Slashdot Mirror
Open v. Closed Source-Climate Change Research
theidocles writes "The ongoing debate over the 'hockey stick' climate graph has an interesting side note.
McKitrick & McIntyre (M&M), the critics, have published their complete source code and it's written using the well-known R statistics package (covered by the GPL). Mann, Bradley & Hughes, the defenders, described their algorithm but have only released part of their source code, and refuse to divulge the rest, which really makes it look like they have some errors/omissions to hide (they did publish the data they used). There's an issue of open source vs closed source as well as how much publicly-funded researchers should be required to disclose - should they be allowed to generate 'closed-source' solutions at the taxpayers' expense?"
should they be allowed to generate 'closed-source' solutions at the taxpayers' expense?
No. I paid for it I want to see it. How else will we know if it works the way they say it works?
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
how much publicly-funded researchers should be required to disclose
All of it, baby. We're paying for it -- we should have the right to:
a) Know what you're spending our money on
b) Have the right to make it better ourselves
c) Learn of security flaws early so we can correct them
Especially when there is some doubt about the nature of the results in the closed source model from Mann et al.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I hate projects with names like R. I used R a while back, and it's a great program, but try searching for "R" plugins on Google. Not fun.
The most important thing is the data. You can even use something simple like the Excel (or Gnumeric) spreadsheet "best fit" plotting algorithm to the data, if you've got it.
But from all the stuff I've seen, there are always huge gaps where they are either assuming much lower average temperatures or are leaving the data out altogether and relying on a very short recent timespan to extrapolate into the future.
While I think that they are full of shit, for the most part, I do admit that having multiple tornados tear apart LA and a giant deep-freeze kill off all the Scots would be pretty cool.
is in the interest of the science in this case.
You might want to ask to see the model behind the CIA data which proved conclusively that a 747, deprived of its forward fuselage, can convince over 600 witnesses that said 747 was shot down by a SAM.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The problem with most of these studies is that they refuse to release the raw data.
... but no thanks !!!
A lot of times they select subsets of the data and then normalize or otherwise massage the data.
Thanks
For all we know, there could be a very valid reason why they haven't released all of it. I'm not sure what that reason could be, but given that we don't have anything to go on, we're stuck to just guessing.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
...and I agree with it -- of course anything paid for by public funding should show a return on public interest. It seems way too obvious.
What isn't quite so obvious is employers owning works of an employee. It seems obvious that it should be restricted to stuff that is currently job related and developed on company time, but we all know of scenarios where companies reach too far. So without looking too deeply, I wonder if the other side considers some aspects of their work not relevant to that which was sponsored by public funds. If, for example, the project was intended to deliver data and software tools were developed along the way to achieving that goal, who owns the software tool?
Science, like government, should be transparent. The public should be able to see and evaluate every part. Any science, or government, that hides it's implementation is inherently suspect to corruption.
Closed science is half a step from religion. You are expected to have faith in the researcher's methodologies, analysis, assumptions, and motives. Sorry, but good science does not rely on faith.
The pharmaceutical industry receives huge subsidies from us - they don't produce "open" drugs - why should this be any different? I know it's apples and oranges - but one should be really careful about the idea of withholding funds from -good- research just because of licensing issues. Lesser of two evils? Would we rather have -no- research?
complicated...
Surely by publishing the data they have to publish how they came to the conclusion that the data leads to and why that data should be trusted as accurate.
:S)
If they have published, then nobody else can patent the idea, and i would hope that somewhere in the paper would be an explanation of the methods used to calculate the data.
Otherwise it would be like saying AMD/Intel is crap because I say so, here is a link to some data that compares a 486 to a n modern CPU.
(Actually as an aside that does kinda sound like th press release for the Turion Mobile thing or what ever it's called
McKitrick & McIntyre (M&M), the critics, have published their complete source code
... where? I haven't been able to find any code on any on of the pages mentioned. I agree it's essential to disclose all data and source code ...
... especially since R can be such a pain (sorry, struggling right now)
Uhrm
and it's written using the well-known R statistics package
Arguments against open-source science:
I'm sure there are arguments on both sides.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I'm of the opinion that anything that gets published should be published in its entirety, at least at some point. For example, people who publish protein structures can put the coordinates "on hold" for up to 18 months.
And to say because the research is done with "taxpayer's money" is missing the point: If you can't reproduce every step, it's voodoo, not science. And we make policy decisions based on science, not voodoo (I hope).
Obviously you have never written an SBIR or BAA. You when you do research "At the tax payers expense", you need to show your plans to commercialize the results of the research. The government wants you to create a IP twoards a commerial project which will spur the economy, not to contribute to the scientific community as a whole. Take it as you will, but I think that most research would not get funded if your commertilization plan was to release it on sourceforge.
While I would like all works performed for the government that are not of National Security importance to be more open I don't think it is necessary.
A lot of work peformed for government agencies is contractual with businesses. These same businesses employ tricks of the trade and such to deliver what is required. To have them detail how the work is just suicidal. The same goes for software they develop for use by the government. Unless specifically addressed in the contract I do not believe there is a right to disclose the code, let alone make it available to the public.
That last part is key. Even if they disclose the source to the government there is no obligation on either party to make it public.
This argument that they have something to hide is childish. It is designed to provide no leeway. Simply put, once labeled as such what other option other than disclosure exist? You might as well say "You have to release it, its for the children" and then proceed to use whole "hates kids, wants kids to die" guilt trip that is far to common in politics today.
Summary. Release it if only its an upfront requirement of the project and agreed upon by both parties. In the future a requirement by law that all government projects must be fully disclosed to include the source of any software may be nice but I bet it would have so many exceptions written into it that it would result only in a "feel-good" law.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
http://cran.r-project.org/
However, the name still sucks.
This is an extremely difficult issue, although it sounds pretty trivial.
For one thing, the taxpayer is rarely participating in discussions like this one. Moreover, the success of scientific institutions is often measured in terms of number of patents, successfully launched businesses by former students/researchers, etc. So not only is there little or no opposition to closed-source software (or scientific articles!), there are also good reasons for researchers to go the closed-source road.
Some researchers have a tendency towards secrecy. Some even seem a little paranoid when it comes to their data and methods. You could compare this to the tendency of the OSS zealot to suspect bugs, glitches, and omissions in any piece of closed-source software.
And as a German side-note: There are laws over here that require you to have the patentability of any piece of software you develop checked by university lawyers. GPLing something is technically illegal for a researcher. I have no idea how this is regulated in other countries.
Are you entitled to all of the NSA's or CIA's secrets just because your tax dollars paid for it? No. In science, when you publish results, you publish it in such a way that others could reproduce it. If they can't, they publish their results and discredit yours. There is no need for everyone to make their source code available for everything they do. Also, it may give your competitors an advantage if you are forced to publish code for which you are going to do more with. Science is fairly open but it is competitive for grants and people are entitled to keep source closed that they intend to do further cutting edge work with. Having said that, I and others often make their code available. It is rare to find cases where people selfishly hoard useful code in my field anyways.
That Global Warming is a manmade, real phenomona is accepted by 99.9% of scientists in the fields involved. To trot out the "only a theory", "some experts dispute" etc routine is like getting the Flat Earth Society involved every time someone talks about circumnavigation. "Heads in the sand" is going to be on our culture's gravestone when the next lot of intelligent life evolves here and starts wondering why parts of Nevada are 10,000 times the normal radiation level.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Most projects the ideas are free, but the results are not. Seems strange...
Everything funded by the taxpayers should be free, regardless; ideas, results, and any tools built to obtain those results.
This article has the potential for 2 flamewars. For or against global warming and for or against open source. Oh joy!
This is the big problem for people trying to fight the critics. For me though it's easy. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been as high as they are now (at about 370ppm) and they're expected to increase up to 700ppm if we finish off the oil (which may be in 70 years or longer). But the point is, even if global warming is/is not happening, having over 370ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is just not good! Here's a pretty good summary of the global warming argumnts.
This is actually an interesting legal debate. How would you register a trademark on the letter R?
R®????
The same could be said about the theory of a flat earth. At some point 99.9% of the experts were pretty damn sure of that too. The problem is science isn't done by consensus. Its done by proving hypothesis.
The problem is nutters on the Green side equate people saying "you still haven't proven it" with people meaning "it doesn't exist." Is global warming real and a problem? Very well may be. As shown in the original posting, however, there is still a way to go before anyone can say its proven.
But Mr. Gallileo, the theory that the sun revolves around the earth is accepted by 99.9% of all scientistis in the fields involved.
So a team of real scientists (that is, by folks who work in climate science, not reporters or pundits) wrote a Dummies Guide to the latest controversy. Click on the link for a nice question-by-question breakdown, but I'll spoil the conclusion for you:
(MBH98 is the old paper with "closed" source, MM05 is the new "open source") paper)
Read the rest for more explanation.So you want us to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, but you also bemoan nuclear power?
So what exactly is YOUR solution? Nuclear is a perfectly viable solution until we come up with something better. At the very least, it's far cleaner than burning coal for our energy.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I was under they impression that, with current laws, they have to disclose the entire source code. Any research that goes on at a university, without being directly classified (such as military funded research may be), should ("should" as in "by law") be obtainable for the general public some way or other.
I am not a lawyer, would anyone who is care to correct me if I am wrong?
If the models and data are accurate, then release them to public scrutiny.
*If* the information is as bullet proof as you say, then they have nothing to be concerned about. Since only one side has done this, only one side is opening itself up to peer review.
This is the equivalent to SCO saying "you have our code!", not producing any evidence to demonstrate this, and then IBM delivering truckloads of evidence to the contrary.
We know that the earth IS getting warmer. And we know that it goes through natural cycles of climate change. We know that people affect the climate in SOME way, but the debate too often focuses on how much is caused by man, and how much is natural, as if natural warming is somehow better.
The point so many global warming critics ignore is that whether it is a natural phenonema or not, doesn't change the danger. The amount of crops that can be grown worldwide will shrink for every degree the planet goes up, until evolution kicks in.
Just a few degrees globally can literally end up causing the starvation of millions of people.
I think the important conlusion of this guide is that if you take all of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes data and run it using the same fully open-source algorithms of McKitrick & McIntyre, you get the same results.
Which is reasonable since MM's argument is about source data and not methodology (as per this guide).
should they be allowed to generate 'closed-source' solutions at the taxpayers' expense?
I think it's not fair for a public-funded project to do something like create a product and sell it without source code, or patent their work. But that doesn't mean that every artifact of the research project needs to be made public, necessarily. In this case, the end product that the grants paid for is the scholarly paper, not a computer program. Just as we don't demand their notebooks, time cards, e-mails, and meeting transcripts, it seems okay to not require them to publish the source code of a tool they wrote in the course of doing research. So I don't believe this is a behavior we should be legislating against.
But this only addresses the question of "should we require them to release the source?" Another undertone of the article is, "should they release the source?" I think it's clear that their work is at the center of a controversy, and that other researchers want to try to reproduce their results. It seems clear that making their specific methodology public (source code) would help answer the controversy, so as researchers interested in the truth, they should release it.
Actually, 99% of the well-educated people today incorrectly believe that 99.9% of the scientists in the middle ages believed in the concept of a flat earth.
The has been a generally accepted notion that the earth is round since the 1st century A.D.. Disputes have only been about (1) whether the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around, and (2) what the radius of the earth is.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Significant research data is generally replicated independantly of the original researchers for verification of the results. Without a description of the method of research used (in this case; the computer model), how can the data be replicated and thus verified? Indeed the very methods itself are commonly scrutinized in the scientific world and, IMHO, any scientist that does not approve of this is not looking for truth but for something else (personal agendas, fame, etc.).
Not detailing the methods used (in this case; giving the entire algorithms, either as source or as a 100% comlete and unambiguous description) basically limits the usefullnes of the resultant data as mere speculation, not proof nor even theory.
If I remember correctly, the computermodel in this case is known to include a rather lacking model of rainfall, which seems like a pretty big omision in a climate model to me.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I have to usually do C-x C-s C-x k RET.
Have you set it up so it doesn't ask? Can you tell me how? I would like to know.
Today biology heavily depends on specific software to analyse lab generated data. However, even academic, public funded software are not open-source. It's a sad situation, but there are efforts like Bioinformatics.Org trying to change the situation.
---- Where is my mind?
The UK Meteorological Office model was published under a fairly liberal licence I hesitate to call it "Open Source" or "Free Software", but certainly inspectable and runnable if you had the need.
Whilst in theory you could inspect this to find issues with the model. For most organisations without extensive assistance from the UKMO, wide scientific expertise, would not be able to gain much utility from it I suspect. In practice the main groups who used the model were supercomputer vendors, and computer scientists interested in how to optimise numerical computing solutions.
In some ways I'm not sure it helps the climate debate. I know the UKMO model had bugs, I found some. But by the time software gets this complex you are interested in validating the global behaviour, as much as validating the minutae of the code. If the model can match past climate change accurately you assume that the bugs don't matter that much until proved otherwise.
But ultimately you take evidence for the climate debate from a number of sources. If glaciers many 10's of thousands of year old are disappearing, it is a reasonable bet in my mind this is the hottest it has been for 10's of thousands of years.
Then again you can stare at the evidence, and still miss it, witness the first person who skippered a ship through the North West passage without encountering ice, who thought that the idea humans could melt the arctic ice cap was ridiculous.
I think the important reasons to make government software "free software", have little to do with good science, and more to do with good governance.
Although I can't see how publishing the code would make the science less good, and I can see how it might help.
Besides paying for the research, how can another check on the accuracy/repeat the results without the original code?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The scientific method:
1. Observe and describe a phenomena
2. Formulate an hypothesis
3. Use hypothesis to predict something
4. Independently verify those predictions
Step four requires, of course, that experiments can be corroborated, which implies that they can be duplicated. That is of course impossible if the tools employed are not shared.
The only scientific result that should be given any regard is that produced by real scientists doing real science. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
s (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia.
IMO this is the conclusions dead fly contamination. What you say?
The assumption that an anomaly within a 2000 year span has any significance relative to 10^7 years of climate variation and the conclusion, aside from assertions of 'man as cause' that 'something must be done to resolve this dire situation'.
I'm used to thinking on geologic time scale. The climate is intimately tied to geology through biology, chemistry, and physics.
Sure, climate change affects lifestyle. But, on the whole, life has always adapted and considering that man might not even exist in his thoughtful state absent past dramatic climate change, who is to say it's a 'dire situation for the planet'.
Human migration toward better climes is still going on today. Why is change considered bad?
Global warming is an observed fact, not a theory, or in need of proving. Just go look at any handy book of climate records.
It is a problem already, ask the penguins without an iceshelf. It might not be a problem for you yet.
The only points of debate in the serious scientific would are around how unusual the current warming is, and how bad the problems that we will face are.
This surrounds predicting when the warming will stop, which require understanding the causes.
It is of course quite possible a volcano will erupt tomorrow and cast the world into a cold spell - but do we want to bet the planet on it?
Public funded means owned by the public. I am not talking about abvious things, like miletary secrets, but reasearch like this.
I asume this research has been done to widen our understanding and knowledge, not for profit. To achieve this goal the best thing is to check, check, recheck and then let others recheck as well. This can only be done if you give up all your findings and ways of how you found it.
This is about knowledge and not about being right or wrong (or at least it should be). The knowledge of proving that the theory is right is just as importand as proving it is wrong.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
How much trust should we put into a study where the computer simulations code does not come under peer review (closed source) versus one where it does come under peer review (open source). Seems to me that the code is as much part of the "study" as the results and data are. Especially considering how much finagling can be gone on in source code.
Also, since the results have to be reproducable by ANYBODY, without the source you can not garuntee that the program is doing what it is being said it can do. After all the complaining I have heard about black box voting, this should probably come under the same heading of "If you want us to trust you SHOW US THE CODE!".
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
And we should care about your expertise, because...
...you're a dumb naive slashbot?
Yeah, right. Thought so.
Shouldn't another scientist be able to replicate that experiment? Source code is an integral part and they won't let you know how they did that?
That's BS, and all the more so because of the political implications of such research.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Yes. Did you know, humans have an average of about 1.8 legs each (and eyes, and arms, etc. etc.). Anything can be done with a few figures, even more so when the way it is done is hidden (Governments use similar maths wizardry).
"For me though it's easy. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been as high as they are now (at about 370ppm) and they're expected to increase up to 700ppm"
_ cl imate.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous
Just go look at any handy book of climate records.
You mean the actual climate records that only go back about 120 years or the interpreted ones that have been massaged to say whatever will get the researcher a bigger grant?
Actually climate records go back much further than that, just not in the US. Records in France go back to the middle ages for wine growing regions.
Also ice core samples and fossil records can show what the climate was like much longer ago than that.
That "99.9% of scientists" agree with the theory doesn't mean much. Scientists are generally as much herd animals as the rest of humanity, sadly enough. Since this particular topic also has a strong political aspect, it is even more prone to group-think issues. What percentage of scientists agreed with evolution the year after "The Origin of Species" was published?
In addition, even if global warming is a real effect, the speed with which it's happening is a highly critical aspect of the problem. There have been some big surprises in this area lately, including "global dimming" and the revelation that one of the biggest sources of pollution globally is Southeast Asian cooking fires, something Kyoto would have ignored. More research is clearly needed before we can claim to understand the current state of affairs and the likely scenario over the next few decades.
It should be obvious to most people that cleaner technologies are better, and it seems highly likely that technology will evolve in that direction over time. How fast we must get to cleaner technologies, and how we are going to disseminate such technologies to poorer, developing countries that will be the big polluters of the future otherwise are the pressing issues.
Personally, I find it sad that the US isn't investing heavily in new nuclear power generation. That would do a lot to ameliorate greenhouse gas generation in this country, as well as stopping many of the other nasty side effects of coal power generation.
"Heads in the sand" is going to be on our culture's gravestone when the next lot of intelligent life evolves here and starts wondering why parts of Nevada are 10,000 times the normal radiation level.
LOL. I doubt any part of Nevada is "10,000 times the normal radiation level" now, and certainly none of it would be hundreds of millions of years from now when some hypothetical intelligent species evolves. Thanks for the laugh though.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
A better question is "Are they allowed". The answer, no doubt is in the contracts. If you think that they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN FUTURE, then welcome to the world of POLITICS. Get involved in the process and learn how competing interests are balanced in the democratic political process, which is not perfect, but is the best one we have.
A BBC Horizon program - Global Dimming just broadcast on tv in Australia,t /2005/s13258 19.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conten
It explains that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth has dramatically been reduced by clouds formed around pollution reflecting more sunlight into space. This is keeping the earth cooler , counteracting the increase in co2.
An example was that the temperature of the USA increased by 1 degree C during the 3 day that the planes were grounded after 911. Less clouds, caused by vapour trails, more sunlight, so more heat.
I don't know the details about this issue, but Kyoto is about CO2 budgets, not about air pollution. Burning wood for cooking may produce soot, but it doesn't produce extra CO2 as long as new trees take the place of the once that are burnt.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
temperature is indicative of what's going on where you measure it.
this is a fundamental flaw in using temperature data to estimate global changes and illustrates a severe misunderstanding of mass flow, mixing, and other heat transfer mechanisms.
there is no way in hell that the sparse temp data used in the global warming models is representative of the atmosphere as a whole.
hell, it's damn near impossible to measure the temperature of a good sized lake with enough datapoints to determine the heat content to anywhere near the accuracies the atmospheric scientists are claiming and their data is sparse compared to what one could easily collect for our lake. now try determining the lakes heat content by measuring the air temp over the lake.
My big beef with this is the idea that pharma companies are actually interested in doing "good".
They're not, for the most part. Antidepressant medication is a wonderful look at the BS they're pulling - Zoloft had a 48% improvement in depression in clinical trials compared to the placebo at 42%. 6% improvement for a host of different side effects, many severe and potential risks to life in the cases of preexisting liver/kidney conditions.
Look to the male enhancement market as well.
Considering the recent FDA news stories (for the last 6 months or so) regarding impropriety in the drug approval process and I think the argument for more transparent, open models hold a lot of merit.
In summation, the pharma industry (and more importantly, our national health) would potentially be improved by a more open standard than we currently have in place.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I think there is no reason to demand that scientist should publish their source code, since scientist usually reuse their code and share their code with people they work with, but should not be obliged to help other scientist that they are competing for funding with to get their own simulation programs.
The demand on scientist are clear though, they should give enough information in their publications so anyone interested (or who want to refute their results) can reproduce what they have done. So any statistical or mathematical methods used should be mentioned. And if they use commercial packages (with closed source usually for all parties), mention which packages they use would be wise so that if there are found bugs in these programs, any influence on their results can be taken into consideration. If enough information is given, then any scientist who can program, can check out the literature how to implement the nummerical algorithms and write their own program. Often they can buy (fairly expensive) commercial packages or even find open source liberies that have already implemented these algorithms, and then reproduce the results.
If these two economist were able to reproduce the results of some major climate scientist, then these climate scientist have given enough information to their fellow scientist and the general public. So lets forget about these two guys, or buy their book if you want to believe they know better about climate changes than the general scientific community.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
So the climate change critics' site has direct links to everything that supports their position, but when they mention "realclimate.org" they don't make it a link so you have to cut and paste into the URL to get the other side of the story. That pretty much sums up their intensions and intellectual honest right there.
IOW, it's just more FUD from the corporate lobbies. The "hockey stick" is real, it's too late, and we're all doomed to live in a bio-dome... sad but true.
...are about as respected as climatologists as the eponymous rapper is as an ambassador of world peace.
Summary:
people need to understand that a _research code_ isn't _code_ so much as it is the implementation of an algorithm. we numerics researchers aren't programmers so much as mathematicians at keyboards. we release our "source code" (algorithms) into the world in open source fashion (publications). not releasing a code is often just a statement that we are crappy programmers.
Longer version:
this article reminds me of the old adage, "arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics..." from my vantage point (i do similarly mathy-flavored research) it looks like both groups are somewhat sloppy, and to boot they are both acting somewhat childishly. they have forgotten that what's important is to _get the math right_, not to point out the other guy's wrong.
releasing codes from a university or lab setting is often a real pain in the ass. if you haven't done a good job keeping the code looking nice, it's really not worth the effort to get it out there, for one reason only: your code should implement the methods discussed in your paper. the IDEAS themselves are what are important, and those are available via the literature (unfortunately, that's not always freely available, but that's a separate issue...). i agree with those who say "but my tax dollars paid for it"--the researchers _have_ done work and released it: developing analysis methods. that's what they're paid to do! the currency in their field is, in fact, how much they publish (ie, release); that's how funding gets decided (i'm oversimplifying, but essentially that's true).
The CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been as high as they are now (at about 370ppm)
Since when? A hundred years ago? A thousand? A million? Hundreds of millions? How ar e you finding the exact ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere 875.241 million years ago?
Are we arguing whether tax payer funded software should be released, or the openness of the science behind their claims?
In science the experiment must be repeatable by independent researchers. If substantiating the claim requires the release of source and algorithms for scrutiny then that is what has to happen. Otherwise it is just a claim.
Two different things. As a taxpayer you have a right to decide if there IS medicare and who gets it. Representative republic, you vote in your congresscritter and he/she/it does your bidding. Theoretically, of course.
Once you have decided that there shall be Medicare and that there shall be a bureacracy to take care of it, you have no particular rights to anything that happens inside it, unless its happening to you. Doctor/patient confidentiality applies irrespective of who's paying the doctor, both moraly and legaly.
The researcher taking public money is a completely different case. He's doing research for the government, which means for you. Theoretically, of course. Absent pressing matters of national security, there is no reason that the results of publicly funded research should not be available to taxpayers. You paid for it, you should get to look at it.
One caveat, if the researcher used a proprietary method or machine or software to either acquire the data or process the results, you are only entitled to the data and results, not the proprietary device. The government rented the use of it, they didn't buy the rights to it.
Yes, but that is why the Kyoto protocol is flawed. The authors of the cooking fire study estimated the warming effect of the soot was 30 times worse than that of the same mass of CO2.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
"Their argument since the beginning has essentially not been about methodological issues at all, but about 'source data' issues [...] Only if you remove significant portions of the data do you get a different (and worse) answer."
You're over-trivializing a DRAMATICALLY IMPORTANT POINT. The original study is focused on North American data almost exclusively for certain time periods. That data (from a single species of tree) skews the results in such a way as to make the current trend seem unique and drastic. On the other hand, if you treat that data source in such a way as to balance it with the other data that is available, you see a VERY DIFFERENT TREND!
The response has been to claim that weighting the data in this way reduces the number of data points unacceptably (I would agree, but that doesn't make MBH98 right).
That's the whole point here, and the other side continues to say, "you're throwing away data" when any competent researcher would have thrown it out in the first place (note: there's an exception. if you produced a report that was specific to N. America, MBH98 would be your model, and it seems to be a fine model for that... N. America is seeing record warming as compared with the last few centuries, and that's all you can extract from MBH98).
Also keep some perspective in mind here. We're in a period where temperatures could rise MORE than ANYONE is predicting and not make a dent in the graph over the last 10million years. If you graph out the last 10 million years, you see that temperatures over the last 10,000 years have been part of a huge, cyclical spike in temperatures. We're at what is likely the peak of a drastic temperature swing, and it WILL plumet again into a new ice age (unless we decide to and are capable of coming up with a way to prevent it). I'm not drawing any conclusions from that, just pointing out that there are natural forces at work here, capable of making temperature changes that we a) cannot yet conclusively explain and b) the likes of which no human has ever experienced.
It's important to keep a sense of perspective and to remember that we have very impressive climate models... all of which might be wrong.
The blurb author attempts to paint one side as having something to hide, since they only released a part of their source code. Nevermind that both papers' data can be independently validated--no no, one side is bad for only describing the algorithm and not its source code!
But that's exactly the point isn't it? (At least of the blurb.) The original data was used and the nature of the analysis was called into question. So just as the data is made available for double-checking, shouldn't the means of analysis be likewise made available?
When one dataset determines your conclusion, you have to wonder about the validity of the conclusion. According to MM (if I understand them), the bristlecone pine temperature proxy is the only one that produces the hockey stick graph that all the human-induced climate change advocates love. It's not actual temperature data, it's just a proxy for it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Medicare, etc, are services. The intellectual property in that case is of little market worth and belongs to the patient as the interest in health privacy trumps the need to know.
However, in the case of research, federally funded research should have a complete disclosure. If you have a scientist doing work, and not disclosing the entire body of it, then in reality, the end product must not be regarded as science, but opinion. If Mann does not disclose his entire body of work used to comprise his conclusions, then how else can we assess whether his conclusions are accurate or not?
Science must be open source.
This is my sig.
Where's that wealth of information about the secret US wars in Central America in the 1980s? Or in Angola in the 1970s? Or in Chile in the 1970s? Or in Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s? Iran in the 1950s? These secret wars are secret largely for *political* purposes - the military secrecy benefits evaporate within months. But the political purposes - covering liability for abuse, war crimes, and just plain lying about the causes, effects, and benefits of the war - those last forever.
--
make install -not war
see the realclimate.org link in the right hand column of the home page, 14 links from the top.
And as for FUD -- as someone else has already pointed out, human-induced climate change is a religion, complete with a priesthood that screams "heretic!" when anyone challenges their "findings".
If the proponents of human-induced climate change really had the answer, why don't their models converge? We seem to get a "wait, it's going to get even warmer!" report on an almost weekly basis, which tells you that their models are all over the place.
If you really think that "the hockey stick is real", go use the same modeling technique on the stock market, and you should make billions. I won't hold my breath.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
What about wind energy? (CHEAPER !)
You've just stated one of the strong arguments for government purchase of open source: when the government, representing the people, buys open source software, any of the people can see what we bought. And all of the people can benefit from the efforts of our geek minority to understand it.
--
make install -not war
Does that include these guys, most scientists in the field.
.1% of the field just how many people are examining the climate?
If this is just
The Oregon Petition and it's signatories http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
The Heidelberg Appeal http://www.sepp.org//heidelberg_appeal.html
Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming and signatories http://www.sepp.org//statment.html
Signatories to the Leipzig Decleration http://www.sepp.org//LDsigs.html
Damn I think I just wore out my ctrl-C-V keys
So the US should refuse to participate in Kyoto and keep on producing most of the CO2 in the world because it ignores cooking fires? I couldn;t see a section on bovine flatulence either, come to think of it.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
This from the guy who thinks flight 800 was shot down by a SAM. At least try for consistency, willya?
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
should they be allowed to generate 'closed-source' solutions at the taxpayers' expense?
No. They should not. All results and all tools shall be open for everyone, even when those scientists are sponsored by private institutions, people or companies.
The sphericity of the Earth was not generally accepted until much later than the 1st century C.E. More like the 8th. Even then, the way in which people thought about the Earth was radically different than the modern idea of a spherical Earth:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whiteb03.html
The "doctrine of the antipodes" asserted that even if the Earth was spherical, no humans lived on "the other side" because they'd have their feet in the air, wouldn't be able to observe the descent of Christ at the 2nd coming, etc.
Variants of this doctrine persisted long after the nominal sphericity debate had been settled, and I'd argue that until something like the modern view of a spherical Earth, antipodes and all, was generally accepted, it is not quite correct to claim that it was "generally accepted that the earth is round".
Ancient ideas are alien to our own, and it is easy to impose our modern understanding on the words the ancients used, creating great distortion. So I get to disagree with everyone: in the first millenium C.E. people neither believed that the Earth was flat, nor that the Earth was round in the modern sense. They believed the Earth had a special place in the universe, and their understanding of the shape and geography of the Earth grew out of Church doctrine as much as emprical observation.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Sigh. Okay. I've just demonstrated that I've tried to understand the perspective of a group of people with which I disagree. But I still can't bring myself to enjoy their sentiment.
for multiple alignments should be published too, instead of merely the finished multiple alignment with all the "non homologous" sites snipped out.
So your point is that a new idea slowly gains acceptance rather than being immediately obvious to all?
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Ah yes, here come the science by consensus trolls.
Ben, Ben, Ben.... if 99.9% consensus meant we stop thinking something is a theory, we'd still think the earth is flat.
Global Warming will Always be a theory. It's what a theory is and vice versa.
In addition, even if global warming is a real effect, the speed with which it's happening is a highly critical aspect of the problem.
Sadly it's almost happening too slow. It's like the creationists favourite rejoinder, "so you're saying your grandfather was an ape?". The human mind has trouble comprehending the monumentally large amounts of time (usually) involved in climate change, so I'd suggest that even if we enter an Ice Age within 25 years most of the US will be standing there saying "Ice Ages are normal! It's not us, it's Nature!"
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
I was referring to Yucca Mountain with the radioactivity as it was the first thing I thought of that might actually leave a mark of any sort over the timescales involved. I suppose the Moon Landers would be another. Maybe we should hoik a black monolith up there or something.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
No, his point is that the 99.9% acceptance idea is invalid as an argument. That you even bring it up means you don't understand how science works.
Yes, but can you agree that temperature variations are an unknowable, considering that the scales were only invented 200 some-odd years ago?
Who's to say that Europes local temperatures weren't slightly higher due to excessive burnoff of the forests for charcoal?
Oh yes one of your 99.9%
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Stephen Schnieder
Stanford University
Interview in Discover magazine.
How many times have you asked someone, "What does your code do to solve this problem?" and got a description of an algorithm which, when you finally get to see the source, does not match the code?
In my case, the answer to that question is, "Lots." I have had it happen in pure science (neutrino physcis), applied science (medical physics) and software development (database programming, data analysis, etc.)
I am painfully aware that my own published descriptions of algorithms have often left out minor details that may be critical in some applications, but that page limits in peer-reviewed journals necessitate. It is not uncommon to get a call from someone doing similar work asking for details about what you've done, how you've done it, and in some cases, asking to look at source code.
In contentious areas of science such requests are not always met with full disclosure, which is a sign that the people involved are no longer doing science. They are doing politics. This happens a lot, and it brings the scientific process to a halt on the question at issue.
In the case at hand, the original authors have done a very poor job of describing what they have done, and an extremely poor job of defending their work. Their refusal to publish their source code for their analysis gives credibility to their critics.
There are certainly legitimate cases where code ought not be published. If a lab has spent many, many years developing a framework for solving a certain type of problem and wants to get the most advantage out of that framework before releasing it, they may reasonably want to limit it's disemination for a while. But those sorts of reason don't apply in this case, and the source should be made available to anyone who wants to reproduce their actual results. That would just be good science.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Or maybe they would think the Nevada was another area of natural reacotrs that burn for millions of years.
O /index.shtml
http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKL
But if the consensus has arisen because the hypothesis has been 'proven' (ie hasn't failed any of the tests it has been subjected to so far) then you're golden. The problem for the guys on the skeptic side of this argument who keep repeating the 'science isn't about consensus' mantra is that the scientific consensus regarding GHG/CC is of this latter type.
Fact (1) Global warming via GHGs (including, but not restricted to, CO2) is most definitely real - observations of the conditions on Venus, Luna and Mars give clearcut demonstrations of the effect in action.
Fact (2) The rise in CO2 concentrations in the earth's atmosphere is most definitely real - we have ice core records going back 700k years and CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now. The second order delta is also extremely large, which is likely to prove significant as we go forward.
Fact (3) The anthropogenic origin of this CO2 is most definitely real - the isotopic measurements of atmospheric CO2 point to fossil sources for this rise over the past 250 years and we have estimates of the state of the significant carbon sinks that correlates well with our estimates of fossil fuel consumption since 1750.
The combination of facts (1) and (2) gives rise to the hypothesis that we should expect to be observe a measurable warming signal that is world-wide and across many different categories of instrumentation and temperature proxies. This signal has indeed been observed in many different places, across many different data series, using many different instruments and observational protocols - promoting the hypothesis to a theory and bringing us to fact (3) which strongly implies that doing something about this CO2 forcing is within our capability as a civilisation if we decide that the potential downsides of the forcing warrants an intervention. An assessment of the likely effects of the observed forcing and investigations of the practicality of various potential interventions would seem to be in order. Metaphorically sticking fingers in our ears and shouting 'Lalala. I can't hear you!' would be.... unwise.
The MBH98 and subsequent papers are a very small part of the supporting data for Climate Change Theory, so in many ways the MM critique is a bit of a sideshow - it would (if it proves well founded, which is very much in doubt) knock out one piece of a much larger observational corpus, the implications of which would still need to be addressed in the policy arena. The extent to which the MM critique is spun up into 'Climate Change Theory Is Bunk' by people who want to forestall any consideration of the policy implications of fact (3) and carry on with the finger sticking/lalala shouting is a matter for some concern however.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
During the Mesozoic era CO2 levels were between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm, with peaks higher than 2,000 ppm. Or about 4 times greater than today.
One's interests in keeping clients does not entitle you to make a scientific claim that cannot be peer reviewed. If a paper such as Mann is now regarded as fact, and indeed, makes policy, despite the obvious sloppiness regarding its data management process, then, what is the point of science anyway?
Science is supposed to be about peer review, rigor, that every assumption behind every assertion can be challenged. If, all we have is someone with a Phd can claim that they have a fact as our science, then, what is the point of even trusting them?
Without independent verification and an open process, there's nothing to separate scientists from creationists, and the people are going to pick whoever makes the most attractive sales pitch.
This is my sig.
It's all in the subject line. If someone can confirm that'd be cool, but I'm pretty sure that any software developed with NIH and NSF funding is required to be open source.
I'm arguing about the excessive credence given to the 0.1%, given that it is just 0.1% of knowledgable experts in the fields.
Plus the Galileo thing is based on the fact that 99.9% of people initially disagreed, rather than eventually agreed as is the case here.
To say that I don't understand how science works is laughable. Any high school student could explain the theorise, experiment, re-evaluate process.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
You also funded Microsoft if you purchased anything from them. It does not mean you should be able to see the source for anything at all.
Why not?
There is a bill before congress right now that says basically that - in relation to automobiles. It says basically that people have a right to be able to fix thier own autos and manufactures do NOT have the right to make you go to a dealer for repairs because they hide the source for automotive computer systems.
Now living in a country where so many people can fix software, is it so hard to see that indeed ther should ALSO be a right for a consumer to fix his or her own software if it is not working? Why should you have to go back to the software "dealer" to fix a problem. There's not even anything like a software Lemon Law to protect you!
It's not that hard to see a bill like that passing someday - perhaps twenty years before the heads of government reach that degress of sophisitication is thinking, but it is not unlikley to see in our lifetimes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"This from the guy who thinks flight 800 was shot down by a SAM"
Feel free to point out where I said or claimed that. As I replied earlier, I was talking about the lack of a verifiable proof that it wasn't due to closed-source methods. Y'know, like what TFA says?
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
That makes sense.
Why would I, as a taxpayer, support give-away projects to help countries with lower R&D investments and lower taxes compete against my company and my country?
You do know that Mann writes this website, right? You do realize that the source of your argument (http://www.realclimate.org/) is a shill for Mann and his cronies?
Second of all, there was a flaw in the original algorithm that was pointed out by McIntyre and McKitrick before they even got to the bad data being put into the equation.
And, to top it off, Mann's equation always produces hockey-stick graphs, even with randomly distributed data.
Don't point at Mann's own site as a defense of Mann.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
You include that quote as if it is telling against Schneider (who I am otherwise unfam. with).
Rather, it is telling about the current media environment in which the media coverage of scientific research is conducted in the same sad manner as our current political discourse (i.e. fake "balance" rules all - media producers seek to create a sense of controversy where no significant controversry exists and therefore encourage a perception of equal weight on both sides of any issue, even when one of the "sides" fails to hold up to any signifcant scrutiny ). This tilted coverage has a signifcant impact on scientific funding, as those making decisions are not looking at the quality of the research itself, but rather at the (skewed) coverage of the research.
At least in the case of the global warming debate, this is a correct observation - there is significant media-oriented funding - originating with the energy industries and their political friends - behind global warming research that supports the agenda of the energy industries. This threatens to color the public aspect of the debate.
The obvious conclusion is that that scientists on the other side of the debate (who had been focused on the research, or the funding for mmore research, rather than the publicization of ongoing/completed research) need to become more aware of generating publicity for their own work outside of the scientific community.
However, he is aware of the ethical issues involved in being a scientist and an activist, and so is upfront about stating those what would be scarificed. His description of these issues sounds distasteful because he finds the work distasteful.
Meanwhile, this discussion of distasteful tactics - if it ever happened - was quietly resolved behind closed doors a long time ago on the other side of the global warming debate through selective funding; the energy companies have the money to publicize the results they prefer, so they do so, while selectively funding the scientists whose approaches generate data that they prefer.
This Schneider may be a jerkwad in other areas, but in this case I think he's simply being a harsh realist.
1) Science functions only on open review. If you can't duplicate someone's results, they are useless (c.f. Ponds and Fleischman [sp?]). A scientific result is only of value if it describes a consistent replicatable process. This is why I consider the closed source work to be completely meaningless. It may be perfect, it may be bug-ridden garbage, we'll never know!
2) Every tax paying American has paid for my code and work. While I regularly feel they're not getting their money's worth, I definitely don't feel they're paying me to enrich me. They are, in a very real sense, my bosses, and I AM obligated to report to them, if they care. Think of it as a company requiring rights to your work.
3) As an academic working on a fairly limited budget, open source and free software have been a godsend for me and everyone else I know. We run linux because it's more efficient, secure and FREE; we use free or open-source compilers; and we cobble together high-perormance computers and beowulf clusters out of miscellaneous bare metal and lots of googling. The only piece of software I routinely have to pay for is MATLAB.
... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
First, the US will hopefully make some headway on CO2 production with or without Kyoto. The point I'm making is that Kyoto is based on our current highly imperfect understanding of what's going on, and isn't addressing a highly signficant source of potential global warming. To quote:
Full article here.
Another flaw with Kyoto is that, as far as I can tell, it doesn't consider nuclear a "clean" power source for purposes of controlling global warming.
I couldn't see a section on bovine flatulence either, come to think of it.
I think methane emissions are addressed, as they should be - methane traps 21 times the heat as the same mass of CO2. According to current thinking, methane accounts for 20% of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Browsing the Net, I found conflicting reports of how fast methane concentrations are increasing, but according to this article the contribution from farm animals is significant:
That's a lot of methane!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Excepting for the fact that there are two sides to this debate, and the environmentalists groups also have large amounts of money.
More importantly government grants make up a huge amount of funding in this area, while funding from energy companies is miniscule, enough to be considered non-existent. There is no reason for them to fund opposing research. If we were to institute CO2 caps, the energy companies would shrug, and raise prices. It's no big deal to them either way they make the same amount of money, more actually as they are expected to increase revenue every year. By artificially curbing supply, but not changing demand, you put money in Exxon's pocket.
Your being disingenuous to yourself if you believe that only oil companies have an agenda. In fact they have a job to do, while the other side has only an agenda, and money to spend on it.
Regardless, science is science, it has no business dabbling in politics, politics can only corrupt science.
Basically the government might give with one clenched fist, and take back with a team of mules pulling. The National Security Archives are one group of folks constantly struggling with the layers of governmental coverups. It's ongoing and pretty telling. They are having mixed results, some good finds, then a lot of what they are calling "over classification and pseudo classification" still existing. And then the problem becomes getting the information out to joey and janey citizen and voter, the "news" only mostly covers current, people have just been conditioned to accept todays fairy tales as "data and fact", over and over again. Then years later the real story comes out, by then it's too late to influence elections, etc. Look at the finally revealed data on the "Tonkin Gulf attack" that was the primary "lawful" reason for the Viet Nam war. They have (relatively historically recently)finally and quietly admitted it was an invention, but years too late to make it matter for most purposes.
So, in part I agree, some of what the government does needs to be kept secret, but it appears quite a bit is still overzealously kept hidden, primarily to protect the guilty-of-corruption-and-malfeasance aspects of government.
Doesn't even come close to meeting our energy needs, and they take up an enormous amount of space. Not to mention, a lot of birds get chopped up in them.
Really? Well goody, since the US is a net carbon sink we don't have anything to worry about here.
Carbon Sink
But what about Methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas?
Methane
Most (all) of what is published proporting to be "Green" - turns out to be instead "Green Washing". The list is endless. Why? - Money, money, money, - tenure, tenure, tenure. For "experts" who cannot get a 90 weather forecast right 50 percent of the time - predicting not only the far future of the earth's weather but dictating the exact causes for the weather change - well as they say - "Garbage In - Garbage Out". Now if someone put together a "program" that looked at all the possible variables for weather change (assuming we aren't on a "normal" pattern) - all 300 or 400 variables - then "we" might be getting somewhere. Most of you should likely be worrying more about what your Dupont Teflon stain repellant pants, ski clothes, carpets and wiper blades are doing to the atmosphere and your health because of PFOA.
You can look at it from the other side. You want to do academic reseach on farmaceuticals, but the state provides only half the funding you need. Then the farmaceutical company comes by and says: look, I can pay for the other half, but the deal is that you wait a year with publication so that we can file patents. Take it or leave.
It's an other thing if the pharmaceutical company blocks publication because the scientific results say that their product doesn't cure the disease it was meant to cure.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Peer-review is the essence of the enterprise of science, for without it, everything belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. So, if you want to keep your research algorithms (or their implementations, for the devil is in the details) closed, you can call it what you like, feeding at the public trough, boondoggle, corruption, pseudo-science...whatever, but it sure ain't science.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
[Regarding methane]
Two points. Firstly methane has a very short cycle time in the atmosphere compared to CO2; so yes, molecule-for-molecule it kicks more global warming butt than CO2 but the effect is gone in a decade or so. Secondly most of that methane is shifting carbon around within the upper, biotic, part of the carbon cycle and, as such, is not the main point at issue WRT the implications of Climate Change Theory - which is that we are mining system altering quantities of carbon out of the lithosphere and releasing it into the atmosphere/biosphere.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
should they be allowed to generate 'closed-source' solutions at the taxpayers' expense?
This is one problem that I have with PBS. They pay these companies millions of dollars to develop "Barney". Then, instead of the money from the merchandising going back into funding PBS, it goes into the pockets of someone else. And PBS, despite having a "hit" show, one that generates lots of money, still has telethons.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
wow, three are from the same site (www.sepp.org). This also deny things like Ozone Depletion. Yep no bias. How many are climate scientists? Most are "realtaed" fields or even worse.
If one can't reproduce the data or figures of another researcher's results, then it isn't science. And possibly its a wrong result too. And in some cases like medicine, harmful if it is wrong. A researcher should always make 100% his/her code and data available after a reasonable time period (typically a year) to publish it first.
I thought the point here was that various human-sponsored factors are constantly producing new methane...? Could you provide a pointer to a discussion of the normal methane cycle in the biosphere?
Secondly most of that methane is shifting carbon around within the upper, biotic, part of the carbon cycle and, as such, is not the main point at issue WRT the implications of Climate Change Theory - which is that we are mining system altering quantities of carbon out of the lithosphere and releasing it into the atmosphere/biosphere.
Perhaps, but it misses the point to say that methane is "shifting carbon around", since other forms of carbon compound aren't strong greenhouse gasses. Also, pray that the oceans don't warm enough to release the methane in the methane hydrates trapped underwater... ;-)
CO2 can also be scrubbed out of the air and returned to the lithosphere (or converted into tennis rackets for that matter;). The fact is, though, that the situation is not well understood enough at this point, and more research is necessary.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Kyoto isn't really relevant to the topic. The whole 'hockey stick' controversy has occurred since the Kyoto protocol was finalised in '97 - so MBH98 would have had no effect on it one way or another.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
Yes because they keep track of such things.
However the bias falls apart when you look at the signatories. In fact SEPP grew from the Oregon petition.
If you want to claim bias you have to claim bias from all the signatories (many who worked in IPCC #2) And those that are climate scientists are explicilty listed as such.
Science functions only on open review. If you can't duplicate someone's results, they are useless (c.f. Ponds and Fleischman [sp?]). A scientific result is only of value if it describes a consistent replicatable process. This is why I consider the closed source work to be completely meaningless. It may be perfect, it may be bug-ridden garbage, we'll never know!
If they claim some algorithm can be used to produce their results, then you can test their claims by implementing their algorithm. That's all the repeatability you need. Simply claiming that you need the code to do that is either politics or intellectual laziness. In this case I suspect politics.
However there was a link to McIntyre and McKitrick's website in the topic summary. Why was it relevant for Timothy to include that link, but not include a link to the matching item on RealClimate.org? Is it just non-scientists who are allowed to have weblogs about this stuff?
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
It's worth noting that, while it makes sense that taxpayer-funded research should generate 'open-source' solutions, federal law dictates otherwise.
The Bayh-Dole Act was passed 25 years ago, which dictates:
So in other words the government has dictated since 1980 that government-funded research should not produce open-source solutions, necessarily, as the results of research are to be considered private-sector profit-generating centers for the host universities. (The implications for the 'next BSD4.3 TCP/IP stack', or similar advanced research, are obvious.)
Anyway, regarding the 'hockey stick' controversy, Tim Lambert's weblog is worth a read.
He said suggest. An arbiter doens't suggest.
Okey, the Kyoto protocol is about the CO2 balance, but of course only the part that human behaviour can affect. It is a human decision to burn oil and coal, or to plant new trees. The natural part of the carbon cycle which was already there before mankind started burning dinosaurs doesn't count for the political decisions that have to be made now.
But what about Methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas?
Methane contributes strongly to the greenhouse effect; but the difference with CO2 is that it has a residence time of 12 years. So once you figure out how to stop cows from burping, its greenhouse contribution will disappear in a couple of years.
On the other hand, CO2 has a residence time of around 100 years. That means that you have to work much harder to lower its greenhouse contribution. Instead of undoing the last 12 years of production as with methane, you have to compensate for the CO2 production in the last 100 years!
Reference: What are greenhouse gases? (I googled for "residence time co2 climate" )
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
You haven't been in the US very long, have you?
One's interests in keeping clients does not entitle you to make a scientific claim that cannot be peer reviewed. If a paper such as Mann is now regarded as fact, and indeed, makes policy, despite the obvious sloppiness regarding its data management process, then, what is the point of science anyway?
As sad as it is to say, people will believe the Mann paper no matter what is published. Look, the source data are published already and people still believe. Numerous independent reviewers (which is to say _everyone_ else) have debunked Mann and people still believe.
They don't believe Mann because it's verifiable (which it isn't), they believe it because they want to. Or, they claim to believe Mann so that they can justify the self-serving actions they want to take.
The fight we're fighting isn't to convince people that global warming is happening. Really. It isn't. What we're really fighting is to get them to do something about it. It won't be until _after_ we've sold them on taking action that they'll admit that global warming exists.
There's no need to publish Mann's code to peer review its science. Peer review has already happened. The scientific community is already convinced. The only people still claiming to be unconvinced are those who ignore anything that doesn't suit their interest.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Yes, but here on /. we're supposed to start a big flamewar everytime something with "climate change" in the title comes up. :)
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
The Wall Street Journal has a short history of the hocky stick dispute here here. (free registration)
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
And, to top it off, Mann's equation always produces hockey-stick graphs, even with randomly distributed data.
The above remark appears seriously dubious. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98.
Oh yes.
SEPP is completely funded by private donations, they take no money from industry or the government.
Those biased bastards.
We're using one of the most commonly used ocean models in the academic world. Bug reports, some extremely serious, but not catastrophic (crash-inducing) come out monthly (for example, failure to solve horizontal diffusion). In a standard academic paper, I can barely fit all the partial differential equations for these models, let alone the particulars of grid discretization and the choice of high-order solution schemes for spatial and temporal derivatives, some of which vary depending on the nature of the quantity in question.
If you have my code, you can tell exactly what I did.
Scientists do not have large code shops. One recent project focused on modeling the entire west coast from Baja to the Bering Straits and had about 6 programmers at 4 institutions in 3 time zones. All had multiple other responsibilities and only three understood most of the code (I am not one of them and none of us realized we weren't diffusing); none of them had a system administrator or technical support. The release version has O(10e5) lines of FORTRAN 90 code.
... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
- the one who says there are no problems
- the one who says we are hopelessly doomed
- the one who says we are doomed unless... (and oh, more money is needed to determine specifics)
Plus you have to please the department chairman and other faculty if you want tenure. By the time you do have tenure, you've invested in a reputation for a particular set of beliefs.Look at all the crap that has persisted until just recently:
Microkernels were all the rage in Computer Science. To get funding for OS research, you had to at least pay lip service to this crap. Cheating on benchmarks was normal. It took over a decade to mostly purge Computer Science of this obviously flawed idea.
Stomach ulcer bacteria were thought to be totally impossible. Nothing could live in the acid of the stomach. A doctor had to infect himself and cure himself before being taken seriously.
Cancers create a blood supply, but all the researchers denied it. A surgeon knew though; he could tell by the heat of the tumor that it had an unusually rich blood supply.
Climate change is no different than these other examples. The academic politics mean that one must toe the party line to get ahead. To even be a professor, you must support the politically correct conclusion.
I hate to point this out, but your fighter pilot once worked for the government. Oh, but wait, his story supports your point of view, so different standards apply, right?
If you were to do a little research on the subject, you'd find out that eye-witnesses are usually the least accurate source of information. Try looking at the research of Elizabeth Loftus, and you'll see why some of us are unimpressed by the stories of the witnesses, over the findings of a metallurgist who was actually looking at was left of the aircraft in question. If you could come up with convincing piece of physical evidence, a video recording of the "attack" for instance, you might be more convincing.
Yes CO2 balance. North America is absorbing more CO2 than it emits. This is done by measuring atmospheric CO2 as it enters the NA landmass from the West, and the resultant Atmospheric CO2 as it leaves to the east. This a indirect measurement of Atmospheric CO2 so all factors are folded into the experiment.
The primary moving factor is that as you increase CO2 plants absorb more, and grow more, studies have shown that concentrations up to twice current amounts are wildly beneficial to plant life.
The problem (in other parts of the world) is not the CO2 emissions, but the lack of sequestering plant life.
The 100 year residence time is another model, and is almost impossible to measure directly (you can't tag individual CO2 molecules), regardless the effects of CO2 are a complete misnomer. Global warming theory for net warming relies on CO2 in only one area. That it will spur positive cycle reinforcement to increase water vapor, which is the primary mover in global warming (90%+), no one is saying that CO2 alone will increase warming, but rather that it will do a small increase which will induce more atmospheric water vapor, which will then create the serious warming. And all of these models use only positive reinforcement, and ignore any counterbalancing effects (Clouds shade and thus reduce warming, increases water vapor will also increase cloud cover). So residence of CO2 is pretty much irrelevant, as it is only a catalyst, and the further effects do not hold up for catastrophic warming.
Also it should be noted that all greenhouse gasses have a logarithmic effect (higher concentrations have less and less effect) this is true even more so for CO2.
Many posts above use the argument that public funding should yield open results. I'm all for that, but the stronger argument for opening the original source is that the future costs will be much, much greater. The Kyoto protocol will costs billions of $,£ or whatever, and the hockey stick has been "talismanic" in promoting the protocol. See Spot the hockey stick at McIntyre's web site.
We do know where medicare is spent. We can see what doctors are prescribing, how much it costs, etc. We can see everything except for the patient's name connected with that treatment due to confientiality, but the feds (and indirectly, you), have that right. Oh, and we also know who is on medicare adn typically what doc. they are connected to.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The whole point of science is not so that we can trust the opinions of scientists, it is so that scientists can give us repeatable steps to demonstrate a new point.
This whole notion of "it makes the scientists happy so we should just trust them" goes against every single thing that we in the west have fought for since the renaissance.
Your whole argument illustrates this problem precisely. You argue that, "well, even though the key piece of statistical evidence in global warming is questionable, we should still believe in the conclusion."
This is so wrong.
Maybe if scientists published all of their data in a uniform format, to a uniform site, with exact steps to reproduce, all of their source data, and how they draw conclusions from them, then, you might have a field that is useful. But right now, you have got hyper expensive journals all over the place as a repository for articles that only sketch out a discovery and not actually do it, and that simply is not good enough to be taken credibly.
The scientific process is excellent. But today's scientific product sucks.
This is my sig.
I switched to A.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I have repeatedly seen glorious pictures of beautiful ocean models, only to discover, after a few months of working with the scientist in question, that they have artfully underemphasized the failings in their models, while, at the same time, being perfectly accurate in their description of the algorithms. It's only when you use their tools that you understand their errors.
If you can't reproduce the model based on the algorithms, then they didn't disclose enough details of the algorithms. If the model is too large and complex to reproduce in that way, then I would question whether it's science at all... regardless of whether they released the source code or not.
If you really need to ship the source code around, then you really have no better understanding... and probably less... of the models and algorithms you're working on than Metzger understood the biology and biochemistry of his fruit flies. The software isn't a model, any more, it's an experimental subject.
All had multiple other responsibilities and only three understood most of the code (I am not one of them and none of us realized we weren't diffusing)
If the people working on the code didn't understand it well enough, then it wasn't science, it was... I don't know, philosophy, or art.
I doubt Richard Feynman would have been impressed.
Arse.
I shoulda previewed...
you're working on than Metzger understood the biology and biochemistry of his fruit flies
I meant to say...
you're working on than Metzger understood the biology and biochemistry of his fruit flies when he started
I think it's safe to say, though, there's probably as much manufactured "science" as there is manufactured "news".
This is a big problem in all of Computer Science. Journals and conferences should get a backbone and refuse to publish experimental results without source code. There is simply no excuse. The ability to re-produce results is vital. Especialy in fields like AI.... That's why I try to stick to theory ;)
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Assuming that that is correct (I cannot judge that), plantlife in most types of environment does not store carbon. Rather, there is an equibrium between young trees that are storing carbon and old dying trees that release the carbon as they are broken down. Converting plains into forest gives you a one-time carbon sink. Coal and oil are the result of vegetation in a specific type of environment where the dead plant parts could not be broken down due to a lack of oxygen.
no one is saying that CO2 alone will increase warming, but rather that it will do a small increase which will induce more atmospheric water vapor, which will then create the serious warming. And all of these models use only positive reinforcement, and ignore any counterbalancing effects (Clouds shade and thus reduce warming, increases water vapor will also increase cloud cover).
I agree (i.e., read before) that a large part of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is due to the interaction between CO2, temperature, and water vapour. But I am skeptical about your blanket statement about the current state of the art in climate modeling. You are basically stating that all climate researchers ignore a very obvious process in their supercomputer models. Do you have a reference for that? Or do you mean that it is disputed how exactly this effect should be incorporated into the models?
Anyway, as I understand, the cloud cover effect is yet hard to model. That would be the a main reason why the IPCC predictions have a large spread in their predictions---what was it? 2 to 7 degrees C over the next 100 years? The thing is, whatever reasonable assumptions regarding the cloud effect the climate researchers put into their models, it always leads to a global temperature increase. The dispute is about whether it is a "significant raise" or a "huge raise".
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
So your argument is that if you remove just enough of carefully selected data, you can come to the "real" results. While if you use too much data, the wrong results must come out.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Maybe we are getting warmer over a timescale of 100 years, but this is nothing within a much longer cooling trend that will have us freezing our asses off 2000 years from now.
nother flaw with Kyoto is that, as far as I can tell, it doesn't consider nuclear a "clean" power source for purposes of controlling global warming.
The Kyoto protocol doesn't give a shit how many nuclear plants you build. If you want to produce more CO2 in addition, your plants are not going to help much with global warming.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
"Rather, there is an equibrium between young trees that are storing carbon and old dying trees that release the carbon as they are broken down."
."We show that GHG signal uncertainties are associated with errors in simulating the current climate in uncoupled and coupled climate models, the possible omission of relevant feedbacks..."
assuming static growth yes this is true. However growth in North America is increasing at an amazing rate. By definition this means that it is sequestering more Carbon. Increased growth is not just in area, but also in the quality and rate of growth in existing plant life.
In fact one of the key suppositions in Mann's proxy data was that warm climate was indicated by larger (wider) tree rings. And that this was not only indicative of greater warmth, but also increased CO2, in other words Mann grants that a warmer climate with more CO2 increases plant growth, i.e. is good.
"Do you have a reference for that?" shallow search: Possible aerosol cloud effects now range from no effect to a near total masking of the alleged manmade greenhouse effect Consumer Alert, a 501 (c)(3) organization
DOE:
cloud effects "statement on feedbacks omits an important assumption about the largest positive feedback in the models considered in IPCC 1995--that water vapor in the upper troposphere is assumed to amplify the warming from the minor greenhouse gases.(17) Both theoretical (18) and observational (19) research suggest that this assumption is flawed. Indeed, the feedback may be negative."
Another consequence is that one cannot even calculate the temperature of the Earth without models that accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere."Indeed, present models have large errors here--on the order of 50 percent. Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned'' to get those quantities approximately right. "
You can find sideline references in many articles, but there are few direct articles because it is such a politically heated subject.
"what was it? 2 to 7 degrees C over the next 100 years?"
Yes it was, and a review of the high end models. Namely HadCM2, CGCM1, ECHAM4/OPCY3, GFDL and HadCM3. the spread of these for the next 100 Years was 2 to 7 degrees C. More importantly the same models show these same models showed warming of 1.5 degrees C in the 20th century. The 20 the century being over we have this data. These same models were off by 300% (actual warming in the 20th century North America), actual NA warming was approx 0.5 Degrees C. The majority of which occurred before 1940, and the majority of industrially produced CO2.
Agreed the debate is about how much, and how much of it is influenced by man (anthropogenic). More importantly the second debate is whether this is a bad thing or not. Fortunately we have real data for this. i.e. Life has flourished in all previous warm climates, and reduced during global cold climate. Cold climate increases fossil fuel usage, and is much more dangerous to animals, plants, and humans. While warm climates reduce fossil fuel usage, is beneficial to animals plants and humans. The only exception is Deserts. But of course that effect is due to the lack of moisture, not temperature.
Though an interesting effect is that we see the majority of day time temperature highs in desert while areas on equvalent latitudes, with large plant growth and water see much less warming. Showing that the thermal inertia of water has a dramatic effect.
If, on the other hand, you are more concerned with the facts than with PhD flame-fests, you can try it for yourself and see. I did this a few years back (but if you don't believe me, try it for yourself) and came to the realization that you can't just extend Fourier analysis to imaginary periods (i.e. exponentials), which is in effect what they are doing. Why? Because in series for any finite set of random data, there will be some term with a positive exponent and it will quickly grow to dominate the expansion when you project into the future. In other words, such a series does not converge as time goes to infinity.
I believe that this is the sort of question begging "a priori" factor that they mention in the links everyone keeps citing--if you know, in your heart of hearts, that global warming is real, well of course you have no objection to a model in which exponential run away is built in. And this may be fine if you are trying to quantify something that has already been established, but it is worthless for answering the question "is this exponential growth or not."
But even though they may have limited utility in such cases, I personally, have no faith whatsoever in such models, regardless of whether they are applied to the weather, the stock market, or the number of bunnies on an imaginary island. Why? Because it's too easy to make them say what you want them to, and the people who choose them are only human. I bailed out of the stock market in early 2000 and I've never lost a nights sleep over global warming.
--MarkusQ
One can. And one does. However, the type of model I'm describing is very similar to the climate models described above. Whether or not it is SCIENCE, it is widely held to be so by all major universities and government funding agencies. My opinion is a bit more skeptical, but I know where some of the skeletons lie.
If you're saying the problem is too complex and should not be attempted, then I might agree. Otherwise, I suggest you go here and simplify things for us. And I'm sure there are still some bugs.
The attached model has been under continuous development for about as long as Windows... probably longer, though with a much smaller budget. It is one of about 5 such packages in the world today. Casually whipping up another such model is not in the cards.
... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
For example, the last time the oceans warmed up enough that methane hydrates bubbled out:
3 4
d ec 02.htm
0 .htm
QUOTE:
"... A long lifetime for CO2 adjustment is also consistent with an isotopic event in the deep sea sedimentary record from 55 million years ago, the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum event. The record tells the story of the sudden release of an isotopically light source of carbon, triggering a fast warming in the deep sea of about 5 degrees C. Both the carbon isotope signal and the temperature (inferred from oxygen isotopes) then relaxed back toward their initial values in about 100,000 years. If the released carbon were initially in the form of methane, it would have been oxidized to CO2 within a few decades, but as CO2 it apparently stuck around, warming the deep ocean, for a long time before it went away...."
END QUOTE
from: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134#more-1
Also see:
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/methane-wipeouts-
(nice graphics page, makes you wonder what a big subduction earthquake offshore of Vancouver Island will produce -- likely a LOT of methane gas bubbling up).
His references are:
Pecher, I., 2002, Gas hydrates on the brink, Nature, Vol. 420, p. 622-623. (December 2002)
Wood, W., Gettrust, J., Chapman, N., Spence, G. and Hyndman, R., 2002, Decreased stability of methane hydrates in marine sediments owing to surface roughness, Nature, Vol. 420, p. 656-660. (December 2002)
For background information on methane hydrates see: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/m-hydrate-nov99.htm and http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/mh-instability-apr0
If you're saying the problem is too complex and should not be attempted, then I might agree.
I'm not suggesting anything quite so definite.
I'm simply saying that if you need the source code to evaluate a model then you're either not qualified to evaluate the model or the model is so complex that source code access is not going to tell you if it's valid or not.
The attached model has been under continuous development for about as long as Windows.
Funny you should say that. In my opinion Windows should not be used for quite a wide variety of applications simply because it's to complex to determine whether it meets the requirements.
I'm a scientist (with a computer science background). I've seen the code that most of my colleagues write. You don't want to see their code. Trust me.
I wonder if you're missing the point. Science, to be sure, is about fitting theories and observations together (not to mention producing lots of both.) But turning theories into action requires standing with one foot in science and the other in politics.
Justice and morality aren't about consensus (arguably.) Yet we rely on a 12/12 consensus when deciding criminal guilt. If there's one thing the internet has to teach, it's that there's no idea so crazy someone doesn't believe it.
For every single scientific question that matters in any way to some political issue, people will be lining up on their chosen sides, and calling costuming to dig out the lab coats. Just as a trial by press is a travesty of justice, science by press is a irresolvable tarbaby of blather.
So the appeal to consensus is not saying "this is correct because it's popular", it's saying "here's what the experts think". Because the alternative is politicians fishing through the thousands of marginal theories always floating around, until they find the one whopper they can show off as "the *real* science".
What scientists?
It was the Catholic church that intimidated Galileo. There were very few of what we could call scientists around back then.
~X~
~X~
99.9% of what you call experts were members of the clergy. It was in their best interest to keep the populace ignorant so they could maintain their religious empire.
Science was not a very big calling during the dark and middle ages.
As far as global warming is concerned, by the time you see what you would call "proof", it would already be too late.
As it is, many are already saying it's to late and the best we can do is prepare.
~X~
~X~
"LOL. I doubt any part of Nevada is "10,000 times the normal radiation level" now, and certainly none of it would be hundreds of millions of years from now when some hypothetical intelligent species evolves. Thanks for the laugh though. "
.01 degree increase per year, that's still an enormous amount of heat energy.
I think he was referring to the Yucca mountain storage facility for nuclear waste.
As fas a global warming is concerned, it's pretty simple really.
FACT: Humans are pumping billions of tons of methane, CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.
FACT: These are proven green-house gases.
FACT: Billions of tons of greenhouse gases + solar radiation = warmer temperatures.
The effects are cumulative. Even if our output was causing a
I think the argument of "how much our we affecting our environment" is ludicrous. The fact that we ARE affecting global temperatures at all should give us pause.
And the fact that we can't reverse what we've done should really make us think.
~X~
~X~
That doesn't change the fact that Mann's results are essentially in line with everyone else's, and that the published McIntyre & McKitrick stuff appears to be completely uninformed by very much relevant skill. Open source code isn't always good code.
I don't know why Mann's complete code isn't published. Possibly the computers have all been surplused and the backup tapes misplaced, so he can't get bit-for-bit what he published. There's no sign that Mann behaved in any way other than up to the standards of the day, and their work is still in play in the discussion of the millenial reconstructions.
I think the only good thing to come out of MacIntyre & McKitrick's "work" is that it motivates support for open source. Unfortunately, the usual lies about global warming being an argument between two equally sound scientific camps gets reinforced in the bargain. On the whole, we're probably worse off, but the demand for open source from the Wall Street Journal crowd is certainly a silver lining.
mt
Climatology is a basic science program, not a development grant. I think climatology is funded through a peer review mechanism similar to NIH. NIH has been pushing for open access. and it's likely other agencies will be forced to follow suit. One rule they settled on was to make NIH-funded research papers freely available after 12 months.
The technology transfer programs you describe largely plague the Department of Defense, though I can see why other non-basic-science departments might use that mechanism too.
"Real scientists" huh? You mean like the entire community of "real scientists" that came to "scientific concensus" without a single scientific entity, government body or anyone on the IPCC's behalf ever bothering to reproduce Mann's findings prior to them being accepted as gospel and the root basis for my government (Canada) spending 10's of billions of tax dollars on unachievable and useless greenhouse emissions targets?
Pffft.
Define "huge". do they have the cash to, for example, drop $250k on a pundit (referencing the Dept of Ed and Armstrong Williams)
You're missing the point - this isn't about the $ funding research; my point is the $ selectively promoting the results of research which support the agenda of the energy companies.
These are different pools of $, and are not reported in the same way. LOTS of energy company PR $ goes into promoting research that they like; the effectiveness of the promotion is far more important than the viability of the research itself.
Furthermore, to address your particular point, the energy companies do have a great deal of influence over how government grants get spent; do you have any idea how many "former" (and sometimes current, and most often future) energy industry representatives have gov't appointments? Google some DOE staff histories and you'll see lots of energy company histories.
Politics has corrupted science; science can certainly consider making a stink about the corruption so that people begin to pay attention to the actual science, as a first step to countering the existing corruption.
How to do so is up for debate, but pretending that scientists should ignore the problem is beyond foolish.
C'mon you have mod points so use them!
Mod Parent +1 Interesting and then -1 Overrated!
But your assuming Energy Industry corruption where it may or may not exist.
Show where energy companies have financed GW skepticisim. I can show the opposite, but your making a blanket statement about all studies against GW, where little of it is financed by the energy concerns, and offering no evidence for it. A common tactict, whenever someone takes that position "they are in the pockets of the oil companies", with or without evidence.
By your rationale it's perfectly fine for Global Warming skeptics to mike wild accusations, false or not, about the Global warming movement in the interest of firthering science?
Main Entry: crackpot
Pronunciation: 'krak-"pät
Function: noun
: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions
Tim Lambert, Blogger without a portfolio
"Bloggers are just nerds in pajamas"
Jonathan Klein
"Tim Lambert - an arch opponent mostly criticizing unrelated work in which I'm not involved. I haven't seen any substantive criticisms."
Stephen McIntyre.
Okay first off, my reply was to the posting of cvdwl "or is it some crackpot in the back end of nowhere splashing up a web page because he's peevish and doesn't get out enough?! "
I used shorthand to reflect his entire meaning. So there are actually 4 items in contention here.
1. crackpot
2. in the back end of nowhere
3. splashing up a web page because he's peevish
4. doesn't get out enough
You live in Australia, I think we can grant point 2.
peevish
Pronunciation: 'pE-vish
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English pevish spiteful
1 : querulous in temperament or mood : FRETFUL
2 : perversely obstinate
3 : marked by ill temper
Simple Google search on your name I think proves point 3. Certainly it's subjective; I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
From your website:
"What I Teach:
Computer Graphics
Computational Geometry
I use Java for teaching. "
I think between J. Klein's comment and your self admitted profession we can also stipulate point 4.
Okay like holocaust deniers you don't believe that "Global Cooling" was never an issue in the 70's
Newsweek 1975
wiki
Most people around during that era remember it, but you deny it.
As to the Hockey stick, the Global Warming religion is backpedaling like mad away from the Hockey stick, yet you continue to defend it. Continued in part II
For the sake of brevity I'll limit myself to the 4 claims of the Parent. denies that average temperature is meaningful, confuses degrees with radians, invents a whole new temperature scale, replaces missing data with zeroes Average temperatures: From reading your site you either have a remarkable lack of reading comprehension for someone who has attended university or else you could not attack the research in any meaningful way so you chose slight of hand. For your edification, the comments by McKitrick discussed the change in sample size, and how it effects mean average. To borrow your example "if I have one kg of water at 20 degrees and another at 30 degrees, then their average temperature is 25 degrees." Yes this is true, but if I then increase my sample to the other five barrels, also of one kg next to your hypothetical two samples, and they are of 0C, 15C, 2C, 18C and 32C, then your average is 16.71 degrees C. Which was the entire point. Tangentially he was discussing Urban Heat Island effect as it affects results in the GHCN. Due to budget cuts measuring stations were decommissioned, the majority of these were in rural areas, leaning the data towards urban areas, where the heat island effect is pronounced. Since Global Mean temperature is irrelevant in relation to population density, removing rural measurement stations skews the data, but most scientists understand this. In a similar effect, there is a lack of temperature data for the South Pacific, and South Atlantic this is due to the lack of monitoring stations, and ships, in this area to make complete studies. For your knowledge, this is a large area that extends almost exactly due west of your current location, extending to the west coast of South America, then from the East Coast of SA further unto the west coast of Africa, and then from the East Coast of Africa to the Western shore of your fine backwater country. This is larger than 50% of the southern hemisphere, of which we have little data, this also unfairly skews the Global Mean temperature. Since you professed to have such a grand understanding of "average" I assume you realize to have an accurate measurement of the global Mean temperature you should have evenly spaced global samples, You can't measure 6 Places within 100 Miles of Hong Kong and profess to have a sufficient sampling. Sampling based upon population intentionally or not, is also flawed. Oh then you decide to further reinforce his point by stating the total amount of stations lost was actually higher than he mentioned, increasing the effect, not reducing it. Degrees/radians: Why are there so many references that have no relation whatsoever to what you are discussing? More importantly you point out a minor math error, that has since been corrected, and the paper still stands. Shall I find a minor math error in any Global warming paper does that discount the entire paper? Particularly if it is not corrected? For instance how CGCM1 and HadCM2 incorrectly estimated 20th century global warming increase by 300%, and actually was less predictive than random numbers. You also mention that this invalidates all of McKitrick math, but you don't say by what magnitude, If I miscalculate a 20% tip on a $25.00 tip as $5.000000000001 instead of $5.00 does it matter? Continued in part III
Anyway, this whole discussion is beside the point: In http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/s cience/McKitrick Tim Lambert's blog I found a reference to ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/IT RDB/NOAMER/pca-noamer.fMike Mann's tree-ring source program (fortran), which he apparently has made public. Happy refuting!
It's not a matter of "admitting" or "not admitting". I think there is legitimate concern about greenhouse gasses. However, given that we have no real idea a) if there is a significant enough effect to be concerned about or b) what the rate of warming is, my position is that more research is needed before making drastic and costly decisions.
Granted, cleaner is better if the cost is not too high - with or without global warming being a major factor.
The Kyoto protocol doesn't give a shit how many nuclear plants you build. If you want to produce more CO2 in addition, your plants are not going to help much with global warming.
Even if a country is producing "more CO2", the nuclear plants will still eliminate yet more CO2 from entering the atmosphere, no?
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
But your assuming Energy Industry corruption where it may or may not exist.
H igherEd_2003.html
h tml
Some of us live in the real world. Please join us.
Show where energy companies have financed GW skepticisim.
Here's an article detailing the GCC, a (former) energy industry-funded interest group.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/gcc.html
Here's an article detailing how higher-education-based research "may" be influenced by energy company funding.
http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org/news/News_Chron
There's plenty more out there for those who are willing to look.
Finally, I looked up that Schneider quote (it's from 2. J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989., which is unf. not in discover.com's web archive).
However, there is plenty of evidence that this quote is taken out of context - i.e. you've fallen prey to someone's "talking points" (though at least you included the last sentences, which are often left out - check Google for easy proof).
Without the original article, we can at least read a related message by Schneider, addressing the "controversy" over his quote.
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.
This words are particularly telling:
What I was telling the Discover interviewer,
of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that
imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular
media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the
soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a
clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends
justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have
actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings.
By your rationale it's perfectly fine for Global Warming skeptics to mike wild accusations, false or not, about the Global warming movement in the interest of firthering science?
Of course not, I expect honesty, and that honesty should be based on accuracy, not ignorance.
Okay first off. the GCC or the "Global Climate coalition" Says on it's front page
h tml " is where I took the quote from. So if your talking about talking points, yes I originally read it (Complete as it is here) somewhere else, but the citation I made was taken from your referenced article, specifically because it was complete, or as complete as available.
"A voice for business"
this is a dedicated business organization. Were not talking about business here (in the thread), we are talking about scientists, I could care less how much money Shell oil spends on PR, I care what the opposing scientists say. You haven't shown where any of these organizations are funding scientific research. There are allusions, so me check stubs, show me references "This study paid for by shell oil"
In addition your references are from fringe elements, I've known of one for awhile, they are much like our buddy here Lambert that devote all of their time attacking people they disagree with, and are extremely disingenuous at best. And both are financed by environmental groups (SEED for the campaign one, The Wilderness Society, and Greenpeace for the other) So you showing how one partisan funded group is talking about other partisan funding, and even then, yes I read the articles, do not show any direct scientific patronage. In fact they say the majority of their spending is on normal business investigations (looking for new oil fields and the like, and mention no specific funding of research of GW in any way.
I've looked, I don't find it, I'll be more clear, show me a direct citation that is not mudslinging from some Greenpeace like organization. The citations you've shown is like using quotes from the DNC to show how evil the RNC is. Show me where Fred Singer is receiving Oil money, or Patrick Michaels, or Bjorn Lomborg, et al.
Actually I've researched the quote many times. Schneider does not say he did not say those words, he has only backpedaled since saying it. Everyone says it is taken out of context, I'll happily add the context, but Schnieder doesn't supply it, and I notice you haven't done so here. I would gladly read it in full context.
For your information " http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.
Schnieder can say what he wants after the fact ("I never had sexual relations with that woman", "That depends on what the meaning of is, is.") I read the quote, fairly complete, and there is little room for misinterpretation. He didn't say "Sometimes we end up offering up..." He used much more direct wording like "To do that we need to.." and "So we have to offer up..." These are direct statements. Short of the previous comment that isn't being quoted being "Okay hypothetically speaking.." I don't see where it changes what he says.
"I expect honesty, and that honesty should be based on accuracy, not ignorance. "
I agree with that 100% but it does not sit with the comments you mentioned about them having to get media coverage. Nor with what Schnieder says.
If you'll spend our time instead of trying to discredit my comments with evil intentions on my part, instead to look at the science behind it, look at the reputable scientists with alternative views on GW, and look at the science with an open but critical mind. Accusing people of this and that gets nowhere. If someone says that 1939 was the warmest year in the 20th century, and that 30 years of a cooling trend followed that, saying that person is an oil industry schill isn't a defense, showing data that controverts it is what matters. I don't care if the researcher gets his money from the Moonies or the Warren commission, what's important is, is the data true? All research is funded somehow.
For instance the IPCC over-estimated warming in the 20th century as 1.5% or 300% higher than measured values.
Is your defense that I am an oil company schill?
Open source is the standard in science. People who do not publish their work have something to hide. Research funded by the public must be made public. Period.
Yeesh.
First of all, if you reply to this post with any smear tactics along the lines of the ridiculosuly-applied Clinton quote, I'll consider the discussion ended. That's just not civil.
Secondly, I'm sorry that this discussion has descended to this level. Let's try to bring it back into a more reasonable tone.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between the research going on (and discussion about that research) within the scientific community, and how that research is interpreted and discussed by the funding community (which is composed of a combination of scientists, bureacrats, politicians, and businesspeople), and to go up one further level (of influence on research), how the research is discussed and interpreted by media, and by then by the general public.
I think we agree that honest debate between scientists is being distorted in its interpretation by funders, the media, and the general public, and this distortion is being carried out by PR mechanisms.
I think it's also clear that this distortion affects funding of further research by influencing the funders's decisions (directly or indirectly), which further colors the debate. And because we don't live in an ideal universe, this distortion can be minimized, but not eliminated.
By quoting Schneider in the way that you do, you obviously buy into that basic understanding (that distortion has entered into the scientific debate). Where we differ is that you believe that the most influential "bad actors" in the interpretation of the science-based global warming debate are partisans for more restrictive environmental regulation.
( At least, this is how I interpret your original post, in which you write "One of your 99%" comment + the Schneider quote. No other interpretations come to mind, please correct me if I missed your original point. )
I see the scales as being (mis-)balanced in the other direction, seeing as the general reprtage around environmental policy decisions seems to have been primarly driven by business-backed PR groups.
Therefore, towards the end of balancing the distortion, I see no problem in scientists working to increase media coverage of their research, assuming that a) they are not promoting their research as an end-run around generating consensus within the scientific community, and b) they conduct this promotion honestly (i.e. not through distortions of the truth).
This is one of the main reasons that I object to your quotation of Schneider - what you see as a radical call to dishonesty, I see as as the honest words of a scientists openly addressing the ethical implications of engaging in science as well as activism. I find the fact that he ends the quote by prescribing that scientists make ethical decisions is enough to interpret the sentence about "scary scenarios" as him invoking an the thoughts of someone NOT making an ethical decision for comparison.
And while I'll concede that you have honestly (if incorrectly, in my estimation) come to the opposite conclusion regarding this quote, I think it's important that neither side discounts the possibility of there being bad apples in every barrel, and that this applies to both sides of the debate.
The most important thing is to understand where the greatest influence lies, and which "side" dominates that influence. I don't believe that the influence exists anymore (if it ever did) at the level of the research scientists themselves, but rather at the media/promotion level. I further believe that the the money at this level primarily lies with groups promoting the research results are useful for promoting GW-skepticism.
Why I brought the GCC up in the first place is because their primary role in distorting the representation of scientific research during the Kyoto Conference and the U.S. backing out of adopting the Kyoto Protocoals; according to the LA Times (December 7, 1997) the GCC spent $13 million on their 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign. That's not chump c
I'll say to start that the supposed smear tactics weren't targeted at you or even Schnieder, and they are pretty close to direct quotes. The only purpose was to illustrate the duplicity of people (all people not just Clinton and Schnieder), and that when people are caught in a wrongdoing the first thing they tend to do is backpedal "What I really meant was..." It's human nature and I don't condemn Scnieder for doing it, my only point is that I don't consider it a defense he said what he said. (And looked at the right way you could consider this paragraph in a similar light).
I say all this because while I may not agree with your position you've been reasonable and civil, if, in my opinion, deluded. While I'm perfectly happy to be wallowing in the mud as required, my intention was not to bring this particular conversation there. Though all this has gone my curiosity is piqued. Why so verbose about such a comment. While there has been a fair bit of controversy over it within certain circles, I wouldn't consider it of any interest to someone not focused on the subject, and the way you've continued this leads me to suspect ulterior motives. And certainly not worthy of such a long semantics argument. though I will put that aside and continue on ignoring the thought.
So anyways, onward.
While I will agree your comments about debate, and being influenced by outside sources, and it can only be reduced, not eliminated. This is true about just about everything.
What you say we disagree about is the level of misbalance. I would agree that we disagree about this. At the same time I'll defend my position to the end, because it's so grossly obvious.
On the one side we have the business interests, and those that are supposedly on their side, and more importantly, accused of being in their pocket. I've still seen little evidence to prove massive funding (later link will show one "egregious" study showed 5% funding by the American Petroleum institute). I could argue the chicken and egg are they funded to prove something, or do business end up funding those who aren't out to put them out of business, business is hardly going to give money to people whose expressed goal is to put them out of business. That comes back to my comment, don't argue their funding, argue the science, show me where it's wrong.
On the other side we have the environmentalists groups. What is Greenpeace but a PR company. Granted they have different motivation, but they are a still nothing but a PR group, and they spend all of their money and promoting what science they think promotes their cause (minus of course what they use for other things like picketing Japanese whale boats). But other than publicity they don't have any other goal, and that is to include research. But is it chump change?
Not a GW group, but in the news today Last year, the IFAW raised $77.5 million U.S
200 Budget for Greenpeace In 2000, the total budget for. all Greenpeace organizations, including Greenpeace International, was $143 million
So while I admit that the above money is minor compared to the total worth of the likes of Mobil, it far exceeds Mobil's PR budget as you discussed it and far exceeds the sum that you mentioned with GCC in the anti-Kyoto campaign. And remember that all of the environmentalist budgets goes towards PR. More importantly, they receive plenty of PR for free, and I beg you to show me where the amount of media coverage on the Big Warming side exceeds that of the skeptic side. Head on over to Junkscience any particular day, where he reviews the news of the day (most without commentary) Pro GW articles outnumber anti about 6 to 1 at minimum.
Continued.
Name the last time you saw an anti GW article in the mainstream news. Be honest with yourself and say anytime you've seen a mainstream news source even mentioning the other side, or even noticing that there was an other side. Aside, of course, from people like me posting such articles in places like this.
As to scientists on the pro-GW side not getting press. Say the word I'll cite 10 articles a day till you tell me to stop. In fact I see plenty of articles about things that have absolutely nothing to do with GW saying something along the lines of "As global warming predicts.." or "We can expect more events like that because of global warming..." the Dec 26th Tsunami for example. There is absolutely no correlation between a seismic event under kilometers of water and global warming. Yet they grab headlines by supposedly connecting them. There are currently 6 to 7 articles about this in the British press everyday at this point. Quite frankly I'm calling you on that one, there are just to many contrary examples.
As to whey the likes of Lomborg, Michels, Milloy, and Singer being more well known, quite frankly because the pond is smaller, and those involved feel strongly about getting the word out, not because they are paid by oil companies (Do you think I make money from oil companies?) but because they are disgusted (as am I) by the me too science that is going on in this area, and the obvious distortions (which I notice you don't want to talk about the science, just the semantics, sorry I'm keeping it down but it struggled up), Singer for an example was a member of the IPCC, his stated reason is quite simply what he saw during that time, and as I've mentioned his site sepp is 100% funded by private contributions. So if it's a motive argument, I put my money on "my" guys every time.
But your comment about Lomborg intrigues me. Why skeptical about Lomborg. Again stick to the science and ignore what you've been told about him poersonally. Research it yourself. Lomborg himself talks openly and at length about the criticisms against him. References.
Lomborgs Critic page
Quote from Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace "I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself." Patrick Moore Sci Amer rebuttal
If your opinion of Lomborg comes from the supposed case against him by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, note that the Ministry responsible found that committees judgment was "Not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation"
FBjorn's press release
And to my previous point. There was plenty of press about the case by the DCSD against Bjorn, but little about the retraction of that case. And I assume your opinion was jaded by this.
Continued
Okay back to Schneider for a moment.
Some more out of context quotes from here: Schnieder quotes
Selected Schneider Quotes
"A cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." - Twenty-year-old Schneider quote cited in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992
"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in CO2... Even an eight-fold increase... might warm earth's surface less than two degrees Centigrade, and this is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years." - from paper Schneider co-authored in 1971 cited in Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (1993)
"[Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January 23, 1989
"It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global warming theory] as though it were a question of balance. " - Quoted in the Boston Globe, May 31, 1992
"Looking at every bump and wiggle... is a waste of time.. I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." -Quoted in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992
I don't have, but have read, the entire article in the 1992 Boston Globe article. It moderates it somewhat, but far from fully.
Further, Schneider was Al Gore's science advisor, and helped to author Gore's book "Earth in the balance". I'm assuming your a Dem, and that's fine, could care less. But if this guy is running around with Al gore, it shows Political intentions, and makes him far from an un-biased person. He has motivation, likely political, behind his position.
Everything all told, I stand behind my opinion of Schneider's quote, and usage of it, as it stands.
As to the merits of research, I've read some of it, quite frankly, I'm not impressed. Shallow and non-original would be the terms I would use.
From his site on climate science Schneider
I see ~30 articles referenced, of which 2 he is directly credited as a co-author. The majority of which is re-iteration of Mann's work (where we stumble briefly on-topic), if you want a review of Mann's work go to the parent article, there's plenty. But I'll make an offer if you like. Pick a graph, article whichever you choose, and I'll point out the merits, or lack thereof should you desire. Took me about 5 minutes to quickly review the graphs, and see that not one of them isn't a distortion graph designed to look good but when you look at the labels you see that it is not what it appears on the surface. I am familiar with all of these in one iteration or another. Suffice to say they lack the same contrary evidence charts that go with these. The fall perfectly in line with Schneider's opinion of: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." There is direct conflicting graphs developed by the same sources. This contrary data is dropped and only supporting evidence is published. Yes this is a direct challenging statement. Take me up on it should you desire.
"It's the inflation of research beyond its own merits that I object to."
I agree completely 100%, and I invite you to look into it with a scientific eye. Should you need direction I'll be happy to get you started. Most importantly Question it. Part of scientific review is to assume the data is wrong and look to put holes in it. If it you can't find any holes it stands as good. But you have to actively seek holes. If you don't understand something research it. And by that I mean more the methods and presentation, and less the meaning.
Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference
Debate of the IPCC executive summary
"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99
E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer
Industry contributions to the environmental movement
Environmentalism for the 21st Century
The CO2 & Climate Team
is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules
Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.
Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy
Now we move on to Schneider's site.
Schneider Contrarians
Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.
"the GCC spent $13 million on their 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign. That's not chump change"
Oh yes. Lest I forget. Government funding on pro-Big Global Warming studies in the past ten years Averaged 4.5 billion per year
Kind of puts that 13 Million in perspective.
GCC spending accounts for The govenmetn spent $2,647 dollars for every dollar the GCC spent.
I'm sorry, but that 13 Million is chump change.
Thanks for your extensive replies, I admire your tenacity and willingness to engage in a fact-based conversation.
You're depth of research into GW skepticism clearly outstrips mine at this point, and so the conversation won't be productive until I've looked into some of the facts that you've raised. Perhaps we'll re-engage on this (productively!) at a later point.
These last several posts have been your most persuasive mode of argument; the original post - which used a quote that I think we agree is open to interpretation - is a far poorer mode of argument. You're clearly capable of much clearer, non-inflamatory argumentation than that, and thanks for proving this in your follow-up postings.
As I've said I can do it either way, with mud slinging, or rational arguement. I take my cues from my oponent. Here on /. you rarely see rational arguement, and quite frankly my position is often ridiculed and attacked here (as in many places) Incluiding me personally. Note that the original post and other posts were not towards you, you choose to reply to a post I had made to someone else.
If someone discusses it rationally, I have no problem doing the same. Most of that reason is the two decades of interst I've taken in this subject, and the research I've done into it (at a reviewers level of course). Can't have a rational arguemnt if you don't have the facts.
As to looking into the facts, please do. It's not that difficult, and while all will admit climate research is a very very difficult branch of science, examining the information put forward is not. Particularly since they tend to use the same "tricks" each time, and re-hash all the same graphs. Just today Mann's Hockey stick was trotted out again. I can say that the complex math behind gravity is well beyond me, but it's not difficult to say when the researchers say that the gravity of the earth is actually 2G's that they are wrong (not that they do, that's the mark of good science).
As to re-engaging at a later point. Happy to, anytime. My mail is in the headers of all my posts feel free to contact me, as this thread will eventually be archived, and I'm certainly not going to keep searching back here. No one but you and I are here anymore anyways. Just as no-one else is reading the discusion I'm having with Lambert in a mud puddle close by this thread. Think I've given you plenty of sources for counter examples, persue them at your interest.
Ciao