Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 01:49am PT
|
Thought Ed did not believe that Yosemite Valley was ever glaciated.
Should we believe him or our lying eyes?
Breaking News!
Russian report kicks the CRU and IPCC AGW theory in the nuts.
It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.
The pain in Copenhagen must be severe. Alcohol sales probably are spiking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-with-climate-data-cherrypicked-warmest-stations/
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 02:33am PT
|
You went back and deleted your post Ed? How 'East Anglia' of you.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 11:26am PT
|
from nro:
"The historical record is clear: Democratic free-market nations are better at protecting their environments than statist regimes for the simple reason that they can afford to. West Germany’s environment was far cleaner than East Germany’s. I’d much sooner drink the tap water in South Korea than North Korea."
i'd add to this the fact that america reduced its emissions by a greater percentage than any nation that signed onto kyoto (and that includes continued decreases during the bush administration)
yes, we can save the planet without destroying civilization (or even just capitalism)
|
|
Deemed Useless
Social climber
Ca.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 12:06pm PT
|
Thanks Ed, I'll go check it out. ~Bob~
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 12:19pm PT
|
According to the US EIA energy use in the US fell in 2008 by 2.2% due to the over 6% decrease in GDP caused principally by the recession and near collapse of the financial system in 2008.
Now if we presume the use of fossil fuels is even two times greater than is sustainable on the planet, an economically caused perturbation of 2% in the US is just noise.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 01:15pm PT
|
^^^ Interesting links.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 01:18pm PT
|
Morphus,
I, too, laugh robustly, though probably not for the same reasons as you. Each of your links -- and the comments after them -- represent a sort of tunnel vision. One side demands impossible rigor from its opponent, but takes on faith the assertions of those with whom it agrees.
"Climategate" hardly disproves the very substantial body of work on athropogenic global warming, but neither is it irrelevant. Rather, it suggests unethical behavior by certain persons very prominent on one side of the debate. The implication is not so much falsehood as exaggeration.
The polemics that have crept into this issue damage the cause of truth. The sooner we recognize this, and adopt more than a veneer of objectivity, the better we serve humanity.
John
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 01:38pm PT
|
One side demands impossible rigor from its opponent, but takes on faith the assertions of those with whom it agrees.
John, I realize you're referencing some blog and media posts, but they refer back to real
science. Do you mean this as a description of modern climate research too? It's very
different from what happens at all the meetings I've been to, and the journals I read.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 01:56pm PT
|
The sense of inevitability has been lost in Copenhagen.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 02:15pm PT
|
No, Chiloe, I was not referring to the real science. I was referring to the political comments and commentators concerning the real science. The problem is that virtually all of the science that makes its way to the public gets filtered through the commentators, which is not surprising. The science is one thing. What we do about that science is a political and economic decision, and current political discussion in the popular press seldom reflects objectivity.
John
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 02:49pm PT
|
There's a classic article by the Boykoffs, "Balance as Bias" (2004), which analyzes
the failure of US prestige press to adequately communicate the science.
"Climate-change skeptics fueled the debate on the
existence of anthropogenic contributions to global
warming by focusing on 'uncertainty.' In line with the
findings of Zehr (2000) and Wilkins (1993), scientific
uncertainty has been the key ingredient inserted into
debates regarding action, often in order to inspire
inaction (Demeritt, 2001).
To illustrate, in 1998 a draft report of a proposal
compiled by industry opponents of action regarding
global warming was leaked to the press. Among the
ideas in the proposal was a 'campaign to recruit a cadre
of scientists who share the industry's views of climate
science and to train them in public relations so they can
help convince journalists, politicians and the public that
the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify.'
Moreover, the plan would measure success 'by counting,
among other things, the percentage of news articles
that raise questions about climate science and the
number of radio talk show appearances by scientists
questioning the prevailing views.' This plan proposed a
media-relations budget of $600,000 that was to be
directed at science writers, editors, columnists and
televisions network correspondents, and was to raise
questions about and undercut the 'prevailing scientific
wisdom.' The informal group that assembled this
report--from big oil companies, conservative policy
research organizations and trade associations--met in
the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington office
(Cushman, 1998, p. A1)."
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 03:11pm PT
|
Some people aren't interested in truth when it threatens what they want to believe.
|
|
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 03:40pm PT
|
Mark Steyn:
"I wrote a couple of weeks back about the corruption of 'peer review' revealed by the CRU leaks. But, once it’s got the peer-reviewed label, it’s hard to dislodge. The famous hockey stick graph created by Dr. Michael Mann played a critical role in persuading millions of people we’re all gonna fry. In the National Post of April 2, 2001, after the UN had adopted this graph as the official proof of global warming, I pointed out that the first nine centuries of the millennium were measured by using tree-ring cycles, and the modern era was represented by temperatures. Now I’m not a climatologist. I’m not even a railroad engineer. But, if you show me a graph that looks like a long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end, I’ll go, 'Whoa! That looks pretty serious. We better head for the hills.' If it then emerges in the fine print that the bungalow was created with one unit of measurement and the skyscraper another, I’ll postpone my departure and go, 'Er, hang on, what’s the deal with that? If we’ve got tree rings for the first nine centuries, why can’t we stick with the tree rings through the 20th?'
"Answer: because after 1960 the tree rings show no express elevator up the thermometer, but in fact a decline. That’s the 'decline' that Dr. Phil Jones, in his leaked email, is trying to 'hide.' Because, if you don’t hide it, a basic truth emerges—-that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and the planet managed to survive and indeed prosper during it. It took two dogged Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, to demolish the hockey-stick fraud, and the enraged priests of the Settled Science cult have spent the years since 2006 trying to stick it back together. Dr. Keith Briffa had a crack in 2007 for the IPCC report. As usual, the CRU refused, in defiance of basic scientific etiquette, to reveal its raw data, but eventually the Royal Society ordered them to. And, when they did, it emerged that Dr. Briffa had cherry-picked a few trees from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia to obtain the desired result."
Now, I'm no climatologist, either, but I do know naked ideology and doomsday scare-mongering when I see them, no matter how much they wrap themselves up as science. The unethical practices of the CRU and like-minded ideologues only serve to drive home the point that their "science" is driven by certain conclusions, which will remain the same no matter what the data reflect.
"Cult of the Settled Science," indeed.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 04:12pm PT
|
The Boykoffs' article, linked by Chiloe, is quite interesting. I've followed this and similar studies on a number of issues. Most of these attempt to measure bias by measuring the relative minutes or column inches given to one "side" or the other of an argument. Anyone who thinks a lack of bias in journalism is good, or even possible, should think about how to define bias.
My favorite definition (I think from David Blackwell, but it could also have been from Ed Leamer): The Lord Chief Justice said, "When I was a young man practicing at the bar, I lost a great many cases I should have won. As I got on in experience, I won a great many cases I should have lost, so on the whole, justice was done." While bias can skew accuracy, a lack of bias, alone, does nothing to create accuracy.
I've never asked for unbiased news, because I don't think it's possible. I expect, however, objective news. Unfortunately, objectivity is much harder to measure. In fact, I'm not sure I know how to make a meaningful definition of media objectivity, but I would give this illustration. When I was practicing law, I usually had a bias in favor of my client, i.e. I wanted to vindicate my client's position. My professional duty to my clients, however, was to evaluate their legal positions objectively -- i.e., as those positions would likely be seen by third parties. In other words, I would sometimes need to say "I think you're right, but I'll never convince a court you're right on this evidence. We need to talk about what we can do with the case given the evidence we have."
Similarly, I would often advise clients on certain transactions (something I still do as an economist), but that advice required that I give an accurate representation of the arguments for and against the particular course of action, then allow the clients the freedom to make their decisions, which may differ from mine.
Objectivity does not require "equal time." It requires accurate assessment of facts. Sad to say, I seldom get that to my satisfaction from much of the media, and particularly from any broadcast media. I value the Wall Street Journal's news precisely because it remains largely objective, Rupert Murdoch's ownership to the contrary notwithstanding.
I've had to do a great deal of personal study and reading to get a handle on the real areas of uncertainty in these matters (which are nowhere near, nor often even about, what most media present). While, as I've said earlier, I find the "Climategate" controversy relevant -- and damaging to certain individuals on one side of the debate -- it does not really change the essentials of the vast body of research. The press, however, with its "all or nothing" approach to this problem, fails to give us anything resembling an accurate or, if you will, objective view of the problem. Neither does arguing that "the other side is a bunch of liars." I know of no shortcut for plowing through the literature.
John
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 05:01pm PT
|
Not surprisingly, climatologists take a different view of the hockey stick graphs than right-wing journalists do. For example,
"MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”).
Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004)."
More at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 06:31pm PT
|
Few details as yet.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQGA4uqEgQDk&pos=8
U.S., China Reach Climate Agreement, White House Says (Update1)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Kim Chipman and Nicholas Johnston
Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and developing countries including China reached a preliminary accord on climate change that is a first step toward combating the problem, a White House official said.
The agreement was reached after President Barack Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South African President, Jacob Zuma, according to the official who requested anonymity.
The U.S. and China have been at an impasse at United Nations-led negotiations in Copenhagen, where 193 countries are struggling to agree on terms for a new accord to cut greenhouse- gas emissions. Obama has proposed a $100 billion-a-year international fund to help poor countries deal with climate change, which is part of today’s accord.
Obama had said China and other major emitters must agree to independent verification of their actions to fight climate change. China has said such a demand is unfair.
The White House official today said industrialized and developing countries have agreed to provide information on implementation of their actions through national communications and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.
To contact the reporters on this story: Kim Chipman in Copenhagen at KChipman@bloomberg.net; Nicholas Johnston in Copenhagen at njohnston6@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 18, 2009 16:21 EST
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 07:06pm PT
|
Ive posted a lot of other folks' graphs, time to put up one of my own.
You saw it here first (because I drew it this afternoon): 114 years of annual temperature
measurements at Acadia National Park. Notable feature: Acadia NP follows the general
pattern of 20th Century Northern Hemisphere temperature trends, seen in much larger-scale
datasets. But in Acadia, the change seems to be a bit steeper.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 07:13pm PT
|
Open Letter to the Climate Science Community
As spoken at the American Geophysical Union 2009 Fall Meeting
These remarks reflect the personal opinions of B.D. Santer. They do not represent the official views of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or the U.S. Department of Energy.
We live in extraordinary scientific and political times.
Over the course of less than a dozen generations, humanity has transitioned from a passive bystander to an active agent of change in the climate system. We are now aware of this fundamental change in our role in the world. We can no longer plead ignorance.
As climate scientists, this is what we know with great confidence:
* We know that human activities have changed the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
* We know that these changes in the composition of the atmosphere have had profound effects on Earth’s climate.
* We know that the human “fingerprint” on climate will become ever more visible over the next few decades, and will impact many aspects of our lives.
* We know that we are at a crossroads in human history. The decisions our political leaders reach in Copenhagen – or fail to reach – will shape the world inherited by future generations.
Our political leadership must have access to the best-available scientific information. Without this information, they will be unable to reach wise decisions on how to respond to the problem of human-caused climate change.
The clearest, most complete assessment of the science is contained in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in the Synthesis and Assessment Products of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and in the scientific assessments of the U.S. National Academy and the Science Academies of other nations. These assessments all underscore the reality of a “discernible human influence” on global climate.
As scientists, we must be free to contribute to such assessments. We must be free to follow the science wherever it leads us, without fear of interference when we “speak truth to power”.
Sadly, climate scientists now see and feel interference from political and economic interests. This interference is pervasive. Powerful forces are using a criminal act – the theft of over a thousand emails from the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit – to advance their own agendas.
These “forces of unreason” seek to constrain our ability to speak truth to power. They seek to skew and distort what we know about the nature and causes of climate change. Having failed to undermine climate science itself, they seek to destroy the reputations of individual climate scientists. They seek to destroy men like Phil Jones and Mike Mann, who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding.
We must not let this stand.
We no longer have the luxury of remaining silent on these issues. We all have voices. We need to use them.
Benjamin D. Santer
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow
San Ramon, California
December 14, 2009*
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 07:29pm PT
|
Ben makes too many silly assumptions.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!