The Phony Attack on Climate Science

San Siro · 15-03-10, 18:56

di Jeffrey Sachs

2010-02-19

NEW YORK – In the weeks before and after the Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the science of climate change came under harsh attack by critics who contend that climate scientists have deliberately suppressed evidence – and that the science itself is severely flawed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global group of experts charged with assessing the state of climate science, has been accused of bias.

The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?

The fact is that the critics – who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks – are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehavior. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.

Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing “acid rain.” Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.

Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980’s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.

What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don’t want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.

The latest round of attacks involves two episodes. The first was the hacking of a climate-change research center in England. The e-mails that were stolen suggested a lack of forthrightness in the presentation of some climate data. Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change.

The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate science.

When the e-mails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants – a ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not become rich relative to their peers in finance and business.

But then I recalled that this line of attack – charging a scientific conspiracy to drum up “business” for science – was almost identical to that used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they fought controls on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and other dangerous pollutants. In other words, their arguments were systematic and contrived, not at all original to the circumstances.

We are witnessing a predictable process by ideologues and right-wing think tanks and publications to discredit the scientific process. Their arguments have been repeatedly disproved for 30 years – time after time – but their aggressive methods of public propaganda succeed in causing delay and confusion.

Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity. Great scientific minds have learned over the course of many decades to “read” the Earth’s history, in order to understand how the climate system works. They have deployed brilliant physics, biology, and instrumentation (such as satellites reading detailed features of the Earth’s systems) in order to advance our understanding.

And the message is clear: large-scale use of oil, coal, and gas is threatening the biology and chemistry of the planet. We are fueling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate and ocean chemistry, giving rise to extreme storms, droughts, and other hazards that will damage the food supply and the quality of life of the planet.

The IPCC and the climate scientists are telling us a crucial message. We need urgently to transform our energy, transport, food, industrial, and construction systems to reduce the dangerous human impact on the climate. It is our responsibility to listen, to understand the message, and then to act.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org

thegryfus · 15-03-10, 19:56

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

The IPCC and the climate scientists are telling us a crucial message

Ho quotato solo una cosa, molto emblematica, visto che la realtà è che l'IPCC ha raccontato un sacco di balle (e continua a raccontarne, siapur inserendo ora molti se e molti ma, cosa inevitabile dopo l'ultimo grosso scandalo che li ha coinvolti purtroppo passato sotto voce dai media), e questo articolo non è altro che l'ennesimo articolo a supportare queste falsità.

Ricordiamo anche che dietro all'IPCC ci sono molte più agenzie governative, politiche e parapolitiche che scienziati.

kasparek · 15-03-10, 20:10

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?

Già. Perchè spendere miliardi su miliardi per un qualcosa che non esiste?

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

The fact is that the critics – who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks – are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehavior. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.

Tipico atteggiamento scientifico: quello che dici tu non vale perchè ti pagano quelli che ho deciso essere cattivi.
Poi siete aggressivi, mica come me che continuo a terrorizzare tutti quanti il più possibile parlando di catastrofi inenarrabili.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing “acid rain.” Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.

Grazie al global warming, adesso nutro dubbi anche sul buco dell'ozono e su altre cose. Per questo, in effetti, andrebbero ringraziati.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980’s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.

Ma parliamo anche dei 1970's, già che ci siamo, quando i catastrofisti del clima predicevano l'imminente era glaciale.
Ovviamente con le stesse solidissime basi scientifiche e lo stesso "consenso" che esibiscono ora per il global warming.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts.

"Amazing" è che si dia retta a chi passa in scioltezza dall'era glaciale al terribile surriscaldamento.
Sono loro ad essere "wrong", ora come 30-40 anni fa.
Ma vedo che gli errori dei catastrofisti, dall'era glaciale alla sars all'aviaria alla suina alla mucca pazza, all'articolista non interessano. Sarà perchè lui è super partes, non pagato dalle multinazionali del petrolio.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don’t want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.

Intorno ai catastrofisti, invece, non gira neanche un cent.
Al Gore, per esempio, ne ha ricavato molto poco.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change.

Qui urge una precisazione un po' più seria.
Non si tratta proprio di una "tiny fraction".
Lo scandalo delle e-mail riguarda il CRU diretto da Jones, che è assolutamente un ente centrale per tutta la "scienza" del global warming antropico.
Uno di questi dettagli, ad esempio, riguarda le serie storiche delle temperature rilevate. Poichè non c'è UN termometro per tutta la terra, ma una serie di migliaia di stazioni di rilevazione, che vanno gestite, coordinate, ed i cui dati vanno "aggregati".

Un "dettaglio", per rimanere in tema, è che le serie storiche grezze di tali temperature non sono mai state rese pubbliche, nonostante le richieste e gli obblighi di legge.
Solo con lo scandalo, Jones si è deciso a pubblicare qualcosa.
Qualcosa come questo, che mostra quanto sia "eccezionale" il riscaldamento attuale. D'altronde, vi hanno sempre detto o no che un riscaldamento così repentino e di queste proporzioni non si era mai visto?

(è un'animazione: guardatela tutta che merita).

Visto che i dati smentivano quanto sostenuto fino ad oggi, ecco che hanno detto che in realtà c'erano "altri dati" a supporto della loro tesi.
Li hanno resi pubblici? No, hanno detto che, guarda un po' il caso, li hanno PERSI.

Capito? I dati grezzi, le serie storiche delle temperature alla base di ogni modello sul clima, sono stati persi.
E poi pretendono pure che li si prenda sul serio e che si prendano per buone le loro tesi, i loro modelli costruiti su serie storiche ricostruite le cui basi grezze non ci sono più. La contestazione diventa impossibile, perchè lui ha "tante carte nel suo studio", e quindi alcune le perde.

In seguito a queste vicende, Jones ha fatto anche marcia indietro sul periodo caldo medievale. Dopo aver sostenuto fino all'altro ieri che in quel periodo faceva senza ombra di dubbio più freddo di oggi (contro ogni evidenza storica), e che la scienza era "settled" in merito, ha virato di 90° dicendo che in realtà non vi è alcuna certezza, e che è tutto da vedere, da studiare.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

They claimed that scientists were fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants – a ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not become rich relative to their peers in finance and business.

Che l'evidenza se la fabbrichino è la realtà dei fatti che sta emergendo.
La storiella di persone probe dedite alla ricerca della verità fa semplicemente ridere. Diciamola, questa verità: chi non è d'accordo viene estromesso, zittito, lasciato senza fondi, fuori dalle riviste, dal giro che conta. Cioè da quello che si prende i miliardi di finanziamenti pubblici.
Immaginatevi un po' che ambientino rilassato e scevro da pregiudizi che c'è nella ricerca.. alla faccia del bias

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

We are witnessing a predictable process by ideologues and right-wing think tanks and publications to discredit the scientific process.

Non c'è nulla di scientifico nelle teorie che producono. Sono queste ad essere ideologiche, decise a priori. La realtà si deve adeguare ad esse, o scomparire.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

Their arguments have been repeatedly disproved for 30 years – time after time – but their aggressive methods of public propaganda succeed in causing delay and confusion.

A dire il vero, il mancato riscaldamento degli ultimi 10-12 anni (15, stando a Jones stesso) smentisce le teorie di qualcun altro.
Ma questi sono dettagli. Gli altri sono pagati dalle multinazionali, per definizione.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity. Great scientific minds have learned over the course of many decades to “read” the Earth’s history, in order to understand how the climate system works. They have deployed brilliant physics, biology, and instrumentation (such as satellites reading detailed features of the Earth’s systems) in order to advance our understanding.

Ecco, l'"advance" è proprio quello che ci vuole per cominciare a capirci qualcosa.
Senza la presunzione di aver capito tutto di una cosa tanto complessa, per poi essere smentiti da un riscaldamento che si ferma.

Citazione:

Originalmente inviato da San Siro

And the message is clear: large-scale use of oil, coal, and gas is threatening the biology and chemistry of the planet. We are fueling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate and ocean chemistry, giving rise to extreme storms, droughts, and other hazards that will damage the food supply and the quality of life of the planet.

The IPCC and the climate scientists are telling us a crucial message. We need urgently to transform our energy, transport, food, industrial, and construction systems to reduce the dangerous human impact on the climate. It is our responsibility to listen, to understand the message, and then to act.

Sì, il messaggio è chiaro. Qualcuno vuole togliere libertà all'intero sistema energetico mondiale - senza il quale le nostre economie non sono nulla -, controllarlo, pianificarlo, e spendere una quantità spropositata di soldi per farlo. Dopo aver terrorizzato la gente per tenerla comoda al guinzaglio, e negando ogni confronto scientifico degno di questo nome.

-Duca- · 15-03-10, 20:45

non hanno idea di come rallentare l'industrializzazione cinese e indiana e allora si sono inventati questa monata del riscaldamento globale per tentare di avere regole più stringenti sull'industrializzazione..

15-03-10, 18:56	#1 (permalink)
San Siro Member Data registrazione: Mar 2008 Messaggi: 5,444 Popolarità: 42949677	The Phony Attack on Climate Science di Jeffrey Sachs 2010-02-19 NEW YORK – In the weeks before and after the Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the science of climate change came under harsh attack by critics who contend that climate scientists have deliberately suppressed evidence – and that the science itself is severely flawed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global group of experts charged with assessing the state of climate science, has been accused of bias. The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it? The fact is that the critics – who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks – are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill. Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehavior. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm. Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulfur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing “acid rain.” Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too. Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980’s, this same group took on the battle against climate change. What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don’t want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls. The latest round of attacks involves two episodes. The first was the hacking of a climate-change research center in England. The e-mails that were stolen suggested a lack of forthrightness in the presentation of some climate data. Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change. The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate science. When the e-mails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants – a ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not become rich relative to their peers in finance and business. But then I recalled that this line of attack – charging a scientific conspiracy to drum up “business” for science – was almost identical to that used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they fought controls on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and other dangerous pollutants. In other words, their arguments were systematic and contrived, not at all original to the circumstances. We are witnessing a predictable process by ideologues and right-wing think tanks and publications to discredit the scientific process. Their arguments have been repeatedly disproved for 30 years – time after time – but their aggressive methods of public propaganda succeed in causing delay and confusion. Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity. Great scientific minds have learned over the course of many decades to “read” the Earth’s history, in order to understand how the climate system works. They have deployed brilliant physics, biology, and instrumentation (such as satellites reading detailed features of the Earth’s systems) in order to advance our understanding. And the message is clear: large-scale use of oil, coal, and gas is threatening the biology and chemistry of the planet. We are fueling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate and ocean chemistry, giving rise to extreme storms, droughts, and other hazards that will damage the food supply and the quality of life of the planet. The IPCC and the climate scientists are telling us a crucial message. We need urgently to transform our energy, transport, food, industrial, and construction systems to reduce the dangerous human impact on the climate. It is our responsibility to listen, to understand the message, and then to act. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010. www.project-syndicate.org

Strumenti discussione
Visualizza versione stampabile Invia questa pagina via e-mail
Modalità visualizzazione	Valuta questa discussione
Modalità lineare Passa a modalità ibrida Passa a modalità elenco	Valuta questa discussione:

15-03-10, 20:45	#4 (permalink)
-Duca- Member Data registrazione: Jan 2008 Messaggi: 1,339 Inserimenti nel blog: 1 Popolarità: 42949677	non hanno idea di come rallentare l'industrializzazione cinese e indiana e allora si sono inventati questa monata del riscaldamento globale per tentare di avere regole più stringenti sull'industrializzazione..

	Chi siamo- Pubblicità- Contatti- Disclaimer- Mappa- Credits
© 2000-2012 Browneditore S.p.A. - Tutti i diritti riservati. Prima di utilizzare anche parzialmente i contenuti di questo sito, vogliate cortesemente consultare il disclaimer.