5 ms·

Some say that the IPCC is an unreliable source, considering the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown about their political bias and manipulation of resu

Some say that the IPCC is an unreliable source, considering the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown about their political bias and manipulation of results. How would you answer that concern?

alphapapa 9y ago
I see, answered by downvoting. Insert fingers in ears, close eyes, move right along, nothing to see here.
- ximeng 9y ago
  I didn't down vote (or answer). I don't have an opinion on the bias, having only read through the scientific report, but do think the science on the IPCC side looks better than anything I've seen on the other side, and that reasons for it being biased exist on both sides. Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science.
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    My apologies. Shouldn't have assumed you were the one who downvoted. > Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science. But the point is that the science is highly suspect. When scientists on the IPCC break rank and make themselves pariahs, virtually ruining their careers, that should tell you something.
    - ximeng 9y ago
      I am judging this on reading parts of the IPCC reports (see for example https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...) and the NIPCC report published by the Heartland Institute (https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/W...). Reading these two you will see two very different approaches, which reflects much of the debate I see on these subjects, including some of your comments. The NIPCC report is openly political opening with a complaint about Obama's treatment of climate change as a serious issue. It talks about circumstantial evidence, debate amongst scientists, and has a petition organised to collect signatures. (This apparently gathers signatures from 31,478 scientists of which only 9,021 have PhDs.) The IPCC report is filled with detailed diagrams and explanations of the science behind global warming. The approach generally seems sensible to someone like me with some understanding of the scientific method, although I am not qualified to analyse in depth. I am sure anybody reading it would learn something about the climate and how we can analyse it. Now I don't follow the political debate on whether the IPCC is biased by funding or some other supposed disincentives for scientists to report truthfully. On the other hand I do see that there is less obvious evidence of political bias from reading the published reports. If someone wanted to understand the science it is fairly clear to me the IPCC report would be a much better starting point than the NIPCC report. There are some very clear incentives to "break rank", as you put it. There are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from climate change mitigation, for example in the oil industry, to fund people to investigate the case against climate change. Again, I don't really feel in a good position to judge who is right and who is wrong here, but I would expect if the scientific case was highly suspect as you'd say that people would have funded equally convincing scientific reports on the other side. The fact that I haven't been able to find such reports suggests to me that there is not a convincing case against the science to be made. (Edit: also I suspect the politicisation of climate change debate and the bureaucratic process of the IPCC probably means that the science is less effective than it might otherwise be, and that the communication of this science is less convincing than it could be, to the detriment of the quality of the public debates. As I mentioned in another comment it's quite painful to link to the IPCC report and they prevent people from redistributing it without permission, meaning the format is basically fixed in an unhelpful set of massive PDFs. Sad!)
      - alphapapa 9y ago
        It's interesting that you cite the NIPCC report, but then downplay it as merely political and circumstantial. And since it has a petition, it must be biased, or much moreso than the IPCC report. Yet, scanning through the 135-page NIPCC report, I see plenty of "diagrams and explanations of the science," which you noted in the IPCC report. Why, then, do you dismiss it out-of-hand? > Now I don't follow the political debate on whether the IPCC is biased by funding or some other supposed disincentives for scientists to report truthfully. This is my entire point. It is absolutely crucial. You can ignore it if you want, but you are missing the full picture, and therefore cannot accurately assess the claims of both sides. > On the other hand I do see that there is less obvious evidence of political bias from reading the published reports. I guess you meant "the published IPCC reports." I should think that, if any group wanted to push their political view under the guise of science, they would certainly take care to make their reports appear apolitical. Making your judgment based solely on their own word would be like a judge asking a defendent, "Did you do it? No? Okay, you're free to go." You have to corroborate outside evidence to make a reasonable judgment. > If someone wanted to understand the science it is fairly clear to me the IPCC report would be a much better starting point than the NIPCC report. Again, the NIPCC report appears to explain much science as well, so it seems unreasonable for you to dismiss it while holding to the IPCC report. > There are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from climate change mitigation, for example in the oil industry, to fund people to investigate the case against climate change. You're right. And by the same token, there are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from not engaging in mitigation. These range from individual climatologists who have built their entire careers on studying the "crisis" of CAGW (if it were determined that there were no risk, what would their careers have accomplished? What would they do next?), to corporations selling "green" energy products and carbon credits, to politicians who are using "climate change" to effect their political goals. For example, Christine Figueres, UN executive of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently stated: This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history. Her stated goal here is not to mitigate the potential risks of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (which might or might not necessarily entail changing the fundamental economic model of the world), but to transform the world's economic model. This is explicitly a political goal, not a scientific one. The cart (politics) is leading the horse (science). > I would expect if the scientific case was highly suspect as you'd say that people would have funded equally convincing scientific reports on the other side. The fact that I haven't been able to find such reports suggests to me that there is not a convincing case against the science to be made. This depends entirely on how much effort you have put into finding them and your criteria for "equally convincing." In fact, many scientists have found such convincing reports--as you yourself noted, at least 9,000 PhD-holding scientists, and about 21,000 non-PhD-holding scientists, who, by your own admission, are more qualified to judge than you. Therefore, how can you so easily dismiss one side of the argument? I appreciate your being reasonable in the discussion. Thanks.
- sctb 9y ago
  Please stop violating the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    Ok, I'm done. Please delete my account. Hacker News is comprised primarily of people who do not wish to discuss a variety of viewpoints freely. Any comment that strays from the "party line" is immediately downvoted, usually without response from anyone. The "silent hand" of disapproval shames into submission or obscurity. The ideological purity of the community is preserved at all costs--especially at the cost of intellectual diversity. I see comment after comment, ones that are completely reasonable and polite, downvoted into grayness because they disagree with the prevailing opinion. Instead of posting a reasonable, polite rebuttal--you know, furthering the pursuit of knowledge and understanding--people anonymously click the "I disapprove" button and censor opposing views. And you and dang don't do a thing about it. The people downvoting comments like that are completely abusing their downvote privilege, but it never stops. Then you revoke my upvoting privilege after I correctively upvote some unfairly downvoted comments. Apparently that's "working as intended" at Hacker News. Even Slashdot, as far a cry as it is now from its historical golden era, is a bastion of open-mindedness compared to HN. So why should I waste my time here? You want to have your echo chamber, well hey, it's your site. I can tell when I'm not wanted. And unlike many here, I would not force my views on anyone.
    - debaserab2 9y ago
      When you continuously argue against the basic merits of science in a forum based around science and technology you're probably not going to have a great time.

Some say that the IPCC is an unreliable source, considering the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown about their political bias and manipulation of results. How would you answer that concern?

alphapapa 9y ago

I see, answered by downvoting. Insert fingers in ears, close eyes, move right along, nothing to see here.

ximeng 9y ago
I didn't down vote (or answer). I don't have an opinion on the bias, having only read through the scientific report, but do think the science on the IPCC side looks better than anything I've seen on the other side, and that reasons for it being biased exist on both sides. Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science.
- alphapapa 9y ago
  My apologies. Shouldn't have assumed you were the one who downvoted. > Therefore tend to side with what looks like the better science. But the point is that the science is highly suspect. When scientists on the IPCC break rank and make themselves pariahs, virtually ruining their careers, that should tell you something.
  - ximeng 9y ago
    I am judging this on reading parts of the IPCC reports (see for example https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...) and the NIPCC report published by the Heartland Institute (https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/W...). Reading these two you will see two very different approaches, which reflects much of the debate I see on these subjects, including some of your comments. The NIPCC report is openly political opening with a complaint about Obama's treatment of climate change as a serious issue. It talks about circumstantial evidence, debate amongst scientists, and has a petition organised to collect signatures. (This apparently gathers signatures from 31,478 scientists of which only 9,021 have PhDs.) The IPCC report is filled with detailed diagrams and explanations of the science behind global warming. The approach generally seems sensible to someone like me with some understanding of the scientific method, although I am not qualified to analyse in depth. I am sure anybody reading it would learn something about the climate and how we can analyse it. Now I don't follow the political debate on whether the IPCC is biased by funding or some other supposed disincentives for scientists to report truthfully. On the other hand I do see that there is less obvious evidence of political bias from reading the published reports. If someone wanted to understand the science it is fairly clear to me the IPCC report would be a much better starting point than the NIPCC report. There are some very clear incentives to "break rank", as you put it. There are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from climate change mitigation, for example in the oil industry, to fund people to investigate the case against climate change. Again, I don't really feel in a good position to judge who is right and who is wrong here, but I would expect if the scientific case was highly suspect as you'd say that people would have funded equally convincing scientific reports on the other side. The fact that I haven't been able to find such reports suggests to me that there is not a convincing case against the science to be made. (Edit: also I suspect the politicisation of climate change debate and the bureaucratic process of the IPCC probably means that the science is less effective than it might otherwise be, and that the communication of this science is less convincing than it could be, to the detriment of the quality of the public debates. As I mentioned in another comment it's quite painful to link to the IPCC report and they prevent people from redistributing it without permission, meaning the format is basically fixed in an unhelpful set of massive PDFs. Sad!)
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      It's interesting that you cite the NIPCC report, but then downplay it as merely political and circumstantial. And since it has a petition, it must be biased, or much moreso than the IPCC report. Yet, scanning through the 135-page NIPCC report, I see plenty of "diagrams and explanations of the science," which you noted in the IPCC report. Why, then, do you dismiss it out-of-hand? > Now I don't follow the political debate on whether the IPCC is biased by funding or some other supposed disincentives for scientists to report truthfully. This is my entire point. It is absolutely crucial. You can ignore it if you want, but you are missing the full picture, and therefore cannot accurately assess the claims of both sides. > On the other hand I do see that there is less obvious evidence of political bias from reading the published reports. I guess you meant "the published IPCC reports." I should think that, if any group wanted to push their political view under the guise of science, they would certainly take care to make their reports appear apolitical. Making your judgment based solely on their own word would be like a judge asking a defendent, "Did you do it? No? Okay, you're free to go." You have to corroborate outside evidence to make a reasonable judgment. > If someone wanted to understand the science it is fairly clear to me the IPCC report would be a much better starting point than the NIPCC report. Again, the NIPCC report appears to explain much science as well, so it seems unreasonable for you to dismiss it while holding to the IPCC report. > There are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from climate change mitigation, for example in the oil industry, to fund people to investigate the case against climate change. You're right. And by the same token, there are significant financial incentives for people who stand to lose from not engaging in mitigation. These range from individual climatologists who have built their entire careers on studying the "crisis" of CAGW (if it were determined that there were no risk, what would their careers have accomplished? What would they do next?), to corporations selling "green" energy products and carbon credits, to politicians who are using "climate change" to effect their political goals. For example, Christine Figueres, UN executive of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently stated: This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution. This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history. Her stated goal here is not to mitigate the potential risks of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (which might or might not necessarily entail changing the fundamental economic model of the world), but to transform the world's economic model. This is explicitly a political goal, not a scientific one. The cart (politics) is leading the horse (science). > I would expect if the scientific case was highly suspect as you'd say that people would have funded equally convincing scientific reports on the other side. The fact that I haven't been able to find such reports suggests to me that there is not a convincing case against the science to be made. This depends entirely on how much effort you have put into finding them and your criteria for "equally convincing." In fact, many scientists have found such convincing reports--as you yourself noted, at least 9,000 PhD-holding scientists, and about 21,000 non-PhD-holding scientists, who, by your own admission, are more qualified to judge than you. Therefore, how can you so easily dismiss one side of the argument? I appreciate your being reasonable in the discussion. Thanks.
sctb 9y ago
Please stop violating the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- alphapapa 9y ago
  Ok, I'm done. Please delete my account. Hacker News is comprised primarily of people who do not wish to discuss a variety of viewpoints freely. Any comment that strays from the "party line" is immediately downvoted, usually without response from anyone. The "silent hand" of disapproval shames into submission or obscurity. The ideological purity of the community is preserved at all costs--especially at the cost of intellectual diversity. I see comment after comment, ones that are completely reasonable and polite, downvoted into grayness because they disagree with the prevailing opinion. Instead of posting a reasonable, polite rebuttal--you know, furthering the pursuit of knowledge and understanding--people anonymously click the "I disapprove" button and censor opposing views. And you and dang don't do a thing about it. The people downvoting comments like that are completely abusing their downvote privilege, but it never stops. Then you revoke my upvoting privilege after I correctively upvote some unfairly downvoted comments. Apparently that's "working as intended" at Hacker News. Even Slashdot, as far a cry as it is now from its historical golden era, is a bastion of open-mindedness compared to HN. So why should I waste my time here? You want to have your echo chamber, well hey, it's your site. I can tell when I'm not wanted. And unlike many here, I would not force my views on anyone.
  - debaserab2 9y ago
    When you continuously argue against the basic merits of science in a forum based around science and technology you're probably not going to have a great time.