The Great Climategate Debate @ MIT World

[dajo]

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 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.”

[ninja9578]

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.

[dajo]

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.

[tommo]

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.

[dajo]

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.

[Xaqaria]

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.

[Universal Mind]

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.

[tommo]

Well my post was kind of meant for the ensuing debate. But anyway, ok this is my last post here. Even IF global warming is not happening, just for arguments sake. Is it still not worth it to try and clean up our environment? Litter does not look good, pollution does not smell good, dead trees do not look good, roaring 12 cylinder engines do not sound good, pollution is not healthy, uranium is not healthy etc. It's pointless imo to even bother arguing this. I don't care if it's happening, I want to live in a clean and healthy and good looking environment. End of story. We can't keep living like we are.

[tkdyo]

^ to answer you frist question, yes, of course it is worth not polluting as much still, that is obvious and most people who are skeptical of global warming still feel this way. and in response to you first post...around here these winters are the coldest we've had in a long long time...thats what I see looking around me.

[Carôusoul]

The world is heating up. I'm not happy about this. I might turn more lights off, just to make myself feel better.

[dajo]

Well my post was kind of meant for the ensuing debate. But anyway, ok this is my last post here. Even IF global warming is not happening, just for arguments sake. Is it still not worth it to try and clean up our environment? Litter does not look good, pollution does not smell good, dead trees do not look good, roaring 12 cylinder engines do not sound good, pollution is not healthy, uranium is not healthy etc. It's pointless imo to even bother arguing this. I don't care if it's happening, I want to live in a clean and healthy and good looking environment. End of story. We can't keep living like we are. Sure, that's fine. But this is the science thread, isn't it? Because some of us maybe want to get the issue, which by the way will shape a lot of our future, down in all its facets. This does not mean at all that there should not be taken any measures to create our environment more eco-friendly. Quite the opposite. But even if every prevention was in the making, it should still continously be discussed. Especially since it is an issue that exceeded 'just' enviromentalism. You would, of course be free to choose not to participate. Even though it would be more effective if you just stated your opinion. Or linked to one of the scientific journals that positvely investigates this at length. Edit: A good scientific journal would be much appreciated!! Thanks, Dajo. I really want to understand both sides of the argument better, and what you posted is the sort of thing that helps. Thanks. It helped me. ^ to answer you frist question, yes, of course it is worth not polluting as much still, that is obvious and most people who are skeptical of global warming still feel this way. Exactly. I have been trying for quite a while now to adjust my life to a more environmental and less consuming way. Inspite of this I am still critical about global warming. This doesn't mean, I will use this as an excuse for littering. 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. Which is far from scientific. But you implied that with 'religion' I guess

[Xei]

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.

[Sornaensis]

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.

[tkdyo]

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...

[juroara]

once again, why are people so focused on this thing called global warming when we can see real impact and damage to SUPPORTING ecosystems? why do you need to argue whether or not global warming is real? our vehicles were already known to be creating pollution before this global warming business came about. heating up or not, it's wrong to continue relying on fossil fuels

[ninja9578]

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.

[Sornaensis]

and...life still rolled on just fine... Well of course it did. ...?

[tkdyo]

was just adding on

[Maria92]

and in response to you first post...around here these winters are the coldest we've had in a long long time...thats what I see looking around me. I believe the term "global warming" is as much outdated as it is a misnomer. "Global Climate Change" has taken its place...and what this states is not that the entire planet will heat up...it's more along the lines that we don't know what the fuck is going to happen to the climate. It's predicted that deserts will get drier, floods will get worse, winters will get harsher, summers will become more brutal, hurricanes will get stronger, tornadoes will increase in frequency, and all sorts of other unpleasant shit. Personally, I think that we definitely need to clean up the environment and cut back on CO2 emissions and such, but I really, really doubt this is going to happen...there just isn't enough incentive. As long as running gas-guzzling cars on cheap fossil fuels remains economic, people aren't going to change any time soon, sad as it is. (My ideal and extremely unrealistic escape plan) - we build a bunch of boats. Sturdy boats encased in big, plastic bubbles. We give everyone on earth a tree that grows 52 different fruits...a different kind every week. The fruit are genetically engineered to have all the nutritional requirements needed by a person to survive and thrive. As sea levels rise, people take to the ocean, floating about on the tides. Solar panels on the deck of the ship charge the battery for the engine. The big plastic bubble protects people from storms and tidal waves to some extent. Eventually, people begin to converge and form big floating colonies. These floating cities are held together by bungie cords. Eventually, people begin importing materials from inland, small shops are formed, trade is re-invented, and a monetary system is created once more... ...that should make for a fun dream.

[Xei]

it's more along the lines that we don't know what the fuck is going to happen to the climate. That's not a scientific hypothesis though. 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. I don't doubt that industrialisation causes CO2 emissions.

[Caprisun]

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.

[Luanne]

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?

[Xei]

I think oil use should be reduced to zero, because it will start to decline quickly and if we don't have mitigating technology in place it could be extremely problematic. I don't know about CO2, but I'm not convinced. As far as I can tell the only evidence is computer models and in my experience trying to predict long term trends in chaotic systems is very tricky. The MET office repeatedly embarrass themselves when they try to do it. I recycle because we have limited resources. Also because here at uni they do it anyway. At home we are probably far better at recycling than you are. All biodegradable waste is composted, and food is given to our chickens. I think humans probably are destoying life on Earth through hunting and habitat destruction.

[dajo]

I agree. once again, why are people so focused on this thing called global warming when we can see real impact and damage to SUPPORTING ecosystems? why do you need to argue whether or not global warming is real? And I think it is still important to be discussed, because what actions there are to be taken is dependent on what the cause is. For example would I want to know all about global warming, before I start paying CO2 emission taxes. I want to help create a more ecological environment, but I do not want to just give money away to governments or any organization for that matter, if I don't know exactly what is going on. As for the matter of living an environment friendly life - this goes for me without saying. I don't need to be scared into doing that. And why do we need global warming to understand not to pollute everything? This is a weak argument for keeping global warming from being discussed scientifically. But it will have grave political and economical impact. The reason why some people might seem hung up on it, is because global warming is the basis of an ecological, economical and political 'change' (as well) and mainly on the grounds of global warming, important decisions are being made. (Or not made, but still)

[Luanne]

Thanks, Xei. I'm beginning to understand your point of view.