Evidence for climate change

[GeorgiaDon 380]

First, thanks for such a long and detailed response. I will take the time to read the links you provided. Until I do I can't respond to most of your points, and I suspect that more often than not I'll be in agreement with you anyway.

I don't want to be misunderstood as condoning bad behavior on the part of climate scientists. Clearly, hiding data or methodologies is unacceptable, in my own case it would be a violation of the conditions NIH imposes as a condition of receiving funding. The only exception is that you don't have to provide competitors with your raw data before you have had a reasonable opportunity to analyze and publish the results.

My point was mainly that I doubt that there is something about climatology that intrinsically attracts only paranoid super-secretive pricks to the field. If they are that way (and not to say that such behavior is appropriate) it might be at least in part because they are tired of being called liars and frauds. You only have to read the various threads on climate change here in SC to see how successful the "denier" side has been in convincing at least some of the public that the whole field is made up to fraudulently obtain grant funding. I work on disease transmission by mosquitoes. If I was to be attacked continuously by people who claim that I created and released West Nile, or that the whole West Nile epidemic never happened and was just made up to get NIH to give out money, it would be hard for me to devote a lot of my time to trying to placate those people. That's just human nature, and scientists are as human as anyone else. Perhaps that would not be the most productive response, and indeed it would be damaging in the long run, but still it's a natural response.

Quote

But since global warming is such an issue, ecologists, entomologists, botanists, etc., can all get research money by linking the study to this hotbed issue. Take a look at the 14 authors of this paper from diverse fields - it's not just climatologists getting into it.
http://www.nature.com/...ull/nature02121.html

It's verifiable fact that the growing season is changing, the distribution of plants and animals is changing, all in a direction indicating warming. People are not making this shit up just to get funding. Regarding insect-transmitted diseases such as malaria, it would be stupid, verging on scientific malpractice, to refuse to even try to get a handle on what is going on. The distribution of diseases will change along with the distribution of the vectors, and if we don't anticipate those changes we'll be stuck reacting after epidemics hit areas where they didn't occur before. Already the distribution of the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti has extended farther North in Europe than it has ever been seen before, bringing with it outbreaks of Chikungunya virus and potentially Dengue. Depending on the pace of warming, plants may not be able to disperse fast enough to keep even with the changing geography of where conditions are suitable for them, in which case they and the insects and other animals that depend on them are at risk of extinction. These are legitimate topics for research, not inventing shit to squeeze money from granting agencies.

Quote

What Randy has to say may be tough to hear, but its tough love. He provides some very important lessons on what works and what doesn’t, and they ring true to us in our own experience with public outreach. In short, says Randy: Tell a good story; Arouse expectations and then fulfill them; Don’t be so Cerebral; And, last but certainly not least: Don’t be so unlikeable (i.e. don’t play to the stereotype of the arrogant, dismissive academic or the nerdy absent-minded scientist).

This is a legitimate point. However most scientists that I know kind of suck at this, in part because if that is your personality you'd probably end up in a field other than science, and in part because these days mastering any body of knowledge well enough to then go on and do publishable research is more than a full-time endeavor. Scientists, just like everybody else, compete for "status" and prestige, but in science status comes from the body of research that you have done. Many years ago a prominent Canadian geneticist, David Suzuki, started a second career doing science documentaries. He hosts the NOVA series, for example. Of course his productivity as a scientist fell when he did this, as there is only so much time in the day. Curiously, his efforts earned him a fair amount of disdain rather than respect amongst the genetics community, as he was no longer seen as a serious scientist. I've very recently heard similar comments about Richard Dawkins. So, even though science can benefit greatly from respected scientists who then change focus to public education, they pay a social cost within the community of their peers, which tends to discourage people from following a similar path. A self-destructive trait in the scientific community, to be sure.

Again thanks for links and your insight.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, and it has progressiveness written all over it.

So just how regressive are you, actually? Civil rights too much to swallow? Suffrage for women? That whole Magna Carta thing pushing it too far?

Don

You are calling me regressive? Is this for real? I see you are very adept in using the same techniques of your beloved climate change/global warming radicals that currently control this debate. At best there is plenty evidence that the ones on top of the IPCC, are just so progressive that they will not use any stonewalling of dissent, and they are very clear on the position of open debate, by simple calling people idiots or "regresive", well, somehow you just fit the exact description.

From progressive on climate change debate to civil rights hater, women suffage oppositor. Thank you for proving my theory that progressive are just simply obtuse.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, and it has progressiveness written all over it.

So just how regressive are you, actually? Civil rights too much to swallow? Suffrage for women? That whole Magna Carta thing pushing it too far?

Don

You are calling me regressive? Is this for real? I see you are very adept in using the same techniques of your beloved climate change/global warming radicals that currently control this debate. At best there is plenty evidence that the ones on top of the IPCC, are just so progressive that they will not use any stonewalling of dissent, and they are very clear on the position of open debate, by simple calling people idiots or "regresive", well, somehow you just fit the exact description.

From progressive on climate change debate to civil rights hater, women suffage oppositor. Thank you for proving my theory that progressive are just simply obtuse.

So your saying you're progressive? Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you hated anything progressive. My bad.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[skipbelt 0]

a sentence beginning with " i thought " invites a number of contrary responses.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I don't want to be misunderstood as condoning bad behavior on the part of climate scientists. Clearly, hiding data or methodologies is unacceptable, in my own case it would be a violation of the conditions NIH imposes as a condition of receiving funding. The only exception is that you don't have to provide competitors with your raw data before you have had a reasonable opportunity to analyze and publish the results.

I know. This seems to be a topic of debate, since the NIH isn't the agency controlling funding for the climatologists. This is the less-than-transparent culture that was discussed by the inquiries.

Quote

My point was mainly that I doubt that there is something about climatology that intrinsically attracts only paranoid super-secretive pricks to the field. If they are that way (and not to say that such behavior is appropriate) it might be at least in part because they are tired of being called liars and frauds.

It isn't something that attracts these people. It's merely a culture that began and has grown and evolved into a subculture where the people at the top ARE this way. As stated in the inquiries, this culture of secrecy and stonewalling is the CAUSE of the frauds and liars accusations.

I think that people go into climate science with the best intentions. However, to move up the ranks and get your doctorate, you ain't gonna do it by challenging the paradigms. There is significant personal investment in the science - by the very people who will be giving these doctorates. It's why challenges are being made by statisticians and physicists - other people whose science is being used as the foundation for climate science, which entails a bunch of these disciplines.

Quote

You only have to read the various threads on climate change here in SC to see how successful the "denier" side has been in convincing at least some of the public that the whole field is made up to fraudulently obtain grant funding.

I don't think that's the case. I think that the CONSEQUENCES and been inflated in order to obtain more funding. "There's climate change" ain't goin to do much. "There's a risk of significant changes to society" isn't goin to do it. "IF the polar ice caps melt 2/3 of the US population will be flooded and hae nowhere to go because of lack of water in the country's interior. Billions will die!" That gets attention. Hansen has admitted that it's now time to be more realistic now that it's gotten attention.

THere's a reason - climate scientists are policy advocates because it provides a livelihood. I'm not sayign there's anything wrong with that but it is what it is. To my denying it is a problem.

Quote

I work on disease transmission by mosquitoes. If I was to be attacked continuously by people who claim that I created and released West Nile, or that the whole West Nile epidemic never happened and was just made up to get NIH to give out money, it would be hard for me to devote a lot of my time to trying to placate those people.

If you came out 15 years ago and said that if West Nile hits the US that 20 million would die of it in the first year and we need to devote resources toward studying this disease NOW, that we should change the basis of the world economy and standard of living prevent it, you'd see some people wondering 10 years later just how kooky you were. If you maintained that West Nile will kill 100 million US residents by 2100 unless we act now, we'd think, "What the fuck? We HAVE west Nile and it DOES kill, but it's a nuisance in the scheme of deadly shit."

"No. Just because we didn't lose 20 million per year in the last 5 years doesn't mean it won't happen. We need changes NOW. There's a consensus among vector researchers that this is the biggest threat to humanity." People would be understandably skeptical.

Hansen wasn't called a fraud 25 years ago. The lack of results that he predicted coupled with continuing predictions based on "we know what we're taling about" leads to skepticism.

Quote

That's just human nature, and scientists are as human as anyone else. Perhaps that would not be the most productive response, and indeed it would be damaging in the long run, but still it's a natural response.

Right. Scientists are human. They are as suscpetible to human foible as any other human. They are susceptible to arrogance and even religious devotion to dogma. Above all, they are as susceptible to protection of ego as anyone. They have personal interests in this. Climate scientists are not altruists. They are people.

Quote

It's verifiable fact that the growing season is changing, the distribution of plants and animals is changing, all in a direction indicating warming.

Crop yields are increasing. Population is booming. Life expectancy is increasing. All during this warming period.

It leads to a problem. "We've been warming and human standard of living is improving. It hasn't been disaster." Any of a number of correlations can be shown. This leads to, again, the predictions of consequences. We've seen some good consequences, haven't we? It hasn't been unmitigated disaster. Opinion is changing because of impatience in the public about the disasters that haven't occurred that were predicted - AND - the attribution of disasters to global warming that have occurred previously.

Quote

People are not making this shit up just to get funding. Regarding insect-transmitted diseases such as malaria, it would be stupid, verging on scientific malpractice, to refuse to even try to get a handle on what is going on. The distribution of diseases will change along with the distribution of the vectors, and if we don't anticipate those changes we'll be stuck reacting after epidemics hit areas where they didn't occur before.

True. But if we spend our time planning on a response - and money - we've also gotten ourselves into a situation of figuring out what is better or worse. This is where policy comes in. As a student of this, you know that malaria was a significant problem during the Revolutionary War. Do we attribute that to AGW?

In a climate sense, some would say we are still in an ice age - the history of earth is not one in which ice coverage has been prevalent. We may be coming OUTof an ice age - which may be merely normal variation. Or going back into on - merely normal variation.

Quote

Already the distribution of the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti has extended farther North in Europe than it has ever been seen before, bringing with it outbreaks of Chikungunya virus and potentially Dengue.

"Has ever been seen before?" Do we know that these mosquitoes weren't there in 1000 AD? I am skeptical of this because people have been seeing things for 10,000 years but haven't been able to descrbe these things until recently.

Quote

Depending on the pace of warming, plants may not be able to disperse fast enough to keep even with the changing geography of where conditions are suitable for them, in which case they and the insects and other animals that depend on them are at risk of extinction.

Considering that 10,000 years ago, Albany New York was under a half a mile of ice, I'd think that such extinctions as that of the wooly mammoth and saber toothed tiger due to climate change would be seen today as horrors!

It's happened before. Life adapted. If it didn't it died and was replaced. Seems skeptical of me but it's nature.

Quote

These are legitimate topics for research, not inventing shit to squeeze money from granting agencies.

They are legitimate topics. Scientists, however, do press releases. Funding is finite and competing for a finite resource means adapting to the environment in order to assure survival. It happens. I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying it is what it is.

Quote

This is a legitimate point. However most scientists that I know kind of suck at this, in part because if that is your personality you'd probably end up in a field other than science, and in part because these days mastering any body of knowledge well enough to then go on and do publishable research is more than a full-time endeavor. Scientists, just like everybody else, compete for "status" and prestige, but in science status comes from the body of research that you have done.

Right! And to release code and other such matters to people whom you know are tryign to prove you wrong will certainly affect that prestige if anything is proven wrong. They have self-interest. They are NOT altruists. They think of themselves and protect their own - just like any other human,

Quote

Many years ago a prominent Canadian geneticist, David Suzuki, started a second career doing science documentaries. He hosts the NOVA series, for example. Of course his productivity as a scientist fell when he did this, as there is only so much time in the day. Curiously, his efforts earned him a fair amount of disdain rather than respect amongst the genetics community, as he was no longer seen as a serious scientist.

Yep. It's a shame.

Quote

I've very recently heard similar comments about Richard Dawkins. So, even though science can benefit greatly from respected scientists who then change focus to public education, they pay a social cost within the community of their peers, which tends to discourage people from following a similar path. A self-destructive trait in the scientific community, to be sure.

Yep. It's not all about the science. That's my point. It's cliquish.

Quote

Again thanks for links and your insight.

Don

Thanks for the reasoned discussion!

My wife is hotter than your wife.