The environment thread

[almagest]

Somewhat surprised this isn't in here yet...

[NorthSideSox72]

Somewhat surprised this isn't in here yet...

LOL

 

I actually still can't tell for sure if this is parody, a la The Onion, or if this writer is for real. I mean, the article starts with his profile:

 

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com

 

And his first sentence isn't even grammatically correct:

 

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.

 

Along with a number of other misspellings and grammatical errors.

 

And if you follow his link to the "source", this is their description of what happened:

 

An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

 

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to

be kept under wraps.

 

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

 

Um... what?

 

I looked around for this story on any legitimate news sites, and found nothing. At least, not yet.

 

[iamshack]

LOL

 

I actually still can't tell for sure if this is parody, a la The Onion, or if this writer is for real. I mean, the article starts with his profile:

 

 

 

And his first sentence isn't even grammatically correct:

 

 

 

Along with a number of other misspellings and grammatical errors.

 

And if you follow his link to the "source", this is their description of what happened:

 

 

 

Um... what?

 

I looked around for this story on any legitimate news sites, and found nothing. At least, not yet.

 

Hah, this has to be satire...

 

[bmags]

unfortunately, I don't think it is. Nonetheless, it was among the dumbest things I've ever read in my life. So a single university was able to concoct and cover up climate change through changing data numbers, as if all data comes from one, central source. British conspiracy theorists are even dumber than american ones.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK so, this email hack story is now appearing in more mainstream news outlets. Seems the emails and the hack are real.

 

I've been reading articles, to see what email excerpts are supposedly problematic. There are the ones saying positive things about the death of this Daly fellow, which is a bit less than classy. There is one about a "nature trick", which seems to represent the change in types of temp records available. So far, I'm not seeing any emails that display any real bias or any files published that show any sort of attempt to distort anything. Yet.

 

That all said, scientists are people, and it certainly wouldn't be a surprise to know that some of them make these studies appear to fit their desired outcome by bending or distorting certain things. It happens. But I haven't seen any evidence in this case yet.

 

[Balta1701]

Sweet...I can now officially appeal to myself as an authority in this thread. Cool.

[lostfan]

Sweet...I can now officially appeal to myself as an authority in this thread. Cool.

"Like"

[iamshack]

Sweet...I can now officially appeal to myself as an authority in this thread. Cool.

For some reason I am totally picturing you as Sheldon from The Big Bang theory now...

[Balta1701]

For some reason I am totally picturing you as Sheldon from The Big Bang theory now...

I occasionally have a hard time watching shows with characters like that since I feel like the jokes are being made about me. Can't say I've actually watched that show though (I've been getting home after 9:00 for the last 3 years, basically I watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report and go to sleep)

[Balta1701]

OK so, this email hack story is now appearing in more mainstream news outlets. Seems the emails and the hack are real.

 

I've been reading articles, to see what email excerpts are supposedly problematic. There are the ones saying positive things about the death of this Daly fellow, which is a bit less than classy. There is one about a "nature trick", which seems to represent the change in types of temp records available. So far, I'm not seeing any emails that display any real bias or any files published that show any sort of attempt to distort anything. Yet.

 

That all said, scientists are people, and it certainly wouldn't be a surprise to know that some of them make these studies appear to fit their desired outcome by bending or distorting certain things. It happens. But I haven't seen any evidence in this case yet.

here's a posting at Realclimate on those stolen emails, I'll excerpt a few paragraphs.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

 

 

...

There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.

 

It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?

[EvilMonkey]

So, the NYT reports on the climate email situation, and has this to say about it....

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here

Really? Is that all it takes? Because I am sure there are many emails, pictures and conversations that they have printed in the past, especially ones making politicians look bad, that weren't intended for the public eye. If the emails contained plans for how the US was going to invade Cuba, I am sure they would have printed them. Or detailing an illicit affair involving a married Senator. Or converstions between auto execs about how they are conspiring to do somethign nefarious.

 

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/...ons-on-display/

[bmags]

So, the NYT reports on the climate email situation, and has this to say about it....

 

Really? Is that all it takes? Because I am sure there are many emails, pictures and conversations that they have printed in the past, especially ones making politicians look bad, that weren't intended for the public eye. If the emails contained plans for how the US was going to invade Cuba, I am sure they would have printed them. Or detailing an illicit affair involving a married Senator. Or converstions between auto execs about how they are conspiring to do somethign nefarious.

 

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/...ons-on-display/

 

Emails fall under the open records act and regarding all the examples you cited would be acquired legally through a document request. So, awesome righteous indignation once again! (edit: except for the latter, unless it was a criminal investigation...etc) And everytime emails have been printed, they were acquired legally, or were done on gov't computers/accts, giving them a claim to publish.

Edited November 23, 2009 by bmags

[EvilMonkey]

Emails fall under the open records act and regarding all the examples you cited would be acquired legally through a document request. So, awesome righteous indignation once again! (edit: except for the latter, unless it was a criminal investigation...etc) And everytime emails have been printed, they were acquired legally, or were done on gov't computers/accts, giving them a claim to publish.

While this is a thin gray line, here is the NYT posting about Palin's hacked email account, including a link to the website that has the emails and such. Sure they didn't print them, but hey, look over here, there they are! I don't believe these were ever meant to be made public.

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09...ails&st=cse

[Balta1701]

Satellite measurements show a surprising an unexpected amount of mass loss (read: melting) from the elephant in the room, the East Antarctic ice sheet. Everyone knows we're melting Greenland and West Antarctica rapidly and those are enough to inundate New York, but East Antarctica is not supposed to be melting yet. It's the giant one and it's supposed to be more insulated from the effects of warming. There's so much mass there that if this is the start of a long-term trend, this is really bad.

 

But hey, emails!

[mr_genius]

Satellite measurements show a surprising an unexpected amount of mass loss (read: melting) from the elephant in the room, the East Antarctic ice sheet. Everyone knows we're melting Greenland and West Antarctica rapidly and those are enough to inundate New York

 

so when is NY gonna be underwater? Looks like the Wall Street bankers might, literally, need a bailout.

 

Edited November 24, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

so when is NY gonna be underwater?

Next time a hurricane hits it is probably best answer. It's overdue. Otherwise...within 150 years if we continue on the current path of carbon emissions. Possibly a lot less.

 

The reality is...every public estimate winds up being conservative, because you don't write worst-case-scenarios in either scientific papers or in documents for politicking. Problem is...we keep surpassing the worst case scenario, because they're too conservative.

[Balta1701]

[chunk23]

here's a posting at Realclimate on those stolen emails, I'll excerpt a few paragraphs.

 

It's too bad that the vocabulary disconnect is largely the cause of this, and despite there being completely rational explanations for the language used, they will obviously be ignored.

 

Of course Fox News has called this Global Warming's Waterloo. Despite the obvious preponderance of evidence that indicates otherwise.

 

I don't get the vitriol aimed against people who want to stop global climate change. Besides Al Gore being a champion for it, I don't know why it's such a politically divisive issue.

 

What do global warming deniers believe the incentive is for those "making it up" is?

[KipWellsFan]

It's too bad that the vocabulary disconnect is largely the cause of this, and despite there being completely rational explanations for the language used, they will obviously be ignored.

 

Of course Fox News has called this Global Warming's Waterloo. Despite the obvious preponderance of evidence that indicates otherwise.

 

I don't get the vitriol aimed against people who want to stop global climate change. Besides Al Gore being a champion for it, I don't know why it's such a politically divisive issue.

 

What do global warming deniers believe the incentive is for those "making it up" is?

 

Well for one, some people think that scientists somehow need to be 100% certain about the issue before taking even the most anemic steps. Of course it's impossible to be certain about climate change as it is about most things. You either take political action or not.

 

Two, any government intervention is bad to some people. Hence, only the invisible hand of the market should control this. Of course these people ignore that government intervention reduced ozone damaging emissions. Successfully and with little economic disturbance.

 

Three, some complete idiots think that scientists are somehow acting in a conspiratorial way with an end to transferring large amounts of money from business to government. These people are bonkers in general.

 

I think it's normal to be skeptical. I am skeptical. I'm skeptical about most things. I'm not a scientist and I'm not a climate scientist. I've got to make common sense decisions. Pumping endlessly increasing amounts of crap into the air is bad. It may have helped give us a quality of living unseen before, but everything comes to an end.

[StrangeSox]

Well for one, some people think that scientists somehow need to be 100% certain about the issue before taking even the most anemic steps. Of course it's impossible to be certain about climate change as it is about most things. You either take political action or not.

 

Two, any government intervention is bad to some people. Hence, only the invisible hand of the market should control this. Of course these people ignore that government intervention reduced ozone damaging emissions. Successfully and with little economic disturbance.

Three, some complete idiots think that scientists are somehow acting in a conspiratorial way with an end to transferring large amounts of money from business to government. These people are bonkers in general.

 

I think it's normal to be skeptical. I am skeptical. I'm skeptical about most things. I'm not a scientist and I'm not a climate scientist. I've got to make common sense decisions. Pumping endlessly increasing amounts of crap into the air is bad. It may have helped give us a quality of living unseen before, but everything comes to an end.

 

Hilariously, they point to the ozone hole or acid rain as examples of 'over-hyped' environmental issues that nothing ever came of. It's really sort of sad.

[Y2HH]

Well for one, some people think that scientists somehow need to be 100% certain about the issue before taking even the most anemic steps. Of course it's impossible to be certain about climate change as it is about most things. You either take political action or not.

 

Two, any government intervention is bad to some people. Hence, only the invisible hand of the market should control this. Of course these people ignore that government intervention reduced ozone damaging emissions. Successfully and with little economic disturbance.

 

Three, some complete idiots think that scientists are somehow acting in a conspiratorial way with an end to transferring large amounts of money from business to government. These people are bonkers in general.

 

I think it's normal to be skeptical. I am skeptical. I'm skeptical about most things. I'm not a scientist and I'm not a climate scientist. I've got to make common sense decisions. Pumping endlessly increasing amounts of crap into the air is bad. It may have helped give us a quality of living unseen before, but everything comes to an end.

 

I think in some cases I'd agree, but when it comes to Global Warming (or Climate Change as it's now known), there is a lot of hysteria/hype backing this, and we all know what happens when hysteria meets hype and people begin to worry. They start spending other peoples money like it's water, because we all know that if there is a problem, throwing money at it fixes everything, even before we fully understand what's going on. Both sides have a case in this debate, but neither side is 100% correct, so instead of either side calling the other stupid and ignorant, we need to have serious scientific study continue, ignoring the political motivation/hype and figure out some REAL steps we can take. Now, I don't feel anyone would be against anemic steps to curb this and I think everyone here has already begun to scale back waste where we can...HOWEVER, and this is the rub for me, almost none of the steps being offered are anemic in any way, they're all way over the top expensive, not only to implement, but to sustain and to actually use.

[lostfan]

Hilariously, they point to the ozone hole or acid rain as examples of 'over-hyped' environmental issues that nothing ever came of. It's really sort of sad.

That's funny, cuz acid rain declined because we took political action against it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think in some cases I'd agree, but when it comes to Global Warming (or Climate Change as it's now known), there is a lot of hysteria/hype backing this, and we all know what happens when hysteria meets hype and people begin to worry. They start spending other peoples money like it's water, because we all know that if there is a problem, throwing money at it fixes everything, even before we fully understand what's going on. Both sides have a case in this debate, but neither side is 100% correct, so instead of either side calling the other stupid and ignorant, we need to have serious scientific study continue, ignoring the political motivation/hype and figure out some REAL steps we can take. Now, I don't feel anyone would be against anemic steps to curb this and I think everyone here has already begun to scale back waste where we can...HOWEVER, and this is the rub for me, almost none of the steps being offered are anemic in any way, they're all way over the top expensive, not only to implement, but to sustain and to actually use.

 

That's not really true. First off, the behavioral steps being encouraged about energy use, are small but could have a nice positive effect. Second, a major push to renewable energy is certainly expensive in the short run, but much, much cheaper for us in the long run, when you look at the complete picture.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

If people can't make the connection between a HUGE political push for environmental measures (i.e., lots and lots of money for "study" to scientists, and lots and lots of money being made by people who invested in green energy years ago) then you're crazy. I don't think that makes the debate more or less relevant, but there IS a political and financial gain from this debate. We're talking hundreds of billions that the government will spend to fix a problem we don't yet clearly understand. Yes, we're suffocating ourselves with pollution. But we don't know yet what that's going to cause. We have models, and theories, but all of that is pure conjecture at this point.

 

And the problem isn't that we don't have a conversation going on about the seriousness of the problem, it's that the scientific community has already decided, unequivocally, that man has caused his own destruction and it's going to happen tomorrow. Anyone who disagrees with the severity or the timing is quickly dismissed, thrown into the "nonbeliever" camp, and forgotten.

 

And if anyone thinks that the government is going to fix this problem you're nuts. On one side of the aisle you have people that believe God would never let them die from their own doing, and therefore global warming is a myth. And on the other you have an entire party in bed with an industry that relies on the energy base we need to change. At best we'll get a bunch of initiatives for energy conservation which we should all be doing anyway.

[lostfan]

The scientific community isn't a monolithic body.