
The Dog Ate my Global Warming Data (key climate data is missing) - yummyfajitas
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=
======
rauljara
The idea that the entire case on global warming comes from a single data set
that no one made a copy of is absurd on the face of it. Even if one were to
willfully believe that the rest of the article is true, something which I am
dubious about, it doesn't mean much in the greater scheme of climate science.
One can always find a sloppy scientist. That's why scientists practice things
like peer review and replication. The conclusion that global warming is real
has been replicated across any number of studies. People opposed to the idea
that global warming is real will point to any discrepancy, bit of sloppy
science, or dispute on any detail as evidence that it must -all- be wrong. But
it's a fallacious and misleading argument. A bit of sloppy science is nothing
more than one bit of sloppy science. A slight dispute over details is nothing
more than a slight dispute over details. The core of the position that global
warming is real and caused by humans has overwhelming evidence behind it. One
sloppy scientist doesn't change that fact.

~~~
jacoblyles
Steve Mcintyre is an interesting guy. His hobby is to check the data,
statistics, and models published in climate science articles. As far as I know
his work is quality, at least several of his corrections have found their way
into mainstream climate records. The fact that he has been involved in so many
tooth-and-nail fights to obtain the data he seeks, often being flatly denied,
ought to concern anyone who cares about the veracity of the claims of climate
scientists and activists, as well as anyone with a vested interest in a
political system that looks poised to spend trillions of dollars on climate
policy over the next decade.

You can check out his blog here: <http://www.climateaudit.org/>. But be
warned, it's not political at all. If you don't have a head for data series
and regression models, you'll be put to sleep.

The amount of bad scientific practices and obfuscation that this one man has
uncovered is staggering (scientists cherry-picking data for a paper and then
refusing to provide the whole data set seems a common complaint). However, as
good citizens we must believe that the thousands of papers he has not gotten
around to checking are perfectly valid. To do otherwise is to be painted with
the label of "heretic".

In the end, it is the poor treatment of the scientific process by scientists
and activists, as well as the religion-like enforcement of agreement, that
causes me to hold onto my green skepticism. I'm not sure that climate change
won't Kill Us All, but I am not convinced by those that do think so.

edit: One final cause of my green skepticism is the fact that so many highly-
publicized predictions made by environmentalists in the past, many of whom
held PHDs, have been wrong. But more importantly, they have always been wrong
in one direction, the direction of overstating the environmental damage done
by human activity. The environmentalists of the 1960s foresaw a world that
would undergo multiple environmental holocausts by the 1980s, which of course
never came to pass.

While the quality of past predictions has no direct bearing on the quality of
current predictions, indeed one might even assume that modern predictions are
of higher quality given more advanced methods and greater funding, it does
make me skeptical of any would-be green Nostradamus, at least until one
establishes a good track record of predicting the future.

~~~
ajross
So how do you weigh your decision? Are you waiting for unassailable evidence?
What is your best guess at the cost of regulation needed to fix the problem
you are not unconvinced exists? How does that cost change over time as we do
nothing? Or do you care about any of that?

This isn't (just) an internet flame war. The goal isn't (or shouldn't be) to
"win" by poking holes in the oppositions argument. It should be to make the
best/safest decision possible given the evidence at hand.

But that's the point: _there has to be a decision made_. By advocating
inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you
claim not to agree with them, technically.

~~~
ericwaller
That's a false dichotomy. There are not only "believers" and "non-believers"
in any issue. It should always be the goal of _all_ parties in the discussion
to work from the best possible data/predictions.

Besides your argument is circular. The urgency you express with "THERE HAS TO
BE A DECISION MADE" assumes that the data/predictions are correct.

~~~
ajross
I think you missed my point. It's not a dichotomy at all, it's a spectrum.
There is some (incomplete) evidence, and some choices of action available, and
some (uncertain) costs to be borne because of those choices.

Your point seems to be that we should do nothing, because we don't know that
the "data/predictions are correct".

That's not a middle ground, it's a choice. You are making an AFFIRMATIVE
decision that the costs (amortized over probabilities) of regulation are
greater than those of inaction. I don't think you realize this. You _think_
you're just delaying a decision, but because the cost models aren't constant,
you're actually making one. And obviously I think you're making it based on
some very flawed logic.

~~~
ericwaller
It's only a decision in the sense that each day I "decide" not to go to
medical school, and so sacrifice some future earning potential. Inaction may
have consequences, but that doesn't make it a decision. And by inaction I mean
maintaining the status quo not literally doing nothing.

Inaction is always our default position: innocent until proven guilty. Your
argument is tantamount to "consider the cost (amortized over the probability
that he actually did it -- which we can't actually know) of letting this
murderer go free!"

~~~
ajross
Your first point is semantic. I grant it, but I don't see that it changes
anything. You still oppose carbon regulation, which is the issue at hand.

Your second is just a bizarre analogy. Yes, that's exactly what my argument is
saying. But analogizing a decision of real world regulation (where we _should_
be able to make a rational decision) to criminal justice (where we get tied up
with the moral issues of unjust punishment, or "soft on crime" tolerance) is
just weird. Are you trying to argue that "unjustly" regulating carbon is a
violation of someone's basic human rights? Again, weird.

~~~
ericwaller
_You still oppose carbon regulation_

In fact I do not, and you've placed me into one of the two mutually exclusive
categories I accused you of creating earlier.

I'm only arguing that relevant data/predictions should be reasonably vetted
(this article makes some pretty strong claims against that point). And second,
that whatever policies we enact should be supported by rational gathering of
evidence, not just fabricated urgency.

~~~
dejb
You are making the mistake assuming that the level of understanding of our
climate for scientists is a limited as your own. If that was the case then
certainly there would be good cause to delay action until further knowledge
was gained. However it turns out that many brilliant people all around the
world have been devoting their professional lives to understanding this. The
data/predictions have been 'vetted', evidence has been 'rationally gathered'
the urgency is based on fact and has been not fabricated.

Unless you are prepared to devote a large portion of your life to studying
climate there is no chance you (or I) will develop anything like a sufficient
understanding of the models to have a meaningful opinion their accuracy. All
we can do is choose who to believe on the topic. We are all 'blindly
following' other people's opinion on the matter.

The reasonable default position is to believe the people who are spending the
most time and effort looking into the issues - the 'experts'. For whatever
reasons you are choosing not to believe them but instead following a group
that has devoted far less time and effort in research.

------
lucumo
Article lacks sources for its claims.

 _> Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the
Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They
Don’t Want You to Know._

Yeah, figures. Want a grindstone for that axe?

 _Edit_ : Quote from Wikipedia[1] about the author:

"Climate scientist Tom Wigley, [21] a lead author of parts of the report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is quoted in Ross Gelbspan's
book The Heat is On[22]: "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer
models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the
supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either
inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[23]

Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based
Pacific Institute, said: "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading
researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small
minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about
climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing
evidence."[24]"

Yeah, I'll take a pass on taking this article at face value.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels>

~~~
byrneseyeview
You don't trust him, because he agrees with the view he expresses in that
article?

This is easy to settle. He says the data don't exist. You apparently say the
smart default is to assume that they do. So find the data, and that's the end
of it. Right?

Your edit is pretty hilarious: he can't be right, because he's part of Cato
and has published stuff arguing against climate change! Look, somebody at the
Pacific Institute ("Research for People and the Planet") has published
something saying so!

You might be right, but your argument is basically "Galileo is wrong, because
he's a heretic. The Pope even said so. Is Galileo a Pope? _I. Thought. Not._ "

~~~
lucumo
Eh, no. I don't trust him because he's written anti-climate change before
_and_ doesn't give any sources for his claim that the data is basically
fraudulent.

Seems to me he's just searching for arguments to discard the scientific
consensus and not trying to further the debate at all.

~~~
KevinMS
"Seems to me he's just searching for arguments to discard the scientific
consensus and not trying to further the debate at all."

A frightening, ignorant statement. If this subject wasn't so political then
"searching for arguments to discard the scientific debate" would be considered
exciting, interesting and daring, not "shut the fuck up, we figured it out
already".

Hasn't science been wrong about everything at one time or another? for
luminiferous aether, for eugenics, against evolution, against continental
plate drift, etc

~~~
thaumaturgy
I'm surprised and a little bothered by the responses here, especially yours.

Assuming that the subject here was, say, evolution, would you respond the
same? Would you be saying, "Well, we should consider it exciting, interesting,
and daring when someone says that there's not actually any factual basis for
evolution"?

The other commenters are correct in their critique of this. Michaels isn't
offering evidence contrary to most scientists' understanding of climatology.
_That_ would be exciting, daring, and interesting. Merely attempting to
discredit climate research by saying that they're missing data that they once
had is ... well, it's thin at the least, and it _doesn't_ further the debate
at all.

The whole "science has been wrong before" angle has been answered very well by
lots of scientists. The answer basically boils down to, "Yes, but it's usually
wrong in a continuous cycle of refinement, not wrong in a 180-degree direction
kind of way".

It is extremely wasteful to have to keep answering the same questions over and
over in scientific contexts, especially when those are brought by people who
aren't familiar with the field, and especially when their questions basically
amount to, "You haven't answered all my questions the way I wanted you to, and
you might be wrong."

If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community, then
you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data, and
you have to get it peer-reviewed.

That's how it works.

~~~
KevinMS
"The whole "science has been wrong before" angle has been answered very well
by lots of scientists. The answer basically boils down to, "Yes, but it's
usually wrong in a continuous cycle of refinement, not wrong in a 180-degree
direction kind of way"."

Well I'm talking about scientific revolutions, which are 180's

"If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community,
then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data,
and you have to get it peer-reviewed."

This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are
against the scientific consensus.

Also, funding is 1000 times higher for pro-warming than against. If you want
funding to study the blue-footed-boobie get in line, but if you want to study
the effects of global warming on the blue-footed-boobie they throw money at
you.

That's how it works.

~~~
twp
> > "If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community,
> then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data,
> and you have to get it peer-reviewed."

> This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are
> against the scientific consensus

Supporting evidence please? Please give some examples that "happen all the
time" but "we haven't heard about".

Frankly, you sound like a conspiracy nutter. Please provide some counter-
examples to support your case.

~~~
KevinMS
I'm not going to play that game. If I gave you a list of papers to counter man
made global warming, you'd say "they are sponsored by big oil" or "those
scientists are shunned by the scientific community".

How about this, I think the burden of evidence should be for proving man made
global warming. Has it been done? No, it hasn't, despite all the "consensus"
noise. Buried under all the "concensus" you'll simply find computer models.
Computer models that don't even agree with each other, of impossibly
complicated systems.

------
ars
Am I reading this right?

All the evidence for global warming comes from a study that has never been
peer reviewed? And can't be?

And, the study essentially fitted data to a model?

~~~
brazzy
No, you're reading it the way that piece of FUD is _intended_ to be read.

There's lots of other evidence that the author carefully avoids mentioning. If
you're in Europe, go see some glaciers in the Alps while you still can - they
won't exist for much longer.

~~~
rimantas
I saw "lots of evidence" in lots of places, then I saw "there is some
evidence" in some places, but I don't recall it going further than that. This
is sad, because it makes the whole subject a matter of belief. Even worse,
anyone having a bit dissident opinion is likely to be treated as nay-sayer,
heretic and the enemy of the Earth. I don't see that as scientific way to
tackle the problem.

~~~
borism
well, let me guess. you're no scientist in the first place?

------
adammichaelc
As always, it has been an intellectual feast to read through the comments on
both sides of this debate. I would just like to throw this out there to see
what YC thinks. Is this possibly an explanation to the warming we are seeing?
Mars Warming Points to Solar, not Human, Causes for Global Warming
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-
warming.html)

Also, I'm curious if anybody knows what other alternative theories are out
there?

~~~
duncanj
The skepticism in the article about Abdussamatov's conclusions says to me that
he has a long way to go before he can really show "solar, not human" cause.
It's an alright article.

I think it's interesting that it is dated a year and a half after this
discussion:
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-
warming-on-mars/)

"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional
climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the
Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required)
showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to
the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the
instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as
the regional climate transits between the unstable states."

------
brazzy
A conservative think tank shill serving vested interests by spreading FUD
about climate change. How quaint.

All over the world, glaciers are receding rapidly, the arctic ice cap is
disappearing during summer - changes that are very, very measurable and
visible to anyone who cares to look. Satellite measuring does not reach back
that far, but shows clear, undeniable upwards trends.

And this guy says measures taken to combat this should be reconsidered because
one particular set of historical data may have been cooked?

I guess he didn't get the memo that denying the existence of global warning
has become untenable and the methods of choice are now denying that humans
caused it, or claiming that reducing CO2 emission is less cost-effective than
protecting against the symptoms.

~~~
randallsquared
How is it that people who want to see and check data on a subject of concern
have been tarred with the brush of holocaust deniers? I'm starting to assume
that anyone using the word "deny" or "denier" in the context of a question of
science is trying to shut down research in favor of politics.

~~~
brazzy
The thing is: he's not saying "this particular piece of research seems
questionable" - he's saying "because this particular piece of research seems
questionable, measures based on it _and lots of other, better sources_ should
be reconsidered".

It is in fact quite similar in style to holocaust deniers (you brought that
up, not I): look through the other side's data carefully, find the weakest
parts and make a big show of proving those false and conclude that therefore
it must all be lies. (And yes, the holocaust deniers often go one step further
and just make stuff up)

In real science, you try to disprove the other side's _strongest_ arguments,
not their weakest ones.

~~~
randallsquared
Actually, from what I remember, holocaust deniers tend to make up stuff out of
whole cloth, both for their arguments and against (for easier demolishing,
see). Maybe they look at actual evidence now, but I haven't paid attention in
years.

In any case, I really have no idea whether the data in question was critical
to the argument that climate is warming faster than it was earlier (since
pretty much everyone accepts that significant global warming has been going on
since at least the 1700s; the arguments are in the causes and details), but I
just object to the hammering of the "deny", "denial", "denier" refrain.

------
billswift
Anyone interested in global warming should read Solomon's "The Deniers: The
World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria,
Political Persecution, and Fraud - And those who are too fearful to do so",
[http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-
Political-...](http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-
Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253970788&sr=8-1) .

Most interestingly, most of the scientists the author interviewed still
believe in global warming; they just believe their own research was twisted or
misinterpreted to support it, all the rest they still believe. Because of the
media barrage supporting global warming, that is all most people, even
scientists who do not actually look for disconfirming claims and evidence,
ever see.

Also, Moore's "Climate of Fear" (published by Cato),
[http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fear-Shouldnt-Global-
Warming/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fear-Shouldnt-Global-
Warming/dp/1882577655/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) , points out that the effects
even proponents claim have been getting down graded, to the point where the
actually expected global warming is likely to be more beneficial than not.

------
chasingsparks
Ignoring stance, I am just curious -- am I the only one who did not expect
this thread to collect so many points and comments?

------
jakecarpenter
This article brings up an issue I often face when looking at articles from
sites like this. How do I know the slant of a news site I don't often read? I
don't have a problem with a little bias, (in fact, bias is nearly impossible
to eliminate imho) but I'd like to know how to approach the article in the
first place. It is easier with sites like npr, cnn, foxnews, but it takes a
little bit of googling to find out about many others.

How do you guys do it?

~~~
anigbrowl
I look at the form of the argument presented. If it employs rhetorical
fallacies, or lacks qualifiers to broad statements, or shies away from more
than the most cursory contextual explanations, then it's probably bullshit.

Or in programming terms, watch out for undeclared variables, errors in scope,
and abuse of the GOTO statement.

~~~
antipaganda
+1, awesome analogies.

------
jcromartie
There should be a github for scientific data. Hell, just use github!

~~~
nice1
Scientific data is beginning to be shared these days, at least in some fields.

------
Calamitous
This is the most civil and reasoned discourse I've ever seen on global
warming. Just incredible.

