The Climate Change Thread

[cyclopath]

Close the thread if you guys think it is degrading the forum, we could probably find an actual science forum to discuss this at.

Bru, we don't want to close the thread. It's a perfectly valid and topical thread to have.
It's just that it goes in ever-decreasing circles at times. That was the point, really.

 

[Schadenfreude]

It's a bad sign when even I can't bring myself to post anymore...

 

[Karl]

Close the thread. LOL. Precious much? The way you guys seek to avoid dealing with the substantive issues with ad hominem dismissals and these pointless objections to form and style is getting more amusing. Not one comment on the critique of that pathetic video but obsessive examination of where my links originate. Where's the roll eyes icon....

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Me: If the mods are embarrassed about the thread (which I thought Cyclo was implying), close it because we can take the discussion to a more appropriate forum.
What Karl implies: Close the discussion forever because I want to avoid dealing with his BS.

So you are wrong there.

Then having a crack at someone for not replying to your video critique (I hope thats not me, because I didn't endorse it). And the people that did endorse it didn't question where your links come from, that was me. So your whole 2nd sentence is a complete mess.

This is why I could see why mods might be getting tired of this thread.

 

[Karl]

For starters, you're the one with the issue, not the mods. And re your post, you fail as usual to properly read mine, defaulting to the "it doesn't make sense" position. It was a collective reference to the way you guys deal with anything in this thread that doesn't conform with your world view, hence the use of the words "you guys". There's no mess but the one you seek to make.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

It was a collective reference to the way you guys deal with anything in this thread that doesn't conform with your world view, hence the use of the words "you guys". There's no mess but the one you seek to make.

You haven't been paying much attention to the numerous instances we reject your claims based on scientific evidence then.

Keep trying to pretend I am the one with my fingers in my ears, even though I am the one with an evidence based position. I hold science and scientists in extremely high regard, if people don't agree that is fine, but don't point at me for a second pretending I am ideologically driven. (when there is a much better case to say you are)

 

[barbarian]

Thought I'd try and start this raging fire back up again with this, 'Climate Denier-gate" if you will:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behind-the-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: BadAstronomyBlog (Bad Astronomy)&utm_content=Google Reader

Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin

The Heartland Institute — a self-described “think tank” that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle “Heartland Insider” has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

[UPDATE: Heartland has confirmed that some of the documents are real, but claims the strategy document, which I quote below about teaching strategy, is faked. This claim has not yet been confirmed or refuted. DeSmogBlog has more info.]

These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to call it blistering is to severely underestimate it.

One thing I want to point out right away which is very illuminating, if highly disturbing, about what Heartland allegedly wants to do: they are considering developing a curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom to sow confusion about climate change. I know, it sounds like I’m making that up, but I’m not. In this document they say:

[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.​

​

That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching science. I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines. Perhaps. But I remember all the hammering real scientists took when they used jargon in their emails to each other, jargon which was gleefully misinterpreted to make it seem as if these scientists were faking data. Interesting how this is pointing right back at them. Just as I said it does.

When it comes to all this, the comparison to “Climategate” springs to mind, but there’s one enormous difference: Climategate was manufactured, a made-up controversy (what I call a manufactroversy) that had no real teeth — as was its failed sequel. The emails released weren’t damning at all, and didn’t show scientists tinkering with or faking data. As much as the media made of it, as much as climate change denial blogs played them up, it has been shown again and again that Climategate was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

These new documents, though, look different, especially given that quote above. The next few days should be very interesting as people start digging into them, especially if they prove to be authentic.

And how ironic! It was the Heartland Institute themselves who played up Climategate quite a bit. Back in 2009 when they were trumpeting Climategate, Heartland said:

The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly.​

​

That claim from them is nonsense, but it will be interesting to see how happy they are when the tables are turned, and “reporters, academics, politicians, and others” look into their documents. And around that same time they also said:

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws.​

​

Again, none of that is true. But that claim about freezing out others sticks out, especially in light of another of these leaked Heartland internal memos which says,

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.​

​

Emphasis mine. Yes, that sounds like a group interested in promoting “sound science”.

Wow. Just, wow.

Thoughts?

I think it's hardly surprising some climate skeptics are massive hypocrites. But it is still makes for bad reading.

.

 

[Karl]

That looks like a great read, and I will, and respond , but first I wanted to say something.

I have just had cause to reflect on something that is easy to forget on internet forums - and that is that there are very real people attached to the other end of posts and regardless of differences of opinion, most of them are probably really good people who do lots of good things for the real world people around them etc. For example - Reg of RugbyReg is doing a lot to help out the Junior Rugby Club I am on the committee at and I "met" him on here. Things can get a little testy in this thread from time to time, and I have definitely been guilty of probably getting a bit terse. I'm going to keep an eye on that moving forward because I have been reminded that I really don't know any of you at all and forming judgements based on posts on here is really rather silly.

Sorry, that is all. As you were.

 

[Karl]

Thought I'd try and start this raging fire back up again with this, 'Climate Denier-gate" if you will:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behind-the-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: BadAstronomyBlog (Bad Astronomy)&utm_content=Google Reader



Thoughts?

I think it's hardly surprising some climate skeptics are massive hypocrites. But it is still makes for bad reading.

.

Awkward alright. I can't believe the naivete behind these sorts of written communications, but is it everything that the IPCC and Alarmists are hoping for? Dunno yet. Maybe, maybe not.

Initial thoughts -

• Heartland are not IPCC Scientists or endorsed by the UN. They are a known advocate group, realistically, why is there any comparison to Climategate? The IPCC should not be advocating any position, their job should be to do good science and let the chips fall where they may. They should be held to a higher standard than a privately funded think tank etc. in terms of their methods and proclamations.
• I wouldn't hold deSmogBlog up as a paragon of virtue or impartiality and they have a long history of going after the Heartland Institute as well.
• I completely disagree with the characterization of Climategate in this article and the minimization of its import and effect as well as the excuses that are made for those involved, but I have posted enough on that issue and won't bore everyone with repeats.
• There will no doubt be buckets of hypocrisy from both sides now. The defenders of the Climategate Scientists will do exactly what they decried and vice versa.
• There certainly appear to be one or two unfortunate turns of phrase, but if that's the worst of it, it doesn't appear to be in the same ballpark with the kind of attitude we saw in the Climate gate emails, particularly when you consider they were from UN appointed scientists running an international panel who's proclamations are guiding world governments.
• The document with the quotes the article jumps all over is asserted to be a fake and a fraud, most of the others seem innocuous and look like the only inconvenient information is the identity of anonymous doners EDIT - this document which is allegedly a fake DOES appear to be of poorer quality to the others (like a copy of a copy consistent with being edited or faked) and bears, in my view, other indicia consistent with a forged document.
• the method by which these documents were obtained could well see someone go to jail. They better run far and fast or send for lawyers, guns and money, 'cause the sh!t has hit the fan.

Should make interesting reading, and the "analysis" should be LOL worthy, from either side.

 

[Karl]

This excerpt is from their fundraising plan - or alleged fundraising plan - in relation to the curriculum issue. It is quite different to the "Confidential Memo" which is of disputed authenticity. Seems pretty non-controversial to me.

Sorry, can't grab an image - look at Page 18, Item H

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf

 

[Karl]

Yeah, I've read the leaked documents. The only unfortunate bits are in a single "Memo" document that is alleged to be a forgery and does indeed bear the hallmarks of a fake.

The whole thing is a sham and a scam in my opinion. Reveal genuine documents that are innocuous if inconvenient in the information they reveal, and by association try to slip through a forgery that will be perceived as real because it seems consistent enough with the real documents and meets the public's expectations of the Heartland Institute's nefarious nature.

Not even close to Climategate and if anything this will be turned against the Alarmists and in favour of the Sceptics. It makes the Alarmist camp look crooked and scared. In fact this is such a bad look for the whole AGW movement, if it really is a forgery, that I might even suspect it to be an inside job by the Heartland Institute itself. If it is, they may well qualify as evil genius's.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Schools are preparing kids for higher education, especially in years 11 and 12. Therefore they should prepare kids to learn the current issues in academia.

Just because a bunch of people don't like the current conclusions academics in the field are coming up with, doesn't mean they have any right to change the curriculum. It is unfair on the kids who will get caught behind everyone else. (and the "alarmist agenda" exists in their head)

All in all, none of this is really a surprise. The Heartland institute have always been in bed with tobacco and oil companies.

btw: I agree with the posts above. I wouldn't hold anyone to something they said on an internet forum (it's just a messageboard), all the rugby fans here are great people in real life.

 

[Karl]

Schools are preparing kids for higher education, especially in years 11 and 12. Therefore they should prepare kids to learn the current issues in academia.

Just because a bunch of people don't like the current conclusions academics in the field are coming up with, doesn't mean they have any right to change the curriculum. It is unfair on the kids who will get caught behind everyone else. (and the "alarmist agenda" exists in their head)

All in all, none of this is really a surprise. The Heartland institute have always been in bed with tobacco and oil companies.

btw: I agree with the posts above. I wouldn't hold anyone to something they said on an internet forum (it's just a messageboard), all the rugby fans here are great people in real life.

Every special interest group in the USA seems to try to influence school curriculum - from environmental groups to religious groups. It's not a phenomenon I have seen in Australia, although that is not to say it doesn't exist (and obviously there are church schools, but they don't teach creationism or intelligent design in Science).

 

[Karl]

Lets say for a second that increasing co2 does NOT have the impacts predicted on surface temperature due to feedback effects from things like clouds etc. Things get a bit warmer, but not catastrophically so. The co2 would still have risen though, regardless of whether you think it's natural variability, anthropogenic or a combination.

Perhaps the focus of the debate is too narrow and that regardless of where you stand on atmospheric co2 and surface temperatures, co2 has this other effect - ocean acidification. I mean, I have read a few articles etc, but the focus is alwys on temperatures in debates and discussions, including about the oceans. Acidification seems to be treated as a peripheral issue

What's the view of those on here about this aspect of "climate change"?

 

[rugbyskier]

Thought I'd try and start this raging fire back up again with this, 'Climate Denier-gate" if you will:
Thoughts?

I think it's hardly surprising some climate skeptics are massive hypocrites. But it is still makes for bad reading.

.

Looks like the warmies have had a spectacular own goal to me. The NY Times is reporting that Peter Glieck committed fraud and deception in gaining those documents and it is becoming apparent that a number of the documents were falsified. Mr Glieck is likely to be facing a number of criminal and civil charges.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

What's the view of those on here about this aspect of "climate change"?

Science isn't about dreaming up a nice hypothetical situation to sit on. We need to follow the facts wherever they take us.

But I suppose if you ignore the temperature rise as a threat, the ocean acidification would still be a big worry at this rate:

 

[Karl]

He's used more weasel words than a herd of female weasels on a girl-weasels night out.

Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate

- yeah, you kinda already lost the high ground there buddy.

I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy

- this would appear to be the one or include the one that is clearly a forgery. And was it a single document or a number of documents?

I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.

- Of course, this was just fact checking, not a fraudulent fishing expedition for more hoped-for dirt. Natch. And it says "additional materials". That means it's new or different material.

The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget.

But those materials did not include the forged document did they? Hmm? The "materials" and the "original document" must be different because they only confirmed "many" of the facts in the original document (which would be the forgery, which did indeed have some excerpts of other legitimate documents in it). If they were identical, as is later asserted, they would confirm ALL of the facts in the original document.

I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

- BUT the original leaked material included that forgery that was obviously NOT in the Heartland documents. What Heartland sent was identical to the leak TO AN EXTENT, but obviously there was this extra document, the forgery, in the leaked documents. So they were identical to the extent that there was an overlap. Either that or the original leaker was the same person that sent the second bundle of documents to Gleick and the bundle was the same in all respects, but that does not correlate to the comments and statements above.

But here is where his weasel words trap him in yet another lie -

I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

This o supports the obvious position that there is a difference or distinction between the two and that the leaked material is or contains different material to the subsequent documents obtained deceitfully from Heartland. If they were identical there would be no need to identify them separately.

This guy is trying to spin this so hard he got himself dizzy.

 

[Karl]

Science isn't about dreaming up a nice hypothetical situation to sit on. We need to follow the facts wherever they take us.

But I suppose if you ignore the temperature rise as a threat, the ocean acidification would still be a big worry at this rate:

Yeah Bru, don't start with the high horse on having a hypothetical and backfilling the data. The IPCC does that with it's computer "models" all the time.

I need to look into it more - both sides seem to play around with how they express increases in acidity/decreases in alkalinity and refer to percentage increases not saying what the change in PH was. For eg, the observed 0.1 unit decrease (say a pre-industrial 8.2 to the current 8.1) in PH is a 30% increase in acidity, which technically is correct, but it's an alarming way to phrase it and if their projections are correct, we are supposedly heading for a 7.9 by the end of the century.

So what does an Ocean PH of 7.0 mean for the corals and crustaceans? What is the effect on Bicarbonates and Carbonates, etc and how will this impact them. I haven't watched that vid yet, but I will.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Karl the video is just a graph of rising co2 levels. The ocean will absorb a lot of it.

There are plenty of articles related to ocean acidification on google scholar. (ie: )

http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Oxford 2011 Readings/Ocean%20acidif%20Doney.pdf

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically

(whenever you find a long article, just press ctrl+f and search for sections discussing the information you want to see. for example this one discusses the ocean carbonate system)

 

[Karl]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL026305.shtml

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L10605, 3 PP., 2006
doi:10.1029/2006GL026305
Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity
Hugo A. Loáiciga
Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA

The impacts of increases in atmospheric CO2 since the midst of the 18th century on average seawater salinity and acidity are evaluated. Assuming that the rise in the planetary mean surface temperature continues unabated, and that it eventually causes the melting of terrestrial ice and permanent snow, it is calculated that the average seawater salinity would be lowered not more than 0.61‰ from its current 35‰. It is also calculated –using an equilibrium model of aqueous carbonate species in seawater open to the atmosphere- that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv (representative of 18th-century conditions) to 380 ppmv (representative of current conditions) raises the average seawater acidity approximately 0.09 pH units across the range of seawater temperature considered (0 to 30°C). A doubling of CO2 from 380 ppmv to 760 ppmv (the 2 × CO2 scenario) increases the seawater acidity approximately 0.19 pH units across the same range of seawater temperature. In the latter case, the predicted increase in acidity results in a pH within the water-quality limits for seawater of 6.5 and 8.5 and a change in pH less than 0.20 pH units. This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.