Science: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

[alexey]

The letter was written and signed by 250 members of the National Academies of Science, a grouping of the most distinguished scientists in the country.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

<signatures>

[Thiebear]

So they are willing to hunt down the most political and wrong and ensure they are exiled?

Mann being one of them?

There were MANY a scientist that agreed the hockey stick was flawed at best?

Its up to the scientists to do this or ??? there is no second option... it just turns into mush thats not believable.

"not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence."

WHO should be doing this and where can we read their findings?

[alexey]

So they are willing to hunt down the most political and wrong and ensure they are exiled?

Mann being one of them?

Its up to the scientists to do this or ??? there is no second option... it just turns into mush thats not believable.

Sounds like they are interested in making sure that the scientific position is communicated in simple, straightforward terms.

[alexey]

WHO should be doing this and where can we read their findings?

Scientists are doing this to each other all the time... but you will have a hard time finding a study that you like.

[Thiebear]

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory?

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

(What are the 250 willing to accept)?

I'm trying to keep this focused on what the 250 are talking about.

Could your responses have more meat to them as you felt the need to start this topic?

Random vague answers so far Mr. Alexey. Or are you just a "fan" of the opinion and have no knowledge as to the who/what/why?

[alexey]

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory?

(What are the 250 willing to accept)?

There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

...

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

[mcsluggo]

So they are willing to hunt down the most political and wrong and ensure they are exiled?

Mann being one of them?

There were MANY a scientist that agreed the hockey stick was flawed at best?

Its up to the scientists to do this or ??? there is no second option... it just turns into mush thats not believable.

WHO should be doing this and where can we read their findings?

dude... Did a climatologist run over your puppy?

[Thiebear]

McSluggo,

per Science we should be TRYING to disprove the theory and failing.

[DjTj]

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory?

(What are the 250 willing to accept)?

The letter doesn't say anything about a hockey stick.

It says that (i) Warming is caused by greenhouse gases; (ii) Greenhouse gases are created by man; (iii) Man-made activities have a greater impact than natural cycles; (iv) Warming is affecting the ocean; and (v) There may be broader effects on our environment.

Nobody is talking about a hockey stick. The conclusions in this letter actually seem pretty modest.

[JimboDaMan]

So they are willing to hunt down the most political and wrong and ensure they are exiled?

Mann being one of them?

There were MANY a scientist that agreed the hockey stick was flawed at best?

Its up to the scientists to do this or ??? there is no second option... it just turns into mush thats not believable.

WHO should be doing this and where can we read their findings?

Its good to see the contrast between a calm, rational position and an agenda-driven response.

[alexey]

McSluggo,

per Science we should be TRYING to disprove the theory and failing.

The theory "Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick is 100% correct" has been disproved already by subsequent studies.

Fundamental conclusions listed in the letter have not.

[NavyDave]

With the Global Warming Scam cough Cap and Tax expected to reap at least 10 Trillion in loot, it might be time for some of you to consider investing in GE as well as Goldman Sachs.

[Thiebear]

I thought the original post was about people 'going after' scientists.

and that global warming is man's fault.

That points directly to the controversy of the last year about the hockey stick graph?

or is it just a coincidence?

[alexey]

With the Global Warming Scam cough Cap and Tax expected to reap at least 10 Trillion in loot, it might be time for some of you to consider investing in GE as well as Goldman Sachs.

Or into companies like "Foro Energy":

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/FundedProjects.aspx#lowcon

Geothermal energy is a potentially rich source of carbon-free electricity generation in the United States. To date, the use of geothermal energy has been hindered by the difficulty in penetrating ultra-hard crystalline basement rocks. Conventional drill bits penetrate these rocks slowly and wear down quickly. As a result, drilling is slow and expensive. Foro Energy will use ARPA-E funding to develop a thermal-mechanical drilling technology that will increase drilling rates up to 10-fold relative to conventional drilling technologies. This increase in drilling efficiency will result in a significant reduction in drilling costs. If successful, this project could enable the widespread use of geothermal energy and accelerate the shift to renewable energy sources.

Or into Envia Systems

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/FundedProjects.aspx#highe

Envia Systems is using ARPA-E funding to develop lithium-ion batteries with the highest energy density in the world (over 400 Wh/kg vs ~150 Wh/kg current state of the art). This project will entail the development of advanced high capacity silicon-carbon nano-composite anodes and complementary high capacity cathodes. In addition, Envia Systems will develop processes to scale the production of both anode and cathode materials to high volumes. Scaling of the materials will involve reproducibility of materials not only with high performance but also with high quality and consistency. If successful, this project will increase U.S. leadership in the field of advanced battery technologies, hasten the shift to hybrid/electric vehicles, and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels.

Or into a number of other exciting technologies that our government is finally helping to develop.

[alexey]

I thought the original post was about people 'going after' scientists.

and that global warming is man's fault.

That points directly to the controversy of the last year about the hockey stick graph?

or is it just a coincidence?

It points directly to all controversies related to climate change.

[PeterMP]

I thought the original post was about people 'going after' scientists.

and that global warming is man's fault.

That points directly to the controversy of the last year about the hockey stick graph?

or is it just a coincidence?

The National Academy of the Sciences produced a report with respect the hockey stick several years ago.

I think this has less to do with that and the points they make in the paper.

[DjTj]

I thought the original post was about people 'going after' scientists.

and that global warming is man's fault.

That points directly to the controversy of the last year about the hockey stick graph?

or is it just a coincidence?

The hockey stick has been debated in the scientific community since it the data was first published.

Even the authors of the "hockey stick" paper said there were uncertainties: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442627b.html

Scientists will continue to debate the methods and conclusions drawn from the hockey stick data.

The point of the Science letter is to point out that there are things that virtually all scientists agree on: (i) Warming is caused by greenhouse gases; (ii) Greenhouse gases are created by man; (iii) Man-made activities have a greater impact than natural cycles; (iv) Warming is affecting the ocean; and (v) There may be broader effects on our environment.

[mcsluggo]

McSluggo,

per Science we should be TRYING to disprove the theory and failing.

this is true. SCIENTISTS should be trying to disprove theories.

unfortunately, for the most part lay people can only throw out pedantic meaningless soundbites that make no serious effort to actually prove or disprove ANYTHING because they don't operate with a sufficient depth of knowledge to understand the issues... and you seem to jump on EACH AND EVERY blog post from every ilinformed hack with an axe to grind (going across several threads, not just this one).

it seriously isn't very illuminating.

question results/theories/assumptions...? yes.

Operate under the assumption that everyone "in the know" is lying...? not so productive.

[PeterMP]

this is true. SCIENTISTS should be trying to disprove theories.

unfortunately, for the most part lay people can only throw out pedantic meaningless soundbites that make no serious effort to actually prove or disprove ANYTHING because they don't operate with a sufficient depth of knowledge to understand the issues... and you seem to jump on EACH AND EVERY blog post from every ilinformed hack with an axe to grind (going across several threads, not just this one).

it seriously isn't very illuminating.

question results/theories/assumptions...? yes.

Operate under the assumption that everyone "in the know" is lying...? not so productive.

I just want to point out that the objective of science is to try and disprove REASONABLE alternative hypothesis.

Now, it is possible that at some point in time what appears to be all reasonable alterniative hypothesis have been disproven, but then new research might indicate a new reasonable hypothesis that will be tested.

It is difficult to disprove a hypothesis if there are no reasonable alternative hypothesis.

[mcsluggo]

I disagree. A theory tries to describe why something happens. The alternative hypothesis can be "other" or "we just don't know yet"... but rejecting the theory just says that the theory is insufficient, whether or not you have an alternate theory to check it against or not.

[Thiebear]

The hockey stick has been debated in the scientific community since it the data was first published.

Even the authors of the "hockey stick" paper said there were uncertainties: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442627b.html

Scientists will continue to debate the methods and conclusions drawn from the hockey stick data.

The point of the Science letter is to point out that there are things that virtually all scientists agree on: (i) Warming is caused by greenhouse gases; (ii) Greenhouse gases are created by man; (iii) Man-made activities have a greater impact than natural cycles; (iv) Warming is affecting the ocean; and (v) There may be broader effects on our environment.

I guess i read it wrong:

It starts out with: We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.

and ends with: We are out of time acting on global warming caused by man.

Seems to me they are defending the leaked email writers, while pushing for etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, i agree with the global warming and we should fix it, unless the alternative is ice sheets halfway down Canada.

12,000 years ago there were icesheets where my house is.. I don't have R3100 insulation.

1000 years from now science will looke at what we are currently doing no different than we look at those 1000 years ago.

rudimentary and shocked they figured anything out.

[twa]

250 sigs out of how many members?

[Teller]

Sounds like a pretty sharp back-track from the "all the scientists agree" garbage.

Stay tuned. More to follow.

[JimboDaMan]

Sounds like a pretty sharp back-track from the "all the scientists agree" garbage.

Stay tuned. More to follow.

Who ever said ALL scientists agree? Science doesn't work that way, and I can't recall any scientist ever claiming it does. Certainly I wouldn't blame you for doubting a scientist who proclaimed it wasn't possible to disagree with him/her.

But this says man-made climate change is "overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community", which does not sound to me to be even a tiny back-track.

[Henry]

Sounds like a pretty sharp back-track from the "all the scientists agree" garbage.

Stay tuned. More to follow.

I wouldn't call this a backtrack. More like a clarification.