’m here. If this were just an intellectual debate among scientists I wouldn’t even be here. What I reject is the claim that the “science is settled” and we “must act now”. If you are willing to concede that the science is not settled and we don’t need to act now, I’m out of here.
Matt,
If you look in the introduction, the IPCC defines what they mean by "very likely," etc. Personally, I don't look at it in such a quantitative manner. I think of it more like a physician would--making a diagnosis in the face of some uncertainty based on symptoms, case history, and so forth. (To be clear, I am not a physician.)
I would not endorse the phrase, "the science is settled," because there are always refinements to be made, and potentially some surprises, and it depends on what you're talking about. I consider as established facts: that CO2 traps heat, that humans are responsible for large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the temperature has risen over the last 150 years. I consider the proposition that humans are responsible for much of the warming over the last 50 years to be strongly supported.
I also do think that we need to act now, by which I mean that we need to start taking the problem seriously and looking for ways to address it, because it is not a problem that can be dealt with quickly. I think this will require a coherent national energy policy, but I guess I could be wrong.
A few months ago, climatologist Scott Denning gave a talk at a Heartland Institute conference. You can read about it and/or watch it here. I suggest you watch it to get the full force of his message. It is echoed by Barry Bickmore today:
"I’m a political conservative, too, but I have to disagree with your reasoning. Whether or not human-caused climate change is real is strictly a scientific problem. Almost all the experts on the subject agree that it is very likely to be a big problem for us if we don’t slow down our emissions. In other words, a problem exists.
What we should do about it is a political problem. And OF COURSE the far left is going to try to use any problem to argue for a drastic change in our economic system. So what should the conservatives do? Should we complain that climate change has been “hijacked for political purposes,” or figure out some way of addressing the problem that doesn’t involve such a drastic overhaul of the economic system? By brushing the whole thing off as “hijacked for political purposes,” I think conservatives are giving away the store. If climate change is a real problem that will get worse and worse as we do nothing, at some point it’s going to be clear that conservatives have tacitly admitted that our political philosophy can’t deal with problems like this. We’ll be utterly discredited.
Personally, I’d rather see us make a reasonable attempt to address the problem in a conservative-friendly way."
Jared,
I tire of the physician analogy, i.e. your physician diagnosis your condition and suggests a treatment, which is the current state of the art. He can’t be 100% certain that he has properly diagnosed the condition, or 100% certain that the treatment will work, but you’d be a fool not to take his advice. Right? Well what if your physician had a financial stake in the proposed treatment? Would you still be a fool not to take his advice, get a second or third opinion? That is the situation we face. My perception is that too many of the scientists (and politicians) telling us we have to do something stand to benefit financially from that something. If your side of this debate wants to make some progress with a skeptical population, you’re going to have improve credibility of the message. Not that my side of this debate doesn’t have people with credibility problems as well, but we’re not trying to get people change their entire economy. You are.
“Almost all experts on the subject agree…In other words, a problem exists.” No it doesn’t! Of course temperature and CO2 have gone up. That is just data, and essentially can’t be denied. And of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I understand the physics (well sort of), but correlation is not causation. None of the catastrophes predicted are occurring. Hurricanes are not more frequent or more intense. Weather related deaths have declined dramatically over the past eight decades. Drought is not getting worse. Polar ice is recovering. Global temperatures have essentially stopped rising for the past decade. Sea level rise has been so low lately as to be essentially non-existent. So tell me again why we should risk our economy and modern way of life. I’m one conservative who will take my chances on “giving away the store” and being “utterly discredited.”
Matt, why do you discount the incentives for defenders of the status quo to delay any serious action on climate change? Why is it that grant money and potential investments in alternative energy sources are so powerful forces as to warp the mainstream view of climate science, but fossil fuel interests--which make a whole lot of money NOW--well their allies are just concerned about good science? History shows that large industries don't accept diminishment without a fight.
I'm not trying to tar (heh) the fossil fuel industry (though they have done some naughty things). And in fact some of the most entrenched climate skeptics seem to operate on more ideological grounds. I'm simply pointing out the imbalance if you're going to take the "follow the money" approach. I mean, if all Al Gore wants is to get rich, then he should go full-bore into fossil fuels.
That is just data, and essentially can’t be denied.
That's sort of how we started this conversation. There are people who do.
None of the catastrophes predicted are occurring.
You seem awfully confident of that. Some of the things you list are more uncertain than others, or are not anticipated to emerge for a few more decades. But in light of your 'data is data' comment, I'm particularly interested in the assertion that polar ice is recovering. Can you elaborate on that? Because although there are commentators who excel at making down look like up, and vice versa, the decline of arctic ice is one of those things where I would say data is data.
So tell me again why we should risk our economy and modern way of life.
It's not obvious to me that this is the case. Can you explain to me why altering the source of our energy is going to destroy us?
Jared,
I certainly do not discount incentives. Incentives have a long and sordid history. There are always unintended consequences. Command economies have been an absolute disaster every time they’ve been tried. I am adamantly opposed to government picking and choosing economic winners. Government incentives mess up the free market by sending confusing price signals. I am opposed to all government incentives, for the fossil fuel industry, or green energy.
Al Gore was set to become the first green billionaire until the carbon exchange collapsed, and he turned out to be a pervert instead of a family man. I am so grateful he did not become President back in 2000.
I looked at your link to the NSIDC. It looks like we have about 31 years of satellite data. During that time it is clear that Arctic sea ice has been declining while Antarctic sea ice has been increasing. The only conclusion I draw from that is that climate is changing. Interesting information I suppose, but certainly not proof, or even evidence, of anthropogenic global warming. By the way, I did see this on that web site. I don’t know how to imbed a link like you do, so I’ll just have to copy and paste.
Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for November 2011 was 10.01 million square kilometers (3.86 million square miles), 1.30 million square kilometers (502,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 170,000 square kilometers (66,000 square miles) above the average for November 2006, the lowest extent recorded for that month in the satellite data record.
So, down from the 1979-2000 (21 years) average, but up since the low point of 2006 (5 years). Data is data. It doesn’t mean anything until it is analyzed. What do you conclude from this data, because I’m not getting much out of it?
The reason altering our source of energy will destroy our economy (not “us” as you put it, but our economy) is that it is more expensive. If we have to spend more on energy, we inevitably have less to spend on other things. Not exactly rocket science. I have absolutely no problem switching to green energy when it costs less. That’s the way a market works. What I have a problem with is government picking and choosing economic winners.
I am convinced that the only reason we have made the environmental progress we have made in this country is because we have had an economy that has produced significant wealth. It is only wealthy economies that can afford the luxury of environmentalism. Poor economies have a lousy environmental record because they have more important things to worry about, like feeding their people. In order to continue our environmental progress, we need an economy that produces significant wealth. Good luck getting the environmental progress you want in a lousy economy. You and I should be in agreement on this.
Matt,
I didn't link to the NSIDC as evidence that warming is anthropogenic. I was simply challenging your statement that polar ice is recovering. As for the broader meaning, I think this page explains it well.
I agree with you with respect to wealth enabling better environmental practices, but it takes law too--especially when consumers don't recognize the adverse effects of a product (carcinogens, for example). I don't think it's an either/or proposition.
So, over the 30 year satellite record, Arctic sea ice extent is declining while Antarctic is increasing. What does that mean, other than that climate is changing like it always has? The NSIDC states that there several factors influencing this change. What does all that mean in terms of convincing me that anthropogenic CO2 is such an imminent threat to civilization that I should support Cap and Trade, Kyoto, and other potential economy damaging legislation?
Matt,
Today's ice loss can be seen in the context of the last 1500 years here. The significance (or lack thereof) of Antarctic ice is explained here. One concern about the Arctic is that the ice reflects a lot of sunlight back out to space, thus helping to cool the planet. As summer ice coverage decreases, that cooling effect is also decreased, thus amplifying the human effect.
Post a Comment