Climategate

[Kiyouta]

As reported by the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html

Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'

Some of the world

[Andrew]

A couple emails say it is a hoax, without the appropriate data showing that the emailer is true in that the data results is being ignored.

Sure global warming is a hoax, in the sense that it is just politics (give out $$$ gov money to do nothing). Pollution in general is not a hoax. And pumping crap into the air/water/soil is bad for everyone.

[chatfsh]

I, for one, am not the least bit surprised by any of these shenanigans.  As a matter of fact, I'm a little annoyed that it required this much time before all of these unscrupulous, underhanded activities, most unbecoming the scientific community, were exposed and laid bare for public scrutiny.  I swear, politics corrupts everything that it gets its grimy little fingers on. 

But talk about feeling vindicated

[Edric O]

Hahaha, the economics profession is full of people whose behaviour would make these climate scientists look like the pinnacle of academic integrity.

[Dante]

As if yet another minor event needed to have -gate appended to it... There have been more exciting scandals than Watergate.

[Khan]

But few as iconic.

Any of the debate around global warming is quite tricky as we basically have to rely on what we are told by scientists funded by the government and through the media. That's an awful lot of agendas open to corruption.

[Dante]

I once read a letter in which the writer suggested that the term 'global warming' should be phased out, as it's vague and doesn't truly describe the combination of effects that the planet is currently undergoing. He suggested instead 'global pollution,' a much more evocative and accurate descriptor, should be employed. I find myself inclined to agree, as regardless of even the bulk of scientific material, it's impossible to say that we are not harming the planet and the climate by our actions. This covers everything from industrial waste, chemical dumping and industrial growth to the effects of overfishing, hunting, etc. Call it what it is, and maybe people will take more notice.

[Wolf]

I prefer to call it "gradual environmental collapse." It captures the true scope of potential political and social consequences. Also, minus the "gradual" part, that's the term used in Command & Conquer. Granted, also, that their environment was being devastated by an alien world-seeding substance. Still ...

[chatfsh]

Based upon some of the comments above, it appears that suddenly we're much more reasonable and open to the possibility that climate science is not a settled issue and still needs to be debated in an unbiased forum where information and field data are freely shared on both sides of the aisle.  Perhaps then, real progress could be made in an environment where scientists can get back to the fundamental pursuit of truth, instead of taking the low road of dirty

politics.

[Wolf]

Here's what bothers me: the climate's been pretty badly affected, some would say irreversibly devastated, by the actions of only, really, the United States and Western Europe over the past 40 years. Only recently have these countries scaled back their emissions production, and then, only piecemeal. However, once the vast majority of South American, African, and Middle Eastern nations achieve this same level of industrial output per capita (Africa's population by mid-century will be 1.5 billion, Latin America, another billion--the United States and all of Europe, including Russia, barely make one), I do not think they will be concerned with emissions reduction. I think they will be concerned with maintaining, as best they can, 1970s-80s United States-style economies. This coupled with India and China--another 2.5 billion people--who are already midway between the developing world and the old industrialized West--may create a perfect storm of pollution that no political body, anywhere, is capable of halting. Who cares that the West will reduce emissions by as much as 20% in the next decade? What will it matter when they are no longer the chief producers of emissions?

[Dante]

It's an issue that I've come across before. Why should we reduce our emissions, the developing world says, when you're doing such a crap job of reducing yours? Using "you" in the generic sense of the Western world, Canada especially. "And why should we sacrifice our wealth when you're so much richer than us?"

Well, the best idea I've come across yet is simply to make being environmentally conscious more profitable than to do otherwise. It's harder work than selling trees, but tourism and the like can really bring in the cash. On the downside of course, that means the pollution associated with air travel will go up. Which in turn means that we need to find cleaner ways to travel. *shrug* All worth it in the end. And it keeps the developing world happy. Ideally.

[chatfsh]

Good news!  Phil Jones, the head of the British climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, has stepped down in response to the damaging e-mails leaked from the facility.

In light of how greatly this weakens their credibility and threatens the integrity of their work on climate change, I'd say that  his stepping down is not only a prudent move, but a huge step in the right direction to condemn such ignoble behavior and conduct.

[Kiyouta]

Well, the best idea I've come across yet is simply to make being environmentally conscious more profitable than to do otherwise.

And trendier! Seems that more and more, being an environmentally conscious business is easy and effective marketing, especially for tech companies. E.g. X helps Y reduce carbon footprint by 50% over 10 years etc etc. Of course, no business will admit they are really just doing it to save money...

[Edric O]

Oh no, Mikhail Gorbachev has taken to giving advice on climate negotiations at Copenhagen. That's it, the Earth is doomed.

Or maybe we could have him negotiate on behalf of the oil industry? He would undoubtedly sign an agreement to phase out fossil fuels entirely and switch to selling flower power, in exchange for vague promises that maybe we'll think twice before ruthlessly destroying everything he holds dear.

[Dante]

I always thought that, from an extraordinarily cynical point of view, the future of the planet was a win-win situation. On the one hand, if we get our act together and start living the green life in time to save everything, then everyone's happy. On the other hand, if we continue the way we're going (note: procedures don't need to get worse for everything to crack up, they just need to just stay the same) then at least the green lobby would get the pleasure of going "we told you so" in the underground bunker.

But it occurs to me now, and it's Gorbachev that brought the thought into being, that this dark line of reasoning may not be entirely foolproof. Meaning that in a very literal sense, it is vulnerable to fools. Because I now have a feeling that, if everything cracks up and the planet starts to melt, when faced with "we told you so" aboard the shuttles to Mars, some people will just reply "it's a perfectly natural process, there's nothing we could have done!"

Possibly with their fingers in their ears.

[Wolf]

I don't think we'll have to go to Mars. Colorado should be fine.

[chatfsh]

Australia's Parliament Defeats Global Warming Bill

Members of the US Congress are calling for hearings on the now infamous leaked e-mails from the CRU -- the e-mails that displayed a sordid array of unethical behavior including the blatant manipulation of data and the suppression of scientific findings that contradicted their views. 

Can

[Andrew]

Can

[chatfsh]

Oh, so now these scientists are not only liars, they

[Dunenewt]

Welcome to Capitalism...

Economists, Politicians, etc, they're all money grabbing liars these days.

[Edric O]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point, Hwi. Are you surprised that people whose writings are used as political ammunition are money-grubbing liars?

The only new thing here is that, for once, hard science is being used as political ammunition. Usually, the money-grubbing liars who manipulate data are to be found in other fields, like history or economics or the amusingly misnamed "political science." Philosophy used to be affected by this, too, but no one cares about it any more.

I expect that whenever wealth and power are at stake, all sides will employ lies (in varying amounts, of course). The only questions are (a) how much are they lying, and (b) are their lies important enough to make the difference between supporting or opposing them?

[Dunenewt]

One thing about Political Science, is that many of the 'popular' theories don't believe that its a science so to speak, the whole post positivist movement.

[Wolf]

I don't think it was the money. Environmental sciences are only just beginning to reach the point where megacorporations consider might consider their results to be potentially profitable. To me, environmental science has always been dominated by the "true believer" environmentalists, the hand-wringers and "Captain Planet" watchers, the kind of people who have frequent nightmares involving plastic wrappers choking dolphins to death or suffocating under an SUV. I think they were so concerned for the well-being of the Earth that they were afraid to release any information that might be used against them or to discredit them. For all the good that did them. They probably rationalized that they were, at least, "mostly right", and that therefore what they were doing wasn't so bad so long as it moved "the cause" forward.

[chatfsh]

Irony of ironies, in the effort not to discredit themselves

[Edric O]

Well, personally, I'm silent because climate change isn't really an issue I'm very familiar with. And I'm not very concerned about it, because the stakes are not as high as most environmentalists seem to think. Both possible outcomes of the climate crisis have their share of positive and negative aspects. If we manage to mitigate the effects of climate change in time, then we save millions of people, but we also save capitalism from itself (again) and therefore help to prop up a system that causes enormous suffering and makes life miserable for the majority of Humanity. If we fail, then many people will die and many more will suffer, but at least capitalism will finally collapse and liberal ideology will be discredited (hopefully forever, this time).

The first outcome is obviously preferable to the second, but not by such a wide margin that we should be putting this issue at the top of our agenda. There is a part of me that wants to say "just let the greedy bastards destroy themselves, and get ready to pick up the pieces afterward." Unfortunately, we can't do that, because too many innocent people would also suffer.

And yes, you may have noticed that I think in terms of the impact of climate change on Humanity, not "the planet." "The planet" has gone through much worse. The biosphere will always recover, in time. The only thing we could do that would cause any permanent damage on "the planet" is nuclear war.