Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Seeks Scientists' Personal Data
jfengel writes "The Washington Post reports that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) has requested raw data and personal financial information on three scientists who published a paper which claimed that temperatures rose precipitously in the 20th century. Colleagues (including other Republicans) are calling the investigation 'misguided and illegitimate.' Barton has long been an opponent of government action on global warming."
Based solely on the editorial, it looks like in this case it is more the latter than the former. But we don't know the whole picture. In fact that one-sided editorial is an excellent example of bias; nowhere does it even outline the Chairman's view.
It comes down to an interesting question. If personal and professional finances are off-limits, how else can politicians determine whether a complex statistical report has been "paid for" by an interested party?
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
By using such despicable harassment techniques against these scientists, all Joe Barton has managed to accomplish here is to certify their findings.
After all, if their results could be disputed rationally, there would be no need for such underhanded tactics.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Many scientists and some of Mr. Barton's Republican colleagues say they were stunned by the manner in which the committee, whose chairman rejects the existence of climate change, demanded personal and private information last month from researchers whose work supports a contrary conclusion.
I was lucky to recently attend Al Gore's presentation on Global Climate Change. While I don't care about Global Warming at all (I see it as an eventual end of society and part of the Earth's history) but I did find that Al Gore's excellent multimedia presentation to be full of the very evidence that proves Global Climate Change is occurring and increasing in speed.
Why are these leaders creating issues for scientists unless they are trying to strongarm them? Were they seriously thinking that this data was created from false research? Antarctica is losing large slabs of ice at an alarming rate but it has nothing to do w/temperatures rising?
Again, Global Warming is something that's going to happen and it's inevitable, but we don't need to be harassing science because our political survival depends on it.
He can "seek" anything he wants, but that doesn't mean anyone will take him seriously, or that he'll get it, I don't think the "law" supports that kind of fishing. Much about nothing here, there are a ton of nut-cases in Washington from Texas...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I'm not sure how to say this without coming off as a troll. But what is the intent here? In the past they tolerated German rocket scientists, why are these scientists being signaled out?
I don't get it.
I know, I know, the liberal scientists will probably talk about hot-air and inflammatory rhetoric causing electoral heating. Some say that if we don't curb emissions like this one, we may have an increase in heated opinions, leading to an increase in Republicans. Many blame the continued use of fossil fools for this problem.
But there's little evidence to show this. For one, Michael Crichton says these governments are purely cyclical. Over time, you get Republican Administrations, then Democrat Administrations, then Republican again. Apparently there's a wealth of historical evidence to show this fact.
Then there's the so-called scientists and how their theories change. According to many back in 2004, we were supposed to get a Democratic administration! Now they're saying we're having Republicans. Why should we believe them now?
Anyway, if Joe Barton can discredit the notion that human beings have anything to do with Republicanism, and he's doing a fine job right now let me tell you, I think this will be a great thing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Republicans have perfected the strategy that if you don't like the message, seek to discredit the messenger.
Apparently the Republican party was in charge when Jesus was on earth because that was the same strategy the local political powers pursued against Him.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
While we're at it, let's make ole Joe's real financial backings public. Nothing to hide, right?
You don't get how the process works. If one scientist is compromised, they get jumped on by the others for poor research, which then compromises the first guy's ability to get funded or published at all and calls into question the legitimacy of any previous work.
The problem here is that Barton is seeing this from the perspective of a politician. As a politician, he has no frame of reference for a process with built in integrity. Congressman should have their personal and campaign finances reviewed. Why? Because they trade off of lies and misdirection. There is no integrety in their world.
Who was surprised this preparation for an obvious revenge attack, against scientists inconveniently interfering with oil policy, was the hatchet job of a Republican, or a Texan? Maybe Barton (R-TX) was hoping to learn the scientists' wives were covert CIA/WMD operatives. Then, of course, Barton could just discard national intelligence security as the cost of discarding national environmental security. Two great Texas Republican tastes that go great together!
--
make install -not war
Boiling Point absolutely destroys the argument against taking action on global warming. When greenhouse skeptics can't find any flaws in the work of real scientists, they turn to discrediting the scientists through personal information.
Would be interested in seeing who's paying for his viewpoint.
is that an anti-climate change group could give a similar "excellent multimedia presentation" with similarly gathered evidence and reach the opposite conclusion. Just like the coming ice age of 40 years ago. In summary, don't be dazzled by the flashing powerpoint slides.
"Republicans have perfected the strategy that if you don't like the message, seek to discredit the messenger."
Professional debatists and philosophers have a term for that: ad hominem attacks.
Indeed, due to the declining education standards in most of the Western world, many younger people are not aware of such a concept. That is why those politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, who resort to the use of such logical fallacies are not held responsible for their faulty debatery.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I'm aware of many publications that show the opposite.
The Raven
At the time, I laughed when he was elected. Now, I'm not laughing anymore.
I've never been so sorry to share this yahoo's last name. Not only that, but I live near his district in Texas. The next time someone asks me if I'm related to him, I won't say "No."
I'll say "Hell no."
Anyways.
Has anyone wondered about the public utilities not encouraging energy conservation ? Yeah , they seem to want people to consume more energy.
This is where private enterprise fails. We need to SLOW down consumption and use more clean resources like SOLAR.
We all need to put solar cells on our houses but you see the 'public utilities' who are now 'private' may not want that.
It will take big lobby money to change ways.
From the abovementioned paper:
Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns over the past six centuries are based on the multivariate calibration of widely distributed high-resolution proxy climate indicators. Time-dependent correlations of the reconstructions with time-series records representing changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols suggest that each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.
While I think asking for personal data and computer codes is pretty far out of line, I think a review of the raw data and a detailed analysis of the "Spatially resolved global reconstructions" may not be asking too much.
A peek at the "multivariate calibrations" might be a good idea as well.
For a different perspective on the same news:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=274#more-274/
The head of the Energy Committee is asking for the source code for the statistical calculations that "prove" we're experiencing global warming. Code that was developed with US Government money.
No more than an open source advocate would expect.
The source has now been released.
If a study came out tomorrow that said cigarette smokers were 20% less likely to catch cold or flu, then it was revealed the next day that the study authors received money from 'big tobacco', would anyone blink?
Scientists aren't above bribery. If someone is publishing data and has an axe to grind, thats one thing. If someone is publishing data that is correlary to how much money their getting from someone with an axe to grind, that is another.
Public policy should be based on facts. So before scrubbing some clown, ask yourself: Did they follow the money? Or did they grind their own axe?
The GP is wrong. It doesn't matter who funded you as long as you reveal your methodology and data.
Every time a study comes out saying that Windows is more secure, faster and cheaper than Linux, the first thing Slashdotters ask is "Who funded this study?" Which is exactly what the Chairman is attempting to establish.
No, a slashdotter asking such a question is more like a working stiff asking who contributed to the congressman's campaign. What the congressman is doing is more like a Microsoft executive asking who funded a study favorable to Linux.
These days, a republican supporting this Administration's position on any scientific issue, against any credible scientist is highly suspect and does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I need to emmigrate. Enough is enough. This country has gone so far down the path of corrupt rubbish that I don't think it's reversable anytime soon, and I really don't want to raise my child in the mess that ensues (assuming such a mess is survivable, which you can argue either side of equally well without the use of a tinfoil hat). The glass marble award applies.
Anyhow, the shortest version of my resume is that I'm technically very skilled in a number of disciplines, and would prefer residency in an EEC country if at all possible.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
Of course people that believe that humans are causing global warming typically discount any evidence provided by scientists in the "pocket" of private industry.
So, is the official either too stupid or too lazy to refute the report based on evidence and methods? Why else would he resort to underhanded methods? The climate is changing, get over it. Carbon and Oxygen double bonds absorb IR, get over it. We should reduce Carbon dioxide, get over it. For god fucking sake why does this have to turn into a lynching just because some douche doesn't like reality. I wish they would quite being babies and live in the world we have; instead of the "world we should have," which we are never going to get.
We request the same infomation from politicians to make sure they don't have conflicts of interest.
Should scientists who's reports can have a very real effect on policy be so diffrent?
For example we like to know if scientist is working for drug companys while writing reports on those drugs.
Just my 2 cents.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
While giving a free pass to paganism, Jersey curb worship, and religions that preach the murder of "infidels".
Too damn bad we can't listen to Winston Churchill:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
--Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
Most countries don't have our kind of immigration policies. Instead of posting your resume, why not a picture and traits that make you attractive to a Canadian? You may have better luck marrying into another country than working your way in.
Then again, it is wartime. You can always simply renounce your citizenship and let luck carry you where it will.
i'd like to see Barton's mental health record; more relevant on this than the researchers financial data he's after.
From the article, "[they] were told to hand over not only raw data but personal financial information, information on grants received and distributed, and computer codes."
I think the scientists were mainly incensed over the request of personal financial information and not their funding sources, computer codes, or raw data.
In fact, ANYONE who requests the materials and methods of a published work is usually given them. In order to verify and repeat the results of the work, other scientists need that information.
But, I think the two zany Republicans overstepped their bounds by asking for personal financial information. They're clearly looking for a relationship between the scientists and some environmental organization (the wackier the better). I doubt these guys took personal money from their research grants. But the Republicans seem intent on spinning the published work in any way they can: discredit its authors, its methods, and its funding sources.
Though, the attempt to discredit their methods is not unusual nor wrong! Science is all about critically questioning the work of others until you are convinced of their correct results.
Favorite
A Texas Republican who doesn't take global warming seriously. That's sort of like a Catholic Pope.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Wow, now I know why Pontius Pilot is credited with founding the Republican Party. 2,000 years and still going strong! And they still crucify anyone that disagrees with them.
I wish the government would stop picking on scientists.
Damn straight! Today, the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student. Where will it end?
Wow! You must be a real scientist! I always thought that findings became accepted by replication. I didn't understand that mere opposition could be sufficient to make some scientific result certain.
Dang, I wish you moderators had the choice of "Too Sarcastic", because my posting certainly deserves it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Of course he's got nothing to hide...
*cough,cough*
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
"By using such despicable harassment techniques against these scientists, all Joe Barton has managed to accomplish here is to certify their findings."
As with every investigation of a phenomenon, be it natural or political, don't you think the evaluation should be based on the contents? It is a relatively common occurance to have the question asked "Who funded your research?" when considering the context of that reports contents.
"After all, if their results could be disputed rationally, there would be no need for such underhanded tactics."
And likewise, if the scientists which produced the study were above board this investigation will likely prove as much. If Barton's investigation itself is flawed, that too will provide us a public service - allowing us to remove a flawed congressman from office.
Welcome this investigation. This type of investigation is one of the few ways to remove some of those tin foil hats. How much stronger will their study be when it is revealed that they conducted their research in an ethical and responsible manner? And if they didn't the public is likeways served by exposing their study's short comings.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Joe Barton: [to jury] Yeah. I mean think about it. Why else would he be so obsessed with proving that *we* did it? And I don't blame 'im. If I was in his world-murdering shoes I would do [shakes scientist's shoulder] the exact same thing. I'd get a lotta [picks up and shows charts and diagrams to jury] evidence [puts them down and walks towards jury] and witnesses and I would try to pin it on some decent, hard working, honest *guy*. [rests arms on jury stand and head on arms]
Thinking human: [stands up from chair] Is it alright if we find the defendant guilty now?
(Apologies to The Kids in the Hall for that one)
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Q: How do you tell if a scientist is a crackpot?
A: He disputes the existance of Global Warming.
No, really, the political climate is such that any scientist who questions any portion of the litany of global warming is treated as a pariah, ideologue, and crackpot. So no wonder you see a 100% consensus on global warming: every scientist who has doubts keeps them to himself. That only leaves the politicians to dispute global warming, and of course they're not going to use science, they're going to use politics. Disagree? Look at what happened to Lomborg. His credentials going back to his elementary school diploma have been questioned.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
That's typical politician-think. If a scientist publishes something you either don't have the brains to understand, or don't agree with, then dig into the guy/gal's past and try to smear and discredit what they say THAT way.
Thank God we REAL scientists are a lot smarter than politicians, and don't give a damn if the guy is gay or smoked pot or doesn't pay his bills. The only thing that counts is the reasonable explanation for the data and hopefully a way to experiment so everyone can get the same results and come to the same conclusion (although this is hard to do in some fields).
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Top contributors
Any questions?
First of all, this should not be that big a deal. His biggest problem is the way in which he's asking.
has requested raw data and personal financial information on three scientists
Secrecy only makes the research appear to be more questionable. The personal financial information is nothing more than conflict of interest information, trying to determine if they were paid by any special interest groups or not.
The paper was published in the Nature magazine. It doesnot matter who funded the studies, it has been peer reviewed and the results agreed upon by a majority of the author's peers who know the subject matter best.
Passing publication review is important. But it is not meant to be a judgement about the correctness of the paper's results -- instead, it is about whether the paper ought to be published or not.
In science, the only real test is reproducibility.
For example, the paper "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" [1] passed peer review, as it should have. But its results could not be reproduced reliably, so as of this moment its authors' conclusions are considered to be (at best) flawed.
Or for another example, take pentaquarks. Some experiments claim to have unambiguous evidence of their creation in certain production channels. Other experiments claim to unambgiously show that they are not produced in similar -- often, nearly identical -- production channels.
The research on pentaquarks, from both sides, is quality work and certainly worthy of publication. But it is almost certain that someone's experimental methodology is flawed. So the status of pentaquarks remains controversial, as it should.
The ultimate scientific test is to continue trying to reproduce results with improved methods, and to see what nature tells us. This is the essence of peer review.
Publication review is an important part of this mechanism, but it is only one part of the entire cycle of peer review.
[1] S.E. Jones et al., "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (1989).
Science has shown truths about the natural world that are unpleasant to the fundamentalist Republican masters of the United States (e.g. evolutionary biology, global warming.) Since they can't attack these realities that conflict with their world view, they attack the messengers. They want to ban the study of anything that bothers their religion, which seems to be an unholy marriage of Biblical litteralism and corporate dictatorship. The message here is that if you discover something that the religious overlords don't like, they will come after you with all of the power of the state.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
A study, paid for by whomever, certainly could be biased and get published somewhere. However, this is one of the toughest journals out there. It's pretty difficult to just slip in a neatly packaged point of view without serious science to back it up.
The resopnses to Barton can be found here. The site is apolitical, thier editoral on the matter ends with these very sane words...
"The real question we are faced with is not whether humans are changing climate. The science on this is clear, and decades of research have culminated in a scientific consensus on this point. The real question now is what we need to do about it. A Congressional committee concerned with energy could be - and indeed should be - a key player in exploring policy options to deal with the global warming threat. We hope that after studying the responses by the scientists, they will make a start."
This BBC artice quotes one of Barton's cronnies as saying "it's about time the science was put on trial". WTF - To be "science" means it is permanently "on trial" but this moron wants to "settle it in a court of law".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
What finacial information, exactly, was requested?
How much impact, exactly, does increased solar output have on Global Warming?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
As with every investigation of a phenomenon, be it natural or political, don't you think the evaluation should be based on the contents?
The OP stated "all Joe Barton has managed to accomplish here is to certify their findings." He didn't say "all Joe Barton has managed to accomplish here is to prove their findings."
You've misread "certify their findings" as something it isn't. He's saying that this is an indication that Joe Barton can't find any scientific basis to disagree with the findings, not that such basis does not exist.
Even if you think the findings of the study are wrong, it still means that you can discount Joe Barton from any meaningful contribution to the debate.
The scientists responses. They gave him all he wanted and then some. I don't think he was expecting the answer he got and probably wishes he hadn't asked it now.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Scientists put out bogus studies to further certain groups agendas, be it tobacco, enviromentalist, big oil,or who ever.
Scientists, just like politicians are in groups pockets. To some how believe that these people are above suspicion is silly.
Do I believe in Global Warming? Yep, sure do. I even think humanity has a small part in it. Do I believe it's as bad as the enviromentalist say? Nope I don't.
All I know is that this study may very well determine where a lot of tax payer's dollars will go. If there is proof of ill-intent on the part of the scientists who did the study, then by all means it deserves investigation. But if this senator is going on a pointless witch-hunt then I hope he loses his next election (this coming from a card carrying Republican).
I think humanity is already making the right steps to moving to cleaning up it's act. Sure, we would all love for it to happen overnight, but it's not. I think in the end the real heros will not be the enviromentalist or politicians, but once again the men and women who, rather than do silly studies, actually invent the new technology that allows us to do things more cleanly.
So, how about we start diverting money away from these pointless studies and divert it to new technology developement that will make us a greener society.
Just my take. I'd rather something be done about a problem than to constantly hear that there is a problem.
While I anticipate this will engender a strong reaction from the /. fringe, this isn't flamebait, and I'm not responsible for any trolling that may occur in response to this post. Let the eco-nuts defend their arguments on fact, not a revived misanthropic mysticism.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
All that data is just a coincidence.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
Micheal Mann, his co-authors and his Nature editors, have responded inappropriately to independent efforts to rigorously re-analyze the basis of his much heralded GW "hockey stick" paper. After incisive reviews, Mann's results are highly questionable and he has been holding out on crucial data and programs that might well show scientific recklessness and bias. Since Mann's "hockey stick" is the rallying point for multi trillion dollar regulations that affect the health, wealth and freedom every American, or possibly every being, I think this unseemly action is not as unreasonable as it sounds. Mann needs to come clean. Mann's hiding out is causing the real problem - what if his results are simply horse hockey (BS)?
Nobody expects the Inquisition !
Amazing that you would think that this is the same thing. The congressman is not interested in just these 3 scientists. He has been shown to be after anybody who has said that we are in a global warming esp. if they state that it is caused by man.
Basically, we are looking at an inquisition. We have them every so often. The catholics (and most Christians) had theirs against science.
We had it during the 50's with the red scare. And yet, we do not learn our lessons. So, as was muttered "And yet, it moves"
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"I need to emmigrate. Enough is enough."
Tell us when you locate this mystical land of erudites - I'm sure the rest of us would like to join you there. But seriously, it isn't any different anywhere else. At least we live in a country where a silver-spoon like Barton can ask for this, and where we remain free enough to laugh at him for it without fear of reprisal. You won't fair so well in most other countries.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
V.
I don't think that who these guys take money from has much to do with anything, they ALL take money, both sides. There are NO politicians in Washington with altruistic motives, they ALL do it for money.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Some main points that don't seem to have come out so far in the Slashdot discussion so far are that
Anyway, follow the link and read what the main scientific institutions think of this episode before you come to your own conclusions please.
Also, if you don't mind signing in, see the recent editorial in the New York Times. It includes the following:
mt
Joe Bartons 2006 campaign funding.
Scientists funding history is detailed in thier individual responses to Barton. (not to mention 'Nature' requires this info before publication).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There's an assumption to all of the scientific research and the medias reporting of said research that is relevant, but rarely mentioned. It seems the layman would think that if man was left out of the picture, the climate would stay 'normal' and never change. This assumption is dead wrong. The climate has varied wildly over the history of the earth, and would do so whether we were here or not. Although it's generally accepted that man has caused the earth to warm slightly, *nobody* can give an accurate prediction of what the climate will be 100, 50, or even 10 years from now. According to the recent history of the climate, we should be heading for another Ice Age in the next few millenia. Are we preventing it by burning hydrocarbons? Will we precipitate another Ice Age? Or will Montreal burn under 120 degree heat? *Nobody* knows. Not only don't they know, but they can't even give you a percentage prediction like the weatherman. Given these circumstances why should we change our behavior in any way? Climatoligists who study climatology won't get government grants if they say well we don't know what will happen with the climage. Could we get some extra funding for next year? But a little creativity produces... "We're getting slightly warmer, and we have models (that have little to do with reality), that predict disaster!! We need extra funding to study this critical situation. Personally I think it's sad that so much money is being spent on Climate Research. I'd much rather see these talented people working at something noble like sending people to the moon, or probes to Mars.
I'm Goin' to Law School!!!
This worries me. Should every scientist who releases a study contradictory to the current administrations stance now be in fear of their privacy being violated by some senator? It doesn't matter if he gets the information or not it sends a message to everyone that your personal information will be scrutinized if you publish something that doesn't agree with the government. It the same as sending a warning to scientists who don't agree with the party line. We are watching you!
this is the most important sig ever! In your face 446154!
You are absolutely wrong. The real question is; Is the research outcome correct or not?
You think that the right way to figure this out is to ask where the money is coming from? So what if the research is paid for by the Sierra Club, or George Soros, or the Democratic National Committee? Do you think this will change the answers? Make the statistics less true? The only reason one would ask for this kind of financial detail is if you have decided that the research is deliberately falsified and you want to track the evidence of deliberate manipulation.
There are many mays to figure out whether research conclusions are true or not. In the case of research published in 1998 and 1999 you can check the subsequent papers which cite the original works and see where the consensus is. This is easy. You can do it yourself, most of this stuff is online. You will discover that the scientific community finds little to complain about, subsequent work has upheld and repeated the conclusions quite independently. To that end I find Dr Mann's response to Barton's request very interesting reading, you can check it out here:n .pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barto
This request by Joe Barton is clearly meant purely as intimidation. If Barton really wanted to understand the science I am quite sure that most responsible climate scientists would actually be delighted to spend some serious time with him going over the science and helping him comprehend how we come to conclusions like this. The fact that Barton attempted no such contact shows clearly his bias in this matter.
Easy enough to find out about the congressman's interest
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You will see that what was requested was:
That is not personal financial information - that is information that bears directly on his disclosure responsibilities. NSF grants require disclosure of the resultant products (data and algorithms). Asking about funding serves to establish what disclosure obligations result.
I am OK with requesting of the raw data because tax payer dollars are being sent or not spent based on these findings.
The personal financial information is wrong. Unless they are looking for personal interest spending on the data... Hippies are just as crooked as Herberts.
That is unless your some kind of knuckle dragging creationist.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Read the scienists official responses to Barton. The hockey stick has not been discredited and it is not claimed to be "the difinitive proof". It is generally acknowledged that the IPCC report is "the" standard body of Global warming knowledge, undermining the IPCC report is the real target of Barton.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yeah, sure dude - I'll give you Can$5 to move up here to Canada. That's around US$4! :-)
Actually... I think my Sister might be single...
I think us Californians are going to start a petition to put the issue of joining the European Union on the ballot.
No, honestly!
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
If they asked for personal financial information then you might have a point. But they didn't. They asked for information on funding for the research.
Don't believe me? Prefer to believe what you read in the newspaper?
Go and read the letters for yourself.
Additionally, and this is key here - scientists, by definition, work via the scientific method and thus bogus conclusions will be challenged and repudiated.
Politicians, by definition work by demagoguery and hot air and thus bogus claims will often go unchallenged and even supported by specious argument and distraction.
Care to provide some "scientific" evidence of that definition?
You seem to have a lot of trust in the scientific method. Don't get me wrong - it's well placed trust, by all means - but what this gentleman would like to figure out is if anyone is influencing the results and cooking the books. It's a reasonable question, one that should have been asked to many scientists through the years but people simply sat back and accepted what they said as fact. The legality of his request, etc, is not my area of expertise personally, so I won't get into it.
Is it possible the politician in question has campaign financers that would like to see this sort of thing challenged? Sure. Is his point of view biased? Probably. Name me one person who isn't biased. Very rarely does someone research a topic with no interest or no preconceptions of it. The politician's bias does not refute the viability of the question.
This just reminds me of a poli sci class I had a while back. It was a research methods class, and the professor spent 30 minutes shredding to pieces the article that claimed up to 100,000 civilians had died as a result of US actions in Iraq. Upon really reading the article, from the point of view of someone who knew how research should have been done, the paper was really quite laughable and hopelessly flawed. However, the results of that paper are still quoted as "gospel truth" by many. I don't think it's wrong to challenge data in this or almost any other case.
Now, just go hunt up that "definition" for us and post that whenever you get the chance.
That depends upon exactly what information was requested. My guess is that they're looking for a competing financial interest that was not disclosed. Any reputable journal will require that all authors disclose any investments they have that stand to benefit from the conclusions of the paper. In this case, that would mean (non-profit) environmental organizations, or alternative energy companies like Ballard, Plug, etc. If the authors had such competing interests, then they are no better than the authors directly funded by the energy companies. And if they had such competing interests and failed to disclose them....
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
Who are you, and what are you doing at Slashdot?
450 million years ago (end of the Ordovician, first third of the Paleozoic) CO2 levels were nearly 4500 PPM. An order of magnitude higher than today. This coincided with an ice age. In fact, as far as I can see, there seems to be no corelation of CO2 levels to global temperature whatsoever. I'm not saying the Earth isn't getting hotter (I don't think we have enough historical data to make that statement) not am I saying that if it is warmer humans aren't somehow responsible. What I am saying is that CO2 apparently has nothing to do with global temperatures. http://junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
It seems that every so often, the U.S. political climate morphs into a cesspool of self-importance and self-indulgence. The current climate is no exception. But, if anything, history has shown us that things can swing back in the other direction- let's just hope it does after the WhiteHouse is cleansed of all the Bushnic political mildew.
The Skeptical Environmentalist uses statistics to analyze the data on global warming and finds that the numbers don't add up. When scientists believe the ends of their worthy causes justify the means they turn to discrediting those with discenting opinions, facts be damned.
This is just the logical outcome of an anti-intellectual culture. Funding for science is drying up, unless it serves some military function. Science (and art) that is incongruous with the extreme religious right's primitive, hypocritical, and heretical brand of superstition is unassailable in terms of reasoning, so these people are, instead of challenging the unchallengeable, simply eliminating thought. This is nothing new, but God almighty it's infuriating. Have we made no real progress since the Dark Ages? Well, apparently we can at least fuck up the ecosystem more effectively:P
Signed, Galileo Galilei
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
But I'm getting it..
The Inquisition didn't officially end until the 1800s. It turned Spain from the richest, most powerful nation in the world to a nothing, has been state. It caused many of its most educated and skilled to flee.. What else? A lot..
Might doesn't make right. Intimidation doesn't make global warming stop. Stupidity doesn't bring back innovation when its been silenced. Milking monopolies and intellectual property doesn't substitute for creation of new wealth.
The GOP may be able to maintain control of the US. They may be able to suppress our dealing with these things, even as people die from the natural disasters..skin cancer..pollution, etc. caused by their brain-dead greed-centric policies..
But the WORLD and its ideas and economic vitality will just route itself around (US, or other) censorship... don't you think?
No one wins. Only earth is the real winner here.
/.ers refuse to acknowledge the fact that we demand more than we can handle or comprehend and try to brush the problems under the rug and point fingers at politicians and energy/utility companies, please, do the earth the favor. STFU.
Scientists can find facts and effect of global warming, but lacks sufficient evidence or adequate proof that points out the real cause.
No one is arguing that level of pollution has risen and earth isn't what it used to be before humans came along with something called "industrial era". This isn't what these scientists are finding out or "SOME" politicians try to discredit.
The core of this childish bickering is about us, the human. Redundant source of energy, cheap and environmentally safe and lots of it in future means the end of old and outdated energy/utility companies, however that's in no way near foreseeable future. Therefore we do what we preach to others that they shouldn't. After all, it's not the car or factories spilling chemicals those are making the environment the way it is now.
It's US as in WE.
You want to stop methane emission? Stop using gas stove. You want to stop oil companies spilling oil onto the ocean? Stop driving cars. You want to stop chemical production that creates toxic byproduct? Stop watching TV, stop using computers, stop taking medicines, stop writing on papers with pens, stop buying cars, stop using plastic bags, stop buying gold, diamonds, precious jewels.
If any of those scientists or
After all, when all is done and gone, who should we blame? The hardass republicans? The friendly gas pump attendant? The utility company providing gas and electricity WE DEMAND? or the guy with IQ of 5 year old who throws out none reusable batteries in the garbage? or the assholes who turn on shit load of computers in an airconditioned room 24/7 so that someone can download porn off the internet?
If I were to blame someone, I rather blame the guy who pickups my garbage. After all, he is the one who's been dumping the garbage and polluting the environment. Right?
In the end, there will be only one difference between dinosaurs and us. That is, dinosaurs didn't know what hit them, but we know what will.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
American global power is invested strongly in her Corporations. Republicans allow these corporations to grow stronger which makes America grow stronger. This is on the backs of American citizens, but nevertheless, still USA is stronger (internationally).
Disagree here. Without strong corporations, forget about cheap raw materials and energy from the 3rd world. Prepare to pay more for damn near everything.
Those poor fellas in the 3rd world are the ones who are getting the shaft.
I call BS.0 05_1570.htm
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232
The letter asks for financial information from studies, not his own bank records.
This is liberals trying to build something out of a reasonable request.
The line for 'competing financial interests' isn't as concise as you state. For example, a professor in my department receives over a million per year from a big pharma to do research. The results of that research are reviewed by other scientists in his field. His research directly helps the big pharma, but that's a perfectly acceptable 'interest'.
The pharma company doesn't review the papers for publication...other, independent scientists in the same field do.
Where is the line for 'competing financial interests'? How about a scientist who both works for a company and publishes a paper supporting that company's product. The publication directly affects the income of the company by promoting the product. Reviewers will pay close attention to the paper to make sure the science is good. But having the competing financial interest is not instantly grounds for rejection of the paper.
The question is not where the money comes from. The question is whether the science is true or not. That's all that matters in the end. Everything else is perception.
Favorite
I went here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=274#more-274/
and followed some links and read some papers (well skimmed).
My understanding is that there is data missing, data that might go against the idea of global warming (something about R2....).
I would imagine that if there is a call on his tax records and financial records and such that maybe what is being looked for is if he took any pay in exchange for making the data work out like it did.
I think it raises an interesting question.
If he produced these results for a private entity with private money I would say that his finances are his business.
But he used public money to produce the data for public use. I want to know if MY DATA can be trusted.
umm...he is a rep from TEXAS. The oil, gas, energy industry are the major industries in the state. I would be surprised if he got money from say car manufacturers or cotton farmers. But energy is THE market in Texas. If I picked someone from NY I would expect banking and such right? http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00001093&cycle=2006
Or Nevada...surely not casino's...well yeah, casinos
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00009922&cycle=2006
My point is, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about these things.
Additionally, the Code in question is the personal intellectual property of Proffesor Mann, he is not obligated to reveal its source code to anyone. The program itself can be downloaded for free.
Are they somehow above being asked that and we should just take their word on it?
See, this is the key fact of science-- research is not certified until it has been confirmed by outside sources. Publication and transparency are the norm, not the exception.
The do not ask us to take their word on it. They present the research methods and results, and are peer-reviewed. Sometimes, they are proven incorrect. Sometimes, it takes a while to disprove an hypothesis.
In stark contrast, the results of politicians are based on rhetoric, not reason. Even peer review is based on influence, funding, and more rhetoric. There is no transparency.
In this situation, I'm on the side of the scientists. If they are wrong, it will be proven out. If they are right, we should be listening.
If the politician succeeds in silencing the discussion, we all lose, whether he is right or not.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
looking at this and all the other similar articles i wonder if US can still be refferred to as the "land of the free"....
Not with a straight face.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I'm not sure when it happened, but I think I've entered an alternate evil (and stupid) universe. I know the universe I came from never would have elected Clinton or Bush, Jr. Jimmy Carter would have been reelected. There would have been no Sept 11. Only one of the shuttles would have been blown up. OJ Simpson would have been convicted. Michael Jackson would be just weird and not a freak. We would have taken Saddam out the first time around. The Soviet Union wouldn't have collapsed. Ross Perot would be President for life. Nixon's brain would be kept alive in a jar.
And Karl Rove would be taking it up the ass at some Federal prison yelling "Thank you sir! May I have another!"
That sounds like a typical humanities paper written by a blowhard. True or not, it's written stupidly. It uses twice as many words using words that are twice as long as necessary.
Here's a quick summary:
Government bad. Capitalism bad. Aggressive driving bad. Army bad. Tech industry bad.
Cow Cube
A surprising number of people are one issue voters: Taxes, Abortion, Prayer in School, Gas Prices, or even the price of leasing public lands. So the candidate who speaks the correct words (in many cases despite his record) wins their vote.
Many people support the status quo, they have decent lives and they strongly dislike change, they don't see the point of spending their money on things outside of their neighborhood (be it climate research, foreign aid, or whatever) and they do NOT want to rock the boat. These people tend to vote for the same party over and over despite the current realities.
Some people voted for GWB (the 1st administration) because Bill Clinton lied about having an affair. While I have met several of these types I have only met 1 who was willing to admit that lying to start a war was worse.
There is also a sizable group of faithful christians who are republicans because the republicans claim to be christians. Within this group there exists an inner core of people who are radical fundamentalists, who are dedicated to ideas of christian reconstruction (or variations of these ideas) and while being a relatively small minority consistently make the most noise.
Here is my "Fair Disclosure" I am not a republican or a democrat.
Honestly I read American politics with a sense of detachment these days as the country so disgusted me, I moved out of it. I am fairly active in local politics where I live now, and typically I support the Green party but I don't always vote on their side of the issues or for their candidates. I vote in all of the polls I am eligible for here and in the US. In addition I honestly believe that the US in dark times and it will get worse. Between the rise of christian fundamentalism and entrenched corporate plutocracy not only has the US become a less pleasant place to live, it has become the anvil to the hammer of Muslim fundamentalism. Unfortunately I don't see the Democrats having an effective alternative... and they need one, badly.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
But all that was really asked for was the financing of the research. See Skippy's post for details. Whenever someone claims there is no warming, or no human caused warming, there's always questions by the other side about who funded the research.
So now we have someone asking who funded the research that said warming is happening. Is this so unfair? Full disclosure of funding for ANY research should be mandatory.
Along with that, the research itself should receive the most scrutiny. Too often research is dismissed because of the funding source. Well, maybe, just maybe, someone funds research because they are actually right, and wish to prove a point before vast policy decisions get made based on myth and lies.
In the end, the problem is too much politics and ideology in the sciences.
On the other hand, according to a friend in Texas, Barton is a bit of a tube steak.
Alas poor Slashdot, I knew thee... I long ago gave up hope that the slashdoters would detect a difference between right and wrong, class or crass, hot or not. But I had hoped that there would still be perception of correct or incorrect. An angry and excited mob does not prove the existance of global warming. It does not matter how angry or how large the mob might be. A proof would consist of accurate data, and reasoned theory. The data would be expected to be fairly questioned, and the theory fairly argued. Correct or incorrect is not a democratic process. The earth's climate and temperature is always changing. At one time Greenland was farmland, and not covered in snow. At one time, during the US Revolutionary War, cannons were rolled accross the frozen Delaware River, a freezing which has not occured in living memory. There was a "mini" ice age in Europe in (I think) the 1300's AD. Ocean and Climate Change Institute: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ ct_abruptclimate.htm
A quote from this refereshingly reasonable website:
"While strong trends, such as those associated with global warming, can often be seen in the modern record, the record is too short to decipher other important changes that occur over decades or longer."
No amount of excitement will substitute for reason in scientific learning.
There is no reason that un-reason should be substituted.
If one joins an angry mob, then one should sensibly expect an equal and opposite angry mob to occur. The eventual result of joining the angry are guilt and shame proportional to one's angry activities.
If you can not reason, then why are you reading slashdot?
However much we like you personally, it's becoming increasingly clear that Americans are becoming twats. Doubtless this is only a passing phase. Good luck shaking it off.
Thank you! I'm getting sick of "scientific" arguments that mostly consist of people on one side or the other loudly proclaiming their position without any discussion of the facts or research that is actually involved.
A site that dispenses such information, and that I believe to be an accurate source of information (though you should do your own research and come to your on conclusions about their accuracy) is http://www.opensecrets.org/. It has am amazing amount of information on donations to politicains, of what kind, disclosure, etc, etc. It's all compiled form public information, so nothing you couldn't find out yourself if you are willing to take the time.
It's actually amazing how much information is available on our government, however you do have to do some research, you can't just expect it to be given to you by magic.
And this is on topic how?
Churchill is to blame for some Texan republicans attempts to get personal information about some scientists? Or you want to blame all black people, native Americans and Muslims for everything?
When you wrote 248-50 did you know you were using Arabic numerals? A thing Muslims invented that Christians didn't invent. And you wouldn't know any of the Greek philosophers if it wasn't for Muslims and do you know how much of an impact those ancient Greeks philosophy have on western culture?
Or you think that we should murder all Muslims (lets call them infidels) because they don't believe in Jesus Christ?
Facts. That same tactic were used against Jesus so as a Christian you should be abhored with it and call that republican and tell him he is a Satanist. Speaking of Satanists, I guess you voted for Bush and did you know Bush is member of a Satanic cult? No? He is. Look it up and you will find the truth.
Frankly I think you are one of Satans minions that he sent out to spread FUD on earth.
seems to be a trend among right-wingers. if you don't like a piece of information, fight it. it's working for the creationists, the war-mongers, and now this. we also know that downloading songs, instead of increasing ppl's taste and demand for music, is helping the terrorists. maybe cigarettes will be deemed healthy again. they are like a kid who sticks his fingers in his ears when someone is trying to tell them something. btw, i question the findings that my bathroom scale comes up with. the figures seems to be very exaggerated. i would like a full inquiry into health-o-meter's finances.
The world's scientific community has created theorized a number of severe and nearly catastrophic harms that will result from global warming.
But wait! No one has considered what could be the worst of all possible outcomes from global warming:
TEXANS WILL BE FORCED TO LEAVE TEXAS
When the sh*t really hits the fan, when confonted with regular daily temperatures in the 140 degree range, we will be faced with a massive northern migration of Texans, such as this Joe Barton cracker, throughout the greater continental United States.
Good God, we must to stop global warming now! If we can just make people aware of the dire consequences of having large numbers of Texans living outside of Texas, then surely everyone will come to their senses and start solving this problem.
The current economic behaviour is even making Reagan look good.
The real problem is explained in this article_ muller101504.asp?p=1 "A Global Warming Bombshell" by [[Richard A. Muller]], ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo
Big problems with creditability of this calculation.
Congressmen blow alot of hot air.
Because both are endogenous, the notion of causality from funding to research is a misguided one, as is the belief the money buys elections. In both cases, the causality often runs the other way.
In the case of academic research, publication is king. Tenure, peer recognition and future grants are related to one's ability to publish. And let's face it, the stronger or more controversial the findings, the greater likelihood of prominent publication. Those who like your past research, then fund your future research, an example of causality going the other way.
As for money and politics, economists have found that money goes to those already likely to win. The winner is not obligated to homage-payer. Econometricians have found that in cases of repeated elections with the same groups of candidates, different levels of spending by the candidates has had little ability to change the percent of the votes earned by the candidates. Candidates are either liked by the electorate or not. Steve Forbes and Ross Perot or two classic examples. Although one could easily find an example of something that looks like bought elections (i.e. the whole Republican Party), the data election-by-election tells a different story.
SoftBank Haiku: The bandwidth broadens; Users sign up in millions. Where are the profits?
Well, they could look up whether NSF/NIH funded them - that is a matter of public record. There is no need to ask for it. What the letter says is:
List all financial support relating to your research, including but not limited to private, state and federal assistance...
They asking for all funding sources, not just public and private which, IANAL, but to my eyes *does* include personal financial information (i.e. that which is not available publically). Furthermore they seem to want information regarding all research, not just climate research or the particular study in question. Let's not mince words and niceties, the letter is meant to intimidate, nothing more, nothing less...
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
This looks like they are out hunting for commies again, only now they are called environmentalists posing as scientists. Is this congressman also pro creationism instead of evolutiontheory.
/., it only sucks to be correct in such a prediction.
This kind of abuse has been predicted here on
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
"While I think asking for personal data and computer codes is pretty far out of line, I think a review of the raw data and a detailed analysis of the "Spatially resolved global reconstructions" may not be asking too much."
You might want to start with the official responses from the scientists to Barton's request. They make plain that the study has been independently repeated with the same data and method AND more importantly with different data and different methods. There are some big words in thier letters, if you have trouble ask someone with an education or spend a few years to get one yourself.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Here we go again, the Taliban gave the Bushies the excuse to turn the world into a fascist state that both Hitler and Stalin would both be proud. We have under the guise of "fighting terrorism", a whole host of government spying etc. on people and if you dare to criticize the powers that be, then you could be in a whole lot of hurt. We have a big chunk of the world that preffers to live in the dark ages and a whole lot of people who can't see the massive impact of global warming and how if we don't do anything soon, the bio-sphere won't be able to support the current 1st world, let alone the 3rd and soon to be 1rst (China and India).
If you asked a lot of scientists (around the time of world-war 2), they would have probably imagined a world (now), where science was advancing, not now, where Islamism and Christianity feed off of each other to promote some sort of 12th century viewpoint (no stem cell research that might violate their tender religions etc.).
Screw that, we need more nano/biotech to clean up the mess we made on this planet, religions are just scocial constructs that were developed to explain the universe back 2000 years ago, we have had a total of about 6500 religions during recorded history, we now need to finally move on to develop a scociety with less pollitical influence from religions and a more rational scientific outlook.
>A surprising number of people are one issue voters: Taxes, Abortion, Prayer in School, Gas Prices, or even the price of leasing public lands. So the candidate who speaks the correct words (in many cases despite his record) wins their vote.
Sadly it didn't work for John Kerry on the gun issue.
They saw right through him on that, being one of the (if not the) most consistently anti-gun senators in history.
Well if anyone with half a bit of intelligence and no other primary agenda were to look up the simple facts. They would find glaciers in almost every climate melting at excellerated rates. Antartic temperatures being on average 2.5 degrees higher than normal. Which in turn is causeing large chunks of the ice sheet to break off and melt. Really, there are just two sides to the equation. Man is raising the temperature of the earth by releasing green house gasses or man is not and this is some type of natural cycle that is not yet understood. The simplest fact of them all is scientist are measuring the changes in glaciers and the information is fairly easy to find. At the very least the trends are a bit disturbing. Some would call the findings some what alarming. All this is besides the point. Scare tactics are just that, scare tactics. What you really have to look at is who is making money from this? Who wouldn't want a conclusive answer to a question that could very well make business for certain industries decline? These are the questions that need to be answered. Once you answer those you will find out why this intrusive search into the scientific process is happening.
The man believes so much in what he says that he offered to bet any other climatologists (most who have far less money than he, since he is being backed by Big Oil with $2500/day speaking fees), but would only bet if the odds were weighted more than 50:1 in his favor (he originally insisted on 100:1).
But disregard that. What does starting a congressional inquisition into these scientists have to do with one man's crusade against all others in his field? While I differ with Lindzen, he is at least doing it right. The congressman is simply trying to harass these scientists into being quiet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think you're right that they didn't ask for personal financial information, they were asking about research support, which is fine.
But what is the justification for this request:
5. Regarding study data and related information that is not publicly archived, what requests
have you or your co-authors received for data relating to the climate change studies, what
was your response, and why?
How can this be any of the Committee's business? How much time are these scientists expected to spend meeting these requests?
If the press won't challenge or publish challenges to their theories...
I didn't say it was grounds for rejecting the paper, but it absolutely needs to be disclosed. In your example, the scientist would most likely declare his affiliation to the company in the author list and in the competing financial interest statement, and that would be fine.
The question is not where the money comes from. The question is whether the science is true or not. That's all that matters in the end. Everything else is perception.
True enough, but the usual Slashbot reply to the papers questioning global warming is: "but that study was commissioned by the energy companies, so it's biased". Strangely enough, they usually neglect the financial interests of the other side.
In any case, my point was that it's not necessarily gratuitous for the congressman to seek the financial data. Undisclosed competing financial interests are certainly very relevant. However, this particular investigation certainly seems like a case of "I don't like the result, so I'll try to find something to discredit it".
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
I was wondering when the Inquisition would come back into vogue, now if we can just fix those other scientific abberations, the world is flat and is most definitely the center of the universe... Whats next, evolution is a lie, oh sorry been there...
What is up with the machine name in that first link?:. org/article.pl?sid=05/07/14/138247&tid=10"
"http://dsl089-23-21.pa.dial.usa.slashdot
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
The key phrase is "relating to your research". I don't see anything wrong in sking for full disclosure of how research is funded.
Just think of the "research" showing lower TCO for MS Windows than for Linux. Won't you want to know everything about how it was funded?
OK, for the first time ever, we've had 7 tropical storms in the North Atlantic by July 24th when in a normal year we have 0 or 1 and in an above normal year 2 by August 1st. The Arctic got up to 98F last week. There is evidence the Gulf Stream is shutting down And, probably because of it, Europe is having weird weather, particularly the cold kind. The Cold water upwelling off the west coast is shutting down. Australia has probably is worst tropical cyclone season on record. It's been over 110F in Las Vegas for weeks on end, breaking records. And, yes, I know it's hot there normally trolls. It's not normally _that_ hot.
Global warming? It's just a theory. So says Exxon Mobile and the rest of the Oil and Gas Industry and their well funded politicos. Remember the guy that resigned because he was editing White House reports on the environment to make it sound like Global Warming and environmental impacts that were fairly certain originals where actually being heavily doubted in the released copies? He works at a well paid position at Exxon Mobile, now. This guy in this topic's biggest donars are Oil, gas, and other energy companies, with a good chunk of his money coming from outside his district. Big shock. Litigate, accuse, and distort, until all your lemmings follow your lead.
God help us all.
If the results of the study are correct, the current theories used to explain the collapse of civilizations in Europe, the America and Asia are probably wrong. Also most of the economic studies of early Europe would be incorrect, since they cite the MWP as the primary cause of economic expansion in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries and the beginning of the LIA as the cause of contraction starting in the 14th century.
Also, new theories would have to be developed to explain the farming of wheat in Greenland in the 13th century by the Norse.
The start of the LIA has been used to explain the rapid spread of the Plague in Europe, so obviously that would be wrong.
The conclusions of the study in question have wide ranging impacts on History, Sociology, Economics, Epidemiology, Agriculture and of course Climatology.
If there has been any Scientific work in the last 50 years that needs to have it's guts exposed to the bright light of day and be reviewed ad-nauseum, this study is it.
I don't think Bailey actually was taking Lindzen's word. I think he might have just been somewhat coy about the interview in question. It might have also been an attempt to protect himself while still reiterating what his notes clearly had Lindzen down as saying.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Of course, it's somewhat amusing that a staunch Republican would be arguing against the scientists' rights to intellectual property!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Priceless.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I, for one, think George W. Bush is the best arbiter for truth, and he said:
Notice the last part of that quote.(And yes, I am being tongue-in-cheek about the "arbiter for truth" bit.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Yep, I will, and the debate over Global Warming is one of the reasons.
Scientists didn't suddenly all decide that the Earth was heating up. The first ones to do so were roundly criticized. It took years and many more studies to confirm their initial findings and still there were far more skeptics than supporters.
The idea that the world has been heating up has been around for almost 20 years now, maybe longer. It wasn't until the last ten years that the majority of scientists started to say they believed that the Earth really is warming up and that the warming we're seeing is caused by human activities.
The scientists who opposed the Global Warming theory were far more qualified to do so than Senator Barton from Texas. Many of them fought with every weapon at their disposal to disprove the theory. Now most of them support it.
Very few new radical ideas get accepted by the scientific community without being thoroughly tested. Look at what happened with cold fusion. There is always some scientist whose work is going to be called into question by any new theory or revision of an old theory. Like any other person, those that are threatened are going to fight back and challenge the upstarts. That's the reason the scientific method works so well.
The scientific method is not the fastest way to learn about the universe, but it is the one that is capable of convincing even the most skeptical of the conclusions that are reached.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
...and we've known for a long, long time that the earth has experienced several ice ages punctuated by warming periods throughout its history as revealed by the geologic record. Interestingly enough, none of the previous warming periods was ever caused or induced by "greenhouse gases of man-made origin"--because there weren't any, of course...;)
Indeed, the rise of current civilization has occurred exclusively within one of those natural warming periods between ice ages. Fancy that. Sure looks like "global warming" is the friend of man as opposed to being his enemy, doesn't it? I mean, unless you can picture New York City inside of an ice cave then I think you'll have to agree.
So, what causes these climate changes? Nobody knows, although theories abound ranging from tilts of the earth's axis to erratic changes in the sun's output, to practically anything you want to name. Heck, just a mere 30 years ago the *prevailing scientific opinion* was that we were heading not towards global warming but towards another ice age--and publications as esteemed as National Geographic ran stories about "the coming ice age" at the time. Pretty funny--as it is never brought up how wrong popular "science" was 30 years ago, and so nobody much questions pop-science today...;) Only those of us with a little lifespan under our belts seem to know better, more's the pity.
The fact is that science and politics reach an unholy state of matrimony inside idiot theories that state that since man caused global warming man can stop global warming. Problem is, global warming is not new at all, and man never caused any of the previous periods of global warming to occur because man wasn't needed or required in any capacity for natural global warming to occur in the first place. So what's changed?
Man is here, and his ego knows no bounds, it would seem. He's just *got* to sit at the center of the universe somehow no matter the topic. A few hundred years ago man fancied the earth sat at the center of the universe--today man fancies that man sits at the center of global climate change. What's clear to me is that man is as stupid now as he was then...;)
Why be a scientist in America where you will be persucuted by religious zealots and oil companies when you can go to europe and do real science free from the republicans.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
From the manuscript in question (as pretty much every scientific publication cites their funding sources): "This work was supported by the NSF and the US Department of Energy. M.E.M. acknowledges support through the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellowship program of the Department of Energy. This work is a contribution to the NSF- and NOAA-sponsored Analysis of Rapid and Recent Climatic Change (ARRCC) project."
I dare you to find a prominant political figure that hasn't taken money from oil companies. That's not the point. The point is, where did Barton get his funding. One persons bias doesn't exhonerate anothers.
The organizations he's looking for aren't "nefarious secret ultra-rich" whackos but ordinary environmentalists. If he finds that the money comes from World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, or even better one of the anti-globalization action groups, he'll accuse them of being anti-corporate (and, by extension, anti-American).
There do exist groups whose primary goals are some sort of reordering of the world society along what are essentially socialist wealth-redistributive lines. These groups use global warming as an example of the evil that corporations do, and what better argument could they hope for than "Exxon-Moible is destroying every life on planet earth! We should dismantle them and take their money as punishment."
Any research funded by such an organization is going to be in question, because getting the right results furthers their political aims.
It isn't even precisely "bribery" as the grandparent post would suggest. That would imply that the scientists were completely objective but were corrupted by the influence of the money. They may well be individually intent on furthering their theory in the absence of evidence. Although reproducibility is the sine qua non of science, climate change is particularly tricky and prone to manipulation of the data. Thus taking money from an anti-globalization activist wouldn't suggest "bribery" so much as "political bias".
I need to note that I'm trying to be objective in my description here and not use inflammatory rhetoric. My own personal opinions of global warming and globalization aren't relevant; I'm just explaining what he's hoping to find and how he'll use it politically. As for my own opinion, well, I'm the guy who submitted the article.
I've read this article before. I tried to find a copy of it with google scholar. I recommend everyone shut their faces until they read the article. The graph you speak of is so telling. As a scientist, it sickens me. The temperature versus time data has a very noisy complex periodic behavior at best, most likely chaotic. This being said, there can still be discernible upward and downward trends after smoothing the data, and many other techniques that can yield illuminating results. None of these were done. What they did was take a system that would be best modelled with a Fourier series and linearly extrapolated over the next few decades. This is the hockey stick of which you speak. It is like looking at a stock history and saying that since the stock went up over the last two days that it will continue to go up ad infinitum at a constant rate. Nature is awful about printing this kind of garbage.
I have had vehement discussion of this subject with other scientist only to discover that they have not actually seen this graph. After showing it to them, they were a bit embarrassed.
What you have to remember is that scientists in many fields make a name for themselves by preaching that the sky is falling. If they said otherwise, it wouldn't be news. This is especially true is earth sciences. It's not always about $$$ sometimes its about reputation.
I would love to see a good astrophysicist's paper on cyclic variation in the earths average temperature. Or maybe a well done statistical analysis.
Investigating changes in the earth's climate is important. I just don't like secular religions (actually, I just don't like religion) propped up by "science".
awww man this is pissing me off. your comments section just deleted my post. anyway
www.realclimate.org
the discussion about this has been raging there for awhile now.
see the sciensts and their actual views.
Might add this issue is further complicated by Barton's views being based on a paper by
McIntyre and McKitrick, one is a mining industry executive and another is an economist. Their work used data from existing climate change studies, and was published as a scientific study in a journal on policy. When McIntyre and McKitrick's work was subject to peer review it was descridted.
The sky is heating up we're all going to die!! Run in circles scream and shout.
If you look on the house website, you'll notice that they've also written letters to the NSF asking for a list of all climate scientists who receive NSF money. blacklist, anyone?
Every time a study comes out saying that Windows is more secure, faster and cheaper than Linux, the first thing Slashdotters ask is "Who funded this study?" Which is exactly what the Chairman is attempting to establish. Are these scientists unbiased, or are they in the pocket of some lobby group. It's a critical question. Having said that, it can also most definitely be a form of harassment. It is easy to see who funded a scholarly paper. The last paragraph is typically used to list the funding sources of the work. The funding agency expects to be listed. If you don't list them, they will probablly cut off the funding. That said, bias can creep into the scientific process more through funding sources buying silence rather than speech. It is tempting for a researcher to delay publishing results that are critical of the products or goals of a funding agency. It is a problem the scientific community has to face up to (one solution ... quit gutting funding for National Science Foundation grants).
There are other ways of buying silence, though. Hauling a researcher in front of a comittee and digging through his personal finances is a great tool. Academic labs typically consist of a researcher, a postdoc or two and some grad students. The lost productivity associated preparing to hand over the raw data for a massive study to a congressional investigation can bring other research to a grinding halt.
The scientific community in this country is fundamentaly open and self correcting. There are flaws. Sometimes bad data gets published or good data gets withheld. For a season or two a researcher might make a nice career out of fabricated data.
In the last, oh, five years or so there has been a tendency to treat the scientific community as a dog that should be brought to heel. The message has gone out "get the wrong result, expect retribution". This might work in the short term to meet political goals but in the long term the administration is poisoning the well.
"Passing publication review is important. But it is not meant to be a judgement about the correctness of the paper's results -- instead, it is about whether the paper ought to be published or not."
Would a prestigeous, peer-reviewed journal allow publishing of a paper whose results were conclusively wrong? No. You're trying to saw it's only whether a paper is ought to be published? Well, what's that criteria, that it's emailed in Word or PDF format??
No scientist is going to put their career on the line by assenting to publishing of a paper whose results are obviously wrong or incorrect. Try again, troll.
Because most of what I see posing as reasons are fear mixed with shallow cynicism and zealotry.
Says the man with the Air America link below his name. Go back to K5...
Obviously, if I am speaking of a graph in which predictions are made, and you have seen a graph in which no predictions are made, then the graph of which I am speaking is not the graph that you have seen.
I am certain that their are many graph which you have seen in your lifetime to which I am not currently refering.
I don't really think that anyone contests the measured data or the methods by which the data is smoothed. Noone is suggesting that kind of a conspiracy.
What is contested are the predictions.
Request 5 has to do with disclosure of the methods used to obtain the results. There has been an ongoing dispute about access to the data; it has been claimed that the publicly archived data is insufficient to allow replication of their results. For example, their initial description of the data series in Nature was inaccurate and they had to issue a corrigendum to correct the problem. This was ultimately prompted by great evasiveness when other researchers who were outside the 'club' attempted to obtain the underlying data to perform their own replication. When the outsiders (McIntyre and McKitrick) eventually obtained sufficient information to get close to replicating the results it became clear that the description of the series used in Nature was wrong. The outsiders then had to issue a materials complaint to Nature in order to get the correct information provided.
So 5 seems to have to do with an impression of evasiveness and incompleteness with regards to providing sufficient information to allow replication of the results.
Speaking personally, I have published in a different field and am generally happy when people contact me for information on the underlying data or methods - it means they are reading the article! I usually have a package of files prepared when the paper is finished. Responding to such requests is then a simple matter of sending the package off to the person who requests it. I think that scientists should spend as much time as necessary responding to such requests because that is one of the foundations of science - it ensures that others can build on the results you have achieved which is fundamentally the point of publication in the first place.
I submitted this same story on June 28th and it was rejected. Why did we have to wait for the Washington Times to notice it?
Now nearly a full month later, Slashdot gets to hear about it.
For those interested, the meat of the story can be found on Steve McIntyre's weblog where you can find Steve is patiently going through the code and finding that Mann Bradley and Hughes have not told the truth about their paper.
Cmdr Taco - I recommend a new slogan:
"Slashdot - Old news for nerds. Stuff that doesn't matter anymore"
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
I am sure you have no problems then when I ask you for just one case that proves Scientists aren't above bribery.
He is a researcher so all his money was questioned. And that does include his personal financial information.
Request 5 has to do with the disclosure of personal correspondence. The request doesn't ask for all data necessary to duplicate the results (that's a reasonable request); it asks for information on correspondence about it. That's truly none of their business.
If you were asked for a list of all the questions you've received about a paper you published, including your responses and your justification for them, would you think that's reasonable? I wouldn't. Some of them are stupid questions, and it would be embarrassing to the questioner for me to publish them; some would reveal unpublished ideas for further research, and are implicitly confidential; I would probably have given incorrect answers to some, since I don't check my email as carefully as I check things I submit for publication; I would probably forget some, and then the committee would accuse me of trying to hide something.
It makes me think that the original editorial is based on someone's typo. They didn't ask for "personal financial information", but they did ask for "personal and financial information", and the personal part of their requests are not reasonable.
I see your point but my understanding of the gist is that Mann et al have been evasive in the past in providing the data necessary to duplicate the results. Barton asks for evidence of how they have responded to such requests. I think that is relevant - if the only way to get the information out of the scientists is by a senator asking for it, that is telling. If, however, they have supplied full information to all who requested it (which I believe is part of the social contract that scientists publishing their results enter into) then that is also important.
I agree with the point of your examples. Barton's questions are rather aggressive so I would argue against the execution of the requests, but I think the motivation is valid and relevant.
See http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html for information regarding attempts to reproduce Manns calculations (as scientific method requires).
Mann was unable to produce the spreadsheets he says he used to process the data.
Click the link. Get some facts. Think for yourself.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The above post was rated...
30% Informative
30% Overrated
20% Troll
Is this moderation record an example of "astroturfing" or is it just that the US is the only place in the world where government officials are encouraged to go on witch hunts. Some (like Barton) are wasting taxpayers money in vain and increasingly stupid arguments to refute the fact that the earth is warming and humans are responsible for most of the increase.
Dispite the US spending literally billions in research, some industry spruker's in government, (eg: Barton), choose to ignore the basic facts that ALL of the billions of dollars worth of research they have paid for has been telling them for at least the past five years.
However when a couple of Barton's lobbyist mates score an article in the WSJ based on previously discredited science, suddenly Barton is interested enough to make a noise and "demand answers". Barton was elected to "serve the people", what a fucking joke that is.
I thought the USA was supposed to be proud of it's percived place at the top of the technological tree. If so, why do so many members of it's government, media and energy industries insist on beating up science when it disagrees with thier economic dogma? In Bartons case his motives are obvious, look at his personal investments and his largest campain contributors, (oil/gas/electric), no fucking suprises there!
Barton's behaviour only reinforces the rest of the world's view that Yanks are by far the most arrogant and sociologically retarded group of people on the planet.
- Now that's a troll!!!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You get melodramic with the "Oh keyrist, can you get any more melodramic?", leading to the Ad Homum attack that is so common from the hidden right wing.
As to asking about the incentives of scientists, well, lets turn that around. What is wrong with asking what is at the root of GWB/Cheney/Barton's request? In fact, we can we not get info on GWB/Cheneys/Karl Rove/Cheneys chief of staff traitorous outing of Plame , The anthrax attack, Sibel Edmunds, Cheney's Papers, GWB's Lies, etc.
These scientists' report will be checked by their peers. If found to be out of whack (or fraudalent), they will be censured. In contrast, Nothing seems to happen to anybody in the whitehouse even though it is loaded with traitors.
The whole corrupt idea of government "science" is a fraud and a violation of Americans' rights. Those who pretend it otherwise are criminal-minded. The Soviets and Germans showed what it leads to, just as the fiction of man-caused global warming, now disproven for more than a decade, is promoted in an attempt to totalize the world under unaccountable government power.
Moderator, you are forgiven. I'm not as intolerant as you are stupid. One question though. Did you even read the post? Or do you not understand anything about economics?
The resolution to the perplexities of positivism is Bayes' Theorem.
:
Where p(A|X) is "the probability of A given X" and ~A means "not A"
p(A|X) = [ p(X|A)*p(A) ] / [ p(X|A)*p(A) + p(X|~A)*p(~A) ]
Much knowledge can be derived from applying that: quantum mechanics, statistics, AI theory, the scientific method and more.
This article is long, so here's the relevant bit
from "An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning" by Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/bayes.html
Previously, the most popular philosophy of science was probably Karl Popper's falsificationism - this is the old philosophy that the Bayesian revolution is currently dethroning. Karl Popper's idea that theories can be definitely falsified, but never definitely confirmed, is yet another special case of the Bayesian rules; if p(X|A) ~ 1 - if the theory makes a definite prediction - then observing ~X very strongly falsifies A. On the other hand, if p(X|A) ~ 1, and we observe X, this doesn't definitely confirm the theory; there might be some other condition B such that p(X|B) ~ 1, in which case observing X doesn't favor A over B. For observing X to definitely confirm A, we would have to know, not that p(X|A) ~ 1, but that p(X|~A) ~ 0, which is something that we can't know because we can't range over all possible alternative explanations. For example, when Einstein's theory of General Relativity toppled Newton's incredibly well-confirmed theory of gravity, it turned out that all of Newton's predictions were just a special case of Einstein's predictions.
You can even formalize Popper's philosophy mathematically. The likelihood ratio for X, p(X|A)/p(X|~A), determines how much observing X slides the probability for A; the likelihood ratio is what says how strong X is as evidence. Well, in your theory A, you can predict X with probability 1, if you like; but you can't control the denominator of the likelihood ratio, p(X|~A) - there will always be some alternative theories that also predict X, and while we go with the simplest theory that fits the current evidence, you may someday encounter some evidence that an alternative theory predicts but your theory does not. That's the hidden gotcha that toppled Newton's theory of gravity. So there's a limit on how much mileage you can get from successful predictions; there's a limit on how high the likelihood ratio goes for confirmatory evidence.
On the other hand, if you encounter some piece of evidence Y that is definitely not predicted by your theory, this is enormously strong evidence against your theory. If p(Y|A) is infinitesimal, then the likelihood ratio will also be infinitesimal. For example, if p(Y|A) is 0.0001%, and p(Y|~A) is 1%, then the likelihood ratio p(Y|A)/p(Y|~A) will be 1:10000. -40 decibels of evidence! Or flipping the likelihood ratio, if p(Y|A) is very small, then p(Y|~A)/p(Y|A) will be very large, meaning that observing Y greatly favors ~A over A. Falsification is much stronger than confirmation. This is a consequence of the earlier point that very strong evidence is not the product of a very high probability that A leads to X, but the product of a very low probability that not-A could have led to X. This is the precise Bayesian rule that underlies the heuristic value of Popper's falsificationism.
Similarly, Popper's dictum that an idea must be falsifiable can be interpreted as a manifestation of the Bayesian conservation-of-probability rule; if a result X is positive evidence for the theory, then the result ~X would have disconfirmed the theory to some extent. If you try to interpret both X and ~X as "confirming" the theory, the Bayesian rules say this is impossible! To increase the probability of a theory you must expose it to tests that can potentially decrease its probability; this is not just a rule for detecting would-be cheaters in the social process of science, but a consequence of Bayesian probability theory. On the other hand,
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Ho ho he he ha ha. You call that a lambasting, a director of a resources company and a proffesor of economics attempting to baffle people with climate bullshit. If either of these two have even a glimmer of a serious scientific argument then where is the fucking peer-reviewed paper, where is the methodology and where are thier references? None of these basic things are in your pdf link because they don't exist.
The fact of the matter is that McIntyre's "paper" was rejected by Nature due to faulty and biased statistical analysis. Instead of listening to Nature's critique and resubmitting they simply turned to US newspapers to push thier perverted claims that Mann is the one who is incompetent, little wonder Mann responded with "I don't have the time".
"I checked to see what years his data started. Mostly it started in odd years, 1999 and 1949, not the even years we like to start with."
Considering Mann was published in 1998 and 1999 how is it they can claim his data starts in 1999, did Dr.Who lend them his Tardis? What a crock of transparent psudeo-scientific shit!
"...never responds in any relavant way to the massive evidence presented that he is incompetent...
A congressman with two paid up ExxonMobil fools pushing his anti-warming barrow does not strike me as massive evidence. If you can't understand Mann's responses in the link I provided then I can't help you, save to say there are many other peer-reviewed papers that discredit McIntyre and co.
I do however wonder why is it that you take the pdf at face value. You display an enourmous amount of faith in the simple "say so" of two people who are not trained in climate science in preference to the trully masive amount of peer-reviewed science contained in the IPCC report. If someone shot you in the arse would you go and see a doctor or a economist?
These two idiots you hold in almost God like regard think that if they can discredit Mann then the whole "IPCC house of cards" will collapse. Nothing could be further from the truth, if you discredit Mann then there are plenty of others who have obtained the same results using different data and different methods (ie: The gold standard of confirmation by replication). Mann's "Hockey stick" is just one small piece of evidence in a landslide, removing Mann's paper will not change the scientific conclusions.
"...Also sounds like Mann is an asshole..."
So was Issac Newton, what's your point?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Can we have the same info on the people that published the report?
Have a look at my other posts on this article, see if you think this moron has tried to "astroturf" me!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hmmm. You seem to be saying that religious people are closed-minded or something? Are you not also incapable of conceiving of any other way to view of the world?
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Another example of this admin's war on science.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you love freedom, liberty, and reason vote for Michael Badnarik! If he runs in 2008.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Not even the NIH which seeds most scientific research in the US will fund a project to completion.
The NIH or at least the National cancer Institute, part of the NIH, funds to completion or at least most of the way. An example is Taxol. Taxol was developed by the NCI from the Pacific Yew tree for the treatment of breast cancer and is being looked at for others as well. The NCI spent more than $50 million to develop it and yet sold the rights for a mere pittance to Bristle Myers Squib, BMS. Though the price of it has gotten down to $.07 per milligram BMS sales it for more than $180 per milligram and has made $Billions from the sales of Taxol. Quite simply both taxpayers and cancer patients are getting ripped off. Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal on it, U.S. Recovers Only $35 Million Of $183 Million Spent on Taxol.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The world was once widely believed to be flat. The funny thing about science is that it's not based in fact, but in consensus. The very system of peer review ensures that only popular beliefs are accepted as facts.
When dissent is stifled, truth is the victim. And when you allege that scientists are above reproach, you sentence all of society to a technocratic oligarchy.
What is certain - no matter whose model you use - is that the Kyoto accords will not appreciably affect CO2 in the atmosphere, and still less will it affect climate, while it will cost many trillions of dollars in direct costs and lost growth.
At one tyme I supported Kyoto and in the 2000 election instead of voting for whom I wanted I specifically voted against Bush. So it was with no supprise to me when he said he wouldn't support it once he got into office. However because of something he said I did some reseach, he specifically stated China and India along with other un/under developed countries didn't have any emissions targets. Sure enough in my research I found out he was right about that. So now as long as some are exempted from any emissions limits by Kyoto I too am against Kyoto. Back then both China and India were building new coal fired power plants that would put quite a bit of greenhouse gases out. However I still believe the US can and should do something. As for lost growth, I don't see it, if anything I see more employment a growth not less with a healthier environment. There would be more reseach into cleaner technologies and manufacturing jobs would be created in these clean(er) technologies. Solar energy for instance will require a boost in manufacturing pvs creating more jobs, distribution of and installation of PVs will create even more jobs as will periodic maintainance. The same will happen with wind genies, wind generators. Bioremediation and cleanup of brown fields will create more employment.
Also with Global Warming, if it's true, economic losses for businesses can be significant. Hurricanes need warm water to grow, and has been seen in Florida the last couple of years the state has been badly hit by one bad hurricane after another. Who suffers? Besides those killed, insurance companies have to make all those payments for damaged and lost property. To pay for those losses they raise their premiums so the insured pay more. About the only one who benefits from this are the construction companies.
And what of the spread of diseases and virii? Ebola for instance is spread by birds and mosquitoes, as warming happens mosquitoes will spread further north. I'd bet other virii can spread in the same way.
1. increased nuclear power investment, particularly fuel cycles that use the "waste" of current Uranium cycle plants (mostly Plutonium), or new Thorium-cycle plants.
At one tyme I was strongly against nuclear power, and am still wary of it, but as I learn more I think more and more that it may be an answer. For instance Integral Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power . And Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors - Myth and Promise .
Earth-based solar power, wind power, tide power, geothermal power, OTEC, biomass, and conservation will not provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels. Slower growth will just increase poverty and thus population, thus has no net long-term benefit.
Now as stated above I fully support some of these alternative energy sources.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why doesn't the republican just look at the data of the study? Oh, that's right. He can't grasp the basic premises of science. Like most fundamentalist Christians, he think science is a sham to debunk religious beliefs. In reality, science is a legitimate testable rigorous process that debunks religious beliefs.
OJ
"Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
Well, thats what political parties are after all. But once upon a time there was some accountibility and the politicians had an eye out for taking care of people.
The creeps in office now are just a bunch of lying thieving crooks. They've got the media largely in their pocket and they've got America stoned stupid with Faux News. They are sitting on a mountain of lies, and every time they start getting called on one, they just make up new lies.
Are the Democrats any better??? Some are. I like to look at it as a party that I deeply loathe (as well as self loathing as I used to be Republican) and a party that I'm deeply dissapointed in.
At the end of the day, Ralph Nader does have the right call. Almost ALL our politicians have been bought off. Direct connection with the citizens is no longer possible. Everything is filtered through a mass media that relies on advertising revenue from the same people who buy off the politicians. Is the internet our saving grace???
At the end of the day though, they do love a scandal. And hopefully the whole Plame affair (traitor gate) will be the thread that will unravel the entire quilt of lies that these neo-cons have built.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Obviously Jesus will protect us from Global Warming. In addition, anyone who disagrees with that is a heathen and/or terrorist. GOP 4 LIFE!!11one
!@
A few days after the slashdot story I read about Barton and the $11,600,000,000 subsidy to his sugar-daddy thanks partly to the work of Mckintyre and McKitrick. How could this happen, is there anyone in US politcs who is not feathering thier nest with lobby money. Kick the lot of them out of power and replace them with some thinkers or artists or even the village idiot .... oh, umm, forget that bit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Deutsche Presse
07/27/05 2:25 PM PT
The price of gas in Australia is one-third the price in Europe, and one in five new passenger vehicles registered in the country is a fuel-guzzling four-wheel-drive with a government subsidy. In addition, the Australian government has set no targets for shifting away from its reliance on coal for power generation.
No China changed the exchange rate for their currency slightly (~2%). It is still pegged to the US Doller, just at a different level.