Global Warping
Now that our illustrious government has finally managed to pass, at great cost to itself and the Maori party, a badly designed Emissions Trading Scheme – that absolutely everyone else hates – it is time to wonder why anyone bothered. This expensive waste of political capital will achieve precisely nothing for our environment nor prevent Global warming (should it actually exist). It is unlikely to serve any useful purpose at the Copenhagen talks, which are already likely to be derailed by the splendid e-mail debacle that is gradually gathering momentum.
That particular scandal should have provided a good excuse to step away from an ETS, but that opportunity is also now lost.
It may be that Dr Smith simply does not realise the import of those emails, choosing to soothe himself with the bland murmurings of the Global Warmongers at NIWA. Even the right-wing blogs, rightly scandalized by the fudging of facts and the selective nature of data provided, have not appreciated the true enormity of this scandal.
Climate science is not amenable to empirical proof. When Climate scientists say the ” science is settled”, what they mean is “the majority of climate scientists think this is true” . There is nothing wrong with this, per se. Many scientific disciplines run this way. This system works really well for natural sciences that are not amenable to experimentation. Unfortunately, this way of scientific theorising requires quite a lot of integrity from its scientists. It requires full access to all facts, so that these observed facts can be checked against the theory. What these e-mails tell us is that prominent figures have been selecting facts that accord with their theory and suppressing others that do not. This means that the current consensus of climate science has been developed on a highly selected set of data. It means that the consensus is not worth the paper it is written on.
Note that in a scientific discipline where experimentation is possible, over-selection and suppression of data will be quickly picked up by others repeating the experiment. In climate science it simply leads everyone to false conclusions.
If I was a climatologist, I would be very angry at this point, because it means the past decade of my work would now have to be reinterpreted against a different set of data. The conclusions that I have drawn from my research would all have to be re-examined. Depending on the extent of data massaging and the extent of suppression of contrary data, climate science may have been set back for years.
And yet the rather odd Dr. Smith is happy to ram through a bill that is likely to be nothing more than an exercise in economic vandalism…
Go figure.
Related posts:
- New Source of Global Warming Indeed, there is an enormous amount of hot air coming...
- Open Source It is good to see that NIWA is now going...
- Hothouse I like Global Warming. Without the Global Warming industry, newspapers would be...
- Spam Journalism #66 Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add...
- Global Comments Over at SciBlogs, Gareth Renowden and Ken Perrott are commenting...
23 Comments
Leave A ReplyOne Trackback/Ping
- Did you see the one about . . . « Homepaddock — [...] Global Warping - Macdoctor on the need for integrity from scientists. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Newspaper corrections of the ...
Nov 26 09 6:34 am
Heard a chap on the radio talking about a presentation he had made in Florida back in 1995.. it was about modern tribalism and how the Internet would play its part.
He noted the rise of emails and blogs provided an excellent forum for like minded people to cluster and take on the characteristics of tribalism, ie, develop their own culture, push out contrarians, defend each other right or wrong, become paranoic about outsider criticism and develop their own morality.
Put like that its not difficult to see elements of tribalism in these emails, or even aspects of a cult.
On a slightly different tack, the programmer notes are instructive and go a long way to explain why the scientists were reluctant to release the codes of how they developed their ideas.. The notes show at least one of the major programmers had huge difficulties in replicating the science.. to the point where he gave up and started fudging stuff.
That doesn’t surprise me, I’ve worked with some of the models scientists have developed.. and top programmers they are not.
That doesn’t invalidate models because at some stage early in the process people are brought in to tidy up the programmes and provide the basis for critical analysis and replication; but its pretty obvious that the CRU tribe wasn’t subject to that discipline.
JC
Nov 26 09 7:28 am
The only possible reason, the ONLY one, I can think of for sane men and women (and the Gnats and Bros most certainly are sane)to support this quite ridiculous ETS is as window dressing to protect our export markets. It is nothing more than window dressing to suck up to a world which has been conned by bogus scientists and snake oil salesmen.
Nov 26 09 8:28 am
Well there is another reason for sane men and women to support the scheme and that is they or their friends stand to gain financially.
Follow the money there is now a huge industry based of vapour wear.
Andrei´s last blog ..ETS is passed into law [UPDATE 2]
Nov 26 09 10:17 am
“Climate science is not amenable to empirical proof.”
I disagree. Many elements of climate science are amenable to empirical proof in normal repeatable scientific experiments. Example: John Tyndall (1820-1893) who devised experiments proving why the sky is blue and the effect of atmospheric gases on the transmission of radiant heat and light. That is, empirically proving the greenhouse effect of CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere.
Nov 26 09 3:00 pm
Tobias, the existence of greenhouse gases, or of atmospheric particulates, is not evidence of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. But this is a nice example of the logic of the faithful.
Nov 26 09 7:44 pm
I’ll go with George Monbiot’s take, That the authors of some of these emails have had their credibility damaged to the point that they should resign (people over 35 shouldn’t be involved in research anyway, just look at the geriatrics in the denialist camp and the nonsense they produce).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
But that in terms of the foundations of AGW science, this doesn’t make any real difference.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists
Though I’ll stick with my own long time position that scientists claim of “catastrophic” consequences of AGW this century are not firmly established (though possible) and are more based in their gut than their heads.
I found this interesting Monbiot: “One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry.”
Which is one way to make the point that any paper, good, bad, supporting AGW or refuting AGW can find a home for publishing in a journal, even if it’s at the bottom deck of journals. Jones & Co don’t have the power to prevent any paper being published.
Nov 26 09 8:04 pm
Actually the establishing of the meme that particular paper is “badly flawed” is part of this scandal. And the ructions at the Journal “Climate Science” came after this bunch of clowns applied pressure to the owners and editors of said journal. For all of which we now have a paper trail, well Email trail to be precise.
The paper in question was written by two Astro-Physicists from Harvard and perhaps showed that the medieval warm period did indeed occur and was global in extent. And that was its real “flaw” in the minds of this bunch. It may indeed be a poor, indifferent or good paper but the decision on that matter should not be up to a closed clique of scientists,
I would seek out the paper for myself if I were you and judge it for yourself with an open mind.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Jan30-ClimateResearchpaper.pdf
Even if you agree it is poor remember that poor articles are published in scientific journals all the time without the ruction this one caused, something I find both telling and chilling.
In fact the really great articles in Scientific journals are few and far between
Andrei´s last blog ..National Is In Disarray Over the ETS – A Question For Rodney Hide
Nov 26 09 8:29 pm
Well, here it is at Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper
Looks to me like Baliunas is also one of those experts who has strayed into a field she’s not too familiar with.
Nov 26 09 8:49 pm
Andrew don’t go to Wikipedia for goodness sake.
You need to use your own head on not have your mind made up for you by someone else!
If you check out the talk page on that article you will see it has been hijacked by those who wish to discredit her and has been subject to edit wars etc
Read the paper that caused the ruction and ask why would something like that be so controversial?
The life blood of science is Skepticism – be skeptical!
Andrei´s last blog ..National Is In Disarray Over the ETS – A Question For Rodney Hide
Nov 26 09 9:17 pm
“Andrew don’t go to Wikipedia for goodness sake.” Hypocracy?
http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2009/11/24/happy-birthday-charles/#comment-6355
Well, perhaps not a fair comparison to make.
Here’s the publishers comment on the matter:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf
“Hijacked”? I see the normal sort of discussion that occurs in the editing process at wiki.
“You need to use your own head on not have your mind made up for you by someone else!”
I don’t think I’m one of those people who can be accused of following the party line, I think I’m an independent thinker, in comparison I think it would be easy to predict your views on any subject.
I think you had your mind made up on most things by someone else before you were 10.
Nov 26 09 9:26 pm
“..just look at the geriatrics in the denialist camp and the nonsense they produce”
Is that being deliberately offensive or are you simply another true believer moron Andrew?
The ‘geriatrics’ you speak of are often very well qualified scientists, who perhaps were educated in an age when scientific standards actually meant something, instead of the feelgood corrupt crap that so often passes for ‘science’ nowadays.
Several generations raised on the state indoctrination that passes for schooling wouldn’t know the difference between good science and a lamington, which has allowed the AGW scam to gain traction.
I’d also point out that very many scientists, philosophers and writers did their best work when they were well into their 70′s and older. Subtract what we owe those geriatrics from the world today and see what you’re left with…apart from arrogant uninformed youth, that is.
Nov 26 09 9:39 pm
Kg. Owen jokes that the main source of income for the NZ CSC is superannuation. Most of the high profile denialist scientists are elderly, as you seem to acknowledge with your third sentence.
“I’d also point out that very many scientists, philosophers and writers did their best work when they were well into their 70’s and older.”
Not so, at least not with scientists, sometimes elder scientists lead research teams that make valuable contributions, but generally it’s the younger scientists that make the major contributions to science.
“Is that being deliberately offensive or are you simply another true believer moron Andrew?”
Not some much of a moron as to type such a hypocritical sentence as that.
Nov 26 09 10:36 pm
Andrew W: but generally it’s the younger scientists that make the major contributions to science.
That is a very amusing statement considering I posted about Darwin’s Origin of Species yesterday. Darwin was 50 when it was published.
Newton was 45 when he published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Max Planck was 43 when he wrote On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum.
These were, of course, not their only contributions to science. Even today, not all older scientists work with teams. It is crazy to think that once you hit middle age your contributions to science are over.
Nov 26 09 11:17 pm
Born 12 February 1809(1809-02-12)Darwin investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838.
Born 4 January 1643(1643-01-04) Newton’s manuscript “De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum infinitas” (“On analysis by equations infinite in number of terms”) was sent by Isaac Barrow to John Collins in June 1669: in August 1669 Barrow identified its author to Collins as “Mr Newton, a fellow of our College, and very young … but of an extraordinary genius and proficiency in these things”.
Born March 14, 1879(1879-03-14)Einstein’s great breakthrough came in 1905.
Born Stephen William Hawking
8 January 1942
In the late 1960s, he and his Cambridge friend and colleague, Roger Penrose, applied a new, complex mathematical model they had created from Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.[15] This led, in 1970, to Hawking proving the first of many singularity theorems; such theorems provide a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a singularity in space-time.
Perhaps you can find some scientists who “did their best work when they were well into their 70’s and older.”
Nov 26 09 11:34 pm
I was a bit tongue in cheek when I said 35. Perhaps we can agree that few great scientists suddenly appear in their 40′s without establishing themselves at a younger age.
And I’d argue that as they get older scientist (like everyone else) get more set in their ways, and people set in their ways by definition are less likely to be innovative, and being an innovative thinker is more important for a scientist than say, a politician.
Nov 26 09 11:43 pm
Well Andrew;
Gauss didn’t even start his work on magnetism until he was in his mid fifties.
Will that do?
Speaking of Gauss and magnetism there has been a decline in the strength of the earths magnetic field since his time and it is getting weaker year by year.
I reckon it is probably steel ships, planes and cars moving about in it that is causing this. Greedy humans wrecking the planet and the consequences when the magnetic field are gone will be there will be nothing to stop the cosmic rays reaching the earths surface. Mutant babies will be born and WE WILL ALL DIE
Anyway if the taxpayer could slip me a few million dollars I will see what I can do about sorting it.
I am afraid it will probably mean the end of cars and international travel for everybody, everybody except for elite scientists, politicians and movie star activists involved in getting the very serious issue resolved and who will clearly need to travel to exotic climes at least biannually to talk about how to restore the Magnetic field to as it was when Gauss first measured it.
We have to act now! Or it will be too late if it isn’t already.
Nov 26 09 11:46 pm
Andrew W:
Perhaps you can find some scientists who “did their best work when they were well into their 70’s and older.”
Not my phrase, but can’t think of any off-hand. Mostly scientists seem to go fairly loopy as they get older. I recall Linus Pauling produced some very interesting (if unorthodox) work on Vitamin C in his 70s but his Nobel prize in Chemistry was won for his work on chemical bonds in his 30s.
Nov 27 09 6:31 am
You’re trying to make some point in your 11.43 comment Andrei? Can you expand? Is it an attempt to categorize me? If so, it’s a miss.
Gauss? from Wiki, (as was most of my 11.17 comment):
“Gauss was a child prodigy. There are many anecdotes pertaining to his precocity while a toddler, and he made his first ground-breaking mathematical discoveries while still a teenager. He completed Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, his magnum opus, in 1798 at the age of 21, though it would not be published until 1801. This work was fundamental in consolidating number theory as a discipline and has shaped the field to the present day.”
We are getting away from the original point I was trying to make which was how much can we trust the work and opinions of “geriatric” scientists?
I argue they’re usually too political, and I include scientists on both sides of the AGW debate including Hansen and Jones.
Nov 28 09 12:16 pm
Judging by the comments on this post all I can say is Macdoctor looks, he shoots, he scores! Goal!!!!
Nov 29 09 7:12 am
…how much can we trust the work and opinions of “geriatric” scientists?
I argue they’re usually too political…
After all, the young are well known to all for their level-headedness, caution and restraint in comparison with the elderly, so we can rely on young scientists never to try and abuse science for political ends. Seriously, did you think about that before posting it?
Nov 29 09 7:52 am
Yes Milt, I did think about that. Some students have a well deserved reputation for being political, but I don’t think that applies as much to science students (or scientists in general) young people with a political bent just don’t become physicists or chemists .
The fact remains though that as scientists become more senior their role changes and generally their ability to revise their own opinion declines. this is something that applies to humans in general, they get more convinced of their own righteousness eg, comparing apples with apples, young politicians are more likely to do such a mental revision than older politicians. Young warriors become old chiefs.
Nov 29 09 11:23 am
Young warriors also love nothing better than having a noble cause to fight for – that’s why many of us are suspicious of science communication that appears to promote a cause or is barely distinguishable from alarmist environmental activism.
Psycho Milt´s last blog ..Quote of the day
Nov 29 09 12:33 pm
Heh, but who is it that convinces them there’s a noble cause? The old chiefs, who’re convinced they know everything. And as I said, there are examples on both sides of the debate.
People like Gore and Monkton, Hansen and Singer get too idolised, it becomes personalities not science.