Some scientists have made mistakes in their measurements or in the interpretation of data. If any of it is wrong, it could all be wrong -- so I don't have to pay attention to any of it.*Scientists are human, and they do make mistakes. The question is, do the mistakes actually disprove the overall conclusions or not? Climate scientists almost universally state that nothing published about any errors by any scientists anywhere actually invalidates the overwhelming amount of data that show 1) that there has been a large increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 2) the increase is almost certainly due to human activities, and further 3) that we are beginning to see an increase in average global temperature as a result. An amazing 97% of climate scientists agree with these three statements.
The leaked emails, or "Climate-gate"
However, one recent event has been taken by some to indicate that there is a "conspiracy" by scientists to exaggerate the degree of global warming, or the extent to which humans have caused it. This was the discovery of emails from a group of British scientists who were discussing how to best present some of their data. In this post, I will focus on this event as an example of what I believe is a willful misinterpretation of the leaked emails by some global warming skeptics. At the least, the general interpretation in the press reflects a basic misunderstanding of what scientists do and how they think.
Scientists are in general people devoted to finding out the truth. They look at some part of the natural world, and wonder, "how does it work?" They may have some brilliant insight, a hypothesis, but only the data will prove if they are right or wrong.
Scientists tend to have contempt for those who are instead believers, who are interested in using science not to find out truth, but only to bolster their particular beliefs. No matter what evidence you bring up, these people pay attention only to the part of the science that bolsters their beliefs. Currently this group includes creationists, some oil and tobacco industry "scientists" and many (not all) climate science skeptics.
Real scientists have a particular contempt for those "scientists" who are, in fact, paid to believe in a certain way. Such people usually hide their affiliation. Some of the strongest voices in the climate science skeptic camp were supported indirectly by the tobacco industry to voice doubts about climate science data. Some skeptical scientists today appear to be covertly supported by the coal and oil industries.
The British scientists felt, rightly or not, that their loudest doubters and skeptics were these kind of paid skeptics. Their worry about how their research would be received led them to discuss, by email, how they might best counter such skepticism. As a scientist, I think the emails show the following, and only the following:
1. These scientists had the hypothesis that the global temperature was increasing, and that at least part of the increase could be attributed to human activities.
2. Their results were consistent with this hypothesis but did not prove it beyond all possible doubt (impossible in science in any case).
3. As noted, they expected that there would be professional doubters (people paid to be doubters) who would attack their results in every way possible and as loudly as possible.
4. They therefore determined to present the data in a way that it supported their hypothesis as much as possible. This is not cheating as long as data points are not selectively excluded, or are excluded for valid reasons and the exclusion is acknowledged.
5. One of them vowed to "beat the crap out of" one of the skeptics at a meeting. This didn't mean a physical fight. This is scientist talk for taking the skeptic on in a full-press debate during the meeting.
6. The scientists had a low opinion of many of the skeptics, especially those they considered to be paid skeptics, or those who choose to believe in a certain outcome, in spite of the facts, so they can continue "business as usual."
There have been a number of independent reviews of the leaked emails. Five AP reporters, for example, summed up an exhaustive review under the heading "E-mails don't prove climate science fake." The only negative thing noted at the end was that "The e-mails showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics." As noted, this is completely understandable given the scientists' view of paid skeptics, or people who refuse to admit the truth for personal or business reasons.
Unfortunately, the AP story was carried on page 16 of my local newspaper, and most skeptics -- their minds already made up -- will never read it. Or if they do, they won't believe it.
Even if fraud WAS committed by the "climate-gate" team
There have been more recent allegations that actual fraud was committed by the British scientists. Even if true, the main point of this whole section is that it would NOT falsify the results by the many other teams of scientists worldwide. So, we would argue:
1) The British team created no actual fraud or falsification of data.
2) Even if they did, their main conclusions are true.
3) Even if their main conclusions are found to be inconclusive, the conclusions reached by the vast majority of the world's experts remain intact. And we will stop and take our stand there.
How disingenuous! They always have an answer! I hear the climate skeptics scream. Well, actually quite a bit less disingenuous than the apparently infinite series of fallback positions that the skeptics universally put forth, often in the same comment. And they never stop and take a stand. A partial list of their sequential fall-back positions was provided in the introduction.
DETAILSThe leaked emails, or "Climate-gate"
However, one recent event has been taken by some to indicate that there is a "conspiracy" by scientists to exaggerate the degree of global warming, or the extent to which humans have caused it. This was the discovery of emails from a group of British scientists who were discussing how to best present some of their data. In this post, I will focus on this event as an example of what I believe is a willful misinterpretation of the leaked emails by some global warming skeptics. At the least, the general interpretation in the press reflects a basic misunderstanding of what scientists do and how they think.
Scientists are in general people devoted to finding out the truth. They look at some part of the natural world, and wonder, "how does it work?" They may have some brilliant insight, a hypothesis, but only the data will prove if they are right or wrong.
Scientists tend to have contempt for those who are instead believers, who are interested in using science not to find out truth, but only to bolster their particular beliefs. No matter what evidence you bring up, these people pay attention only to the part of the science that bolsters their beliefs. Currently this group includes creationists, some oil and tobacco industry "scientists" and many (not all) climate science skeptics.
Real scientists have a particular contempt for those "scientists" who are, in fact, paid to believe in a certain way. Such people usually hide their affiliation. Some of the strongest voices in the climate science skeptic camp were supported indirectly by the tobacco industry to voice doubts about climate science data. Some skeptical scientists today appear to be covertly supported by the coal and oil industries.
The British scientists felt, rightly or not, that their loudest doubters and skeptics were these kind of paid skeptics. Their worry about how their research would be received led them to discuss, by email, how they might best counter such skepticism. As a scientist, I think the emails show the following, and only the following:
1. These scientists had the hypothesis that the global temperature was increasing, and that at least part of the increase could be attributed to human activities.
2. Their results were consistent with this hypothesis but did not prove it beyond all possible doubt (impossible in science in any case).
3. As noted, they expected that there would be professional doubters (people paid to be doubters) who would attack their results in every way possible and as loudly as possible.
4. They therefore determined to present the data in a way that it supported their hypothesis as much as possible. This is not cheating as long as data points are not selectively excluded, or are excluded for valid reasons and the exclusion is acknowledged.
5. One of them vowed to "beat the crap out of" one of the skeptics at a meeting. This didn't mean a physical fight. This is scientist talk for taking the skeptic on in a full-press debate during the meeting.
6. The scientists had a low opinion of many of the skeptics, especially those they considered to be paid skeptics, or those who choose to believe in a certain outcome, in spite of the facts, so they can continue "business as usual."
There have been a number of independent reviews of the leaked emails. Five AP reporters, for example, summed up an exhaustive review under the heading "E-mails don't prove climate science fake." The only negative thing noted at the end was that "The e-mails showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics." As noted, this is completely understandable given the scientists' view of paid skeptics, or people who refuse to admit the truth for personal or business reasons.
Unfortunately, the AP story was carried on page 16 of my local newspaper, and most skeptics -- their minds already made up -- will never read it. Or if they do, they won't believe it.
Even if fraud WAS committed by the "climate-gate" team
There have been more recent allegations that actual fraud was committed by the British scientists. Even if true, the main point of this whole section is that it would NOT falsify the results by the many other teams of scientists worldwide. So, we would argue:
1) The British team created no actual fraud or falsification of data.
2) Even if they did, their main conclusions are true.
3) Even if their main conclusions are found to be inconclusive, the conclusions reached by the vast majority of the world's experts remain intact. And we will stop and take our stand there.
How disingenuous! They always have an answer! I hear the climate skeptics scream. Well, actually quite a bit less disingenuous than the apparently infinite series of fallback positions that the skeptics universally put forth, often in the same comment. And they never stop and take a stand. A partial list of their sequential fall-back positions was provided in the introduction.
*This might seem like a ludicrous oversimplification of the reasoning process of many critics, but it is not. Witness also the huge fuss made over one mistake found in a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers. While this certainly has relevance to the immediacy of a threat to the water supply for a lot of people, it has nothing at all to do with the general conclusion that global warming poses an immediate danger to the planet. You'd never know this by the headlines which screamed, "Global warming claims exaggerated."
COMMENTS
March 25, 2010. Gary said...
I am sorry to inform you but what was revealed by Climategate et all was not a mistake but a carefully orchestrated series of frauds and obfuscations of fact. This is so clear that many, many, many of these ethically challenged scientists are going to be charged in civil court with fraud. And, I will not be surprised if you don't see some very serious criminal charges levied as well. This was not a simple case of mistakes piled on mistakes. This was systemic fraud perpetrated on the public with the willing help of the media (who are now beginning to see the depth of the fraud and are beginning to act correctly). You make claims about Big Business making money from the way things are yet you completely ignore the billions of dollars that have been stolen from the public and given over to create a whole new market (the carbon trading scheme which incidentally was first dreamed up by Ken Lay of ENRON fame) paid for by the taxes of the people.
Additionally you seem to believe that the CO2 levels increase in a linnear fashion. This has been shown to not be true and in fact CO2 levels follow a logrithmic scale.
I could go on and on poking holes in your arguments but why bother. You are a true believer or worse a profiteer from this "pseudo sciience" who when presented with real facts will ignore them.
April 1, 2010. David replies...
The CO2 levels were shown to rise in an exponential fashion, perhaps you mean that they would look linear on a logarithmic scale.
The most recent decision out of Great Britain (as if March 30) was that the Climategate scientists were found not guilty of anything except poor judgment in email language. The science was vindicated. This story was, of course, NOT carried on the front page of any paper I read, but well back in the first section.
However, your email is an excellent example of the cartoon at the top of this page. Any mistake is assumed proof that the science is a fraud and it is all false. And I see that the global warming deniers are now claiming that the finding itself is evidence of more collusion and fraud. Nothing will matter to anyone if their minds are made up.
Since when did she have a brain to understand the simplest of matters, let alone complicated matters such as climate change. Dump her opinions.....she is the worst enemy of humankind in recent memory
ReplyDeleteThese 10 arguements are lame at best. The fact is the ONLY data that suggests that the last 10 years have been warming are either from the IPCC who's data is no doubt in question or NOAAs. NOAA's data is now in questin with the recent paper out that shows that of the 6000 weather stations used prior to the 1990s, 4500 of them have been SHUT DOWN. A disproportionate number of them were close in cold climates, rural, and high elevations. Furthermore, 83% of those stations did NOT fit the correct perameters. Many were located in concern or pavement PARKING LOTS......THIS BLOG IS A JOKE!!!!
ReplyDeleteYou unfortunately prove my point. You are looking only at the data which supports your belief. The most important single data set here, and I have made this point repeatedly, is the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL. That has risen above any ice age level, as the very careful measurements on Mauna Loa show. It doesn't matter what the temperatures are in the short term, or if that data set is flawed. What matters in the long run is the exponential increase in the CO2 level, which will soon dominate every other factor if it hasn't already. I hope you are a young person, because I hope you will be around in 10 years. I would like to hear you defend your position then. If you want to argue with any single post here, try arguing with that one. That's number 3.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to inform you but what was revealed by Climategate et all was not a mistake but a carefully orchestrated series of frauds and obfuscations of fact. This is so clear that many, many, many of these ethically challenged scientists are going to be charged in civil court with fraud. And, I will not be surprised if you don't see some very serious criminal charges levied as well. This was not a simple case of mistakes piled on mistakes. This was systemic fraud perpetrated on the public with the willing help of the media (who are now beginning to see the depth of the fraud and are beginning to act correctly). You make claims about Big Business making money from the way things are yet you completely ignore the billions of dollars that have been stolen from the public and given over to create a whole new market (the carbon trading scheme which incidentally was first dreamed up by Ken Lay of ENRON fame) paid for by the taxes of the people.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally you seem to believe that the CO2 levels increase in a linnear fashion. This has been shown to not be true and in fact CO2 levels follow a logrithmic scale.
I could go on and on poking holes in your arguments but why bother. You are a true believer or worse a profiteer from this "pseudo sciience" who when presented with real facts will ignore them.