The Biggest Science Scandal Ever

[Reub]

Settled science?

"Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears”? Iceland’s “sea ice years”? around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy."

"Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

[MachineGhost]

They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”?.

The problem with this claim is it ignores evidence from other types of temperature monitoring in the "no measurement" areas.  In other words, this Homewood "scientist" is being extremely selective in defining that only weather stations constitute evidence and since there are no weather stations in the "no measurement" areas, a weather station reading must be extrapolated for those areas, which is obviously going to be phantom by nature.  But no one is stupid enough to base the entire bassis of global warming on just selectively extrapolated measurement like this.  All corroborating evidence must be taken into consideration as part of the scientific process and that includes all the non-weather station measurements that do show a temperature increase in the "no measurement" areas.  I'm exaggerating, but it's not rocket science to have a simple mercury thermometer in the havels of Rio de Janiero or the tundra of Siberia.

So Homewood is either completely deluded or he is doing this on purpose.  I bet on the latter.

The key takeaway here is its been long enough now that the limited temperature data the pro-global warming kooks manipulated back in the day to support their political agenda have been superseded by corroborating evidence.  Except unlike in the case of Ancel Keys and his dietary cholesterol bullshit, the evidence does support global warming.

[Mountaineer]

They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”?.

The problem with this claim is it ignores evidence from other types of temperature monitoring in the "no measurement" areas.  In other words, this Homewood "scientist" is being extremely selective in defining that only weather stations constitute evidence and since there are no weather stations in the "no measurement" areas, a weather station reading must be extrapolated for those areas, which is obviously going to be phantom by nature.  But no one is stupid enough to base the entire bassis of global warming on just selectively extrapolated measurement like this.  All corroborating evidence must be taken into consideration as part of the scientific process and that includes all the non-weather station measurements that do show a temperature increase in the "no measurement" areas.  I'm exaggerating, but it's not rocket science to have a simple mercury thermometer in the havels of Rio de Janiero or the tundra of Siberia.

So Homewood is either completely deluded or he is doing this on purpose.  I bet on the latter.

The key takeaway here is its been long enough now that the limited temperature data the pro-global warming kooks manipulated back in the day to support their political agenda have been superseded by corroborating evidence.  Except unlike in the case of Ancel Keys and his dietary cholesterol bullshit, the evidence does support global warming.

There is no way a "global warmer" would use a mercury thermometer!  It might cause the destruction of the universe if it was broken. 

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

I guess we can all stop arguing about this in 100 years when Key West is underwater and Miami is an island.

[Mountaineer]

I guess we can all stop arguing about this in 100 years when Key West is underwater and Miami is an island.

Nah, we will just pick something else about which to get our knickers twisted.

My compassionate side says: I really feel sorry for people who suffer from natural calamities.

My pragmatic side says: People who choose to live in hurricane, tornado, volcano, drought, fire prone, earthquake, or flood areas should expect to have those natural calamities occur periodically and prepare accordingly.  If they do not wish to suffer the consequences of their decisions, move.

My progressive liberal side (if I had one that is) says: People are a virus on the planet so these natural disasters will help mother earth be the way it was before the virus exploded.

My neocon side (if I had one) says:  Will warmer temperatures or underwater labs make it easier to make new weapons to eradicate the evil axis?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

I guess we can all stop arguing about this in 100 years when Key West is underwater and Miami is an island.

Nah, we will just pick something else about which to get our knickers twisted.

My compassionate side says: I really feel sorry for people who suffer from natural calamities.

My pragmatic side says: People who choose to live in hurricane, tornado, volcano, drought, fire prone, earthquake, or flood areas should expect to have those natural calamities occur periodically and prepare accordingly.  If they do not wish to suffer the consequences of their decisions, move.

My progressive liberal side (if I had one that is) says: People are a virus on the planet so these natural disasters will help mother earth be the way it was before the virus exploded.

My neocon side (if I had one) says:  Will warmer temperatures or underwater labs make it easier to make new weapons to eradicate the evil axis?

... Mountaineer

That's some pragmatic side!!

Mine wants to find a way of taxing climate change deniers for the full economic cost of the damage done by it.

wouldn't taxing only the man made climate change believers be more of a win win for them ? if there is MM global warming they can feel all self-righteous that they stepped up and did something, and they can feel all smug about the pre-industrial revolution, pre petrolium energy quality of life they have taxed themselves into living... and if turns out there was no global warming they can take credit for having stopped it

[Tyler]

At the very least perhaps we can tax the liberal coastal elite who overwhelmingly prefer to knowingly congregate in the projected flood zones to help fund their imminent future relocation to flyover country. 

[moda0306]

I was kidding. I really prefer to take the ounce of prevention rather than worrying about a pound of punishment.

[Tyler]

I was kidding. I really prefer to take the ounce of prevention rather than worrying about a pound of punishment.

Agreed.  I feel like this is one of those topics that becomes unnecessarily polarized by the tendency of passionate people to eschew common ground in competition for the perceived higher ground.  I'd love it if people on both sides of the issue could agree to conserve and live more efficiently on a personal level regardless of the motivation.  Whether it's to save money or save the planet, reducing your own consumption is a good thing!

[Mountaineer]

I was kidding. I really prefer to take the ounce of prevention rather than worrying about a pound of punishment.

Agreed.  I feel like this is one of those topics that becomes unnecessarily polarized by the tendency of passionate people to eschew common ground in competition for the perceived higher ground.  I'd love it if people on both sides of the issue could agree to conserve and live more efficiently on a personal level regardless of the motivation.  Whether it's to save money or save the planet, reducing your own consumption is a good thing!

Amen!  But I thought personal responsibility vs. dictating a fix for everyone else was down and out.  Is it being resurrected?

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Mine wants to find a way of taxing climate change deniers for the full economic cost of the damage done by it.

My pragmatist side says you better find a way to separate the outright climate change deniers from the climate change agreers but anthropological-cause deniers, before taxing the former.  Can it be done?

[moda0306]

I was kidding. I really prefer to take the ounce of prevention rather than worrying about a pound of punishment.

Agreed.  I feel like this is one of those topics that becomes unnecessarily polarized by the tendency of passionate people to eschew common ground in competition for the perceived higher ground.  I'd love it if people on both sides of the issue could agree to conserve and live more efficiently on a personal level regardless of the motivation.  Whether it's to save money or save the planet, reducing your own consumption is a good thing!

Amen!  But I thought personal responsibility vs. dictating a fix for everyone else was down and out.  Is it being resurrected?

... Mountaineer

Well this is simply a question of whether the government has a right or duty to manage externalities (ie, theft in another form).

I would say it very-much does.

If it's up to individuals, then it begs the question of whether government has any role in defending people against theft.  If we're going to give government that job, then let's have them do it consistently, and have them properly account for externalities with catastrophic consequences.

[Pointedstick]

Well this is simply a question of whether the government has a right or duty to manage externalities (ie, theft in another form).

I would say it very-much does.

If it's up to individuals, then it begs the question of whether government has any role in defending people against theft.  If we're going to give government that job, then let's have them do it consistently, and have them properly account for externalities with catastrophic consequences.

There is no action undertaken by any organism that is not fraught with externalities. A government charged with managing externalities must declare some as worthy of management and others as not; "consistency" is impossible here. There aren't the resources to deal with everything.

[moda0306]

PS,

Totally fair... I probably should have mentioned a priority for materiality.  Obviously, you can't have the government micro-managing every minute aspect of our activities (imagine the externalities of that!!).

The idea that coastal cities would be under water is material, IMO, especially in the face of pretty simple measures like carbon taxation. Simple, of course, is in relative terms to other challenges/bureaucracies that the gov't takes on.

[MachineGhost]

The idea that coastal cities would be under water is material, IMO, especially in the face of pretty simple measures like carbon taxation. Simple, of course, is in relative terms to other challenges/bureaucracies that the gov't takes on.

Does carbon taxation even work?  I prefer cap and trade.  Why give the government another revenue stream they will just mismanage and piss away?

[Reub]

You're missing the point.  The entire global warming /cooling/climate change/whatever movement is about power and money.

[moda0306]

Reub,

Of course it is. Just like almost any other movement is.

Polluters shouldn't have the power to pollute and make money off of it. Pollution should be recognized as removing power from future generations. IMO, of course, but the "laissez faire" folks have power and money on their minds too.

What really matters here is the truth, first. And what to do with that truth, second.

When conservative citizens want to be able to drive their suv 40 miles to work and back from their country estate, and other citizens advocate taxing carbon, guess what the conservatives are worried about losing?:

1) Power
2) Money

[Tyler]

Does carbon taxation even work?  I prefer cap and trade.  Why give the government another revenue stream they will just mismanage and piss away?

Very reasonable questions.

The largest and most famous cap & trade treaty was the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which the United States famously refused to ratify but most of Europe did.  It's interesting to note that of all the major industrialized countries in the original mix, it appears the only one to meet its reduction target was the United States -- the hated holdout.  They did seemingly without trying via a combination of new fracking technology (burning natural gas emits much less carbon dioxide than coal) and a stagnating economy (not necessarily a net positive for everyone, but hey -- it worked).  At the same time, global carbon emissions continue to rise.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/u ... racing-it/

So this brings up a couple of things to ponder.  First, it shows that cap & trade alone is insufficient to slow the growth of carbon emissions when only a portion of the world powers participate and the ones that do still can't meet their targets.  At some point, pragmatic reality trumps idealistic goals.  And second, it shows that new technologies and societal sea changes can have greater effects on reducing carbon output than bureaucratic solutions.  I'm similarly skeptical of things like a carbon tax, as that's even more local and has greater opportunity for politically expedient manipulation.  I just don't see it moving the needle all that much, although I can understand the desire by people who truly believe major consequences are imminent  to "do everything you can".

Fundamentally, to whatever extent that carbon emissions are a problem I think the ultimate solution is more cultural than legal or financial.  We're currently a global society of consumers.  To me, the greatest hindrance to the warming crowd is not the recalcitrance of "deniers" but the believers' blind spot to their own consumption.  When I first moved to California, the lifestyle of the typical young Bay Area environmentalist made my jaw drop but for some reason they always believed the enemy was a middle class family in Texas.  Until that changes, I think most efforts to improve the environment will look more like political hammers than genuine solutions.  I find that sad, as I believe that regardless of whether you believe anthropogenic carbon is the primary cause for climate change, we can all benefit from consuming less than we do.

(EDIT) To be clear, blind spots certainly go the other way, too.  For example, even though I'm naturally skeptical of most environmental doomer porn I believe that countering with "it's all lies" makes it all too easy to ignore legitimate environmental issues that absolutely need improvement.  We can all benefit from deescalating the tone of the conversation.

[Pointedstick]

Beautiful post, Tyler. I totally agree; all change has to start with oneself. Saying, "well, my micro contribution is irrelevant unless the government forces everyone to do it" is a BS excuse. I say put your money where your mouth is for what you believe in. It's offensive to consider forcing everyone else to do something you can't be bothered to voluntarily do yourself, especially in circumstances where it would actually deliver personal benefits (e.g. reducing electricity consumption in the bay area, which will let you avoid that crazy $0.30/kWh tier that PG&E charges).

[moda0306]

Beautiful post, Tyler. I totally agree; all change has to start with oneself. Saying, "well, my micro contribution is irrelevant unless the government forces everyone to do it" is a BS excuse. I say put your money where your mouth is for what you believe in. It's offensive to consider forcing everyone else to do something you can't be bothered to voluntarily do yourself, especially in circumstances where it would actually deliver personal benefits (e.g. reducing electricity consumption in the bay area, which will let you avoid that crazy $0.30/kWh tier that PG&E charges).

A couple things here:

1) We're really talking a public policy debate here... not individual strategy, HB style.  That doesn't mean we can't drill down from time to time, but if we did this for every public policy debate, it would get really sloppy. 

2) If it's "insulting" to force EVERYONE you're not willing to do yourself, then polluters who don't want to be stolen from (you and me, both) are equally hypocritical.  Further, many advocates for climate change legislation, or lower general pollution, are extremely dedicated to limiting their lifestyle in areas that consume a lot of resources.  In fact, from an HB/individuality standpoint, sometimes I shake my head at them, because instead of buying a Prius, they should be moving out of Seattle and shorting the coastal real estate markets  .  If a dude did that, yet vehemently supported climate change legislation, I think he'd be standing on solid ground.  He's no a hypocrite.  He just realizes there's a difference between public policy and individual strategy.

3) Tyler's post focused on "cultural" solutions rather than political.  While I'd be inclined to agree with.  However, in a democracy, however bobbled or inefficient, cultural IS political.  If 51% of people want something bad enough, it will very well happen.  Now, to the degree that environmentalists are like anarcho-(insert-sub-loony-philosophy-here)ists and are trying to move things FAR beyond what will actually happen culturally, I agree with you that there is a degree of lost respect to be had here.  But we're to the point, now, that climate change is within a tipping point of substantial action (in my estimation), so those pushing political action on it, to me, are justified on a cultural basis as well.  They're not the modern-day equivalent of John Brown abolitionists.  They're trying to tip the political bottle over, and often doing so via public outreach, not just protesting in Washington.



Lastly, though, this is sort of a "stock vs flow" issue.  The FLOW of carbon dioxide is on the rise in various developing countries, but the STOCK of carbon emissions is pretty heavily on Western Civilization.  While I understand this is an issue that needs to bring in the whole word, it's dumb to assert, IMO, in the context of the U.S. government being a representative of the U.S. people, that we don't have the obligation to lead on this issue, as a country. 

[Pointedstick]

Moda, I had a hard time parsing your post and understanding what you meant. It seemed to be all over the place.

[Pointedstick]

Here is perhaps an interesting data point. A green construction website I frequent recently posted a report (can't find it now unfortunately) lamenting that over the last 40 years, the amount of energy used by houses has barely budged. In one category it went down slightly, and in one it went up slightly, basically a wash. This is despite a huge barrage of energy efficiency regulations by the government. Building codes, energy codes, product efficiency regulations, etc. Lots of effort made there!

Then someone pointed out in the comments section that during that time, the average home size rose by like 40% to its current humongous, outrageous level, so in that sense, it's been a success in that the average energy usage per square foot has fallen. But this is an example of Jevons' Paradox: that on average, increased efficiency results in increased consumption rather than decreased resource usage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

You can't mandate this kind of stuff. It has to come from within. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to design a policy that perfectly lines incentives up to blah blah blah blah. People will have to take the initiative on their own. The fact that they don't largely even when it would already make financial sense to should depress you about the prospect of financial incentives a la taxation policy to drive behavior changes.

[Reub]

The Governor of Oregon resigned today in the midst of a scandal involving helping his wife's green energy consulting business. Is this what global warming is really all about?

[moda0306]

The Governor of Oregon resigned today in the midst of a scandal involving helping his wife's green energy consulting business. Is this what global warming is really all about?

No.

[MachineGhost]

[quote=http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/448344- ... urce=email]Freeman Dyson is a 91-year-old theoretical physicist who was a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton, has received multiple international awards for his scientific efforts, and has published numerous books and papers on a wide range of topics.

Dyson is criticizing scientists who advance what he describes as an ‘agenda-driven’ perspective on global warming.[/quote]

Juicy quote:

“Real advances in science require a different cultural tradition, with individuals who invent new tools to explore nature and are not afraid to question authority. Science driven by rebels and heretics searching for truth has made great progress in the last three centuries. But the new culture of scientific scepticism is a recent growth and has not yet penetrated deeply into our thinking. The old culture of group loyalty and dogmatic belief is still alive under the surface, guiding the thoughts of scientists as well as the opinions of ordinary citizens.”

I guess we'll eventually get accurate climate models out of all this ruckus and find we're in...  global cooling.