4 ms·

I don't know about others but I came to doubt AGW because of inconsistencies in their claims and the data they used. And because of their striking similarities

I don't know about others but I came to doubt AGW because of inconsistencies in their claims and the data they used. And because of their striking similarities in techniques (computer modelling of systems too complex for competent models) and prescriptions (we must suffer and gov't needs more power, MORE POWER) that they shared with other environmentalist claims that have been falsified over the decades. I already knew that they have been fudging the data, from their own reports, long before this leak from CRU.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
Your response is far from unusual; in fact, it's probably a greater example of the psychology of AGW denial than any of the ones cited in the article. There is a pattern of thinking which is common in many areas of expertise, but is especially prevalent in technical professions. It goes like this: the best solution to a complex problem is a simple one, and if the problem is so complex that I can't understand it in ten minutes, then it isn't worth my time. So, for example, rather than taking the time to absorb the myriad complexities of climatology, and rather than reading the emails ourselves and analyzing their content and context, we instead take the "simpler" solution, the shortcut: we say, these emails are evidence of what I always believed all along, that the entire field of climatology is a hoax. And really, that's a beautifully simplistic explanation for a very complicated field. Rather than needing to understand the field, it's much simpler to just say, this thing is a global conspiracy, and then move on to the next simple solution to a complex problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconsistencies in claims and data that people love to point to are actually things that have explanations, that can be understood -- if someone takes the time and effort to do it. It's really rather like the Monty Hall Problem. Marliyn vos Savant ended up having mathematics professors -- among others -- writing to her for a long time after she published the correct solution to that problem. The solution they proposed instead -- while much simpler to understand -- was wrong. Understanding the right solution took much more effort, and required abandoning certain preconceived notions. Climatology is much the same in this respect.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  It's similar to evolution in that regard. Much has been written by advocates of it that is wrong and disagrees with other things written about it. That does not mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I'd suspect most people don't think as deeply as OP. Most people take a side in this debate based solely on their politics and/or wishful thinking.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconsistencies in claims and data that people love to point to are actually things that have explanations, that can be understood -- if someone takes the time and effort to do it. Oh really? The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? Unfortunately for the "it's all okay" theory, the CRU folks keep admitting things that show that it isn't. Today's is that they made up some of the "homogenized" data. The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... And then there's still the data gathering problems. (Stations have been moved to hotter areas and others haven't been maintained in ways that cause them to record higher temps even if nothing actually changes.) > if someone takes the time and effort to do it. And you know this because....
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    > The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? I'll do a little looking, but do you have some more information on this? I'd love to see it. > The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... This one I know off the top of my head. You're almost certainly referring to the now-infamous "trick", roughly related to tree ring datum. There is still apparently some debate among climate scientists over what the differences in tree-ring measurements versus expected measurements actually means. It's going to take a while to sort out. Does it mean that the trees are growing very differently under different climates? Is there some property of tree growth that's been overlooked? But either way, this is only one method of data gathering amongst many. To point to this one thing and say, "A-ha! This proves that the planet is actually cooling and thus this is a field that I don't have to understand" is exactly the same kind of tactic used by those who refuse to accept evolutionary theory for the divergence of species. This is the case, again, with the data stations. I wholeheartedly agree that more effort needs to be put into monitoring them, and from that standpoint at least, the work being put into cataloguing them is important. However, even given all of their differences, and even assuming that there was no other data to go off of, they still would not lead to a dramatically different climate model. The field of climate science is much more complicated than a smattering of weather stations and examinations of tree rings. > And you know this because.... Look at my comment history. I'm a former "AGW denier" who, years ago, was pissed that cans of spray paint stopped working right and was annoyed by emissions control systems in vehicles. However, climatology has remained one of my interests, and I've continued to try to understand it. I know far, far less about the field than any of the scientists actually involved in it, but I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off listening to their claims than the claims of those that can't be bothered to try.

thaumaturgy 17y ago

Your response is far from unusual; in fact, it's probably a greater example of the psychology of AGW denial than any of the ones cited in the article. There is a pattern of thinking which is common in many areas of expertise, but is especially prevalent in technical professions. It goes like this: the best solution to a complex problem is a simple one, and if the problem is so complex that I can't understand it in ten minutes, then it isn't worth my time. So, for example, rather than taking the time to absorb the myriad complexities of climatology, and rather than reading the emails ourselves and analyzing their content and context, we instead take the "simpler" solution, the shortcut: we say, these emails are evidence of what I always believed all along, that the entire field of climatology is a hoax. And really, that's a beautifully simplistic explanation for a very complicated field. Rather than needing to understand the field, it's much simpler to just say, this thing is a global conspiracy, and then move on to the next simple solution to a complex problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconsistencies in claims and data that people love to point to are actually things that have explanations, that can be understood -- if someone takes the time and effort to do it. It's really rather like the Monty Hall Problem. Marliyn vos Savant ended up having mathematics professors -- among others -- writing to her for a long time after she published the correct solution to that problem. The solution they proposed instead -- while much simpler to understand -- was wrong. Understanding the right solution took much more effort, and required abandoning certain preconceived notions. Climatology is much the same in this respect.

mattmaroon 17y ago
It's similar to evolution in that regard. Much has been written by advocates of it that is wrong and disagrees with other things written about it. That does not mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I'd suspect most people don't think as deeply as OP. Most people take a side in this debate based solely on their politics and/or wishful thinking.
anamax 17y ago
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but the inconsistencies in claims and data that people love to point to are actually things that have explanations, that can be understood -- if someone takes the time and effort to do it. Oh really? The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? Unfortunately for the "it's all okay" theory, the CRU folks keep admitting things that show that it isn't. Today's is that they made up some of the "homogenized" data. The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... And then there's still the data gathering problems. (Stations have been moved to hotter areas and others haven't been maintained in ways that cause them to record higher temps even if nothing actually changes.) > if someone takes the time and effort to do it. And you know this because....
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  > The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data? I'll do a little looking, but do you have some more information on this? I'd love to see it. > The initial dump contained the uncontested statement that they can't explain the last decade's cooling.... This one I know off the top of my head. You're almost certainly referring to the now-infamous "trick", roughly related to tree ring datum. There is still apparently some debate among climate scientists over what the differences in tree-ring measurements versus expected measurements actually means. It's going to take a while to sort out. Does it mean that the trees are growing very differently under different climates? Is there some property of tree growth that's been overlooked? But either way, this is only one method of data gathering amongst many. To point to this one thing and say, "A-ha! This proves that the planet is actually cooling and thus this is a field that I don't have to understand" is exactly the same kind of tactic used by those who refuse to accept evolutionary theory for the divergence of species. This is the case, again, with the data stations. I wholeheartedly agree that more effort needs to be put into monitoring them, and from that standpoint at least, the work being put into cataloguing them is important. However, even given all of their differences, and even assuming that there was no other data to go off of, they still would not lead to a dramatically different climate model. The field of climate science is much more complicated than a smattering of weather stations and examinations of tree rings. > And you know this because.... Look at my comment history. I'm a former "AGW denier" who, years ago, was pissed that cans of spray paint stopped working right and was annoyed by emissions control systems in vehicles. However, climatology has remained one of my interests, and I've continued to try to understand it. I know far, far less about the field than any of the scientists actually involved in it, but I've seen enough to convince me that the human species is better off listening to their claims than the claims of those that can't be bothered to try.