
An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science - amardeep
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science/
======
adwhit
The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large
fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years.
Climate change is quite possibly the one and only story of the 21st century.
What could be more deserving of our attention? And yet I've noticed that such
news stories get a rather cool reception on HN, possibly because it doesn't
fit the Whiggish philosophy that tends to prevail round here.

My opinion: the future will be worse. Don't have kids.

~~~
crusso
_The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large
fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years_

The best climate science is still crap.

We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models
that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how
strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural
variability. It's been rather telling that IPCC has had to adjust its
predictions significantly over the last decade because they haven't matched up
with reality.

Let's all step away from the hype, politics, and hollywood portrayals to
figure out what's really going on.

Personally, I find it very grounding to go back to Judith Curry's blog every
once in a while to see what a reasonable skeptic is observing in all the
political noise around the science.

[http://judithcurry.com/](http://judithcurry.com/)

~~~
scarmig
Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word for it over the mainstream of the
scientific community because of your expertise, or because she conveniently
says things that align with your pre-existing opinions?

Blogs are always a less-than-ideal medium for picking out scientific truth,
but compare Judith Curry's blog (which is barely better than Watts Up With
That) with, say, RealClimate:

[http://www.realclimate.org/](http://www.realclimate.org/)

The differences in scientific focus is immediately evident. Judith Curry
myopically focuses on lazy "debunkings," yelling at her imagined enemies, and
hyping up her own public appearances; RealClimate focuses on new scientific
papers, what's going on at conferences, and a much smaller proportion of
"ethics" and "meta" questions.

~~~
crusso
_Did you choose to take Judith Curry 's word_

It's telling that you twisted what I said in that way. I don't take her word
any more than I take Mann's word. I read a variety of sources and try to
reason about them to create my own world view.

Since I don't have an oil well in my backyard, I don't really have a dog in
the fight besides my general interest in the "success" of our society.

I really don't spend enough brain cells to understand the issues as well as
the climate scientists, but I am good/have relevant experience in two
important ways.

1\. I've worked with simulation enough to know that they aren't worth crap if
they don't have a track record for predicting reality. Climate models have had
no appreciable success at predicting long range climate. As much as you may
want to, you can't put the cart before the horse. The validity of the model
has to be proved before they can be trusted. Before that happens, you're using
religious thinking and trying to label those who don't agree with you
heretics.

2\. I'm good at spotting bullshit politics masked as scientific authority.
I've found the IPCC, Mann, et al. to be extremely political in their approach
to Science. They trash people who don't agree with them and they don't just
admit it when they and their models are significantly wrong.

~~~
scarmig
"Bullshit politics"

"crap"

Keep it civil.

You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific
community; and even if you gave them equal billing, that'd be inappropriate,
simply because she's significantly outnumbered. And her skepticism is always
expressed in political forums, never scientific ones, which further takes away
from how much scientific credibility she has, at least when it comes to her
AGW denialism.

2) is, naturally, an argument from "climate science is bunk because climate
scientists are evil because crusso is an expert at saying climate scientists
are evil," which is unfortunately a common logical error.

~~~
crusso
_Keep it civil._

Seems like you're trying to augment your argument by asserting some sort of
language dominance. Do you find that helps with other people?

 _You clearly privilege Judith Curry 's work over the rest of the scientific
community_

Her work? Partially. I prefer her calm approach to Science that demands
evidence and remains skeptical vs the all-too-often politically-driven one I
see at the IPCC. That said, I read realclimate about as often as I read
Curry's blog.

 _she 's significantly outnumbered_

Yeah, I'm significantly outnumbered by Miley Cyrus fans too. What of it?

 _crusso is an expert at saying climate scientists are evil_

At the end of the day, we can't all understand everything. Lacking models that
reflect reality, this is all just guesswork - so I'd prefer to rely on my
understanding of what makes good Science.

~~~
scarmig
_Seems like you 're trying to augment your argument _

Yes, it is. When someone's getting emotional about a topic, particularly a
scientific one, it's useful to point it out, to rhetorically place yourself on
the side of scientific, rational debate. You do the same thing one line down
when you emphasize how much you prefer her "calm approach to Science."

 _Her work_

Which work? Is it her scientific papers you respect, or her publicizing the
evils of other scientists?

 _outnumbered by Miley Cyrus fans too_

Miley Cyrus is great. But are you comparing the entirety of the climate
science community to fans of a particular pop singer, when it comes to judging
scientific credibility?

~~~
crusso
_entirety of the climate science community_

That's the point, though, isn't it? It's not the entirety of the climate
Science community.

------
jobu
The title is a little misleading. The story is from one of the scientists
targeted in the attack, not an insider from the attacking side (which would be
very interesting indeed).

Decent article, but not exactly surprising given what I've already read about
on some of the attacks on climate science here in the U.S.

~~~
__david__
I didn't find it misleading at all. It's from exactly the viewpoint that I
assumed after reading the title...

~~~
skorgu
I parsed it wrong the first time as well. I was only confused until I got to
"In 1981, as part of my PhD work," at which point all was clear.

------
npsimons
I'm glad to see this finally being acknowledged and the funding behind these
attacks being called out. In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to
rising sea levels and all the upheaval caused thereby, will we finally look
back (as we did with smoking propaganda) and realize what influence malicious
greed can effect over ignorance?

~~~
gretful
Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize
what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things
through rather than accepting everything printed?

Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
_Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling._

This is a red herring, used to hand-wave away the serious, broad, deep, and
highly credible body of evidence that points to significant human-caused
global warming.

So-called "global cooling" was a fairly marginal conjecture that was floated
in the 1970s but never taken very seriously by most climate scientists.
Already by 1970, most climate research focused on warming, not cooling.

~~~
iterationx
using five adjectives in a row, LOL

------
crazy1van
This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument.
Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others
will never be convinced it isn't. The rest of the people don't care.

~~~
acqq
It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very
motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their
own gains, as the article clearly illustrates.

There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is
real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no"
(quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the equal
attention to the one doubter and to the group of almost all world's scientist.

In the internet speak, the deniers are successfully trolling the public.

~~~
seehafer
I'm not unsympathetic to the exasperation of scientists concerning that their
work is being dismissed by people who don't have the expertise to evaluate it,
but all this talk about a "consensus" is where they shoot themselves in the
foot. Science doesn't advance by "consensus". And using that as the defense is
just a different type of faith (faith in the omniscience of the group).

Prior to the 80's the 'consensus' was that stomach ulcers are caused by stress
and spicy foods. Two lone Australian medical researchers thought a bacterium
was the causal agent, and so one of them actually swallowed a petri dish to
prove his point.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall)

~~~
onetwofiveten
The talk of "consensus" emerged because previously there was a concerted
effort from vested interests to make the public believe that climate change
was a controversial issue amongst the scientific community. This severely
muddied the waters of public opinion. So it's important to continue the
message of scientific consensus.

The scientific consensus is our best model for reality. That isn't about
having faith in any group, it's about having faith in the scientific process.
Your example of stomach ulcers only supports that point. Once new evidence was
found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into the scientific consensus
(so it remained the best model for reality).

~~~
seehafer
> Once new evidence was found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into
> the scientific consensus (so it remained the best model for reality).

The problem with a direct comparison in this case, that we ought to accept the
consensus and be as dismissive about anthropogenic climate change skeptics as
we are about someone who still claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth,
is that in the case of stomach ulcers, the result is easily testable and
reproducible. Much harder for something as complex as the climate.
Additionally, this issue is laden with political consequences on both sides so
it's hard to accept objectivity _on either side_ (very difficult for someone
to obtain a grant inside the academic mainstream to study something that is
contrary to accepted opinion, and very difficult for someone to obtain a grant
from industry to study something that is in line with accepted opinion. not to
mention the potential effects for fossil fuel and alternative energy
companies)

~~~
acqq
Your insinuations aren't true at all. The scientist do the science, nobody can
claim that politics had any influence of any relevant scientific results: all
of them were independently rechecked many times over.

------
jeremyt
Global warming is one of those tough issues for me. I guess you could call me
a skeptic, but I try very hard to be a thoughtful skeptic.

What makes the whole conversation unproductive is there appears to be two
sides: one which argues there is no problem and we must do nothing, and the
other side says that the problem is going to end the world as we know it and
we must change our entire way of living and make it our number one priority.

For me, there is a progression of questions that I must answer before I can
sign on to the latter's assertions., And they look something like this:

1\. Is the world warming? I think it most certainly is, but I would also note
that it appears that the warming trend has halted for the past 10 to 20 years.
From what I can gather, scientists have reasons why that might be the case but
have not explained it.

2\. Is the warming man-made? To a large degree, I believe that it is. However,
there are a lot of things that we don't understand about climate (solar
cycles, effects of water vapor, ocean CO2 sequestration, etc.) If I had to put
a number on it, I would say 50 to 60% man-made.

3\. Can we do anything about it? This is where I begin to separate from the
global warming crowd. Theoretically, we can certainly do something about it,
but having worked in government I just don't see any practical way that we can
reduce greenhouse emissions to such an extent that it's going to make a great
difference. Further, china and India are ramping up their CO2 emissions, and
there's nothing that the developed countries can do about it. Finally, I have
ethical objections to telling developed countries that they have to use less
energy which will inevitably result in more lives lost due to starvation or
simply just malnutrition and poverty.

4\. Should we do anything about it? I believe this is a cost-benefit analysis.
And I haven't done the analysis myself, but sometimes I question whether
spending the enormous amounts of money today is worth putting off an uncertain
disaster tomorrow when we have actual problems today that we could be working
on instead. We have millions of people every year dying from malnutrition,
poor water supplies, malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc. Why not save those actual lives
instead of spending the money saving hypothetical lives in 100 years. And
indeed, won't we be more suited to save those lines in 100 years than we are
right now, meaning that the mitigation effort could be a lot cheaper?

~~~
thaumaturgy
> What makes the whole conversation unproductive is there appears to be two
> sides: one which argues there is no problem and we must do nothing, and the
> other side says that the problem is going to end the world as we know it and
> we must change our entire way of living and make it our number one priority.

This is called a false dichotomy. There are an entire range of viewpoints on
this; you've just chosen two extremes to work from.

Some public people have been trying to clarify that the world won't end, it
will just be a far more miserable place to live. Fortunately, we have the smog
problem in Beijing to point to as a very easy example of what to expect from
population centers that don't make efforts to control pollution.

Further, there aren't just the effects of warming to consider, but lots of
other environmental concerns too, like overfished oceans and oil spill
disasters.

Earth won't end. Earth will get along just fine without us.

> Is the world warming? I think it most certainly is, but I would also note
> that it appears that the warming trend has halted for the past 10 to 20
> years.

It hasn't. There was a "missing heat" problem, that has since been largely
resolved by finding quite a bit of warming in the deep ocean. IIRC that study
is still pending further research, but seems solid. If it's true, then that's
a fairly bad sign, since ocean temperature is a lagging indicator -- i.e.,
it'll continue to stay warm long after the atmosphere has begun to cool.

[http://phys.org/news/2013-07-decade-unprecedented-deep-
ocean...](http://phys.org/news/2013-07-decade-unprecedented-deep-ocean.html),
"Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean"

> Is the warming man-made? To a large degree, I believe that it is. However,
> there are a lot of things that we don't understand about climate (solar
> cycles, effects of water vapor, ocean CO2 sequestration, etc.)

And, of course, the thermodynamics of the increasing numbers of UFOs and
spectral spirits.

Seriously, though, the problem here is that, first, those factors have been
looked at (although I'll agree that they could benefit from further study --
but so could everything) and they have been found not to be influential, and
second, there's no evidence to think in the first place that they should be
influential. That is, climate change denialists are running from rebuttal to
rebuttal as each one is disproven, despite the overwhelming evidence that
scientists _do_ already know what the causes of warming are over the last few
centuries.

For example:
[http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213](http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213),
"Sun not a key driver of climate change";
[http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/),
"Climate change: How do we know?";
[http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php),
"Global Warming & Climate Change Myths" (answers 174 common climate change
denialist myths).

> If I had to put a number on it, I would say 50 to 60% man-made.

This is a made-up number. It is meaningless.

> Can we do anything about it?

Absolutely. Lots of people have been doing things about it. For example, U.S.
energy consumption has leveled off over the last decade, despite an explosion
in personal electronics, thanks to increases in efficiency in everything from
cars to energy production to the devices themselves.

And every little bit helps.

> This is where I begin to separate from the global warming crowd.

Er, with all due respect, you separated from the global warming crowd quite a
while back in your comment.

> Theoretically, we can certainly do something about it, but having worked in
> government I just don't see any practical way that we can reduce greenhouse
> emissions to such an extent that it's going to make a great difference.

"I can't make a really big difference, so I won't make a difference at all."

California added more residential solar in 2013 than in all previous years --
_combined_. Is that not a difference? Countries around the world have been
building out renewable energy. Germany is now 25% renewable in energy
production; Sweden has become so efficient at converting trash into energy
that they're now importing trash from other countries.

Certainly, not being able to make some impossibly large positive difference in
emissions isn't an excuse for continuing to make the problem worse, which is
what denialists want.

> Further, china and India are ramping up their CO2 emissions, and there's
> nothing that the developed countries can do about it.

"My neighbor doesn't maintain his yard, so I shouldn't bother to maintain
mine."

As the rest of the world continues to move forward in improved environmental
technology, there will be increased incentives for China and India to do so
too. There will be more political pressure, but the technology will also
improve and become cheaper, as it has been for decades. At some point, it will
simply make economic and political sense for India, China, and other countries
to adopt better environmental technologies.

> Finally, I have ethical objections to telling developed countries that they
> have to use less energy which will inevitably result in more lives lost due
> to starvation or simply just malnutrition and poverty.

This is ... a very silly thing to say.

Nobody's calling for energy or food reductions that will reduce populations.
On the contrary, continuing to improve energy technology, as well as
agriculture and education and medicine, will _increase_ the life expectancy
for a population, and, based on all available metrics so far, as people live
longer, better educated, healthier lives, they naturally choose to have fewer
babies.

What do you think the life expectancy is for the residents of all of the
squatters' villages in the Pacific islands that have been destroyed by
hurricanes and other storms?

Are you really advocating for continuing the use of old, wasteful technology
which, as a side effect, increases the likelihood of devastating storm
seasons, because it's better for poor people?

> Should we do anything about it? I believe this is a cost-benefit analysis.
> And I haven't done the analysis myself, but sometimes I question whether
> spending the enormous amounts of money today is worth putting off an
> uncertain disaster tomorrow when we have actual problems today that we could
> be working on instead.

Alright, look, you're not questioning anything. You're daydreaming. We live in
an age of unprecedented access to information. When I was little, we had
encyclopedias and public libraries; if I wanted to learn about a subject, I
had to put in a lot more effort than is necessary today.

You could choose to spend just a few minutes here and there _actually_
questioning all of this, and you could learn something and then you could have
all of the benefits of a slightly more informed opinion, rather than just
repeating the political talking points you've heard elsewhere.

And, by the way, climate is an actual problem that we do have today.

> We have millions of people every year dying from malnutrition

...and the technology to feed them, were it not for all of the navel-gazers
wondering whether or not we _should_...

> ...poor water supplies...

...I've personally raised funds to send a hydrologist to Uganda...

> ...malaria...

...Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation...

> ...HIV/AIDS...

...tremendous amounts of ongoing research, to the extent that there now exist
very low impact, long-term, cost-effective treatments for HIV/AIDS...

> ...etc.

So why do you believe that any of these things has to stop while we build more
solar plants or work on further increasing vehicle efficiencies?

> Why not save those actual lives instead of spending the money saving
> hypothetical lives in 100 years.

Are you talking hypothetically, or practically? Is this a choice that you,
personally, actually have to make, ever?

Why don't you visit [https://watsi.org/fund-
treatments](https://watsi.org/fund-treatments) (a YC non-profit), and make a
difference in an actual life there, and then come back and opine a little bit
more about whether or not we should entirely abandon environmental R&D?

> And indeed, won't we be more suited to save those lines in 100 years than we
> are right now, meaning that the mitigation effort could be a lot cheaper?

I fully expect that, 100 years from now, people will be having the exact same
conversations, in some form or another, that they've been having for the last
thousand years: "really, what use is it to do anything at all, if we have to
choose between doing one thing or doing another thing?"

~~~
jeremyt
I think you've missed the point that I was making, so I'm a little puzzled as
to why you're spending all the time to do a line by line takedown. My main
point is that I think any money that we are thinking about spending to
mitigate global warming now could probably be better used solving world hunger
or malaria or something. I don't KNOW that for a fact, and I'm open to
arguments one way or the other. Just, to me, real people dying today is just
more urgent than hypothetical people dying in the future.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I was just responding to the things you said.

If that's your main point, I already replied to it. Efforts are already
underway by governments, scientists, companies, non-profits, foundations, and
even somewhat poor individuals like myself to resolve the other issues facing
people around the world.

Why do you believe that money spent on environmental technology is slowing the
progress in other areas? Do you really think that if countries would just stop
building wind power for a few years, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would
cure malaria more quickly?

Even if that were true, aren't there, I dunno, dozens of other sources of
funding that would make more sense to borrow from?

The thing is, your objection here is a really common one, and it always takes
the same form: don't spend money on environmental technology, it would be
better spent doing ( _anything at all other than environmental technology_ )
instead. But nobody ever justifies it. Nobody ever bothers to figure out what
the relative impacts on human life of environmental technology vs., say,
increased funding for malaria research are.

The Dust Bowl disaster in the 1930s was directly caused by human activity. It
displaced hundreds of thousands of people (or millions, depending on how you
count) and contributed to starvation conditions in large parts of the country.
It caused dust pneumonia, which killed people
([http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcri...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/dustbowl-
transcript/)).

A single typhoon in the Phillipines last year killed thousands and left
millions more homeless ([http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/08/us/typhoon-haiyan-one-
month/](http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/08/us/typhoon-haiyan-one-month/)).

The pollution in Beijing might be taking as much as 16 years off of the
average resident's life span there ([http://www.businessinsider.com/beijing-
air-quality-hits-life...](http://www.businessinsider.com/beijing-air-quality-
hits-life-expectancy-2014-1)).

Drought, extreme weather (both hot and cold), tropical storms, hurricanes,
typhoons, tornadoes, bad air quality -- these things are not _hypothetically_
affecting people. While we can't altogether stop these disasters any time in
the near future, we can start doing things now to make them less severe.

Real people have been dying for, at least, close to a hundred years because of
human impacts on the environment.

~~~
jeremyt
Well, after searching, it appears there is a book that does exactly this. I'm
going to read it, and then maybe I will have a better idea of what the
relative cost benefits are.

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/fiona/thank-
you?ie=UTF8&a=...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/fiona/thank-
you?ie=UTF8&a=A9F39MHJ0I7K9&action=&asin=B00DGY4D78&badDebtOrders=&cor=US&eoi=A1Z09KSRPAY4C3&giftSentNow=&homeMarketplaceId=ATVPDKIKX0DER&isExtendedMarketplace=&o=D01-8225960-4150420&offerListingID=7nq2hFqXdBGBPldjNPnMV4oDkPyvmJuRF%252FLJlvHOjcrB%252FaAeeU7vaTzlhAkmQouTxpB5sWdVcMNcnHiRhiiLqGgnyO1jGzsdO7dSmpTNjAuZONmxR3aWvjdaJ3ZwcSShanoj3UBp2Ou1AD0ZR6%252FuEls8pdVy6oE0&originSessionId=&paymentInstrumentType=&rateQuoteID=&selectedPriceName=)

~~~
thaumaturgy
Link's busted.

~~~
jeremyt
"How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place" \- I'm about
halfway through, but according to this Copenhagen consensus group, which
appears to be made up of Nobel prize-winning scientists, the ROI for global
warming mitigation is negative (using the same methodology they applied to the
other items they were considering).

------
konradb
I thought that picture of an advert from the 'Heartland institute' near the
bottom of the page was a hilarious albeit overdone joke.

"I still believe in global warming. Do you?" \- Ted Kaczynski, The Unabomber

So I assumed it was a joke, and such transparent and patronising adverts could
never have been dreamed up. However it does look like that was a planned
advert, luckily the campaign was canned. I'm still kind of amazed!

------
JackFr
I'd take the climate scientists more seriously if they could offer a
comprehensive theory on ice ages. As far as I can tell, over the past 250
years the best they've been able to come up with is 'multi-factor', which of
course means they have candidates, but no winner.

That, for me, would be some real science -- not politically charged, not
funding-driven, not in the pocket of a lobby or an industry and frankly
fascinating. It kills me that there is this fatuous back and forth when the
most interesting question of the the planets climate goes effectively
unanswered.

------
andrewflnr
Don't both sides claim this kind of thing has happened to them? So again, who
do we believe?

------
Tycho
Do climate scientists have #skininthegame?

