I can't speak to the details around the leak at CRU, as the data is out of context. But at first blush it does look like the scientists at that facility are doing some less-than-ethical work. And less-than-ethical is not a euphemism here. It's an accusation. Data needs to inform the theory, not vice versa. When this all get sorted out, if the science was bad, then the results from that lab are tainted.
But CRU isn't the only body of scientists looking into climate change. Here's an article that cites data from 2 peer review journals. The data does not come from CRU, nor is it interpreted by the people at CRU. The results are not pretty: Even if we could cut greenhouse gases by tomorrow, the ocean levels look like they will rise a meter by 2100. If I have grandchildren, they will see coast lines and island nations disappear.
The movement to slow our contribution to climate change isn't going to stop this. According to most experts, however, we might be able to mitigate the damages.
So here's my question for skeptics of anthropomorphic climate change: Why/how would scientists from a variety of fields, policy makers, and business leaders collaborate to execute a hoax on a global scale?
The groups involved are not like-minded. What could possibly motivate them to work together to forward a false cause?
Job security? The scientists at UT studying "nearly seven years of data on ocean-icesheet interaction... collected by the twin GRACE satellites" do not need global warming to ply their trade. They have tremendous analytical and technical skills. They'll find work.
Political motives? Have you ever met a research scientist? Seen one on TV? Probably not. They are not political creatures.
Greed? Well, Gore is set to make a lot of money if the energy sector goes green. If his motive was just money, however, why not buy a drilling platform? That would produce faster returns that are more secure?
Stupidity? Are we to believe that a select few have convinced top scientists, world leaders, and savvy business people to believe in something that is baseless? Who are these evil geniuses, where is their secret underground base, and why are they doing this?
The CC skeptics are claiming that disparate groups of well trained specialists have either met in secret to dupe the world OR that they have themselves been duped by a group with a desire to transition the planet to clean energy for unspecified reasons.
The moon landing conspiracy theory looks rational by comparison. You'll have to excuse me for siding with the diverse group of experts who have found something to agree on despite it's challenging implications. While the other side's accusations of conspiracy allow me to comfortably continue my life unchanged, the accusations are asking me to believe in something much more unrealistic than greenhouse gases.
9 comments:
Dan emailed these links in response to my post. Thought they could be passed along.
From the Daily Telegraph
From Macleans
From The Independent
I think there are some interesting points in Dan's articles, but he still hasn't answered my question:
If this is a hoax, how did the perpetrators get so many experts on board?
I can see that the results of eco-policy are scary for libertarians, but that doesn't mean the problem is a fake one.
I still am unable to imagine such a large and diverse group of people all agreeing to lie in such collaborative way. No group of such size is that well organized and that well disciplined. It's absurd.
The other option: The existence of people powerful enough to pull the wool over the eyes of several panels of experts from around the world. That one fails to convince me as well.
I think the Global War on Terror did a lot more to expand the role and reach of government than eco-policy. Warrantless wiretapping seems a bit more Big Brother than chips that monitor my trash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8
At the risk of assisting the Disbelievers, I'd like to take a crack at addressing your question, whose premise I reject.
Why does your question assume that 1) the large and diverse group of people are acting consciously, and 2) that these people have some real or perceived benefit? In other words, I think a climate change skeptic (and it's ironic that I feel like I have to again point out that this isn't me) could argue that groupthink is behind "the hoax", as it were. We could have used more skeptics of the Internet and housing-price bubbles, for instance. The problem was that actors were functioning in a system that rewarded bad behavior; it's hard to find irrational actors as we sort out the mess those "hoaxes" caused. IF climate change weren't real, I think we'd have a ready explanation for why we all though it was. We should want skeptics, as long as the debate on both sides is reasonable and honest.
What we see in the climate change release are similar rational actors who operate in a system where prestige, access, and funding are determined by smart people with strong opinions and great ambition, and where those who question commonly-held notions are ridiculed. There's an ethical ideal to scientific research that's difficult to implement in a system created and composed of people.
I'd say the real issue here is that it gives Disbelievers -- as opposed to skeptics -- fuel they use to power uninformed and political debate that generates much more heat than light.
Interesting points Karmavore. There are rewards for swimming with the stream. If the guys at CRU manipulated the data, I do think they did it because they wanted to get published. I think many corporate eco-initiatives are a kind of green washing. I think politicians play up or play down the effects of climate change in an effort to please their base.
So the idea that groupthink is at play has merit.
But I contend that attempting to find a consensus of this scale in the scientific community would involve a kind of influence that only exists in fiction. Research scientists love to prove each other wrong. If the data was there to sow real doubt, then that community would not be in such agreement. I'll acknowledge that some scientists still have competing theories, but their number is small and their research has not swayed anyone. If someone is sitting on the info that proves this is bad science, what is keeping them from sharing?
The left-wing media? Wrong. Scientists publish through peer-review journals far removed from the MSM.
Political dollars? That would be interesting if progressive eco-politicians had held the government purse strings for the last decade.
The scientific community's pet theory? Again, I believe the prestige of successfully proving all this false would prevail there.
Any answer to that question assumes that there is a force out there capable of influencing the vast majority of scientists in the field to practice bad science. I don't believe such a force exists.
Then there's the CC skeptics' claim that they have proof this is all a hoax. They've got the proof, but the powers that be won't let them share it. This suggests that the liberals have enough control and discipline to silence a very large truth. I know too many liberals to believe that is possible.
But then I'm forced to ask what motivates the side that is losing this battle. I got part of the answer on Science Friday last week. Folks at MIT just built a device that converts solar energy into hydrogen - built it for around $30. The result could lead to home fuel cells that efficiently store solar energy for use at night - or a rainy day. Energy could be completely decentralized. Sounds like a libertarian dream, but if I were in government or energy I'd be afraid of how much autonomy that offers people. If the clean energy people were losing this debate, I'd shout conspiracy, but they're not.
I just noticed Karmavore's distinction between skeptics and disbelievers.
I should have noted it in my above response. It is a worthy distinction, and I welcome honest skeptics.
I guess the reason I didn't notice it at first is that most of the arguments I encounter are those of disbelievers.
please read!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
@Anonymous: I link to the Delingpole article in my post. His smarmy take on the CRU leak is what prompted this post.
Post a Comment