GroupThink Makes Objectivity Difficult

Take Climate Change for example: A story in the MSM that ballyhoos the "conversion" of a sceptic to a CACC(GW) believer is way overstated. Not only does he have a clear (Google-able) trail of belief in GW but at least one scholar seriously disagrees with the conclusions of his study.

With this kind of rah-rah journalism how do we sort out the conflicting claims? That the earth is warming is more or less given. How much is the earth warming and to what degree is this warming anthropogenic are the questions that need a sober, scholarly answer.

*More on that Global Warming "Convert" and his paper proving:

More on that Global Warming "Convert" and his paper proving Global Warming.

Like I noted yesterday, there is solid research that the temperature data for ground warming is systematically biased in favor of the "warmist" conclusion.

But - wait! - there's more:

I’ve reached Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who was a co-author of the first four BEST papers but who declined to be listed as an author of this one.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Lex Communis.)

Global Warming

isn't what it used to be. The actual data and reasoning about long-term effects of humans on the climate remain opaque to me. But there's still something uncomfortably like the Chicken-Little panic about some of the claims that have been made, not least by Al Gore. So this is interesting news:

The Thing that Used to be Global Warming...:

...and then morphed into the much-harder to grip "climate change" is suffering from severe changes in the climate of public opinion. Happens when you get caught with your pants down.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

Two Points of View

on the brief Oxburgh report; I'm unable to evaluate the differences between the two. First, Global Warming:

Second CRU inquiry reports:

The Oxburgh report on the science done at the CRU has now been published and….. as in the first inquiry, they find no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of the results to a preconceived agenda, though they do suggest more statisticians should have been involved. They have also some choice words to describe the critics.

Carry on…

(Via RealClimate.)

Now the opposition:

Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick:

The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.

They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)

Read the whole thing.

(Via Climate Audit.)

Fair and Balanced

coverage of the Climategate issue is my goal. So here's a response from the "Yes there is potentially catastrophic anthropogenic global warming going on" side:

The Economist does not disappoint:

The March 20th -26th cover story of The Economist, “Spin, science and climate change,” deftly bypasses the politics surrounding ‘climategate’, to tackle the more important issue: whether any of this has any bearing on climate change science and policy. This is a refreshing bit of journalism that everyone should read.

Read the whole thing.

(Via RealClimate.)

Oh Good

Another reason to doubt Global Warming:

Settled Science Based on Unsettled Data:

Science requires the collection and interpretation of data. Consensus, therefore, requires that there be no significant dispute on either the data (e.g., its relevance) or it interpretation. The debate over whether there is a “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change has tended to focus on the interpretation of the data.

But what if the data is fatally flawed?

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

Global Warming and Science

The following citation is an interesting breakdown of the issues surrounding global temperatures over the last sixty or so years. It identifies five different issues with the 2007 IPCC claim which attributes most of the rise of 0.7 ° C over that period to human GHG.

This article identifies five different issues with the Hadley ("Climategate") data which is the basis for the IPCC claim. These five issues break down into two different types: those which modify the original 0.7 ° C itself and those which attribute a different cause. Of those which suggest different causes, some are not anthropogenic, but one is (soot).

So let's correct the original number to 0.47 ° C by eliminating the sea surface temperature errors and the non-climatic signal change ("urbanization"). We then identify four possible causes contributing to this change. Two are anthropogenic and two are not. Those causes we are not responsible for are Stratospheric water vapour and the Sun. Stratospheric water vapour contributes about 0.06 ° C. The Sun's contribution is more problematic.

We don't actually know what, if anything, the sun contributes to our climate variations. The seasons themselves seems to indicate a large role--less sunlight equals colder temperatures. But what about longer-term changes in climate? The scientist cited comes up with different hypotheses that range from no contribution to 65% of the observed warming over the last sixty years. He then cited plumps for 33% for no reason cited. Yet the graph only drops 0.1 ° C. So something is being done with these successive graphs that I'm not understanding.

Of the two anthropogenic causes Black Carbon (soot) contributes 0.1 ° C or about twenty percent of the total. The remainder includes GHG and any other causes as yet unidentified. This apparently amounts to about 0.2 ° C or about 40% of the total. In other words, we seem to be contributing more than twenty percent to current warming, but possibly less than sixty percent. That still seems pretty serious to me, so I'm at a loss to explain the articles conclusion which reduces GHG's contribution to less than a third (which it may, in fact, be) by merging all the various issues indiscriminately.

Most of the Observed Warming since the Mid-20th Century Likely Not from Human GHG Emissions?:

A few weeks ago, over at the blog MasterResource.org, WCR’s Chip Knappenberger took a look at just how confident one should be regarding the amount of warming that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have caused since the mid-20th century.
The IPCC claims that it is “very likely” that “most” of the warming since then has been [...]

Read the whole thing.

(Via World Climate Report.)

Climategate

may be getting some uncomfortable exposure over the pond. I'm still agnostic. But the behaviour attributed to some of these scientists seems completely normal given Original Sin.

Opening Night Reviews in the UK Press:

Richard Drake sent in an interesting selection of opening night reviews for the Parliamentary Inquiry from UK parliamentary reporters, most of whom seem to be new to the climate wars and offering a relatively fresh perspective.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Climate Audit.)

You Decide

This is an opportunity to see an actual debate between ACC(GW) proponents and critics. How many university courses do I need to take to confidently reach my own conclusions?

Quick Response to Ben Santer’s Comments at RealClimate:

Ben Santer has an article over at RealClimate defending himself against some claims made recently by Fred Pearce in a series of articles Pearce did for the U.K.’s Guardian in recent weeks.
In particular, Santer discusses a 1996 paper that he (and colleagues) published in Nature magazine in which they reported to have identified a human [...]

Read the whole thing.

(Via World Climate Report.)

Global Warming

remains a concern for me. Is it happening? How fast? Are we responsible for it? What, if anything, can we do about it? These are important questions that need to be answered.

But it's difficult to answer when information is being offered by experts that is questionable:

Update on Global Drought Patterns (IPCC Take Note):

We are sure you have heard that global warming is causing more frequent and intense droughts throughout the world. Right? The claim is easy to make – higher temperatures increase evaporation rates, soil moisture is depleted, and drought conditions result. Indeed the Technical Summary of the most recent IPCC assessment includes “More intense [...]

Read the whole thing.

(Via World Climate Report.)

There Are Facts and There Are Facts

I'm still struggling with the competing narratives of the CACC(GW) so more competition is not welcome. Trying to remember that we're in the Holocene epoch of the Quaternary period isn't too much of a strain. Terms like the Holocene Climatic Optimum and Younger Dryas stadial are starting to test me, though. The net result of my research to date is to confirm that we are in an interglacial interval in the current ice age. that has had some significant climate fluctuations

Pressing issues include was there a Medieval Warm Period? How warm was it compared to today? (Or can we even reasonably know that?) The same issues arise with the Little Ice Age. Different scientific opinions can be read differently. These are deep waters for a high school graduate.

It's not only that different folks massage different sets of facts differently, but that different facts can be highlighted and others ignored from the same set of facts:

A Christmas Story: Some Facts about Greenland:

The wonderful Christmas season is upon us, and no Christmas story would be complete without snow. If you really like snow, Greenland is the place for you! The snow there lasts all year long and is 1,000s of feet deep in the interior – a white Christmas is guaranteed every year in this [...]

Read the whole thing.

(Via World Climate Report.)

Climate Wars?

I'm trying to keep an open mind on the CACC(GW) theory while I do some desultory reading. So I've subscribed to RealClimate, Climate Audit and World Climate Report. The early returns suggest that I might get bogged down in details, scientific arguments I'm not competent to resolve and competing narratives:

Climategatekeeping: Wikipedia:

Lawrence Solomon has an interesting column in the National Post today on William Connolley’s climategatekeeping role at Wikipedia. See also an article last year.

Connolley was one of the nine realclimate founders, but posted little at realclimate. This has notoriously not been the case at Wikipedia. Solomon reports that Connolley “created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles” and that Connolley was granted a senior editorial and administrative status at Wikipedia that enabled him to delete “over 500 articles” and “barred” more than 2000 Wikipedia contributors who “ran afoul of him”.

Particular areas of interest for Connolley were the Hockey Stick debate e.g. here,

Check it out

Read the whole thing.

(Via Climate Audit.)

There's a Cold Breeze Blowing

against CACC(GW). Isn't there something self-serving about simultaneously blocking access to peer-review while dismissing alternative theories because they haven't been peer-reviewed? Admittedly the attempt to block access hasn't been 100 per cent effective. Does that mean we should trust the peer review process when it comes to Climate Change?

WSJ: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus:

Be sure not to miss Pat Michaels’ view of one of the most important impacts of ‘Climategate’–the biasing of the contents of the scientific literature upon which the EPA bases its Endangerment Finding.
Pat lays out his case in today’s (Dec. 17, 2009) Wall Street Journal.
In summary:
The result of all this is that our refereed literature [...]

Read the whole thing.

(Via World Climate Report.)

Confidence

in Science is not increase by this sort of news:

Another crack in the wall

Russians confirm that Global Warming is based on "cherry-picked" data.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with

Read the whole thing.

(Via Lex Communis.)

A Different Perspective

on the Copenhagen Climate Conference:

If the Marx Brothers Held a Climate Conference:

It would look like this

Read the whole thing.

(Via Campaign Standard.)

Less Babies

equals happiness? The dark underside of the environmentalist religion has started showing a little more prominently. Promoting the totalitarian regime in China as a leader in the CACC(GW) movement doesn't inspire confidence. These are the children of Mao and he had millions of deaths on his conscience when he died. The current leadership hasn't renounced a single one.

The One-Child policy continues, albeit slightly less draconian in places, and forced sterilizations and abortions still occur. This kind of madness is only now having deleterious effects that are being recognized by these leaders. This is not the kind of leadership anyone needs. Alas, the Financial Post hasn't caught up with the news. As Mark Shea says: "Just enough of me, too much of you". So the following isn't entirely unexpected:

Carbon Scheme: Offset Your Jet-Set Lifestyle by Eliminating African Babies:

Population control groups have been using the hype surrounding the Copenhagen climate change conference to promote their solution to hypothetical impending environmental catastrophes. Earlier this month, two pieces appearing in the same edition of the Guardian revisited a report by Britain's Optimum Population Trust (OPT) that suggests that people in wealthy first-world countries should "offset" the carbon cost of their jet-setting lifestyles by paying to prevent the births of poor children in the developing world.

Read the whole thing.

(Via LifeSiteNews.)

The Sky is Falling!

While I wrestle with the vexing issue of whether and how much the base climate change data has been manipulated there is still the uneasy feeling of salesmanship. When I took a Business Communication course many years ago, one technique they mentioned was "backing the hearse up to the door".

This is a sales technique that uses naked fear to sell some good or service to the prospective customer. Examples of it are on TV all the time. If they're not using sex to sell something, it's about our fears. And the sense that there is an overplayed emotionality to the sales pitch for CACC(GW) reminds me uncomfortably of this technique.

Mark Shea brings in some nice insights from GKC while expatiating on this theme:

PANIC!!!!!:

The pattern that emerges over the decade is that the preferred governing style of our Ruling Classes is to scare the daylights out of people with some sort of world-imperilling threat and then use the panic to stampede us toward this or that consolidation of massive power.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

A LIttle More Direct

than I would put it:

Jimmy Akin Shares My Skepticism About AGW:

in spades.

When they tell you "Shut up about Climaquiddick! We need to adopt a global one child policy right now!" you should be very skeptical about what the Stampeders in our Ruling Classes are up to.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

Data Manipulation

doesn't equal conscious fakery, by the way:

ClimateGate: Was Data Faked? - Megan McArdle:

To me, the worry is the subtler kind of bias that we indisputably know has led to scientific errors in the past.  Richard Feynman has the most elegant exposition I've ever read:

Read the whole thing.

(Via Campaign Standard.)

Where to Start?

If I'm going to try to get off the fence about CACC(GW) what process should I use? I prefer the process of asking questions. So I'm trying to compose a series of questions that will help me assess, as an ignorant lay-person, the validity of the various claims made.

First question, is the global climate warming? If so, over what period of time and relative to what? This involves a lot more research than I'm entirely comfortable doing. I'd have to assess paleoclimatological questions as well. Hypotheses like the MWP and the "Little Ice age", not to mention even more ancient climate change theories, would have to be dealt with.

Second question, to what extent is this change, if it exists, outside normal change?

Third question, what contribution, if any, are human beings making towards this change, if it exists?

Lastly, what are the chances, assuming we can estimate such things, that these changes will have catastrophic effects on humankind?

Unfortunately, I seem to be stuck at the first question. If the "overwhelming proof" that the climate is rapidly warming has been created by statistical manipulation, how am I to assess what is really happening? The good news is that the blogosphere is on the job:

Intellectual freedom: The difference the blogosphere makes:

In "Bloggers peer review a scientific 'consensus,'" Gordon Crovitz writes (Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2009),

Blogging scientists have been busy reviewing the 15,000 lines of code by programmers that were included in the "Documents" folder of the leaked materials. The latest twist is hidden notations in the data from programmers that indicate where they had manipulated results. The programmers expressed frustration when the numbers didn't fit the case for global warming.

Comments in the code include "These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures," referring to an effort to suppress data showing that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. Comments inside the code also described an "adjustment" as follows: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!" Another notation indicated when a "fudge factor" had been added.

Read the rest here.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Post-Darwinist.)

Doubt and Belief

are two sides of the same coin: our attempts to achieve knowledge. In the CACC(GW) debate I'm still on the fence. And the recent brouhaha over the hacked emails (I prefer "the CRUtape letters" as a moniker) I'll let others parse their meaning and import before giving anything like a settled opinion.

It's the uneasy feeling that there are agendas behind some the alarmism. The movie clip that was part of the Copenhagen summit has a little girl screaming while holding on to the branch of dead tree and surrounded by raging waters. That creeps me out: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!".

And I'm reminded that this isn't the only alarmist nonsense that was used to advance radical change in recent history. Who can forget the "Population Bomb"?

Scientists Behaving Badly:

Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future. Yet the hysteria of the global warming campaigners and their monomaniacal advocacy of absurdly expensive curbs on fossil fuel use have led to a political dead end that will become more apparent with the imminent collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process. I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s--as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated, and whose proposed solutions were wrongheaded and often genuinely evil

Read the whole thing.

(Via Campaign Standard.)