Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'The very opposite of intellectual totalitarianism'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, February 26, 2010 1:09am - 168 Comments

Maxime Bernier considers the reaction to his comments on climate change and rallies his supporters.

This is why it is so important to have an open and balanced public debate. This is the very opposite of the intellectual totalitarianism of those who would like to stamp out every dissident voice.

As I said in my Calgary speech some weeks ago, we should be the lobby of the silent majority, this majority which is not represented by the interest groups that we hear about all the time in public debates, but who will pay for the policies being adopted in the end. I encourage all those who feel concerned by this question to make themselves heard, either by leaving a comment on this blog, writing to your elected officials or to newspapers. Thank you to those who’ve done it. I can assure you that you are having an impact.

Tags: Beauce, Calgary, climate change, climategate, global warming, Maxime Bernier

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

And if the CRU were the only institution conducting climatology, you might have a point.

As it isn't, you're pointless.
Craig O

The British Government's actions likely stem more from the Copenhagen talks (which were beyond worthless), not from Kyoto.

And how is the federal government investing in energy production in CANADA a transfer of wealth out of the country? Heck, reading the reports, it looks like that new source of energy could replace BC energy imports from the US, meaning money is kept here, not removed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"The story then becomes even more bizarre. The contracts with Barclays, J P Morgan and co – who will retain up to £9 million in commissions – will be used to buy Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) credits under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chr…

I was cheating with Natural Resources quote, I know. I always like to give Harper a good kick whenever I can and just finished reading the Corcoran article I got quote from.

How about I alter Harper's quote to “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing economy.” The gist is same.
Craig O

Whadyaknow – I stand corrected. Entirely unnecessary to have transfers to third-world and – correct me if I'm reading this wrong – it looks like those credits are being bought so that the UK can meet it's obligations, rather than as part of a transfer scheme (sort of like a loose cap-and-trade type deal), which is pretty much just a cop-out on the UK's part.

For the other part, come on jolyon. We're not talking about some hippie commune, it's a pulp mill – I'd call that part of the wealth-producing economy. Besides, this is an investment – if that money was going towards a coal-based power plant, would this be, at all, an issue? And considering that this is a pretty novel way of going about things, it's a fairly solid real-world R&D investment as well. I really fail to see the downside, or even socialist angle, of making a resource-producing sector more efficient.
peter

Science is not a belief system. It is a method system. The whole altar of science is erected on the assumption that results are reproduceable if theory and method are faithfully followed…this is what "proves" a theory.

When the methods and the data are hidden from scrutiny fron "non-believers" how are sceptics supposed to react? To call AGW science is to call taliban rule democratic, everyone who disagrees is simply killed. No problem, perfect society.
Craig O

Fortunately, climatology and its generally accepted conclusions don't rest on any single data set or method – there are multiple research units with independent data sets, many of which are as available as any other data set from scientists in other fields (that's not to say they're 100% available, because neither are the sets from researchers in other fields).

That's why the criticisms of CRU, while entirely valid, ultimately change very little – what they found, others found independently meaning the results are not only reproduceable but have already been reproduced. You can throw out their data entirely and still come to the same conclusion that the vast majority of climatologists do.

peter

The results are utterly irrelevant, the CAUSE is the sticking point. Since cyclical warming/cooling is the norm in the historical data why is this event different than others? That is the fundamental point at issue. The fast and loose with the truth and the damning emails on obfuscating the recent cooling (which utterly shreds the agw theory if their hypothesis about human carbon is correct) are the issue. That you guys continue to spout your revealed truth as it supports your world view, in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence of fraud and "Downing streeting" the data to fix the facts to the policy shames you. I'm not saying let's pump toxins into the environment, I am saying that before we kneecap our economy and sentence our children to poverty that we be awfully damn sure.

Holly Stick

Despite all the denialist hysterics over a few stolen emails and one mistake in the IPCC report (which no denialist had the wit to find) the huge amount of evidence that AGW is occurring is still right here. There is no "OVERWHELMING evidence of fraud" just denialist liars screaming in all-caps on their blogs.

What evidence do you have that "cyclical warming/cooling is the norm"? If you point to the MWP, despite it being a regional event, not a global event, so what? One period of warming then cooling does not make a "norm".

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean is going up. The global temperature is going up, justas it is predicted when the amount of CO2 rises. If you do not believe CO2 is having a greenhouyse effect, give a scientific explanation for why not, then explain why 2000-2009 was the warmest decade in recorded history.

peter

nice try dude, but you've got your shoes on the wrong feet…Vonnegut was specifically targeting lefties in the piece. Freedom is Ignorance, Truth is how you twist it?
kcm

Wasting your breath…anyone who conflates the taliban rule with CC science isn't really interested in a debate, no matter claims to the contrary.

peter

Are the results reproducible? Is the nascent ponzi scheme of carbon trading credits real? Is kcm a sociology undergrad at left leaning school? Is calling someoneone a "denier" (and all that implies) worse than equating taliban orthodoxy with extant agw climate science pr? Check out the post on realclimate science about the warning sign of agw being a cult…you may be due for some reprogramming my young friend.

kcm

Not so young actually. And i dislike the use of rediculous hyperpole in polemic, whether it be equating Israeli misdeems to fascism/nazism, or the taliban to CC scientists. It does nothing to move the debate forward. There are plenty of intransigent idealogues who refuse to even consider the possibility of AGW…agreed that simply labelling them deniers probably isn't helpful either.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

The CRU "scientists" are the one who were caught red handed distorting and destroying the data that their work was based on.
Holly Stick

The UK Institute of Physics is a charity, not an authority.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"…only if they are guilty of the various misconducts they are being accused of do their results then come into question. That means the burden of proof lies with those making the accusations, such as yourself – innocent until proven guilty, and all that. "

Point 1: this is not a criminal case, it's an assessment of credibility. There's more than enough evidence to establish that their credibility is in question.

Point 2: "The CRU and its members acted unscrupulously, not going to deny that. So have other climatologists. – CraigO
The prosecution rests.

The cred gap is on firm ground. With that established, political action is rightly on hold.

Craig O

Gaunilon, come on, think a little harder than that.

First, as I've said repeatedly, one bad institute does not mean all the research centers or researchers are bad, a point I just spelled out. As "prosecution", your burden is, at a sheer minimum, to demonstrate that enough of the field of climatology has been corrupted. Otherwise you've just proved that one doctor committed malpractice – guilt by association Gaunilon, it's been said repeatedly, yet you continue to ignore that point.

Secondly, let's take a look at the manner of the CRU's scientists misconducts. Is there any evidence of falsification of data? Of manipulating results? So far, no. There is evidence, heavy evidence, of an unwillingness to share data, especially with those of opposing viewpoints. That defies proper scientific conduct, it's insular and antagonistic – understandable reactions given the bombardment of often unreasonable scrutiny that these scientists have been subjected to from non-scientists, but unacceptable nonetheless. This is circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing in research, but not direct or conclusive evidence in itself. To eliminate the legitimacy of their work, you, as "prosecution", would have to prove that there should be a lack of confidence in their findings, not just their integrity in dealing with those they disagree with – all the more since the CRU findings agree with those from other research centers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

There's evidence of misconduct as scientists, which is bad enough, and further evidence of trying to deceive by presenting data in a misleading light (e.g. "hide the decline", concatenating data from different measurement methods and making them look like one when in fact a single data method shows an awkward trend, etc.) This strikes me as plenty. Apparently it also strikes the IoP as plenty, not just to establish a cred gap at East Anglia but for the entire field.

The point here is that the misconduct was right from the top, and contaminates several key personalities as well as the key report on which most policy was based. This is not just my opinion, as the link I provided shows. So I'm not "ignoring" anything. The field is compromised, not just because "one doctor" acted badly, but because several top doctors did and the report which the entire field accepted as gospel has also been found to be sloppy at best, or dishonest at worst.

Yes, this does not mean that we should fire every climatologist. That would be "guilt by association". But also yes, it does mean that we should take a step back from the policy initiatives that the field has been aggressively pushing.

Craig O

"Apparently it also strikes the IoP as plenty, not just to establish a cred gap at East Anglia but for the entire field."

*sigh* How often must I repeat myself? The IoP asked for an investigation. That's not the same as saying the field has no credibility – it's sending the doctor to trial, not finding him guilty.

Furthermore, there is no "top" in any field of science, including climatology. There are certainly more prominent members, but they do not control the rest of the field – perhaps direct it with their research and finding, but they do not get a say in what other climatologists do directly. They have their own research with their own findings. Some of this research may draw on the work of more prominent scientists, but that's the beauty of science – if those top guys are wrong, then there will be unexpected or unexplained results from other researchers that use their incorrect findings. Heck, quantum mechanics came out of that very process.

Lastly, you've still presented nothing but more circumstantial evidence. The "deceptions" of data presentation weren't really deceptions at all, because the data presented was all still valid and was not erroneously manipulated or falsified. Not presenting it in the most unbiased way is, again, a fault. But it runs parallel to the other faults that these climatologists have, that don't want to give anything to skeptics that might in any way be construed as running against AGW, even if they should (why they wouldn't want to give skeptics anything is explained quite well in the Economist article Holly Stick linked towards the end of this page).

You say the evidence is plenty for you, but you maintained this skeptical position well before any of these things came to light, so I hope you can understand why I think what's plenty for you is not enough to an objective observer, at least when direct evidence is lacking.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Every action leads to unforeseen consequences. There is no such thing as "stopping the experiment" in this case – either avenue is an experiment. Therefore it is a cost-benefit analysis: the risk of continuing (probability of harm x cost of said harm) has to be weighed against the risk of changing course. This is not as straightforward as you seem to think, and it certainly isn't a slam dunk in favour of Gorism.

"For example, do I really need to lay out that more CO2 emissions are likely to lead to different or more severe effects than what's occurred from previous CO2 emissions of the last century?"
I doubt that you *know* it's likely. I doubt that anyone does.

"I mean, by the logic you've used in points 1 and 3, if I eat one Big Mac a week and don't get diabetes, I couldn't possibly get diabetes if I eat 5 Big Macs a week – but that's ridiculous, and you know that just as well as I do.

No, that's not the logic at all. The logic is that until someone presents clear evidence, I don't know I will get diabetes, or even that I will llikely get diabetes, if I continue to eat as I have done. No one is saying "I couldn't possibly get diabetes", which would be the equivalent of saying "AGW is known to be false". To quote some guy named Gaunilon just above: "I've not said that AGW is wrong. What I have said is that the case for it is questionable. "
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"*sigh* How often must I repeat myself? The IoP asked for an investigation. That's not the same as saying the field has no credibility…"

That *sigh* really does sound like Mr. Gore! Perhaps it's something in the air.

"Furthermore, there is no "top" in any field of science, including climatology."
Yes there is. There are top names, renowned researchers, premier research groups, etc. People who have enough clout to be influencing which papers get published are top figures. Likewise, people whose input is used in international policy making.

" …but that's the beauty of science – if those top guys are wrong, then there will be unexpected or unexplained results from other researchers that use their incorrect findings.
This is only true if others are able to (a) reproduce the experiment, or (b) access the date. In the case of historical temperature measurements it has to be (b).

"You say the evidence is plenty for you, but you maintained this skeptical position well before any of these things came to light, so I hope you can understand why I think what's plenty for you is not enough to an objective observer…"
Yes, because I think it's only rational to be skeptical of anyone preaching anything when they stand to gain billions of dollars from it. This was the situation prior to Climategate. The situation now seems to more than justify my initial reaction.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

As to Big Macs, the better analogy is that we're eating something whose effects in quantity are unknown (say, kiwi). It might hurt us. We don't know. We should be careful, but we should also be skeptical of the guy chowing down on kiwis right next to us who says "hey, give me billions of dollars for research and kiwi offsets, and you won't suffer the horrible fate that I predict you otherwise will. And no, you cannot see my data."

"…we don't need to be sure that bad things will happen, we merely need to accept a real possibility of something bad happening that would be worth avoiding."
As I said above, it's a cost-benefit analysis. There's a risk if we continue, and there's another risk if we stop. The latter is not a climate risk – as you point out, we know that not emitting isn't going to hurt the earth – but it's an economic risk. These risks have to be weighed, but to be weighed they must be calculated, and to calculate them we need to know the probability of CO2 emissions causing horrible effects. That last part is the one that's currently questionable. Hence we should probably wait until better info becomes available.

"If done what I consider to be the right way, it should even mean lower income taxes too. These are important considerations that do not have to deal with the uncertainty of AGW."
Yes, and that could be a good discussion. Unfortunately those pushing for policy changes so far have hammered on things like apocalyptic floods … which is all well and good if there's either solid evidence or a prophet with bona fides from God, but very questionable in the case of scientists and politicians advocating something dubious which happens to coincide perfectly with their own vested interests.

Craig O

The economic risk is minimal, as I've said and as I've demonstrated in posts further down this article. France, Germany and all the Scandinavian countries have reduced their emissions without much – if any – harmful effects to their economies, and they started at levels well below that of ours and that of the US's. On the flip side, rich European countries that increased their emissions are now the ones in the most trouble – the PIGS bloc, for example. I'm not saying there's a causal link here, but I am saying the two aren't correlated strongly enough to make it a real concern. If reducing emissions is doable while maintaining a strong economy, yet increasing emissions can occur while producing a struggling economy, at a minimum, it means that the economic effect of reducing emissions will be overpowered by more important factors.

The rest of your argument is not against me, because they are points I have not made (and if I have in the past, I'll retract them here and now). I don't believe apocalyptic floods are coming. The sea level could well rise, but that's a far cry from the doomsday rhetoric that comes out of other AGW that I don't agree with. But to disagree with my position because there are some idiots who agree with my position for different reasons has no merit. There are idiots who agree with your position for different reasons, but that doesn't automatically make you wrong.

Lastly, you haven't answered my question.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I'm not an economist, so I won't claim to know the economic risk. I merely know that there is one, and that reputed economists (e.g. Thomas Sowell) seem to think it could be pretty big. They may be wrong, but it has to be weighed.

I'm not suggesting that you're one of the Goretastic types, merely that Goretasm (?) … Goregasm (?) …. Goreaciousness (?) …. has been the primary narrative of those calling for policy changes. It's unfortunate. There may well be a more rational discussion to be had, but the attempts to pressure governments into action thus far haven't been it.

I think I did answer your question, but I'll have another go if you wish. I have no idea whether there is a "significant chance that unregulated CO2 emissions will lead to a consequential, damaging change in the global environment." I'm just skeptical, and I think it's wise to hold off on actions until we know the benefit outweighs the cost. If there's a minimal-cost way to reduce our impact on the environment then I'm all for it – that can't be bad – but in general things like capping emissions and imposing carbon taxes strike me as much bigger impositions with a lot of possible unforeseen (or even foreseen) bad effects.

Craig O

The one benefit of having waiting so long to act on any sort of climate change is that we can see how other countries did and the result of it. We don't have to perform that experiment ourselves, at least not entirely. My go-to favourite country for this, because it makes the point so well, is Sweden, which implemented an $100 per tonne carbon tax in 1991, which has gone up to $150 and is slated to rise! The number thrown around here is $40 a tonne, with an incremental rise over the span of a few years. How damaging can such a tax be, since Sweden's economy has been largely fine over the last few decades?

I know, a carbon tax strikes a lot of people as something scary. Taxes in general do, and probably with good reason. This is why I really liked Dion's Green Shift plan, even though Dion himself was the political equivalent of thin soup (weak and unsatisfying), because it rolled back income taxes at the same time. And I can't help but thinking, I don't like taxes, but they are necessary to some extent and so I might as well be getting taxed on things activities I should be reducing, instead of on things I should be increasing. That way, if I'm more productive (earn more) and waste less (produce fewer emissions), there's more money in my pocket than if I produced less and wasted more.

Anyway, I need sleep, so this'll have to be my last post for the night. Thanks for the (mostly) productive exchange!

Craig O

They've only lost authority if they're guilty. I'll go back to the doctors – if a doctor is accused of malpractice, he's not a bad doctor if he's found innocent and can continue to practice medicine with his authority intact.

Top only matters if it has control, because if it does not, then we return to a situation where you're implying guilt by association. The field does not rest on those top experts, their opinions or their credibility and so even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and throw out everything the CRU's done, there are still many other people qualified to speak on the issue who are not even under investigation who would say largely the same thing. And while you keep bringing up the IoP's statement, but have yet to establish that it has any meaning – I'll say again, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY – why is an accusation without a conviction enough? This is even more irrelevant a charge when you consider that both the UK Met Office and the US National Academy of Sciences conducted investigations into CRU and Michael Mann respectively and in the end agreed with the results.

Physics I brought up merely to show that in standard scientific practice, discoveries of errors in theories can and often are brought about not by doing the exact same experiment done previously, but by doing new ones and finding contradictions. I'm not saying AGW is on the same footing (climatology is an applied science, how could it be?), but that we don't need the hard data to prove the findings wrong, if in fact they are wrong. (and Planck didn't realize anything – he said himself that the use of quantized energy was a moment of desperation and he spent the rest of his career with serious doubts about QM in general)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Ok, we seem to be going in circles so we may just have to agree to disagree. Suffice to say that for those of us who are not climatologists (e.g. me) and don't have the time to delve into the data, reliance on the credibility of those in the field is key. We assume that they are either acting in good faith, or that their peer review is sufficient to keep bad practice to a minimum. This is why, when a series of top names and an authoritative research institute appear to be doing fairly unprofessional things with their data and the peer review process, one reasonably questions the entire field.

When the field is seen to be acting in accordance with vested interests, suspicion is reasonable. When there is evidence that the field has perhaps (note: perhaps) been snowed by fraudulent practices then suspicion is imperative. The reasoned response is "yes, they could be right, but I'll wait until the claims are vetted". To use your doctor analogy, if a group of top doctors at a hospital are accused of molesting patients, one doesn't fire them until the case is heard, but one also has reasonable reservations about putting oneself under sedation in their presence. Weigh the risks.

Holly Stick

Just smear everybody. The kangaroo court of denialism doesn't care about the science and don't make an honest effeort to understand it. They just resort to smearing the scientists.

AT1

Holly, do you anything other than resort to name calling?

Why don't you follow the example of Gaunilon/Craig O, who show above how a debate actually works.

Thanks, guys for keeping it clean and thoughtful!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"Thanks for the (mostly) productive exchange!"

Agreed, and thanks to you also!

AT1

I enjoyed this exchange…thanks

LC Bennett

The Canadian MSM has done a poor job of reporting the recent climate change events. The problem for AGWers is not just the embarrassing glacier mixup or using reports by WWF/Greenpeace/graduate students but the very real problems with its raw data, methods and conclusions. Phil Jones (of climategate fame) admitted that much of the original data is missing and therefor cannot be tested or verified by others. He admitted that other periods of warming (like MWP) may have been warmer which smashes the unprecedented claim. Finally, he also admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years. Even more amazing is all that has been blamed on this statistcally insignificant warming – from acne to yellow fever, more wind, less wind, more snow, less snow . http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

In fact there seems to be anything that doesn't prove AGW/CC. Quite the 'science' you true believers have – missing raw data, unreproducible results, contradictory claims on effects, no way to falsify predictions, meddling in the peer review process, refusal to hold open debates etc, etc. Fortunately, all of the major data gathering organizations are in the process of being investigated and/or being sued to get them to live up to the FOI requirements. Advocating taking action before the investigations and legal workings are complete is an odd reaction for people who claim to be pro-science and intellectually gifted. But Palin and Mad Max are the idiots…right.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Why do you consider an attack against a few scientists an attack against all scientists? This is exactly the "intellectual totalitarianism" that Bernier talked about. Is criticizing a scientist or questioning the norm now considered "anti-science"? Perhaps somebody should go back in time and tell that to Newton or Galileo.
kcm

Oh give me a break…you're only critical of these scientists, right? And for the record i do support good science…therefore i have no problem with Jones and company answering to their critics, and their jobs if proven. 'Intellectual totalitarianism" is just another code word/phrase for the libs are shoving reality down our throats again, which is just like a dog whistle for the far right.