7 ms·
Steve Mcintyre is an interesting guy. His hobby is to check the data, statistics, and models published in climate science articles. As far as I know his work is
by jacoblyles 17y ago
Steve Mcintyre is an interesting guy. His hobby is to check the data, statistics, and models published in climate science articles. As far as I know his work is quality, at least several of his corrections have found their way into mainstream climate records. The fact that he has been involved in so many tooth-and-nail fights to obtain the data he seeks, often being flatly denied, ought to concern anyone who cares about the veracity of the claims of climate scientists and activists, as well as anyone with a vested interest in a political system that looks poised to spend trillions of dollars on climate policy over the next decade.
You can check out his blog here: http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/. But be warned, it's not political at all. If you don't have a head for data series and regression models, you'll be put to sleep.
The amount of bad scientific practices and obfuscation that this one man has uncovered is staggering (scientists cherry-picking data for a paper and then refusing to provide the whole data set seems a common complaint). However, as good citizens we must believe that the thousands of papers he has not gotten around to checking are perfectly valid. To do otherwise is to be painted with the label of "heretic".
In the end, it is the poor treatment of the scientific process by scientists and activists, as well as the religion-like enforcement of agreement, that causes me to hold onto my green skepticism. I'm not sure that climate change won't Kill Us All, but I am not convinced by those that do think so.
edit: One final cause of my green skepticism is the fact that so many highly-publicized predictions made by environmentalists in the past, many of whom held PHDs, have been wrong. But more importantly, they have always been wrong in one direction, the direction of overstating the environmental damage done by human activity. The environmentalists of the 1960s foresaw a world that would undergo multiple environmental holocausts by the 1980s, which of course never came to pass.
While the quality of past predictions has no direct bearing on the quality of current predictions, indeed one might even assume that modern predictions are of higher quality given more advanced methods and greater funding, it does make me skeptical of any would-be green Nostradamus, at least until one establishes a good track record of predicting the future.
- ajross 17y agoSo how do you weigh your decision? Are you waiting for unassailable evidence? What is your best guess at the cost of regulation needed to fix the problem you are not unconvinced exists? How does that cost change over time as we do nothing? Or do you care about any of that? This isn't (just) an internet flame war. The goal isn't (or shouldn't be) to "win" by poking holes in the oppositions argument. It should be to make the best/safest decision possible given the evidence at hand. But that's the point: there has to be a decision made. By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically.
- hughprime 17y agoBy advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically One thing that the world really needs to do is move beyond labels like "denialist". I'm sick of depiction that the only possible positions we can possibly take are "No way, global warming is absolutely a complete myth" and "zomg we're all going to die!" The truth doesn't always sit somewhere between the two extremes on every controversial debate, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where it does. One can think that anthropogenic global warming is probably a nonzero problem without buying into every extreme-level prediction or supporting every suggested policy prescription.
- ajross 17y agoI don't believe I asked you to buy into "every" prediction or support "every" prescription. But it's a fair point: which regulation choices do you support? My experience is that the seemingly-moderate "science is incomplete" skeptics, when pressed, generally argue for no action at all. That would put them much farther on the "denialist" (I don't know what other label to use, and you didn't offer a suggestion) end of the spectrum, no?
- SamAtt 17y agoSee, this is a straw man argument. No one, and I mean no responsible person in government has argued for no action at all in my lifetime. We've had environmental regulations since people were afraid of Global Cooling. This has always been a question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action"
- hughprime 17y agoquestion of degree not one of "action vs. non-action" Not just of degree but of kind. Assuming anthropogenic global warming really _is_ a problem of nonzero severity, there's a vast array of actions that can be taken on a governmental level. These include: carbon taxes build more nuclear power plants more funding for alternative energy research cap and trade giant mirrors in orbit to reflect sunlight more funding for clean coal research kill half the population ban electricity build artificial trees for carbon sequestration and so forth. They all have risks and rewards, costs and payoffs. We should not be entirely surprised that our elected leaders tend to prefer the ones (carbon taxes, cap and trade) which involve our elected leaders getting more money and more power.
- Alex3917 17y ago"But more importantly, they have always been wrong in one direction, the direction of overstating the environmental damage done by human activity." In most cases where the predictions have been wrong, they were only wrong because a law has was passed to fix the problem, as in the case of DDT, acid rain, rivers catching on fire, etc. In just about every case where we haven't passed a law the predictions have come true... fishery deplition, rain forest destruction, mercury and pcbs in fish, etc.