Global cooling.

[irdoz]

There's a lot of points in the last few posts - as well as the link to the other thread which I hadnt read before.

 

I'd like to comment on a couple of themes that appeared...

 

1. Both sides of this debate are prone to exagerration, corruption of the scientific process, distortion, lies etc.

 

Heres' a reference to the role of the oil companies in this debate:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/glo...xxon_report.pdf

 

And heres' the rebuttal:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/489.pdf

 

It is absolutely true that on both sides of this debate there are people who may have behaved unethically. But characterising this as a debate between two extremes is exactly what those with a vested interest in maintining the status quo want. What this discourse does is hide the fact is that the vast bulk of people involved in this debate are not extremists, not distorting the scientific method and committed to appropriate policy responses based on the best avialable knowledge. There are some 20,000 climate scientists in the world. The bulk of them are not prone to exagerration or lies. Many of them have come to the conclusion based on the current state of knowledge that it is highly probable - but still not ' 100% proved' that human activity is significantly contibuting to the current global warming. There are likewise a number of climate scientists (though based on my reading a smaller number) who feel that there is still insufficient knowledge and data to make an accurate assessment of risk.

 

2. That it is always useful to be sceptical about scientific orthodoxy.

 

There are a couple of famous incidents in medicine where a rogue phsician has challenged orthodox opinion, been lambasted by his peers and subsequently been shown to be correct. And it is absolutley the case - more so in some fields than others - that research funding decisions are influenced by politics, prevailing peer opinion, government policy, funding ring-fencing etc. and that the 'best science' is not always funded (if you could ever determine what that is).

 

But what this says is that scepticism is useful and in some cases should be carefully listened to. What it doesnt say is that sceptics are correct or likely to be correct - and indeed based on my own experience they are more likely to be incorrect.

 

Here's three examples of 'scepticism' :

 

 

1. Person A believes orthodox medicine is suppressing the truth about his herbal cure for cancer.

 

His herbs could be useful but she/he needs proof... and there is little hope of getting funding for such research. But theres a really small chance his herb is useful and a higher chance that it could be harmful.

 

2. Person B still believes HIV does not cause AIDS - and many sceintists agree.

 

There comes a point where you just have to yawn I think - and even if it was still the case Koch's postulates of disease still remained unsatisfied.

 

3. Person C is not convinced about prevailing opinions on cholesterol and whether to take the cholesterol medicine recommended by his doctor because of reports about it.

 

There is indeed a lot more to be learnt about cholesterol.

 

What Im trying badly to say by these three examples is that how you feel about scepticism depends on the context - so for scepticism about HIV and AIDS afaiac the door is that way. And the way i read the science about global warming, my guess is that in the next decade the door may soon be accepting travellers.

 

I also saw DrTodd13's comment that most people believed what they believed based on 'TV told me a bunch of scientists agreed'. My gut reaction was that probably most people believed they 'didnt know who to beleive'. So I went to look for polls and found a journal article summarising 20 years of opinion polls. To my surprise, in the most recent poll in that article, some 75% of Americans believe global warming is real and many would support a range of policy responses. This led to a discussion on one blog where a climate scientists opined (and Im paraphrasing because I cant quickly find the blog) that maybe the science debate was a furphy - and the real barriers were not convincing people that something needed to be done - but instead science redirecting its effort into finding and articulating what can actually and achievably be done (which is probably a much harder question)...

[luke warm]

Now I read the link that jimmy provided where he took one of the quotes out of context. Talking about dishonesty, what a joke.

i took nothing out of context... you, han, are being dishonest... for those interested, here is the entire quote

 

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

 

he is saying that he (he includes himself when he says "we") has to offer up scary scenarios, etc, and make little mention of any doubts "we" may have... he then admits that because of his tactics he "frequently" finds himself in a "double ethical bind"... but while he *hopes* he can be both effective and honest, he sees nothing wrong with finding the right balance between those two things

 

now find me any corresponding quote from someone on the other side who flat out *admits* to being dishonest... and don't think that's the only supporter to say those things... now tell me, why doesn't that type of dishonesty bother you? could it be because you have sympathy with that position?

 

had i found quotes from skeptics stating the same sort of thing i'd have been just as upset about it.. maybe they exist, i don't know, but i haven't found any yet

[DrTodd13]

han, you act as if only those who are sceptical of man-made GW are in the 'dishonest' camp

I do think that there is a difference between the two sides. Most researchers on the subject are funded by sources like Universities and the NSF and foreign equivalents. They almost universally claim that it is clear that GW is happening and it is caused by humans. I naively think that most of those researchers are honest (I can explain why I think so in more detail but this would distract from the topic). Those who argue against GW warming are for a significant part funded by sources like the oil companies. The oil companies will pay only if they like the conclusions. The universities will pay salaries no matter what the conclusions are.

So you think that NSF is neutral in this debate? You can't get a grant from any source you would consider neutral to study _if_ CO2 is causing GW. You can only get grants to determine how much warming can be expected. To say that a group is neutral that will only give grants to those who going in accept a certain position is putting blinders on. They certainly believe they have a good reason for this bias but it is a bias nonetheless. Whatever you subsidize you get more of. The more they subsidize their bias the more they will get of it. If an untenured climatology professor doesn't accept the bias, they will likely get no grants (from places you would consider unbiased) and won't get tenure. If they are tenured and buck the flow then the grants will similarly dry up and their career is most likely effectively over. Universities can revoke tenure but even if they don't they can cut-off your non-salary university funding, reduce or eliminate your teaching load, you won't get any graduate students, etc.

 

Could someone submit a paper that attempts to prove that high LDL cholesterol is not a risk factor for heart disease and not be committing career suicide? If their paper was well researched then I think the answer is yes. I don't think this situation is true for GW. Well researched or not, it seems much more likely this is career suicide. In this case, the system has been politicized to the point where it won't be able to recognize a true contrarian result if one ever comes along.

[irdoz]

DrTodd13 - do you actually have any evidence to support your claims in the last post is just 'something you read somewhere?' or 'saw on TV'?

 

Ive seen a few peer reviewed articles adding knowledge to the relationship between CO2 and global warming that question the strength of that relationsahip where the research was funded through government research grants.

[Winstonm]

It's not that I'm a goody two-shoes or somehow more "pure" than anyone else around here but I am trying to learn a little from this thread - or at least look to see where to go to learn.

 

When threads transform into personal attacks and debates on the ethics of the posters, it doesn't do anything to accomplish a worthy aim, IMO.

 

The basic problem I have with this entire concept is the world that we have created for ourselves where the ends always justifies the means and spin is considered a valid form of communication.

 

I don't fault the scientists - they didn't make up the rules of this game. But now that we are playing by these rules, it should come as no surprise that trust is virtually non-existent. I mean, really, whose spin do you believe?

 

There used to be a thing called honesty - another called intergity - but now the only thing that matters is winning.

 

But in this game, what have you won?

[kenberg]

Dr. Todd asks why people are not addressing the data he puts. It's a decent question and anyway it's his thread, so I will try to give my own answer.

 

We all have ways of deciding about things that we have only limited knowledge of. It's admittedly a subjectively process. It would be silly beyond belief for me to think that I could read some data in an afternoon and then enter this debate as an expert. SO I must judge who to believe.

 

1. The National Academy of Science seems like a good place to start. Those folks are not shy and ending their careers is easier said then done. I haven't checked their latest statement on this, but I recall them as saying that the data was pretty conclusive and that it was getting urgent that we begin on solutions.

 

2. The National Science Foundation is also a decent place to go. On any one grant proposal there may be some bias or misjudgment, but as a whole, they are not likely to suppress serious scientific inquiry. They may refuse to fund a project that seeks to disprove global warming but this need not be proof of bias. Quite likely it si the judgment of serious scientists that the proposal lacks merit.

 

3. I look at the folks on the other side. I went to the home page of the folks who held the recent International Conference in NY. I have never been to a scientific conference with a home page like that one. Whatever the merits of their case, the home page could not reasonably be thought of as suitable for a scientific endeavor.

 

4. I generally don't read data such as DT has put up. I am not prepared to discuss it intelligently, and in the unlikely event I could refute it, there would be more. It's like stomping on cockroaches. No end in sight.

 

The above is a rough description of how I decide on many issues. I read about Rhine and ESP when I was in high school. A big thing then (1955), no one pays any attention now. I read Mark Lane and others after Kennedy was assassinated. He had arguments against the Warren Commission, and he may not have been all wrong, but then he would start in on his own theories. No way. Sure, maybe GW is a hoax, maybe dinosaurs are a hoax, maybe Kennedy was shot by the CIA, maybe the human race is descended from extra-terrestrials, etc etc etc. Could be. I can't prove otherwise. Not my view though.

 

I do try to look at controversies honestly and open-mindedly. That is not the same as saying that I hold myself to a standard of taking no view until I have done five years of research in the subject. Being too trusting can be naive, of course. Trusting no one can also be naive. In mathematics, my area, I believe Wiles has proved the Fermat Theorem even though I have never read the paper and would need a year or two, at least, of preparation if I were inclined to try. I am sure the NSF would refuse to fund a project that attempted to refute it.

 

There really is no vast conspiracy of scientists trying to hoodwink us. Oil companies, now that may be another matter.

[han]

When threads transform into personal attacks and debates on the ethics of the posters, it doesn't do anything to accomplish a worthy aim, IMO.

Sometimes it is good to be nice and pleasant. Other times it is better to be honest and say that other posters are evil people. That's my opinion. I am not interested in a discussion on the use of the word evil. :)

[DrTodd13]

DrTodd13 - do you actually have any evidence to support your claims in the last post is just 'something you read somewhere?' or 'saw on TV'?

 

Ive seen a few peer reviewed articles adding knowledge to the relationship between CO2 and global warming that question the strength of that relationsahip where the research was funded through government research grants.

If you admit that there are papers from neutral parties that question the link between CO2 and global warming then you contradict the belief that there is a consensus. Some say CO2 has a stronger effect than others. My point is that from what I have seen and heard, the debate is now restricted to how much of an effect rather than is there an effect. I apologize if my post wasn't clear but if I understand what you're saying then your point is not in conflict with mine.

 

Do I have evidence? Well, it is hard to quantify and qualify how many independent sources I got my views from. I haven't talked to climatologists so this is all third party. I recognize the potential unreliability of these sources so I'm open to new information. The more independent sources you have that agree the more likely it is that something is true. Unless I know from personal experience that something is true, I'm not going to dogmatically condemn those who disagree with it.

[Winstonm]

When threads transform into personal attacks and debates on the ethics of the posters, it doesn't do anything to accomplish a worthy aim, IMO.

Sometimes it is good to be nice and pleasant. Other times it is better to be honest and say that other posters are evil people. That's my opinion. I am not interested in a discussion on the use of the word evil. ;)

I was thinking more about a debate over the meaninGs of "nice" and "pleasant". :P

[irdoz]

I didn't 'admit' anything. And i think you may be misrepresenting what I tried to say. To say a paper questions the strength of the rleationship is different from questioning whether the relationship exists at all. And when the word 'consensus' is used in science it does not mean '100% agreement' - but its not a word Ive used anyway - because I dont think its useful.

 

As an example of how things get distorted, a recent paper in Science ( see http://www.physorg.com/news110121579.html ) shows that atmospheric levels of CO2 probably did not drive the end of the last age. This paper was (mis)used by a number of sceptics to say that 'CO2 does not cause global warming') - despite the author saying “I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate. It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”

 

I guess this paragraph best aligns with my opinion

 

"Some people are under the false impression that global warming is a theory that still has to be confirmed. They do not realize that scientists are in agreement that a continual rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will inevitably lead to global warming and global climate changes. The disagreements are about the timing and amplitude of the expected warming. It is as if we are in a raft, gliding smoothly down a river, towards dangerous rapids and possibly a waterfall, and are uncertain of the distance to the waterfall. To avoid a disaster we need to address two question: how far is the waterfall? and when should we get out of the water? The first is a scientific question, the second is not. The first question, in principle, has a definite unambiguous answer. The second is a difficult political question that probably will require comporomises. The distinction between science and politics becomes blurred should the scientific results have uncertainties."

 

From ; Xavier Rodo and Francisco Comin. Global Climate: Current Research and Uncertainties in the Climate System, Springer, 2002, 3540438203 p25

[Zelandakh]

Han, you are completely wrong when you say that university researchers get paid no matter what their conclusions. Anyone that has ever worked as a university researcher knows that, outside of certain elite departments, the research follows the money and not the other way around. This puts great pressure for departments to make sure their research is 'relevant', and for many that means Climate Change.

 

That said, I have also looked into the evidence and reached the conclusion that manmade greenhouse emissions are a major factor in climate change. However, there is much rubbish talked on the subject and oft-quoted, particularly in the media.

 

One thing we are told is that CC will cause more major storms. Events such as Hurricane Katrina (sp) are cited as evidence for this. In truth there has been zero change in the prevalence of such storms over the period of global observation, a slight increase in the northern hemisphere and a slight decrease in the southern.

 

Another thing that gets wheeled out is that we will have malaria in Northern Europe. There is some merit in this if CC promotes certain changes in land usage, but the truth is that malaria-carrying mosquitos are quite capable of living in temperature ranges well beyond their current habitats.

 

A more contentious issue is the one that CO2 is driving CC. There are very robust theories in place that show that adding greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is a weak but important one, to the atmosphere cause a temperature rise over time. However whilst the vast majority of mathematical models work on the premise that this is the primary input there are alternative theories that are quite workable that suggest that (natural) rises in CO2 are a feedback to CC, and not the primary cause. The hard science is still sketchy here.

 

Another controversial topic is the independence of the IPCC. I hear it said sometimes that because certain committees say something is true, particularly the IPCC, then it must be the consensus. What most do not know is that the IPCC is not simply made up of scientists. An important section is made up of politicians and other non-scientists. This makes the IPCC less of an authority than it might seem - I'd take their reports over the oil companies, but never take an IPCC headline at face value!!!

 

Finally, there is the subject of time. Extrapolation is a dangerous thing in science, and even more dangerous when using models rather than direct observation. At the current rate we have a long time before CC becomes critical. However, there are certain tipping points that, if reached, create an acceleration of the process. Unfortunately we simply have no idea at what point these might occur. Indeed the scientists are not even sure that all of them will occur at all, or if they do whether a natural offsetting event will also happen to limit the effects.

 

Moving away from the science, are there practical measures we should be lobbying are politicians for? Well the currently accepted approach seem to be carbon trading, and perhaps some magical formula where emerging markets can achieve similar per capita emissions as richer countries, whilst richer countries make small reductions. And where does that lead - if we get some agreements along the current lines we might get 10% or so longer. If China and India stopped growing that would change alot, but why should they?

 

Looking back at the big issue of my youth should give a much more practical solution. When I was a student I remember being told that the population explosion meant that the world would run out of food and we'd all starve. A few years later high-yield crops were discovered, and from there we've kept pace with population growth pretty well. The subject still gets an occasional mention, but hardly at all.

 

The point is that, despite the Chinese solution, the answers did not lie in cutting back on people but instead with creating more food from the land. Similarly it seems pretty obvious that the solution to having too much greenhouse gas will be to remove these gases from the atmosphere, and the long-term solution will be the discovery of alternative power sources. The former is really quite simple, and we already have the technology to do so! Aeroforming (or artificial trees to the media) is something most sci-fi fans will be familiar with - they are not even expensive!

 

But not expensive still means there is a cost. So my suggestion to the politicians is simple - stop trying to re-negotiate Kyoto, instead negotiate a tax on every country in the world that reaches greenhouse emissions above an agreed level. This level should omit the poorest, least-developed countries. Every country with emissions above this amount pays into an internationally managed fund proportionally to their emissions. This fund then buys the appropriate technology to give the scientists enough time to bring on-stream the new fuels, which are genuinely not far into the future now. A special point is that the fund would probably need to 'rent' land from poorer nations to place the aeroforming units on, thus giving them a 'trade not aid' platform to help their economies.

 

Of course this is horribly simplistic, but isn't it better to spread the costs this way according to actual pollution levels, rather than try to agree targets that are typically unrelated to any scientific advice, and have little scope for sanctions should any major nation happen to miss?

 

I'll close with a warning. I do not know what it is like in other countries, but here in the UK the more that I hear politicians and pressure groups suggesting that by changing light bulbs and avoiding planes I can make any impact whatsoever on the effects of emerging economies, the more I am switched off to what is said on the entire subject of CC. And I am not alone. If you want me to change my actions first be honest; then create meaningful, globally agreed solutions; and most of all do not treat me like an idiot! (even if I am...)

 

 

(-: Zel :-)

[jdonn]

Han, you are completely wrong when you say that university researchers get paid no matter what their conclusions. Anyone that has ever worked as a university researcher knows that, outside of certain elite departments, the research follows the money and not the other way around. This puts great pressure for departments to make sure their research is 'relevant', and for many that means Climate Change.

Aren't you completely mixing up the topic being researched with the conclusions? Yes they research relevant topics, so are you suggesting they only get paid if their research points to certain conclusions?

[Zelandakh]

Aren't you completely mixing up the topic being researched with the conclusions? Yes they research relevant topics, so are you suggesting they only get paid if their research points to certain conclusions?

You only get a continuation of your grant if the research remains 'relevant'. 'Relevant' is not measured on any purely scientific grounds. If you were doing research to show GW was not as bad as feared, this would generally be seen as less 'relevant' as it lacks the urgency of research into the ice cap melting within 10 years producing massive flooding! (a bad example, but you may get my meaning from it)

 

 

(-: Zel :-)

[han]

Han, you are completely wrong when you say that university researchers get paid no matter what their conclusions.

I said that universities pay salaries no matter what the conclusions are. This doesn't contradict what you say and as far as I know it is correct. I haven't heard of any North American or European universities firing professors whose conclusions do not align with the political mindset of the university.

 

As for grants, most grants are awarded by peers based upon their perception of the quality of research proposals and results of past research. It is not surprising that if almost all the climatologist experts think that the scepticist do not produce quality research then they are not going to award them with large grants. It seems to me that this is as it should be. I would hope that the same is true for a mathematician who proposes to trisect angles.

[jdonn]

If you were doing research to show GW was not as bad as feared, this would generally be seen as less 'relevant' as it lacks the urgency of research into the ice cap melting within 10 years producing massive flooding!

I guess I don't understand research. I thought a researcher doesn't try to "show" anything, but just gathers information to see what IT shows YOU.

[han]

He, that's a nice point Josh but could lead to a very long discussion.

[kenberg]

If you were doing research to show GW was not as bad as feared, this would generally be seen as less 'relevant' as it lacks the urgency of research into the ice cap melting within 10 years producing massive flooding!

I guess I don't understand research. I thought a researcher doesn't try to "show" anything, but just gathers information to see what IT shows YOU.

A researcher could well have both an opinion and a preference for how things will turn out. The issue is whether he cooks the books. My favorite example of this goes back to an early test of relativity theory. Einstein was asked about the possibility of the observations not supporting his predictions: "Then I would feel very sorry for the Almighty, because the theory is correct". Since the observations matched his predictions, this showdown with the Almighty was put off for another day. Of course in reality, had the observations contradicted his predictions, he would have withdrawn both his quip and his theory.

[jdonn]

If you were doing research to show GW was not as bad as feared, this would generally be seen as less 'relevant' as it lacks the urgency of research into the ice cap melting within 10 years producing massive flooding!

I guess I don't understand research. I thought a researcher doesn't try to "show" anything, but just gathers information to see what IT shows YOU.

A researcher could well have both an opinion and a preference for how things will turn out. The issue is whether he cooks the books.

But don't forget the entire point of this section of the discussion was whether universities pay researchers regardless of the conclusions as long as the research is relevant. Presumably they don't make those decisions on the assumption that the researcher is biased.

[matmat]

I am fairly certain that there have been cases of profs losing tenure over falsified data, same for plagiarism.

 

any reasonable grant proposal will included a careful study of expected outcome(s). I.e. you have to have a result in mind when performing an experiment, but, at the same time, be willing to accept a null or negative one.

[mike777]

As I have said I think global warming is more...much more a political debate......

[han]

I am fairly certain that there have been cases of profs losing tenure over falsified data, same for plagiarism.

That is something entirely different.

 

(Not saying it might not apply to climate scepticist. ;) )

[Zelandakh]

Being a 'professional' researcher is far less about what you are researching now, as keeping a steady series of research proposals running over a number of years. So whilst I might get paid for this year's project, if the cash dries up there's going to be some casualties.

 

It's also wrong to concentrate solely on the profs here too. Most high level research projects rely heavily on good quality RAs and to a lesser extent RSs. Where the prof is likely to keep their job regardless of the conclusions, those lesser lights can get shed pretty quickly, and sometimes that makes them, shall we say, over-eager. :) The simple truth is that bias is a major factor in all forms of scientific research anytime the results are not 'double-blind'. By its nature it's very difficult to make CC research double-blind!

 

Another part of funding it is important to understand is that written papers are a massive part of how the research team is graded. For most this of course means the standard peer reviewed periodicals, and for the most part these are very good at filtering out the rubbish (although it is worth noting that on occasion an unconventional theory has been rejected from this route even though later proved to be correct). However, if you can create a stir in one of the more 'populist' publications this can actually significantly boost your score, partly because it usually leads to a series of further publications. Note that this applies to both sides of the debate!

 

Finally, I am not sure if this is true of the States, but over here the main research grant committee cites 'relevance' as a major factor in funding decisions. In practise this means that if you can link your project to a major issue, and there's nothing flagged higher than CC right now, you re much more likely to receive a grant. So instead of researching the habitable tolerance range of insects, instead you research the potential spread of malaria into Europe due to GW. That's not the best example, but this is a sample of the way research proposals are re-worded in order to achieve funding.

 

And mike777's point is correct, but only to a point. The political debate is probably far more important than the scientific one at this stage. The world needs solutions now, and in the short term the politicians (particularly of USA, China and India) get to step up to the plate.

 

However, in the longer term it's the scientists and engineers that (I think) will be at the forefront of things. The scientists to complete the understanding, and the engineers to produce the solutions. I think anyone that really understands human nature should be able to see that emissions targets are unlikely to provide a solution. Why should the average Chinese or Indian not be as well off as the average Brit or American? Similarly how can any President hope to be elected promising to slash the standard of living for pretty much everyone? The current political posturing is bordering on cloud cuckoo land in terms of a long-term solution.

 

So I would not describe CC as a political debate - perhaps more like an investment opportunity!

 

 

(-: Zel :-)