Slashdot Mirror

Yet somehow it is not actually linked with increased risk of cancer.

No, it has not. In the 1980s, 1990s, and early 00s, when clock speeds were doubling every 18-24 months Intel and the PC industry used Moore's Law as synonymous with doubling of performance in general and doubling of the clock speed specifically. Here is an example of this usage from the first paragraph of the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) 2010 report Sustaining Growth in Computing Performance authored by dozens of top figures in the chip industry and academic research.

http://sites.nationalacademies...

Fast, inexpensive computers are now essential for nearly all human endeavors and have been a critical factor in increasing economic productivity, enabling new defense systems, and advancing the frontiers of science. But less well understood is the need for ever-faster computers at ever-lower costs. For the last half-century, computers have been doubling in performance and capacity every couple of years. This remarkable, continuous, exponential growth in computing performance has resulted in an increase by a factor of over 100 per decade and more than a million in the last 40 years. For example, the raw performance of a 1970s supercomputer is now available in a typical modern cell phone. That uninterrupted exponential growth in computing throughout the lifetimes of most people has resulted in the expectation that such phenomenal progress, often called Moore's law, will continue well into the future.

Note that they are defining and using Moore's Law in this general way. The exponential improvement in performance of CPUs between the 1970s and 2003 was due almost entirely to the remarkable increase in the clock speed of the CPUs, not the number or density of transistors.

Since 2003 when clock speeds largely topped out, Intel and other chip companies have labored to distract attention from the clock speed. Why buy a new chip that is no faster than a chip from 14 years ago? Clock speeds have disappeared from the prominently displayed technical specifications displayed with PCs at stores and other venues. "Experts" are suddenly adamant that Moore's Law has nothing to do with clock speed: wherever did you get such as silly idea?

The reality is that the semiconductor technology has hit fundamental limits as frequently happens in the technology S curve seen in many historical technologies. Most probably a fundamentally new technology is needed -- much as jet engines are fundamentally different from propeller engines driven by internal combustion engines.

Do a comparison between previous releases of NOAA data and newer releases.

Yes, some of it has been changed. The reasons for this (identification and elimination of calibration errors) have been published, and the methods too. If you have a problem with the methodology, rather than just bitching about the results, then be more specific.

There are systematic trends introduced.

Your opinion. Some calibrations have enhanced (not introduced) an existing trend, some have mitigated it. But the results are what they are; unless you can provide better data, or at least offer a convincing (to real climatologists) explanation as to why the calibrations performed cannot be valid, then there's no reason to suppose they reduce the data quality, instead of enhancing it as claimed.

NOAA is the source of their data

And yet, the HadCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST datasets are also freely available, many analyses are based on these, and all agree closely with NOAA's results. A huge array of different, independent lines of observations all confirm and substantiate their conclusions. Again, where is your data?

do you understand the meaning of the word "Lysenkosim"

Lysenko had political support but no data. Climate change has a huge amount of data behind it, from many different nations. Claiming political interference in the process from all these governments (with nothing more than unsubstantiated claims about "undesirable" research being underfunded) just makes you look like another yet loony conspiracy theorist.

There's no shortage of evidence of private and corporate millions being funnelled to discredit AGW, so funding obviously isn't the hurdle you claim - yet so far the only serious attempt by sceptics at providing an "impartial" analysis ended up backing the mainstream conclusions anyway. Data talks; bullshit has to resort to FUD on the internet.

Uncertainties are hugely important.

Of course, but neither do they render results "useless" - particularly when confirmed by other, independent lines of evidence. Even large uncertainties can provide clear evidence of a trend; only the degree of that trend is still uncertain.

TCS is observable, and we now have 36 years of measurements

How? Cite these TCS "measurements", please.

ANY values that are contra to the hypothesis invalidate the hypothesis

First, we still only have your baseless opinion that any hypotheses have been invalidated, as you have yet to cite specific data (or even a specific hypothesis - are you really still claiming the world has not been warming?).

Second, the vast majority of climatologists remain entirely unconvinced by any supposedly-contrary points argued by the "sceptics"; why is this? You claim they're all in a global conspiracy. Far more likely that they simply know something you don't (as they should, since they've spent considerably more time in their field than you).

Third, in any complex field relying on statistical models, whether climatology or particle physics, outlier values always exist. In fields where underlying randomness is a major factor and probabilistic analyses are required to establish evidence, then a handful of values that don't fit cleanly into the centre of the bell-curve do not disprove anything - and claims that suggest that show nothing more than wilful oversimplification. A full analysis of all the data is required to establish the trends behind the randomness - and so far, every such comprehensive analysis has supported the warming trend.

Do you know that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has determined that CAGW is not happening?

Wrong, and your claim (no doubt parroted from Heartland via Watts et al) was

No need for funding to be evil for it to have an agenda

"The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ... funded by Congress ... foundations, state governments, the private sector, and philanthropy from individuals"

http://www.nationalacademies.o...

he had to prove his innocence instead of the State having to prove his guilt.

You're spouting nonsense... They did have ample evidence indicating his guilt. It has always fallen to the defendant to provide a defense, and counter / refute the state's (otherwise-compelling) incriminating evidence.

It's a disturbing trend where we're proving innocence as opposed to relying on the State to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

You don't seem to know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means... It has never meant "100% sure, absolutely irrefutable and infallible proof". It's a very high standard of evidence, but never has anyone pretended innocent men never look guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... Hence the critical NEED for defense lawyers for the accused, from the very start of legal systems.

Given the time that has passed, the case should have not been prosecuted unless it was so air-tight that an alibi would not have made a difference.

It's ridiculous to put such an impossibly high burden on the prosecution in any circumstances. A huge number of guilty criminals would never be punished, because they were minimally able to hide their crimes behind a tiny sliver of possible doubt.

In addition, I don't believe ANY case can EVER be so airtight that an iron-clad alibi would still result in a conviction. Eyewitnesses can easily make mistakes.... plenty of people LOOK quite similar, so even video evidence could be faulty. Similarly, NO form of forensic evidence is free of "collisions", where two people, out of a pool of millions, have practically identical features (e.g. fingerprints, DNA, etc.).

Just ask the National Academies: "no studies have been conducted of large populations to determine how many sources might share the same or similar features."
http://www8.nationalacademies....

Or ask Brandon Mayfield how he feels about the accuracy of fingerprint evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontl...

Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]

Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]

because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]

www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...

principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]

Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".

Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.

And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?

Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?

But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?

They addressed this early on the first day. The presenter said market demand will entice companies into providing what people want, the only question is how far that should be allowed to go. Repair a congenital disease? Sure. What about enhancing existing sensory systems to give someone the ability to see infrared? What if they want to have skin that glows in the dark? How about developing a pet tiger that has the behavior of a dog? They are posting video of each day here, along with the live feed and agenda: http://nationalacademies.org/g...

There is no scenario in which the problems of solar outweigh the problems of nuclear enough to sway the pendulum into nuclear's favor.

Scenario: Yellowstone erupts, dimming sunlight all over the world and continually dumping dust onto solar panels and into wind turbine gears.

Monocultures are vulnerable. A diverse energy portfolio is more resilient, and nuclear power has a low carbon footprint. That might be why the national academies of 13 nations called for the "development of nuclear power plants that are safe and secure, and ensure the secure long-term management and disposal of waste. International collaboration in development of the next generation of nuclear reactors and in reducing the risk of proliferation is essential."

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society are pro-AGW.

.. The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-25]

CEASE misreprenting my position and my words. We had an agreement: when we discussed Spencer's "back radiation" experiment, I made it abundantly clear that we were discussion ONLY Spencer's experiment, not "greenhouse warming". .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]

How adorable. Once again, the whole reason Slayers dispute Spencer's experiment is because that implies greenhouse gases can't warm the surface:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist.. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-15]

.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. Because, you see, as I know from experience, it isn't enough to show people the right way. At the same time it is necessary and desirable to show beyond doubt that "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-10]

.. I stipulated before we got into that discussion that we were discussing ONLY Spencer's experiment, nothing else. You agreed to that condition. And now, you're violating it by extrapolating my comments to a completely different context. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-26]

I never agreed to pretend that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense doesn't conflict with mainstream physicists' understanding of the greenhouse effect. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a Slayer resorting to such an absurd evasion, but also because I can't imagine agreeing to look the other way while he paralyzed his brain by simultaneously insisting that mainstream physicists agree with the Sky Dragon Slayers, while also somehow completely ignoring the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physi

I'm getting plain fed up with all these cockamamie "CO2-based disaster" predictions. It's nothing but speculation run amok, and all the more baneful because it's politically- and money-driven. Fact: we have no real, objective evidence that CO2 is going to cause us any real problems. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

The scientific evidence has been stacking up against the idea for at least 10 years. It isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).

Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.

You're only making yourself look foolish here, by oversimplifying the issue so much that you're actually wrong.

Oversimplifying the issue would be claiming there's "nothing to worry about" while over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

Put in the simplest terms: if CO2 in Venus's atmosphere acted like it does in Earth's atmosphere, Venus would be quite a bit cooler. If the direct blackbody effect of CO2 being warmed by IR, and in term warming the Earth via IR, was the primary warming concern in Earth's atmosphere it would not be a concern.

What scientific literature supports your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern? When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."

Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."

These High School Physics explanations of why CO2 causes warming of the Earth's surface are wrong, because the simple effect supports the "nothing to worry about" argument. The truth is more complex, vastly harder to model, and the results are not so obvious as you seem to think.

High school physics explanations? I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of the upwelling long-wave IR, and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).

I've also repeatedly noted complex factors like pressure broadening, which makes the greenhouse effect different on Venus, Earth and Mars.

I've also told the Sky Dragon Slayers that anyone who wants a more in-depth explanation should watch this video. Note that my explanations are similar to those from Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert:

"Despite the fact that Venus has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, the same basic principles govern the operation of the greenhouse effect for both planets: the fact that air cools by expansion as it rises means that the upper parts of the atmosphere are colder than the surface, while the opacity of greenhouse gases to infrared means that infrared radiation can only escape from

Nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt -- and I emphasize the word reasonable -- that it has caused ANY harm, at all. Nobody has been able to show, convincingly, that ANY weather pattern, or either singular or collective weather events, have been caused by "CO2-based warming". Lots of stuff has been BLAMED on it, but I'm talking about actual evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]

Jane wouldn't be able to recognize actual evidence because he's a Sky Dragon Slayer who strenuously denies that "CO2-based warming" even exists. A reasonable skeptic who took this position would feel obliged to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

... And I'm sure as hell not willing to pay to clean up some CO2 demon which science says is largely imaginary. Not the CO2. That's real enough. But any "harm" is so far only theory, and that theory is looking shakier every day. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]

An imaginary and shaky "demon"? Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

Ironically, Jane probably won't even have to pay when we take action to address climate change. This study calculates that a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend will save lives and add jobs while increasing Americans' real disposable income. Even though fossil fuel companies pass the cost of the carbon fee onto consumers, that fee is just returned to the consumer anyway.

For a regional analysis, see figure 3.25 on page 38. Out of nine regions, real disposable income per capita only decreases in one (the western north central states). That one regional decrease is much smaller than the increases in other regions like the pacific region which includes Washington.

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

I haven't expended ANY energy to avoid writing anything down. I've written down the proper and necessary equations not just once but many times now. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-13]

Ironically, Jane's still trying hard to avoid writing down his energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he'd try to write down that equation just once, he might realize that the nonsensical equation he's written down many times isn't proper or necessary.

I don't need to write down a "conservation of energy equation" in regard to Spencer's experiment. I don't refuse to do it because I can't, as you have clearly implied. I refuse to do it because this is a dead issue. You were proved wrong weeks ago, and your demands for additional proof from me are just laughable. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-13]

If Jane actually could write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms, Jane would see that "radiative power from the walls" can't cancel out.

Once again, the only way Jane's final term could cancel with the radiative power in term "(e*s)*T4^4" to obtain Jane's final equation would be if "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out" equals "(e*s)*T4^4". But it's being emitted by the source, which is at temperature T1. If reflections confuse you, just remember that the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation where there aren't any reflections at all. In that case, all that power is being absorbed and re-emitted, not reflected.

If Jane would write down an energy conservation equation and think about it, he might realize that he's been endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong" using Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense that violates conservation of energy and/or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But since Jane's Slayer brainwashing is so thorough that he can't bring himself to write down that equation, Jane will probably keep endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong".

Ironically, if Jane's Slayer nonsense was right, Jane would also have "proven wrong" Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

... YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. ... If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-06]

No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theory represents "established" physics. Fascina

That's ridiculous, Jane. Notice that "net radiative power out" equals negative "net radiative power in". Since Jane seems to agree that "net radiative power out" is positive, "net radiative power in" can't be zero. It has to be negative, which just means more radiative power is flowing out than flowing in.

Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself. Just no. Any spherical boundary you draw within this system has additional input: your vaunted electrical power. I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental. Get stuffed, troll. For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-12]

Electrical power isn't radiative power, so it wouldn't be included in net radiative power.

... I have written down all I need to write down to answer Spencer's challenge. I solved for the correct temperature, and showed your own answer to be utterly wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-11]

Once again, Jane's solution halved the electrical heating power. Jane didn't notice this because he calculated net transfer incorrectly, which led him to the absurd conclusion that Jane was only off by about 0.1% when Jane was actually off by ~100%.

So Jane hasn't written down all he needs to give the correct answer to Spencer's challenge. To give the correct answer, Jane has to draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from source

This is the same answer that Prof. Brown and Dr. Joel Shore tried to explain to Jane. It's also the same answer that underlies the positions taken by the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

... YOU are the one going against "established" physics here. ... If you could actually show how the physics textbook idea of heat transfer was wrong, you would be world famous by now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-06]

No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theor

Since you aren’t calling NAS “alarmist”, it’s great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”

My links show that this isn't just about the NAS, it's also NASA and dozens of other scientific organizations who agree that most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Since you aren't calling NAS "alarmist", it's great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

This is what I recalled when you mentioned punching into the mantle. Doesn't sound very easy at all....

I used to support reducing CO2 emissions because I stupidly thought that the National Academy of Sciences knew what they were talking about when they said that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”

But Khallow opened my eyes: climate scientists are just destroying their reputations by scamming the world for political gain. Now I agree that we need to find the courage to do nothing for a few decades, because of those fraudulent climate scientists. I'll repeat these accusations to as many people as I can, and point them to Khallow's comments as evidence of the conspiracy. Thanks Khallow, people will always remember your brave fight against this global scam!

I'm not really interested in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from Anonymous Cowards; in my experience scientists, speaking within their field of expertise, are a much more reliable source of information.

On that note: Did you know that the national academies of science of the G8 + 5 nations all endorse the science of Global Climate Change?

Both CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA have never been clearly defined for research, where it's the ideas, not the specific document used to convey those ideas that matter.

So, for instance -- if I write a paper on using (MethodX) to solve (ProblemY1), and someone realizes that (MethodX) might also be able to solve (ProblemY2), are they allowed to do it, or using it in new ways a derivitive? What if they wrote a paper about their findings, is that a derivitive? How about if I realize that there's a larger (ProblemY), is that a derivitive? Or if I realized that I could improve on (MethodX), is that a derivitive? Or even if you just have another occurance of (ProblemY1), are you allowed to use this knowledge of (MethodX) to apply it to the problem, or is any application of the research considered a derivitive?

The other one that people suggest for papers is CC-BY-NC, thinking that it'd prevent someone from using the ideas in the paper from trying to create a business around the idea ... but does this also mean that you're not allowed to publish new research that builds in a CC-BY-NC paper in a for-profit journal? Or attempt to get grants to extend the work?

The CC licenses (other than CC0) just don't work for research articles. I'm not even sure if CC-BY really works. (it's one thing to cite a paper ... but does it chain? Do we have issues with publishers who limit number of items in a reference list?) How do you give attribution when it actually gets used? (Do you acknowledge the authors when you install a road using asphalt they developed, or during the grand opening, or every time someone drives on it?)

Yes, this all may seem pedantic, but the CC licenses were developed for a specific purpose, and it was *not* research. I was at a meeting a couple of years back (not sure if it was BRDI or DataCite, as they were back-to-back), where John Wilbanks (at the time with Science Commons) was recommending CC0 for research data, in part because of these problems.

(In the case of data, the discussion typically comes up as either 'Data Use' vs. 'Data Re-Use' or as 'Data Repurposing', or the greater concept of 'Data Policies')

Until we get these cleared up, CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA should *NOT* be used for publishing research.

Unless I am missing something fundamental,

You are.

NAS reports are peer reviewed

...Peer review also does not mean that they are reviewed by the NAS before publishing but by outside sources that are intimately familiar with the subjects.

Correct: NAS reports are peer reviewed by outside experts who are not employed by the NAS and not involved in writing the report.

check http://www.nationalacademies.org/newsroom/faq/index.html

A peer reviewed report of 400some pages would be quite unusual

...except for the National Academy of Sciences.

And published in NAS does not necessarily mean peer review

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The NAS FAQ http://www.nationalacademies.org/newsroom/faq/index.html states:

Are report authors employees?

No, reports are authored by a committee of experts and subjected to peer review by another group of experts, which remains anonymous until the report is published. All are volunteers who work pro bono in service to the nation. Paid staff scientists and administrators facilitate the work of the committee. For more on the study process, visit our policies and proceedures page.

How are committees balanced, and how is conflict of interest evaluated?

For the National Research Council's policy on committee composition and conflicts of interest, see our conflict of interest page.

Are your reports peer reviewed?

Yes, all of the institution's reports - whether products of studies, summaries of workshop proceedings, or abbreviated documents - must undergo an independent review by anonymous experts who were not involved in the report's preparation. This process is overseen by the Report Review Committee, whose responsibilities are to ensure that the report addresses the approved study charge and does not go beyond it; the findings are supported by the evidence and arguments presented; and the exposition and organization are effective.

So, yes, the fact that it's a report published by the National Academies of Sciences does mean peer review.

, or a good study.

First, the statement I was taking issue with was the statement "appears to not be peer-reviewed," which is incorrect.

The question as to whether it's a "good" study is a much harder one. Obviously, the purpose of peer review is to try to make sure that it is a good study, but peer review is not perfect. However National Academy of Sciences reports are quite meticulous; for the most part they are good studies. There are sometimes people who disagree with NAS reports for political reasons, and hence people trying to make a case that the studies are not good because they have an interest in discrediting them. These people, for the most part, are wrong.

And published in NAS does not necessarily mean peer review

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The NAS FAQ http://www.nationalacademies.org/newsroom/faq/index.html states:

Are report authors employees?

No, reports are authored by a committee of experts and subjected to peer review by another group of experts, which remains anonymous until the report is published. All are volunteers who work pro bono in service to the nation. Paid staff scientists and administrators facilitate the work of the committee. For more on the study process, visit our policies and proceedures page.

How are committees balanced, and how is conflict of interest evaluated?

For the National Research Council's policy on committee composition and conflicts of interest, see our conflict of interest page.

Are your reports peer reviewed?

Yes, all of the institution's reports - whether products of studies, summaries of workshop proceedings, or abbreviated documents - must undergo an independent review by anonymous experts who were not involved in the report's preparation. This process is overseen by the Report Review Committee, whose responsibilities are to ensure that the report addresses the approved study charge and does not go beyond it; the findings are supported by the evidence and arguments presented; and the exposition and organization are effective.

So, yes, the fact that it's a report published by the National Academies of Sciences does mean peer review.

, or a good study.

First, the statement I was taking issue with was the statement "appears to not be peer-reviewed," which is incorrect.

The question as to whether it's a "good" study is a much harder one. Obviously, the purpose of peer review is to try to make sure that it is a good study, but peer review is not perfect. However National Academy of Sciences reports are quite meticulous; for the most part they are good studies. There are sometimes people who disagree with NAS reports for political reasons, and hence people trying to make a case that the studies are not good because they have an interest in discrediting them. These people, for the most part, are wrong.

And published in NAS does not necessarily mean peer review

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The NAS FAQ http://www.nationalacademies.org/newsroom/faq/index.html states:

Are report authors employees?

No, reports are authored by a committee of experts and subjected to peer review by another group of experts, which remains anonymous until the report is published. All are volunteers who work pro bono in service to the nation. Paid staff scientists and administrators facilitate the work of the committee. For more on the study process, visit our policies and proceedures page.

How are committees balanced, and how is conflict of interest evaluated?

For the National Research Council's policy on committee composition and conflicts of interest, see our conflict of interest page.

Are your reports peer reviewed?

Yes, all of the institution's reports - whether products of studies, summaries of workshop proceedings, or abbreviated documents - must undergo an independent review by anonymous experts who were not involved in the report's preparation. This process is overseen by the Report Review Committee, whose responsibilities are to ensure that the report addresses the approved study charge and does not go beyond it; the findings are supported by the evidence and arguments presented; and the exposition and organization are effective.

So, yes, the fact that it's a report published by the National Academies of Sciences does mean peer review.

, or a good study.

First, the statement I was taking issue with was the statement "appears to not be peer-reviewed," which is incorrect.

The question as to whether it's a "good" study is a much harder one. Obviously, the purpose of peer review is to try to make sure that it is a good study, but peer review is not perfect. However National Academy of Sciences reports are quite meticulous; for the most part they are good studies. There are sometimes people who disagree with NAS reports for political reasons, and hence people trying to make a case that the studies are not good because they have an interest in discrediting them. These people, for the most part, are wrong.

Give up, your troll leaders had a senate inquisition, even they couldn't burn him. Here's the testimony submitted by the National Academies. Note the NAS were asked by the senatorial trolls to verify the statistics, (a subject you and they seem to have a poor grasp on). Note NAS did find some minor problems with the strength of Mann's claims but did not find anything to refute the claims. Note that Mann addressed those CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms in a subsequent paper published by NAS in the journal Science.

Attacking the science does not work for trolls, at the end of the day you are just plain wrong. However the attacks strengthen the science and swell the ranks of your opposition. In the late 90's when I started posting about this stuff on slashdot, I was consistently attacked and down modded, most of my attackers have now realized (as I did about 15yrs ago) that they were being lied to for political reasons and have quietly swapped to the rational side. I'm certainly no climate scientists but I have been following the subject since reading a book about it in 1980, being a young 20yo geek at the time it took me at least 10yrs before I realized some people were being paid to be dumb.

Assassinating the character of individual scientists is also the hallmark of AGW trolls and FF shills, it's basically all you guys have left as an argument. Your noise is just making more people aware of that fact, the last thing you want is an informed electorate and yet your once respected front men are being openly mocked. So go ahead and troll, spew your unoriginal lies all over the place, they are easily refutable by an 8yo and as such will encourage rational people to turn their back on you. So thanks to all the trolls "teaching the controversy" most people now know how to easily debunk the controversy, and a lot of those people are about to get angry, just like they did when they caught your mob lying for the tobacco industry.

You've previously said: "Dictionaries do not accurately define words, they merely list popular usage. If you want technical accuracy, consult an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. "

That's why I'm referring to technical statements like these:

In 2005, 11 national science academies signed a joint statement saying "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities ... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

In 2007, 13 national science academies signed a joint statement referencing the earlier 2005 statement, and added: "Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken. Our present energy course is not sustainable."

I think it is worth while to point out that, of the 5 independent investigations that were launched as a result of the so-called "Climategate", all 5 have exonerated the Climatologists under investigation. None of the 5 were able to find any evidence of scientific malpractice. I'd call that, coupled with the endorsement of the G8 (+5) national academies of science, a pretty unequivocal vindication of the science of Global Climate Change.

Nature

National Academies

And to be balanced:

Guardian UK

(Note that the debate against focused on the logistical causes for food shortages, arguments that ignore current population and climate trends and focus on socio-political conflicts at specific geographic regions)

If trends continue, populations will grow, fresh water supplies will decrease, and deserts will take over a greater percentage of our landmass. While GM won't be the key to solving every problem, I have seen nothing that refutes its worth as a tool. Furthermore, if you look at traditional means of genetic modification, what some refer to as "organic methods", the net result is the same: the genetic code of an organism is altered to achieve specific properties. Current GM techniques simply allow much greater latitude. I suggest that the debate focus not on the means of alteration, but on the risk-reward profile of a given product. Introducing a pesticide into the very structure of a plant may not have been in the best interests of humanity. Engineering drought resistance, on the other hand, will have a much greater benefit with perhaps much less risk.

Hmmmmmmmm...who to trust?

On one hand I see that cpu6502 suspects that our current warming spike is entirely natural.

On the other hand I see that the U.S. National Academies and the science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian, the UK, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Australian Institute of Physics and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics think cpu6502 is wrong.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/american-physical-society.pdf
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.pdf
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memorandas/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf
http://planet3.org/2012/03/11/a-brief-guide-to-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

Hmmmmmmmm...who to trust?

On one hand I see that cpu6502 suspects that our current warming spike is entirely natural.

On the other hand I see that the U.S. National Academies and the science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian, the UK, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Australian Institute of Physics and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics think cpu6502 is wrong.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/american-physical-society.pdf
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.pdf
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memorandas/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf
http://planet3.org/2012/03/11/a-brief-guide-to-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

Okay, I read the original materials, and agree that Oreskes said "climate change" in her article, and later clarified that she searched for "global climate change".

I wouldn't make such a big deal about self-selection. Scientists trying to disprove something to do with climate change would probably put "global climate change" in their article, since they want it to be read by people who study global climate change.

Anyway, it is an empirical question whether the majority of climate scientists support the consensus on AGW. There are some flaws in this single study that Oreskes did. Some will take that to mean that /everything/ she does is flawed, which is the incorrect conclusion. You gotta look at these things.

And there is consensus. There was in 1979. The NAS investigated the matter then, and declared that there was a consensus view. Here is the current NAS document.

What's next, letting actual statisticians vet their modeling?

Been there, done that, the deniers were and still are wrong.

Government certainly can and does do things like this. The GAO does a pretty good job when it comes to financial matters. And then there is the National Academy of Science, established by Abraham Lincoln to advise the government on scientific matters. They have remained independent and one of the most respected sources of scientific information in the world.

But no agency, no matter how authoritative or independent, will convince the cranks. Think of how much "global warming is a conspiracy" nonsense one sees in the media and hears from politicians, even though the National Academies have reviewed the science and concluded that the threat is real and that action is needed. The cranks just assume that anybody who disagrees with them is part of the conspiracy.

Government certainly can and does do things like this. The GAO does a pretty good job when it comes to financial matters. And then there is the National Academy of Science, established by Abraham Lincoln to advise the government on scientific matters. They have remained independent and one of the most respected sources of scientific information in the world.

But no agency, no matter how authoritative or independent, will convince the cranks. Think of how much "global warming is a conspiracy" nonsense one sees in the media and hears from politicians, even though the National Academies have reviewed the science and concluded that the threat is real and that action is needed. The cranks just assume that anybody who disagrees with them is part of the conspiracy.

Here is something you won't find on ClimateAudit or RealClimate, the NAS testimony given to the US senate's inquisition into Mann's original Hockey stick paper.

Spoiler - The testimony shows McIntyre is at best just plain wrong. It also shows Mann made a minor technical error in his confidence levels (which he subsequently corrected in his 2005 follow up paper published in the journal Science).

Aside from that, the whole idea of "auditing science" is just plain stupid. It implies the auditer is the ultimate omniscient authority and reveals that McIntyre has no clue about the philosophy of science.

The way I understand it, we privatized the US supply of helium back in 1996. We targeted selling 850 million scm by 2015, reserving 17 million scm for the federal government's reserve. The price has been set artificially low in order to get that 850 million scm sold off in time.

In other words, we're not approaching peak helium, we're stupidly, deliberately, actively rushing toward it.

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/helium.html
http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/energy/helium/federal_helium_program.html
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=9860
https://twitter.com/timoreilly/statuses/17831735662

Stop serious action? The only serious actions I know of in regard to global warming are those that will a) make some people some serious money, ...

and b) it will cause some people (oil companies) to lose some serious money. Oh look, they're funding as much climate change denial as they can get away with. Do you think they're doing that out of belief that it's for the greater good, or because it's cost effective for them? If anyone has some truly compelling research that would destroy our understanding of climate change, they would have no trouble getting industry funding for it. Yet this hasn't happened, and pretty much every major scientific body including the national science academies of the major industrialised nations agrees that there is a problem.

I suggest you do some research on the subject of radiation exposure and it's effects.
What types of radiation was monitored at TMI and why was it flawed?

Fortunately the metrics of health verses radiation exposure have changed significantly over the decades to reflect something closer to reality.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340
"Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm"

I.E. Were no longer looking for a few specific forms of cancer. Besides cancer, still births, birth defects, organ impairments (heart, lungs, kidney, liver, etc)... The list goes on and on..

"Have you read anything on ClimateAudit?"

I have, and I could feel it sucking the intelligence out through my pupils.

"he had issues with the analysis and handling of proxy data. And none of these "inquiries" ever addressed those issues."

Not only have you missed the section on tree-rings in the Muir report from TFS. You must also have missed the Spanish ^H^H^H^H^H^H senate inquistion into Mann's "Hockey stick". The National Academies of Science were asked to adjudicate on the veracity of his Nature paper (since they have at their disposal most of the planets top statistical experts), their sworn testimony came down clearly in favour of Mann. They did however make some criticisims about Mann's confidence levels for tempratures further back than (IIRC) 800yrs. To his credit Mann's addressed those criticisims and extended his reconstruction in a paper publised in Science (the internationally recognised journal published by his critics)

The whole idea of cliamte audit is nonesense, McIntyre's two peer-reviewed papers were published in obscure non-ISI listed journals and did not stand the test of time. When he realised he could not pass muster with the standard scientific audit of peer-review he went of on a crusade to "audit climate science", naturally he appointed himself as chief auditor. In other words he spat the dummy and took himself out of the science game. He is now just another crank heckling "those who can" from a his blog and harrasing them with an avalanche of FOI requests, mostly for stuff that is already readily available in the litrature.

Aside from aligning himself with the scumbag anti-science lobbyists at the Heartland Institute, CEI, etc. Sourcewatch throws some further light on the possible motivations for his propogandist rants...

"McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc."

You've been played for a sucker my friend, but don't dispair McIntyre is an accomplished anti-science propogandists and it happens to us all at one time or another.

It's not the first time Mann has been attacted, among other unsuccesfull attacks by polticians was a senate inquisition into his hockey stick paper. The inqustitors lost when their star witness testified in Mann's favour. Science won when in 2005 the star witness published Mann's updated paper that both adressed their minor critisisims and extended the results to 2000yrs ago.

However, if we're going to have inquisitions then we should also look at the witches at the heartland institute, CEI, and other like minded think tanks who sell their powerfull propoganda spells to vested intrests.

"This hubbub all came about because of the difficulty in prying the source data out of the hands of the guy who produced the "hockey stick" figures. It's covered in the book "Broken Consensus" I think it's called. The "hockey stick" is not the "source data", the source data is all of the individual readings from all the instruments, prior to corrections for sampling errors or known issues. One cannot verify the quality of the "hockey stick" result without having the source data and being able to verify the processing steps that were done to it."

I threw away some mod points because it irks me how unskeptical the garden variety climate skeptic actually is when it comes to accepting the hockey stick has been discredited. Here are a few points you should consider with your skeptics hat on...

1. Mann's original hockey stick was published in the jounal Nature, they are not well known for publishing shoddy work.

2. A senate inquisition was held on Mann's paper in which the National Acedemies of science were called in to give expert testimony on the veracity of Mann's paper. As you will no doubt learn when reading the testimony the NAS came down firmly in favour of Mann although they did highlight some minor technical problems.

3. Given that the NAS were able to agree with Mann's conclusions under oath at a hostile inquisition, how did they do so without access to the data?

4. The journal science is also not well known for publishing shoddy work. So why did NAS then publish a follow up study by Mann in their journal Science if they were not satisfied he had no only addressed the minor technical problems in the original but also greatly increaed the robustness of the findings?

5. Why can't I find a listing for a book called "broken consensus" which you cite as a source? Shouldn't you at least adhere to your own standards of evidence?

6. How do you explain the links to the data and methods found in an article called Dummies guide to the hockey stick on Mann's website?

7. Why do people belive that some difficult to obtain data (ie: time consuming) from a few nations means that the other 99.99999% of the raw data available on the web is insuffitient to recreate the hockey stick?

8. Why is McIntrye only interested in "auditing" climate science that disagrees with his opinion? Could this be because his own paper did not stand up to the traditional auditing method called "the test of time"?

If the above points do not at least cause you to question your sources then I can only conclude your sketics hat must have slipped down over your eyes...

The other two links are nothing but political opinion pieces. Just because some right-winger in Russia doesn't like AGW doesn't mean that Russia (or Russian scientists) officially rejects it.

The NAS isn't a climate researching organization. Here is a statement they made on global warming. Notice two things: they rely heavily on the IPCC report for their information. Second, they make no prediction of global catastrophe. No one serious does.

But if you're really serious about learning about this issue, the IPCC report is a good place to start. The NAS does it. Why not you?

The inquisition called on the US National Acedemies of Science to proffer an opinion on McIntyre's claims. Their testimony came down heavily in favour of Mann's conclusions but also made some minor crticisims of his confidence levels.

If by "minor" you mean chopping a 2000 year reconstruction down to 400 years ??? (because anything earlier was deemed by NAS to be too unreliable?)

And what was just after 400 years? The Medieval Warm Period. The whole point of the hockey stick was to demonstrate the that MWP hadn't happened globally. But now the NAS panel found the hockey stick just couldn't be relied upon for anything back that far.

And yet you call this "minor crticisims of his confidence levels" ? Ridiculous.

Ah yes, it doesn't take long for someone to post a link to the fully qualified blogger Anthony Watts whenever the word skeptic appers in conjunction with climate, but if you call yourself a skeptic then consider the following...

Well before Watt's stared his website scientists had already explained how adjustments are made to compensate for the urban heat island effect but that didn't stop our pluckly little weatherman from building a website to show those ivory tower dwellers where they were sorely mistaken. As Watts fame (and income) grew, NOAA thought it might be a good idea to try and add some clarity so they took 70 weather stations that Watt's himself had rated as the best. They re-ran their analysis with just those stations and compared the result to the original analyisis using all 1200+ stations. Lo and behold the two curves were virtually identical as can be seen on the first graph in NOAA's response to Watts. Why? - Because the trend does not rely on the abolute temprature, it relies on the changes in temprature. Such systematic errors in measurement have long been known and handled by mathematicians and scientists alike.

Observant readers may note that a fully qualified political scientist by the name of McIntyre did manage to get a paper on the subject published in an obscure journal which was subsequently hyped so much that the US senate held an inqusition (err, inquiry) into Mann's 1997 hockey stick paper.

The inquisition called on the US National Acedemies of Science to proffer an opinion on McIntyre's claims. Their testimony came down heavily in favour of Mann's conclusions but also made some minor crticisims of his confidence levels. Mann being the leading scientists he is took those critcisims seriously and subsequently published an extended study in the journal Science, yes that's right, the world renowned journal published by the very same organisation who critcised his confidence levels.

McIntyre's paper failed to stand the test of time but rather than having another crack at science he went off to become yet another fully qualified blogger and created the popular front site "climate Audit", I say front site because both Watt's are McIntyre are stongly associated with the anti-science lobbyists at the CEI and the Heartland Institute (now there's a couple of targets for an email hack if I ever saw one).

McIntyre used his site to continue pushing the claim that Mann had hidden his data (where have we heard that before?). To put it politely, I am highly skeptical of that claim. If it was true then how did NAS come to it's conclusions in their testimony, and how is it that many others have also replicated Mann's work? Why is it that both Watts and McIntrye take selective quotes from the testimony to loudly declare that they "discredited Mann's hockey stick"? - You would think that if the testimony actually came to that conclusion then they would want you to read it. Yet nowhere on either site will you find an link to the testimony because...well...skeptical people might actually go and read it.

Considering the above farcical chain of events I don't blame Mann for expressing his desire to keep McIntyre's discredited paper out of the IPCC reports, I would have said the same thing. However this does not change the fact that the paper was subsequently included and discussed.

For those who don't like to read scientific papers and abhore pdf's there is an excellent summary on the youtube channel Climate crock of the week, unsurprisingly Watt's abused the DCMA in an attempt to have the video removed.

The skill of genuine skepticisim starts by learning to be skeptical of ones own ideas and beliefs. It's siad that a great scientist starts every day by

I don't belive you because I do not believe the fully qualified bloggers you link to.

Why? - Because the senate inquisition into Mann vs McKyntre called on the National Acediemes of Science to offer an opinion on McKyntre's claims. Much to the dismay of the inquisitors who organised the witch trial, the NAS testimony came down firmly in favour of Mann's "hockey stick".

They did however make some minor criticisims of Mann's confidence levels. Mann has since published an extended study in the Journal of Science (the Journal published by his NAS critics). McKyntre's paper failed to withstand the test of time and he has since failed to publish anything other than a web site. However, to McKyntre's credit he has recently dissacociated himself from the propogandists at WUWT.

Yes, Mann did not want McKyntre's paper in the 2007 IPCC reports for the simple reason that flogging a dead horse is pointless, nevertheless it WAS included despite his objections. I'm not going to link directly to proof of that claim since I think you would learn a lot more digging through the IPCC data collection yourself.

Your point appears to be that there is a consensus that global warming is happening, but there is no consensus that it is a serious problem that we need to do something about.

I think the most respected sicientific organizations in the world, the NAS and AAAS, would disagree on that. I don't know if you consider their view to represent a "consensus," but given their reputation, I think it can fairly be said to represent a thorough reading of the best scientific evidence.

The NAS statement on climate change says, "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated... Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

The AAAS just sent a letter to the senate which says, "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment."

And if you think this CRU hack incident changes any of that, the American Meterological Society disagrees, saying "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

I have read Popper and I'm in complete agreement with your post up until you mention Steve McIntyre. I may be mistaken but wasn't it Popper who coined the term "republic of science", which is just an old fashioned term for "scientific consensus"?

To his credit McKyntre did publish his ideas and I overlooked that fact in my post. However the claim that he was refused access to data is false.

I won't bother linking to Mann's side of the story, I'm sure someone with a Phd can find that on RC. I'm also fairly confident you are aware that McKyntre's critcisims and ideas were used to hold a senate inquisition into Mann's 1997 hockey stick paper. You may also recall the NAS were called in to offer an expert opinion to the inquisitors. The NAS supported Mann's conclusions but did critcise his confidence levels, clearly they did not support McKyntre.

McKyntre's paper has not withstood the test of time and he has failed to publish a follow up. Mann took the NAS critisisms on board and published an extended study in Science.

Now, as one skeptic to another, my question for you is: How was it possible for NAS to conduct a thourough review of Mann's paper if McIntyre's claims about access to data are true?