The NYT reports on various efforts to restore the credibility of climate science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the wake of “ClimateGate” and the discovery of a handful false claims and misrepresentation of scientific research in portions of the IPCC reports.
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
The e-mail episode, dubbed “climategate” by critics, revealed arrogance and what one top climate researcher called “tribalism” among some scientists. The correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The content of the messages opened some well-known scientists to charges of concealing temperature data from rival researchers and manipulating results to conform to precooked conclusions. . . .
A survey conducted in late December by Yale University and George Mason University found that the number of Americans who believed that climate change was a hoax or scientific conspiracy had more than doubled since 2008, to 16 percent of the population from 7 percent. An additional 13 percent of Americans said they thought that even if the planet was warming, it was a result solely of natural factors and was not a significant concern.
Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy. . . .
A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.
Two universities are investigating the work of top climate scientists to determine whether they have violated academic standards and undermined faith in science. The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate. And a vigorous debate is under way among climate scientists on how to make their work more transparent and regain public confidence.
These are all positive steps, but the problems for climate science are deeper. As ASU’s Dan Sarewitz explains in Nature, part of the problem has been that participants in the climate policy debate have focuses on climate science, as if some climate consensus could translate into clear policy mandates. This is fool’s errand, as climate science will not generate the requisite degree of certainty, let alone consensus policy prescriptions in the absence of a broader political consensus. He writes:
The idea that a mounting weight of scientific evidence would gradually overwhelm ideological opposition to the climate policy regime is not just false but backwards. Science is muchmore pliable and permissive than deeply held beliefs about how the world should work. Scientific understanding of the complex, coupled ocean–atmosphere–society system is always incomplete, and gives the competing sides plenty of support for their pre-existing political preferences — as well as plenty to hide behind in claiming that those preferences are supported by science. Science can decisively support policy only after fundamental political differences have been resolved.
Science may tell us that certain emission projections create a risk of certain climatic changes, but it won’t tell us what (if anything) to do about it, as such policy prescriptions are also dependent upon normative judgments that may be informed, but not dictated, by scientific conclusions. Sarewitz further argues that conservatives and liberals alike have to stop pretending as if science does — or even can — support only their preferred policy approach.
Speaking of those who pretend as if climate science supports their preferred policy agenda, and no other, Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress has been challenged to debate climate policy with Roger Pielke Jr. to be hosted by Foreign Policy. But it seems this debate won’t take place. Romm regularly attacks Pielke’s work on his blog, for even though Pielke believes climate change is a serious problem, he disagrees with Romm’s policy prescriptions. Yet even after several dozen anti-Pielke comments and blog posts, Romm is refusing to go mano-a-mano.
What’s going on? Some advocates of steep emission reductions refuse to debate those who argue against the existence of an anthropogenic contribution to global warming because they don’t want to “legitimize” such perspectives, but not Romm. He’s debated Marc Morano of Climate Depot, among other so-called “skeptics.” Then why not debate a non-skeptic like Pielke? Perhaps because this would require the admission that there is a greater diversity of mainstream liberal policy views about climate change. Debating Pielke could force Romm to admit that one can believe climate change is a serious concern, and nonetheless believe there are problems with the IPCC process and conventional emission-reduction proposals. Perhaps such an admission poses a greater threat to Romm’s narrative (and “Climate McCarthyism”) than the actual skeptics. More from Ron Bailey here.
lucia says:
Has Romm official turned down the offer to debate? Or are you just predicting he won’t accept before the deadline associated with the various donations lapses?
[In comments on his blog he has repeatedly said he will not debate Pielke. JHA]
March 4, 2010, 5:50 pmEric Rasmusen says:
Romm’s other debate was in April 2009. By March 2010 it’s embarassing for a climate warmer to show his face in public. So many adverse facts have emerged, and so many claims have proven to be false, that he’d get wiped out in a debate.
March 4, 2010, 6:19 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that right now, it would be hard to argue the case for AGW, and, in particular, for major policy initiatives as a result. The opponents would, I think, have the advantage of fairly frequently breaking stories that would seem to put AGW in doubt, and keeping abreast of those stories by a warmist would seem to be a difficult task.
In other words, the skeptic would likely only need to be current on a small number of the negative stories, while the proponent of AGW would likely need to have a response to all of them. That is because the skeptic would be in a position of picking and choosing his means of attack, while the proponent would be on the defensive.
March 4, 2010, 6:37 pmorca says:
Preventing Americans getting cheaper and cleaner energy is easy?
March 4, 2010, 7:01 pmBruce Hayden says:
Working backwards, the problem is that the accepted “green” energy sources are significantly more expensive, still, than your “dirty” ones, even though they really aren’t that dirty, unless you accept that CO2 is a pollutant, which was part of the original story here, but you are specifically disclaiming in your last paragraph. Of course, there is also nuclear, which is clean and could be cheap, but is not considered “green”.
I do agree that a lot of Americans would like to cut our dependence upon foreign sources of oil. But the easiest and cheapest way to do that would be to drill what we already have, but can’t.
And, finally, as to the first point, so what? In this debate that might have happened, the denialist would certainly know about some, or likely most, of these problems with AGW, and that is what is important.
March 4, 2010, 7:08 pmpmorem says:
Preventing Americans getting cheaper and cleaner energy is easy?
orca, if you’re prepared to argue that some clean energy (other than nuclear, which I acknowledge) is being kept off the market in spite of being cheaper, please do. I’d want to know how its being kept off the market. My perspective is that markets are highly mercenary (iow whores) and quite ready to go with a more attractive offer, so whatever obstacles would most likely be regulatory.
I’m very open to an arguement that some clean, cheap energy is being kept off the market by regulatory means.
March 4, 2010, 7:38 pmStephen Lathrop says:
That seems wise. Perhaps we should be discussing WHY we want particular climate science issues to come out one way or another. That would get everybody away from playing climate scientist on TV, as it were, and bring the real driving issues into sharper focus.
March 4, 2010, 7:49 pmNobody At All says:
I am not sure what to make of this argument. To be sure, it is a characteristic of deductive logic that normative statements do not follow from descriptive statements: one cannot derive “ought” from “is.”
However, a normative case for either mitigation or adaptation depends upon factual premises concerning the role of climatic role of GHG, what sorts of climate changes can reasonably be expected from increasing concentrations of CO2, etc. Those who are against mitigation (or adaptation) argue against the factual premises of the normative conclusion.
It is true that Romm (and others like him) do their best to bully those who disagree with their policy prescriptions. But let’s be clear: most of the heat of the argument is not generated by debate between people who want cap-and-trade or a carbon tax or a cap-and-dividend or increasing R&D or geoengineering. Generally speaking, the heat of the debate is between people who accept the factual premise, and those who don’t.
And this makes a lot of sense: why would I want *any* of these policy prescriptions if I did not accept the factual premise? I want to start pumping aerosols into the atmosphere if I do not believe in global warming? It just doesn’t make sense – because the factual predicate is missing.
The debate is over establishing the factual predicate. And I know that Professor Pielke, Jr.’s feelings are hurt – and I have enormous respect for him – but he is missing the point of the entire debate if he thinks that the average person knows who he is, or what Joe Romm has said to him. It is over the factual predicate.
March 4, 2010, 7:50 pmorca says:
I disagree.
Clean energy, like legalization of marijuana and gay marriage is coming to America no matter what their opponents do.
March 4, 2010, 7:59 pmJohn Neff says:
orca:
Clean energy, like legalization of marijuana and gay marriage is coming to America no matter what their opponents do.
I think you have the order reversed.
March 4, 2010, 8:12 pmpmorem says:
Nobody At All wrote:
The debate is over establishing the factual predicate.
I excerpted that for brevity. I completely concur.
I’ll add that I am quite pleased to see the new emphasis on the quality of the science.
March 4, 2010, 8:15 pmBobC says:
I semi-concur.
The question I have is:
What level evidence is needed to establish factual predicate in science? Is it even possible? A preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
March 4, 2010, 8:23 pmJ. Perulfi says:
Here is a less normative/positive view, but more visceral explanation. Broder writes a column generally about AGW and specifically Phil Jones’ testimony regarding the wayward emails. What does he come away with – “I wrote some bad emails” Jones also said scientists usually don’t reveal their models and data. Given the policy prescriptions, they damn well better give them up. Broder may have unknowingly given the real reason for the lack of scientific transparency – “… the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work”. That flushing noise is your scientific career going down the toilet.
March 4, 2010, 8:29 pmGuest Again says:
Orca is right about clean energy coming irrespective of a verdict and action on AGW. The newer generation of wind turbines and pricing on them and the direct and indirect subsidies and the states’ RPS legislation have all brought wind energy cost per kW of a new wind farm to that of a new coal fired plant. An easy call if you are a utility CEO.
March 4, 2010, 8:30 pmFrancis says:
“a handful false claims and misrepresentation of scientific research in portions of the IPCC reports”.
As I understand it, there have been ZERO established errors in the Working Group 1 report and ONE error in the WG 2 — the very serious error regarding glacier loss in the Himalayas. See, eg, here. Do you, or RPJr., have any different info?
By contrast, the most recent claim of one group of consensus-disputers — that the reported warming trend is false due to manipulation of reporting stations — has been disproven. See here.
BTW, it’s kind of a low blow to call out Joe Romm for refusing to debate RPJr. when RPJr. wouldn’t first define what the debate is to be about or the rules for determining the winner. Both have well-read blogs; if RPJr.’s got something to say, what’s stopping him?
March 4, 2010, 8:33 pmpmorem says:
BobC wrote:
The question I have is:
What level evidence is needed to establish factual predicate in science? Is it even possible? A preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
That becomes a political question, to which I can only guess the answer.
I believe there is a possible political/policy consensus. I do not believe it is currently on the table.
… I was going to go into more depth attempting to answer, but the number of uncertainties exploded beyond my ability to sift them or even manage them with caveats.
March 4, 2010, 9:07 pmNobody At All says:
I view it as an exercise in risk management, and would suggest an analysis along the lines of:
1) Identify the risk.
2) Assess severity/scope of the risk.
3) Consider alternative risk management strategies.
Politically, I think that most of the heat (among the general public) is in #1 – i.e. do increasing CO2 and other GHG emissions pose a risk? I think that most of the sources that skeptics turn to and trust actually admit #1, and focus more on #2: the severity and scope of the risk. However, these sources do not go out of their way to disabuse people in camp #1 of their misconception, and often even appear to encourage the misconception.
I think that there are broad areas of consensus (though not in every area) among working climate scientists regarding the severity and risks posed. (i.e. step #2) It is at this point that I think climate skeptics represent a decidedly small minority viewpoint, and depart from the mainstream judgment.
I think that there is much less consensus about step #3 – how to manage these risks. It is here that Pielke, Jr. makes many good points. However, it is worth noting that many people who depart from the mainstream on questions #1 and #2 appear to like his thoughts. Perhaps (and this is even more speculative than the rest) the thought is that “well, even if I’ve failed to identify the source of the risk, and the scope and severity of risk, at least I haven’t messed up the policy – as a happy coincidence, it is the best thing to do, whether or not you believe in the mainstream view of the effects of increasing CO2 emissions, or the scope and severity of the risk it entails.” Personally, I would appreciate it if people were disabused of this notion, too.
So, I don’t think that there’s a single “level” above which we do a ton, and below which we do nothing. It is an exercise in risk management, and the portfolio of strategies that we adopt depends upon upon our identification of the source of the risk, and how we assess the scope and severity that it entails. For example, what we decide to do in the face of a 1C increase at a 30% probability level is much different than what we decide to do in the face of a 3C increase at a 90% confidence level.
Re: Step #3 – personally, I believe that the source, scope, and scale of the risk are such that adaptation strategies may well be unavoidable; however, I also think that adaptation strategies may be more effective if the challenge that they face is minimized. Adapting to a 1.5C increase may be more feasible, for example, than a 3C increase. So, even in an adaptation context, mitigation may be the preferred strategy.
March 4, 2010, 9:30 pmMichael B says:
“The idea that a mounting weight of scientific evidence would gradually overwhelm ideological opposition to the climate policy regime …”
There are ample ideological motivations on both sides, and there is ample scientific evidence in support of both sides as well.
Beyond the ideological motivations, there are professional/career, institutional, (massive) govt. funding and still other motivations as well.
The notion it’s all disinterested science is risible and the language used in the admissions in the original post serves little more than to admit the manifestly obvious. They’ve (once more) been caught, so now it’s time to spin and do some damage control, minimizing the consequences, etc., etc.
(And no one is against “clean air”.)
March 4, 2010, 9:36 pmBruce Hayden says:
Interesting logic – you are asserting that wind power is viable economically because it is competitive with carbon based power after being massively subsidized.
That seems to assume that all those subsidies are manna from heaven, and not paid with money from taxpayers. I would argue that this sort of financial gimmickry is why the “stimulus” package passed into law a bit over a year ago seems to have raised unemployment overall. Yes, it did create jobs – but it destroyed even more of them, which are cleverly not being counted. Same here. You cannot ignore those subsidies when you are talking the ultimate cost to the American public, since that public is paying for those subsidies – just not on their utility bills.
March 4, 2010, 9:38 pmNobody At All says:
Out of curiosity, would you make the same argument if (for the sake of argument), wind farms were net contributors to the U.S. treasury? (e.g. PDF, p. 8.)
If the response is that it doesn’t matter whether wind farms are net taxpayers, government policies (like taxation) should not distort technology selection, then you would accept the need to internalize costs on producers? Would you, for example, accept a fee (e.g. $50/ton CO2) emitted by coal, due to the (non-climate change) cost of health effects of associated pollution? (Edit: http://www.news.wisc.edu/17563)
March 4, 2010, 9:49 pmlgm says:
I have not heard any scientist state that the science could have been done better. Perhaps the PR could have been done better, but even that is doubtful. There is no defense against Fox News enabled swiftboating.
As for who the global warming deniers are, the NYTimesas an interesting insight. They are conservatives who put faith above evidence. If they won’t accept evolution, what change is there for global warming?
March 4, 2010, 9:58 pmAndrew Hamilton says:
I’ve just looked over climate progress. Romm may have scientific credentials but his blog is propaganda. In my book that makes him a propagandist. Either you like what he’s selling or you don’t. I don’t, in large part because of the bullying way he sells it, and what seems obvious to me as his scorn for any counter-argument.
What is climate science? If it is the observation of climate change that can be readily measured, there seems to me to be little to complain about, provided the measurements are verifiable. If it is the construction of hypotheses about the likely persistence and rate of change of whatever current trend is apparent, there is much more room for debate, because any projection has to make assumptions that are not readily testable, and only reveal their accuracy or lack of it over time. Likewise, if it is in the backward projection of climate estimates based not on the instrumental record but on inferences drawn from ice cores and tree rings, there is always room for debate about the relevance of the data to the conclusions one draws. In my view the key issue in the “climategate” emails is the question whether evidence was suppressed that suggested that the Medieval Warm Period rivaled current world temperatures — as Phil Jones, the CRU leader at UEA has said it might have. Without the resulting assertion, by Michael Mann and others, that the present is warmer than anytime in more than 1,000 years, the argument that the present warming is unprecedented and a harbinger of worse to come is greatly weakened.
March 4, 2010, 10:21 pmBruce Hayden says:
Looks a bit suspect to me – cost of $2.5 B, but revenue from project taxes (whatever they are) of $1.9 B, leaving only another $.6 B to cover with operating income. That means the 78% of the break even is a result of whatever those “project taxes” turn out to be.
No. For example, it states that:
Which sure seems to be indicating that the study was looking at CO2 as a pollutant, instead of a naturally occurring substance that is essential for life on this planet, and that causes increased plant growth (and thereby the world food supply) in response to increased concentrations of the gas.
March 4, 2010, 10:25 pmBruce Hayden says:
Sure seems to be arguing from the specific to the general, arguing that some “deniers” also don’t believe in evolution, and so all those questioning CO2 based AGW are Neanderthals. Silly self-serving article from my point of view, which isn’t surprising given its source.
But let me suggest that the real faith here may be in the warmists and their clinging to the “facts” as the “science” underlying them rapidly erodes under their feet.
March 4, 2010, 10:32 pmMichael B says:
“… They are conservatives who put faith above evidence.” lgm
And your own faith in such credulous and incurious conjectures, additionally repeated ad infinitum, is revealing precisely of that incurious and self-referential demeanor.
March 4, 2010, 10:38 pmNobody At All says:
This is likely mostly income tax levied on LLC members – it depends on how the project structured; assuming that the project company is an LLC, the members are treated as partners for federal tax purposes.
Not quite. The study abstract (linked there) states, in part, that:
Here is Mann’s update to that paper, and the supplemental data.
March 4, 2010, 10:51 pmRestoring Faith in Climate Science « Daniel Joseph Smith says:
[...] Restoring Faith in Climate Science [...]
March 4, 2010, 10:57 pmBruce Hayden says:
This wouldn’t be the same Michael Mann who invented the, now much discredited, “hockey stick”, would it? And who figured so prominently in all those leaked emails?
March 4, 2010, 11:13 pmNobody At All says:
What is your question? If Mann updated his paper, and has made all information publicly available? Having publicly verifiable science is lacks scandal, I know, but this is the best I can do.
March 4, 2010, 11:19 pmBruce Hayden says:
Here is the title to that report:
With a summary of:
This looks to be of questionable merit on several grounds. I already mentioned the hockey stick problems (which this may not be using). But also note the reliance upon tree ring proxy data, and be reminded of the controversy over the “trick” to “hide the decline”, which was where they replaced tree ring proxy data over the 1980s and 1990s with actual data, since the tree ring proxy data failed to follow the temperature data for that period. Of course, one may ask whether this failure may better be attributed to a non-linearity in the correlation between tree ring data and temperature at higher temperatures – putting their proxy based estimates of Medieval Warming Period temperatures into question. Oh, and there is also the question of cherry picking trees to use for proxies (the Russians especially seem dubious about this).
March 4, 2010, 11:22 pmBruce Hayden says:
Be interesting to see the justification for the proxy trees selected, for one thing. I did download it, and the graphs do appear to include the hockey stick. But I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
March 4, 2010, 11:25 pmFiftycal says:
Yah. Wind farms can make as much energy as a coal fired plant. IF the wind blows. And IF the wind isn’t too fast. And if the wind isn’t too slow. And the price for generators has come down, so that part is almost as cheap as coal. But when you price in the thousands of acres of land taken out of production and the price for transmission lines, wind is still 50% higher than real energy. Again IF THE WIND BLOWS. And of course this doesn’t take into account the visual pollution, the NOISE and the threat to flying creatures. And where are all the “jobs”?
March 4, 2010, 11:28 pmJohn Moore says:
You need to get out more. Many of the scientists I know (in and outside the climate field) have offered exactly the opinion that the science could have been done better. Anyone who has a decent understanding of statistics and has looked at the emails and the papers knows that for a fact. The CRU science has been sloppy, to put it charitably.
The science is being done as if for a little club – which is the normal way science is done. However, this science NEEDS to be done a whole lot better (although the nature of the system is such that it is unlikely to yield good enough predictions to justify massive economic change).
Many people are coming to realize that “peer reviewed” doesn’t mean “correct” (in spite of a deliberate propaganda campaign by advocates to deceive the public on that regard); that science is an iterative, error-prone process where “truth” is arrived at slowly and confirmed much more slowly; that on matters of this import, everything should be done a 5 sigma quality levels instead of sloppy science as usual; that temporary data hiding for career purposes may be appropriate where the results are not being used to justify massive policy changes, but openness is required – whether the scientists like it or not – in this situation; and, that scientists are actually human beings who sometimes misbehave
What nonsense. First, the use of the term “deniers” is offensive but typical. Second, the source is the NYT, which has raised the art of denial to a very high level itself.
Perhaps we should say the enviro-fascists are those who are driven by a deep hatred of mankind and its success, and want us all to suffer for our perceived sins. It would equalize the level of rhetoric.
March 4, 2010, 11:30 pmNobody At All says:
Not to be rude (well, perhaps: yes. sorry.) but do you know what you’re reading? Yes, this is Mann. Yes, this is Mann updating his paper. I mean, seriously.
Regarding tree proxies and criticisms thereof: I’m linking to a Steve McIntyer post at Climate Audit, since you may be interested in reading it. But, read it all the way through. I strongly suggest reading the comment thread, paying particular attention to the comments of CB. It is a long, long comment thread, but worthwhile reading. If you don’t have the time, it is, in sum, a good illustration of the problem of trying to be an expert in a field in which you have no expertise.
March 4, 2010, 11:31 pmBruce Hayden says:
I should also note that this Mann paper utilizes the HAD and CRU temperature data – presumably the same data that cannot be reconstructed (according to Harry of Read Me fame). And both the HAD and CRU data are what show the greatest jump in the last part of the last century.
March 4, 2010, 11:34 pmSkeptic says:
After I read this, my mind traveled back to ENRON, Waste Management, SunBeam. How would have people reacted if they were able to go back and “improve the quality of their science,” and “make their work more transparent.”
We need to apply some Generally accepted auditing standards to this situation. Let’s get some independent third parties to audit the data (I mean the RAW data, if it still exists).
We need to know who all is involved in any mis-representations, and then revoke their licenses. Otherwise, I don’t think I will ever trust a climate scientist again.
March 5, 2010, 12:05 amBruce Hayden says:
I will agree that CB seems to be an expert in at least some of this. He is obviously not an expert in blogging however, as he duplicated his post at least a half dozen times. But he really didn’t adequately answer any of my points (of course, he wasn’t trying to either, as he was there, and we are here).
One thing that I did carry away from the long thread (not helped by his repeated postings of the same stuff) was that picking proxy trees for sampling is very subjective (and this is one of the things that I seem to remember the Russians complaining about).
March 5, 2010, 12:10 amBruce Hayden says:
We don’t need no stinken audits – we have peer review.
March 5, 2010, 12:11 amvic5 says:
That is not how science gets done
open data
open materials and methods
good statistical methodology
and falsifiability
most of the key empiric observations of mainstream climate sience have not met those citeria
and then you need a plausible hypothesis to be generated as a way of interpreting results
March 5, 2010, 1:13 ameven there climate science depends upon positive feedback of CO2 on water vapor to make its case
as yet noone knows whether the feedback is postive , negative or nuetral. CS just assumes it is positive.
orca says:
That may be how science used to be done…these days scientists are very tight with their data and theories, thanks to Capitalism.
March 5, 2010, 2:04 amJKB says:
Go read AJ Strata if you’re unfamiliar with the problems with the science. He’s processed a lot of the data and discussed the work of others who are working through what has been released so far. Be sure to read the post on the “greenhouse effect”, the scientifically discredited theory that isn’t based on how greenhouses work in the physical world.
A few of significant findings related to the climate “scientists” and their universities rebuilding their reputations:
1. There is good evidence these guys weren’t up to the math for the analysis tried to do.
2. They seem to have a weakness in error management for measurement systems.
3. They didn’t understand or chose to forget that temperature measurements can’t be filled in by interpolation. The topography, etc. introduced to many variables, i.e., you can’t make up stations to fill your grid.
4. The “warming” seems suspiciously correlated to when the number of sensors were reduced. The filtered sensors were weighed toward those in rural and high latitude areas.
You can do good work and come to erroneous conclusions and be forgiven but when your work is shoddy, it is hard, as a scientist, to recover your reputation.
March 5, 2010, 2:33 amHarry Eagar says:
lgm sez: ‘As for who the global warming deniers are, the NYTimes has an interesting insight. They are conservatives who put faith above evidence. If they won’t accept evolution, what change is there for global warming?’
Nonsense. If I were to say that all AGW accepters are corrupt political hacks like Al Gore, would you swallow it whole like you and the Times did this? I hope not.
March 5, 2010, 2:46 amAllTheKeyword.com – Free Keyword Ranking Database » Science & Technology Keywords (5/3/10) says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Restoring Faith in Climate … [...]
March 5, 2010, 2:56 amPlugInMonster says:
Yes why are the Kennedy’s blocking wind farms off Nantucket?
March 5, 2010, 3:35 amPlugInMonster says:
So you say. But the scientific method is whatever the AGWists claim it is.
March 5, 2010, 3:36 amPlugInMonster says:
Sounds like a convenient excuse, but it ain’t science. It definitely isn’t something that you can legitimately use to reduce our GDP by 20-25% to avert some faux disaster. Fortunately the American people are onto you Commies.
March 5, 2010, 3:38 amStephen Lathrop says:
Take this thread and publish it as the paradigmatic example of what’s wrong with the climate change debate. It could not be more obvious that both sides are engaged in token arguments that bear only tangentially on their real concerns—which go largely unmentioned. On both sides the concerns are political, not scientific. And they are mirror images.
Everybody clearly recognizes that the struggle over climate brings implications for the distribution of political power down the road. The people who favor acceptance of climate change models hope to use them to disrupt status quo political arrangements. The people who criticize climate science defend the status quo politically. Nobody on this thread appears to be a climate scientist, but everybody is talking about climate science instead of their political preferences.
Presumably everybody thinks the debate is important. Why conduct it stupidly?
March 5, 2010, 7:19 amAndrew Hamilton says:
It would wrong to assume that all climate science runs in one direction. Here is an example
of an empirically-based argument that addresses, in a critical spirit, one of the central assumptions regarding the magnitude of AGW.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/2009_DouglassC_EE.pdf
March 5, 2010, 8:24 amGuest Again says:
Bruce Hayden: the subsidies. I concede your point. But, yes if you are a utility CEO they do factor into your decision. Just as the pubic service commissions fixed return on capital rate making does and the depletion allowance does on the oil and gas used. Sure the “clean” energy subsidy affects the decision, but that is the world as it presently exists. if new (better?) policy changes, your utility CEO decision may well change.
March 5, 2010, 8:29 amGuest Again says:
Fiftycal Yah. Wind farms can make as much energy as a coal fired plant. IF the wind blows. And IF the wind isn’t too fast. And if the wind isn’t too slow. And the price for generators has come down, so that part is almost as cheap as coal. But when you price in the thousands of acres of land taken out of production and the price for transmission lines, wind is still 50% higher than real energy. Again IF THE WIND BLOWS. And of course this doesn’t take into account the visual pollution, the NOISE and the threat to flying creatures. And where are all the “jobs”?
There are so many factual errors and misstatements in your post that I simply don’t have the time to address them. Do some research, you will be surprised.
March 5, 2010, 9:03 amStones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e108v5 says:
[...] Why scare quotes on “skeptics?“ [...]
March 5, 2010, 9:11 amL Nettles says:
From Chicago Boyz
Why Alternative Power is and will remain useless
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/11847.html
March 5, 2010, 9:35 amflyovertard says:
With regard to wind/solar. Aside from the aesthetics, bird-kills, required subsidies to make them economicall feasible (yes, self-contradictory), NIMBYism, the critical limitation is the need for 100%,instantaneous back-up. Battery storage for 100%, instantaneous back-up is not technologically feasible. Rolling brown/blackouts wreak havic economically, especially on manufacturing. Using “green” wind/solar may be a feel good measure, but why not just use the 100% instantaneous backup as the primary source. Pretty silly.
March 5, 2010, 9:59 amGuest Again says:
flyovertard “the critical limitation is the need for 100%,instantaneous back-up” While true this assumes away the ‘integrated’ nature of RPS and thereby misstates the problem presented. The problem presented by intermittent generation is more nuanced. See:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=971442
March 5, 2010, 10:41 amNobody At All says:
My “real concerns” are primarily libertarian. Why else would I spend so much time on this site?
I was simply responding to the suggestion that businesses that develop wind farms do not pay federal taxes, which is demonstrably false. I am not sure the basis upon which one can assert that it is “stupid” to not allow misinformation to propagate itself, especially in a debate defined by the propogation of misinformation.
March 5, 2010, 10:43 amNobody At All says:
Or, for that matter, how do you explain the political predilections of the author of this post? Does Professor Adler look forward to the coming of a socialist empire?
March 5, 2010, 10:44 amJohn Neff says:
I started working as a scientist when people talked about scientific collaborators and the term scientific competitors was seldom used and headline hunters were objects of scorn. Now the situation is reversed because of competition for grants and the prestige being interviewed on national TV. After watching fellow scientists being interviewed on TV I wondered if an inflated ego interferes with brain function.
It really does not matter if the scientists are confident their findings are correct what matters is if the policy makers are confident the finding are well enough established that there won’t be any nasty surprises. At the present time some policy makers think that is the case, others are not sure and some think the scientific conclusions are hogwash. Under those conditions it is not surprising that little progress has been made.
March 5, 2010, 11:07 amElliot says:
“They are conservatives who put faith above evidence.”
March 5, 2010, 11:10 amflyovertard says:
Guest,
Not impressed with the nuance.
To summarize: IF we have a maximum of 20% of our energy from wind, and IF we build lots of new transmission capability, and IF we implement a program where energy costs are based on how the wind blows (to alter usage habits), THEN we probably will be able to get around not having 100% instantaneous back-up (for the 20% of our energy generated from wind).
This certainly paints wind energy as the way of the future!
March 5, 2010, 12:10 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
I won’t have faith in climate science until it proves what I already believe.
March 5, 2010, 12:32 pmNobody At All says:
I move for a guest blog by Lucia, on the subject of allegations regarding temperature bias introduced by station drop-out. It would be helpful, I believe, to many who read volokh and to those sites that link to it.
March 5, 2010, 2:10 pmSarcastro says:
I demand more Rom the Space Knight references!
March 5, 2010, 2:23 pmNobody At All says:
Seconded!
March 5, 2010, 2:26 pmMichael B says:
Restoring Faith in Climate
ScienceScientists cum Ideologues cum Policy Enthusiasts and Presumptives in GeneralThere, fixed that.
No one has a problem with science qua science, with science per se. Various people have a problem with the interpretation of data, with presumptive policy directives, with ideologues and enthusiasts a la Al Gore & Co., etc., etc. No one has a problem with science as such. Hence we don’t see anyone doubting the existence of quarks as elemental subatomic particles, hence we don’t see anyone doubting the general red shift phenomenon indicating the expansion of the universe (or the very few exceptions, such as the blue shift of M1, the Andromeda galaxy).
No one has a problem with science per se, it’s the ideologues and presumptives in general, including scientists who seek to leverage their science and entire fields into political, ideological, etc. arenas.
March 5, 2010, 6:22 pmMichael B says:
In retrospect, I shouldn’t have mentioned M1′s blue shift. If Al Gore contemplates that bit of info we’re liable to see fiscal and budgetary initiatives to avert the collision of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. After all, it’s “science”.
March 5, 2010, 6:32 pmvic says:
You wondered – Huh!
March 5, 2010, 8:10 pmDesiderius says:
“Restoring faith in Climate Science”
Perhaps a good miracle story. Or an inspiring ritual.
A Goddess of Science.
Science rises and falls on the validity of it’s predictions. Nothing else.
Work on getting those right.
March 6, 2010, 11:29 amNobody At All says:
http://climatesafety.org/reframing-the-debate-on-climate-science/
March 21, 2010, 11:59 am