Thread: The Great Climategate Debate @ MIT World

Global warming is one of the big controversial subjects at the moment.
Scientists themselves seem to disagree and with interests of governments,
corporations, as well as the latest hacking of the emails it becomes much
more difficult to form an opinion. Especially if the picture the media paints,
even if true, is hardly scientific.

This is a discussion at MIT with different speakers and views and I thought
it might help. Speakers: Kerry Emanuel, Richard Lindzen, Judith Layzer, Judith
Layzer and Ronald Prinn. During the first hour every speaker gets about
10 minutes and the second hour is a debate with questions from the audience.
I thought this was well enough to post in an own thread here and not just
in the existing thread in extended discussion.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

Originally Posted by mitworld.mit.edu

About the Lecture
The hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in November rocked the world of climate change science, energized global warming skeptics, and threatened to derail policy negotiations at Copenhagen. These panelists, who differ on the scientific implications of the released emails, generally agree that the episode will have long-term consequences for the larger scientific community.

“What we have here,” says Kerry Emanuel, are “thousands of emails collectively showing scientists hard at work, trying to figure out the meaning of evidence that confronts them. Among a few messages, there are a few lines showing the human failings of a few scientists…” Emanuel believes that “scientifically, it means nothing,” because the controversy doesn’t challenge the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic warming. He is far more concerned with the well-funded “public relations campaign” to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to “interests where billions, even trillions are at stake...” This “machine … has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal-wearing, fruit-juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society…”

Richard Lindzen professes he has “no idea” what Emanuel is talking about -- if a “machine” exists, it’s on the “other side,” marginalizing those who disagree on the science. The release of emails is likely due “to a whistleblower who couldn’t take it anymore.” Lindzen sees evidence in the correspondence of “things that are unethical and in many cases illegal,” including the refusal to allow outsiders access to data, and the willingness to destroy data rather than release it. He believes that since it’s hard to read the documents “and not conclude that bad things are going on,” this will have a negative impact on “popular support for science.” There are “scandals, cheating and arguments” over research dealing with tiny increments of temperature change, Lindzen speculates, because so many scientists and ordinary people are invested in the idea of dramatic, human-based warming -- “People are being thrown catastrophes.”

“The imprudent language in the email cache reflects scientists’ enormous frustration with the tactics of their opponents,” says Judith Layzer. Climate change poses a serious new challenge for scientists: “On the one hand, they perceive it as sufficiently urgent that they’re willing to go to great lengths, use language they wouldn’t ordinarily, to try to persuade the public. On the other hand, they face the most sophisticated campaign of skepticism ever assembled, and one that consistently violates protocols they’re accustomed to.” The moderate language of science, with its emphasis on the weight of evidence, can’t compete with attacks that discredit models, “which by their very nature are fishy to nonscientists.” Careless email communications gave the public a harsh reminder that scientists “are human, fallible and not always judicious.”

The email controversy, says Stephen Ansolabehere creates uncertainty about the scientific debate, and will lead to greater scrutiny by the public – which is “healthy.” Since climate change is a grand scale problem with impacts on multiple dimensions of society, the “question we must ask ourselves now is, “Who will police science and how can science maintain credibility as it gets into public debates?” Scientists, as private citizens, are free to engage in political debates, but “must be especially careful about maintaining research standards and methods.” Scientists will find in the future “they must be even more scrupulous about maintaining research standards because more is at stake than getting the next paper published…”

After combing through the emails, Ronald Prinn has reached several conclusions: Some exchanges dealing with modeling natural variability in temperatures over hundreds of years were “personal in nature,” and “unprofessional.” The research of the scientists accused of manipulating data is not central to the argument for anthropogenic climate change, nor has it compromised the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, although the public perception of climate science has certainly been affected. Climate researchers, Prinn concludes, “must step back from the tendency to polarization.” More important, they must communicate better to the public that multiple approaches and critical analyses are the norm in climate science and that legitimate science is found in peer-reviewed literature, “not in blogs or in opinion pieces that go into newspapers.”

Originally Posted by dajo

Global warming is one of the big controversial subjects at the moment.

Do you mean politically? The scientific debating has been over for 15 years.

I meant politically for a part. Just the incentive of the tax money involved is
enough to maybe take a bias into consideration.

I meant corporations that obviously try to undermine the global warming
movement.

I meant scientifically in the sense that there still are well known scientists,
who disagree with the findings or interprete them differently. One being
Richard Lindzen - although I don't really much agree with him, he does make
a few good points. Also adding the hacked Emails and the role they play. You
cannot just easily dismiss them, although they don't neccessarily prove
anything.

I meant controversial as presented by the media, which displays the issue in
a very emotional and to me at least somewhat influenced way.

Especially for people, who have not entirely made up their mind on global
warming, I think this is a way better basis for an opinion, since it is a
scientific forum, where different opinions are being equally expressed.
And they adress the most recent events.

Originally Posted by Yoda9578

Do you mean politically? The scientific debating has been over for 15 years.

This.

Can people just get over themselves and stop doubting it already? Just LOOK THE FUCK AROUND YOU!
Shit is DYING!
The weather is becoming erratic, sea levels rising.
Shit, even the birds are getting up earlier, anyone noticed that?

I'm not even going to take part in this "debate". (Past this post). Because there is not even a debate going on. Anywhere! It's some idiots who like to think they're smart, arguing moot points to intelligent scientists who have been studying this for decades.

Get over the conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy? Hm.

You don't even know my opinion. I just tried to state the issue.
And there you have a debate that acknowledges, very well in my
opinion, all sides there are to it.

And this is somewhat a different discussion than that we are screwing our
planet over considering deforestation, what we're doing to our oceans, our
use of ressources, pollution - I try to keep up with all of that. With horror.
But as it goes for global warming, there is such a racket going on and I find
it hard to stay objective, but I think it's important. And it's important as to
what we're buying into in order to save our planet.

Also the climategate thing was bound to spark new debate. I try to keep it
scientific. Apart from that, you absoluetly mistook this thread as an attempt
at scepticism. It is not. I actually feel somewhat more drawn to the 'global
warming is happening' side after viewing it.

This is just another one of those "facts" that the lay followers of the scientific religion are unwilling to even discuss, as evidenced by the posts in this thread. They won't discuss the issue because 'they' are right and everyone else is wrong.

With just a little bit of research though, they would find out that nothing is as clear cut as they think it is, least of all climate and its changes and cycles. Mars warming, solar cycles, inadequate amounts of data; these things mean nothing to people who already know that they are right.

I personally won't even say that anthropogenic climate change is false, because I don't know. There isn't enough data. We would need thousands of years of data to reliably notice any difference that we may be having. People don't like saying "I don't know", but that is typically what science is supposed to be all about.

Thanks, Dajo. I really want to understand both sides of the argument better, and what you posted is the sort of thing that helps.

There in fact are lots of climate scientists who say global warming is a crock. I am extra skeptical of any kind of claim that seems to be pushed through pressure and ostracism much more than it is pushed thrrough logic. The global warming movement comes with a whole lot of, "You SUCK if you don't believe this! EVERYBODY knows it's true. It's not even subject to argument!" That is how religions recruit people, not scientists. It is not enough for me to base a conclusion on.

Here is a work from the skeptical scientists' point of view. It is a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. This is Part 1, and each next part has a link at the right of the screen.



The debate lives.

Originally Posted by tommo

This.

Can people just get over themselves and stop doubting it already? Just LOOK THE FUCK AROUND YOU!
Shit is DYING!
The weather is becoming erratic, sea levels rising.
Shit, even the birds are getting up earlier, anyone noticed that?

I'm not even going to take part in this "debate". (Past this post). Because there is not even a debate going on. Anywhere! It's some idiots who like to think they're smart, arguing moot points to intelligent scientists who have been studying this for decades.

Get over the conspiracy theories.

None of those things are evidence for CO2 causing the warming though, are they?

Stop being so apocalyptic about it. There has been far more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and life on Earth wasn't destroyed.

Originally Posted by Xei

None of those things are evidence for CO2 causing the warming though, are they?

Stop being so apocalyptic about it. There has been far more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and life on Earth wasn't destroyed.

Yes, but there were no polar ice caps and there was less oxygen and also it was a lot warmer.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Yes, but there were no polar ice caps and there was less oxygen and also it was a lot warmer.

and...life still rolled on just fine...

Originally Posted by Xei

Stop being so apocalyptic about it. There has been far more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and life on Earth wasn't destroyed.

The amount isn't the problem, it's the rate of change. Animals can evolve to slow changes, the problem is that it's changing at a rate never seen before. Really fast changes cause really massive extensions.



Way way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside of a normal deviation. In science you always look at the simplest explanation first. In the past 150 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed. Cars and industry put out huge amounts of COs. Simplest explanation: Industrialization has increased atmospheric CO2. The fact that all scientific data backs that up is just icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Cars and industry put out huge amounts of COs. Simplest explanation: Industrialization has increased atmospheric CO2.

Meat industry is responsible for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emission. Ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide. But hey, if that's the case....f the planet!!! Animals, mmmm.


Xei, I'm having the hardest time figuring out where you, and people who share your opinion stand. So let me directly ask you, and I hope you'll find the time to answer:
1. do you think CO2 and methane emission should be reduced; why;
2. do you recycle; why;
3. do you think humans are destroying life on Earth with our way of living today; why?

Originally Posted by tommo

This.

Can people just get over themselves and stop doubting it already? Just LOOK THE FUCK AROUND YOU!
Shit is DYING!
The weather is becoming erratic, sea levels rising.
Shit, even the birds are getting up earlier, anyone noticed that?

I'm not even going to take part in this "debate". (Past this post). Because there is not even a debate going on. Anywhere! It's some idiots who like to think they're smart, arguing moot points to intelligent scientists who have been studying this for decades.

Get over the conspiracy theories.

I don't doubt a scientists opinion since they know more than I do, but I always laugh when people tell me to look at the evidence around me. I don't see anything! Life is as normal as ever for me. I guess I should visit the north pole. For me, I don't doubt the effect civilization is having on the environment. What I do doubt are predictions about what this will bring in the future.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't doubt a scientists opinion since they know more than I do, but I always laugh when people tell me to look at the evidence around me. I don't see anything! Life is as normal as ever for me. I guess I should visit the north pole. For me, I don't doubt the effect civilization is having on the environment. What I do doubt are predictions about what this will bring in the future.

How old are you? In 10 years I've seen snow fall usually starting before Halloween to usually starting just before Christmas. It's gradual, you're not going to notice it in a few years, but in a decade you certainly will. Of course, you have to be old enough to remember a decade ago.

And yes, Mario, the accepted scientific nomenclature is Climate Change because rednecks keep saying "We broke cold records too last year *puts hand in pants then sniffs it*."

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How old are you? In 10 years I've seen snow fall usually starting before Halloween to usually starting just before Christmas. It's gradual, you're not going to notice it in a few years, but in a decade you certainly will. Of course, you have to be old enough to remember a decade ago.

And yes, Mario, the accepted scientific nomenclature is Climate Change because rednecks keep saying "We broke cold records too last year *puts hand in pants then sniffs it*."

Something I found to be VERY interesting:




Oh, no, global warming/climate change can't possibly be happening. Look, I live in a very beautiful location, and the glaciers are a very large part of our way of life. I've noticed droughts getting worse and winters getting more mild, especially compared to 10 or 13 years ago (yes, I remember back that far). The facts are literally all around us...if mankind would open its eyes, we would see this.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How old are you? In 10 years I've seen snow fall usually starting before Halloween to usually starting just before Christmas. It's gradual, you're not going to notice it in a few years, but in a decade you certainly will. Of course, you have to be old enough to remember a decade ago.

And yes, Mario, the accepted scientific nomenclature is Climate Change because rednecks keep saying "We broke cold records too last year *puts hand in pants then sniffs it*."

Im 21. Where Im from, the seasons have not changed. It snows at the same time, it gets cold at the same time, the leaves change at the same time. Just because one year it doesn't snow until Christmas doesn't mean something strange is happening. This year it didn't snow until December but it sure as hell was cold enough to snow in November. There is natural variation in the weather. Heavy snow is a rare occurance on any given year in Indiana. Snow doesn't really matter as long on it's cold enough. My senior year in high school (3 years ago) we had a snow day in April. That was an unusual event but it was in the opposite direction that you would expect. I don't know about the arctic because I don't live there, but in Indiana everything is normal. Besides, I think you need to look at more than 10 years of weather data before you can say there is a real change. You've probably read about the little ice age haven't you? That lasted a couple hundred years but it wasn't a permanent shift.

One idea/theory is that the sun is causing rises in average heat on Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and other planets (like has happened SO many other times) and the rises in heat are causing rises in CO2. In other words, it is not the rise in CO2 that is causing warming of the planet; it happens in the reverse direction. The rise in heat is part of the natural cycle Earth has always had, and CO2 rises with the heat.

Is that something to rule out?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

And yes, Mario, the accepted scientific nomenclature is Climate Change because rednecks keep saying "We broke cold records too last year *puts hand in pants then sniffs it*."

They used to think it was a warming, but now they think it is just a changing? This issue is such a clusterfuck. It's like a bad movie with a bunch of stupid sequels. Stay tuned for Global Change VII: Return of the Global Cooling. I am very much counting on watching that alarmist craze happen. Stick around.