On The Paris Climate Treaty Exit

I've written sparingly about global warming/climate change over the years. I'll be the first to tell you that most of the actual science that comes from the myriad concerned fields goes right over my head. I do take quite a bit of it with a grain of salt, not just because I suspect some people are playing fast and loose with the data, but also because on a social level it's become associated with a sort of eschatological environmentalism.

Nowhere was the latter bit more evident to me than following President Trump's announcement that the US would be leaving the Paris Climate Treaty.

It's hard to determine just how serious to take any of it anymore. I understand that Trump's election represents an existential crisis to many on the American left, but many declared that the US exit from this treaty means no less than the end of the world. Everything as we know it is lost! The world will burn! Our only chance at possibly saving a remnant is to vote Democrat!

Everything Donald Trump does is wrong, I get that. This panic over the Paris Treaty, though, the rending of garments, the gnashing of teeth . . . it's really not worth it. Let me explain.

Forging science in the CRUcible

I should probably be burned alive for the title pun, but never mind that.  I've neglected to write about a story that broke before Thanksgiving, but I feel compelled to finally do so.  I don't really have a good link to a "summary" of the whole story, but you probably don't have to look very far if you just google "Climategate."  (Ugh.  Can we please get away from adding "gate" to word to name a controversy?  It's just silly, people.)

Edit:  Ah, I have such little imagination.  Here's one from the Times of UK, and here's one AEI.

Here's what I can recall from memory:

A few weeks ago, some computers purportedly hacked at the East Anglia (that's England) Climate Research Unit and a vast array of information leaked onto the internet.  Email, data, modeling programs and algorithms . . . it was a treasure trove of information.  Analysis of the leaked information has led people to conclude that life at CRU was fishy at best and fraudulent at worst.  The emails indicated that the scientists there were purposely avoiding FOIA requests for their data (which they are required to give, since they receive American grant money), spiking the research of colleagues who published research that rejects anthropogenic global warming, and manipulating their data to hide trends which contradicts the AGW hypothesis.  As this has been coming to light and calls have been made for investigations, CRU has admitted to destroying data.

Altogether, that's bad.  It's very counter-intuitive to how the scientific process is supposed to work.  You might want to say that this isn't that big of a deal because this is only one place, and in general peer review is supposed to root out bad science and bad scientists.  One problem is that apparently the CRU crew were big players in the AGW scheme, playing big parts in collaborations such as the IPCC.  Additionally, it seems that a lot of secondary work is based off of what CRU produces, so if they manipulate their data or produce faulty read-outs, those errors may be multiplied down the road.

Of course, you'll want to read about it yourself.  Some people are debating about the implications for the veracity of the AGW hypothesis altogether.  I'll save my thoughts on that for another post.  Instead, I'd wanted a chance to link to this Wall Street Journal opinion piece saying that the credibility of science is on the line because of this.

I sympathize with a lot of his main point.  The general public is scientifically illiterate in ways that make me uncomfortable sometimes.  Combine that with the fervent, political way in which AGW has been presented to them, and the sudden development that bigwigs up top are putting down the answers that they want and then saying the dog ate their homework, well, I can see how that might lower the general trust in that field specifically and the sciences as a whole.

Still, I'm reminded of another time that big players were found to have falsified their data in a highly controversial field.  It wasn't too long ago that a Korean scientist was found to have forged data related to embryonic stem cell research.  It's unfortunate that I don't remember either his name or the consequences of his shenanigans, but I do remember writing about it on this blog.  My point being that, despite his actions sullying the "respectability" of the field, that area of research has continued onward.

Of course, the two topics are only similar in that there was scientific fraud being committed.  That doesn't make this a bad example, but it does mean that we'll have to wait and see how this plays out.  This could very well be the turning point at which AGW stops being the "consensus" position and politicians stop trying to implement catastrophic economic policies based on the word of over-zealous scientists.  Or it might change absolutely nothing, with a few empty words spoken about how good it is to pick out the bad eggs but that the science is still sound, settled, and must be acted upon with all haste. 

I'm hoping it's the former.  Time will tell.

Thinking like a hypothesis

During my first week here, we had a "back to basics" lecture entitled, "Thinking Like a Scientist: How to Formulate a Hypothesis." I wasn't paying much attention, to the above title is what I ended up writing on my page of notes. Sometimes even I wonder what strange malady addles my brain. At least I got some blog fodder out of it.

Of course, the take home message of the whole thing was that a hypothesis isn't scientific if it isn't falsifiable. This could come in any number of forms: The thing you want to prove isn't testable, the way the test is designed automatically gives the assumed result, any outcome results in a confirmation of the hypothesis, etc. This is has to be distinguished from modifying your hypothesis to fit new data. Unfortunately, sometimes modifying the hypothesis can look like bending the data to fit a favored conclusion.

This is one of the things that I find so frustrating about the global warming debate. Not really being versed in the specifics of the science, a lot of what takes place looks to be a case of sticking to a favored conclusion (or in the case of guys like James Hansen, it's more than just appearance). We see things like, "If the glaciers melt, it's global warming, but if they grow in mass, it's also global warming." How could you not reach that conclusion?

Still, I admit the possibility that what we see more of is adaptation of the theories based on expanding data. I don't think this is communicated very well if it's the case. I think what concerns me most is that it doesn't seem to take place enough. There are significant numbers of studies out there which reject the idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is going to destroy us all, but it seems like it is more often rejected outright rather than integrated into the existing theories regarding climate science. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if politics weren't so tightly bound to this. When people are proposing plans of action that will restructure society and cost trillions of dollars, it seems like it might be a good idea to take as much information in as possible before you start running with a plan.

Then again, what do I know?

Yellow Science

That's the title of an article that recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal. It compares the use of disreputable, sensational journalism (Yellow Journalism) to the "science" being peddled as global warming (or global climate change, whatever's in vogue right now).

You should read the entire thing, but here's a nice sample:

Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.

The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."

I have to admit that, when it comes to atmospheric science, I'm not much better off than a layman. I'm a chemist and molecular biologist by training, so much of the physics that goes into it is beyond me. However, I can tell when something is not being put to the rigorous scrutiny that science demands. All I've ever seen out of the global warming "debate" is a great PR blitz; Don't question it, don't try to understand it, just go along with it or else you're evil.

This wouldn't be so big a deal if the goal were to just get global warming acknowledged. However, the larger goal is a restructuring of societies and economies at a scale that has never been seen in human history before. It's not irresponsible to suggest that we should have more debate, and better confirmation, of the apocalyptic predictions that global warming could
unleash before drastically altering everything that has made humanity prosperous since the 19th century.

My preferred solution is to wait. When predictions like these are made, they seem to assume a static level of technology. Who's to say that 50 years from now there won't be technology that will either give better information or allow for better handling of any actual problems that might arise? I'm not arguing that we should bank on solutions that don't yet exist, but to assume that only the environment will be different in that amount of time is just as silly.

Ahem, all that aside, read the whole article.

Related: Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

Anthropogenic . . . volcanoes?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm no climate scientist. When there's talk about "global warming" or "climate change," I politely decline to give a definitive statement because I have no idea who is speaking from solid data/principle and who is speaking from the wrong end of their digestive tract.

However, one thing I will say is that I don't think we should start spending billions of dollars trying to solve a problem that we don't really understand and might not even exist. Nothing involving the climate/ecosphere/Captain Planet is ever as simple as it might seem.

Case in point: This recent article from Science about the discovery of active volcanoes underneath the West Antarctic ice sheets. I've read about that ice sheet's regression as proof of anthropogenic global warming. Now it looks like some of that (How much? Good question.) may be due to a volcano. Unless someone is willing to blame the volcano on carbon emissions as well, I think it's safe to say that we might not understand what's at work there as much as we thought we did.

But what do I know? I'm no climatologist.

Is 45% a consensus?

I'm not sure what to do with this.

According to this article, a researcher examining 528 papers published from 1993-2003 in the ISI Web of Science database show that only 45% of the papers give at least implicit support of the "consensus" view that humans were having an effect on global climate change.

Feel free to read the article. The numbers are as surprising as they seem at first glance. My own question is whether or not this is a good measure. ISI Web of Science? Is Science included? Nature? I just don't know whether or not this is a decent standard of comparison.

Interesting if it is, and somewhat interesting even if it isn't.

BBL

Wee! Finals are done! Now I can spend all day writing for you guys . . . well, until I find a job.

Actually, I'll be heading out of town for a few days, so no blogging. In the meantime, I'll leave you with a few links for you to amuse yourself.

Cheat Seeking Missiles has a post about global warming involving a scientist who thinks it's the greatest scientific scandal of our time. You may or may not appreciate CSM's take on it, but he provides a link to the journal piece published by the scientist, so you can at least read what the guy has to say for himself.

Bookworm Room has a post about the "New Atheists" and their strident anti-religious dogma. It's an interesting (if old) premise, but I must say that I find these atheists who think religion is good for the world to be incredibly odd. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems like there's some sort of logical gap between saying, "We need religion because otherwise the State will degenerate into a killing machine" and "I'm not religious because I think it's a crock." Perhaps I'm missing something.

Finally, Anheuser-Busch is being criticized, again, for making beverages that "appeal to teens." Apparently, if you make any alcoholic beverage that tastes sweet, you're marketing to teens. If you try to make the label colorful or appealing in any way, you're appealing to teens. I guess the only way to make certain teens don't drink is to make all liquor taste like tree bark and sell it in unmarked containers. Great theory, but Bud Light was the drink du jour amongst the partiers when I was in high school, and I don't think it's famous for its flashy packaging or bubble-gum like flavor.

Hat tip to Big Lizards for the first two links.

Lame Post

Hey, you've been warned.

I'll be busy this week, what with school being nearly finished. Ugh, why do I procrastinate so much? And does anyone feel like hiring a biochemist with 90% of his MS completed? Anyhow, since I won't be able to entertain you this week, here are a few links to keep you occupied while I'm away.

Earth Day, by Done With Mirrors

What the year 2000 looked like from 1900, by Paleo-Future

Jason Lee Storts on Spong.

Zombie killing? Why yes, I believe you should.

And of course, if you really need some entertainment, there's always Fark.

Gore, Gray, and ABC

As a counter-balance to my previous post on global warming where I said I don't trust the traditional media to provide a balanced perspective on it, here's an ABC article about Dr. William Gray, a hurricane forecasting expert, taking Al Gore to task for his efforts.

I'll give ABC kudos for covering the other side of the debate, but the article is still worthless. I think Al Gore's efforts have made the debate worse by politicizing the science even further, with the result that a lot of people end up arguing about Al Gore rather than the actual science. Not that that's ABC's fault, but it has to be said.

The article doesn't really say much about Dr. Gray's remarks. It talks about him giving a speech in New Orleans, probably a very long one, but only mentions the tack against Gore. It mentions that he doesn't believe there's much to the global warming hype, but it's just a blurb (i.e. no science). And, of course, the last blurb of the article is an MIT professor (all we know about his/her credentials) saying that Dr. Gray is wrong about global warming.

So, Dr. Church is right that the sources behind these types of stories are probably doing good work. It's just that I don't trust the media to properly handle such stories when nearly useless articles like this are the result.

Unstoppable Global Warming

In case you're tired of the quiet and need something to occupy your time until I pay more attention to this thing, I heard another interesting radio show from the Powerline guys. This time, they interviewed the author of a new book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.

It sounds like it's worth reading. Honestly, I don't know enough about the science to say, "Oh, this guy's full of it!" Where "this guy" is either the book's author, Al Gore, etc. Take your pick. However, given the level at which I trust the major media outlets to present the issue (or any other science story) intelligently, a little outside reading wouldn't hurt.

If you decide to read it, let me know what you think.

The Myth of Climate Consensus?

I'm not entirely familiar with Hernando Today. Still, this article on a recent survey conducted by the National Registry of Environmental Professionals caught my interest (hat tip: Moonbattery). According to the survey, the idea that the scientific community is 99.9999%+ sold on global warming might be spurious. Their results:

• 34 percent disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet
• 41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity"
• 71 percent disagree that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity
• 33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming
• 47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change

The article doesn't get into the survey methodology, so I can't speak for the accuracy of these statistics. Still, if they're even remotely comparable to reality, then the claim that "scientists" as a whole are on board with Al Gore is at best misinformed and at worst deliberately misleading.

After browsing through the actual survey results, I do see a few problems with the article in question. For example, Hernando Today says that the survey participants exceeded 12,000; the reality is that is the number of participants in the NREP. The actual number of survey respondants was ~800. Still, the general reach of the article seems to be reflective of the survey results.

For me, the bottom line is that the general media is, at best, untrustworthy when it comes to scientific reporting. Most of those doing the punditry and reporting know little about the subjects they cover and tend to insert their own politics or opinions into the coverage. Yes, it's become convenient to let the larger media outlets act as the gatekeepers, crunching the swell of information out there into compact, digestible bits, but reality is a bit more complicated. The public at large would be much better served by having access to research and information, especially if more effort is poured into helping the public to interpret those results rather than simply telling them what the interpretation should be.

The internet age is bringing more of just that, but I'd prefer to see the transformation speed up a bit.

Clouds and Climate Change

Here's another interesting article about global warming that I just found, well, interesting. First, a quote:

"It's a new science, driven by the fact that everybody doing climate predictions says that clouds are perhaps the single greatest unknown factor in understanding global warming."

I love how they say that, then spend the rest of the article explaining how it's not unknown at all and how the Earth is in death throes. Could we make up our minds, please?

Either way, the part that grabbed my attention was this:

"Much to our surprise, we found that Arctic clouds have got lots of super-cooled liquid water in them. Liquid water has even been detected in clouds at temperatures as low as minus 30 degrees Celsius (minus 22 F)," said Taneil Uttal, chief of the Clouds and Arctic Research Group at the Earth Systems Research Laboratory of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Liquid water at -30? Too cool. (That was intentional)

Controversial Chaos (part II)

Ooh, the time zones favor us on this side of the pond, at least this time around.

Turns out Monckton's second article, from the previous post, is now online.

Interesting.

Climate Chaos?

Chris Monckton of the Telegraph has an interesting article about global warming and climate change. It's an interesting read, if for no other reason than it's on the opposite side of the usual reporting.

I like the article because he actually gets deep into the mathematics of what's going on, something most journalists fail to do. Most of the articles I see include a few quotes of "The world is going to end!" from scientists, a summary of some recent research, and one or two "mock quotes" from skeptics. This one actually addresses argument and data, not just rhetoric.

Of course, I'm no expert on such matters, so take the article with a grain of salt. I just find it refreshing to not only have a columnist argue from the skeptic's position, but to do so with actual math rather than emotion.

(Hat tip: Ace)