In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

I do agree that this is how it is supposed to work.

But it took the stolen and leaked emails to force actual release (if
release really happens as has been promised). I have been reading
complaints about the lack of actual transparency for many years; now I
know that these complaints were well founded.

In political terms, all this was a serious blunder. Most people will
conclude that because CRU was hoarding data, they must have had
something to hide. Nor did the emails about editing the data to
eliminate the lack of recent warming help.

It matters not what CRU's true motives were.

It doesn't?? I guess that depends on perspective.

No, it doesn't matter if CRU's motives were pure, it still was a
political blunder. This is not a technical issue at all.


Ask some of the
scientists who were bullied into handing research data over to Google so
they could build on their image/info database. For free!

That's not the same issue at all. CRU is in effect asking the world to
depend on their GW analyses to the tune of trillions of dollars, and
should expect that people want to replicate their analyses and inspect
their data.


Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.

Not interested in reading something that might be even slightly
enlightening? I think this article aims to debunk some of the more
poorly thought out points of view that pervade much of the skeptic's
positions. It really isn't that silly or threatening. I do agree that
the title is unfortunate, but there really are people out there making
outrageous claims on both sides of the arguments.

Not interested in reading yet another rant. I have read many such
pieces, and it's been a long time since something really new turned up.


http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

(there is a PDF to download for the last one. The link is at the top
right of the frame)

I'll read it; thanks.

Good!

Turns out that the Royal Society had a clear opinion as well:

"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious
argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and
undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the
potential consequences of global warming."

They then went over 8 "misleading arguments" (their term). While they
stated it very well, and did not rant or scream, there were no new
points made.

The crux of their argument is in their response to "misleading argument
1":

"However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three
quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global temperatures
that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted
for by natural factors alone."

What they are saying is in effect that their models cannot explain these
effects. I have done my share of modeling of physical systems, far far
simpler systems than climate (and the general circulation models), and
let me tell you it is real easy to fool yourself. One must validate
against the real world at every step. Only the deeply skeptical survive.



In case you think I'm a AGW the-sky-is-falling kind of guy, I'm not.
But it really bugs me when people don't even bother to make a modest
effort to get real information. No wonder this issue gets people so
worked up! When all you are presented with are half-truths, bent to
support one point of view or another, it can only cause problems.

For the most part, I have stopped listening because it's mostly clashing
rants, and I have not the energy to sort it out in any detail. But I do
know that it's a bad policy to let either side prematurely terminate the
debate by political force, for many reasons.

For one thing, an incorrect conclusion may win the day, and stall
progress for a generation. There are lots of examples of this in
Science.

For another thing, if the losing side doesn't mostly feel that their
case was fairly addressed, even if imperfectly so, the political fight
will never end. This isn't to say that everyone on the losing side must
agree that they lost fairly; there will always be holdouts, and a 60-40
vote is considered a landslide.

So, circling back, I'm glad that CRU's ability to withhold data and
stifle debate is likely ended.

Given that I'm not convinced that the science is solid enough to justify
turning civilization upside down, I'm not unhappy that the fallout from
the leaked emails may derail Copenhagen, directly or indirectly.

And even if I believed everything CRU claims, it does not necessarily
follow that Copenhagen is the right answer; this is a separate question.
For one thing, China and India run on coal, and their economies are
growing rapidly, so their increases may wash everything we may do away.

It could well turn out that CRU is at least partly right. With luck, we
may have a better idea in a few years, after the Climategate scandal
runs its course.


Joe Gwinn