JC Moore Online
Aktuelle hendelser fra en vitenskap perspektiv.

Archive for the 'Global Warming' Category

Bokanmeldelse: motstå Green Dragon

Tue, 10/04/2012

 

Forord: Jeg møtte først på Green Dragon på et blogginnlegg av Publius Redux der han introduserte det med: "Nå, her er en roman analyse av understrøm av hastverk og irrasjonalitet karakteristisk for klima doomsayers 'Choice profeti. Dette forklarer den uforglemmelige kjennskap til forkynnelse og proselyttisme vi har tålt fra klimaendringer fearmongers. "Nysgjerrig, sporet jeg ned en artikkel om motstand mot Green Dragon av Dr. James Wanliss, førsteamanuensis i fysikk ved Presbyterian College. Finne ingen religiøse eller vitenskapelige argumenter som kan tenkes i temaene i artikkelen, skrev jeg et skuespill om hva fremtiden kan holde for Dr. Wanliss, Publius og deres followers.Sometime senere fikk jeg en kritikk av spillet mitt fra Dr. Wanliss og Senere tilbød seg å skrive en skikkelig gjennomgang om Dr. Wanliss ville sende meg en kopi, som han gjorde. Dr. Wanliss sa han skrev boken delvis fordi han hadde blitt mobbet av miljøvernere. Det er sikkert en veldig dårlig ting, men svarer i form er vanligvis ikke riktig respons og hevn ofte vondt andre enn sine tiltenkte ofre. Hvis du identifiserer med miljøvern, mainstream religioner, eller tror vi skal være gode forvaltere av jorden, kan du føle deg mobbet mens du leser boken.

Boken hevder ikke "å gi vitenskapelig eller økonomiske svar" som er gjort ved imidlertid de ressurser og fotnoter ikke nøyaktig representerer synspunktene til forskere, økonomer, eller miljøvernere "flere gode ressurser som vises i sluttnoter." - Men er nøye plukket fra ekstreme posisjoner, som er hans eksempler. Dr. Wanliss gir eksempler på vegetarianere, PETA medlemmer, Eco terrorister, miljø ekstremister, og noen som synes menn er "ubrukelig breathers" - og prøver å hevde de er representative for den kristne forvaltning bevegelsen. De er ikke. Miljøvernere vil kanskje du gjøre ansvarlige valg, men det betyr ikke at de ønsker å "kontrollere hvordan du lever, spiser, kjører, og selv lyset du bruker til å lese av." Miljøvernere kan ha et mål om å oppnå balanse i naturen og bærekraft , men Dr. Wanliss hevder bærekraft places "menneskeliv direkte i trådkorset til voldelige menn." Og, er de voldelige mennene funnet i den kristne forvaltning bevegelsen?

Den Cornwall Alliance: Boka ble utgitt av Cornwall Alliansen som har valgt Green Dragon som et symbol på sin motstand mot vekst av miljøvern i kristne kirker. Den Cornwall Alliansen beskriver seg selv som en grasrot kristen bevegelse. Det oppgir ikke sine finansieringskilder, men mange veier til det kommer fra bedrifter og fossilt brensel interesser og dens budskap er absolutt gunstig for dem. Dr. Wanliss sier at han ikke fikk et forskudd fra Alliansen og fortjeneste bare fra royalties på boken. Alliansen har produsert en rekke filmer basert på motstand mot Green Dragon, assailing taket i kirkene. Det er lite sannhet i mye av propaganda i videoene. De synes laget mer for å beskytte overskudd i de fossile selskapene enn å beskytte jorden, eller folk som er avhengige av jorda for å overleve.

Det ble tydelig tidlig på 1980-tallet at karbondioksid frigjøres ved brenning av fossilt brensel ble forårsaker endringer i miljøet som vil ramme menneskeheten, særlig i fattige og urfolk samfunn som ikke har ressurser til å tilpasse seg den endrede klimaet. Mange kirker har vedtatt uttalelser oppmuntrende miljøvern basert på god forvaltning, noen spesifikt nevne trusselen av klimagasser. For eksempel, den trosretningen sponse den presbyterianske University hvor Dr. Wanliss lærer uttalte i 1989 og bekreftet i 2008, sin "alvorlig bekymring for at den globale atmosfæriske oppvarmingen trend (drivhuseffekten) representerer en av de mest alvorlige globale miljøutfordringer til helse, sikkerhet og stabilitet for menneskers liv og naturlige økosystemer. "

Dragons: The Green Dragon på støvdekselet av boken er en meget stygg drage, men Dr. Wanliss kan ha feilvurdert hva som er i sitt hjerte. Selv om noen mytiske drager ble framstilt som ond, Draco i Dragonheart og Saffira i Aragon formidles sin gamle visdom til menneskeheten og hjalp dem i krisetider. Og det var de flygende dragene i Avatar som hjalp Na'vi stasjonen ut den grådige selskap ødelegge planeten sin og sine hjem på grunn av malm. Kanskje Green Dragon blir bakvasket av Cornwall Alliansen, slik at vi ikke vil gi akt sitt budskap.

  Science: Selv om Dr. Wanliss er en fysiker, er det svært lite klima fysikk i boken. Han synes å ha kommet til mange av sine meninger om klima vitenskap, ikke fra fagfellevurderte litteraturen, men etter filmer laget av Al Gore og Martin Durkin, verken som er forskere. Dr. Wanliss påpeker feilene i Inconvenient Truth, og avviser det helt. Imidlertid fikk Al Gore med Nobels fredspris for sitt miljøarbeid og hans film vant en Oscar. Filmen hadde også sin dag i retten i Dimmock v Statssekretær for utdanning , en dress som forsøkte å hindre pedagogisk bruk av An Inconvenient Truth i England. Retten avgjorde at, selv om filmen hadde noen feil, ble det vesentlig grunnlagt på vitenskapelig forskning og fakta, og kan bli vist.

Dr. Wanliss omfavner Martin Durkin film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, selv om den er basert på dårlig vitenskap og bedrageri. Hvordan vet jeg det? Mr. Durkin gir inntrykk av at han er en geofysiker, men hans grader er i middelalderens historie og økonomisk journalistikk. Filmen forvrenger arbeidet til noen av forskerne som vises i den. For eksempel, Dr. Friis-Christensen, sa, "deler av grafen var laget av fabrikkerte data som ble presentert som ekte." Han burde vite som det var hans forskning som ble forvrengt til å støtte påstander om at siste klimaendringer var et resultat av solaktivitet. Også, påpeker Dr. Carl Wunsch ut at filmen bruker sine data, men forvrenger det. IHE hav ville ha måttet slippe mer CO2 enn de hadde absorbert, så umulig at han kaller det svindel. Filmen forvrenger også NASAs temperatur rekord, noe som lett kan kontrolleres. De to grafene er under, med skjermbildet til venstre viser hvordan Durkin redrew grafen for å støtte sin påstand at de fleste av dagens globale oppvarmingen skjedde før 1940.

A 2010 StanfordUniversity meningsmåling av 1,372 klimaforskere funnet at 97-98% av de klimaforskere mest aktivt publiserer i klima vitenskap enige om at global oppvarming finner sted, og mannen aktiviteter er den viktigste faktoren. Forskning viser at global oppvarming forårsaker mange uønskede endringer i jorden og at ingen naturlige faktorer er betydelig ansvar.

Økologi: Dr. Wanliss virker ikke klar over prinsippene i økologi eller sammenhengen mellom artene, som han sier: "Det har vært, i tidligere tiår, en kosmisk dreining mot et sosialt klima som begynner å favorisere miljøet - isbjørn, trær, og bugs -. enn mennesker "Vel, hvor ville vi vært uten de bjørner, trær, miljø, og Umm ... bugs? Han mener at "ødeleggelse av en art kan enormt nytte mange andre" og at mannen hadde rett til å jakte spermhval til utryddelse hvis vi trengte olje. Men han ser ikke ut klar over at mange arter er avhengig av hvilke næringsstoffer som hvalene distribuerer over hele havet. Passasjer duer, en gang en viktig matkilde, ble jaktet til utryddelse. Og whooping kraner og bøfler nesten forsvant for alltid, men ble reddet fra utryddelse ved en tilfeldighet og en enorm innsats på den delen av naturvernere. Ville vi har savnet dem? Boken forteller historien om Kanariøyene som brukes for å teste sikkerheten av kullgruver, bruker den til å påpeke at noen fugl lover kan ha innvendinger, sette fuglens sikkerhet over at av gruvearbeiderne. Økologer nå fortelle oss at mange arter er i ferd med å forsvinne fra Jorden og mange flere er truet av global oppvarming. Ville vi ønsker at våre barnebarn å gå inn i en kullgruve hvor Kanariøyene er døende?

Økonomi: Cap og handel anses å være de frie markedskreftene løsninger til å redusere karbonutslipp. Det er kanskje ikke den beste, men det vil hjelpe, og det synes å være måten folkene er på vei. Dr. Wanliss argumenterer mot det fordi han tror det vil føre til opprettelsen av en verdensregjering og på grunn av sin høye kostnader. Vi deler alle den samme atmosfæren, og det er nødvendig at alle industriland og utviklingsland samarbeide, men det er ikke det samme som å etablere en verdensregjering. Dr. Wanliss hevder kostnadene på capsen og handelsregler ville utgjøre en årlig kostnad på "$ 120.000 for den gjennomsnittlige familie på fire". Denne verdien er urealistisk høyt - og det også ignorerer kostnaden ved ikke å handle. Den Congressional Budget Office anslår at kostnadene ved cap-and-trade program i 2020 ville gjennomsnitt ca $ 175 per år per husholdning.

Det er mulig å beregne kostnadene ved å ikke gjøre om global oppvarming. Stern-rapporten, ved hjelp av resultatene fra formelle økonomiske modeller , anslår de totale kostnadene og risikoen ved klimaendringer er tilsvarende for å miste minst 5% av globalt BNP hvert år. Og uadressert, kan kostnadene stige til 20% av BNP eller mer innen 2050 - og øke risikoen for en miljøkatastrofe. Bruk 5% av USAs BNP for 2010 vil gi en miljømessig kostnad på $ 727 milliard. Redusere karbonutslipp vil også redusere partikler som American Lung Association siterer som den primære årsaken 38.000 hjerteinfarkt og premature dødsfall hvert år, samt 1,5 millioner tilfeller av akutt bronkitt og grovt astma - som de anslår har en økonomisk kostnad på $ 281 milliard. De to legger opp til ca $ 1010 milliard årlig, og det er bare for theUnited stater. Og hva kostnaden ble bør vi ta på for tidlig død?

Religion: Dr. Wanliss 'syn på forholdet mellom menneske, andre arter, og jordens ressurser er basert på læren om Dominionism. Han baserer dette troen på hans tolkning av Genesis 1:28 "Og Gud velsignet dem og Gud sa til dem: Vær fruktbare og bli mange, fyll jorden og legg den under: og ha herredømme over fiskene i havet, og over fuglene i luften, og over alt levende som rører seg på jorden. "Derfra bruker han en rekke nøye utvalgte skrifter å argumentere hvordan" de menneskene "fylling og kjennelse av jorda kan frigjøre den fra trelldom." Det er hans syn vil dette føre til Jesu gjenkomst som vil yte innsats for å beskytte og opprettholde planeten ubrukelig.

Men, er jorda ikke vokser fullt? Det er nå 7 milliarder mennesker på planeten, og på vår nåværende fødselsraten, vil befolkningen dobles igjen i dette århundret. Og har vi ikke etablert herredømme over jorden? Vi har nå fisk og vilt lover, fangstkvoter og internasjonale traktater for å beskytte andre arter som våre behov har vokst til vi truer deres eksistens? Det forbeholdet i Dr. Wanliss 'argument er at Jesu gjenkomst vil ikke skje før mannen har etablert kristen herredømme. Det er mange religioner på jorden, og selv blant kristne, er det mange ulike tolkninger av Skriften. Hva han mener er nødvendig er svært usannsynlig å skje i de neste 50 årene, og selv om det gjorde, er det ingen garanti for at Dominionism er den sanne religion.

De som argumenterer for kristne forvaltning mener at herredømme betyr "velvillig regelen". Betyr det synes rimelig at Gud ville gjøre himmelen og jorden og alle arter, forkynner dem godt, og deretter gi mannen en lisens for å ødelegge dem hvis han ønsket? Og er det noen menn har rett til å søke herredømme dersom ved å gjøre slik at de skades liv og ressurser til andre menn? Dr. Wanliss gjør et spesielt punkt som herredømme er ikke dominans, men vil menn som ønsker å dominere og utnytte miljøet for profitt sikkert finne hans argumenter nyttig.

Innfødte: Boken hevder at miljøbevegelsen er "fryktelig skadelig for miljøet og mennesker, spesielt de fattige" og på et tidspunkt påstander om at miljøvernere kan være ansvarlig for millioner av dødsfall. Det er mest kynisk og feil å hevde at miljøvernere er liksom ansvarlig for dødsfall og skader i de fattige landene i verden. Global oppvarming endrer miljøet og øke sannsynligheten for alvorlige værhendelser, spesielt tørke. Fjorårets tørke på Afrikas Horn førte til utbredt hungersnød og mange dødsfall blant de fattige. Folket i Kashmir er opptatt av at isbreene som fôrer sine strømmer i sommer er receding - gjør mindre vann tilgjengelig. Det Sherpa av Tibet bekymre seg for at deres landsbyer kan bli oversvømmet av innsjøer som nå utgjør hver sommer fra smeltende isbreer, holdt tilbake av ustabile isen dammer.

Inuittene på Grønland kan ikke bruke sine tradisjonelle jaktmarker på isen er for tynn for sine hundesleder for å krysse. De i Arktis har for å flytte sine kystlandsbyer å holde dem fra å bli erodert bort av bølger av åpne hav, som pleide å være is året rundt. Deres innlandet landsbyer er truet fordi permafrosten som de er bygget nå blir en hengemyr i sommer. De blir tvunget til å endre en livsstil som holdt dem oppe i århundrer. Mens noen kan tilpasse, vil deres levesett og kultur blir ødelagt, og mange vil trolig ende opp blant de fattige og arbeidsledige.

Innbyggertall: Dr. Wanliss sier Gud har befalt oss å fylle jorden og at vi skal la Gud bestemme hvor mange barn vi skal ha. Men ikke menn og kvinner har fri vilje og rett til å bestemme slike ting? Og hva skjer når jorden er full? Jordas befolkning har akkurat passert 7 milliarder mennesker, og på vår nåværende fødselsraten, vil nå 14000000000 gang i siste del av det 21. århundre. Jorda er begrenset og bevis antyder at bæreevnen til Jorden er et sted mellom 10 og 12 milliarder kroner. Når en befolkning overstiger bæreevnen til miljøet, er det vanligvis en massiv dør av befolkningen. For oss kan dette bety dødsfall av milliarder av mennesker gjennom sult og krig om ressurser.

Forsiktighet: Dr. Wanless mener at mennesket har en bemerkelsesverdig evne til å resonnere, og det er absolutt sant.   Gud har gitt oss vitenskap slik at vi kan forstå naturen ved observasjon og fornuft. Vitenskapelig forskning viser at karbondioksid er en forurensende som er skadelig Jorden og vil gjøre det enda mer i fremtiden. Den EPA har fastslått at CO2 er en truethet som kan reguleres under Clean Air Act, og Høyesterett har opprettholdt at kjennelsen. Dr. Wanliss motsetter handling for å løse problemet, og mener at når Jorden er full og kristen herredømme oppnås, vil Gud gjøre våre problemer forsvinne. Hva hvis han tar feil? Vi vil ha en meget full og en veldig varm, ugjestmilde Jorden gjennom vår egen uvitenhet, og ikke gjennom Guds vilje. The Green Dragon, men en mytisk skapning skapt av Dr. Wanliss, ville være et godt symbol for Prudence.

Motstå? Dr. Wanliss rådgir oss å motstå Green Dragon basert på hans religiøse syn og personlig filosofi. Hans bok ville sikkert oppmuntre noen interessante diskusjoner om betydningen av hebraiske ord, tolkningen av Skriften, betydningen av fri vilje, og ansvaret kristne har mot menneskeheten, andre arter, og Jorden selv. Disse diskusjonene bør skje blant vitenskapsmann, teologer og filosofer som har kunnskap til å forsvare sine ideer. Imidlertid synes det galt å bruke makt og respekt som mennesker har for statsråder og Skriften til å kritisere kristne som tror på god forvaltning. Den Cornwall Alliance gjør nettopp det, som motstand mot Green Dragon linje med profitt motiver. Den eneste gangen Jesus viste sinne i Bibelen var da han drev pengevekslerne fra tempelet. Hvordan kan Jesus føler om Cornwall Alliansen bruker Dr. Wanliss 'bok å bringe sine bedriftens interesser til steder for tilbedelse? Kanskje Dr. Wanliss bør revurdere om han ønsker for sin bok som skal brukes på den måten.

(C) 2012 JC Moore

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Skrevet i Global Warming , vitenskap og religion | 2 Comments »

Den Skeptic guide til Medieval Warm Periode

Sun, 01/04/2012

"Hvordan kan vitenskapen hevder mannen er årsaken til global oppvarming når temperaturen på Jorden var mye varmere i middelalderen varm periode (MWP)?"

De vitenskap Skeptikere er ganske flinke til handwaving argumenter, noen ganger fordi de ikke forstår vitenskap og noen ganger bare å så tvil om vitenskapen ved hjelp av smarte argumenter. En av deres favoritter er "Hvordan kan vitenskapen hevder mannen er årsaken til global oppvarming når temperaturen på Jorden var mye varmere i det siste årtusen under Medieval Warm Period (MWP)?" Du trenger ikke egentlig å være en vitenskapsmann å finne ut at det var ingen nøyaktige temperaturmålinger poster i løpet av middelalderen, og at store deler av verden var ukjent.

Skeptikerne som regel peke på historiske kilder som de ved HH Lamb, som beskriver rekordhøye hetebølger i den kjente verden under MWP. Skeptikere heller ignorere det faktum at HH Lamb var så bekymret for effekten av global oppvarming at han grunnla Climate Research Unit (CRU) for å studere jordens temperatur rekorder. De vitenskapelige spørsmålene kommer ned til (1) om MWP var verdensomspennende, (2) hvor varm jorden faktisk var under MWP, og (3) hva som forårsaket MWP?

Siden det var ingen termometre og ingen verdensomspennende nettverk av værstasjoner under MWP, har forskere brukt en rekke proxy data fra iskjerner og isotopforhold, sedimenter, geologiske plater, og selv årringer for å prøve å rekonstruere temperaturen for de siste tusen år. Selv om det er store usikkerheter i proxy poster og de krever forsiktig kalibrering, viser de et lignende mønster som du kan se i figuren nedenfor, som består av 10 forskjellige rekonstruksjoner. Den svarte linjen er instrumental temperaturen posten. * (Se slutten av artikkelen for referanser.)

Selv om det er store usikkerheter i de proxy temperatur postene til sammen danner de en overordnet mønster som svarer på vitenskapelige spørsmål. Proxy rapporter viser at at (1) var det en varm periode fra år 1000 til 1200, etterfulgt av en kjøligere periode fra AD 1550 to1850 NASA identifiserer som den lille istid, men det var ikke en ekte istid. Rekorden viser også at (2) temperaturer under MWP var kvantitativt lavere enn temperaturene i siste 20. århundre. For å finne årsaken til MWP, er det nødvendig å se på en annen rekonstruksjon.

Mens han studerte årsaken til de siste istidene , har forskere identifisert de tre viktigste faktorene som påvirker jordas temperatur, solinnstråling, klimagasser (hovedsakelig H2O og CO2), og partikler fra vulkansk aktivitet. Nedenfor er en rekonstruksjon av de tre viktigste faktorene som styrer temperaturen på Jorden. Det er mange interessante ting i postene, men de viser (3) Jorden var trolig varmere verden under MWP grunn av høyere solstråling. Den viser også at solens stråling har vært relativt konstant i løpet av det siste århundret, mens de andre faktorer, først og fremst utslipp av klimagasser, har økt.

Mens det er mulig å tvist eller krangle om betydningen av noen av de enkelte postene, er det heller disingenuous å hevde at forskerne "har ingen data" eller for å bestride de åpenbare årsakene til dagens globale oppvarming. For å understreke det, er under data fra det siste århundret, som er basert på vitenskapelige oppføringer. Mens H20 og skyer står for om lag 75% av drivhuseffekten oppvarmingen, har sin effekt bare økt litt (ca 4%), mens mengden karbondioksid har økt med ca 39% i forrige århundre.

CO2: Man nå legger ca 30 milliarder tonn karbondioksid i luften hvert år. Omtrent halvparten av den oppløses i havet og de har blitt 20% surere i forrige århundre. Mye av resten forblir i luften, og CO2 bygger opp i luften:

Temperatur: CO2 er en av de klimagassene som varme jorden, og NASAs grafen viser hvordan dens økning endrer jordas temperatur: Effekten av partikler fra eksplosjonen av Pinaturbo kan sees i temperaturen nedgangen fra 1991 til 1995.

The Sun: Den nåværende globale oppvarmingen blir ofte feilaktig tilskrives en økning i intensitet av solen. Den solflekk aktiviteten viser ikke opp over støyen i temperaturen posten ovenfor. Den solinnstråling økte noe fram til 1960 og har gått litt ned siden da.

Det er den vitenskapelige historien. Tvister i vitenskap er avgjort ved dataene. Selv Skeptikere kan bestride bevis som viser den nåværende globale oppvarmingen er menneskeskapt, er spørsmålet "Hvor er bevisene?"

* Er Referanser for temperatur rekonstruksjoner: Den opprinnelige versjonen av denne figuren er utarbeidet av Robert A. Rohde fra offentlig tilgjengelige data fra NOAA og referansene journalopplysninger. Artikkelen uttalte: "Ved anvendelsen av denne sammenligningen, er forfatteren agnostiker med hensyn til hvilke, om noen, av de rekonstruksjoner av global middeltemperatur er en nøyaktig refleksjon av temperatursvingninger i løpet av de siste 2000 årene. "De rekonstruksjoner som brukes, i rekkefølge fra eldste til nyeste publikasjon er:

  • (Mørk blå 1000-1991): PD Jones, KR Briffa, TP Barnett, og SFB Tett (1998). "High-oppløsning Palaeoclimatic Records for siste Millennium: Tolking, integrasjon og sammenligning med generelle sirkulasjonen Modell Kontroll-run Temperaturer". Den Holocene 8: 455-471. doi : 10.1191/095968398667194956
  • (Blå 1000-1980): ME Mann, RS Bradley, og MK Hughes (1999). "Nordlige halvkule temperaturer under the Past Millennium: slutninger, usikkerhet og begrensninger". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
  • (Lys blå 1000-1965): Crowley og Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatur Reconstruction". Ambio 29:. 51-54 Modifisert som er offentliggjort i Crowley (2000). "Årsakene til klimaendringene de siste 1000 årene". Science 289:. 270-277 doi : 10.1126/science.289.5477.270
  • (Lysest blå 1402-1960): KR Briffa, TJ Osborn, FH Schweingruber, IC Harris, PD Jones, SG Shiyatov, SG og EA Vaganov (2001). "Lavfrekvente temperaturvariasjoner fra en nordlig tre-ring tetthet nettverk". J. Geophys. Res 106:. 2929-2941.
  • (Lys turkis 831-1992): J. Esper, ER Cook, og FH Schweingruber (2002). "Lavfrekvenssignaler i Long Tree-ring kronologier for å rekonstruere fortiden Temperatur Variasjon". Science 295 (5563):. 2250-2253 doi : 10.1126/science.1066208 .
  • (Grønn 200-1980): ME Mann og PD Jones (2003). "Globale overflatetemperaturer de siste to Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. Doi : 10.1029/2003GL017814 .
  • (Gul 200-1995): PD Jones og ME Mann (2004). "Klima Over årtusener". Omtaler av Geofysikk 42: RG2002. Doi : 10.1029/2003RG000143
  • (Oransje 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Slå sammen informasjon fra ulike Ressurser for Ny innsikt i Climate Change i fortid og framtid". Geophys. Res Lett 31:.. L13205 doi : 10.1029/2004GL019781
  • (Rød 1-1979): A. Moberg, DM Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, NM Datsenko og W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable nordlige halvkule temperaturer rekonstruert fra lav-og høy-oppløsning proxy data". natur 443:. 613-617 doi : 10.1038/nature03265
  • (Mørk rød 1600-1990): JH Oerlemans (2005). "Trekke ut et klima Signal fra 169 Glacier Records". Science 308:. 675-677 doi : 10.1126/science.1107046

(C) 2012 JC Moore

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Global Warming | Ingen kommentarer »

Gaming fagfellevurderingen system, del III: A Hostile Takeover

Mon, 26/03/2012

En gruppe Skeptikere gang klarte å ta over en redaksjon på en peer-reviewed tidsskrift og publiserer artikler fiendtlige til mainstream klima vitenskap. Ved hjelp av politikere og store finansieringskilder, har fiendtlighetene fortsatt til denne dag.

Skeptikere: Vitenskap verdier sine skeptikere som de gjør vitenskap sterke og de ​​noen ganger gi verdifulle bidrag ved å åpne nye felt for undersøkelse. Ekte skeptikere følger de metoder og etikk i vitenskap, noe som krever de utsette sitt arbeid for å gjennomgå av sine jevnaldrende og røpe interessekonflikter. Det er noen skeptikere, særlig på områdene klima vitenskap, som bryter de etiske prinsippene for vitenskap for penger og makt. For å skille de fra ekte skeptikere, vil de bli utpekt her som "Skeptikere". De er vanligvis bare ignorert av forskere, men det er problemer når en skeptiker blir en journal redaktør.

Tidsskriftredaktører er nesten helt ansvarlig for at artiklene er nøye gjennomgått og vitenskapelig forsvarlig før de publiseres. Enkelte tidsskrifter, for eksempel energi og miljø, tilfredsstille Skeptikere som Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr, Willie Soon, og Steve McIntyre, som publiserer artikler der som ikke ville bli akseptert av legitime tidsskrifter . Redaktøren, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, en gang sa "tidsskriftet jeg redigerer har prøvd å holde denne debatten [klimaet skepsis] levende". Artikler publisert i Energi og miljø blir ikke tatt på alvor, men Skeptikere fiendtlige til klimavitenskap gang klarte en overtakelse av en anerkjent tidsskrift. En analyse av John Mashey viste skeptikerne klarte å publisere fjorten artikler i klimaforskning før de ble fanget gaming fagfellevurderingen systemet.

Overtakelse: Overtakelse startet i 1997, da Chris de Freitas ble en redaktør i det anerkjente tidsskriftet, klimaforskning Det var 10 redaktører for tidsskriftet, og hver arbeidet uavhengig, så det var mulig for en redaktør å vokte papirer gjennom fagfellevurdering. og se at de ble publisert. Den første artikkelen fra en skeptiker, redigert av de Freitas var ved Patrick Michaels. Papiret var enige med de vitenskapelige funnene av IPCC rapportene, men det kastet tvil på slutten ved å inngå "dette funnet, legger i stedet ytterligere støtte til den gryende hypotesen om at jordas klima er ikke nødvendigvis endres i en skadelig måte". I løpet av de neste seks årene, redigert Chris de Freitas og publisert en rekke fjorten artikler av skeptikere som var interessert i å utvikle Dr. Michael er "nye hypotesen". Artiklene førte til så mange klager fra forskere at noen av de andre redaktørene avhørt Dr. de Freitas om kvaliteten på de papirene han redigerte. Han svarte at de var på en "heksejakt".

Gjenopprette orden: Den fiendtlig oppkjøp ble avdekket etter at nedfall over en artikkel skrevet av Sally Baliunas og Willie Soon. Den papiret anmeldt litteraturen om klimavitenskap av de siste 1000 årene, og konkluderte med at den globale oppvarmingen i det 20. århundre var ikke uvanlig, og at naturkreftene, snarere enn mannens aktiviteter var årsaken. Et viktig bevis deres var Medieval varm periode, som de hevdet var varmere verden enn den sistnevnte 20. århundre. Men det var tydeligvis noe galt med papiret. Det var ingen nøyaktige temperaturmålinger poster i Medieval Times, hadde Amerika ennå ikke blitt oppdaget, og mye av den sørlige halvkule var ukjent. Proxy poster fra flere kilder viser at Middelalderparken varme perioden utgjorde bare en liten hump i jordens temperatur posten. Kort tid etter utgivelsen, utga American Geophysical Union (AGU) en pressemelding fra tretten av forskerne som arbeider ble brukt i Baliunas og snart er papir, sier Soon og Baliunas seriøst misforstått sin forskning. De tretten Forskerne så medforfattet en papir forklare nøyaktig hvorfor Baliunas og Soon papir var i feil.

Alt dette vakte furor på klimaforskning. Fem medlemmer i redaksjonen til slutt trakk seg i protest og den nylig leid sjefsredaktør, uttalte Hans von Storch avisen hadde alvorlige feil og burde aldri ha blitt publisert. Tom Wigley, who often reviewed papers for Climate Research , wrote, “I have had papers that I refereed (and soundly rejected), under De Freitas's editorship, appear later in the journal—without me seeing any response from the authors.” All this was followed by an unusual public statement from the publisher, acknowledging flaws in the journal's editorial process. Under pressure, Chris de Freitas resigned shortly thereafter, and papers from the Skeptics stopped appearing in Climate Research.

Extended Hostilities: That should have ended the matter, except that some politicians found the conclusions of Baliunas and Soon's paper to be advantageous to the fossil fuel industry to whom they owed allegiance. Political pressure was put on regulatory agencies to accept the results of the paper, in spite of its obvious flaws and distortions. The EPA was unwilling to include the paper in its assessment of climate science, so Sen. James Inhofe (R – OK) scheduled a meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee to examine the paper.

At the EPW hearing , Michael Mann represented the scientific viewpoint, presenting evidence from multiple sources showing that the Medieval Warm period was not uniformly worldwide and resulted only in a small hump in the Earth's temperature record. Dr. Soon stood behind his work and, in response to a direct question about his funding sources, testified that he had not received any funds that might have biased his objectivity. However, the paper lists the American Petroleum Institute as a major source of funding. Documents received later from the Smithsonian Institution in response to FOIA requests, revealed that since 2001 Dr. Soon has received over $1 million in funding from oil and coal interests.

Sen. Inhofe was upset by the turn of events and tried to get him fired – Michael Mann that is. At Sen. Inhofe's insistence, the University of Pennsylvania, a Quaker University, conducted two investigations into Dr. Mann's research and found no misconduct. A 2010 Science article reviewed the investigations, declaring “ Michael Mann is cleared, again. “ Dissatisfied with the ruling, Sen. Inhofe has tried to get the attorney general to charge Michael Mann with fraud. It doesn't get much more hostile than that. Sadly, for the first time in history, scientists are collecting a legal defense fund to defend scientists against political attacks. And even worse, the scientific opinion of the senior member of our Environmental and Public Works Committee is based on a paper that would not have passed freshman English.

(c) 2012 JC Moore

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Global Warming , National Politics | No Comments »

Bokanmeldelse: The Greatest Hoax av senator James Inhofe

Tue ,20/03/2012
US Sen. Jim Inhofe's long promised book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future is finally finished. It was published by WND Books, which has published other grand conspiracy books such as The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada . The book will certainly be a hit with some lobbyists, politicians and corporate leaders. It may also be popular among scientists as it reveals some interesting things about Sen. Inhofe and gives scientists an opportunity to examine his ideas and arguments.

Sen. Inhofe has served as the mayor of Tulsa and is the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He has been a strong advocate for many of his constituents and he has been a strong critic of the lack of openness of some congressional procedures. He was instrumental in getting federal Superfund money to clean up the Pitcher lead mines in northeastern Oklahoma. A large area of northeastern Oklahoma was affected and millions of dollars have been spent to try to mitigate the environmental damage. No one knew at the time that lead was toxic, and Pitcher is a perfect example of how what you don't know can hurt you and be costly.

Sen. Inhofe has often stated “Global warming is a hoax” but proving that may be difficult. Every major scientific organizations in the world has adopted a statement similar to that of the American Chemical Society: ” Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth's climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles. There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. ” A 2010 Stanford University poll of 1,372 climate scientists found that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in climate science agree that global warming is occurring and man activities are the main factor. The Greatest Hoax tries convincing us otherwise by quoting media sources, politicians, lobbyist, and the 2-3% of the scientists who claim to be skeptics, though some receive substantial rewards for being skeptical. Legitimate science is based upon evidence and reason, but many of the ideas put forward in this book are not.

Politikk: senator Inhofe sier: "Jeg er ikke en vitenskapsmann. Jeg forstår politikk. "Han sier han gikk inn i politikken fordi en Tulsa stadsingeniør ikke ville godkjenne hans forespørsel om å flytte en branntrapp på bygningen sin. Mr. Inhofe told him that he was going to run for mayor and fire him when he won. And he did. It is possible that the engineer was following the building code adopted by the city's elected officials, and that there may have been a good reason to leave the fire escape where it was, such as it being easily assessable in case of a fire. That incident, however, explains Senator Inhofe's attitudes toward regulations, regulators, and scientists whose research show the need for regulations. It also explains the Senators approach to regulations. He sees them as an impediment to business but he does not see that most regulations are developed to protect the public. One of his favorite targets is the EPA, which was created by Pres. Nixon to protect the environment. Sen. Inhofe chose to work on the Senate's Environmental and Public Works (EPW) committee so he could protect businesses from what he considers needless environmental regulations.

The Hoax: Sen. Inhofe was apparently convinced “ global warming is a hoax ” by one of the worse hoaxes in recent Congressional history. It started when Dr. Willie Soon managed to get a paper through the peer review process at Climate Reviews with the help of an editor sympathetic to his views. The paper reviewed the literature on climate science, and concluded that the global warming in the 20th century was not unusual and that natural forces, rather than man's activities was the cause. An important piece of his evidence was the Medieval Warm Period, which he claimed was warmer than the latter 20th century. But there was something wrong with the paper. There were no accurate temperature records in Medieval Times, the Americas had not yet been discovered, and much of the Southern hemisphere was unknown. Dr. Soon's paper contradicted the evidence from hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers. It caused quite a furor at Climate Reviews which ended with 3 members the editorial board resigning in protest and the newly hired chief editor stating the paper had serious errors and should never have been published. The EPA was unwilling to include the paper in its assessment of climate science, so Sen. Inhofe scheduled a meeting of the EPW committee to examine the paper.

Shortly before the meeting, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) issued a press release from 13 of the scientists whose work was used in Dr. Soon's paper, saying the paper distorted their research. At the hearing, Michael Mann represented the scientific viewpoint, presenting evidence from multiple sources showing that the Medieval Warm period was not worldwide and resulted only in a small hump in the temperature record. Soon stood behind his work and testified that he had not received any funds that might have biased his objectivity. However, the paper lists the American Petroleum Institute as a major source of funding and documents received since from the Smithsonian Institution in response to FOIA requests, revealed that since 2001 Dr. Soon has received over $1 million in funding from oil and coal interests. Sen. Inhofe was upset by the turn of events and tried to get him fired – Michael Mann that is. At Sen. Inhofe's insistence, the University of Pennsylvania, a Quaker University, has conducted 2 investigations into Dr. Mann's research and found no misconduct. A 2010 Science article reviewed the investigations, declaring “ Michael Mann is cleared, again. “ Dissatisfied with the ruling, Sen. Inhofe has tried to get the attorney general to charge Michael Mann with fraud. Sadly, for the first time in history, scientists are collecting a legal defense fund to defend scientists against political attacks. And even worse, the scientific opinion of the senior member of our Environmental and Public Works committee is apparently based on a paper that would not pass freshman English.

Endorsement: The Greatest Hoax was endorsed by Dr. RM Carter, a paleontologist from Australia, who was the star witness at Sen. Inhofe's 2006 Senate hearing on Climate Change and the Media. No credible members of the media testified, and one might wonder why Sen. Inhofe would be interested in the media bias in Australia. Dr. Carter was likely there because he could be counted on to testify that historically the rise in global temperatures had always preceded rising carbon dioxide concentration; thus some natural cause must be releasing the carbon dioxide that is causing the temperature to rise. He was right about the role of carbon dioxide in increasing the Earth's temperature, but he rather ignored the possibility that the CO2 concentration was rising because the burning of fossil fuels was releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 annually.

After the hearing, Dr. Carter was challenged by climatologists to produce research showing the natural variability he claimed, but the paper he belatedly produced was soon refuted when significant errors were found in his reasoning. Though two of the four scientists who testified at the hearing were skeptics, all four agreed that the Earth had warmed about 1°C in the last century. Sen. Inhofe's own hearing had clearly refuted his claim: “ Global warming is a hoax .” That was of little concern to Sen. Inhofe, as the main purpose of the hearing was to intimidate members of the press – as if that were needed.

Science : There is little science in the book, though much of the book is dedicated to discrediting science and scientists by quoting friends of his from the Heartland Institute, media personalities, and other politicians. He even sets up Al Gore as a strawman for scientists. In the book's introduction, he displays a rather tasteless picture of Al Gore naked, and considerable space is devoted to vilifying him. That is a shame as Al Gore has served as a respected Senator, Vice President, and as a Presidential candidate came within a few hundred votes of being elected. Al Gore received a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar. The movie also had its day in court and won. Interestingly, the same Dr. Carter, who endorsed the book, was the star witness for the plaintiff in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education , a suit which sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth in England. The court apparently did not agree with Dr. Carter and ruled that, though the film had some errors, it was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could be shown. Sen. Inhofe claims to be a free market capitalist, but he seems to take great umbrage that Al Gore has profited from his investments in green energy, apparently without realizing that most of those profits have been dedicated to promoting conservative causes, such as protecting the Earth.

Though he may be a skilled politician, in the partisan sense, Sen. Inhofe is correct when he says “I am not a scientist.” He does not understand how scientific knowledge from many fields fits together to form a consistent view of nature. For instance, the book tells that after a large snowfall in Washington DC, his grandchildren built an igloo and put up a sign: “ Al Gore's New Home ”. Sen. Inhofe used the picture to denounce global warming alarmism, though he should know that a single weather event proves nothing. And, if he were a scientist, he might understand how the warming oceans increase the probability of a record snowfall in Washington DC , making the igloo possible – and how carbon dioxide has made more probable the record heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma, making droughts and wildfires possible.

Sen. Inhofe shows he does not understand how science works when he brings up the “Coming Ice Age” story to discredit the scientific evidence. The argument goes, “ How can you trust science, when in the 1970s the scientists were predicting the coming of a new Ice Age, but now scientists claim that the Earth is warming ?” In the 70's, scientists found that increased industrialization was causing not only an increase in particulates, which would cause global cooling, but also an increase in CO2, which would increase global warming. There was no consensus among scientists about which effect would predominate. A count of scientific papers in that decade showed that only 7 journal articles predicted that the global average temperature would continue to cool, while 44 papers indicated that the average temperature would rise. The research on global cooling was valuable as it showed a nuclear war was unwinnable as particulates from a nuclear exchange might create a nuclear winter, ending life on Earth as we know it.

Scientific controversies are usually settled by the evidence, but this one was settled by the intervention of man. Particulates are visible and have serious health consequences. By 1980, regulations were in place to limit particulate emissions and, as that happened, the temperature of the Earth began increasing again. The fossil fuel companies became alarmed, as it was becoming apparent that we should also limit carbon emissions to keep the Earth's temperature at equilibrium, so they began a propaganda campaign to convince us that carbon dioxide was harmless. If you believe that, remember the lesson of Pitcher, Oklahoma. What you don't know can hurt you and be very costly.

Cap and Trade: Sen. Inhofe claims that cap and trade is the “crown jewel” of a global conspiracy of scientists, Hollywood stars, and media personalities who want to take away your freedom and create a world government. However, cap and trade was devised by free-market conservatives for President Reagan, who used it successfully to stop the acid rain drifting into Canada from our Northeastern power plants. It was part the Clean Air Act signed into law by President Bush I and many prominent Republicans , including John McCain, have supported it. Cap and trade is considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. It is described by the EPA as “ an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.” Does that sound like it “Threatens Your Future ” , as the subtitle of the book claims? And, it cannot be making Al Gore rich – or be the cause of rising energy prices – as it has not yet been enacted for carbon emissions.

Costs: Sen. Inhofe main objection to environmental regulations is their tremendous cost; but an accurate analysis of costs and benefits are not in the book. He just claims that it would cost each US household $3,100 a year, a cost that has great sticker shock, but is totally inaccurate. Dr. John Reilly, the MIT economist whose work was used to arrive at that number, has publicly criticized a Republican lobbyist for distorting his work to arrive at that inflated value. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the cap-and-trade program by 2020 would average about $175 annually per household, and that associated savings would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details other high economic costs of inadequate environmental legislation, such as reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields. Yet Congress has refused to act on the matter.

Also, Sen. Inhofe seems to have left some important items out of his balance sheet, such as the true cost of using fossil fuels. The true cost of a resource should include repairing damage caused by its use and disposing of the waste. We are in effect subsidizing the fossil fuel industry by allowing them to freely discharge their wastes into the environment. Some of the “true costs” of fossil fuel use, such as health and environmental costs can be estimated. Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and one of the world's top economists, has used the results from formal economic models to examine the potential cost of failure to limit our carbon emissions. He estimates that the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the cost of mitigation and damages could rise to 20% of GDP or more in the future – and we would run the additional risk of an environmental catastrophe.

Taking 5% of the US GDP for 2010, would give an environmental cost of $727 billion. As to health costs, the American Lung Association estimates that the EPA's proposed guidelines for particulates could prevent 38,000 heart attacks and premature deaths, 1.5 million cases of acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma, and 2.7 million days of missed work or school. They estimate the economic benefits of reduced exposure to particulates alone could reach as much as $281 billion annually. Those two add up to about $1.08 trillion. The calculations do not include all the environmental and health costs, but they do show about how much we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industries by ignoring the damage to people's health and the environment.

Sen. Inhofe, in his Rachel Maddow interview, stated that the cost of cap and trade would be $30-$40 billion annually. That is about 1/30 of what the environmental and health costs might eventually be. Then, it is rather hard to put a value on those premature deaths or the added risk of environmental catastrophes. The number of billion-dollar weather disasters has increased fivefold over the last 30 years, and insurance giants such as Suisse Re now consider man-made global warming real, and a risk factor in setting insurance rates. Increased insurance rates will be an additional out of pocket cost, which could easily offset the $175 the CBO estimated that cap and trade would cost.

Scientists: To get around the strong consensus of scientists, the book claims there is a global conspiracy of liberal scientists bent on creating a world government, that climate science is a religion, that climate scientists are in it for the money, and that Climategate proves climate scientists are dishonest. None of those claims are supported by verifiable evidence. Most scientists are good citizens, conservative in their statements and actions. Most are religious, with stewardship and concern for their fellow man being part of their religion. The Presbyterian church, where Senator Inhofe claims membership, stated in 1989 and reaffirmed in 2008, its “serious concern that the global atmospheric warming trend (the greenhouse effect) represents one of the most serious global environmental challenges to the health, security, and stability of human life and natural ecosystems.”

  The book calls climate scientists “alarmists” in a derogatory sense, but many are becoming alarmed. Research shows that the Earth's climate is changing because of our emissions of CO2, yet Congress has not acted to solve the problem. Scientists were criticized for considering the problem catastrophic, but they realize our carbon emissions will have an affect for 100 years or more into the future and inaction will threaten our food and water supply,increase the risk of severe weather events, and a possibly lead to an environmental catastrophe. Remember what happened at Pitcher, Oklahoma because lead mining was considered harmless.

Sen. Inhofe often calls those who disagree with him “liberals”, but the meaning of liberal and conservative seem to be flexible. During the American Revolution, it was the liberals who wanted to create a democracy and conservatives who thought that King George had a divine right to rule. Sen. Inhofe uses “liberals” to describe environmentalists and others who want to preserve the earth – and uses “conservatives” for those who want to conserve power and profits.

He describes Rachel Maddow as one of his favorite liberals, but that may change. In his book he said “ Rachel's segment was one of the last major efforts to go after me just days before I landed in Copenhagen and declared vindication .” However in his recent interview on Rachel's show, she showed the clip. Nowhere in the clip does it mention Copenhagen or climate change. Rather than apologize, he said he couldn't remember everything he said in the 350 pages of fine print in the book, raising questions about how much of the book he actually wrote. Apparently liberal can also mean “pesky”.

Big Oil: Sen. Inhofe tells some good stories of the old days in the Oklahoma oilfields, but back then Tulsa was the Oil Capital of the World and our domestic oil producers were a different breed from today's multinational oil companies. They have little loyalty to the United States and little concern for our citizens or the environment. They have created some of the greatest man-made environmental disasters and resisted compensating their victims fairly. After the furor over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP's CEO commented “ I want my life back ”, but he could not give back the 11 lives lost because of his decisions. Although he promised to compensate Americans damaged by the oil spill, BP appointed a lawyer to disperse the funds, who made many of the victims “take it or leave it” offers. After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Mobil went all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid paying the $5 billion in damages owed the native Alaskans. Koch oil was charged in Oklahoma of cheating Native Americans and the government out $5 billion in oil royalties. They settled the case out of court for a 10th of the $5 billion, with no admission of wrongdoing. Who says crime doesn't pay?

Last year, the world's 5 largest oil companies received $4 billion in tax break subsidies. Yet, they reported $171 billion in profits, while most US businesses and citizens struggled with financial losses, in part caused by the steep rise in fuel prices. Sen. Inhofe says his goal is “ energy self-sufficiency ” for the United States, yet last year the leading US export was fuels, so Big Oil companies are selling American oil abroad, creating a shortage in the United States that is driving up prices. Increasing their profits is their main goal, even though carbon emissions may cause a man-made environmental disaster much greater than oil spills. To defend their profits, these companies are now the major contributors to the science denial machine that Sen. Inhofe defends in his book.

Heartland Foundation: Sen. Inhofe was able to poke fun at himself when he said” Nature strikes back”, referring to a serious illness he contacted while swimming in a lake contaminated with toxic blue-green algae, whose growth was fueled by water pollution and the heat wave and Oklahoma. The illness caused him to miss the meeting of the Heartland Institute where he was to be a keynote speaker. His relation to the Heartland Institute is troubling. The Heartland Institute, once a major source of propaganda designed to prove there was no link between smoking, cancer, and lung disease, has now turned its considerable experience and resources into producing propaganda disputing the link between carbon emissions and global warming. Big Oil provides much of the funding for the Heartland Institute, and other similar “conservative” think tanks, who channel millions of dollars into the denial of science. The Heartland Institute is a gathering place for Big Oil's lobbyists, loyal politicians, and paid skeptics. Many of those are the sources of information for Sen. Inhofe's book. How accurate is that information likely to be?

Skeptics : Science values its skeptics as they make science strong by pointing out areas that need more investigation, and they sometimes making valuable contributions to science. When Richard Muller questioned NASA's temperature records, he evaluated all 6 billion pieces of weather station data, and came to the conclusion that the temperature record was accurate. When O'Donnell doubted Steig's work showing Antarctica was warming, he re-analyzed the data and found that indeed Antarctica, the coldest place on Earth, was getting warmer.

Skeptics are expected to follow the methodologies and the ethics of science, to subject their work to review by their peers, and to divulge conflicts of interest. Many of those Sen. Inhofe praises as “climate skeptics” do not meet those criteria. They profit from being skeptical and, when research shows them wrong, they continue to repeat their skeptical arguments anyway. An example is Anthony Watts, who started the Surface Station Project to examine the data from weather stations, which he claimed had errors. The AGU took his skepticism seriously and did a thorough study on the weather stations, finding the data was reliable. They had offered Watts a chance to participate in the research, but he missed his chance to be a scientist when he refused. And though the question has been answered, Mr. Watts is still repeating the same criticisms – and collecting substantial donations to continue his Surface Station Project. There are many skeptics like Mr. Watts, who receives generous grants from think tanks, not for fundamental research, but to come up with ideas to cast doubt on the IPCC, climate research, and the work of legitimate scientists. Many of the paid skeptics appear in Sen. Inhofe's book as his sources for information, quotes, and references.

Vindication: In this chapter of the book, Sen. Inhofe claims vindication, but it is hard to imagine sufficient vindication for displaying a picture of Al Gore naked. Sen. Inhofe does claim he is vindicated by the Climategate e-mails. Hackers broke into the computers of England's Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and stole 10 years of e-mails exchanged between the scientists. Quotes from the stolen e-mails were taken out of context, distorted, and released to media sources with claims the CRU scientists engaged in illegal and unethical acts. As of today, eight independent formal investigations have been completed and none have found any scientific misconduct by the scientists involved. The incident was dubbed “Climategate” , but it was in no way like Watergate. In Wategate, the thieves were caught and punished and those who masterminded the plot were publicly disgraced. In Climategate, the thieves have been hailed by some skeptics as heroes – and the victims of the theft have been vilified. It seems strange that Scotland Yard is searching for the hackers, while Sen. Inhofe is gleefully helping spread the misinformation. So, rather than being like Watergate, the e-mail scandal was actually more like Stargate, fictional fantasy. The accusations of wrongdoing by some of the skeptical scientists, made before the matter could be investigated, were particularly egregious as scientist's ethical codes say that:” Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and precision, without unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or premature statements.”

Winning: Sen. Inhofe claims he is winning, but he can't be talking about the scientific debate. All the world's major scientific organizations think he is losing, as do 97 – 98% of the climate scientists, and 83% of American voters. A 2011 Stanford poll found that 83% of Americans say that global warming is happening with 88% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans saying it is the result of human action. Attacking scientists may prove to be contrary to the Republican party's best interest. While polls find scientist's trustworthiness is highly rated , with 84% having a favorable view of scientists, Congress' approval has now dropped to around 9%. This may be indicative of the public's dissatisfaction with the partisanship and gridlock in Congress, occurring for reasons well on display in this book.

Although some members of Congress and some of the public may listen to Sen. Inhofe, nature doesn't. No matter how much he claims “hoax”, research shows the climate is changing in response to man's activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the temperature of the Earth is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, the probability of severe weather events is increasing, and weather-related natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly. It's time we examine more closely who is actually winning by ignoring science.

(c) 2012 JC Moore

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Global Warming | 2 Comments »

Gaming fagfellevurderingen System: Part 2. Utnytte smutthull

Fri ,03/02/2012

There is evidence that the authors of a recent paper may have gamed the peer review system to publish a biased climate science paper.

The Review Process: When a paper is submitted to a journal for publication, the editor removes the name of the author and sends the manuscript to several experts in the area, usually three, for review. The editor keeps the names of the reviewers confidential. If an error is found, the reviewer's comments are returned to the author with suggestions for corrections. It is a good system for ensuring the quality of research publications, but even then papers are sometimes published that contains errors. The reviewers may miss an error, a biased editor may publish the paper in spite of flaws, or authors may exploit loopholes in a journal's rules to get a paper published. Some journals allow the author to suggest names of reviewers and the editor often picks reviewers from the list. Most scientists submit names of reliable reviewers as it is an embarrassment to have errors found in their paper after publication. However, even if the papers are properly reviewed, the practice can bring accusations of “pal” review. Since reviewer's names are kept confidential by the editor, it is difficult to know for sure whether that may have happened. However, there is evidence that the authors of a recent paper may have gamed the system by suggesting a set of reviewers that shared their bias. See what you think.

The paper: Last July 25th, Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell authored a paper in the rather specialized technical journal, Remote Sensing, titled “ On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth's Radiant Energy Balance “. The paper claimed “The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations.” It seems that only an expert in climatology would know what that means or what its implications were, but in three days a sensationalized version of the paper appeared on internet sites, in major business magazines, and in news articles in major newspapers. Millions of people likely read about the paper.

The Publicity: The renewed public interest in science should have made climate scientists pleased; however, they were not. Beneath the technical language is a claim that the climate sensitivity to CO2 has been misinterpreted by climate scientists because of natural cloud variations. Were it true, it would mean that natural forces, not man, were responsible for much of the observed global warming. That idea had been examined before and found to be inconsistent with the evidence, but the idea is one that some climate skeptics have been promoting. And, they are part of a well-funded pipeline that carries misinformation about climate science to major news outlets before all the facts can be known.

Forbes: One main branch of the misinformation pipeline runs through the Heartland Institute, where James Taylor is listed as a senior fellow. James Taylor once wrote articles for the tobacco industry suggesting that secondhand smoke was not harmful, and he has now turned his talents to denying the ties between rising CO2 levels and global warming. Inexplicably, James Taylor has been hired by Forbes magazine to write on energy and environmental topics. James Taylor picked up on Spencer's paper and wrote an article for Forbes titled, New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. Not only was the title inaccurate and misleading, but the article was clearly an opinion article, miscategorized as news. The editors of Forbes might not have known that Spencer's “NASA Data” was the same data that climate scientists use to reach a very different conclusion, but perhaps they should have noticed that no reasonable news story would describe climate scientists as “alarmists” 15 times. The business community considers legislation that would reduce our carbon emissions to be anti-business, and business newspapers such as Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and Forbes often are biased toward the skeptic's position. The bias shows up in story selection, opinions miscategorized as news, a disproportionate number of skeptics articles on opinion pages, and in sensationalized headlines. From Forbes, the article was picked up as a news story by other business magazines, Yahoo! News, MSNBC, and skeptic's blog sites, which had a field day with the article. It is sad that millions will have read the distorted article, but few will ever read the climate scientist's rebuttal. The article will soon sink into obscurity, but it will have accomplished it's purpose, which was to spread doubt about climate change.

Reproducibility: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not the only requirement for a paper to become accepted as part of the science literature. The research must stand up to the scrutiny of other experts in the field and it must be reproducible by other scientists with comparable knowledge and skill. Spencer's paper reached the news media before climate scientists had a chance to respond, but they soon found a number of obvious errors in the paper. Trenberth and Fasullo summed it up :”The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.” Given time, AE Dessler analyzed Spencer's paper in detail and published a rebuttal . The abstract in Geophysical Review Letters reports the key points of his paper:

  • Clouds are not causing climate change;
  • Observations are not in disagreement with models on this point;
  • Previous work on this is flawed; ( referring specifically to Spencer's paper in Remote Sensing).

Clearly, Spencer's paper had serious methodological flaws and was not reproducible. How did the paper get through Remote Sensing’s peer review process? The answer would likely not have been found, except for the publicity.

The Catastrophe: The editor of Remote Sensing , who had been trying to build the reputation of the Journal, considered the publicity a catastrophe. The instructions in Remote Sensing asks authors to suggest five reviewers, and it is possible that Spencer could choose five skeptics. The editor would not have to pick from those, but apparently in this case he did. In the next issue of Remote Sensing , the editor, Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, resigned and issued a public apology for this article saying, “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements.” “The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extent also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers . “ And he concluded, “But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”

© 2012 JC Moore

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Environmental Hall of Shame , Global Warming | 1 Comment »

Gaming fagfellevurderingen System: Del 1. Tendensiøse Redaksjon

Sun ,22/01/2012

If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. … Sir Isaac Newton

  Peer review: Every scientist's work depends upon the evidence and reasoning of all the scientists who preceeded him. To ensure that previous work is reliable, scientific journals have established a peer review process to ensure that published papers are free of errors in reasoning and methodology. Normally,when a paper is submitted for publication, the editor of the journal removes the name of the author and sends the manuscript to a number of experts in the area for review. The editor keeps the names of the reviewers confidential. In case an error is found or corrections suggested, the reviews are returned to the author with suggestions for improvement. When the reviewer's concerns are addressed to the editor's satisfaction, the article is published. It is a good system for ensuring the quality of research publications, but in a few cases ways have been found to game the system.

Biased Editors: The editors of journals published by major science organizations are chosen for their expertise in the area and for their fairness. However, any organization may publish a journal and claim their articles are peer-reviewed. For example, a recent op Ed article in the Tulsa World claimed “ Climate predictions must be science-backed “. That's certainly true, but the author claimed his opinion was backed by a “a peer-reviewed article based on NOAA data which proves that CO2 may not be the cause of global warming.” However, no peer reviewed article reaching that conclusion could be found. When I contacted the author for his source, he referred me to an article by Ferenc Miskolczi published in Energy and Environment. Though Miskolczi's article is based on NOAA's data, it finds that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not change its spectroscopic properties – a conclusion violating the laws of physics. Miskolczi's article was criticized by van Dorland and Forster, who wrote : “Miskolczi (2010) theorizes that atmospheric CO2 increases cannot be a cause of global warming. We show his theory to be incorrect both in its application of radiation theory and from direct atmospheric observations.” How did such a paper get published?

The editor of a journal is almost completely responsible for seeing that articles are properly reviewed and for deciding if they should be published. Sourcewatch says that Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science and the editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who is described as a reader in geography. Many climate change skeptics such as Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, and Steve McIntyre publish articles there that would not be accepted in major journals. Sourcewatch says the editor admits in an article published online that “the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive”. She also states “I'm following my political agenda — a bit, anyway … But isn't that the right of the editor?”

Not really, if you want to claim to be a peer reviewed science journal.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate Change , Global Warming | No Comments »