Global warming is over

[JocktheMotie]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

This doesn't surprise me. What I fear is that the anti-environmentalists will see this as vindication of their entire ideology.

I wish scientists would be more scientific and less political.

Precisely. Anti-environmentalists will see this as confirmation that the entire process is corrupt, which I don't think is an accurate conclusion.

I don't know why these scientists feel they have to do this. I can't see how it benefits them. If their conclusions are correct and accurate you shouldn't have to do any political posturing, and the data should really speak for itself. When you get into this, it seems like the risks of getting caught far outweigh the benefits of exaggeration.

However, I do know the Himalayan Glacier report was specifically used to gain EU research funds, so it could have been a business decision. But that's a whole other issue.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

This doesn't surprise me. What I fear is that the anti-environmentalists will see this as vindication of their entire ideology.

I wish scientists would be more scientific and less political.

This won't help.


Investors.com - A U.S. ClimateGate?

[ergophobe]

Originally Posted by htb

No vote, here; fact or falsity either is or isn't.

Umm..actually that is how science works. There could be several views on any given subject. All we have is a number of studies showing support of one view. When one emerges with the most, then we know that's what we should follow for policy. There are no absolutes in most cases.

How do we decide what is fact in science? How do we decide, for example, how a certain product or medication influences the human body? Many studies...most studies start pointing in one direction.

If you have an alternative method for deciding what standards are met for facts then you should provide those and scientific studies that meet those standards. None seen yet.

I meant objective and critical scrutiny, not politically or pseudo-spiritually motivated reinforcement. If a claim can't be validated by someone who theretofore intended to disprove it, the claim certainly isn't strong enough to instruct sweeping legislation. Given the now-disclosed record of tampering in CRU and resulting dubiety of claims from Mann's "Hockey Stick" to any number of IPCC reports, such a system doesn't exist among the "majority"; the IPCC's infographic depicts the fox guarding the hen house.

Science journals presented above are not politically or pseudo-spirtually motivated. They are science journals. That's where peer review comes in. That's exactly what it's meant for is to look at the evidence and beyond the motivation. There's far more than the IPCC report and please remember, the IPCC report has as I said before hundreds of authors. A small minority of zealous scientists does not take away from the findings of the report and the many articles across a multitude of scientific peer-reviewed journals.

Originally Posted by JocktheMotie

IPCC's Himalayan Glacier 'mistake' Not An Accident - Science News

This is interesting and I think it's great that they're evaluating the main results of the last report. I think what is emerging is that we just don't have the technology, as you suggested, to claim with any certainty what's going to happen in 2035. This, however, does not take away from what we know of the past and what scientists as a group are predicting about the next 10-15 years. There is evidence of glaciers melting due to changing temperatures that have risen concurrently with human activity. What is lacking is the evidence that backs up the urgency the authors were hoping to spur in the policymakers to get change (all glaciers melt by 2035). That is exaggerating the effects based on speculation but the effect exists.

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online
Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25. ‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said. ‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

Been watching this with mild interest. But this news is not really encouraging. If we're going to be making responsible policy decisions, we need responsible scientists. I wonder how this affects the next IPCC panel's authors or process? Couple this with the fact that Copenhagan didn't really seem to do much of anything I don't know where the world is in terms of reform.

Agree completely on the need for responsible scientists that can guide policy making. I think that's fair and the exaggeration was unnecessary and undermines the reputation of all the scientists because of the liberties taken by some. On Copenhagen, need to get back to this and LR's previous post. Part of it is developed vs developing world interests.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I wish scientists would be more scientific and less political.

[Marduk]

That's crazy. Truth and Scientific fact should be decided by majority?!?!!?? Socrates must be spinning in his tomb.