This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity

[CHIMO]

This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become. It chooses whether to continue living as it has done, until it must make a wasteland of its home, or to stop and redefine itself. This is about much more than climate change. This is about us.

The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy. We are the universal ape, equipped with the ingenuity and aggression to bring down prey much larger than itself, break into new lands, roar its defiance of natural constraints. Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.

The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accommodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.

This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially by environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/14/climate-change-battle-redefine-humanity

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varelse]

2. Brilliant

Especially this bit:

Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits. The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.

K&R

[timeforpeace]

3. As soon as the climate scientists divulge their data and methodology, others can try to duplicate

their findings and put this to rest one way or the other.

[tinrobot]

4. You can get all the data you want from NASA and many others.

Of course, you wouldn't have slightest idea what to do with it... would you?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinrobot]

12. Excuse me? The data is out, and it's been coming out for decades.

The analysis has been happening for decades, and it all points to the same conclusions -- that global warming is caused by humans, that it is accelerating, and that we need to change our ways or face the consequences.

So, I'm not "afraid of what analysis may uncover," because I've already seen what it HAS uncovered. The current analysis certainly is scary enough. But what scares me more are people why deny that it's happening and actively work to keep the status quo.

[bbinacan]

14. What data?

the perverted data or the real data.

[tinrobot]

15. Very real data.

From multiple sources over many decades.

Also - if you want to be taken seriously, you might want stop using words such as "fuck" and "perverted." Might give people the wrong idea.

[bbinacan]

16. Wrong idea about what? n/t

:evilgrin: :smoke: :rofl:

[bhikkhu]

17. The IPCC's 4th Assessment has everything you are looking for

and it is public. One goal of that was to gather and publish and summarize everything available on climate research and finally put to rest any lingering doubts. It is in 4 volumes, each about the size of a NYC phone book, and everything in it has gone through multiple levels of peer review. A one sentence summary that pretty much every involved scientist might agree on would be "there is no doubt that global warming is real, and it is about 90% certain that its cause is anthropogenic".

The rest of the world seems to get it just fine, though where to go from here is not easy.

[Nederland]

21. That is a lie

Show me raw temperature data from NASA, or raw temperature data from East Anglia, or raw tree ring data from Queen's University in Belfast.

Go on. Show it to me. Deniers have been asking for this data for years and been refused for years.

[bhikkhu]

23. So ignore all that, just look at phenology

If you're so certain that the data published in journals, held in university libraries, published by the IPCC etc is either lies or non-existent.

If none of that existed and all we had to look at was phenology - "the study of periodic plant and animal life cycle events and how these are influenced by seasonal and interannual variations in climate" - we'd be pretty certain and pretty certain that something serious was going on all over the world pointing globally to rising temperatures. A good volume of the IPCC 4th assessment is devoted to compiling and reviewing phenological records from around the world. Its not so much that data is hidden as it is so extensive as to be unwieldy.

I'm pretty convinced myself that all the people who say the evidence is hidden, the data isn't there, nobody knows for sure, etc, are the same people who skipped college, never set foot in a library, and who miss all the questions on studies like this: http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=54947

[Nederland]

25. Question

If none of that existed and all we had to look at was phenology - "the study of periodic plant and animal life cycle events and how these are influenced by seasonal and interannual variations in climate" - we'd be pretty certain and pretty certain that something serious was going on all over the world pointing globally to rising temperatures. A good volume of the IPCC 4th assessment is devoted to compiling and reviewing phenological records from around the world. Its not so much that data is hidden as it is so extensive as to be unwieldy.

If all you had to work with was the phenology, do you believe you would be able to prove beyond all doubt what temperatures will look like 100 years from now? No sensible person denies that the world is warming. However, many sensible people do dispute the causes and magnitudes.

[bhikkhu]

27. You can graph a trend and predict its trajectory

If all you look at is phenology there is enough information to make a "scatterplot", from which you can form an average of changes over time. Then you have an idea of the curve that best fits the data (is it accelerating, or decelerating?) and project that forward in time. Of course, the critical part would come up short: a working theory as to what mechanism was forcing the changes, but observation of changes is enough to make a prediction.

As far as "beyond all doubt", in science there are probabilities and "error bars", not "beyond all doubt". People might use the phrase from time to time anyway, as the conventions of speech and argument allow, but the temperatures of 100 years from now could never be predicted beyond doubt, any more than the temperature tomorrow. The current trend might be beyond doubt today, but that could be reversed tomorrow if we have a volcanic event.

[Nederland]

28. But your graph trend would be wrong

At least, it would be wrong if what the IPCC tells us is true. The reason is that according to the IPCC models, CO2 forcing is not linear. There is a limit to how high temperatures can go, and each doubling of CO2 does not result in as much temperature gain as the last. Even without knowing what the IPCC tells us about climate change, we know that your graph would be wrong. It is wrong because we know for a fact that just because a trend looks a certain way in the past does not mean it will look that way in the future. If it did, the DOW would be at 50,000 right now because that's what the trend line at the end of the 1990's would predict.

No, the bottom line is that phenology data alone cannot tell you what you need to know. You have to have all the data that is being collected on surface temperatures, ozone concentrations, aerosol concentrations, CO2 measures and everything else. The IPCC models require all this data in order to run, and the accuracy of those models depends entirely on the accuracy of the data being feed into them. Given that the only reason we are talking about reworking the entire global economy is because the IPCC models tell us that we are in big trouble if we don't, I think the public has a right to look at all the data being fed into them.

[bhikkhu]

30. The raw temperature data is here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php

The public has a right to know, and it is public, but the public also has not proven particularly interested in sifting through 15,500 data sets. Summaries and digests of summaries are more customary and welcome. East Anglia should have maintained their own database of raw figures independently (in the event of a method or model modification it should be at at hand), but in any case the raw temperature data they used can be found at the link. Nothing is lost or hidden.


To some extent every prediction is wrong, and every possible prediction will be wrong; science deals with probabilities, not certainties. Its not necessary to have a prediction accurate down to the 6th decimal place, only one which describes what is likely to happen based on what has happened already.

The "denier" argument is that this is a temporary natural variation in the climate, and after things have gotten a little warmer, they will get a little cooler again. The "warmer" argument is that all the graphs and plots and trends make this an anomaly which is accelerating with CO2 levels. As the weather itself will inevitably prove one case or the other, I am more prone to side with the science. The alternative is to believe that the scientists of the world have gathered together and conspired to deceive the entire world, in a scheme which would inevitably and quickly be unraveled by the weather itself. As a science without credibility has nothing whatsoever...

[Nederland]

31. That is not the raw data

That is the data after it has been processed by NASA, who applies "corrections" to the data. We know this because from time to time NASA will annouce that it has found some problem in the data, apply a corection, and the entire data set changes. What those corrections are and whether or not they should be applied is the core of the debate. If this was actually the raw data, Chris Horner's FOI lawsuit against NASA would get tossed out immediately.

[bhikkhu]

46. It has nothing to do with NASA, its the National Climatic Data Center

Here's a good wiki write up on them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Climatic_Data_Center

They collect and store the raw data and are one of four global data centers (others are in Japan, Russia and China) which "have created a free and open atmosphere in which data and dialogue are exchanged". Again, its all public information, as are the methods of collection, the corrections applied, the occasional gaps and reconstructions, etc.

I'd guess you might be talking about the upper atmosphere temperature measurements that were sourced through NASA and were a bone of contention a few years ago. At one time I heard they were considered anomalous, showing a cooling in the upper atmosphere even in 1998, the biggest hottest outlier in the record, but then I heard that a recalibration or correction had removed the anomaly. In any case, I'd just say again: throw out anything touched by NASA, no problem, its not necessary. What's left is a massive assortment of records, all pretty much telling the same story.

[joshcryer]

18. I take it you are unable to read scientific papers?

The methodologies are in all of the papers that come along with the data that is released freely.

[Nederland]

20. That is a lie

1) Michael Mann refused to give his data to Steve McIntyre when asked. He only relented upon testifying before Congress.

2) CRU refused a Freedom of Information request executed by David Holland for Keith Briffa's data.

3) Chris Horner has for the past two years been refused access to NASA's raw temperature data. He is now suing them to release their data.


Those are just three examples I was able to glean from a single, simple Google search. Data is not release freely, nor is the code used to modify the data. I do not believe this is typical, but clearly you are in serious denial regarding the openness of certain well known researchers.

[Viking12]

35. You are sadly mistaken.

1) The data & code for Mann et. al. were available long before Joe Barton put on the dog-&-pony show on capitol hill.

2) CRU didn't refuse. Dumbass David Holland sent requests to UEA about IPCC process information. He should have gone to the IPCC.

3) Chris Horner is not interested in the data. He wants all of the e-mails. NASA's raw data comes from NOAA/NCDC -- it's posted right here (has been for many, many years):

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

NASA's code is posted at GISSTEMP.

[Nederland]

40. You are correct about NASA

Their data has long been availible and they finally released there code about 2 years ago. My mistake.

Do you have links to back up your assertions in #1 and #2?

[Viking12]

42. Here

1) This link (ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/)is now dead because Mann is no longer at UVA but it was the site listed in the supplementary material for the 1998 Nature article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/extref/nature02478-s1.htm
Mann et. al. posted a Corrigendum in Nature in 2004 because the data set was improperly organized and contained several errors. This was pointed out by McIntyre in 2003 because he was confused by the improperly organized data, not because he didn't have access to it.

2) It's in one of the stupid e-mails. I'm not going to sift through them again.

[Nederland]

43. Other sources

Regarding Mann, the Wikipedia entry states this:

One point of contention relates to McIntyre's requests for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code McIntyre needed to audit MBH98.<20> Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available <21>. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal <22> detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.<23> Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.<22> The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."<24> When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel <25> and the National Academy of Sciences <26> both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) state that 7 of their 10 findings in 2003 have been largely confirmed by these reviews.<27> Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." <28>

You can find the footnotes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy


Regarding David Holland's FOI request, only one of his nine requested items were denied because he made the request to the wrong body. The one that was denied because it was addressed to the wrong body was a simple question about what format the information was held in. The other eight items he requested were denied on monetary grounds. The FOI response was as follows:


Our ref: 25-08-2009-100402-002
16 October 2009

Dear Mr Holland

Request for Information - Notification of Excess Costs

Your correspondence dated 22 September 2009 has been considered to be a request for
information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Met Office has
determined that the request for information be dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 because, whilst it relates to an environmental paper, it concerns the
management of information pursuant to the paper rather than being a specific request for any
environmental information contained in it.

In relation to the IPCC Third Assessment Report published in 2001, you requested:

1. How the information was held, i.e. computer files or fax documents etc., before it was sent
to the Littauer Library. (approximate proportions only eg 90% computerised.)

2. Any correspondence instructing that no electronic version (eg compact disc or magnetic
tape) of the information was to be archived.

3. The instructions given to whoever prepared the archive for transmission to the Littauer.

4. Any listing of files to be printed out for the archive.

5. Any correspondence with the Littauer Library.

6. Any correspondence with Richard Hallgren and Buruhani Nyenzi, including their Review
Editors’ reports.

7. The instructions given to Expert Reviewers of the second order draft as to how to submit
their comments.

8. The instructions given to Lead Authors of the second order draft as to how to complete
their responses to the Expert comments.

9. Any email instruction to delete the data sent to the Littauer from all Met Office computers.

This response will take each numbered question as set out above.

Question 1:

The Met Office does not hold this information.

You are correct when you state that you were informed that the archive for the IPCC Third
Assessment Report published in 2001 was held at the Littauer Library at Harvard. All printed
and electronic material held by the IPCC TSU relating to Working Group 1 Third Assessment
Report was sent to the Harvard Library in 2002. This was done to comply with IPCC rules
that such information must be available for 5 years after the publication of the report (which
was 2001).

Questions 2 – 9:

The Met Office can confirm that we hold information in connection with the IPCC Third
Assessment Report to which your requests relate. However, it has been assessed that the
costs which would be incurred in providing information pursuant to each question would
exceed the appropriate limit. The limit is specified in regulations and for central government
is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending three and a half
working days in determining whether the Met Office holds the information, and locating,
retrieving and extracting the information. The Met Office has estimated that in order to
retrieve and extract the documents that you have requested would cost in excess of the £600
limit. Under the terms of Section 12 of the FOI Act, this means that we are not obliged to
comply with your request.

The Met Office may be able to provide some of the information requested if you reduce or
refine your request to bring the cost of compliance under the limit. Although your
correspondence dated 22 September 2009 refines your initial request dated 18 August 2009,
due to the large volume of correspondence, these refined questions do not bring the cost of
compliance under the limit for each question. As stated in our letter dated 17 September
2009, we would be able to consider looking at correspondence between the Met Office and a
specified contributor. If there is particular correspondence between the Met Office and a
specified contributor that you are interested in then please state this in any subsequent
requests you make. The Met Office does not hold any folders of information named “Richard
Hallgren” or “Buruhani Nyenzi”.

If information on the subject of any such further request is located within the appropriate cost
limit, the Met Office will need to assess whether such information is exempt under any
appropriate exemptions within the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In relation questions 7 and 8 specifically, we suggest that you contact IPCC who may hold
such information requested. The IPCC website is at www.ipcc.ch/.

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the
handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal
resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent
internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail ). Please note that any request for
an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to
reach informal resolution has come to an end.

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the
Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information
Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the
MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of
the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
http://www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely


FOI Manager


Link: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/17139/response/49960/attach/html/3/0005108%20Holland.pdf.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Wow!

Let me suggest a couple of documents from the National Academies:

• http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1193">Ozone Depletion, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change — 1989
• http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1794">Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming — 1991

[bergie321]

29. The data has been available for decades

***WARNING CRITICAL THINKING AHEAD***

Don't you think if the data publicly available was flawed, that Exxon with their $120 million in DAILY profits would release the "real" data and completely disprove AGW?

[Nederland]

32. If the data has been available for decades...

...why are CRU and NASA being sued to release it? Is it all just one big misunderstanding?

[bergie321]

33. You have failed

To address my critical thinking question.

[Nederland]

34. Sorry, my bad

What makes you think Exxon has the real data?

[bergie321]

36. Do you think

That NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etc have a monopoly on the ability to gather raw data? If Exxon thought they could disprove AGW, they would spend some of their billions trying to do that instead of just mounting a disinformation campaign to fool easily fooled simpletons.

[Nederland]

37. That is true

But it would only give them data for dates after they created such a competing global station grid. The only source for past data would still be NASA, NOAA and CRU. As such, it would not be able to "prove" anything for decades.

[bergie321]

39. The data

From temperature stations are publicly available. They could recreate temperature data from before weather stations the same way climate scientists do. They won't because they know that their data will reflect the same conclusions drawn from the climate scientists. That we are causing catastrophic global climate change.

[TxRider]

5. Of course this has two perspectives

Telling you what to drive, where to live, what to eat, where to get it from, how to power you house or business.....

They don't see themselves as those who "demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right."

They just demand you live every minute aspect of your life down to what kind of things you drop in your trash can to what light bulbs you can use by their strict standards.

Carbon based fuels are on the way out, it's inevitable. They will become costly enough to be overtaken by technology soon enough just on a cost basis alone.

All without going to the extremes some people would like to force on civilization.

Moderation is what's needed, the world isn't going to end even if it warms another degree, and oil will be phased out and sustainable technologies embraced as resources become more scarce all by themselves.

[CHIMO]

6. Interested

In how you know the world is not going to end. Sounds like a new religion.

[bbinacan]

7. And that the world

is going to end is a fucking cult.

[CHIMO]

9. ?

????

[bbinacan]

10. End of the world theory

equals cult. What do you not understand?

[bergie321]

38. Nobody

Thinks the world is going to end. The world existed long before humans inhabited it and will exist long after we kill ourselves off.

[TxRider]

11. The world could well end

But a degree more warming won't likely cause it, there's nothing to support such an idea.

It's not like it hasn't happened before and we're still here.

Now an asteroid, virus pandemic maybe..

A degree or two of temp is only going to play some havoc on us as a species, not make us extinct.

[bbinacan]

13. I agree. n/t

[WhiteTara]

22. it's past moderation

you're drunk and don't even recognize it. It's time to take the 12 step challenge. Admit you are powerless and start from there.

[MH1]

41. if you don't want to be told what you can drive or what can be labeled food

I suggest you are living in the wrong country. That stuff has been regulated in America for a few decades now at least. And not because of the environment.

Of course I don't know if there's a country on this planet that would let you have the complete freedom you seem to crave. You probably have to buy yourself an island.

But better make sure it has some area that's more than a few feet above sea level.

[TxRider]

44. So you fall under the author of the articles definition

Of those who "demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right."

I see.

I have all the freedom I want.

I am building my own hybrid/alternative energy vehicle.

Planning to go off grid in a few years using solor/wind.

With acreage to produce most if not all my food.

At about 600ft above sea level.

The only real consideration for my long term future is maintaining enough income that I will be able to afford the taxes in the future, and not have my property taken away and be tossed onto the streets in my old age by the government.

[unabelladonna]

45. thank you

this is exactly how i feel. i don't want my life micro=managed and i refuse to feel guilty about my lifestyle. i often wonder how al gore can give his little talks with a straight face.

[TxRider]

47. Your welcome

Science aside..

As an open minded person, listening to someone demonize opponents as bad people willfully believing they have the right to walk over everyone's life, while at the same time proclaiming they have the right to willfully walk all over everyone's life, the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.

It does little for the realities of the situation besides polarizing opinion and digging in heels.

[bhikkhu]

24. Excellent article - this paragraph stands out:

"While economies grow, social justice is unnecessary, as lives can be improved without redistribution. While economies grow, people need not confront their elites. While economies grow, we can keep buying our way out of trouble. But, like the bankers, we stave off trouble today only by multiplying it tomorrow. Through economic growth we are borrowing time at punitive rates of interest. It ensures that any cuts agreed at Copenhagen will eventually be outstripped. Even if we manage to prevent climate breakdown, growth means that it's only a matter of time before we hit a new constraint, which demands a new global response: oil, water, phosphate, soil. We will lurch from crisis to existential crisis unless we address the underlying cause: perpetual growth cannot be accommodated on a finite planet"

I've been mulling over myself how big a thing it is that so many of our old self-identifications are obsolete without growth, and how much becomes meaningless on the "downside". Its been some time since I heard the old conservative vs liberal argument and felt like it had anything to do with the next generation, for example, and I think its a good time for a "call to thought"; stuff is changing...

[wuvuj]

26. Humans are dumber than yeast....

...but we are proud of them none the less.:bounce:


Get a pair at least...of dimes.

[polly7]

48. Great article, thank you.

Published on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
Copenhagen: Only the Numbers Count – and They Add up to Hell on Earth

Climate Interactive's software speaks numbers, not spin – which is where the true understanding of the Copenhagen summit lies
by Bill McKibben
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/15-5

"When they hit the button last night, the program showed that by 2100 the world's CO2 concentrations (currently 390) would be – drumroll please – 770. That is, we would live in hell, or at least a place with a similar temperature."

I don't know if this is a realistic number or not, but it's apparent reading the articles on this meeting we're set on remaining 'blissfully mindless', and more than willing to watch the poorest nations suffer the most because of it. jmo.