BBC Blog Network

User Profile

LarryKealey

Listed below are comments made by LarryKealey between Wednesday, 25th November 2009 and Monday, 30th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 7:37pm on 30 Nov 2009
@Richard,

Reality check - there IS NO COMMITMENT BY THE US TO DO ANYTHING. Any "announcement or proclamation" that you are referring to is meaningless. It is interesting to note that there was no announcement of anything related to "commitment on climate change" on the news here.

Anything you might have heard was said by someone who does not have the authority to make such a statement. Fortunately, before the US makes any commitments, there is a process which must be followed. Legislation must be enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people in the US. This has not happened. Any treaty must be approved by a 60% majority of the Senate - this has not happened either. I have serious doubts that any legislation will be passed or treaties ratified related to climate change. It doesn't even make the news here.

Tell me, do your stories have to pass the 'fact checkers' at the BBC? Or does the BBC even have fact checkers? Is it just political censors?

I do really look forward to when we can put this silliness behind us and return our focus to real issues.

Kealey
China completes the climate circle 4:18pm on 27 Nov 2009

I don't know why anyone is surprised by this 'cliamtegate' thing, nor why there is so much talk about this snip or that bit or 'revelation' regarding improper conduct.

It has been reported for a long time, even here on the BBC, that many scientists have felt a great deal of pressure to overstate their confidence in their conclusions and understate their doubts.

As my previous post suggests, it is not that this person did this, or that person did that, but the apparently endemic drift away from the rigorous scientific process which has taken place with regards to climate science.

Instead of focusing upon specific individuals and revelations from the emails, should we not debate and focus upon the underlying issues and 'climate' (pardon the pun) which has allowed for the current environment to evolve and be accepted by the scientific, environmental and political communities?

It reminds me of the UN - a great idea in theory, but horrible in practice. The UN provides a platform for third world dictators who commit atrocities against their own people as well as their neighbors. The UN actually has given the chair to the committee on human rights to nations such as Libya and North Korea. A voice in the UN should only be given to those who are duly elected representatives (or appointees thereof) of the people of their nations - elected through a democratic process which adheres to a minimum set of standards and through elections which are monitored from the outside. Sure, allow other nations to be present - but not have any voice on the world stage, nor benefit from all the UN programs.

It should be the same with the 'climate scientists'. Those who wish to have a voice, must provide transparency in their work. They must contribute to the body of knowledge openly, for the advancement of science.

I do not know the rules regarding dissertations in the UK nor the rest of Europe, but here in the US, a Master's thesis or PhD Dissertation must 'add to the current body of knowledge'. It is the number one requirement. Presenting only interpreted conclusions without all the data required to derive them would never be accepted - so why do we accept this from climate science?

Again, let us not focus upon who said what, or who did what, but what happened which allowed the scientific process to become so corrupted as to allow this to happen.

Thanks for your time - and I hope your thoughts on this subject.

Kindest.

-Kealey
China completes the climate circle 3:44pm on 27 Nov 2009
I think many, on both sides of the issue are missing the real point which the hacked emails and data reveal - the secrecy and lack of transparency which the 'climate scientists' have been allowed to operate under.

Before this 'conspiracy' - as some are calling the email fiasco, I was of the hope that Copenhagen would end up being just another junket for politicians, political appointees and 'political climate scientists' - another get together with no real results. Perhaps a silly bidding war along the lines of 'well, we'll reduce our emissions by 40%, (another guy), yeah, well we'll reduce our emissions by 50%) - nothing but empty promises. Everyone calls it a good start, blames lack of total success upon the US and jets on back home to tinker with their toy models...

Now I would like to see something real and tangible come from Copenhagen - one which I think both 'deniers' (as I am often labeled, even though I am just skeptical) and 'true believers' could all agree upon. I would like to see a demand for scientific rigor and transparency of climate science by all parties involved.

I would like to see an agency set up whose sole purpose is to provide a repository of scientific knowledge regarding climate change. This repository would include all data sets used in published materials - including raw data, corrected data and correction algorithms and methodology. It would include all versions of all models used to produce results (source code required). From this repository it should be possible for any researcher to reproduced the published results of any other researcher. Researchers should not be permitted to publish until their data, their algorithms and models have been provided to the archive, and verified that they are complete an the results reproducible.

If the consequences are as dire as we are led to believe, should not all the research be in the public domain? Who can argue against this? Are the warmists and believers so afraid that the science is so weak it will not stand up to transparency or scrutiny? The same transparency and rigor which is required of all the other hard sciences.

I would like to see the same rigor required of climate science as all other scientific disciplines. With what little is required of climate science, I could write a paper claiming I have the key to cold fusion - but I am not sharing how I claim to have done it. Such a paper would be laughed at by the scientific community and never published - so why do the 'climate scientists' get away with publishing results which are not reproducible?

Please anyone, whether you be on either side of the issue, tell me why we should not demand that published results be reproducible? That all the data, models and assumptions required to produce the results from which the dire conclusions are drawn, should be presented for all to see. If the science is sound, then the skeptics will have little to argue with or speak out against.

During my tenure in academia, the modus operandi was that one would build upon the research of others, advancing scientific knowledge. This is not the case with climate science today.

If the issue is so dire and urgent as we are told, does it not make sense to establish this repository, for the advancement of science? To require full disclosure in the repository in order to publish, or to receive grants, to participate in the advancement of science?

Please, can anyone on either side of the issue put forth a valid argument against establishment of such a repository of knowledge?

That is what I would like to see from Copenhagen. Can anyone (@Richard please, your comments please) argue against such a proposal? Against rigor, transparency and reproducibility of results? It is after all the scientific process which has been used for hundreds of years - those who advance science today, build upon the work of those who came before.

Anyone have a better suggestions before we commit to spending trillions of dollars? Please, whether you are for or against, share your ideas with us - if you have a better idea, I am sure we would all like to hear it.

I realize that as simple and sensible as what I am suggesting is, it won't happen - unless we all demand it, and refuse to publish or believe any results or conclusions which are not backed up with real data, algorithms and models.

I hold no illusions; however, as long as the secretive status quo exists, I will continue to be very skeptical of the 'science'.

Cheers.

-Kealey
China completes the climate circle 03:12am on 27 Nov 2009
@Richard,

Now the Chinese have come to the table with something real, so ALL the pressure is on the US. Interesting, the Chinese have only promised to reduce emissions on a GDP basis - so their actual emissions will rise, and undoubtedly, they will make gains due to efficiency, just because they are using inefficient and dirty 70's technology - they certainly want to upgrade - they don't like the level of smog they now enjoy.

I think 45% reduction over 2005 levels is a bit optimistic, but in the next dozen years, they should be able to improve efficiencies by 20% - given their starting point. So essentially, they have given nothing - and put the entire onus upon the US for the success or failure of Copenhagen. Very savvy political move.

And as unrealistic and ridiculous as this all is - people like you will eat it up and vilify the US, unless we do exactly what we are told to do by third world dictators and liberals without any concept of the realities of the world.

Good luck with that one mate.

-Kealey
China completes the climate circle 03:04am on 27 Nov 2009
@peadar1987 wrote:

Some facts, people:

-Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. This has been conclusively proven. No trends, no extrapolated data, just cold, hard, incontrovertible science.

-Global temperatures are rising. Forget about the fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record (and it was surpassed by 2005 anyway), just look at the trend.

-The only major change in conditions that the earth has experienced over the last twenty years has been elevated CO2 levels. No cataclysmic volcanic events, etc.
--------------------end of excerpt-------------------------------------

I'll address the last issue - first, from a natural, environmental perspective, as we really don't understand all the forces and feedbacks associated with Earth's Climate, we really don't know what has changed and what has not, and to what degree any given change affects the climate system.

We do know that in the last 20 years, vast swaths of rainforests have been burned and left to graze cattle or farm palm oil (or various other purposes). Indonesia was almost completely covered with smoke for more than two years - smoke from just burning down the forests for palm oil plantations - to make 'clean fuel'.

The population of the Earth has increased by about 20%, thats a lot more people.

Land use has increased dramatically (see population increase...lol). Take a look at satellite images from 20 years ago and then look at today. Compare what Houston or Shanghai looked like 20 years ago vs. today. Many areas have been used up to the point of desertification. Where there was once empty beaches for miles, there is now hardly a piece of undeveloped land.

A lot of things have changed. To infer that CO2 is the principle driver for climate change is a bit simplistic in my view. Your own statement agrees with the notion that the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperatures is a 'casual relationship', i.e., there is no real proof.

But you go right on ahead believing, if it makes you feel better....

...meanwhile, overfishing will continue, the rainforests will continue to burn, chemical plants in the third world will continue to pollute the environment to the point of being unusable...

...but by all means, carry on...

Cheers.

-Kealey
Copenhagen Countdown: 17 days 5:27pm on 25 Nov 2009 @LabMonkey

re: 322 - agreed.

re: FOIA

While I agree with you - what possible outcome do you hope to achieve?

When the response is - we don't have that data anymore - or we lost it. What can you do? What do you hope to achieve. Those who 'lost' the data will be unaffected. Once tenured, a researcher, be it at a University or NASA or a variety of other agencies can pretty much only be dismissed for things like intentional falsification or fabrication of data or fraud - all of which are very difficult to prove. If the data is unavailable - then no serious charge can be levied, with the exception of negligence. Even if data is leaked, a claim of 'honest mistake' will be accepted by the academic community - damage control. And you can bet the mistake of allowing the data to be leaked won't be repeated.

So honestly, what do you really hope to achieve? While I applaud your stance, I just don't see it 'making a difference'. I believe I share your frustration, but I really don't know the answer. It would be great to demand the same rigor and reproducibility from 'climate research' - but given the current climate in academic and political circles, I find it highly doubtful that we shall see this happen anytime soon.

Cheers.

-Kealey
Copenhagen Countdown: 17 days 5:12pm on 25 Nov 2009 Interesting development - President Obama will attend Copenhagen - at least the opening days - but will not be there for the 'crucial negotiations' which will undoubtedly go to the wire. Sounds like he will make a nice ra-ra speech, take advantage of the photo-op, and then exit stage left.

After Copenhagen, I bet we will hear another speech from President Obama, underscoring the issue, its complexity and declaring that Copenhagen was not an utter failure, but a very promising start to what will be a 'long and challenging process'.

And then Boxer-Kerry will go down in flames, the mid-term elections will be held in the US (with one-third of the Senate seats up for re-election as well as all the seats in the House) and we will see the democrats lose a few seats - probably not the majority yet, but only one lost seat will man the dems no longer have the 60 seats required to control the Senate.

Some may see this viewpoint as being pessimistic; however, I am actually very optimistic about the future. Climate change will not do it, but I think that the world is quickly approaching the point where people will realize that its time to get serious about developing the third world. It is the key to reducing population growth, improving the environment the world over, reducing corruption and intolerance and reducing strife. I still hold hope - I just wish we could get past all this climate change non-sense and focus on the issues which we do understand and can have a real impact upon.

Climate change is an excuse to do nothing about all the other important issues out there - and the US is an excuse to do nothing at all. Really a shame.

Cheers.

Kealey
Copenhagen Countdown: 17 days 4:46pm on 25 Nov 2009
@LabMonkey

Good luck with your FOI requests. Unfortunately, you cannot get what does not exist anymore. The latest lawsuits regarding GISS and failure to comply with the FOI. Several months ago, as I recall, requests for uncorrected (i.e. raw) GISS temperature data was requested, and the requester stonewalled. Finally, GISS responded with 'we can't find the data you requested' - i.e. they 'lost' it. In my view, that in itself should be grounds for termination from NASA and grounds to never allow the individuals responsible for the data to be permitted access to government research grants - forever.

As I recall, over the summer, one of Mr. Hanson's Sr. Developers basically said that much of the GISS model code dates back to the 80's, does not follow any standards, is almost impossible to understand and very difficult even to get it running. Much of it is still in Fourtran IV. The Sr. Developer suggested it would take upwards of two years to remediate the code and establish proper controls, including version control.

As I understand it, the code is constantly being 'tweeked' - and as it is lacking proper version control, many of the results produced by the GISS (Hansen) model (IMHO) should actually be published in 'The journal of irreproducible results'.

The simple fact is that all research done using government grants or by government agencies is required to be in the public domain - unless there are national security issues involved.

Why do we not see papers on climate change which present:

a - here is what we found
b - here are the conclusions we drew and why
c - here is the raw data we started with, and this is how we obtained it
d - here are the corrections we applied to the data, and our rational and assumptions related to the corrections
e - here is the corrected data we used in our model
f - here is our model - run it for yourself

We do get a and b, but very very rarely do we get anything else, and I am not aware of any publications which contain all of the above. It really would appear that we must accept on faith that the corrections made are valid and accurate, that the models are good, etc. etc...

This is not what I would consider 'good science'. I remember when, if you were going to publish something - your results must be readily reproducible. In my view, it is very unfortunate that this is no longer the case.

I believe that the 'commercialization' of Universities has been a major issue. Universities today actively seek to maximize the monetary benefits of their research. This is often cited as a reason for not releasing the whole research - the claim that it is proprietary information. The research now seems less important than the ability to secure research grants and derive value from the research. Commercial value is often cited as an excuse for not releasing data, corrections and models. We only see interpretations of results and conclusions. How can one evaluate the data, the model or the methodology (i.e. the "science")? In my opinion, you can't.

If the issue is as dire and important as the 'climate scientists' constantly warn us with the constant barrage of doomsday predictions, then why do they not release all their research? One has to wonder about that - all the more reason to be skeptical.

A previous poster was correct in commenting on the need to publish in the Ivory Towers of Academia; however, today, it is not just publish or perish (as it has been for some time) but also development of both short term and long term revenue streams for the University. Teaching is now job number 3 in our Universities. Number one is making money, Number two is publishing and a very distant Number three is teaching. It is truly a shame - no wonder we are seeing issues related to our educational process and institutions of higher learning.

Cheers.

Kealey
Copenhagen Countdown: 17 days 06:57am on 25 Nov 2009

To the moderators: this is a replacement for post #254 - which has never appeared and been awaiting moderation for 8 hours. I tried very carefully, not to violate the house rules - after a second reading, I noticed a couple of items which could be mis-interpreted and I have removed / reworded. While the tone of the post is still a bit harsh, I believe it does not violate the house rules. I also hope that no one takes any personal offense from the opinions expressed herein. I do hope that some take some personal reflection from these words. The truth is that most Americans are pretty much like everyone else - and want the same things. Just regular folk.

@RichardBlack

You asked for some comments about how people in the US feel - and while I
I think you know where I stand, but I would like to share with you my perception of the climate on 'man made climate change' here. As this is a topic near and dear to my heart, it is certainly a topic which I have discussed with a great many people - and from a wide cross section of demographics. From energy execs to farmers and 'new world hippies'.

In all honesty, I think that what support momentum which existed two years ago, has mostly eroded to almost nothing. Most people that I have spoken with believe there are a great many more important issues today, other than climate change. I think many of those who were ardent believers only two years ago have become skeptical. People are much more worried about the economy, jobs, the war in Afghanistan, healthcare and the future.

I also have heard from people who are more informed, that they are very tired of 'the climate change blame game'. We hear over and over - its all the US's fault and its all up to us to 'fix it'. I think that attitude stems not only from climate change, but also from a variety of other issues in the world today. I believe also, based upon numerous discussions that many people have a 'damned if we do, damned if we don't' mentality with a variety of world issues today. I also believe many people dislike the perceptions and views of Americans which seem to be widely held in the EU.

Of those with whom have been ardent supports of the current consensus on 'climate change theory', I always ask one question: are you willing to pay twice as much for electricity and gasoline to fight climate change? And along with that, even greater increases in food prices (food costs have already risen from 30-50% in the last five years here, depending upon where you live - at least based upon my experience, but feel free to check, the numbers are accurate). While I used to get the answer 'if that is required, thats whats required', now the answer is typically NO, they can do better than that (they being the government and the corporate-industrial complex, you know...them).

You have to consider, that unlike the UK, which has a pretty moderate climate (as does most of Western Europe), the south here is very hot and humid (A/C required) and the Northeast very cold in winter - serious heat required - and without electricity - ice storms are frequent. Prices for electricity have already risen to where A/C for an average, moderate home here in Texas is $450-$600 a month during the summer months, and the cost of heating an average sized home in the Northeast during winter is the same. When you talk about doubling that - particularly given the current economic environment, people back off real quick. Too many people are already struggling too hard.

I also see a more and more people who believe the current attitudes toward Americans is really driven by envy. Particularly when the climate debate has come to the point where people from all over the world expect 'entitlements' from the US because of 'climate change'. In my opinion, Americans will never accept that point of view.

A couple of my own opinions now - I think Boxer-Kerry is already dead. By the time the Senate even begins the committee process and debates, mid-term elections campaigns will already be in full swing. At present, the democrats hold only an extremely thin margin in the Senate, Republicans will make an issue of the costs to the average American. It will be a campaign issue - and I don't see the democrats not losing at least a few seats, which will prevent them from blocking a filibuster or ratifying any kind of climate treaty. They only hold the 60 seats required right now by a thread - with a number of democrats on the fence.

I also really dislike the cop-out that I continuously see - that its all up to the US. It provides an easy scape goat for everyone's failure (although, as you are aware, I personally would like to see an utter failure at Copenhagen - not because I don't care about the environment - I think by now, you know I care very deeply, but because I am skeptical of this issue, and there are many other issues which I am not skeptical of, which have remained unaddressed during my entire lifetime.

If ya'll truly believe in all this stuff - then have the meddle to do it without us. Oh, I keep hearing that nothing meaningful can happen without the US, but looking at your own charts, BAU by the US will essentially mean little or no growth in emissions, and probably reductions due to increased nuclear power, improved efficiencies and other factors.

If all ya'll (pardon my Texan) decide to do something, then do something, but don't sit there and say that the US must do X or nobody is going to do nothing. It only underscores the idea that this is all about envy and wanting the US to pay more.

On a similar note, there is an article in the BBC today which shows a few graphs with 'different ways of looking at CO2 emissions'. I do find it difficult to believe that the US has produced more total emissions since 1791 than the EU. Given population differences and level of industrialization up to about 50-70 years ago.

It is also interesting to note that no consideration is given to the size of the US. While the US has a little over four times the population of the UK, the US is many many times the size of the UK. Texas, where I live has half the people of the UK and three times the land area. Transportation costs are significantly higher here - and that will not change. If one were to use the metric of emissions per person per square mile, one would see a much different picture. Unfortunately, we only see and hear about metrics which make the US look evil and of primary blame.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but people have been burning coal in the UK for a lot longer than the US has even existed. In 1791 I can imagine London as an already very large city, with soot everywhere and a pall of smog and pollution hanging over the city; meanwhile l don't think there were any cities in the US which suffered such pollution at that time.

I would also point out that, if you examine satellite images from the 70's and compare with today, you will find a significant 'greening' of America. The US also invented Cap n Trade - for SO2 and NOx emissions at power plants, which has had a dramatic effect on pollution - stricter pollution controls have been implemented here on a continuing basis since the 70's. I have seen it with my own eyes, while at the same time, I have seen. with my own eyes, the horrible rape of environments all over the world go unaddressed and unabated. The same of humanistic issues - they haven't changed in most of the world during my lifetime.

The US has also instituted comprehensive fisheries management programs, which appears to be working - and we are ten or fifteen years ahead of the UK in that respect. We learned from Canada's lesson with Newfoundland - and the collapse of its fisheries. The US is implemented many programs to preserve and restore fisheries on all three coasts - even to the point of dismantling hydro-electric dams to restore the spawning grounds for a variety of species, including Pacific Salmon.

I might also add, that people in the US work significantly more hours than do their counterparts in Europe. Almost 50% more hours per year then people in the Netherlands and almost as much with regard to those is Scandinavia. That certainly has an impact upon energy usage at US businesses.

Going back to the size of the US. What most Europeans who have not spent time here don't realize (or perhaps understand the implications of) is that, for the most part, the US is very spread out - population density is much lower than in the places like the UK. This is also not something which can be changed easily nor quickly.

The 'American Dream' to most here is to own a home. While there has been a migration from rural areas into the cities here, the cities themselves are for the most part, very spread out. It is very difficult even to live in the city without a car. While public transportation is available - one still needs to do things like go to the grocery store...and it might be a mile walk each way, which is a lot with groceries for a family for the week...

Most Americans, in my view, would not like to taxes and energy costs rise to the point as to make the dream of home ownership virtually impossible for all but the very rich. It is The American Dream.

Yes, I am so tired of the old "the US is responsible and must show leadership on climate change". If everyone else truly believes in the dire warnings which surround the current theories on climate change - then do it without the US. And if you are right and you do, the US will fall into line.

Yes, I am skeptical. as I think are more and more of my countrymen (please check current polls if you like, Richard). The dramatic increase in worldwide demand for energy will force change in the US, as well as elsewhere.

We have a saying around here: put up, or shut up. So, I say to all ya'll - put up, or shut up. Don't stand around pointing at the US and place all the blame and onus upon us. That is just a cop-out. Another way to degenerate the US while ya'll stand around doing nothing - which is (fortunately) what will I believe will happen anyway.

Richard, on another note, I found your recent article regarding climate change and Africa to be complete rubbish. To actually suggest that a 0.5C increase in average temperatures (annual variations since '81) has dramatic affects upon crop yields is a bit hard to swallow. In truth, famine, ignorance, strife and war have been an integral part of Africa since the end of the colonial period and the abandonment of those colonies. That, coupled with an exploding population have,IMHO been the major drivers for strife in Africa for the last 50-60 years. Now, its all because of climate change - well news flash - all these issues have been around since the African countries gained their independence and were essentially abandoned by their former rulers. While I must admit the increase in strife in Africa and the end of colonial rule is a casual relationship, so is the one between man made CO2 emissions and catastrophic climate change is also a casual relationship. We simply don't know enough about Earth's climate system - but in my opinion, we know plenty about the problems and issues of Africa, whether we wish to admit it or not.

It seems very convenient for it all to now be the fault of the US and its CO2 emissions - so the US should pay for it all...hmmm, yes, how convenient. Oh, and I am curious, just how temperatures for Africa were measured since 1981 and how and 'average' was determined - oh, and what do we really mean by 'the average temperature of Africa'. I would hazard to guess that any 'average' would have a margin of error of greater than 0.5C - making it all meaningless. Not only that, but while certain parts of Africa may be warmer during some years, others are cooler - it is a big continent with many 'climates'. Nice try though. Africa needs development with cheap energy and education - that will make a real difference. But please, by all means, carry on...

Cheers.

Kealey
Copenhagen Countdown: 17 days 03:39am on 25 Nov 2009
@Richard,

A couple more quick comments - I only wish to speak regarding one American - President Obama. First, I don't really know what he really thinks, but I have observed his words vs. his actions. In my opinion, he plays nothing more than lip service to the whole climate change agenda, just like most other politicians I have observed.

Consider this - he has spent trillions on 'stimulus packages'. The biggest ones are in my view completely contrary to the 'Copenhagen Agenda'. Additionally, very little stimulus money has gone to 'green energy' or energy research - relatively speaking.

Example one: Cash for clunkers - this was a $6500 credit from the government if you traded in a car for one with 5 mpg better fuel economy. So, you could take an old blazer, worth $1000 tops and trade it in for a new blazer - which still gets horrible mileage - and make money out of the deal. And, the car manufacturers would take it back from you for the first 12 months or 12,000 miles - no questions asked - just in case you lost your job.

Example two: Home Buyer incentives. The significant tax credits for first time home buyers have been extended to other groups, and loopholes even exist for purchasing a second home - you know, a vacation home. Certainly, to me anyway, this would appear to be contrary to the "Copenhagen" agenda which would suggest major lifestyle changes in the west. Big cars and trucks and second homes do not fit into this agenda - nor do most homes period. Apartments are much more efficient from an energy / CO2 perspective.

I wouldn't look for a whole lot of 'real support' from Obama - but thats just my opinion, based upon my interpretation (as simple minded as it may be) of his actions regarding the 'issue'. I hope I am correct in my assessment.

Cheers.

Kealey

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

LarryKealey