
UN climate science body condemns report leak - DanBC
http://www.rtcc.org/un-climate-science-body-ipcc-condemns-ar5-report-leak/
======
IanCal
Rightly so. They're not complaining that someone has leaked an internal
report, this is a _draft_ report which will be made public. Selecting snippets
from an un-reviewed paper is silly, taking it potentially out of context and
drawing your own conclusions is downright irresponsible.

~~~
tomjen3
Sorry, but isn't science about more than one person getting access to the data
and re-running the experiments? While I understand that it is politically
inconvenient for the scientists, that shouldn't really be what decides what
the public gets access to (especially since this is a tax-payer founded
study).

In fact wouldn't it be fair that they are to check their report into a public
subversion repository as it is being written?

~~~
IanCal
> Sorry, but isn't science about more than one person getting access to the
> data and re-running the experiments?

Yes, but that's not happening here. They've not released all the data with
explanations of how thing were measured, caveats, and context.

> While I understand that it is politically inconvenient for the scientists,
> that shouldn't really be what decides what the public gets access to
> (especially since this is a tax-payer founded study).

You're making it sound like this will never be released. It's not like they'd
hide it if the data showed things weren't as bad as expected, in which case a
leaked report would be important. This is a leak equivalent to grabbing a
corner from the notes on someones desk and then _turning it into a news
story_. This is in no way a report about leaked information that should be
public, it _will_ be public. It has nothing to do with "it's my taxes", it'll
all be made public. What they want to do first is have it reviewed and checked
before slapping their name on it and saying "we're confident in the data and
the analysis".

What happens if there's a problem with the way this data was captured, which
means there's a particular correlation with something else that must be
accounted for before it makes sense? What if there are conclusions that aren't
supported by the data, which could be found in review and amended?

> In fact wouldn't it be fair that they are to check their report into a
> public subversion repository as it is being written?

Fair? Why? Unless you're acting as a reviewer there's no reason to see the
paper before it's in its final form. In fact, knowing how bad we are at
thinking things are true even when shown to be false, seeing anything that
people aren't really quite sure about is an extremely bad idea.

If they were to shelve the whole report, then yes, a leak would be
interesting. Otherwise it's a massive waste of time, which can seriously harm
the credibility of the final paper.

------
marknutter
When science becomes this politicized it ceases to be good science.

~~~
lukifer
I don't mind the skeptics; what drives me crazy is how many people see global
warming as some sort liberal/one-world-government conspiracy. While government
funding _could_ be distorting the research, oil and coal companies have plenty
of reason to incentivize findings as well, so I'd call that a wash. And while
scientific opinion is sometimes proven wrong, to say that climate skepticism
is dimissed fails to understand the culture of science and the way
professional scientists think.

Maybe we'll get lucky, and climate change will be a mere inconvenience. I'd
rather not take that chance, especially when there are so many other reasons
to diversify from finite carbon energy sources. Meanwhile, I trust the
scientific community to do what they do best, and keep digging deeper,
whatever the answer may be.

~~~
gadders
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense that liberals have a secret
convention where they decided to make up Global Warming.

I do believe though that global warming feeds into their belief that industry,
growth and capitalism are somehow evil and confirms their pre-existing
prejudices.

~~~
lukifer
I don't self-identify as liberal, but I'd say that corporations and oil are
the villains to mainstream liberals; you have to go pretty far left (as in,
farther than Chomsky) to find those against all forms of capitalism.

That said, you're right about confirming pre-existing prejudices; in that
sense, every ideology or belief is a conspiracy. Climate scientists are not
immune to this phenomenon, but the act of science is to proactively try to
correct for these kinds of biases, with the added constraint of having to
"show your work". While mainstream science can get it wrong, 95+% consensus is
very hard to achieve due to either ideology or external influence, especially
worldwide. Those scientists might be wrong, but they're not all duping us as
part of some plot.

~~~
gadders
You don't have to go very far to find people against "growth" in western
societies. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Oxfam etc all seem to think that
growth is an evil that should be opposed.

I don't think they are duping us, but a mixture of pre-existing biases
combined with enormous funding certainly helps to create the idea of a
consensus.

~~~
minikites
Growth can't continue forever: [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-
math/2012/04/economist-meets-...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-
math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/)

>Before we tackle that, we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave
it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400
years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years
from now.

~~~
jessaustin
400 years ago humans didn't have usable heat engines, mobile chronometers,
thermometers, and numerous other technologies essential to living a life
differentiated from that of the Neanderthals. It isn't for certain that we'll
make similar progress in the coming 400 years, but it's plausible. I don't
think it will take that long to construct a Dyson swarm, for instance. The
physicist you link really begs the question when he forbids "space cadets".

It's also questionable to equate growth in economic well-being with growth in
energy use. They have certainly been related for a long time, but advances in
materials, miniaturization, automation, and other engineering will make the
environmentalists' goal of stabilizing per-capita energy use feasible.

------
Karunamon
This might be a good place to ask this. My mind is mostly made up, due to the
fact I believe that the energy sector has a much higher profit motive to
distort the facts than the academic one, but in any case:

How is a layman to interpret this science? Heck, how are reasonably smart
people who are not climatologists to interpret it? _How are time-starved
politicians who are responsible for the related policy to interpret it_?

~~~
newnewnew
> "My mind is mostly made up, due to the fact I believe that the energy sector
> has a much higher profit motive to distort the facts than the academic one,
> but in any case:"

The "we're all gonna die" faction gets four orders of magnitude more funding
each year than the global warming skeptic faction. Oil company spending on
climate science propaganda consists of a few $million here or these, and the
best skeptics don't even take any of their money. The best ones are unpaid
amateurs (like Steve McIntyre) or they achieved a position in academia decades
ago before belief in global warming became required to advance. I suggest you
read some skeptics like Steve[1] and see if you think he is as evil as Phil
Jones thinks he is[2].

Moreover, the environmentalists control the institutions which create public
opinion - namely the media and the universities. I'm guessing this is how your
opinion was formed[3]. It's remarkable how utterly dominant cultural forces
can see themselves as underdogs.

[1] [http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-
light...](http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-
flawed-data/)

[2] [http://www.therightplanet.com/2011/11/phil-jones-for-your-
ey...](http://www.therightplanet.com/2011/11/phil-jones-for-your-eyes-only-
email-to-michael-mann/)

[3] [http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-modern-
structure.h...](http://anomalyuk.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-modern-
structure.html)

~~~
Karunamon
I find it interesting that you didn't cite your most pertinent claim.. namely
_" The "we're all gonna die" faction gets four orders of magnitude more
funding each year than the global warming skeptic faction."_

Further, the fact that you referred to people who believe the climate change
theory as the "we're all gonna die" faction tells me squarely which camp
you're in, and I'd thank you to avoid further such sneaky pre-framing of the
argument if you wish for me to take your claims seriously.

~~~
newnewnew
The biggest skeptic propaganda organization that I know of is the Heartland
Institute, which has an annual budget in the single millions. Greenpeace alone
has an annual budget in the $hundred millions and there are dozens of other
substantial environmentalist non-profits. The NOAA has a budget in the
$billions, of which $hundreds of millions are dedicated to climate research,
and that is not the only federal organization that deals with climate
research. And there are other countries which have budgets allocated for this
stuff. For example, all of the choicest anti-science quotes from climategate
came out of the UK's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit[1][2] and
their struggle to prevent skeptics from accessing data.

I don't know that the global warming hypothesis is untrue. But I do know that
our current process is not a method designed to find truth. Scientific data
should be open to all humanity, and not hidden for the sake of advancing
political agendas.

[1] "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and
find something wrong with it?"

[2] "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever
hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete
the file rather than send to anyone."

------
mathattack
Whoops!

This does beg a question... Does science deserve a higher standard of opacity
for publicly funded research than our government overall? My sense is "let the
process work to separate the signal from the noise" but I'd like to hear what
others say.

~~~
aristus
I'm not sure what you're getting at (higher standard of opacity?) but in
general, the consensus has been shifting toward open data and more open
publishing (eg, ArXiv).

But regardless of the level of openness, it's quite possible for Science to be
wrong, badly wrong, for years. Check out the story of Dr Moniz, for example:
[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/19...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1949/moniz-
article.html)

~~~
mathattack
What I mean is, should we allow scientists a couple years to interpret the
data from their experiments and models before forcing them to share it? Should
we (as taxpayers funding the research) require them to disclose results before
the peer review process?

I hear you on science being wrong. One of the best things about science is
there is a self-correcting mechanism, though it takes a while. As one physics
professor said, "A change in paradigm doesn't wait for the old masters to
retire, it waits until they die."

------
znowi
There's been so much controversy, zealotry, and fraud around this topic that
it alienated a lot of people. And rightly so.

------
altero
UN is bunch of Climate Change denialists! They sold their souls to oil lobby
!!!!

