UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data • Hacker News Board

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#71

Post by anamax » Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 4:59 AM UTC

bballant wrote: post #70

anamax wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=153 You can look up the polar bears yourself. You'll find that the population now is about 4-5x the population in the 60s. It may be decreasing slightly in the past few years, but that's in the noise compared to the recent increases. There's no reason to suspect temp change has had an effect comparable to direct intervention by humans.

Thanks for sharing the article. In looking at the data, one notices a clear cyclic pattern but also a subtle general upward trend in temperature and downward trend in ice cover (i.e. the temperature lows are higher and the highs are higher) over time. But I'm no climate scientist. With respect to the polar bears, I searched around and found many articles which state that the population in the 60's had been diminished…

> With respect to the polar bears, I searched around and found many articles which state that the population in the 60's had been diminished because of hunting and that, currently, the plurality of polar bear populations are in decline because of climate change.

I note that you didn't mention the relative sizes of these changes, the former being >4x while the latter is close to the margin of error.

Then again, doing so doesn't fit your beliefs.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#72

Post by bballant » Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 1:52 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #71

bballant wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing the article. In looking at the data, one notices a clear cyclic pattern but also a subtle general upward trend in temperature and downward trend in ice cover (i.e. the temperature lows are higher and the highs are higher) over time. But I'm no climate scientist. With respect to the polar bears, I searched around and found many articles which state that the population in the 60's had been diminished…

> With respect to the polar bears, I searched around and found many articles which state that the population in the 60's had been diminished because of hunting and that, currently, the plurality of polar bear populations are in decline because of climate change. I note that you didn't mention the relative sizes of these changes, the former being >4x while the latter is close to the margin of error. Then again, doing…

First of all, the "margin of error" theory comes from you and not the articles you told me to search out myself. And the hunting definitely adds some perspective to the ">4x increase" so it's worth mentioning. I'm surprised you didn't mention it to begin with.

I'm not looking to do battle here. In fact, I thought I was being humorous and polite. Moreover, I'm happy to see that the polar bear situation is not as dire as I thought. I've adjusted the thermostat in my apartment accordingly.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#73

Post by lacrossegm » Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 2:25 PM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #64

lacrossegm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each their own. I have looked it from both sides. The real-climate science camp seems genuinely concerned about causes and consequence of global warming. The other camp, call them deniers, skeptics, or whatever are more concerned about money. They believe that the cost to combat global warming is too high. It also seems divided along political lines. It is flawed logic but some people do think they can use it for…

The way I see it is: going green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts. I just don't see any actual committed progress to being "green" (I could name you 10 policy ideas right now that would have a massive impact). The climate work, IMO, is about talking a very very close look at how much of an impact we are having - and assessing if our response is enough or if more is required. But all I see, especially…

"green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts."

I totally agree with this position. There are numerous benefits to developing better clean air/water standards.

The climate "work" has been on going for decades. The science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming is sound.

Their may be some "believers" when it comes to global warming that just take at face value. I'm more of an accepting skeptic. I was skeptical at first that we could 1) Change our climate 2) Predict climate change with any amount of reasonable certainty. Once you understand the science you can see why its obviously true.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#74

Post by ErrantX » Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 6:20 PM UTC

lacrossegm wrote: post #73

ErrantX wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it is: going green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts. I just don't see any actual committed progress to being "green" (I could name you 10 policy ideas right now that would have a massive impact). The climate work, IMO, is about talking a very very close look at how much of an impact we are having - and assessing if our response is enough or if more is required. But all I see, especially…

"green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts." I totally agree with this position. There are numerous benefits to developing better clean air/water standards. The climate "work" has been on going for decades. The science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming is sound. Their may be some "believers" when it comes to global warming that just take at face value. I'm more of an accepting skepti…

> Once you understand the science you can see why its obviously true.

Sorry, this is my hang up. I understand the science - but the data and methodologies that we know about dont quite follow through for me (sometimes anyway)

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#75

Post by anamax » Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 7:19 PM UTC

bballant wrote: post #72

anamax wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With respect to the polar bears, I searched around and found many articles which state that the population in the 60's had been diminished because of hunting and that, currently, the plurality of polar bear populations are in decline because of climate change. I note that you didn't mention the relative sizes of these changes, the former being >4x while the latter is close to the margin of error. Then again, doing…

First of all, the "margin of error" theory comes from you and not the articles you told me to search out myself. And the hunting definitely adds some perspective to the ">4x increase" so it's worth mentioning. I'm surprised you didn't mention it to begin with. I'm not looking to do battle here. In fact, I thought I was being humorous and polite. Moreover, I'm happy to see that the polar bear situation is not as dire…

> And the hunting definitely adds some perspective to the ">4x increase" so it's worth mentioning. I'm surprised you didn't mention it to begin with.

I did. Hunting is part of "direct intervention by humans". Habitat is another.

Re: UK Government: Climate change scientists broke the law hiding data

#76

Post by beagle3 » Mon, Feb 01, 2010, 5:32 PM UTC

bballant wrote: post #61

beagle3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that "these cases of bad science are few compared to the good"? Seriously, whenever money or prestige is involved, the bad science has a much better chance.

I guess one can't know for sure, but I imagine the climate-change deniers and conspiracy-theorists would have uncovered more than one case of data fudging if it was wide spread. Money and prestige? Really? I wasn't aware climate science was the path to fame and wealth. Do you only trust the poor and obscure?

No, I distrust everyone, but I distrust someone with an incentive to lie more.

Phil Jones is famous and was reasonably comfortable tenured professor with a guaranteed steady income, and wielding power over most of the western world with prophecies of doom and gloom. It's unlikely he'll say "I've been wrong for the last 20 years" regardless of what science shows.

There are numerous examples: Read Michael Pollen's NYTimes "Unhappy meals", "Is it all one big fat lie" or Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" on how nutrition science is perverted for profit.

Read about the recent raw milk legislation about how medical science is perverted for profit.

edit: Wanted to say I'm not stating anything about climate research, as I don't know enough about it; just that I don't share the "good science outnumbers bad science" view.