Hacked e-mail resources
The Way Things Break has a nice "review" post up pointing to the "emerging scientific consensus on the SwiftHack e-mails."
I hope my e-mails never get published online because I can sometimes be brusque or snarky or dimwitted and ignorant, and this incident has reminded me never to type something online that I don't mind the whole world seeing. A good thing to be reminded of, particularly (listen up, young people) in terms of the sorts of stuff that gets press time on Facebook.
That being said, I think it was wise of (CRU head) Phil Jones to step aside for an inquiry. My sense of things so far is that there isn't anything wrong, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if the inquiry suggests there was any kind of fraud. The e-mails I've seen are not particularly damning scientifically, given that they are taken out of context. All data gets processed, and I suspect that's all that was going on at CRU, though the words used to describe it are unfortunate. A lot of scientists I know write e-mails the way I do, and I'm sure it would be easy to take any particular e-mail completely out of context and interpret it incorrectly and embarrassingly.
I wonder what life would be like for other scientists if they were working on politically-charged topics like climate change. What would the structural geologists say if a tectonics working group got hacked and a media firestorm erupted with individuals quoting a line or two of an e-mail out of context to suggest that plate tectonics was a vast conspiracy of left-winger outdoorsy types just looking for research dollars so they could go hang out in the mountains? Or a group of sedimentologists get hacked, and the hackers scream that their e-mails show geologic time is a fraud? Maybe some physicists could get hacked, and the resulting headlines on Fox News would be that "Theory of Gravity called Into Question. Inquiry Launched." Chemists: it could happen to you too. You won't be able to keep your "everything is made out of atoms" charade up much longer...
One more, for reals: I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there were some creationists out there looking at this chaos and thinking, "We should hack some biologists' e-mails, and then publish the lines that would call evolution into question." Stay tuned for that. You heard it here first.
I want to be excited for Copenhagen, but this CRU "Climategate" business definitely casts a shadow over things. Unfortunate timing...
I hope my e-mails never get published online because I can sometimes be brusque or snarky or dimwitted and ignorant, and this incident has reminded me never to type something online that I don't mind the whole world seeing. A good thing to be reminded of, particularly (listen up, young people) in terms of the sorts of stuff that gets press time on Facebook.
That being said, I think it was wise of (CRU head) Phil Jones to step aside for an inquiry. My sense of things so far is that there isn't anything wrong, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if the inquiry suggests there was any kind of fraud. The e-mails I've seen are not particularly damning scientifically, given that they are taken out of context. All data gets processed, and I suspect that's all that was going on at CRU, though the words used to describe it are unfortunate. A lot of scientists I know write e-mails the way I do, and I'm sure it would be easy to take any particular e-mail completely out of context and interpret it incorrectly and embarrassingly.
I wonder what life would be like for other scientists if they were working on politically-charged topics like climate change. What would the structural geologists say if a tectonics working group got hacked and a media firestorm erupted with individuals quoting a line or two of an e-mail out of context to suggest that plate tectonics was a vast conspiracy of left-winger outdoorsy types just looking for research dollars so they could go hang out in the mountains? Or a group of sedimentologists get hacked, and the hackers scream that their e-mails show geologic time is a fraud? Maybe some physicists could get hacked, and the resulting headlines on Fox News would be that "Theory of Gravity called Into Question. Inquiry Launched." Chemists: it could happen to you too. You won't be able to keep your "everything is made out of atoms" charade up much longer...
One more, for reals: I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there were some creationists out there looking at this chaos and thinking, "We should hack some biologists' e-mails, and then publish the lines that would call evolution into question." Stay tuned for that. You heard it here first.
I want to be excited for Copenhagen, but this CRU "Climategate" business definitely casts a shadow over things. Unfortunate timing...
Labels: climate change, evolution, geologic time, global warming, humor, politics, science and society
6 Comments:
Hey Callan,
Your main point about being careful what you write in emails and on facebook is a good one.
But you tangentially waded into a hot topic - the climate change discussion - and it is such a hot topic with many people holding strong opinions that you should be very well armed when you venture into it - as people get boiling hot on this topic.
Remember that sometimes science goes through swings. When scientists correlated skin cancers with sun exposure they told everybody to avoid the sun and always wear sunscreen.
Now, scientists are finding out that lack of vitamin d causes (and exacerbates) many of the modern diseases autoimmune diseases, cancer, heart, strokes, diabetes, dementia, Alzheimer's, autism, depression etc... .
But on climate change - you may end up disillusioned if you find out that data was fudged and massaged to fit a message. The famous "Mann's hockey stick" - if I remember the name correctly - was denounced by many scientists as glossing over temperature fluctuations in prior years.
Have some humility - there is stuff yet to be learned.
Sometimes warming in frozen areas may release methane - but on the other hand more vegetation in previously frozen areas will increase the capturing of CO2.
Climate alarmism in my opinion says, "the science is settled" and this inherently works against further research and people may link skeptics with "creationists" of maybe flat-earthers.
As one who likes science I don't like it when people think that others have no right to the data they use in their reports as would have learned if you regularly read the following blog. Don't be surprised if you are critiqued - if you don't bother - or don't have the time - to read opposing points of view.
Here is a bit of the problem that I have with climate research as it now stands. This singular post is worth reading. If you don't bother reading it - - - - then you are only choosing to read one side of the story. (That is not in keeping with the scientific method of verifying and retesting results.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
May God grant you the skills to be a great scientist or to be an even greater teacher.
tom donlon
It is novel for this humble blog to host this sort of antagonistic comment stream -- polite differences of opinion I appreciate, but the only time it has felt like this was your previous anti-climate-science comments.
Thanks for your comments (then and now), Tom. Your point is (again) made; your views are (still) clear.
For the record: I'm convinced that anthropogenic greenhouse gases represent a clear and present danger to many human beings and to natural ecosystems across the globe. You're welcome to differ; I do not hope to convice you otherwise. (And if you think your comments here are going to cause me to discard a data-driven, geologically-coherent explanation of the Earth's warming, think again. I'm sticking with data and logic.) The fact that a significant portion of the American population thinks the same way you do is significant testament to the triumph of ideology over empiricism and reason. I can't fight that.
Point 2: The fact that I am convinced does not mean that I think I understand everything about climate. On the contrary, I'm excited to daily learn of the new insights science grants into the natural world. Climate is chaotic and messy and really complicated. I would argue that caution is the appropriate response in the face of such an unwieldy subject. Surely you are not suggesting that you understand climate well enough to offer a plan of action for the human species in dealing with it? (If so, perhaps the lack of humility you mention isn't my problem alone...) Anyhow, if I somewhere gave you the impression that I thought there was NOT stuff yet to be learned, please direct me to that particular piece of writing. Science is always provisional, always our best-current understanding of how natural phenomena transpire. But we never get to the full truth -- hopefully closer and closer, and some explanations are so compelling that we treat them as provisional "facts." Gravity, thermodynamics, atoms, evolution, and a heliocentric solar system are examples. Climate change isn't to that level, in my mind or in the wider community, but it's pretty solid. Climate "alarmism" (your word, but I'll keep it, since I definitely want to sound an alarm) says "the science is settled enough to be seriously concerned about what we're doing."
As a scientist, I am fascinated by the anthropogenic changes our planet is experiencing. Geologists don't get to run experiments very often, but this is a big one, with lots of variables and lots of interesting results. However: as a citizen with a sense of ethics, I think my society should avoid preventable catastrophes, even if they aren't certain to occur. It's called the Precautionary Principle.
Two good explorations of this idea are Greg Craven's video exploring pros and cons of taking action to combat climate change in spite of the fact that we don't know everything about it, and John Holdren's metaphorical quote that "We’re driving in a car with bad brakes in a fog and heading for a cliff. We know for sure that cliff is out there. We just don’t know exactly where it is. Prudence would suggest that we should start putting on the brakes."
tom,
A supernatural belief in so-called divine inspiration has little to do in making anyone a great scientist or teacher...such delusional nonsense often inteferes with truly open-ended,objective,imaginative and holistic thinking.
Newton or other great scientists of the past were not great visionaries because they believed in a God, but because they use their unique human skills of observation and deduction to develop logical explanations for what "nature" not "super-nature" revealed to them.
Hi Callan,
I checked out the video link that you provided. It was logical ... but it made an assumption. The assumption was that if humans don't introduce CO2 into the atmosphere that the climate will stay the way it is and that (in general) everybody will be happy with it.
We know that isn't true. The link I provided shows that climate has undergone fluctuations. Sometimes things get too cold ... other times things have been warmer than they have been recently. The historical and geological record shows that there were times the earth was warmer in the past than it is today.
You claim that your science is DATA driven. Why then defend those hiding data and their methodologies? In the blog at the link I posted above a leading climate change proponent is refusing to comply with the freedom of information act and release his raw data. Data that isn't released can't be confirmed. That is one of the whole problems with this climategate. Science is not about hidden methodologies and secret facts. The people in charge were not letting outsiders review their data ... they were also intentionally planning to not comply with the freedom of information act that was in place in their area.
Other data was said to have been erased or thrown out because it was too much to store.
That is the problem with the Mann's hockey stick. It throws out data. If you get a chance read the link I provided to Watts site in my first response to this blog comment. I watched the video at your link. If you are truly "sticking with data and logic" you shouldn't be afraid to look at data that doesn't support your conclusions. If you think there was no "little ice age", that it was only local or that it can't possibly happen again - I urge you to reconsider your assumption.
The past few million years have had the earth going in and out of ice ages. I am sure you have seen geological evidence for this.
The CO2 humans introduce could possibly raise ocean levels ... or ... ocean levels could rise on their own as in the past ... or low sun-spot activity and/or some serious volcanic activity could pull us toward a cooler age and CO2 could be helpful in counteracting problematic cooling.
Periods of cooling, sometimes driven by volcanic activity, have led to famines and wars around the world - this wasn't mentioned in the pro and con video that I watched.
So a better analogy than one of not driving too close to the cliff is rather that of a ship passing through a channel. There is danger on both sides – although different kinds of danger. We know about the danger of the earth cooling leading to a little ice age. On-the-other-hand during the medieval warm period the Vikings colonized Greenland and it was a good warm and productive period for the Europeans. The little ice age was bad for them ... lots of famines and plagues.
What is so bad about climate-gate are reports of emails that threaten major publications to not publish in their journals if they also publish an opposing view and scheming to not release their data or their methodologies. In affect saying, “Trust us”. That is not how science is done. I’d be interested in your thoughts on the climate cover-up which I provided a link to in my last post.
Your blog is excellent and your arguments are sound but, when you use satire to defend a body of emails (of which you only read a few) you are sticking your neck out a bit too far.
A pervasive desire to "take proper action" can slant articles. And while each slant is not in itself too significant – the cumulative affect is.
That is what I see - a repeated evidence of lack of balance and articles written with alarming titles. Covering up data and methodologies is in affect saying “trust us” - and THAT is bad science.
tom donlon
Jules, another reason that some of the scientists in the past, who believed in God were great scientists, was that they had a healthy distrust of human nature.
They knew that scientists would, could and do fudge data or make blunders. Other times a "love of money" - especially today can cause scientists to design experiments that will further their career rather than further knowledge. Independent testing and verification is important.
The climate debate is fraught with accusations of monetary bias influencing positions on all sides. We should be willing to verify, test and confirm methodologies.
A good approach is to recognize that errors of all types can enter into science. Sometimes science becomes politicized. Science, particularly a young one like climatology, is not yet "settled" - because a politician says it is.
Al Gore somehow managed to multiply his net worth 50 fold by being green - (despite his appearance of working for charity). Now, I am not going to hold it against him necessarily that he made money doing what he believes in. Still, neither can I be sure that a "love of money" isn't biasing his statements and causing him to be a little bit more alarmist and maybe get a bit richer.
Yet, the last reports were that his house uses 20 times the energy of the normal American household.
I think it is the minority of people who, when tempted with that much money, won't streamline their presentation, and maybe leave out inconvenient facts.
Others have critiqued Al Gore's movie - I don't need to do that.
However, on the question of God ... you addressed adequately enough that the proper natural methods that don't involve a belief in God are sufficient to help someone excel in a field like science or teaching.
However, honesty and integrity are important and useful.
Honesty and integrity can be gained by many ways and a belief in God may or may not in different people foster or hinder these important traits.
"Skills of observation and deduction to develop logical explanations" do help make a great scientist. But what happens when such traits are not coupled with honesty and perhaps courage? It was another scientist named Wallace who decided to publicly put forth the theory of evolution (and Darwin who was sitting on the sidelines for decades) finally decided to release his work jointly with Wallace.
As a subtext to your post might be the idea that belief in the supernatural is "delusional nonsense". In order to unravel that question we would have to explore the creation of ( or the foundation of ) our universe.
There are many theories, and if our universe is the product of a project from outside our universe (and why should anything at all exist?) ... all ideas start to sound silly - without proof such as the multiverse hypothesis and probably many that I've never heard of. Still, if anyone in any particular universe evolves far enough and gets enough knowledge and power ... could they produce a universe if such a thing can be produced?
If so, then somehow or other our universe was made by something external to it - natural or intelligent.
The look of "fine-tuning" to the universe either demands an infinite number of universes were made to get one that can support life. Or as Sir Fred Hoyle astrophysicist wrote "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Again, other questions would be that if we live in a created universe … one perhaps created for intelligent life, like us? Ha ha! Would this Being have any reason for involvement with this creation – ever?
One thing is for sure, - that we are lot more stupid than what Sir Fred Hoyle thinks tinkered with our universe. To logically prove what a superintellect would do is beyond my capacity.
tom donlon
Hello Tom,
Do you know what a "troll" is, in the modern web usage of the word? Your diatribes are coming close to crossing the line from "a fellow who comes to different conclusions" into "troll" territory. Seeing this avalanche of commentary you're publishing on my site takes the wind out of my sails. I'm not interested in your admonitions, or in investing time in refuting your arguments. Continuing the discussion feels fruitless to me.
Though I write this blog for public consumption, remember that you're a guest here. As far as this blog is concerned, it is time for you to keep your ideas to yourself. You're welcome to view the world however you want, but NOVA Geoblog isn't the place for you to broadcast it. Sorry that I have to make that request, but this back-&-forth is really annoying me.
Feel free to participate in future contests, but I don't want to hear anything else from you about climate. Seriously.
Good luck,
Callan Bentley
Post a Comment
<< Home