Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? Part 2.0 29

[josephv]

Hi moltenmetal,

Thanks for your posts. Just wanted to add two recent articles that appeared in the Globe and Mail:

"It took 30 hours of flying, but Inuit hunter Jordan Konek has arrived in the land of surfers and palm trees with a message for the world’s politicians: Climate change is real, and it could devastate Canada’s Arctic people."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-message-to-durban-conference/article2259622/

"Canadians want Ottawa to be part of an international treaty to combat climate change, and would even support carbon taxes as a means of meeting the country’s emission reduction targets, a new poll suggests."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...l-strong-in-canada-poll-finds/article2255707/

 

[lacajun]

More and more weeds.........

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[TGS4]

moltenmetal and cranky - what you are talking about isn't ethics, it's making a value-judgement. Canada is to benefit from and warming - natural or man-made. And moltenmetal - perhaps if you would talk to a farmer or two (or any backyard gardener) who would LOVE to have a growing season that is a few days to a few weeks longer, you would appreciate that.

Valuing your country (or your generation, or any of the other things you talk about) isn't ethical or unethical - it's just that - a value judgement. What is unethical, is the sleight-of-hand that goes on whereby one uses something to justify something else, only slightly related (molten - I'm talking about your wanting to reduce fossil fuel usage, but applying a carbon (sic) tax because of global warming); or hiding data from lawful FOIA requests; or obfuscating scientific inquiry because it doesn't support a "cause"; or interfering with the peer review process so that contrary opinions are unable to be published; or plain, simple, outright lying. That's what is unethical about this whole mess.

Molten - if you really, truly think that cranky or myself are acting unethically because we think that the science behind AGW is a load of manure, and we support the unfettered exploration and exploitation of our natural resources, then here's put up or shut up time. I am registered in AB, SK, and ON. You can find my specifics by clicking on my name. If you really truly think that I have acted in any way unethical, in violation of the ethical standards of any of the Professional Associations, then please file charges against me in one or all of the jurisdictions. If not, then I am satisfied that we have a different set of values; we'll agree to disagree.

If any of these "scientists" were engineers registered anywhere in Canada, the "Climategate" or "Climategate II" e-mails would serve as prima fascia evidence of unethical conduct, and I would be the first to register a complaint. Unfortunately, they are all "off-shore".

 

[TGS4]

It should make us skeptical of the science, sure. And it did. That's why they were investigated. By no fewer than six different organizations (Penn State, the UK House of Commons of Commons Science and Technology, University of East Anglia, the US EPA, The Department of Commerce Inspector General, and the National Science Foundation).

Please make sure that you put a warning before you write stuff like that. I had to clean off the coffee from my computer screen after reading this.

Whether you have a dog in this fight or not, if you actually read and reviewed the reviews/investigations/inquiries that you write about, you would quickly realize that they are some of the worst whitewashes to be generated in a while. And after what has happened at Penn State, with the whole Sandusky-affair, can you look me in the eye, without laughing, and say that you trust that university to police itself against external (or even internal) allegations.

Here's an exercise for you, to take this into a more neutral light. In each of these "investigations", change the names into names of politicians. Instead of global warming, and all the related discussions, replace it with "giving money to your union/business partners". Now review the "investigations". Whitewash, right? Unethical behavior, no?

 

[dawei87]

Whether you have a dog in this fight or not, if you actually read and reviewed the reviews/investigations/inquiries that you write about, you would quickly realize that they are some of the worst whitewashes to be generated in a while.

I've read several of the reports, and more importantly for where you're coming from, I've read many of the skeptical bloggers complaining about why the reports were insufficient. What I see basically amounts to:

This contributor to this paper has a 10% stake in a carbon trading company. That guy made a positive statement about this environmental group which 15 years before had a member make this extremist statement in public. That guy was appointed by this politician who said XYZ about a carbon tax. On and on and on. This investigation didn't cover this one point in detail and I think it should have been covered in better detail. The panel "appears to have done this" and "seems to be biased in this sense". They used this word instead of that word in this sentence. I didn't like any of the member on the panel of this investigation. They weren't objective. They were too vague here. They were too specific here. They are all doo-doo heads.

On and on and on and on. It's all suspicions and unfounded speculation, like all conspiracy theories. If you truly believe that every single investigation was whitewashed then that's a positive claim, and your burden to prove it. Similarly if you think that the science is significantly fabricated or being lied about, that is a positive claim that is your burden to prove. And mind you the accusation of mass collusion and dishonesty is a much stronger claim than the claim that they are simply generally being honest, so it requires comparatively greater evidence.

If you really truly think that I have acted in any way unethical, in violation of the ethical standards of any of the Professional Associations, then please file charges against me in one or all of the jurisdictions.

No problem.

Now can I please have access passwords for the backup servers which hold all of the private emails that you have sent over the past 20 years? Then give me some time to quote mine, cherry pick, and send my report off to the engineering boards of every province that you are registered in. A few weeks ought to do it.

But I know, I know...upon investigation they will probably exonerate you and say you really didn't do anything that bad. But what do you think, I'm some kind of sheep who will take THEIR word for it? I mean, they are your cronies and you're all in on these despicable, almost criminally unethical acts together.

Dirty drain on society, the whole lot of you.

 

[cranky108]

rb, do you know what the main component of Natural gas is? Try methane. So if you can produce methane within a year of composting, why do you call it a FF?

I have seen small power plants run off land fill gas, and the natural gas produced by that land fill, is dirty, but usable.

 

[zdas04]

rb1957,
It really doesn't matter if you consider natural gas a bio fuel or not, it is a biofuel. There are at least 50 patents currently pending for designer microbes that rapidly covert biomass to methane (which is actually over 98% of what we call "commodity natural gas" that is heating the hot water in most of our houses). Historically, natural gas has been too cheep for it to be worthwhile to try to capture the methane emissions from digesters, land fills, termite mounds, etc., but that source of fuel makes way more sense than solar panels and wind farms.

When gas-to-liquids plants become more mainstream (two very large GTL plants are currently in the permitting process, one in the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana and one in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania) and methane becomes a significant feedstock for transportation fuels the prices will go to where they need to be to support sustainable activities. Methane as a biofuel makes worlds more sense than any of the current ethonal stupidity.

As to the U.S. exporting petroleum products, we always have exported oil and gas. It is a convenience thing. It is more convenient to export petrol from the Houston area and import it from somewhere else into New Jersey. I've seen cases where we imported crude from Trinidad, and then exported the refined products, it is just economics. Net imports have increased every quarter since 1977. The rate of imports has had seasonal variations, but it never goes down. And won't until GTL (in some form, current technologies have some hair on them) is mainstream.

David

 

[jmw]

I think part of the problem was that for a while it was convenient to consider natural gas a "renewable" because as the gas was taken out of the ground more migrated into the gas well from other reserves.
Plus, as the least polluting energy it was considered, briefly, as "green".
The greenies have put paid to that and god forbid we should any of us have huge reserves of shale gas to use.




JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ornerynorsk]

Negative 2 degrees fahrenheit in southwestern Minnesota this morning. I would welcome some of that global warming about now. These old bones just don't enjoy the cold weather, any longer.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

Isen't it nice to see the steam rising from the storm drains? And how the cold brings that out.

Gee why can't we capture that heat from the ground and use it to heat our homes. Some sort of reverse carnot cycle device requiring energy to save energy.

Or better why not just build our homes into the ground instead of above it. Oh, I forgot they won't look as nice.

 

[SnTMan]

cranky108, in my part of the world, most residential basements are also know as "indoor pools". If you want something to stay dry, you don't put it underground around here.

Regards,

Mike

 

[ornerynorsk]

Heat pumps are in very wide use around these parts. In the late 70's, we went through a phase where underground houses seemed like they might become the new trend, but dampness and mold/mildew issues soon nixed that.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[TGS4]

I mean, they are your cronies and you're all in on these despicable, almost criminally unethical acts together.

Dirty drain on society, the whole lot of you.

Did you just besmirch the reputation of almost 150,000 of my peers? I guess I would expect nothing less from such a religious fanatic.

Do you actually understand the concept of ethics? Here's a good start for you:

1. Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall, in their areas of practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public, and have regard for the environment.
2. Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall undertake only work that they are competent to perform by virtue of their training and experience.
3. Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities.
4. Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practices.
5. Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall uphold and enhance the honour, dignity, and reputation of their professions and, thus, the ability of the professions to serve the public interest.

My issue is with the apparent violation of articles 3 and 4.

Now can I please have access passwords for the backup servers which hold all of the private emails that you have sent over the past 20 years?

If I worked for the government, or any other institute that received public financing, you would be more than welcome to file a FOIA request, and I would be legally obligated to provide that to you (and I would, in order to remain ethical). However, I do not, and therefore, you will need a court order to my various employers in that regard. Oh wait - hiding data from lawful FOIA requests, or denying them without legal mandate to do so, is what we're arguing about here. Are you still thinking that there was no unethical practice here?

 

[TGS4]

Similarly if you think that the science is significantly fabricated or being lied about, that is a positive claim that is your burden to prove. And mind you the accusation of mass collusion and dishonesty is a much stronger claim than the claim that they are simply generally being honest, so it requires comparatively greater evidence.

I have prima fascia evidence of unethical behaviour on the account of these "scientists". We already agreed that if someone acts unethically, then there entire work record is questionable.

You're also getting dangerously close to changing the null hypothesis. Do you believe that the null hypothesis has been satisfied in this whole scientific mess, or not (that what we are observing is natural variability, and that the hypothesized attribution of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the observed changes may not be causal)?

 

[cranky108]

I only wish I could dig an underground pool, but the soil depth is very shallow here.

But I have seen homes where the ground was pulled up over the home. Just a mound of ground with windows poping out.

I don't have mold problems here.

 

[controlnovice]

Timely article about the Dogmatic skeptic behind those believers...on both sides....

http://smartenergyportal.net/article/we-need-rational-climate-change-skeptics?

Climate Change is the new religion: Can't prove it, just like the existence of God.

Give it a rest....

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

 

[jmw]

I'd suggest visiting Watts Up With That an checking out the list of "discoveries" coming out of the email hoard.
Try this one as an example..

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[dawei87]

Did you just besmirch the reputation of almost 150,000 of my peers? I guess I would expect nothing less from such a religious fanatic.

Did you just confuse my obvious mocking of the denier interpretation of climategate with an actual, serious personal attack? I guess I would expect nothing less from a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You guys always think that someone is out to “get” you.

If I worked for the government, or any other institute that received public financing, you would be more than welcome to file a FOIA request, and I would be legally obligated to provide that to you (and I would, in order to remain ethical

So I take it that's a "No" on giving me your personal emails? Well then, the ethical thing for me to do must be to steal them like your hacker hero did, right? Whatever it takes to get those really juicy bits. Like that time in 2002 when you may have said “…but here I’m suspicious this might be biased…”. Or in 1996 when you could have said something like “…and we weren’t sure about that so we made a SWAG”. Or in 2005 when your boss may have said “…the customer won't know that…”

I may even change the words a little to make them conform better to what I want them to say about you. Then I will embed them within a flashy article and surround them with the most venomous language that I can muster, and push it out onto the internet without giving you the first second to explain what those quotes were actually referring to.

You don't say anything about this behavior, but act like anyone who ignores a FOIA request should be burned at the stake. FOIA requests, mind you, that were at times raining in at a frequency of 10 per day from a person who everyone KNEW was only asking for the information so that he could perform his amateur analyses and fill his blog with pretty graphs and strong adverbs attacking their work, attacks that his “skeptical” readers would swallow up and regurgitate for years to come, all the while automatically ignoring any objections made to the validity of his attacks.

Strictly CRU dissented from FOIA, I know. But ignoring requests put forth by an individual that they knew had the malice intent of misrepresenting and distorting the information that he got in order to attack and disrupt the progress of their work...I'm sure I could find several broad categories of engineering ethical dilemmas that such a situation would fall under.

You're also getting dangerously close to changing the null hypothesis. Do you believe that the null hypothesis has been satisfied in this whole scientific mess, or not (that what we are observing is natural variability, and that the hypothesized attribution of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the observed changes may not be causal)?

I’m not changing anything. We are not talking about the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are a significant factor in raising the planet’s temperature, we are talking about the hypothesis that scientists are perpetrating a deliberate scientific hoax for some political or financial reason. They are two completely separate hypotheses. The first hypothesis being wrong does not mean that the second hypothesis is right. It is very possible that AGW could simply be a mistake, the result of imperfect science, WITHOUT there ever being any grand conspiracy.

I believe the first hypothesis to be somewhat strongly supported—at least more strongly than any other scientific hypothesis that I have seen. I am however deeply skeptical of the hypothesis that there is a conspiracy going on. That there is not a conspiracy is the null hypothesis that we have been talking about.

 

[jmw]

I may even change the words a little to make them conform better to what I want them to say about you.

I haven't seen this defence of climategate... chapter and verse?

Strictly CRU dissented from FOIA, I know. But ignoring requests put forth by an individual that they knew had the malice intent of misrepresenting and distorting the information that he got in order to attack and disrupt the progress of their work...

Ah, so you are prepared to defend this breach of the law.
Malice?
Malice is hat is evident from the emails.
What the researcher wanted to do was what the scientific method demands, see the data and see the methods.
Science is about putting up a theory and inviting all and sundry to knock it down. The science is good for just as long as it withstands such an assualt.
But did you look at the comparisons between the raw data and the "homogenised data"? did you see that the warming comes form the homogenised data and is not evident in the raw data?
Did you read Harry's comments (the programmer who had to write their programs for them - these guys who can';t even manage excel and yet are creating statistical analyses of manipulated data) and have you looked at the latest information on the hide the decline issue? Did you know they already knew the hockey stick was a joke but said nothing and put it out anyway?

These guys are not scientists as we know them.
They cannot be trusted.




JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

TGS4, owg and cranky:

You can argue that the risk of AGW is not significantly proven to take any action against it. I would disagree with you, but I don't maintain that holding that position itself is unethical.

But that's not what owg implied in his dumbfounding post. He implied that even IF the risk of AGW is significant, Canada shouldn't spend a cent toward ameliorating this risk because Canada would (very arguably) see a net benefit from warming. I certainly DO view that as unethical.

Expressing a point of view is not unethical. Debate between open-minded people is productive as it helps all to refine their points of view. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be participating in this.

I also have no problem with Canada offering a legal prduct for sale to people who want to buy it.

What I have a problem with is Canada shirking its responsibiltiies to the international community over worries which are related solely to the cost to us. Last I checked, Canada's government does not dispute the science around AGW although some members of the Federal Conservative government might privately hold that view. If I understand our national position correctly, it is that we'll only join in collective action after everyone else has joined. "Everyone else" of course means the US, since China's recent agreement to join wasn't sufficient.

Of course ethics are about value judgments! As a society we talk about normative values- individual values are free to differ, but most people feel a certain way about things and that's what our laws are based on. You may not value the property rights of others, but society will still put you in jail if you steal. Oh wait- they'll put you in jail if you steal a little. If you steal a lot, "society" might give you a bonus- so yes, our normative values are at least a little in dispute in a democracy. But by and large, we tend not to take kindly to neighbours crapping in the community pool, even if their motivation is to reduce their own water/sewer costs, or because they argue that crap is organic and natural and hence can't be considered harmful...