Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Climate science is an interesting field. Like geology, it's concerned with large time scales. Unlike geology - more like planetary science - it's primarily concerned with the spatial scale of the Earth and its atmosphere. Sometimes models are calibrated in part by their ability to "predict" historical events (sometimes when those events were not part of the model's input data). This is not *using* a model, this is part of *testing* a model. In climate science, it's not currently possible or desirable to "validate" models using methods that might make sense in a lab or a few acres of experimental forest. It's a fundamentally different risk scenario; there is no control area we can live in if the treatment area becomes unlivable. So the toolbox is terribly small... ...but you're advocating... what? It sounds an awful lot like "wait and see." But *if* the models are right - and they're the best we've ever had (and probably always will be, in the present) - then we should take the results into account, use the twin buffers of political and social process to moderate our reaction, and do what we can to optimize the risk balance. And no, that messy social stuff is not science in the best sense, but we do not have the option of doing science in the best sense. We don't have extra Earths and fast-time fields to put them into. On the other hand, if I've misconstrued your objection and you're questioning the basic atmospheric science, the physics of CO2, you're ignoring a large body of excellent work. On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Robert Hamilton wrote: > If the CO2 argument is to be validated in any meaningful way, related > models have to make accurate elegant predictions. So far they have > failed, and mainly are used to "explain" past events; and as such > represent little more than classic pseudo science. >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Mr. Hamilton, I suggest that your understanding of climate science, and the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is insufficient to support the argument you are trying to make. That there is a greenhouse effect is without doubt -- it is well established by two centuries of observations and theoretical development. Measurement of the current greenhouse effect on Earth and its nearest neighbors (Venus and Mars) enables us to predict the results of adding hundreds of millions of years of fossil carbon into our atmosphere in less than three centuries. Modern predictions that you so readily disparage are converging on warming figures that were predicted by Arrhenius 100 years ago. Your confidence that the predictions of current climate change aren't happening aren't borne out by facts or theory and ignore a VERY important word -- "yet." Past greenhouse-driven climate changes, such as the warming during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, took place over several centuries. The warming now is taking place over, what, several centuries? Certainly, the PETM is a model for rather drastic ecosystem changes that may yet occur under warming triggered by us -- especially if warming triggered by us also leads to massive release of methane trapped in terrestrial and marine sediments. Oh, as a tree-ring scientist, I'd like to know how finding explanations for past events constitutes "pseudo-science?" If explaining what happened in the past isn't science, we'd have to throw out a lot of what we know about evolution, ecology, biogeography, geology (especially stratigraphy) and more. I'd also like to know what is pseudo-scientific about the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which -- when combined with the known heat-trapping effects of certain gases in the atmosphere -- tells me enough about greenhouse warming to suggest it worthy of more than a little concern. Dave On 12/23/2009 12:56 PM, Robert Hamilton wrote: Climate change has to happen. With respect to temperature, over any period of time temperature will go up...or go down..on average as compared with any other period of time. That human activities, specifically, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, will have serious consequences is a prediction that simply has not borne out. Acid rain had obvious consequences that did not require very weak tedious statistical arguments, for example. The CO2 caused greenhouse effects predictions simply did not happen, and that's the problem with the current climate change debate. Maybe they could occur in the future, but as we deplete fossil fuel reserves and normal economic forces move us away from fossil fuels, the potential is much less than it was in any event. My problem with this is that we have done good work in educating people on the effects of atmospheric pollution, and as a result have had a great effect on industrial methodology and related technologies; reducing emissions of serious pollutants. We risk exchanging our credibility on real issues for what looks like politically motivated extremism on the CO2 issue. If the CO2 argument is to be validated in any meaningful way, related models have to make accurate elegant predictions. So far they have failed, and mainly are used to "explain" past events; and as such represent little more than classic pseudo science. "So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible" John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Professor of Biology Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited. "Raffel, Thomas" 12/23/2009 8:15 AM>>> Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly important. Just as acid rain is important, and species extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a desire to continue doing research on important questions. I see nothing wrong with this. Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subjec
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
There are many different aspects to Climate Change, some of which are obvious, some of which are obscure and controversial. Unfortunately attention has focussed on what is probably the weakest indicator, Global Warming. Hard to measure, since we don't have an adequate world-wide array of thermometers with long-term records, and of little practical interest, since people are most interested in local issues. Skeptics can easily attack both the existence of global warming and the tenuous nature of the theories that explain it. On the other hand, Ocean Acidification is clearly happening and can equally clearly be attributed to increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2. That is why skeptics sink their teeth into Global Warming and never address Ocean Acidification. There are other aspects of Climate Change which are less clear, usually because the mechanism is not obvious. The melting of glaciers, reduced snowfall in many areas, and sea level rise are clearly happening, but it is harder to prove the causality of these than Ocean Acidification. So what are we to do? Robert Hamilton says that we need to make "accurate elegant predictions" and holds up Acid Rain as an example, but that example is impossible to match. When you have a smokestack pouring sulpher compounds into the air and sulphuric acid showing up downwind the connection is pretty obvious. No such tight linkages exist in any of the Climate Change scenarios. Does this mean that we should just sit back and say that since nothing is proven, we should take no action? Faced with the possibility of irreversible environmental damage, perhaps the Precautionary Principle is worth considering. But maybe we should just wait another 50 or 100 years and hope that something conclusive can be proven. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Wayne Tyson" To: Sent: terça-feira, 22 de Dezembro de 2009 22:24 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase." To what extent do you think this might be true? WT
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Climate change has to happen. With respect to temperature, over any period of time temperature will go up...or go down..on average as compared with any other period of time. That human activities, specifically, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, will have serious consequences is a prediction that simply has not borne out. Acid rain had obvious consequences that did not require very weak tedious statistical arguments, for example. The CO2 caused greenhouse effects predictions simply did not happen, and that's the problem with the current climate change debate. Maybe they could occur in the future, but as we deplete fossil fuel reserves and normal economic forces move us away from fossil fuels, the potential is much less than it was in any event. My problem with this is that we have done good work in educating people on the effects of atmospheric pollution, and as a result have had a great effect on industrial methodology and related technologies; reducing emissions of serious pollutants. We risk exchanging our credibility on real issues for what looks like politically motivated extremism on the CO2 issue. If the CO2 argument is to be validated in any meaningful way, related models have to make accurate elegant predictions. So far they have failed, and mainly are used to "explain" past events; and as such represent little more than classic pseudo science. "So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible" John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Professor of Biology Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it, please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration is strictly prohibited. >>> "Raffel, Thomas" 12/23/2009 8:15 AM >>> Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly important. Just as acid rain is important, and species extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a desire to continue doing research on important questions. I see nothing wrong with this. Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase." To what extent do you think this might be true? WT No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.430 / Virus Database: 270.14.101/2555 - Release Date: 12/22/09 08:09:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Well said, Daniel! The only thing I might add is that, if one looked carefully, one might find an apparent bias against research that fails to find evidence for human-caused global warming or that finds evidence against it. This isn't because it's not PC to say that global warming isn't real or isn't caused by humans. Rather, it's because (1) null results are less likely to be published, regardless of the topic, and (2) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (usually). Failing to find evidence for global warming or for a human role in it is a null result, and it will be harder to publish if the research methods and analysis aren't impeccable. Similarly, at this point, the evidence for human-caused global warming is strong, so a study that yields a contrary result had better have solid methodology, if the authors want to publish. One other possible source of apparent bias (or maybe real bias) is our perception of what the moneyed interests would rather believe (and fund). If every dollar in the world got to vote on whether or not human-caused global warming is a real problem that we need to fix, I think we'd see a landslide victory for global-warming skeptics, and I think most scientists would predict the same result. If this really is our perception, I'd expect that results inconsistent with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis get extra scrutiny from reviewers on the grounds that any scientist that can be bought will most likely be bought by the wealthier side of the debate. Jim Crants On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Daniel Muth wrote: > Well it's undeniably true that an overwhelming number of solicitations in > the field specifically ask for this particular connection. It's also true > more and more in the literature that any paper no matter how loosely > connected to climate change seems to feel obligated to talk about it. > There > are probably many scientists, particularly in the carbon game, that > wouldn't > be here but for the fact that overall funding in the environmental field is > so minuscule (compared to say that apportioned for health or defense) that > one needs to pick spots where they can actually work. Like it or not, > money > leads research, but if environmental scientists were only interested in > landing fat grants, they'd be MUCH better off in another field. You'll > find > more pvc and duct tape in an ecology lab than in a plumbers van, mostly > because we can't afford anything else (and hell it works!). > > I've also never come across a solicitation that told it's recipients what > to > find. As long as the methods are sound, scientists are generally free to > make their own conclusions. This is one of the areas in which science is > fundamentally misunderstood by the public, as the rigorous progression of a > novel idea to a paradigm is not something that happens without serious > challenges from within the community itself. There isn't a greater > community of skeptics on the planet! What's more, skepticism is encouraged > within the realm of intelligent debate. There isn't one of us that > wouldn't > like to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening, which is > why > the near consensus on the topic (at least with regards to the overall > trend) > is so impressive. > > I'm not aware of many scientists who have somehow enriched themselves in > climate change research. To me this makes the money claims levied by the > disenfranchised millionaires (billionaires?) in the fossil fuel industry, > beyond absurd. > > > > What detractors misunderstand is that if someone is getting rich off > climate > science it sure isn't us. > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > > > ECOLOG: > > > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change > > research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major > > motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often > > cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do > to > > get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global > warming,' > > or some similar buzz-phrase." > > > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > > > WT > > >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
I suggest that (1) money is actually the major motivation behind climate science denial, and (2) the interests behind this kind of denial are adept and shameless at deliberately accusing others of what they themselves do. The truth is that greed, fraud, and shameless lies destroy effective public science (all effective public discussion and decision making, in fact), they do not promote it. And I seem to remember that the tobacco companies actually pioneered many of these fraudulent techniques, yes? Steve Lohse Futures Studies Dept. of Political Science University of Hawaii at Manoa Good governance is not something that we must institute before we can start living wisely. Good governance IS living wisely. - Original Message - From: "Raffel, Thomas" Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:43 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate > change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and > hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly > important. Just as acid rain is important, and species > extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, > this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a > desire to continue doing research on important questions. > I see nothing wrong with this. > > Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use > it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll > say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and > chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I > wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. > > Tom Raffel > > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc > > ECOLOG: > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to > climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is > that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a > fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been > made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal > funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some > similar buzz-phrase." > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > WT >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly important. Just as acid rain is important, and species extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a desire to continue doing research on important questions. I see nothing wrong with this. Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. Tom Raffel -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase." To what extent do you think this might be true? WT No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.430 / Virus Database: 270.14.101/2555 - Release Date: 12/22/09 08:09:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Does not work in Russia at all! Our government does not believe in global warming... Unfortunately... D. On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > ECOLOG: > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change > research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major > motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often > cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to > get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or > some similar buzz-phrase." > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > WT > --- Dmitry Musolin, PhD Department of Entomology Faculty of Biology and Soil Sciences, St. Petersburg State University Universitetskaya nab., 7/9, St. Petersburg, 199034, RUSSIA In Russian: http://www.entomology.bio.pu.ru/musolin_front.htm In English: www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/rider/Pentatomoidea/Researchers/Musolin_Dmitry.htm "Seasonal Development of Aquatic and Semiaquatic True Bugs (Heteroptera)" www.unipress.ru/2007/sau.html; available at: http://www.pemberleybooks.com/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Yeah, that's what motivated folks like Fourier, Tyndall, Callendar, Arrhenius, etc. All that physics, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law, is a fraud. Just like those fossils planted by satanic agents to undermine our faith in creation... Dave Wayne Tyson wrote: ECOLOG: One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some similar buzz-phrase." To what extent do you think this might be true? WT -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc
Well it's undeniably true that an overwhelming number of solicitations in the field specifically ask for this particular connection. It's also true more and more in the literature that any paper no matter how loosely connected to climate change seems to feel obligated to talk about it. There are probably many scientists, particularly in the carbon game, that wouldn't be here but for the fact that overall funding in the environmental field is so minuscule (compared to say that apportioned for health or defense) that one needs to pick spots where they can actually work. Like it or not, money leads research, but if environmental scientists were only interested in landing fat grants, they'd be MUCH better off in another field. You'll find more pvc and duct tape in an ecology lab than in a plumbers van, mostly because we can't afford anything else (and hell it works!). I've also never come across a solicitation that told it's recipients what to find. As long as the methods are sound, scientists are generally free to make their own conclusions. This is one of the areas in which science is fundamentally misunderstood by the public, as the rigorous progression of a novel idea to a paradigm is not something that happens without serious challenges from within the community itself. There isn't a greater community of skeptics on the planet! What's more, skepticism is encouraged within the realm of intelligent debate. There isn't one of us that wouldn't like to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening, which is why the near consensus on the topic (at least with regards to the overall trend) is so impressive. I'm not aware of many scientists who have somehow enriched themselves in climate change research. To me this makes the money claims levied by the disenfranchised millionaires (billionaires?) in the fossil fuel industry, beyond absurd. What detractors misunderstand is that if someone is getting rich off climate science it sure isn't us. On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > ECOLOG: > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change > research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major > motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often > cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to > get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' > or some similar buzz-phrase." > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > WT >
