
Climate change cover-up? You better believe it - Daishiman
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-cover-up-you-better-2009-11-24
======
lionhearted
> Has there ever been a nuclear reactor built anywhere in the world that
> didn't rely on government to get it done? Sounds like socialism, doesn't it?
> Hello France? USSR? USA?

I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power - I think it's one of the cleaner and
safer ways to provide energy, and I think nuclear fission combined with fossil
fuels is probably enough to last until we develop fusion or hydrogen based
power.

Anyway, the reason there's been no nuclear plants built without government
action is because it's illegal to build a nuclear plant without government
action, since processed uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons. I imagine
you'd see more nuclear plants if the restrictions were lessened, and I reckon
there'd be plenty of private investors to do it, though I'm not sure it's
altogether a good idea in this case.

That said, nuclear power restricted to government-only is the reason it hasn't
been built privately, and it's too bad it's forbidden from some areas. Nuclear
power would be a godsend to a number of areas on the planet where the local
ecosystem is particularly sensitive to pollution and the terrain isn't
suitable for wind, solar, or hydroelectric.

~~~
diego_moita
I am scared of nuclear power. I understand, believe and agree that we have
today the technical means to use it safely. However, I also believe that its
safety is directly dependent on being handled by competent, serious and
accountable people. Now, I leave in Brazil (a country already able to enrich
Uranium) and I know very well that third world authorities are the last people
on earth I would trust my safety and health.

It might be a good idea in civilized countries; not in Brazil, Russia, Iran,
India, China, etc.

~~~
electromagnetic
You have to take into account the types of technology being used for nuclear
energy. Enrichment in todays day and age is rather unnecessary and IMO makes a
countries (read: Iran) reasoning to use it very dubious.

There are many safeguarded reactor designs (like the CANDU) that mean using
them to produce plutonium for weaponization very difficult, in fact it's
generally much easier to just build generally-unsafeguarded research reactors
and harvest it from there (exactly what India did). The safeguarded reactors
can be used to harvest tritium, which India did use to make a boosted fission
weapon (fusion bomb). However tritium is regularly produced for medical
reasons, and major demands are going to be required for the ITER and any
commercial fusion plants.

Presently due to the lack of unsafeguarded reactors in western countries,
there is a major shortage of medical isotopes due to the closure of _one_
reactor. This brings up other questions in the nuclear debate that many
environmentalists don't want to touch, which is: Without nuclear reactors, how
will the 20 million people annually who require radioactive isotopes
(generally only producible in reactors that can produce plutonium) for medical
diagnosis be diagnosed and treated (many times with radioactive isotopes
again, either from the same reactors or using tritium produced from
safeguarded reactors)?

The simple suggestion to eradicate nuclear energy is absurd. We need better
safeguards and controls, but any countries willing to 'play by the rules'
should at least have access to safeguarded reactors. In fact, any
environmentalist worth their weight should be petitioning their own government
to help provide grants for China to produce safeguarded nuclear reactors. If
coal mining no longer becomes economically profitable inside China, then a
huge swathe of the worlds fossil fuel emissions will be removed.

Incidentally a single coal plant can easily emit more radioactive material
than every nuclear reactor in operation today. So ironically increasing our
use of radioactive fuels, will drastically decrease the emissions of
radioactive materials, specifically in some of the poorest and most vulnerable
countries.

------
DanielBMarkham
I've been a Scientific American reader for over a decade now.

(sigh)Each issue gets worse and worse -- the magazine has moved from science
to advocacy, and in a huge way.

Sadly, this commentary just continues the trend. Right now the signal-to-noise
ratio is about 1-10. If it continues to drop I'll have to go somewhere else
for scientific-oriented news.

Come on, guys. You can do better than this!

~~~
logjam
The piece is clearly labeled as opinion and analysis. Opinion, analysis, and
advocacy is part of many actual scientific journals, as it is of science
itself. Go browse Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA for
starters.

Now, why don't you enlighten us with exactly what you find wrong with the
opinion or analysis in this piece, and provide a little more signal yourself.
Science is cited in the opinion piece. Do you have an argument with the
science cited? Or with the opinion?

~~~
yummyfajitas
There is no scientific content in the article. There is no analysis. There is
nothing but a few scientific words, with 5 paragraphs (out of 9) devoted
attacking skeptics.

 _Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific
theory...but a hysterical reaction to the possibly of what? One-world
government? The return of communism?_

 _...those working in the fossil fuel extraction and/or burning business._

 _There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy...launched by the fossil fuel
industry_

 _...same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous."_

In the paragraphs that were not ad-hominem attacks, there was one grounding
paragraph (mentioning hacked emails), and another paragraph which (falsely)
claims the most damaging email is a complaint about funding. Only one
paragraph provides a few links to climate-related science, and that paragraph
is more or less tangential to the main article.

The main opinion expressed here: climate skeptics are right wing conspiracy
theorists working for the oil and tobacco companies.

Not sure why this is hacker news, or even relevant to the issue.

------
miked
_While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent
slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information unveil
something below impressive scientific and personal behavior, they can also be
seen as the frustrated responses of people working on complex data under
deadline while being harassed by political opponents._

"Apparent slowness"? Bullshit. The emails show a very active ongoing effort to
suppress release of information and to "hide the decline", irreproducible
results, appalling sloppiness in model construction. And now this apologia for
anti-scientific behavior from a True Believer.

~~~
kls
You quoted the exact same line that grabbed me as well. Sorry on this one,
scientist are held to a different standard than the rest of the population.
Any other scientist in any other field, would be summarily discredited for a
fraction of the ethical violations that these individuals engaged in. All of
their work should now be subjected to scrutiny and should be re-validated by a
independent party.

~~~
electromagnetic
IMHO their work should be re-validated, if it fails to meet the standard, and
if even a minor portion of their work appears to show purposeful tampering or
deceit, then _all_ of their work should be black-listed as well as these
scientists themselves.

Politics and game-playing is only an ethical violation. Tampering with _ANY_
data is a violation of the very nature of being a scientist, and any
'scientist' willing to violate the core principles of the art cannot and
should not be recognized as a scientist in any way, shape or form and neither
should anything they produced be recognized in anyway as being scientific
without complete validation from an impartial independent party.

------
ncarlson
I must be the only one, but I cannot for the life of me make sense of any of
these stories. Every story I read about these leaked emails is drowned in
sarcasm. I don't know up from down.

Can someone explain what exactly is going on in plain English?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'll try.

1) Climate science has gotten very emotional -- both for those who think the
planet's climate is in danger of spinning out of control and for those who do
not.

2) For years the critics/deniers/skeptics have argued that the scientists in
the field of climatology have not been working on the up and up. In other
words, that there was a conspiracy to prevent the truth from getting out.
These people were laughed at.

3) Somebody illegally broke into one place that does climate research and
stole a bunch of emails

4) These emails show frustrated scientists who are trying to stack the deck in
web forums, trying to prevent people with opposing views from being published,
deleting critical data, fudging the numbers, lying to the press, and admitting
to each other privately that something is very wrong

5) All hell breaks loose. Those on the side of the "end is coming" take to the
web and print media with robust defenses of the scientists in question,
pointing out how stressed out they are, how emails can be taken out of
context, how the skeptics are mostly morons, how there's much more data than
just being produced by this unit, etc. Detractors (so far) are mostly just
countering by quoting the scientists themselves and demanding that if the
research isn't totally open and reproducible, it's not science. Some have also
demanded that the scientists in question step down (I count myself as one of
these)

That's as unbiased as I can get. As for my own bias, I have no idea what the
earth's climate is doing, but I know a rigged game when I see one, and _the
nature of the debate on climate science_ has been in the toliet for a long
time. It's good to see a little sunshine getting in. I hope it leads to better
standards and higher ethical guidelines. If this is as serious as folks make
out, it's even more critical that every little piece of research is beyond
reproach. We have a long ways to go before we get there, unfortunately.

~~~
Elepsis
Point 4 of your summary is not entirely unbiased -- it's still not clear
whether the emails show that numbers are truly being fudged or that truly
critical data has been deleted on purpose. Because the meaning of the emails
is unclear, it is what's being debated in all of these articles. Do the mails
indeed show manipulation, lying and a consensus that "something is very
wrong"? That's not a closed question.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I consider that part of the argument that _emails can be taken out of context_

Like I said, it was the best I could come up with. Prima facie, something is
wrong somewhere.

~~~
pohl
That's exactly why #4 is not unbiased. You say in point #5 that those who seek
more context prior to judgement are from the end-is-nigh camp. Reasonable
people who are not in that camp also think the emails may have a very
different meaning in their true context. Otherwise, great summary.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Thanks.

I used the term "prima facie" on purpose, because it's very apt here.

It roughly means "on first glance" or "on the surface". IANAL, but as I
understand it, it's a way of saying "just glancing at the evidence here, it
certainly looks like X"

The interesting part about this term is that _it's all subjective_. So as soon
as one lawyer uses it, the appropriate response is to say, "but wait a minute!
You're taking this out of context, words have more than one meaning, there was
nuance involved, you're twisting what was actually said, etc."

I provided #4 the way I would provide it to anybody on any side of the
discussion. I understand the appropriate reply is to get into meanings and
nuance -- and I don't mean that as a slam. At some point it gets silly, such
as in the famous "it depends on what you mean by the word 'is'" but we're
nowhere near there yet.

The problem is that the requester asked somebody to explain it to him. As
"somebody", I felt it appropriate to explain what I found prima facie and also
my bias.

In highly emotional environments I've found that it's impossible to strike the
right tone. Apologies if I could have done better.

------
fbailey
I'm quite disappointed about so many "sceptics" on Hacker News . The term
"sceptic" alone gives someone credibility, it sounds like someone is actively
engaging in a scientific debate, but no "sceptic" is.

The basic scientific fact on which every other argument rests is the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect> greenhouse effect. This alone
should end the argument for any sane person.You can replicate the effect in
every lab with the same results. The calculation that we are having an effect
is simple. The co2 measurements are absolutely clear, co2 is rising and is now
on its highest level ever.

I don't understand what your argument is? That correlation doesn't equal
causation? You can prove the causation in every lab, just replicate John
Tyndalls experiment from the 1850s
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall>.

I don't care if two models work or don't work, or if some scientist has
doctored three numbers, it doesn't change the basic fact. The argument they
are having is about the current speed of warming and I don't care about that,
because it doesn't matter. It might well be that the planet is warming much
slower because of some natural effect, now if this is the case we should all
be happy...and start reducing greenhouse gases immediately. All we got is a
chance to react, the basic scientific fact didn't go away.

~~~
rimantas
If the Greenhouse effect was the only effect affecting climate, you'd have a
point.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
why is this being voted down? simplistic models of complex systems are
obviously a bad idea when the results involve spending billions of dollars
that could otherwise directly save lives today.

~~~
fbailey
climate is an enourmously complex system in the short run, but quite simple in
the long run.

Yes you can still reduce all the arguments we are having to the greenhouse
effect. You both didn't answer my post you side stepped the issue. "simplistic
models of complex systems are obviously a bad idea" this is not even an
argument, it's just a weird theory, masked as common sense. But occams razor
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor> doesn't ask for the most
complex theory does it? why are the simplistic models bad if they work? It is
also a common "sceptic" strategy to sidestep the core arguments and go back to
talking about process (complex argument, bad emails, sceptics are not heard,
global conspiracy...but no arguments none).

So what is your argument against the greenhouse effect? That something will
offset it? Or that it doesn't exist? Or that there is no correlation between
co2 and global temperature in the long run?

Explain, Argue stop running, if you care about the future of mankind you
should at least accept the possibility that you are wrong. In that case you
have to engage in a honest debate about the facts.

~~~
krzyk
The real problem is that ecologists don't tell you that the clime fluctuates
all the time. Have you heard of the little ice age
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age>)? We should already have a real
ice age, but fortunately it haven't started yet (see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png>), would you like
to live on a glacier?

Do you know that the same scientists that propose global warming now have said
that there will be global cooling (in 1960s/1970s)? Oh, and BTW, its
interesting that now they say it's "climate change" not "global warming", are
they preparing to change what they are saying again?

~~~
fbailey
I have no idea what ecologist have to do with it, but every climatologist is
easily going to have a lenghty chat about climate variance and fluctuation
with you. Basically that's what climatologists study. Yes I know what the
little ice age is, but I really can't see your point. There is a lot of
natural fluctuation, but that doesn't disprove the greenhouse effect. Just
because the sun or vulanic activity cause a cooling effect in the short run
doesn't change the basic fact of the greenhouse effect in the long run.

Your Link to the Vostok Ice Core Data should really make you scared just add
100ppmv to the co2 level and try to imagine the temperature.

Global cooling was never a widely accepted scientific theory, in fact the
scientific consensus even back then was that global warming was going to
happen in the future.

------
mellis
As far as I can tell, for example by reading the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Clime Change) report (summary: [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm...](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf)), the overwhelming scientific evidence and
consensus is that global warming is real and man-made. I've yet to see anyone
critical of this view make a case (much less a convincing one) that anything
in these emails provides any reason to doubt the overall scientific
conclusions and policy implications. Until someone does, I'm planning to
ignore this "controversy" and use any time I spend on climate change to better
educate myself on the general scientific consensus and the implications for
policy. If we're interested in doing something about global warming, we
shouldn't be nitpicking about whether some few lines of code were commented
out or not. We should be making the case for cap-and-trade legislation and
doing what we can to get it passed here in the U.S.

~~~
gritzko
You speak like a true believer. The mails have shown, precisely, that IPCC
process is manipulated. That is the problem. Does warming exists? Most likely.
Is it human-made? Who knows.

P.S. Yes, I am paid by Royal Dutch/Shell to post deceptive comments on
HackerNew.

------
mhartl
_As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post:
"...[W]e've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of
scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance..."_

There are two hypotheses that might explain this behavior. The first is
unprecedented boldness of the enemies of science. The second is one I suspect
Dr. Weart is not yet ready to face.

~~~
alan-crowe
The important criticism of climate science is very different from the
criticism that Spencer Weart choses to respond to.

Compare the financial crisis and the climate crisis. The origin of the
financial crisis lies in people believing. Believing that house prices never
fall, believing that structured financial products reduce risk. Critics do not
impugn the motives of the believers. Helping minorities to buy houses, moving
financial risk to those who can shoulder it, these are noble aims. Critics
complain that those in charge should have been intellectually rigorous but
were merely well meaning and enthusiastic and that this was sufficient to
cause disaster.

Contrast this with the climate crisis. Climate science is excused its bumbling
amateurism on the grounds that ad hoc adjustments to the data are not
sinister. The excuse for losing the raw data and the calibration scripts is
that, far from attempting a fraud, the researchers are well meaning and
enthusiastic.

We want to know whether the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is
true. The allegation against against climate scientists is that they should
have been intellectually rigorous but that they stand revealed as, at best,
merely well meaning and enthusiastic. This works no better in science than it
does in finance.

------
jacoblyles
By "apparent slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for
information" don't they mean deliberate deletion of data and an illegal
campaign to deny specific people a handful of requests for data? And most of
those requests were just follow-ups after initial denials.

Spin spin spin Scientific American, at least we know what your true colors
are.

------
akamaka
_There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched
by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and
delay any action. And this release of emails right before the Copenhagen
conference is just another salvo—and a highly effective one—in that public
relations battle, redolent with the scent of the same flaks and hacks who
brought you "smoking isn't dangerous."_

Citations please!

------
gritzko
"While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent
slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information"

Ja, ja... sure...

