- Wealth PMS (50L+)
The Global Warming debate has just gotten more intense. Recently, a major GW advocacy center, the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was hacked into, and about 62 MB worth of email communication and other data was “made available” on a public FTP server in Russia.
No big deal? Well, it turns out that the emails reveal a sinister plot – that scientists were “fudging” or deleting or hiding data in order to prove their point, which is that Global Warming exists. One email talks about a scientist applying “tricks” to make sure the data would “hide the decline”, referring to temperatures – you can’t have declining temperatures in a global warming paper, can you? Others talked about how it was a “travesty” that they can’t account for the lack of warming – so instead of questioning if there is global warming, they question the data.
If these guys were in the stock market, they would start by saying the market is wrong, so let’s assume that prices are much higher than they are today, because they should be.
But I digress.
Excellent reads on the topic are:
I’m hugely skeptical about global warming, in the sense that we cause it and that we can do anythign to reverse it. Specifically three questions are of concern:
And then you have the shady data problem. From bad locations of weather stations, to unreliable stratospheric measurements, to refusing to admit data/analysis if it’s not a published in a “peer reviewed” journal, even if the work is correct. Now it’s even worse with CRU folks saying on emails that they’re happy to hide any data that refutes the hypothesis; and will take legal help to do so.
(Read McIntyre’s blog, Climate Audit, for some views)
For the record, pollutants are horrible and those need to go. But good ole CO2, cutting that out is a out of line.
I’m a skeptic and not entirely on the other side, so I’m happy to be corrected. I am totally not interested in statements like “this scientist says this, and he is reputed and has 30 years of experience and has so many papers published bla bla bla”. That kind of crap doesn’t work – reputed people have been known to be wrong, and they have been wrong in the climate debate many times too. I hate ad-hominem arguments, so I’d rather focus on the argument.
And earlier climate scientists used to say that the skeptics are funded by the oil companies and so the incentives are all wrong. Well, with the amount of funding and reputation that global warming brings today, the incentives are all wrong on the other side too; for a GW scientist to say “there is no global warming, our data says it” is career suicide, and they will do what is needed to protect their turf, as is evident from the email leaks. So: Suspect everything, trust nothing.
Well, if the world doesn’t agree and still goes nuts on CO2, I’ll do my bit for global warming by breathing in more often than I breathe out. Or I’ll fudge the data to say I did so.