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 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?
"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.
At the time, I laughed when he was elected. Now, I'm not laughing anymore.
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.
You don't understand the concept of "fair and balanced." It means that for every person who expresses an accepted and scientifically justifiable opinion, you give equal or greater weight to selected whackos who disagree.
Then, once it becomes accepted that there is "no consensus" you split the difference, and find some even more extreme whackos to skew the "middle ground" even further. Eventually those with well-considered opinion are completely marginalized.
An honest scientist cannot win in this environment, because he or she is not willing to take ever-more-extreme positions to maintain "balance".
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.
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.
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.
Of course he's got nothing to hide...
*cough,cough*
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Top contributors
Any questions?
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).
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.
You can find better targets than public utilities.
Public utilities have very little influence over the consumption of energy by their customers. The customers demand, the utilities supply.
Utilities actually have all sorts of programs to help you reduce consumption. Examples? The utility where I live actually has a program that provides financial incentives for installing a device that turns your air conditioner on and off at 15 minute intervals during the summer, to help conserve - above what you'd save just by using less. They provide financial incentives for businesses and residences that install new, efficient appliances. And in California, there is a major initiative that provides huge price breaks if you reduce your power use by, say, 25% year over year.
Fact is, Americans don't really care what their energy costs - and I define "caring" as actually doing something as a result of it. We'd much rather live in our air-conditioned McMansions and drive our 10 mpg SUV's - even while the cost of energy skyrockets (due largely to political instability - granted, much of our own making - affecting supply; and rapidly rising demand in places like China, whose economy is growing rapidly. Supply, demand. Go figure - the invisible hand again).
No utility company can stop you from putting a solar or wind farm on your property - in fact, they're required by law to buy your excess energy from you at an inflated price.
I don't think anyone - the utilities included - would disagree with you with respect to the wisdom of using more renewable sources and reducing consumption.
The problem, though, isn't some big evil corporate oligarchy secretly plotting to keep you from conserving; rather, it's the fact that most Americans are lazy, consumptive, and just can't be bothered to do anything about becoming more efficient.
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.
I am a scientist (geologist, specifically).
I research global warming (interrelationship of Paleogene temperature and sea-level and how that translates to the present day).
Global warming is real.
The CAUSE is uncertain.
90% Professional Slacker
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)?
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.
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 is, to my knowledge (and I am a professional in the field, yes) no such computation. There were a couple of conceptual models bandied about in the 90s, but they didn't pass observational tests, and no one has been able to make them work in a computational climate model.
No, it's just sniping. There isn't a coherent alternative theory as to why rapid and accelerating increases in greenhouse gas concentrations should magically have no serious effect on the surface temperature.
mt
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 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.
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.
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.
You can say the same thing about relativity, quantum physics, evolution, atomic theory, and the earth being round. What's your point?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ---
So what exactly do you put your faith in? Religion? I'll take science any day of the week. Scientists findings are peer reviewed, scrutinized, and sometimes even found flawed. That's ok though because that is how the process works. Science gives us the best possible picture of the world that we have at our disposal. Anything else is just guessing.
What makes no sense to me is that global warming is accepted by the majority of scientists in the world. Only a few crack pot scientists debate it, well, a few crack pot scientists and and few crack pot politicians.
Time makes more converts than reason
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.
PROOF?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Apparently you have no clue how science is done. Other scientists WILL question the research. That's what peer review in publishing is all about. And other researchers in the field will try to reproduce/corroborate those studies. Others will try to take the science further based on those studies. If there is a problem with the science, it will eventually be pointed out by other scientists. That's how science works.
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
Since I don't actually have all day to reply, here is a quick selection of 'reputable' links and a few recent (05) peer-reviewed journal article abstracts concerning global warming.
I wasn't implying that you should take MY word for it...just that I have experience in this topic and that my (informed) opinion is that GW is underway. Denying global warming is about as futile as denying evolution (I'm also a paleontologist). As I mentioned in the previous post, however, the causes of global warming are still up in the air (although I personally suspect that greenhouse gas emissions play a role in accelerating warming). Of course Fairbanks (Nature 342/89) demonstrated that there was a two meter per century rise in sea level around 14000 years ago, so rapid change can occur even without human influence.
Here are a few references:
Fairbanks, R.G., 1989, A 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea level record; influence of glacial melting rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation: Nature, v. 342, no. 6250, p. 637-642.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Aerosols/
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleach ing/scr2000/scr-00gcrmn-report.html
http://www4.nas.edu/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db3095 63a0852566f2006d63bb/e4dcc6e935831fc885256a8400588 146?OpenDocument
http://climatechange.gc.ca/english/default.asp
____
From: Analysis of mean, maximum, and minimum temperature in Athens from 1897 to 2001 with emphasis on the last decade, trends, warm events, and cold events, Extreme climatic events
The 105-year (1897-2001) surface air temperature record of the National Observatory of Athens (NOA) has been analyzed to determine indications of significant deviations from long-term average features in the city of Athens. The analysis of the whole record reveals a tendency towards warmer years, with significantly warmer summer and spring periods and slightly warmer winters (an increase of 1.23 and 0.34 degrees C has been observed in the mean summer and mean winter temperature, respectively). The tendency is more pronounced for the summer and spring maximum temperature, but marginal for the minimum temperature of the cold season. On a monthly basis, a statistically significant (at the 95th confidence level) warming trend has been observed in the average maximum temperature of May and June. The trend analysis for the last decade of the record (1992-2001) revealed a significant increase for both warm and cold seasons, yet maximum and minimum temperature. Extreme temperatures (high/low temperatures above/below a certain threshold value) and extreme events (prolonged extreme temperatures) have also been studied. The number of hot days as well as the frequency of occurrence and duration of warm events have significantly increased during the last decade, while a negative trend is observed in the frequency of low temperatures and the duration of cold events especially after 1960.
_____
From: Recent trends from Canadian permafrost thermal monitoring network sites, Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, vol.16, no.1, pp.19-30, Mar 2005
The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), in collaboration with other government partners, has been developing and maintaining a network of active-layer and permafrost thermal monitoring sites which contribute to the Canadian Permafrost Monitoring Network and the Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost. Recent results from the thermal monitoring sites maintained by the GSC and other federal government agencies are presented. These results indicate that the response of permafrost temperature to rec
90% Professional Slacker
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.
To be fair, it is not unusual to ask about funding of other projects i.e. in the context of a grant applications to see if the candidate is already funded for similar research or whether there is a more needy applicant. Sources of funding for the findings are also usually provided along with the references in most scientific papers. This stuff is in the public records anyway. But what is unusual is asking for info re funding from other than federal, state, and private sources (what's left - Aunt Mamie's pron site...?) Maybe it was just excessive lawyerese but the tone of the rest of the letter sounded like an Inquisition...
I agree we need to look more closely at who is funding this Congressman. He is from TX , could it be oil interest? He is not bothering to look at who funds the science being done that doesn't support climate change. I wonder why? Although it is possible there are people with monetary incentives in support of climate change the glaringly obvious incentive is to continue making money selling oil as opposed to developing alternative fuels. Which do you really think is more probably?
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
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
By definition, this is true. Religion is based on faith, on believing something without evidence, or even despite evidence. It's simly another name for closed-mindedness.