The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy

In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out. Hill and Knowlton designed a brilliant Public Relations (PR) campaign to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous. They encouraged the tobacco industry to set up their own research organization, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which would produce science favorable to the industry, emphasize doubt in all the science linking smoking to lung cancer, and question all independent research unfavorable to the tobacco industry. The CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products. George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. In the book, he wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.

The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

The ozone hole battle
In 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back. As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.

In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

The battle over global warming
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.

As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Foundation, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.

I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 - 2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

I will give a small amount of credit to some of their work, however. I have at times picked up some useful information from the contrarians, and have used it to temper my blogs to make them more balanced. For example, I no longer rely just on the National Climatic Data Center for my monthly climate summaries, but instead look at data from NASA and the UK HADCRU source as well. When the Hurricane Season of 2005 brought unfounded claims that global warming was to blame for Hurricane Katrina, and a rather flawed paper by researchers at Georgia Tech showing a large increase in global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, I found myself agreeing with the contrarians' analysis of the matter, and my blogs at the time reflected this.

The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails
A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and posted ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading scientists who've published research linking humans to climate change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

Exaggerated claims by environmentalists
Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change, aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.

Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility
I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone, and I'll be back Monday--the last day of hurricane season--with a review of the hurricane season of 2009.

Jeff Masters

Open Climate Science or Denial of Service attacks?

I wasn’t going to post anything about the CRU emails story (apart from my attempt at humour), because I think it’s a non-story. I’ve read a few of the emails, and it looks no different to the studies I’ve done of how climate science works. It’s messy. It involves lots of observational data sets, many of which contain errors that have to be corrected. Luckily, we have a process for that – it’s called science. It’s carried out by a very large number of people, any of whom might make mistakes. But it’s self-correcting, because they all review each other’s work, and one of the best ways to get noticed as a scientist is to identify and correct a problem in someone else’s work. There is, of course, a weakness in the way such corrections are usually done to a previously published paper. The corrections appear as letters and other papers in various journals, and don’t connect up well to the original paper. Which means you have to know an area well to understand which papers have stood the test of time and which have been discredited. Outsiders to a particular subfield won’t be able to tell the difference. They’ll also have a tendency to seize on what they think are errors, but actually have already been addressed in the literature.

If you want all the gory details about the CRU emails, read the RealClimate posts (here and here) and the lengthy discussion threads that follow from them. Many of the scientists involved in the CRU emails comment in these threads, and the resulting picture of the complexity of the data and analysis that they have to deal with is very interesting. But of course, none of this will change anyone’s minds. If you’re convinced global warming is a huge conspiracy, you’ll just see scientists trying to circle the wagons and spin the story their way. If you’re convinced that AGW is now accepted as scientific fact, then you’ll see scientists tearing their hair out at the ignorance of their detractors. If you’re not sure about this global warming stuff, you’ll see a lively debate about the details of the science, none of which makes much sense on it’s own. Don’t venture in without a good map and compass. (Update: I’ve no idea who’s running this site, but it’s a brilliant deconstruction of the allegations about the CRU emails).

But one issue has arisen in many discussions about the CRU emails that touches strongly on the research we’re doing in our group. Many people have looked at the emails and concluded that if the CRU had been fully open with its data and code right from the start, there would be no issue now. This is of course, a central question in Alicia’s research on open science. While in principle, open science is a great idea, in practice, there are many hurdles, including the fear of being “scooped”, the need to give appropriate credit, the problem of data provenance, the cost of curation, and the fact that software has a very short shelf-life, and so on. For the CRU dataset at the centre of the current kerfuffle, someone would have to go back to all the data sources, and re-negotiate agreements about how the data can be used. Of course, the anti-science crowd just think that’s an excuse.

However, for climate scientists there is another problem, which is the workload involved in being open. Gavin, at RealClimate, raises this issue in response to a comment that just putting the model code online is not sufficient. For example, if someone wanted to reproduce a graph that appears in a published paper, they’ll need much more: the script files, the data sets, the parameter settings, the spinup files, and so on. Michael Tobis argues that much of this can be solved with good tools and lots of automated scripts. Which would be fine if we were talking about how to help other scientists replicate the results.

Unfortunately, in the special case of climate science, that’s not what we’re talking about. A significant factor in the reluctance of climate scientists to release code and data is to protect themselves from denial-of-service attacks. There is a very well-funded and PR-savvy campaign to discredit climate science. Most scientists just don’t understand how to respond to this. Firing off hundreds of requests to CRU to release data under the freedom of information act, despite each such request being denied for good legal reasons, is the equivalent of frivolous lawsuits. But even worse, once datasets and codes are released, it is very easy for an anti-science campaign to tie the scientists up in knots trying to respond to their attempts to poke holes in the data. If the denialists were engaged in an honest attempt to push the science ahead, this would be fine (although many scientists would still get frustrated – they are human too).

But in reality, the denialists don’t care about the science at all; their aim is a PR campaign to sow doubt in the minds of the general public. In the process, they effect a denial-of-service attack on the scientists – the scientists can’t get on with doing their science because their time is taken up responding to frivolous queries (and criticisms) about specific features of the data. And their failure to respond to each and every such query will be trumpeted as an admission that an alleged error is indeed an error. In such an environment, is it perfectly rational not to release data and code – it’s better to pull up the drawbridge and get on with the drudgery of real science in private. That way the only attacks are complaints about lack of openness. Such complaints are bothersome, but much better than the alternative.

In this case, because the science is vitally important for all of us, it’s actually in the public interest that climate scientists be allowed to withhold their data. Which is really a tragic state of affairs. The forces of anti-science have a lot to answer for.

Teretulemast KLIIMA6HTU protestiblogisse!

Freeman Dyson:

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

The story so far...

Cinoom said...

"zizeki arutluses on paar nõrka kohta - esiteks, ta on vist veendunud, et toimub inimtegevusest põhjustatud globaalne soojenemine, aga see ei ole ju üldse kindel (et inimene siin määravat tähtsust omab)."

vaatasin järjekordset lühiülevaadet kliimavaidlustest. pean tunnistama, et see on üks minu lemmik teemasi. põhjuseid on mitmeid. esiteks on tegemist olevikuga, mis nõuab poolte valimist praegu ja kohe. see välistab tavapärase põgenemise tsementeeritud mineviku juurde. just praegu peab teadlane koos poliitikuga vastama küsimusele "mis toimub?". see situatsioon toob hästi välja tõsisasja, et tegelikult olevikus tuleb otsustada pimesi.

võtame näiteks maakera temperatuuri tõusmise probleemi. esimene häirekell löödi siis kui avastati, et termomeetrid kõikjal üle maakera on näitamas temperatuuri tõusu. skeptikud väitsid, et põhjuseks on linna-alade suurenemine mille tõttu 50 aastat tagasi paigaldatud linnast kaugemale olev termomeeter on tänaseks linnale palju lähemal. ja kuna linn akumuleerib soojust siis on ka kraadiklaaside näitajad tõusuteel. igati loogiline.

et sellest väheseks ei jääks, saadeti maa orbiidile tiirlema ja temperatuuri mõõtma sputnik. selle sputniku mõõtmised näitasid hoopis maakera temperatuuri langemist. skeptikud lõid parastavalt käsi kokku ja kliima soojenemisest sai naljanumber. konverentsidel mõnitati veel kliimasoojenemisesse uskujaid.

kuid kahe mõõteriista erinevus jäi siiski teadlasi vaevama. mingi aja pärast aga avastatai et sputniku mõõtesüsteemis ei arvestatud höördetegurit, mille tõttu sputnik iga tiiruga maale lähemale tuli ja teistsugust mõõtetulemust andis. peale valemi korrigeerimist saadi samad näitajad, mis maapealsetel mõõdikutel.

seega lepiti kokku, et temperatuur tõuseb.

nüüd sai uueks vaidlusobjektis süüdlase leidmine - kas inimene või loomulik tõus.

ja siit me jõuame hokikepi graafiku ajaoo juurde. ka siin tuleb öelda et esialgu naeruvääristatud graafik, mis lükkab ümber varem õpikusse kirjutatu, hakkab tasapisi tõsisemaks muutuma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

mulle on jäänud mulje et R on alati Al Gore filmi (põhineb hokikepi graafikul) erilise põlguse suhtunud. ma ei tea, mis selle põhjuseks on, kas need skeptikute pilked (mis olid sellel hetkel tingitud just sellest sputniku draamast) või ei meeldi talle lihtsalt poliitikud, kuid tänaseks kaldub üha rohkem teadlasi ikka selle graafiku paikapidavuse poole.

kuigi kahe poole mõnitav suhtumine üksteise suhtes on loomulikult säilinud.

poolt: http://www.realclimate.org/
vastu: http://www.climateaudit.org/
November 4, 2009 12:17 AM


Randroid said...

teadus ja hokikepp on selles teemas täiesti teisejärguline, asi on peamiselt ideoloogiline.

hea näide mõnitavast suhtumisest: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/print/
November 4, 2009 12:31 AM

Cinoom said...

roosad ideoloogiaprillid heitnud küünikud on muidugi täiesti omaette teema ja väga huvitav nähtus.
November 4, 2009 12:41 AM

Randroid said...

lisaks saab teemaga siduda ka homoseksualismi ja Taani: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/767021/global-warming-is-not-our-most-urgent-priority.thtml
November 4, 2009 12:46 AM

Cinoom said...

ja Ronald Emmerichi (sellelt kanada lehelt)

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/30/2012-are-you-ready/

naljakalt kirjutatud
November 4, 2009 12:49 AM

Randroid said...

kuna C-d huvitas, siis üks link veel: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html

Skeptikute kogukonna ajab see teema korralikult pöördesse :) (vt. ka 123 kommentaari)

mulle meeldis:

Humans (species designated by ourselves as Homo Sapiens Sapiens) will DEFINITELY go extinct sometime in the future (maybe in the next 10,000 or 1,000,000 years, who knows). As I've mentioned in the past, the lifespan of a 'species' is about one million years (give or take unfortunate catastrophes, adaptability, and so forth). People who envision humans galavanting among the stars and galaxies are dreaming (or fantasizing with science fiction). We will be visited by many catastrophes which will reign in our population and technological advances no matter how 'smart' we think we are. Just look at the tsunami of 2004 - a minor devastation. If something like the supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park were to erupt (and there is smoldering evidence that it is slowly becoming reactive), the devastation would be immeasurable in human history (and I'd probably perish living within its 'zone of destruction' currently). There is growing (but still speculative) evidence that the Clovis people were exterminated by a possible asteroid impact into the glacial sheet in North America 13000 years ago. Neanderthals, considered as a coexistent sentient species with our ancestors, disappeared completely with the end of the last ice age. Current genomic research indicates that they did not disappear by intermingling with our ancestors but went completely exinct due to variously designated circumstances. That should be a strong indicator that we are not special evolutionary results that can withstand any rigors of natural phenomena.


ja

Does everyone here realise that the fossil fuel is all going to be burnt, whether we increase its price or not? Then it will be gone. Taxing it and blaming it will not stop it being used. It will all be used until it's no longer economical to extract it. This is a FACT. And here are some more FACTS:
a plane uses less fuel per person per mile than a car
a person riding a bicycle emits CO2, and making the bike did too
the Toyota Prius does less miles per gallon than a BMW (see Top Gear for proof)
There are twice as many people in the world as there were forty years ago, more people = more heat, but only partly due to fossil fuel usage
the same hippies who are protesting outside of coal-fired power stations were outside of nuclear ones twenty years ago
A warmer planet would benefit many people and would save many lives in colder climes
A rising sea level would take centuries and people move around over lifetimes. The fastest two metre rise possible would take hundreds of years. Just think if the sea had been two metres lower during the American war of independence than it is now.
November 4, 2009 6:11 AM

Randroid said...

DT on aga kindlasti tuttav börsiinvestorite aruteluga: http://www.lhv.ee/forums/index.cfm?id=196424&start=1
November 4, 2009 6:26 AM

Cinoom said...

erinevate iseloomudega osapooli on siin mitmeid.

meil on tulihingelised võitlejad, siis küünilised ülbikutest koomikud ja seejärel kottideta erapooletud.

sinu poolt esiletõstetud teise kommentaatori ma lahterdaks ülbeks koomikuks. just sellisest tüübist lugesin täna, nimeks Steve Levitt. kirjutas raamatu Superfreakonomics, bestseller ja puha. kotib seal kõike ja funni kui palju.

siis võttis tulihingeline kliimateadlane selle mehe ette ja seletas talle ära mis ta tegelikult kokku on kirjutanud. see läheb hästi kokku sellise väitega nagu "a person riding a bicycle emits CO2, and making the bike did too".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/

njah, kliima teema mulle meeldib.
November 4, 2009 6:48 AM

Randroid said...

Levitti Freakonomicsit olen lugenud, eriti ei meeldinud. Superit ei viitsi lugeda ja üldse ei imesta, kui ta seal segast peksab.

Mulle meeldivad ikka küünilised ülbikud kõige rohkem:
http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/09/22/heaven-and-earth-taken-by-storm-the-long-summer/
November 4, 2009 7:08 AM

Randroid said...

peaks mõne konkreetselt kliimamuutusest rääkiva doki ära arvustama, saaks kliimavärki seal edasi linkida. eile sattusin näiteks sellisele artiklile climateaudit mehest:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html
November 20, 2009 2:07 AM

Cinoom said...

Mr. McIntyre ja tema blogiga olen tuttav. Skeptikute liider.
November 20, 2009 2:19 AM

Cinoom said...

loe selle artikli kommentaare
November 20, 2009 2:27 AM

Cinoom said...

fantastiline meelelahutus ML5
November 20, 2009 2:31 AM

Cinoom said...

Now climate change denial is a psychological condition

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/now-climate-change-denial-is-a-psychological-condition/story-e6frg71f-1225790626883

puhas ML5 nonstop

ma arvan et peaks ise ühe õige climate mockumentary tegema
November 20, 2009 3:24 AM

Cinoom said...

jälle täiesti fantastiline

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/film/film-synopsis
November 20, 2009 3:29 AM

Cinoom said...

see skeptilise tooniga anti-al-gore dokumentaal peaks olema nagu rusikas silma auku R-ile

http://www.youtube.com/user/noteviljustwrong
November 20, 2009 3:32 AM

Randroid said...

vaatasin treileri üle, see dokk tundub sobivat kuhugi mujale auku, eriti sitt film näib olevat, a võibolla on see lihtsalt rõveda treileri probleem.

al gore'ile ärapanemine on liiga lihtne, sellest vaevalt head filmi saab. vaata kasvõi "teadlast" siit, kus mees teatab, et maa sisemus on miljoneid kraadi soe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc

(Q: kui soe on maa sisemus?)
November 20, 2009 3:54 AM

Cinoom said...

Barrie Harrop on täiesti fantastiline selles Wall Street ajakirja artikli kommentaarides. naera herneks.
November 20, 2009 4:06 AM

Randroid said...

on tõesti. alguses tublid koolipoisid üritavad meeleheitlikult asjast rääkida ja viisakaks jääda, aga barrie trollib mõnuga. kõik teised on selle peale täiesti hämmingus, vaikselt hakkab viha tõusma...
November 20, 2009 4:09 AM

Randroid said...

oh, soomlased on majas: http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
November 20, 2009 4:20 AM

Cinoom said...

ma nõuan kohalikku kliimadokki!

kas kult. kap. annaks meile raha kui me lubaks mööda maailma ringi sõites tegeliku tõe päevavalgele tuua?
November 20, 2009 4:38 AM

Cinoom said...

soomlaste dokk on vist täienisti pühendatud Mr. McIntyrele
November 20, 2009 4:48 AM

Cinoom said...

olen soomlaste dokiga lõpusirgel ja sealt koorub samuti välja konspiratsiooniteooria mida varemgi olen lugenud. nimelt on osad graafikud pööratud meelega tagurpidi et näidata kliima soojenemist.

ühesõnaga teadlik globaalne konspiratsioon.

kliimasõjas on kõik fantastilised elemendid olemas.
November 20, 2009 5:00 AM

Cinoom said...

postitan siia mõned leitud lingid mis proovivad paljastada globaalset kliimakonspiratsiooni:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
November 20, 2009 8:10 AM

Randroid said...

tundub, et kopenhaageni eel läheb asi päris tuliseks

ma ei julge hetkel midagi arvata nende linkide kohta
November 20, 2009 8:14 AM

Cinoom said...

õnneks me ei pea arvama vaid saame täiega showd nautida. ulmemaailm on see ikka.
November 20, 2009 8:16 AM

Cinoom said...

tore on olla sellise kuuma uudisega peaaegu sekundi pealt teadlik
November 20, 2009 8:22 AM

Randroid said...

ma kliimaküsimuses ei poeks show nautimise taha, lõppudelõpuks tahaks ikka tõele vastavat infot kuskilt saada.
November 20, 2009 8:25 AM

Cinoom said...

tõeni on pikk tee
November 20, 2009 8:28 AM

Cinoom said...

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200051
November 21, 2009 12:04 AM

Randroid said...

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/the_global_warming_conspiracy_news_spreads/
November 24, 2009 12:43 AM

Cinoom said...

hetk tagasi avaldatud Copenhagen Diagnosis raport:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/executive_summary.html
November 24, 2009 7:19 AM

Cinoom said...

loen seda "teadlaste raportit" kus "kliimamudel AR4" ennustab tulevikku. kuigi raporti sõnakasutus ei ole dramaatiline (sain kommentaariumist teada et see on keelatud) siis on ikkagi tunda Emmerichi filmide stsenaariumi.

2100 peavad 100 miljonit inimest oma asukohta maakeral muutma veetaseme tõusu tõttu.

mida ikkagi teha sellise ebatäiusliku ja korrupeerunud tulevikuennustajaga AR4?
November 24, 2009 11:48 AM

Randroid said...

aga mina lugesin kommentaare kliimamudelite kohta (väga hea teema, millest samuti juba ammu juttu, aga nüüd seoses e-mailidega on konkreetsemaid tõendeid):

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU’s code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU’s climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

---

ja:

I’ve been programming professionally for about 25 years, mostly for a large aerospace company, formerly based in Washington state. (I’m sure you know the one). I took a look at some of the Fortran source files for the CRU’s climate model. Although it has been a while since I did any FORTRAN coding, I was stunned at how really, really shoddy the code was. I didn’t do enough analysis to make any conclusions on the correctness of the code, but it basically sucked. After coding professionally for some time, developers get a feel for well-written code, just by looking at the source code structure. This was really, really bad. I wrote far better code as an undergraduate. I cannot believe that governments are basing policy impacting many billions, if not trillions, of dollars on this crap code. It’s actually frightening.

---

ehk hetkel tundub, et e-mailid on skeptikute võit ja kliimateadlaste klikk on emmerich-draamaga (maailmalõpp on lähedal!) meedia, enamus teadlasi ja ka zizeki ära petnud :)
November 24, 2009 11:57 PM

Randroid said...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/
November 25, 2009 12:05 AM

Cinoom said...

ehk sulle tundub et tegemist on konspiratsiooniga?

ma loen iga päev mõlema poole põhilehte ja pole leidnud midagi piisavalt huvitavat, mida saaks emailidest välja lugeda.

mina isiklikult välistan psühholooglistel kaalutlustel globaalsed konspiratsiooniteooriad. kas nüüd peaks tunnistama et selline võimalus on olemas? kas peaks vaatama üle ka teised konspiratsioonid.

minu jaoks on tavavaatleja positsioon puhtalt psühholoogiline ja peegeldab tõde tema enda vaimse mudeli kohta kui tõde vaadeldava probleemi kohta.

seega skeptitkud, alarmistid, eitajad, aktivistid, oprtunistid jne käituvad vastavalt enda psühholoogilisele mudelile ja kliimaprobleem toob hetkel väga hästi välja vaatleja tüübi.
November 25, 2009 12:05 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

R ja konspiratsioon?? :))))))))))))
November 25, 2009 12:10 AM

Randroid said...

DT, täpsustage palun oma küsimust.

C-l on selles osas õigus, et mina olen algusest peale olnud "skeptik", tulenevalt oma "vaatleja tüübist" ja C on olnud algusest peale maailmalõpukuulutaja, tulenevalt tema tüübist :)

DT erutus esimest korda alles sõna "konspiratsioon" peale (teemat arvatavasti eriti mitte valdamata), tulenevalt tema tüübist :)
November 25, 2009 12:25 AM

Cinoom said...

täpselt

ja mida me nüüd siis siin globaliseerunud demokraatias teha saame? saame kokku ja hakkame arutama? ühiselt hääletama vastavalt oma "vaatleja tüübile"?

minu seisukoht on et neid vastuvõetavaid otsuseid, mida näeb ette "teaduslik mudel" pole võimalik selles maailmas teha. ja neid ei tehtagi. tegelikud tingimused ehk kliima ise pole veel märku piisavalt andnud.

otsus ehk valik tuleb väljast, siis kui keha hakkab märku anda, seni aga tuleb vastavalt oma "vaatlejatüübile" saatanlikku teksti produtseerida.
November 25, 2009 12:33 AM

Randroid said...

see on minu meelest täpselt skeptiku seisukoht - kliima kohta piisavad teadmised ja mudelid puuduvad, andmed onm halvad ja inimvõimete ennustamisoskusel on antud valdkonnas üsna kitsad piirid. AGW advokaadid pushivad oma poliitilist agendat ja nõuavad projektile suuremaid maksutulusid. osad skeptikud esiteks ootaksid sellega (kliima pole veel piisavalt märku andnud), teised skeptikud ei ole põhimõtteliselt nõus taolise hüsteerilise tsentraalse ressursijuhtimisega.
November 25, 2009 12:39 AM

Cinoom said...

ja eriti huvitav on jälgida kuidas skeptilised tüübid on järsku haaratud konspiratsiooniteooriasse. mitmed skepitkud on ka ise sellele tähelepanu juhtinud, et me peame olema ettevaatlikud, muidu minetame oma skeptilisuse ehk meist saavad uued tüübiga vaatlejad.
November 25, 2009 12:40 AM

Randroid said...

mulle tundub, et see on valdavalt semantiline probleem, kas kasutame K-sõna või mitte :)
November 25, 2009 12:45 AM

Cinoom said...

aga kuidas käitub arst. ka temal on oma mudel inimese tervise kohta. ka tema on teadlane. ka tema mudel on ebatäiuslik. kuid ta peab vastu võtma otsuseid ja ravima inimesi. kuid hoolimata ebatäiuslikust mudelist on iga eksimus karistatav.

kuidas raviks skeptik kedagi? kardan et tema ei hakkaks vastutust võtma.

kliimamudel on ebatäiuslik ja seda ei saa muuta. seda teavad kõik teadlased. probleem on ju selles et sellelt mudelilt tahetakse midagi üleloomulikku. kuid see ei tühista asjaolu et inimene seda siiski ei soovi. meie arengu ajalugu seisnebki selliste mudelite arendamises. selles mõttes pole kliimamudel midagi enneolematut vaid tehnoloogilise arenguga on jõutu niikaugele et on võimalik nii massiivset andmehulka töödelda.
November 25, 2009 12:46 AM

Cinoom said...

skeptiku seisukoht on selline: tõde pole veel piisavalt küps, seega ei saa otsustada.

kuid minu kogemus elust küll selline pole. inimesed ei võta vastu otsuseid tõestel alustel.
November 25, 2009 12:49 AM

Randroid said...

ja teeme vahet konspiratsioonil ja konspiratsiooniTEOORIAL. praegu käib jutt konkreetsetest tõenditest (e-mailid), kas need näitavad konspiratsiooni või mitte. tundub, et konspiratsioon võib olla liiga tugeva tähendusväljaga sõna selle tegevuse jaoks. eks ta ole tavapärane teadlaste-akadeemikute tegevus grantide kindlustamiseks.

klassikalistel konspiratsiooniteooriatel tavaliselt tõendeid ei ole (juudi pankurite e-mailid).
November 25, 2009 12:49 AM

Randroid said...

konspiratsiooni asemel rõhutavad skeptikud alltoodud võrdlust :)

NOW…

“[L]egitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre [the target of much of the criticism in the CRU Papers] who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”

THEN…

“Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as “false and contrary to Scripture” in February 1616,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.”–wiki

Same old crap…different century, different church.
November 25, 2009 12:59 AM

Randroid said...

ja ka natuke meelelahutust eriti rõõmsatelt überskeptikutelt:

"I think "Hide the decline" is a pretty hard phrase to "interpret" in any benign way, and a pretty easy way for anyone to get up to speed with what what's going on. It's already a song (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012722.html), and a T-shirt (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/wear_the_decline/)."

:)
November 25, 2009 1:03 AM

Cinoom said...

mulle tundub McIntyre võrdlus Galileoga meelevaldne kuid sobib ideaalselt skeptikute maailmapilti.

kuid milline on see üldtunnustatud maailmapilt. ikka selline et mitte midagi pole viga ja võib samamoodi jätkata, mitte et oma käitumist või arusaamu peaks muutma.

pigem on minu silmis "alarmistid" uued galileod, kes proovivad vanu arusaame muuta.

ärme unusta et viimane küsitlus näitas et kuskil 30% küsitlejatest arvab et "midagi on viga". seega on ikka eitamine enamuse teema.
November 25, 2009 1:15 AM

Cinoom said...

ehk

R-skeptik: meil pole piisavalt tõeseid tõendeid, et võtta vastu otsuseid

C-aktivist: ma ei vaja tõde, et otsustada

DT-konspiraator: ma ei saa teid usaldada, siin on mängus konspiratsioon

kuidas need kolm vaatlejat saavad võtta vastu ÜHE otsuse?
November 25, 2009 1:27 AM

Randroid said...

sa vahetasid tegelikult teemat: "käitumist või arusaamu peaks muutma" on vist tõesti aktivistide (tüübist tulenev) alusprogramm, ja kliimat kasutatakse selle õigustuseks.

McIntyre võrdlus Galileoga oli tehtud teaduse kontekstis. minu andmetel on koguaeg väidetud, et "science is settled" jne. kliimateaduse kontekstis. on mul valed andmed? enamus teadlasi on koguaeg eitanud soojenemist ja üksikud aktivistid üritavad statismi kummutada?
November 25, 2009 1:32 AM

Randroid said...

"kuidas need kolm vaatlejat saavad võtta vastu ÜHE otsuse?"

selles olukorras jääb peale aktivisti otsus, tema on ju ainuke, kes tegutseb. kuna aga definitsioonist tulenevalt on tal enamus aega vale (reaalsust mittearvestav) tegutsemismudel, siis võib eeldada, et ka tulemus ei vasta enamus juhtudel oodatule :)
November 25, 2009 1:42 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

Küsimust ei olnudki, oli üllatusega segatud elavnemine, kui Ri seostati konspiratsioonikahtlusega. :))) Teema mulle nii sügavat huvi ei paku ja pole ka aega sellega väga tegeleda, tõele au andes, ei ole ma ka neid süvaanalüüse läbi lugenud. Vabandust.
November 25, 2009 1:48 AM

Cinoom said...

olen sinu mõtterongist maas.

minu jaoks on probleem lihtne.

kolm vaatlejate, R-skeptik C-aktivist DT-konspiraator, vaatlevad orbiidilt maad. jää sulab. vesi tõuseb. maa-ala väheneb. need on vaatlusfaktid. mida järeldada? mida teha?

koostatakse mudel, et väljaselgitada muutuste tagamaad. kas muutus on ajutine või mitte?

mudeli ennustused osutuvad aga hoopis tagasihoidlikemaks kui reaalsed faktid. vesi tõuseb veelgi kiiremini.

C-aktivist ütleb: peame midagi tegema
R-skepitik ütleb: mudelit ei saa usaldada
DT-konspiraator ütleb: teid ei saa usaldada

ja vesi tõuseb. see on fakt. rohkem pole siin midagi. ilma igasuguse draamata.

ja mudel on korrupeerunud, ebatäiuslik, al-goorine jne.
November 25, 2009 1:51 AM

Cinoom said...

nasa vaatlusandmed orbiidilt:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
November 25, 2009 1:55 AM

Cinoom said...

DT vastus on tegelikult hea ja ma arvan et kuulub statistiliselt sinna gruppi mis määrab enamuse arvamuse. ehk enamust ei huvitagi. ja ärge saage minust valesti aru, see on täiesti arusaadav ja ok minu jaoks.

mind huvitab lihtsat inimese eksistentsiaalne seis 21 sajandil kus meil on miljonid mudelid mis tulevikku ennustavad.
November 25, 2009 1:58 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

C-selgita mulle lühidalt, ilma linkide ja viideteta, mis või kes on süüdi, et vesi tõuseb/kliima muutub ja mida peaks tegema?
November 25, 2009 2:00 AM

Randroid said...

mis meil veetõusust maal kui me orbiidil asume?

ok, me asume Eestis. DT elab veele kõige lähemal. Mida vaatlused Russalka lähedal näitavad? vesi tõuseb? Kui jah, tuleb kõrgemale kolida, näiteks lasnamäele.

eelnev on muidugi ironiseeriv utreering, aga sinu mõtteharjutus on ka utreering. mida järeldada sõltub sellest miks vesi tõuseb? inimese tõttu? mida teha sõltub sellest mis on meie võimuses ja mis see tegevus maksab. aktivist on maailmalõpu stsenaariumist hullunud ja sööstab tegevusse, aga kas see lahendab probleemi? (kas vee tõusmine on üldse probleem?)
November 25, 2009 2:03 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

Teemat eriti mitte valdamata, olen pigem kuulnud seisukohti, et vesi tõuseks nii või naa, sõltumata inimtegevusest, inimtegevuse osa kliimasoojenemises on mingite arvamuste järgi 1/3.

Osad paradiisisaared otsivad suht aktiivselt maad, mida osta samas kliimavöötmes, kuhu saaks kogu elanikkonna mingis pikemas perspektiivis ümberkolida. Sitt värk selles mõttes...

Võibolla seekõik üleval pool kirjas ka, aga need minuni jõudnud uudised.
November 25, 2009 2:12 AM

Cinoom said...

DT.
kusjuures süüdlane on isegi teisejärguline. küsimus on parameetrite muutmises mudelis niimoodi, et saavutatakse soovitud tulemus. seejärel vaadatakse mida peab tegema et selliseid muudatusi saavutada. kahjuks pole mitte midagi muud muuta kui oma käitumist. ehk kui sul läheb toas külmaks siis sa lähed keerad kuskilt mingit "nuppu". sellised "nuppe" on suutnud inimene teha suurel hulgal ja neid ta timmib kogu aeg. "nupu" keeramine on aga kulu. ja osa inimesi ei usalda üldse "nuppe".

R.
sinu vastus näitab hästi milline on suhtumine veetõusumudelisse. veetõus on suur probleem.

see süüdlase otsimine on tüüpiline probleemi eitamine. asi pole süüdlases vaid soovis keskkonda kontrollida. kes on selles süüdi et sul kodus toas soe on?

asi on ju selles et inimene näeb tänu tehnoloogia arengule tervet maakera kui oma tuba ja tahab seda kontrollima hakata. vastavalt sellele kuidas temal parem on.
November 25, 2009 2:19 AM

Cinoom said...

maratonijooksja lõikab oma tossudel paelad võimalikult lühikeseks et 43 kilomeetri jooksul mõned sekundid võita. vahet pole et lõppajast see on äärmiselt tühine protsent. kuid ta saab seda kontrollida ja ta teeb seda.
November 25, 2009 2:23 AM

Randroid said...

oot, see on siis kindel, et veetõusu põhjustab "nupukeeramine", toa soojendamine? ja oma käitumist muutes (ei keera nuppu, külmetan), veetõus täiesti peatub ja probleemi enam ei ole?

kahtlemata on veetõus mõnes geograafilises kohas suur probleem, aga kuidas minu toa temperatuur mõjutab fakti, et Rotterdam on ehitatud mitu meetrit veepiirist allapoole?

mis see maratonijooksja siia puutub? jookseb, mitte ei sõida autoga? :)
November 25, 2009 2:28 AM

Cinoom said...

raske on aga üritan :)

toa soojus ja nupp olid metafoorid mitte süüdlased

jooksja on metafoor, mitte süüdlane

aga ma saan aru et siin on käigus see võimas purustamatu iroonia ja seega jätame vähemalt hetkeks asja sest muidu jääb selline mulje et mina olen siin mingi propageerija ja teie ülicoolid iroonikud ning see pole minu huvides.
November 25, 2009 2:33 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

C, kui sa ennast järgmine kord silmini täis jood, siis ei tohi enam soojas vannis ennast väljamagada ;)
November 25, 2009 2:34 AM

Cinoom said...

vastupidi, just peangi soojas vannis magama sest see parandab minu enesetunnet. miks ma muidu vanni lähen?
November 25, 2009 2:37 AM

Randroid said...

aga ilma irooniata: ma tean küll seda "käitumise muutmise" argumenti, see on ideoloogiline programm, tahetakse paremat, vastutustundlikumat ühiskonda, revolutsiooni suhtumises jne. kliimaga on siin väga vähe pistmist.
November 25, 2009 2:38 AM

Cinoom said...

"kes" tahab?

ja miks see "kes" tahab?
November 25, 2009 2:52 AM

Cinoom said...

veel selgituseks:

C räägib siin postis "Examined Life" all teaduslike mudelite arengust, mis on võimaldanud keskkonda kontrollida ning kolida mugavasse toasooja.

ma ei räägi süüdlastest, konspiratsioonist ja maailmalõpust.

ma räägin sellisest asjast nagu kuidas hiinlased kutsusid teist korda inimkonna ajaloos vihmasaju esile, tulistades pilve mingit kemikaali.

ma räägin kontrollist, mudelist, korrast ja kaosest.
November 25, 2009 4:13 AM

Randroid said...

mkay, ma sain aru, et me räägime

a) kas toimub globaalne soojenemine või kliimamuutus
b) kas globaalne soojenemine või kliimamuutus on olulises osas põhjustatud inimtegevusest
c) kui b) on tõene, siis kas see on halb (inimestele endile)
d) kui on halb, siis mida on mõistlik teha, et ei oleks nii halb

pärast arutasime sellest, kas hetke peavoolu kliimateaduse väited kliima kohta on adekvaatsed e-kirja skandaali valguses
November 25, 2009 4:29 AM

Cinoom said...

sinu väljatoodud punktid on minu pädevusest väljas. mina saan nende kohta vaid teadlaste arvamusi lugeda.

kuid minu enda poolt välja toodud teemal saan ma iseseisvamalt ja abstraktsemalt mõelda.
November 25, 2009 4:33 AM

Cinoom said...

e-kirjade skandaal on puhas popcorn ja coca-cola, mitte sellepärast et neil puudub tõepühi vaid järjekordselt saab seda lihtsalt emotsionaalselt jälgida.
November 25, 2009 4:39 AM

Randroid said...

"väljatoodud punktid on minu pädevusest väljas. mina saan nende kohta vaid teadlaste arvamusi lugeda."

aga siin oligi kokkupuutepunkt e-mailide teemaga. ei ole lihtsalt emotsionaalne jälgimine, vaid on küsimus, milliste teadlaste arvamusi lugeda/usaldada. hetkel mul ühest vastust pole, aga see teema mind huvitab.
November 25, 2009 4:41 AM

Cinoom said...

teema võib huvitada aga milline oleks sinu satanistliku teksti panus sellesse teemasse.
November 25, 2009 4:44 AM

Randroid said...

ei saa aru küsimusest :)

mind huvitab, kuidas (kliimaga) asjad tegelikult on. mis sind huvitab?
November 25, 2009 4:55 AM

Cinoom said...

ma ei usu et sind "kliima" tegelikult huvitab. pigem ikka kas skeptiline hoiak on ennast õigustanud.

mind huvitab kuidas globaliseerumine ja globaalsete mudelite tekkimine inimese arengut mõjutab. mitte mudeli auditeerimine.

kas pole mitte irooniline et skeptikute webilehe pealkirjas on sõna "audit", blogiaudiitor?
:)

siit ka mõlema panus tekstide genereerimisse.
November 25, 2009 5:23 AM

Randroid said...

teine asi mis mind huvitab on see, kuidas oleks võimalik C-ga üldse mingigi teema üle arutada. kõik katsed millestki konkreetsest rääkida lähevad rappa, kõik küsimused tühistatakse põgenedes meeletusse abstraktsiooni (kontroll, mudel, kord ja kaos) või lükatakse tagasi küsija psühholoogilist tausta oletades või motiivides kaheldes. kõige viimane sõnapaar on alati "saatanlik tekst", mis lõpetab koos smailiga edaspidise arutelu :)
November 25, 2009 5:33 AM

Cinoom said...

absoluutselt mitte. mille üle sa tahad konkreetselt arutada seoses siis näiteks kliimaga.

omast arust olen oma seisukoha küll selgeks teinud.

mis su konkreetne küsimus/probleem on, ma pole veel aru saanud?
November 25, 2009 5:38 AM

Randroid said...

a) kas toimub globaalne soojenemine või kliimamuutus
b) kas globaalne soojenemine või kliimamuutus on olulises osas põhjustatud inimtegevusest
c) kui b) on tõene, siis kas see on halb (inimestele endile)
d) kui on halb, siis mida on mõistlik teha, et ei oleks nii halb

jutt algas sellest, et zizek näis toetavat inimtekkelise kliimasoojenemise hüpoteesi, mis minu arvates ei ole lõplikult selge (st. olin lugenud kliimaskeptikute teksti, millest lähtun, mitte ei tea ise midagi). C-seisukoht?

teine teema - isegi kui soojeneb inimtekkeliselt - mida teha? siin lähtuksin mina lomborgi analüüsist (kes tunnistab kliimasoojenemist, kui õigesti aru saan) C-seisukoht?
November 25, 2009 5:46 AM

Cinoom said...

kõik nendele küsimustele on vastused Copenhageni raportis koos koostajate kommentaaridega siin

väga põnev
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/copenhagen/
November 25, 2009 5:48 AM

Randroid said...

ps: minu seisukohad võivad homme muutuda (kui olen midagi uut lugenud)
November 25, 2009 5:49 AM

Cinoom said...

teadlased on seisukohal et kliima soojeneb. minu seisukoht ühtib teadlastega.
November 25, 2009 5:50 AM

Cinoom said...

ja ühtib selle tõttu et mul ei jää muud üle kui neid usaldada. R-seisukoht teadlaste usaldamises?

auditeerida teadlasi?
November 25, 2009 5:52 AM

Randroid said...

kliima soojeneb inimtekkeliselt? sh. viimase 10 aasta jooksul?

ok, võibolla tõesti, ei vaidle. aga c-seisukoht lahenduste osas?
November 25, 2009 5:53 AM

Cinoom said...

raporti kokkuvõte:

The most significant recent climate change findings are:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
November 25, 2009 5:56 AM

Cinoom said...

ma soovitan tõsiselt lingi kommentaare lugeda
November 25, 2009 6:01 AM

Randroid said...

teadlasi peab pidevalt auditeerima (peer-review, uued empiirilised andmed, uus tehnoloogia, uued uuringud), see on ka teaduslikku meetodisse sisse kirjutatud.

kliimateaduses osas on esitatud kahtlusi selle protsessi toimivuses, võibolla on see kahtlus alusetu, eks see selgub.
November 25, 2009 6:02 AM

Cinoom said...

R seisukoht teadlaste usaldamise suhtes????

C-usaldab teadlasi
November 25, 2009 6:04 AM

Cinoom said...

oleme ikka konkreetsed
November 25, 2009 6:04 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

ahah, Grazin vs. Riisalu 2 päeva liiga vara :)
November 25, 2009 6:07 AM

Cinoom said...

mind väga huvitab kuidas on R usaldusega selle raporti vastu.

kas R usaldab teadlasi.

C-usaldab teadlasi
November 25, 2009 6:10 AM

Randroid said...

konkreetselt: R-usaldab teaduslikku meetodit kui parimat olemasolevat meetodit välise reaalsuse kohta järeldusi teha. see ei täheda, et mingil ajahetkel valitsev teaduslik konsensus on alati parim võimalik (nii ei olekski ju kunagi edasiminekut). kliimateaduse osas on tõstatatud kahtlusi, mis minu meelest väärivad uurimist, enne kui maailmalõpu ootuses meeletu-meeletu hunnik raha ära kulutada. ei tasu teha järeldusi, et samal põhimõttel peaks nüüd evolutsioonis kahtlema, ei pea ja ei saagi.

teadlasi tasub usaldada sama palju kui kõikide muude elukutsete esindajaid, sh. isegi audiitoreid. kõik inimesed on omakasupüüdlikud enesepetjatest silmakirjateenrid :)
November 25, 2009 6:11 AM

Cinoom said...

selles mõttes kui sinu seisukoht "nende teadlaste" ja selle raporti suhtes on skeptiline ehk sa ei usalda siis siin me lahkneme täielikult

sest mina usaldan neid kuna ei näe mõtet nendes kahelda - see on minu jaoks üle jõu ja mõttetu
November 25, 2009 6:14 AM

Cinoom said...

kas R usaldab Kopenhaageni viimast raportit, välja antud 24 november 2009?

C-usaldab seda raportit

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/default.html
November 25, 2009 6:15 AM

Cinoom said...

kes nüüd abstraktsooni kaldub?

usaldad või mitte ja rahu majas?
November 25, 2009 6:16 AM

Randroid said...

c on väga efektiivne, juba eilne raport läbi töötatud ja c-usaldatud :)

ma tõesti ei ole jõudnud uurida ja jään praegu vastuse võlgu. aga konkreetsuse eest c-plusspunktid.
November 25, 2009 6:22 AM

Cinoom said...

minu seisukoht on kogu aeg see olnud.

ma olen need läbi lugenud ja eeldanud et see on mõistetav.

kõik lingid on ammust ilma postitatud ja minu poolt läbi loetud.

C-USALDAB!

ja siit mu küsimus MIS EDASI
November 25, 2009 6:26 AM

Cinoom said...

ma olen konkreetne nagu saabel. MIS EDASI!?!
November 25, 2009 6:26 AM

Randroid said...

jep, see oli minu teine küsimus.

aga see pole enam kliimateadus, vaid poliitika. keelame CO2 ära? ärme sellel teemal hetkel jätka, ootame parem edaspidiseid teadusuudiseid nii skeptikute kui ka peavoolu poolt. lõpetame tänaseks
November 25, 2009 6:30 AM

Cinoom said...

asi on selles et ma ei viitsi lingitud tekste kogu aeg ümber siia kirjutada, seega minu konkreetsus oli varjatud.

veelkord, ma olen konkreetne nagu saabel.
November 25, 2009 6:31 AM

Cinoom said...

psühholoogiast ja olukorra keerukusest.

ennem kui G usa poole ajama pani, rääkisin talle "emaili skandaalist". G rääkis ka sellest vennale kes nüüd mulle vaimustunult emaili saadab palvega infot selle kohta ette kliimasoojenemine on bullshit.

vastutasuks annab oma lingi, animatsiooni, kus visatakse iroonilist nalja globaalse soojenemise üle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyO8_as7k_0

kuidas siit edasi?

kas R ja DT usaldavad 24. novembril 2009 aastal välja antud Kopenhaageni Raportit või mitte?

mingi aja pärast tasub uuesti Zizeki jutt üle vaadata ja asja üle mõelda.
November 25, 2009 7:26 AM

Randroid said...

huvitav klipp - mulle tundus, et seal tehakse nalja skeptikute üle :)

G vennale saada ikka see video:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012722.html
November 25, 2009 7:41 AM

Cinoom said...

youtube search: global warming

siis saad aru milline on üldine emotsioon.

ja ma tahaks küsida kõigi nende inimeste käest - MIDA ja KEDA TÄPSELT TE IKKAGI USUTE?!?


C-usaldab teadlasi
November 25, 2009 7:48 AM

Cinoom said...

fantastiline video
seda vaadata samal ajal kui lugeda seda raportit on parim lühis mida ükski maailmakodanik saab kogeda.

nagu öeldakse, lühis toob esile selle mida sa salaja kogu aeg teadnud oled.
November 25, 2009 7:50 AM

Cinoom said...

mis sa arvad milline meem paremini levib

Hide The Decline video

või

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report

:)
November 25, 2009 7:55 AM

Cinoom said...

vaata seda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2p1laTxJfo

puhas emotsioon
November 25, 2009 7:58 AM

Cinoom said...

olles lugenud kliimateadlaste vastuse emaili skandaalile
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

olles lugenud kliimateadlaste kopenhaageni raporti
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/copenhagen/

olles vaadanud emotsionaalseid ja iroonilisi youtube videoid

julgen arvata, et nende ennustatud stsenaariumi ei ole võimalik ära hoida sest tundub et me ei ole tõesti võimelised sellist asja uskuma

C-usaldab teadlasi kuni lõpuni
November 25, 2009 8:23 AM

Cinoom said...

Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123/ts_afp/australianzealandantarcticaclimateiceberg
November 25, 2009 8:52 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

DT-usaldab üldiselt teadlasi
November 25, 2009 9:46 AM

Randroid said...

R-usaldab üldiselt teadlasi
November 25, 2009 9:48 AM

Randroid said...

ja vaata kui ilusa nimega sait: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=107

kahjuks puudub pädevus hinnata nende teadlaste usaldusväärsust: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
November 25, 2009 10:01 AM

Cinoom said...

enamil kliimateadlasi on seisukohal, et kliima soojeneb ja selle peamiseks põhjuseks on inimtegevus
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

enne Kopenhaageni alustatakse kohtuprotsessi NASA vastu
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f

C-usub teadlasi

mida R usub?
November 26, 2009 2:04 AM

Cinoom said...

C usub, et Kopenhaageni kliimaraport peegeldab maailma kliimateadlaste seisukohta hetke ja tuleviku kohta.

C usub, et teadlased on olnud ausad ja käitunud parimate teaduslike põhimõtete järgi.

C usub teadlasi.

Mida R usub?
November 26, 2009 2:17 AM

Randroid said...

R usub, et Kopenhaageni kliimaraport peegeldab maailma kliimateadlaste seisukohta hetke ja tuleviku kohta.

R usub, et mõnede teadlaste aususes on hetkel võimalik kahelda, e-mailide valguses. Loodan, et oskan varsti kujundada täpsema seisukoha, kas see on kuidagi uurimistulemusi mõjutanud või mitte. Kui poleks e-maile, oleks mul palju raskem oma skepsist põhjendada ja peaksin sellest arvatavasti loobuma.

R usub (lõppudelõpuks) teadlasi.
November 26, 2009 2:58 AM

Cinoom said...

mida R usub kui kahtleb mõnede teadlaste aususes seoses e-mailidega?

C ei usu et kliimateadlased on teadlikult ja pahatahtlikult andmeid muutnud et tekitada globaalset paanikat mille tagajärjel rikastuda.

mida R usub seoses "skandaaliga"?
November 26, 2009 3:16 AM

Randroid said...

R on äraootaval seisukohal kliimamudelite adekvaatsuse osas
November 26, 2009 4:21 AM

Cinoom said...

kummas tekstis peitub emotsioon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M

mida usub R?
November 26, 2009 4:21 AM

Cinoom said...

mis on pahatahtlike kliimateadlaste tegutsemise motiiv mida R usuks?
November 26, 2009 4:22 AM

Cinoom said...

C ei usu et kliimateadlased on teadlikult ja pahatahtlikult andmeid muutnud et tekitada globaalset paanikat mille tagajärjel rikastuda.
November 26, 2009 4:23 AM

Randroid said...

mind huvitab, kas:

a) meil on (esimest korda ajaloos) mudelid mis suudavad ennustada kliimat hetkel väidetud täpsusega
b) meil on mudelid, mis on tehtud teadlikult ja heatahtlikult parimate võimaluste piires, kuid mis alusandmete ja mudeli enda piiratuse tõttu ei suuda siiski kliimat väidetud täpsusega ennustada (minu arusaama järgi on see siiani nii olnud)
c) meil on mudelid, mis on viimasel ajal teadlikult kallutatud teatud tulemuse suunas, tulenevalt andmete valimisest ja mudelist endast

täna ja praegu tõesti ei julge ühtegi versiooni R-USKUDA, sest ei suuda netis vahet teha õigel ja valel infol. kui kõik skeptikud oleksid hullud idioodid (a la Zeitgeist) oleks asi väga lihtne, aga pealtnäha täiesti mõistlikud inimesed on skeptikud, mis muidugi ei tähenda, et neil peaks selles küsimuses õigus olema. tuleb veel tööd teha :)
November 26, 2009 4:51 AM

Cinoom said...

mis on variant C käitumismotiiv mida R usub?
November 26, 2009 5:01 AM

Cinoom said...

milline on R-konspiratsiooni, millesse R-usub?
November 26, 2009 5:02 AM

Cinoom said...

24 novemmbril 2009 aastal välja antud Kopenhaageni Kliimaraportis väidavad kõik teadlased, et neil on väga tugevad tõendid selle kohta, et inimtegevus on globaalse soojenemise põhjuseks.

kas R usub kliimateadlasi?

millist konspiratsiooniteooriat R usub (raha, poliitika jne)?

C usub kliimateadlasi
C ei usu globaalsesse vandenõusse
November 26, 2009 5:09 AM

Randroid said...

kui jäi arusaamatuks: "täna ja praegu tõesti ei julge ühtegi versiooni R-USKUDA, sest ei suuda netis vahet teha õigel ja valel infol."

motiivid saavad olla ainult inimlikud, näiteks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

huvitav case on ka see:
http://johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/Math/plasticfantastic.html

aga ma arvan, et kliimateaduse osas siin paralleele vist tõmmata ei saa.
November 26, 2009 5:10 AM

Cinoom said...

24 oktoobril 2009 aastal, selle posti kommenteerimisel, väitis R et pole üldsegi kindel kas globaalne soojenemine on ja kas inimene on selle põhjustajaks.

mida uskus R sellel hetkel?
kas R usub täna teistmoodi või on jätkuvalt skeptiline?

kas 24 oktooberil 2009 aastal uskus R täpselt samamoodi kliimateaduse tulemustesse nagu ta usub 26 novemberil 2009 aastal?
November 26, 2009 5:23 AM

Randroid said...

jätkuvalt skeptiline (mis ei tähenda, et R-USUB vastupidist)

vrdl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
November 26, 2009 5:31 AM

Randroid said...

seetõttu kliimateema ongi minu jaoks huvitav, et tahaks rohkem infot, mille alusel midagi arvata. kui usk oleks kindel, siis vist nii huvitav enam ei oleks.

näiteks ei ole sama huvitavad teemad, kas:
* jumal on olemas
* evolutsioon toimub
* kes põhjustas 9/11
* kas homoöpaatia toimib
* kas vaktsiinid on ravimitööstuse vandenõu
* imeravitsejad tegelikult ravivad
* jne.

seal on R-usk majas :)
November 26, 2009 5:41 AM

Cinoom said...

26 november 2009 on R-skeptiline kliimateadlaste seisukohta suhtes.

26 november 2009 usub C-kliimateadlasi

C-usub teadlasi
R-?

C usub teadlasi, kuna teaduslikus meetodis endas on skeptitsism sisse kodeeritud, mis tõttu ei pea C enam skeptikat rakendama. Pealegi puuduvad C teadmised kliimateadlaste seisukohtade ründamiseks.

R-?
November 26, 2009 5:45 AM

Randroid said...

C-usub teatud teadlasi, teatud teadlasi C ei usu.
R ei oska (hetkel) otsustada, keda uskuda, keda mitte.

näiteks seesama tüüp, kes ülalpool toodud lingis arvustas ühte science-fraud teemalist raamatut, kirjutas kliimast nii:

"I've never had any illusions that scientists are other than human, often wrong and silly, and occasionally guilty of deliberate fraud. (I recently wrote about a recent major scientific fraud, and there have of course been many others.)

Science is a human enterprise, so that's what you'd expect.
You'd particularly expect it in a field where (1) the data is extraordinarily difficult to collect and interpret, and (2) big political interests are vested in the results. Climate change meets both criteria. I have stayed clear of the topic for just those reasons. I'm pretty sure I have never written anything about GW. When it first came to prominence I looked through some of the claims, said to myself: "Youse guys are going to measure the mean temperature of the entire atmosphere to a tenth of a degree, then make corresponding estimates for twenty, fifty, . . . years ago? Uh-huh." I also noticed the things everyone else who looked at the numbers noticed: e.g. that they showed the planet actually cooling from 1945 to 1965, when big swathes of the world were industrializing like gangbusters and pumping out corresponding amounts of CO2. Uh . . . huh."

Tegemist ei ole teadlasega, järelikult ei saa teda uskuda? Ta valetab? Eksib? Ma ei oska hinnata...
November 26, 2009 5:58 AM

Cinoom said...

C usub teadlasi

milliseid teadlasi C ei usu?

R kaldub teemast kõrvale
November 26, 2009 6:05 AM

Cinoom said...

C usub teadlasi, kuna teaduslikus meetodis endas on skeptitsism sisse kodeeritud, mis tõttu ei pea C enam skeptikat rakendama. Pealegi puuduvad C teadmised kliimateadlaste seisukohtade ründamiseks.

R-?
November 26, 2009 6:07 AM

Randroid said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
November 26, 2009 6:07 AM

Cinoom said...

C ei usu teadlastesse sellepärast et nad oleksid täiuslikud.
November 26, 2009 6:08 AM

Cinoom said...

kas R teab millise osaga ja kuidas on Kopenhaagnei Kliimaraportis nendega arvestatud?
November 26, 2009 6:09 AM

Cinoom said...

miks R ei rakenda skeptikat nende peal?
November 26, 2009 6:10 AM

Cinoom said...

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:

48% of Americans think most climate scientists do not agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 53% think climate scientists do not agree that human activities are a major cause of that warming (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009). A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent believing in human involvement.

Doran and Zimmerman conclude:

Debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

In another smaller survey via email, Brown, Pielke, and Anaan (2007) contacted 1807 climate scientists and received responses from 140 of those scientists. In the poll scientists were asked to discuss their opion about the role of human-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and how climate science was represented in the IPCC's WG1 Report. The response is summarized below:

* No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that "global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate" - [0%].
* 82% expressed the opinion that the IPCC WG1 Report was accurate [65%] or actually underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2-induced AGW and the associated risks [15%].
* The most often chosen response in the survey was "The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence."

R-?
November 26, 2009 6:14 AM

Cinoom said...

48% of Americans think most climate scientists do not agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 53% think climate scientists do not agree that human activities are a major cause of that warming (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009).


A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.


C-usub teadlasi

R-?
November 26, 2009 6:25 AM

Cinoom said...

The Union of Concerned Scientists, in their expose titled: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air - How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (2007) show how ExxonMobil waged the most successful and sophisticated global warming denial campaign since that of Big Tobacco's campaign against the dangers of smoking. In their 64 page document, they show that ExxonMobil:

1. Manufactured uncertainty about climate change by raising doubts about even the most certain science.
2. Used a tactic known as information laundering by using seemingly independent front groups that pretended to be doing science but were instead just waging public relations for the company. Virtually all of these front groups publicize the work of the same people and these people typically serve as board members or scientific advisors for each of these groups. This tactic creates the illusion that there are many organizations and many people with doubts about global warming.
3. Funneled about $16 million to these front groups to manufacture this uncertainty.
4. Paid guilt-less scientists to cherry-pick data and misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific evidence whereby these scientists then used this misinformstion to persuade the general public and the media that there was still no scientific consensus.
5. Shifted the focus away from global warming action by questioning if the data was "sound science".
6. Used its extraordinary access to the Bush Administration to block regulation and to shape governmental communications about global warming.
November 26, 2009 6:39 AM

Cinoom said...

Global Warming Denial Machine

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html
November 26, 2009 6:43 AM

Cinoom said...

48% Ameeriklastest arvab, et teadlased pole ühel meelel globaalse kliima suhtes

96% kliimateadlasi on ühel meelel

C-usub teadlasi

R-?
November 26, 2009 6:44 AM

Randroid said...

nagu ma aru saan, siis 10% teadlastest ei usu, et keskmine temperatuur on tõusnud alates 1800 ja 18% ei usu, et inimesel on olnud oluline mõju. Nii et on ruumi skeptikaks.

Nagu ammu öeldud: R on äraootaval seisukohal. Aga ma olen nõus järeldama, et suurem tõenäosus on sellel, et toimub soojenemine ja inimesel on roll.

Nüüd on järgmised küsimused:
* kas soojenemine on peatatav (inimtegevusega)?
* kas see on mõistlik?
November 26, 2009 6:52 AM

Cinoom said...

R usub siis kui on 100% tõenäosus.

OK
November 26, 2009 6:53 AM

Cinoom said...

kas R-skeptik või R-eitaja

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
November 26, 2009 6:57 AM

Randroid said...

kas tõesti ei suuda skeptik/eitaja klassifikatsiooni minu postidest järeldada?
November 26, 2009 6:59 AM

Cinoom said...

"Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement."

R-?
November 26, 2009 7:10 AM

Randroid said...

täpselt nii. kliimateaduse tulemuse osas ei ole mul mingit ideoloogilist või psühholoogilist eelarvamust, on nii nagu on. hetkel mina isiklikult ei ole saavutanud taset, kus on "confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." see on minu probleem.

ideoloogiline puutepunkt tuleb minu puhul kliima poliitilise dimensiooniga, ka kopenhaagen on ju poliitiline, mitte teaduslik sündmus. ehk kui oletame, et teadus on rääkinud ja R-skeptikust saab R-uskuja inimtekkelise soojenemise osas, mida siis edasi teha?

* kas soojenemine on peatatav (inimtegevusega)?
* kas see on mõistlik?
November 26, 2009 7:17 AM

Randroid said...

ja muidugi on siin teadust poliitikast võimatu eristada, üks sõltub teisest ja vastupidi.
November 26, 2009 7:20 AM

Cinoom said...

kas R räägib olukorrast, et on ootel kuni teaduslik konsesus on saavutatud 100% ja kadunud on igasugune skeptitsism kliimateadlaste seisukohtade suhtes.

kas R on sellise olukorra ootel?

kui jah, kas R omab samasugust varasemat kogemust kus ta on jälginud teadvustatult täieliku skeptitsismi kadumist mingi teadusliku seisukoha suhtes.

kui ta ei oma sellist varasemat kogemust siis milline oleks analoog millele R viitaks?

või teostab R ise teaduslikku skeptitsismi kliimamudeli kallal?

mida R ootab, mida R teeb täpselt?

ma arvan et varsti saab edasi liikuda kuid natuke tuleb veel tsementeerida arusaama, kes ikkagi mida teeb.
November 26, 2009 10:02 AM

Randroid said...

ma ei oska ausalt öeldes rohkem midagi seletada, oma seisukoha olen enda meelest edasi andnud.

ootame natuke, kui kopenhaagen läbi ja e-maili skandaal natuke settinud, siis tuleme teema juurde tagasi.
November 26, 2009 2:31 PM

Randroid said...

muuseas, olen Kopenhaagenis 7-9 detsember, täpselt siis, kui konverents algab. Teen blogisse sündmuskohalt otselülituse, võtsin kalli raha eest üheks ööks kesklinna hotelli :)
November 27, 2009 12:46 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

http://www.ohtuleht.ee/index.aspx?id=356536
November 27, 2009 12:56 AM

Cinoom said...

C-ülestunnistus!

Alates 20 novembrist olen ma praktiliselt täielikult oma vaba aja kasutanud kliimaprobleemi uurimisele ning selle perioodi jooksul pole ma alates esmaspäevast ühtegi filmi vaadanud.

Ma olen jälginud pingsalt mõlema poole argumenteerimist: nii RealClimate.com kes esindab osaliselt 24 novembril väljaantud Kliimaraportit kui ka skeptikute liidrit McIntyre, kes peab lehte ClimateAudit.com.

Ma olen sundinud end mõlema poolega tegelema ja jälgima kust kuhu nende mõlema poole esindajate lingid viivad, mis motiividel kumbki pool töötab, milline on nedne keelekasutus, emotsionaalsus, nende üldine arusaam tervikpildist, et siis seda enda arusaamaga maailmast võrrelda. Sest lõppude lõpuks on igal esindajal juba väljakujunenud maailmapilt olemas ning tõendit otsib ta selleks, et olemasolevat kinnitada. Nagu kuulsad filosoofid on öelnud: saadakse selleks kes ollakse.

Kopenhaageni Kliimaraporti järgi on kliimateadlased piisavalt veendunud, et kliima soojeneb ja soojenemise põhjustajaks on inimtegevus. Mudeli järgi on olemas murdepunktid, mis hetkest enam hetke soojemissuunda muuta ei saa ning soojenemine omakorda tingib elukorralduse muutuse. Paradoks seisneb selles, et otsustada tuleb enne kui ennustatud tulevik olevikus realiseerub. Nii nagu enne kuule reisi pidid teadlased otsustama, kas kuu pind on tahke või pehme, hoolimata sellest, et 100% kindlust, milline ta tegelikult on, polnud võimalik saada.

Paar päeva enne ametliku kliimaraporti avaldamist murdsid häkkerid sisse ühe teadusasutuse serveritesse ja varastasid hulga emaili ja muid andmeid. Hetkel toimub vapustava kiirusega nendest andmetest uue, konspiratiivse, stsenaariumi kokkupanemine, milles nähtub, et juhtivad kliimateadlased on teadlikult andmeid vägisi avalikuse eest varjanud ja seejärel võltsinud, ning kliima külmenemist hoopis soojenemise pähe näidanud. Põhjusteks rikastuda nii riiklikest toetustest kui tulevasest uuest „rohelisest energiast“, millesse kõik, eesotsas Al Gore`ga, investeerinud on.

Kuid ennem kui selle konspiratsiooniteooriaga edasi tegeleda, võiks vaadata millised näevad välja üheltpoolt kliimateadlaste webileht RealClimate.com ja skeptikute juhi McIntyre webileht ClimateAudit.com webileht.

RealClimate.com on teadusliku suunitlusega webileht kus kõiki kommentaare modereeritakse ning püütakse hoida teaduskriitilist diskussiooni. See on suurima infohulgaga leht, mis jagab teadmisi hetke kliimateaduse arusaamade kohta.Teadlane Gavin Schmidt, kes on ka üks kliimaraporti koostajatest, teeb hetkel meeletut tööd kõikide süüdistuste, küsimuste, täpsustuste ja päringute kommenteerimisel ja vastamisel. Sealjuures peab ta jääma rahulikuks ja ilma emotsioonideta end väljendama, sest iga väiksemgi purtsatus vales suunas lendab kohe internetiavarustesse. Ma olen jälginud kuidas ta vastab teatud probleemidele ja milles üldse hetke küsimus on ja süüdistused seisnevad. Kuigi kliimateadus on täiesti arusaamatu valdkond minu jaoks, mõistan ma inimeste emotsioonalset hoiakut. Ja see on minu jaoks jätnud positiivse, kindla ja asjaliku mulje.

Mr McIntyre webilehel käib aga tavapärane netimüra, kus vaimustunult harutatakse lahti konspiratsiooniteooriat ja hõisatakse „MA TEADSIN SEDA, nad on kõik kasuahned ja valelikud“. See millise kiirusega on hakatud esimestest häkkeri poolt läkitatud infost tervikpilti kokku panema on hämmastav. E-mailis olevast esialgsest kontekstivabast lausest „peida langus“ on tänaseks pandud kokku terviklugu, seostatud hulga emailidega ja ka leitud „langev graafik“ ning see graafikuna netiavarustesse lastud. YouTube`s võib leida „Hide The Decline“ muusikavideo, mis sarnaneb tavapärasele Al-Goreilikule mõnitusele. Konspiratsioon võtab ühe selgemat kuju. Rahvas on täiesti vaimustunud.
November 27, 2009 5:48 AM

Cinoom said...

Samal ajal on algatamisel süüdistused kliimateadlaste organisatsioonide ja otseselt teadlaste suhtes. Tänasest algatatakse süüdistus isegi Gavin Schmidti suhtes, kes RealClimate.com lehel püüab teadlaste mainet päästa ja tuhandetele päringutele vastata. Hetkel tundub, et Gavinil võetakse ära modereerimisõigus.

Kui nüüd vaadata Mr. McIntyre lehe külastajaid ja neid linke millele nad meelsasti viitavad kui kust nad ise tulevad ehk seda teekonda mis mööda nende arusaam liigub, siis leiame huvitavad vandenõulehed. Enamused paljastavad Globaalset Kliimasoojenemise kampaaniat, mille keskseks kujuks on kõigile tuntud koomik Al Gore, kes tavaliselt on kujutatud Jeesus Kristusega. Teine konspiratsiooniteooriate leht on tavaliselt stiilis „Päästke Kapitalism“. See teooria räägib „rohelise liikumise“, mis on oma olemuselt vasakpoolne, kampaaniast maailma korra ülevõtmisel ja uue totalitaarse süsteemi loomisel.

C on koruvalt öelnud et C usub ja usaldab teadlasi. Sest teadlaste arusaam, nende poolt genereeritud info, loob tema maailmapildi. Ja siit me jõuamegi tänapäeva, kus me elame infoühiskonnas ja kus info eest võitlemine omandab järjest suuremat kaalu. Kuid siin tuleb peatuda ja küsida, et kuidas informatsioon, kliima, teadus, era ja avalik sektor omavahel võiks seotud olla just selle probleemiga mida püüan kirjeldada. Vaatame skeptikute ühte süüdistust, milleks on väide, et alginformatsioon kliimateooria kokkupanemisel pole olnud kõigile kättesaadev ja kliimateadlased on seda tahtlikult enda valduses hoidnud, kartes nede kohutava pettuse ilmsiks tulemist.

Kuid informatsioon, siinkohal teaduslikud andmed, kogutakse kokku ülemaailmsetest mõõtepunktidest, mis asuvad kõik erinevates õigussüsteemides ja enamus nendest on piiratud intellektuaalse omandiseadustega maksustamise eesmärgil. Ehk teadusliku info kogumine on toode, mille pealt teenitakse. Seega pole selle liikumine vaba vaid raskendatud. Kuid globaalse kliima mõistmine nõuab avalikku infoliikumise ruumi. Paneme tähele, et siin on konflikt era ja avaliku sektori vahel ning infoliikumise suund on erasekorist avalikku.

Täpselt sama infoliikumisesuuna leiame hetke muusika ja filmitööstuses, kus erasektori gigandid võitlevad iga hinna eest et hoida digitaalne info vanas sektoris ning tõkestada selle liikumist uude, avalikku sektorisse, kus teda on palju raskem kontrollida ja maksustada. Liikumise põhjuseks on loomulikult info uue keskkonna, interneti, tekkimine, mis sellist arengusuunda oma tehnoloogilise eripära tõttu soosib. Siinkohal tuleb uuesti üle vaadata, mida me mõtleme era ja avaliku sektori all sest nende rollid ja tähendused on muutumas.

Mis sellest järeldub? Minu jaoks erasektori paanika, sest kardetakse seda, mida uus informatsiooniajastu näitab. Seoses kliimateadusega globaalse kliima muutumist ja nõudmist uuele tehnoloogiale üleminemist ning seoses meelelahutustööstusega salvestatava meedia (muusika, filmid) väärtusetust.

Erasektori meeleheitlik katse seda tõkestada läbi süüdistuse ja konspiratsioonide sarnaneb nii hetkel kliimateaduses kui muusikatööstuses toimuvale. Käib vaid puhas propaganda ja teadlaste ühise konsensuse lõhkumine. Tuletame meelde, et 96% kliimateadlastest on ühel meelel, et kliima soojeneb ja selle põhjustajaks on inimene ja 48% ameeriklastest arvab, et kliimateadlased pole isekeskis veel kliimasuhtes ühisele otsusele jõudnud. Millisele arvamusele teeksid sina panuse?

Praegusel hetkel on ka teadlaste poolt alustatud vastaspoole õõnestamisega näidates kuidas naftamagnaadi EXXONi raha järjekordselt läbi skeptitsismi pihustavate organisatsioonide liigub.

Ja nüüd ma küsin veelkord: kust on pärit sinu info, et teadlased pole ühel meelel kliimaprobleemide suhtes?

C-USALDAB JA USUB TEADLASI
R-?
DT-?
November 27, 2009 5:48 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

Ma päris läbi ei jaksanud lugeda, aga DT-usaldab üldiselt teadlasi ja on investeerinud koos Al Gore'iga rohelisse energiasse (DT on seda teinud APWR'i aktsia näol).
November 27, 2009 6:09 AM

Cinoom said...

C on hea meel, et DT on teinud investeeringu "rohelisse energiasse".

C usub, et see on õige ja ratsionaalne otsus ja tuleb DT tulevikus kasuks.
November 27, 2009 6:12 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

tänan, C
November 27, 2009 6:15 AM

Cinoom said...

C sooviks et DT poolt investeeritud raha hoiaks igavesti töös C arvutit, et ta saaks rahus kuni surmani kõigile kättesaadavat infot tarbida.
November 27, 2009 6:16 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

ma ei tea, kas tuulegeneraatorid on C arvutiga seotud?
November 27, 2009 6:31 AM

Cinoom said...

we are all connected
:)
November 27, 2009 6:33 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

rääkides tootlusest, siis on see tuuleäri toonud 100% võrreldes investiga :)
November 27, 2009 6:34 AM

Cinoom said...

ma olen lugenud palju head uute päikesepatareide kohta. ole mees ja lükka füüri ka sinna sektorisse - lisab mu 24/7 vuravale arvutiventilaatorile pöördeid juurde.
November 27, 2009 6:45 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

http://www.apowerenergy.com/ (staarinvestorid on siin füüriga)
November 27, 2009 6:50 AM

Cinoom said...

vaata kas selline päikeseenergiaga tegelev ettevõte on börsil
http://www.ausra.com/
November 27, 2009 6:59 AM

Dick Tyrben said...

tundub et mitte

Aga: http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKN1348561020091114
November 27, 2009 7:04 AM

Cinoom said...

soovitan silm peal hoida ja lisainfot koguda
November 27, 2009 7:09 AM

Cinoom said...

süüdistavate teadlaste avaldus:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
November 27, 2009 7:43 AM