Some important news on the science front:
Once again, Dr. Michael Mann and other climate scientists have been investigated by a third party to see if there was any wrongdoing in the “Climategate” scandal. And once again, they were cleared of any wrongdoing. They had been previously cleared by an International Panel of Scientists last year, by a panel at Penn State, and have been cleared by various other agencies as well. This time, the investigation was conducted by the National Science Foundation, and you can read the report in full here. Like the other investigations, the NSF found no evidence of falsifying data, manipulation of data, or destruction of data by Dr. Michael Mann or any of the climate research scientists based at the University of East Anglia.
You’ll remember, of course, that all of this stems from selectively quoted emails released during the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Let’s flash back to when this all started:
You have to loved the fact that the entire “Climategate” argument from our right-wing bloggers is based completely on a British wingnut blogger citing Russian sources. Go check out memeorandum– it is like a Wingnut Who’s Who. Even Pam Atlas shows up.
And on the other side, you have thousands of scientists.
Ehh. We humans had a good run.
So basically, a bunch of scientists had their lives and reputations smeared because a bunch of neanderthals misunderstood and selectively released out of context private emails and used it as a disinformation weapon. Two years later, when the facts are made clear by the most prestigious scientific organizations on earth, what will people remember? That climate change is real and happening, or that scientists are just making shit up. I’ll let you be the judge:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his skepticism about climate change one step further on Wednesday, telling a New Hampshire business crowd that scientists have cooked up the data on global warming for the cash.
In his stump speech, Perry referenced “a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects.”
“We’re seeing weekly, or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what’s causing the climate to change,” Perry said. “Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”
It isn’t the first time Perry has accused climate scientists of fibbing. ThinkProgress’ Brad Johnson reported on Monday that in Perry’s book, Fed Up!, the governor calls climate science a “contrived phony mess.”
All that matters to the wingnuts is that people now believe their lies as truths. And that’s just the way Big Oil and Big Business and the party elites want it- look at the entire cottage industry funded by our Galtian overlords and how they attempted to pressure the networks into covering this bullshit. Look who funds MRC– Exxon, the Scaife’s, Bradley (Koch’s buddies in the Bircher movement), the Coors family, etc. Look out how our glibertarians overlords treat this. It’s Lee Atwater and Frank Luntz’s world, and we’re just living in it.
There is one “reassuring” thing about all this climate stuff, though. The fact is that at this point, it is probably too late to do anything anyway, so it kind of doesn’t matter.
rlrr
“Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.” — 6,000 years ago
dmsilev
Governor Goodhair:
You know, if I were a prominent climatologist, I’d be real tempted to issue a public challenge to Perry: “Governor, you’ve accused me of fraud. If you truly believe that, go to a DA and get them to press charges. If not, I’m suing you for slander.”
schlemizel - was Alwhite
I’m with you 100% on this JC – it just does not matter any longer.
50% of the population KNOWS the climate data was faked now & will never hear anything else.
We have already screwed the pooch badly enough that people are going to die in large numbers because of climate change. The questions now are: How many? Where? and Can we stop making it worse in time to not kill off all of us?
The world will go on quite nicely without us & in a million years or so life will be beautiful here again, it just won’t contain anything ‘human’.
rlrr
@dmsilev:
Perry will get an IOKIYAR pass…
LGRooney
So, tuna steaks at my house tonight!!
handy
@rlrr:
And there’s this theory about how life constantly changes over time, too. Funny how a lot of that same crowd doesn’t believe in that kind of “natural change” though.
cleek
why would anyone expect the anti-science dipshits to accept the conclusions of studies conducted by scientists ?
Xenos
I remember reading a Forbes Magazine cover story with all the the climate change denialism worked out and presented for public consumption. In 1988. This has been planned for, cued up, and executed for decades. They saw it coming, lined up the fake scientists, lined up the dishonest public relations experts, apparently taking the tobacco industry campaigns as a model.
Much as with the tobacco industry, it worked for a few decades. Billions of dollars of profits made in the interim as a couple generations are bullshitted into negligence.
It worked, and it will continue to work.
When Patty Hearst asked her captors why she was kidnapped, they said it was because her grandfather had driven the US into the Spanish American War. Her reactions was ‘What is wrong with that — didn’t we win that war?’ In the same way the remaining Kochites will look around at the destruction and be glad their ancestors found a way to win, for them, the war on earth.
Stefan
If you tell a lie often enough, it doesn’t become the truth.
It does, however, become widely believed to be such.
LGRooney
@dmsilev: Damned fine idea!
rlrr
@handy:
Wingnuts believe science is some sort of effete, elitist pursuit…
Southern Beale
Politics is corrupting our world. It taints everything it touches. Politics might have been useful, once, but now it’s a fucking cancer and it must be destroyed.
Culture of Truth
Well there was the Sistine Chapel, Bill Shakespeare was pretty good, and the Pyramids are pretty impressive. Oh and George Carlin, I liked him.
artem1s
@schlemizel – was Alwhite:
even worse, if anything is ever done to prevent or reverse the warming the wingnuts and villagers will all claim that it was much ado about nothing and nothing bad would have happened if we had just left well enough alone.
cause and effect…ur doin it wrong.
lamh32
looks like Mittens is dumping climate change. Mitt Romney Backs Away From Climate Change
cathyx
It doesn’t matter what any of us, including scientists, believe to be true about climate change. The only thing that matters is what the people who have a moneyed interest and influence over the regulations with regards to climate change want to be the truth. And that will be that climate change isn’t really happening, and/or it’s not man made.
barath
I’d say that the reassuring thing is that peak oil is upon us and is limiting economic growth to the point that we may decrease our emissions simply because our economy will slowly grind down over the course of the next couple of decades. And since CO2 emissions strongly correlate with GDP, we may narrowly avoid runaway climate change.
Cap'n Magic
Unlike the rest of the presidential GOPers, Perry has the blood of innocents on his hands. The next time someone is sentenced to death in Texas, Perry himself should be the one to walk into the chamber, set and load up the IV and syringes, and dish out the sentence with his own hands. And yes, this should be the law of the states with capital punishment on the books. The scary part of this? Perry would probably enjoy it.
JGabriel
Mitt Romney joins the climate change doubters:
Great. Now we’ll never find out how fucking magnets work.
.
handy
@lamh32:
I’m just waiting for him to finally renounce Mormonism. There’s not one belief this guy has he’s not willing to drop like a bad coat when he thinks it could help.
Stefan
“What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to,” Romney said.
Now that’s the spirit that made America the world leader in technology! If you don’t already know the answer, don’t spend money on R&D! That’s why we were able to develop the airplane, the polio vaccine, the Internet, home computers, space flight, etc. — because WE ALREADY KNEW THE ANSWER.
PeakVT
The fact is that at this point, it is probably too late to do anything anyway
It’s certainly not to late to affect the problem at the margins, i.e. limit the increase to 2°C instead of 4 or 6. Unfortunately, social and cultural forces, not technical challenges, will prevent us from doing much.
Svensker
Of course not. They’re all in it together. These are liberal “scientists” not like real scientists who love America and know that Algore is fat.
My brother sent me a paper (not peer-reviewed) by a geology professor from Western Wash. Univ in Bellingham that debunks global warming. When I asked him why THAT scientist was believable and respectable but all the other scientists weren’t, he just gave me the “you poor deluded thing” bit.
You can’t dent the bubbledome most of these folks live in.
Mike Goetz
@Xenos:
And we liberals stood around and did nothing. See, conservatives start with a plan, stick to it doggedly for decades, and then it bears fruit. Liberals…don’t. We wait for daddy to do it.
catclub
@schlemizel – was Alwhite: There are humans on all the continents and in all climates.
We are like cockroaches on the earth. Climate change may kill off a lot of specialized species, but it won’t kill off the humans. The whole approach of making it about killing _us_ off, when in fact the problem is all the _other_ things that will be killed off (see the mediterranean Sea, all life in the seas except for jellyfish and slime, etc), drives me crazy.
horse dave
Ken Cuccinelli now needs to be investigated for using his office AG of VA for political purposes.
We (humans) will soon resort to geoengineering. If the US doesn’t China certainly will disperse sulfates in the stratosphere to offset the earth’s heat imbalance.
PeakVT
@barath: Peak oil won’t save us. It will just make us double down on coal until that runs out. And there’s a lot more carbon locked up in coal than in oil. Also, too: feedback loops, like permafrost methane.
Mudge
This is another example of a zombie lie..impossible to kill.
WereBear
True. Life, once established, is incredibly tenacious.
We, on the other hand; not so much.
David Hunt
I disagree. Even if the delays these dickheads caused have doomed human civilization, I still want them exposed and indicted with several billion counts of attempted murder. But I’m naively optimistic…
Pappenheimer
If peak oil happens on schedule there will be a scramble to get energy from sources like shale oil and brown coal; even more CO2 in the air, though the extra costs may put a damper on the world economy. I’m not reassured, especially considering the other environmental costs of these alternative resources.
catclub
@PeakVT: Hey! Permafrost methane! new energy source! ;)
Did I misunderstand something?
John Puma
” … so it kind of doesn’t matter”?
Well, I’m sure that is one of the outcomes desired by the Galtian overlords from the these frivolous investigations.
agrippa
Our great great grandchildren will be living with the consequences of failing to take steps.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
In the category of both sides do it, there was a diary on the rec list on DK about whether the earthquake in Virginia was caused by humans. Their evidence: The fact that fracking was occurring in West Virginia, over a hundred miles away, on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains. When a satirical diary popped up, asking if Hurricane Irene was man made, and stating at the top that it was satire in response to the first diary, people in that one kept saying that it was peoples jobs to prove the first one wrong, not the first diaries job to provide better evidence to support its conclusion.
Culture of Truth
We know Romney can’t win, so why waste millions on a campaign?
Too Many Jimpersons (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
This is the thing I never really got about the whole “climate change is a hoax!” crowd: Who goes into science to make money? Now, if you’re a Republican, you most likely are into money more than anything else, even anonymous gay, wetsuit sex, so I guess I can see why you’d think that everybody else only cares about money, too. But, even so, you’d think that even the most cursory thought would lead you to see that there just isn’t all that much big money in science.
The other argument I hear is that these scientists are mad, power-hungry would-be dictators; that’s just as nuts. Again, budding dictators don’t become microbiologists or geologists or physicists, James Bond movies notwithstanding; they go into Republican politics. But, again, these people can’t fathom that anybody would do anything in life for any other reason than money, power or anonymous, gay wetsuit sex…
jl
When I read in detail about the charges, it was very grimly hilarious. The only legitimate gripes at all were about sloppy preservation of old versions of data sets, and lack of availability of raw data. I think the availability of data issue has been largely solved, except for a couple of countries who won’t premite release of the data (and I think main culprit is Poland, which IIRC has a Euro style wingnut government that maybe just didn wanna help out).
The most publicized nonsense (‘hiding the decline’ etc.) was not only a smear, but what is funny is that it looks like the smearers did not even understand what the researchers were talking about and made a big stink about the wrong part of the graph, about a totally trivial blip. And the actual scientific issue was cleared up anyway the old fashioned scientific way, which was getting more and better, and data.
This might be just old fashioned ‘you kids get off my lawn’ grouchy me, but anyone who claims to understand a field well enough to critique other researchers’ results, should understand it well enough to propose alternative theories, and propose hypothesis and predictions to test.
Most important of all, is the ability to propose an explicit causal theory that can be used to guide an informed interpretation of statistical results, which only show correlations (or more ornate concepts in place of correlation for nonstationary processes).
If all you get from a particular viewpoint is endless nitpicking, 20/20 hindsight Monday morning QBing, and never a counter proposal with testable hypotheses, predictions or forecasts, then you are probably looking at total BS.
I think that there are parallels between the bogus climate science scandal and the current macroeconomic debate.
catclub
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): When the ‘fracking caused it’ diary is supported by multi-billion dollar corporations, give us another call. Till then, both sides DON’T do it.
barath
@PeakVT:
Yeah, that’s my worry. I’ve been trying to do analyses about this recently to get a sense of what our possible (alternative) energy futures might be.
If we pursue business-as-usual we have to hope peak oil + peak cheap coal (which may be only a decade away) will put a damper on economic and emissions growth.
reflectionephemeral
I posted about this Perry exchange a week or so ago. I included some Pew polling data– they said that 84% of scientists believe GW is real, and that 92% say it’s very or somewhat serious. For Americans, it’s 49 percent and 73 percent, respectively. (I’ve seen other polls with higher %ges of scientists, I think polls of climatologists specifically). (Interestingly, conservatives in the rest of the wealthy democracies have long since come to terms with climate change– this is purely American conservative ignorance).
On climate change, the line is, “it’s not happening, maybe it’s happening, ok if it is happening we shouldn’t do anything about it.” We’ve seen very similar progressions on US use of torture, WMD in Iraq, the value of the Bush tax cuts, etc.
The world is a PR battle, and facts are losing, if they’re relevant at all. Yep, we’re just living in Frank Luntz’s world.
catclub
@jl: “If all you get from a particular viewpoint is endless nitpicking, 20/20 hindsight Monday morning QBing, and never a counter proposal with testable hypotheses, predictions or forecasts, then you are probably looking at total BS.
I think that there are parallels in the bogus climate science scandal with the current macroeconomic debate.”
And here I was thinking you were describing creationism.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@catclub: Well, yes, both sides are willing to believe in whatever conspiracy theories support their views.
DBrown
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Both sides most certainly do not do it – if the ‘left’ set a policy of saying that, not just a few loons making entries on some blog, then that would be true. It isn’t and your point is silly to the point being stupid.
PeakVT
@catclub: The funny thing is that it would be better if we could burn the methane, since it’s a much stronger greenhouse gas (in the short term) than CO2. We could do that if we just put a dome over all of Siberia and its continental shelf.
Hypnos
You know, there are places in the rest of the world that are actually trying to do something. And when I see the US political establishment and population utterly fail to get to grips with the biggest challenge ever to face mankind, and actually actively work to make it worse, I start wishing for eco-terrorists to just start blowing up US oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.
That might just be the way the world goes when Dust Bowl level droughts start decimating populations in the world’s breadbaskets around 2030.
jl
I suggest that the the coal industry go to geology for a legitimate counter point to climate scientists. I think I may have typed about the geologists view point before, so to liven things up, will retype it this time as a little dramedy.
me (in response to some position paper on global warming: So, I see geological societies are saying global warming is real and mostly caused by burning fossil fuels.
geologist: Yeah, some of the climate science is probably overblown though. Most paleogeologists doubt that even if the higher end forecasts are realized, it will kick the earth into a different climate regime.
me: So we won’t turn into Venus?
geologist: probably not, but it will get kind of hot for awhile.
me: But what about ocean acidification?
geologist: Oh, that’s not a real issue, in a couple of hundred thousand years, all the acid will be buffered out in a new equilibrium close to this one.
me: So, there will be fish and coral and stuff, right?
geologist: Well, that’s biology, but yeah, there will be fish and stuff.
me: but how about between now and then. They will be different fish, right?
geologist: Oh, yeah, they will be different fish. A lot of the stuff around now will die off, but there will be stuff that can survive and spread out, I guess, but that is biology, so I don’t know much about it.
me: So, how do we get from now to then if we need some fish?
geologists: well, that’s not geology problem.
So, if you have the right time horizon, global warming is not a big deal. Tha might be good slogan for fossil fuel interests.
Comrade Dread
Investigations like this don’t matter because most people hold conflicting ideas in our heads like:
1. The elites (CEOs, politicians, corporations, educators and scientists) are lying to us for their own profit and gain and I’m being screwed.
2. However, the elites who tell me what I want to hear are honest and benevolent and stand up for my values.
So, it really won’t matter how many independent investigations are conducted, the ‘truth’ of the matter will be “Of course they found no evidence, they’re part of the cover-up.”
In normal circumstances, this would be mildly irritating.
When faced with a lot of Book of Revelation style plagues we’re self-creating that my two little toddlers will have to face, it’s just slightly less amusing.
I suppose if I had more faith in the Invisible Hand, I would sleep confidently at night knowing that the free market will save us all from itself.
gene108
@cleek:
In all honesty it isn’t just the scientifically illiterate and unbelieving.
Some of the hardest people to deal with, with regards to climate change skepticism are people in other fields, especially engineering or a science that doesn’t deal much with nature.
Throw in your economics, accounting, etc. professors and other mathematically literate types, who have the ability to understand and analyze data and you get a very difficult crowd to win over to your “belief” that human activity is having a impact on our climate.
WereBear
It’s well woth checking out The Century of the Self on Youtube, a fascinating documentary on how THEY use Freud to screw with us.
Forewarned, forearmed.
wrb
@horse dave:
Won’t do a fucking thing about ocean acidification. About which there can be no debate. 6th graders can measure ph.
Here is an experiment for a sixth grade science fair.
Fill beakers with water of various levels of acidity.
Throw some clams or chunks of coral in.
At what level of acidity do calcium structures dissolve?
If you project the recent trend into the future, how long until the oceans are that acidic?
A) 15 years
What proportion of the critters at the bottom of the food chain consist, in vital part, of calcium structures?
Caz
The problem is that many scientists have fudged data to make it say what they want it to say, in order to obtain money or funds toward projects or simply to pad their wallets. This has tainted the whole of the climate science community, because you just don’t know who is telling the truth and who is just out to make a buck. It’s unfortunate that the minority who are just out for money are ruining a legit issue for the majority who are honestly providing useful data about climate change.
That being said, I don’t think we need scientists or scientific data to see that our actions on this earth will have/are having an effect on the environment. It’s just common sense. So regardless of whether we already have started to change the climate, it’s inevitable that we will if we keep pumping out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and dumping plastics and chemicals into the oceans. It’s obvious, common sense stuff.
This is an issue that I strongly disagree with the right on (I’m a libertarian, so I like positions from both parties, and climate change is something I agree wholeheartedly with the D’s on).
gene108
@jl:
Geologically speaking, when neo-Pangea forms again in the eastern hemisphere, in 200-300 million years, there will be significant changes to our climate, whether or not we burn fossil fuels.
Also, too, when neo-Pangea breaks-up in another few hundred million years after it forms, the conditions for producing more fossils fuels will exist.
Therefore fossil fuels are a renewable resource, if you have the right time frame in mind.
redshirt
I despair, then I don’t care. Another good example of this phenomena is the “Obama is going to attack Romney’s religion as weird” meme that was wholly created a few weeks ago by Ben Smith at Politico.
Yesterday I read on Boston.com as a Sen. Brown staffer has been sending out fake tweets smearing a potential Dem Senate runner. The Globe matter of factly stated how both sides do it though, since Obama’s team is attacking Romney over his Mormonism.
My head spun – outright lies foisted into the realm of fact within a few weeks, with no proof whatsover.
It’s Orwell’s world, more and more so every day.
Scott P.
Not sure what you mean. As Aristotle said, Man is a political animal. There have been politics as long as there have been concentrations of people and there will always be politics.
Unless you mean “democracy”. Though that’s probably worse.
wrb
@Comrade Dread:
People seem to miss the obvious: the invisible hand is too busy.
If an invisible hand was available, for what would it be most in demand?
Wanking
jl
@gene108: Thanks. “If you have the right time horizon, fossil fuels are sustainable renewable resources”. That could be a good PR slogan too.
What is a million years to a geologist? phht. Nothing. If people would just pull up their socks and stop being so impatient and childish, we could get on with business.
stevie314
In the upcoming sequel to Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the apes return peacefully to their cages after saying who the fuck wants to be in charge of THIS planet.
Montysano
Just yesterday, a report was making the rounds of the wingnut echo chamber that “Michelle Obama had spent $10M of taxpayer money on vacations.” The source? The National Enquirer. Within hours, the posts begin to appear on Facebook: “Blarghh!! Blackety-black Furst Ladee is spending muh money!!”
As John points out, the goal is to make the rubes believe the lies, which is sadly a very easy thing to accomplish.
Makewi
Interestingly enough, actually reading the report gives one a different impression then the summary of it currently making the rounds.
I remember when you used to give a shit about the truth. Now? Not so much
gene108
@Caz:
I find the argument of “fat cat” scientists, who are living high on the climate-change hog to be disingenuous.
Who has more to gain/lose monetarily, if existing laws on carbon emissions and fuel consumption are changed?
Exxon-Mobile executives, who make 8 figure salaries or my college geology professor, who makes a 5 or 6 figure salary?
When its obvious people in business have more to lose and even with all the grants in the world, a professor can’t pocket that money for personal use and isn’t going to make more than the university pays for their research, I don’t get why people keep bringing up the bogey-man of “fat cat” scientists.
gene108
@jl:
The changes humans can inflict on the climate, pale in comparison to the changes that will be caused by plate tectonics.
Since can’t stop plate tectonics, which is a bigger threat to our survival as a species, why are people sweating the small stuff like the greenhouse effect?
Hyper hippies trying to get rich off the climate change gravy train, if you ask me.
jl
@Caz: Do you have any links or names, or article references to who this hypothetical majority of researchers who are being crowded out by the supposedly dishonest researchers who are out to make a buck?
You can tell us who these people are, right?
And you can give us a reference to some research that isn’t being funded because of the corrupt money chasing researchers? And you can give us an intuitive summary that gives some insight into why this suppressed research makes more sense than the dishonest research? Right?
And you can tell us about the princely salaries in academia, compared to what wingnut think tanks and corporations spread around right?
Or maybe you are just riffing off of Rick Perry?
catclub
@gene108: “Throw in your economics, accounting, etc. professors and other mathematically literate types, who have the ability to understand and analyze data and you get a very difficult crowd to win over to your “belief” that human activity is having a impact on our climate.”
There was another post about this upstream:
@jl: “If all you get from a particular viewpoint is endless nitpicking, 20/20 hindsight Monday morning QBing, and never a counter proposal with testable hypotheses, predictions or forecasts, then you are probably looking at total BS.”
So I blame the lack of history of science/ Structure of scientific revolutions classes. These people do not know what science is: The production of testable hypotheses.
What the scientists have not made clear enough is that if they leave the CO2 out of their models, they cannot describe the present accurately, hence they have to put the CO2 change in, and when they do they are forced to predict what will happen in the future.
jl
@Makewi: Please provide an example.
gwangung
@Makewi: Makewi, it’s not clear you’re able to read high level scientific abstracts(let alone the papers themselves) for comprehension.
Please demonstrate. Try not to crib techniques from creationists; some of us are quite experienced (even if you aren’t) in that dodge.
Makewi
@jl:
I did, but why not do yourself a favor and actually read the report.
Makewi
@gwangung:
It’s clear your a self delusional douche. I guess we all have our crosses to bear. OTOH, I actually read the contents of the NSF document in question. Clearly, you did not.
TaMara (BHF)
And this is another lie that needs to die:
Um, John, as someone who works in this field, this kind of thinking is part of the problem. Please don’t perpetuate it.
jl
@Makewi:
You did not give a conclusion from the report. You quoted one of the charges the report said it would investigate Here is the conclusion:
” Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he eniployed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research
misconduct. ”
There will always be concerns about, and questions about, and problems with about the statistical analysis for any scientific study of empirical data, NO MATTER HOW IT IS DONE. That is the nature of statistical analysis of any kind of empirical data. That issue has nothing to do with intentional fraud.
And BTW, I have been reading the reports as they come out, and this is a rather short and uninformative one.
drew42
Spoken like a man who doesn’t have children.
No offense.
geg6
All I can say is that I’m proud if Dr. Mann and proud of my university for backing him up. I may bitch about work, but it’s a great place for the most part. And this is one of those parts.
handsmile
This fine article, entitled “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” now appears on the Guardian’s website:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/25/how-talk-climate-sceptic
It’s a longish piece, essentially a transcript of a conversation between a professor of atmospheric science (undoubtedly a multi-millionaire) from Texas Tech and a researcher from the Yale Environment 360 project. The information presented is well-phrased and readily accessible.
But perhaps for those, far more worthy than I, who still believe it’s possible to hold a meaningful conversation with the willfully ignorant.
Makewi
@jl:
You have reading comprehension issues. I’m glad you scanned the documnet looking for the heading conclusion, sure beats reading the whole thing.
Norwonk
Perry: “Our climates”. Bush: “The internets”.
Is this a Republican thing or a Texas thing?
jl
@73 OK, thanks for pointing that out. I did read the whole think quickly, but missed that part.
But my point stands, that issue has nothing to do with fraud. There will always be concerns about the quality of the statistical analysis no matter what decisions are made about how to do the analysis. That is the nature of statistical research, especially on obsrevational data.
Look, the linked document is not a full report of an investigation, it is a memo reporting some conclusions from the investigation.
And do you have anything to answer the memo’s conclusion, that I quoted above, or not?
LGRooney
@gene108: Only for those with a roof over their heads is tectonic movement a danger. See, the rich are doing all of us a favor by ensuring we can only afford to live in tents.
Bless you, Kochs!
Marc
@Makewi:
That’s very different from “he was commiting scientific fraud”. Are you claiming otherwise?
Look, it’s perfectly normal for us to question some of the methods that other scientists used. “They adopted this model, and I get a different answer from that one” is not remotely in the same league as “they made it up.”
More to the point, the underlying results are robust – the statistical quibbles didn’t impact the answer. This is, again, common in research.
Again, what’s your point?
Prometheus Shrugged
@Caz: As a practicing climatologist myself (and, yes, I know the players in climategate personally), I’m really curious how you arrived at this opinion?
In reality, I can tell you that for almost everyone in my field, the intellectual incentives–the prospects of being right about something, or conversely, the fear of being proved wrong–so far outweigh any financial considerations that manipulation of data virtually never happens (there was only one case that I’ve known about in my 20 years in the business, and the person responsible had serious mental health issues.) Genuine scientific fraud is too easily discovered.
Now, if Rick Perry is talking about the people involved in the disinformation campaign that are on the Koch brothers’ payroll (technically they call themselves scientists), then that’s a different story. One can only guess what their motives are.
Marc
To be specific:
“The research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the Subject’s data is
still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been
presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his
results. Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he eniployed,
the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of
data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to
assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field
of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research
misconduct.”
jl
@Makewi: Oh, and by the way, I did point out two actual legitimate issues that were raised by the scandal: sloppy handling of data archives, and lack of availability of raw data, and noted the latter issue has been addressed.
And also note, that while sloppy handling of data archives is a real and serious issue, it does not do much damage to climate science as a whole since the other independent major data sets produce the same results.
Those are real issues, not the bogus one that you raised.
Makewi
@jl:
There are concerns about the quality of the statistical analysis, and when scientists tried to point this out they were vilified and blackballed – the heart of the so called climate-gate scandal. That IS the issue. But nevermind, because this short and uninformative report clears the good doctor.
Marc
@Caz:
Falsifying data ends a scientific career, period. If you get a surprising result others try to replicate it. If they can’t, that starts a detective process that doesn’t end well for frauds. There is such a thing as groupthink, but accusing people of making things up is incredibly insulting to scientists. In fact, I doubt that people outside science understand how fundamentally revolting this line of argument is to practicing scientists, and how deeply it has antagonized science from the current crop of thugs calling themselves conservatives.
This is about trying to destroy the lives of scientists who come up with inconvenient research results, nothing more.
Makewi
@jl:
Bogus ones I raised? God you are a hack.
Marc
@Makewi:
You are completely wrong. The actual charges were:
“Our office was- notified by a University that it had initiated an inquiry into allegations regarding research
integrity, including allegations of research misconduct. The allegations included:
1. Falsifying research data
2. Concealing, deleting or otherwise destroying emails, information or data
3. Misusing privileged information
4. Seriously deviating from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research
and other scholarly activities.”
1,2, and 3 were determined to be meritless and remain so. 4 was determined not to be the case. And the people who “tried to point this out” did so by making the false charges above – and they were political activists, not scientists.
What’s your background? You don’t sound like you know much about how science works and what’s actually at stake.
handy
@Makewi:
You are a hard one to nail. You came riding in with this rather soft, vague claim:
Gives one an impression, eh? Nice mealy-mouthed wording, but whatever. You then claim that
This is silly. The headline grabbing climate-gate scandal was clearly about scientists allegedly doctoring the evidence to reach a pre-ordained conclusion, using “tricks” to supposedly make data favorable to AGW. The report in question exonerates the researchers of those charges.
So, really, one decidedly does NOT get an impression different from the original post.
ETA: and it is clear to anyone else who has read the NSF report you are reading what you want from its conclusion, not what it says.
Derf
Now why are we supposed to believe an idiot who could be persuaded to vote for G Dubya the Texas dummy….TWICE would not be persuaded to vote for Perry. Come Cole. Admit it. You would vote for that clown wouldn’t you.
Thoughtcrime
@JGabriel:
From the comments, on Romney’s political shape-shifting: “Mittamorphosis”.
Prometheus Shrugged
@Makewi: I have some insight to what the actual story was here, especially because I have provided some of the raw data that goes into Michael Mann’s syntheses. And I have to agree with Marc (#84) on this one.
John Weiss
John, you insult Neanderthals.
“There is one “reassuring” thing about all this climate stuff, though. The fact is that at this point, it is probably too late to do anything anyway, so it kind of doesn’t matter.”
Oh, but it does matter. Anything can be made worse.
Tonal Crow
Your definition of “too late to do anything” is idiotic, and “doesn’t matter” just feeds the wingnut memes that global warming is not a problem or that it’s good.
Yes, we’re probably committed to ~2 degrees C warming even if we cut emissions drastically now. But much better ~2 degrees than 3, 4, or more degrees. Just for yucks, remember that it’s ~6 degrees between ice-age glacial maximum and natural interglacial minimum (~1880). For visions of business as usual, I recommend this. For additional consideration of a 4-degree world, try this .
Let’s keep it to ~2 degrees, shall we?
PeakVT
@drew42: People with children aren’t exactly distinguishing themselves in the fight to change our energy policies. I’m certain a greater percentage of the childless understand global warming and are willing to accept some sacrifice in order to address it than those who have children. But the childless are also a distinct minority.
AuldBlackJack
PIGL
@gene108: You’re an ignorant idiot, or a malicious lier. Either way, DIAF.
Jager
@Cap’n Magic: Fuck no, Perry would pull out his concealed carry and shoot the bastard.
gene108
@PIGL:
??????????????
Per Urban Dictionary DIAF is listed as Die in a Fire. If that’s what you wish for me, that’s not nice.
Don’t get where the rage comes from man.
Peace.
Stefan
The changes humans can inflict on the climate, pale in comparison to the changes that will be caused by plate tectonics. Since can’t stop plate tectonics, which is a bigger threat to our survival as a species, why are people sweating the small stuff like the greenhouse effect?
The changes water can inflict on my house pale in comparison to the changes that will be caused by a meteor smashing into it from space.
Since I can’t stop a meteor, which is a bigger threat to the survival of my house, why am I sweating the small stuff like a flood?
Mayur
Caz and Makewi: You are a lying pair of traitors to the human species. Just sayin’. Unless you actually have any science to contribute to this discussion.
Tonal Crow
@gene108: Where does the rage come from? See Figure 11 in this paper for one possible source.
Thus far, denying the problem — as you are doing — has only increased the rate at which that future approaches, a future in which starvation will not be only for Somalis, but for Americans too. When the rains fail, the grain doesn’t grow. And when the grain doesn’t grow, people die. Get it?
horse dave
@wrb: I agree that its eff up-ed to add sulfates to the stratosphere but once AGW related problems start to cause famines in countries like China, India, or even the US then those countries will engage in untested geoengineering. Also the CO2 levels alone might acidify the oceans enough to kill the corals and other PH sensative sealife (plankton?). Sulfate fallout would ensure it.
It’s just my opinion but with the latent nature of AGW and human failure to mitigate green house gasses the world will not act until the problem has severe impact. Unfortunately this means a lot of people die/suffer in 1st world countries and the reaction will be knee jerk geoengineering solutions. I guess this makes me a pessimist but as a member of 350.org I have seen little that gives me hope.
Rihilism
@Tonal Crow: @PIGL: I believe gene108 was being facetious…
Rihilism
I’ve nothing really to add to jl’s, Marc’s, and Prometheus Shrugged’s excellent comments here except to note the absurd level of conspiracy that would be required to perpetuate a climate change “hoax”.
I’ve no doubt that a particularly driven scientist or group of scientists (that’d be legitimate scientists, not Koch-backed Heritage Foundation non-peer reviewed “scholars” or meteorologists posing as climate scientists ) would be more than happy to be proven to be the smartest one(s) in the room by demonstrating that the principles underlying AGW are incorrect. All I can say is “good luck with that one, young enterprising academics”.
What those who are unfamiliar with the scientific community (or even some within the scientific community) fail to understand is that you simply don’t reach this level of consensus with wild-assed guesses and fraud. Of course, will always be the naysayers and the critics. They are there to keep people honest and to force robustness into the process. However, disagreement over methodologies is not synonymous with fraud. Nor does such disagreement negate the underlying principles of a scientific theory…
Rihilism
@Makewi:
Are there concerns about the quality of the thermodynamics, the carbon cycle, or any other principle on which AGW is based? Has a peer reviewed paper been published that claims greenhouses are magical contraptions that can not exceed backyard dimensions?
Arguments over statistical analyses are par for the course in science. They do not automatically undermine the soundness of a theory. That requires evidence, which you seem incapable of providing…
jl
@Makewi: So, you are saying that the charges that they deleted old versions of the data sets that they used to cover up dishonest analysis, and that they were taking advantage of the fact that most of their data was not publicly available are bogus charges to be taken lightly?
And you are saying that disagreements over statistical analysis are serious charges that indicate scientific fraud?
Really? And you call me a hack?
I pointed out the only two really serious charges (as opposed to the other complete nonsense charges made only to defame the researchers), and you call me a hack?
Really?
I am glad that they were cleared of the only charges that could have cast doubt on their integrity, and that their data are publicly available now.
Satanicpanic
There might be some lying climate scientists out there… but if you have so little integrity that you’re lying for “grant money” you’re probably not at all bothered by the idea of just switching sides.
Seriously, can you even use grant money to upgrade your plane tickets? As the son of a university researcher, I don’t remember getting bigger Xmas presents when the grant money came through.
bob h
Think of the personal toll something like this takes on people like Mann; they must question whether pursuing the truth is really worth it.