Slashdot Mirror
Smithsonian 'Toned Down the Science' In Climate Change Exhibit
An anonymous reader writes "According to an International Herald Tribune article, the Smithsonian pre-emptively toned down the scientific content of a climate change exhibit put into place last year. The changes, including removal of scientist conclusions and muddying of displayed data, were made to ensure that the exhibit would not offend the Congress or the White House. Pressure brought to bear by Institute officials resulted in the resignation of Robert Sullivan, a sixteen year veteran of the organization. 'This is not the first time the Smithsonian has been accused of taking politics into consideration. The congressionally chartered institution scaled down a 1995 exhibit of the restored Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, after veterans complained it focused too much on the damage and deaths. Amid the oil-drilling debate in 2003, a photo exhibit of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was moved to a less prominent space.'"
Overheard at the Smithsonian:
Worker: Sir, I have this old display of Noah's Ark you asked for. Where did you want it?
Curator: Put some dinosaur models on it then set it up in the Geology Wing.
Worker: Will do, sir. Oh I also changed all the signage in that wing from "millions of years" to "thousands of years".
Curator: That's what I like: proactive thinking! What about the Adam & Eve diorama?
Worker: It's where the Galapagos Islands exhibit was, just as you requested.
Curator: My boy, you have a bright future in science!
Trolling is a art,
Who ever has the gold, makes the rules.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
As someone with a green heart i ask the public : WHO is subverting the debate ? WHY does Green HAS TO SHOUT so loud ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
OMG Conspiracy! Did you also know Ted Koppel is a robot?
Get it from private industry, expect to answer to the CEO and board
Get it from an individual, expect to answer to him
Get it from Microsoft, expect to answer to Satan
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The most troublesome part is that it was Smithsonian's administration that wanted the changes, not people from the US administration.
There's two kinds of people: those that change their beliefs to fit the facts and those that change the facts to fit their beliefs.
When you're changing the facts to fit other people's beliefs, well, I guess you get the budget dollars but lose all self-respect.
Somehow I never though Science and Political Correctness fit together. If you are dying, does the doctor now tell you "Congratulations, you won't be paying taxes next year."
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
In a hundred years, the Smithsonian will be under water.
Well maybe the administration isnt responsible for all the stuff that goes on. If the Smithsonian would pre-emptively change how it does things just because it thinks thats whats expected of it, then all you need is the idea that you are going to suppress certain ideas, not actively pursue their suppression.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
By muddying the data, they're inferring that the climate will get wetter and the mud will obfuscate the data. I would love to see the memo that explicitly tells the janitorial staff NOT to clean up the mud off of the data! That would be a smoking gun!
Fucking Government, they think they outsmart me?!? HA!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
"...the script...was rewritten to minimize and inject more uncertainty into the relationship between global warming and humans..." Imagine that! Uncertainty in science. If you want certainty, get a shaman/priest/rabbi.
"...officials omitted scientists' interpretation of some research and let visitors draw their own conclusions from the data..." Why would they do that? Don't they know the great unwashed can't be trusted to draw trhe "proper" inferences?!?!!?!!
"...changes were made for reasons of objectivity. And some scientists who consulted on the project said nothing major was omitted." Speaks for itself, I guess.
*AND*, despite the summary above, "Sullivan said that to his knowledge, no one in the Bush administration pressured the Smithsonian."
668: Neighbour of the Beast
It gets massive government funding, so you don't want to piss off the funders. Also, anything that is socially or politically charged is always toned down nowadays in the bigger institutions. You get the occasional out there displays, usually from smaller places trying to make a name for themselves.
It's like newspaper reporting now- skimp on the facts and give some conclusions, maybe put in a few emotional bits. Good luck trying to find objectivity, anywhere, anymore.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Al Gore toned down the science for his film. Or, he substituted science with hype. Even the scientist who accept the man-caused model find Al's wild *ssed misuse of science a little frightening.
If anyone is going to take it seriously, hyped arguments, with incredibly weak holes are going to drive people away from the true science. When a true scientist says, "Look, I have proof of man-caused climate change", the Gore-Hype-Doom-Weary-Joe-Everybody is going to ignore it.
Ignore Gore, DiCapprio, Robbins, Madonna, Rosie, etc. and lets get the truth separated from the hype, or it will be ignored.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
They are always toning down the science for Joe six-pack.
If they wanted a timely exhibit on climate change, they could randomly assign visitors to either side of an amphitheatre where they would don earplugs before yelling at each other at the top of their lungs while mathematical models that nobody in the room could understand flashed on an IMAX screen.
Really? Common knowledge, or something you just made up? Perhaps you're just trying to be funny and I missed it, but your later comments suggest that you were being serious (or have a very dry sense of sarcasm).
If you're being serious, please provide a source.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I guess these guys have to be as politically neutral as possible.
That's crap. Politics has no place in science. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it" comes to mind when politics and science meet.
Trolling is a art,
Whatever changes the Smithsonian makes in the name of giving science exposure, I am fine with. But when they get motivated by politics, and so openly at that, they are compromising everything the Smithsonian stands for!
Yet another reason I prefer NYC's American Museum of Natural History to its inferior counterpart in D.C.
And *I* am one of those folks who feels that there is less certainty to the science behind climate change than some researchers (let alone the public) do. So I should be pleased, but I'm not at all. Putting more research up, whether to clarify the picture or to show that most of it is inconclusive, that would be fine. But "toning down" stuff in an unscientific manner (you can "tone down" projections if a statistical analysis makes it appropriate, I suppose) and hiding information is just irresponsible.
I like basketball!!1!
Then you'll have to take the people out of science as well, since politics could be summed up as "what happens when two or more people talk."
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
You should. Before accusing the US government of polishing up its record, check out what the kind, benign, "Hello Kitty" modern Japan is doing.
The annexation of Korea? Peaceful merger agreed upon by both countries.
Colonization (and attempts of same) of the rest of Asia? Defending the fellow Asians from the racist Europeans. (Yes, the same government, that for decades continued to deny citizenship to Koreans in Japan is accusing someone else of "racism")...
Murder of civilians? Impossible — because Japanese soldiers are the most disciplined in the world (and always have been, you see).
Every time a Japanese Prime Minister visits the shrine, there are shrieks of him, allegedly, "honoring the war-criminals". That's not true — the handful of criminals there are in a tiny minority among the people, who died furthering the government's conquests without committing any crimes.
It is the justification for the conquests presented in Yasukuni (and I was only able to see the English versions of them, native versions are, likely, even more extremist), that we should be objecting to...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
First of all, I liked the movie. However, one thing that he did exaggerate (by omission) was his discussion of the 20 foot rise in sea levels. Sure, if either the ice on Greenland or the West Shelf of Antarctica melts, sea levels will rise (at least) 20 feet. If both melt, sea levels will rise 40 feet. Of course, no scientist (that I'm aware of) is predicting either to happen in the next 100 years. So, his facts were right, but the implication (that this would happen reasonably soon if things don't change) is not.
Global warming is serious and should be addressed in an intelligent, deliberate manner. Over-hyping it is counter-productive.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Honestly, from looking at the article, they were taking out the spin of global warming. For some reason, people act like the conclusions scientists make are golden and shouldn't be questioned, such as global warming. With as long as the Earth has been around (either if you believe millions or thousands of years), the amount of reliable statistical data we have about the Earth's climate is rather wanting and nowhere near enough to form solid conclusions about global warming existing or not. If they really want to push the envelope about it, wait for a few hundred more years to pass and continue to collect data, then you may have enough to possibly reach a definite conclusion. Seriously though, 100-150 years of meteorological data (and the fact that all that data doesn't even represent all the major climate regions of the Earth, especially the arctic regions) is like a grain of sand on the beach and doesn't amount to much at all.
"There are 10 types of people in this world--Those that understand binary, and those that do not..."
However, the proper expression is "Ain't paying taxes no more!". You must not be a Southerner.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Somewhat off topic but has it been decided yet which is the cause and which is the effect. I've read arguments on both sides (higher temps yields higher CO2 and vice versa). What is the consensus on this now? I've been waiting for the next climate change related story to ask this.
Cheers,
_GP_
I got the blockquoting wrong on the
"Now, just *who* is doing the accusing is left out, as is *who* at the White House has the muzzle, as are specific scientists and projects.
This isn't journalism. This is utterly shameless fear-mongering.This isn't journalism. This is utterly shameless fear-mongering."
bit.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Are you guys still spreading misinformation about the hockey stick?!
It's 2007...
Really? Politics has always been in science. This is because without politics there is no money for science. Behind every good scientific project is a person kissing some serious @ss to get it funded.
Are you not entertained?!? ;-)
(note: includes graphical scenery from the movie 'Gladiator')
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
scaled down a 1995 exhibit of the restored Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, after veterans complained it focused too much on the damage and deaths.
Exactly what else was that exhibit supposed to focus on? It was a war. Contrary to what our mass media and politicians would like us to believe, people actually do die in war, and it normally doesn't happen as movies and television like to dramatise. That plane dropped an atomic bomb, the first of its kind and one of only two to ever be dropped, that was responsible for the most deaths ever from a single explosive. If it didn't have that distinction, no one would care. It would just be yet another bomber from World War II. Personally, I think the exhibit should have been far more detailed than it was. Maybe a few shots of the barren wasteland that was once Hiroshima, or victims' fucking shadows etched into the sand from the detonation. The after-effects of the radiation, perhaps.
All exhibits, however, regardless of how important they seem, should be as detailed as possible. We should absolutely strive to put them in the correct context, and present the facts, unabashed, to the best of our knowledge. Kowtowing to any particular group or person does a grave disservice to society as a whole, because it will only result in the dissemination of misinformation, or at the very least only partial information. We can all digest the facts and come to our own conclusions, but the facts themselves are essential to the process.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Whether the museum curator in the parent posting existed or not, I salute anyone with the guts and gall to question assumptions and place integrity above deceit. And, yes, such people probably will lose jobs and - in rare cases - possibly a whole lot more. History teaches us, however, that in the long run, inaccuracies do get weeded out. Nobody these days uses Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the British Kings as a textbook, and popular Victorian school texts (which depicted Iron Age Britain as filled with unkempt cave-dwelling barbarians with no language or culture) have been replaced with more reliable and infinitely more believable studies of Celtic life.
Pissing off the public with the truth is inevitable. It will happen, sooner or later. May as well get it over and done with quickly, even if that carries risk. Life is all about risk - so why not take risks that might make a difference?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That they are simply giving their customers what they want.
Y'know, Americans and all.
Deleted
7. ????
8. Profit!
Historically (eg, glacial/interglacials): current best theory is that the first mover was orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles) leading to ice sheet retreat. Ice sheet retreat leads to warming. Warming leads to CO2 outgassing from oceans, CH4 being produced from melting permafrost. CH4 and CO2 increases lead to more warming.
Present-day: CO2 increase is solely due to human activity. This CO2 increase is a priori expected to lead to temperature increases, and the actual temperature increase seems to be largely explained only by human induced atmospheric changes in forcing, if you include feedbacks (increased water vapor, glacial retreat, etc.)
Long long ago historically there is evidence that we never would have left snowball earth without the CO2 increases caused by volcanic eruptions over hundreds of thousands of years, and no CO2 sink through rock weathering/ocean uptake because everything was covered by ice.
For some reason that reminded me of Temple of Doom:
Mola Ram: The British in India will be slaughtered. Then we will overrun the Moslems. Then the Hebrew god will fall. Then the Christian god will be cast down and forgotten. Soon Kali Ma will rule the world.
Random little break from the debate. Smirk, even smile a little bit... aaaand back to the flamewar.
u-bend
I know (I work at a research lab :)) I was referring to how the data is collated and the results presented. Political perversion of the results shouldn't exist, the funding should come into research with no fear of what answers it may produce.
Trolling is a art,
Why don't you take a look at the US National Academy Assessment of the hockey-stick cluster of studies rather than relying on climateaudit.org? Though the 4th Assessment Report isn't a bad place to look either. Also, I believe that the hockey stick always came with error bars, and was fairly good for a first pass, and subsequent studies have mostly confirmed Mann's argument that the current global scale warming is likely unprecedented in the past 1000 years.
I was on assignment in Washington DC for the spring and summer months of 2004. The last time I had been there prior to 2004 was when I was about 8.
In what time off work I could find, I went to the Smithsonians (except the portrait museum, as it was closed, and the Native American museum, because it had not yet opened), and was rather disappointed by all but one.
The Air and Space museum, although home to a lot of really cool planes, was filthy. Dust everywhere, stained floors, etc. Also, from what I do remember about my visit now nearly 20 years later, much of the museum's public collection was the same. In fact, I didn't find much to look at there beyond the planes themselves. There were no interesting placards that I can recall, no interesting multimedia, and seemingly no information newer than about 1991.
The same goes for the American History museum. It seemed very propaganda-y. Major cultural divides throughout US history were glossed over or ignored completely. I remember specifically reading about how something to the effect of "some native peoples were unhappy about the country's expansion across the Great Plains." Yeah, I bet at least a few were unhappy.
What saddens me the most is that while I was there, the Natural History museum was the best one. Their displays were modernized, they had exhibits about current issues, the IMAX I went to was great, the facility was clean and the placards with the exhibits, although were somewhat simplified, were appropriate for a somewhat educated audience.
The Smithsonian Institution really is one of America's treasures. When people visit London, they hit the British Museum. In Paris, it's the Louvre. DC has the Smithsonian(s). Those facilities are home to much of the physical historical record of this country. They see millions of visitors per year.
Why not put politics aside, at least mostly, and let them be run as well as they deserve to be?
Sadly, I suspect I already know the answer.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
However, before you cynically credit all of his environmental talk to profit-mongering, perhaps you should see where the benefits of his book and movie go to.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The IPCC writes its draft report first. Then it writes a summary based on the draft report. In the process of writing the summary, the lead authors (along with government representatives) scrutinize the key statements in the drafts which are going into the summary, and occasionally determine that a given statement is not supported or precisely accurate. So after they publish the summary they go back and make the report consistent. But the key point is that scientists vet all the changes. (Though, if anything, the changes at this point usually make the Summary statement more conservative that the original drafts, so it is kind of ironic that all the people who object to this process are the climate change deniers).
No conspiracy, just saying that claiming the Bush Administration had nothing to do with a political decision of a congressionally created group that benefits the current Neo-con line, isn't the most credible thing to say.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Please tell me some of the other conspiracies from your rich internal life.
For some reason, this phrase conjured pictures of his spleen plotting against his pancreas...
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
So let me guess - they put in the Hockey Stick and then someone pointed out that its a scientific crock of shit.
... a hockey stick: they concluded that the recent warming is a robust feature of the data, although they said the error bars on the earlier reconstructions should be widened. And that doesn't even begin to address all of the other paleoclimate reconstructions by other researchers, using different and independent methods, which also found hockey sticks.
In point of fact, the independent NAS review panel found that when you correct Mann's hockey stick you get
Skeptics like to hold up Mann (or Hansen, or Gore) as some kind of archetype, who if knocked down would bring down the whole scientific theory of global warming with them, but that is far from true. The scientific case for global warming does not rest on any one individual.
And the same Stephen McIntyre who holds no advanced degree and has never been published in an ISI peer-reviewed journal?
No, you wouldn't be close. Further research and sampling will (surprise, surprise) cause people to update their data sets to reflect the further research. The hockey stick model still fits, though possibly not as dramatically as Mann's original model.
Oh, give it a rest. Instead of blaming 'censorship', why don't you blame the weakness of your sources and the fact that your arguments have been debunked multiple times before?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Somewhat off topic but has it been decided yet which is the cause and which is the effect.
It's both: there is a mutual feedback. CO2 increases cause temperature increases. But temperature increases can also cause CO2 increases (reducing the ocean's capacity to sink CO2), although this takes place on century-to-millennium timescales. In 500-1000 years we should see more natural CO2 in the atmosphere due to the current warming (which in turn is currently due mostly to manmade CO2).
Oh? Please explain how it is statistically insignificant? No one, not even McIntyre & Mckintick, claimed that the findings were statistically insignificant -- they just disputed the data samples and reconstructed the graph according to their own cherry-picked data. Note that even when analyzed over the 1000-year mean, instead of Mann's original 20-year mean, the hockey stick still appears, and is still statistically significant.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Not only is CO2 not outgassing from the oceans this time around, the oceans are actually acting as a carbon sink (i.e., the opposite of outgassing). Although this helps mitigate somewhat the greenhouse gas phenomenon, it results in the acidification of our oceans, as CO2+H20=CH203, AKA carbonic acid. (This effect is also already factored into climate models.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
we mustn't forget that the public isn't capable of handling the truth.. so "offending" the whitehouse is a MUCH higher priority than saving the planet..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
My bad. When you were made that comment about him doing it to sell books, etc., I assumed you'd appreciate the information.
Is he a hypocrite? Yes. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid point. Don't get angry at him because you don't have good bus routes. Find out who's fault that is and lobby for change.
If the little guy would fight for himself, a lot more could get accomplished. There are far more "little guys" than big ones. Talk to the mayor of Ottawa, or the city council. Make noise. Don't blame Al Gore (or hippies) for it, however. That's silly. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
My understanding was that the lead authors have final say on whether a change is acceptable or not. Mind you, the all night sessions just before the release of the summary due to Chinese and US delegates trying to water down some of the conclusions might have lead to lead authors finally giving in from sheer exhaustion, but they do have to give the final ok. See realclimate for a more complete discussion, but this also jibes with what those of my colleagues who were contributors to the IPCC draft chapters have told me...
That said, there is a difference between, say, a graph of average temperatures or average high and low tides, and sn out-of-context picture of a slowly-dessicating harp seal pup, with those huuuuuuuuuuuuge soulful eyes, or an equally sn out-of-context picture of a polar bear floating on a tiny ice floe, either of them looking directly at the camerman as if to say "Why have you done this to me?"
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Wow, sounds like a bunch of liberals trying to hijack the museum to turn it into a political exhibit, and when people are questioning that, they go nuts and cry to sympathetic media like slashdot....
Reality has a liberal bias.
What the crap are you talking about man? Have you been sniffing the moonites again?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Thing is, it works both ways.
/. entry, my bullshit meter pegged when the summary claimed pressure on the "Global Warming" exhibit from the Congress and Whitehouse, with no support for that statement in the actual article.
I'll grant you that the US public is largely scientifically illiterate. All the more reason then to be careful not just about graphs and tables of numbers, but also about out-of-context pictures of polar bears on tiny ice floes.
It's easy to stampeded an uninformed mob. For myself, I see too much faith and too little science in the current "debate," (I mean, Jeeeezus! do you ever listen to the BBC World Service? Oy!) so I'm inclined to be hightly skeptical.
On this particulat
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I liked your comment! I forgot all about that quote...I'll have to see "Temple of Doom" again!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
There really ought to be a new version of Godwin's law, as regards the current administration and the nutroots crowd.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I apologize if I took you wrong. On the internet, it's nard to tell who's a nutroot. I refer you, for an example, to the post some places down from here, from a foaming-at-the-mouth type with less than 1% of my wit and charm.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Glad to be of service. That movie is great camp fun. Probably has 900K Hindus shaking their heads to this day.
u-bend
The summary said:
"The changes, including removal of scientist conclusions and muddying of displayed data, were made to ensure that the exhibit would not offend the Congress or the White House."
The article's example about Hiroshma mentions veterans, while the bit on ANWR mentions...nobody in particular.
In particular there was no mention of preempting anything.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
900 million, that is. Loving the sleep dep.
u-bend
Assuming we haven't fixed the problem by then, I believe you would expect to see less natural CO2 in the atmosphere. Our introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere increases its partial pressure. That in turn overcompensates for the oceans' natural inability to hold CO2 as its temperature increases. For a constant partial pressure, the oceans would hold less CO2. However, in this case (with significantly rising partial pressure) they will hold more, and they will therefore absorb natural CO2 (as well as man-made CO2) rather than emit it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well I'm living in Vienna where a lot of the UN stuff goes on. Quite a few of my friends work there are quite a few of the academics I know end up working there from time to time (including with the IPCC report). You get to hear a lot of storys about what goes on. The bottom line is that the IPCC report is just another *political* report. Its really nothing more or less. I mean what do statments like "90% proablilitiy that we are the major casue of global warming?" mean. What is the meaning of major? what does 90% mean? If I have 100 earths all with identical CO2 curves etc, ~90 of them will have man casused warming and the others will only have natural warming? These just are not scientific statments, they are political. Everyone picks up on it when the bush Adminsitration issues a report, I really can't see why everyone finds it so hard to see with the IPCC.
Also I don't see why everyone puts so much faith in realclimate. They have there own agenda and opinins as all scientist do (like myself). Its one side of the story. Scientist disagree all the time on just about everything (yes even the cause of climate change). Yea and I read the peer reviewed climate papers, they give a very different story to the "absolutes" used in the IPCC report or media.
Just for the record. I do think gloabal warming is real. We (humans) have contributed significalty to the CO2 levels. However I don't think we know enough to even get close to quantify how much of an effect that is compared to natral warming. Even more to the point there are a *lot* of other things we do which may have a bigger effect (deforstation, irrigation etc) at least on local climate. I also support taking mesures to reduce CO2 emmisions, and i can think of least 2 better reasons than the climate.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
I'll agree that it'd be better (and provide a stronger message) if provided a telepresence instead of using his jet. However, he does not profit from these talks.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"Bureaucrats pander to protect funding!", says disgruntled former employee. Details at 10.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Well, ok. Here's the deal, however: once you start multiplying causes, well, you're on your way to some sort of paranoid hell, aren't you?
I mean, the article cites pressure on other displays from veterans, and...nobody in particular. Later on, there's mention of not wanting to offend unnamed Congress people. *After* a mention that nobody from the White House attempted to influence the display.
Given the content of the article the summary was, on its face, misleading.
And what am I supposed to do? Assume "Skull and Bones", or somesuch every time anyone says the White House claims not to be involved?
Anyway, thanks for the thoguhtful response, and apologies for the initial flamethrowing response.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
On the uncertainty analysis: attributing a cause with a percentage probability is fairly standard across many scientific fields. Look up Bayesian statistics. There is some subjectivity involved when attempting to synthesize information from a variety of sources: it may be easier to defend a number if it comes from a single model where you can definitively state that a trend is statistically significant to 2 sigma or whatever, but you don't want to depend on a single model, so you do the best you can to make estimates based on all the information available.
On realclimate: I put faith in realclimate because they have demonstrated a firm grasp of the science, and, in my opinion, a fairly unbiased attitude (recognizing of course that there is no such thing as purely neutral opinion).
On disagreement among scientists: I also read the peer reviewed climate literature, and even have a few peer reviewed publications to my name. Yes, there is disagreement. No, there aren't absolutes. The IPCC doesn't give absolutes either - why do you think they have ranges and probabilities? The media _really_ doesn't give absolutes, since they have a bad tendency of giving equal weight to two "sides" to the issue when you actually have 95% of the science on one side and 5% on the other.
I also agree that we have measured warming. Obviously the increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. But I think we do have enough evidence to have some confidence in our ranges for numbers like climate sensitivity. I also agree that there are many things we should be doing: reducing deforestation is important for climate reasons and ecosystem reasons. Reducing CO2 emissions is important for reduced ocean acidification as well as global warming. Reducing oil use is important for foreign policy reasons as well as CO2 reasons. Energy efficiency makes sense from an economic standpoint as well as an environmental standpoint. Etc. etc.
NOT all scientists agree, MANY of those doing the agreeing are doing it with noticeably fudged data and incredibly non-scientific hyperbole loaded with pre-drawn conclusions and political commentary, and there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake and more to the point MASSIVE political power riding on selling the people the idea that we are creating a massive greenhouse effect.
Point of fact is that we know very damn well that the Earth has been slingshotting back and forth warm to cold long before we existed and will keep doing it and that this warming IS NOT out of keeping with the long term ice and geological records. To buy that we are doing this is to buy that all the previous warm and cold phases either never happened or what caused them is miraculously taking this one off on the bench while we control the weather.
Utter horseshit in the name of political power for those at the top of the movement.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
He does not receive any revenue from sales of his DVD. One reason he hypes it is because proceeds go to help the cause.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Test your Global Warming knowledge:
a rt.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/st
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In every case the climate change debate has been muddied by political concerns, it was through Republican interests. Is anyone surprised?
Very well said indeed.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
(NOT meant in a deprecatory way... at least to Hindus!)
You mean Bikini Island? I don't recall any nuclear testing in the Bahamas. And how could the nuclear testing be done as a demonstration for the Japanese? Where they invited to observe the tests? Certainly without any Japanese being invited to observe they would never know about it. If you have some sources I'd be curious, because I have never heard anything about that before.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Creationism is not science, it's shit.
The Discovery Institute was started to find some scientific proof of a god. After years of failure they've started attacking science itself. A lengthy but remarkable read is http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_fo
Believe whatever nutty crap you want to believe, if it can't be backed with facts then it's not science.
Trolling is a art,
Please put the Kool-Aid down slowly...
I'm a conservative. There is absolutely zero link between a conservative ideology and a disbelief in science/global warming. Additionally, there is zero link between conservative ideology and support of the (very anti-conservative) war in Iraq.
Republicans create a belief system out of a bunch of utterly unrelated ideas (abortion, global warming, gay-bashing, racism, social security 'reform'), then apply the conservative label to it. Then morons who can't think for themselves but who are Republican say, "Gee, not believing in global warming is conservative, and believing in global warming is liberal!" In fact, there are both liberal and conservative ways of seeing both views.
The truly conservative viewpoint is that it doesn't matter whether global warming is real or not -- we must act as though it is a reality. Why? Because doing so will:
1) End our oil dependence (our 'addiction,' as chimp in chief says), and therefore mostly removing our active financial support of terrorism.
2) Ensure that the U.S. is a leader rather than a follower on environmental initiatives. The world -- including the U.S. -- is getting greener, and there's lots of money to be made on environmentalism. We can make some of that money, or we can give it all to those who choose to capitalize on our science (since tech advances tend to come from the U.S.)
Republicans have consistently proven over the past 25 years that they are not generally conservative. Democrats have proven that they tend to be centrists, rather than liberal. There is nothing conservative about Neo-cons.
Nice Link. What I took from this is that it's just a big feedback loop (started by some external factor - solar/orbital what have you). I've read some good articles on either side and was always wondering why this point wasn't discussed further.
Cheers,
_GP_
The Smithsonian Institute is part and parcel of the Federal government. Being both funded and managed by the Fed, it is a government agency. That a government agency will generally support the government line, whether factually correct or not, should surprise no one that's paying attention and that has even the most basic familiarity with hierarchal organizations.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I did not mean to imply that your statement was inaccurate. Mainly, I was just trying to emphasize why the models are conservative, and that it was a "known unknown". :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Because whenever baloney pushes out science in the curriculum, it's a bad thing for education. And please don't use the term "Creation Science". If something cannot be tested, it cannot be science. And I don't mean tested now, I mean tested ever.
Let me ask you this: If tomorrow there was a report of duplicable experimental findings that the Universe was not created by a divine power, would you stop being a Christian? No, you wouldn't , and that's why all this creationism is not and can never be, science. You don't have to worry, though, because no experiment could ever be designed, even in the imagination, that could prove or disprove the existence of God. And ultimately, that's why it can never be considered science.
My guess is that even if you could understand that simple concept it wouldn't make a difference because you are so afraid of dying that nothing will dislodge your childish view that God is watching you and your soul will live forever.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'll freely accept some education, but I'll admit I'm confused about what you're saying here. Everything I've ever read or heard has said that 'Little Boy' was the first atomic bomb ever detonated. They were so certain that the mechanism would work, they didn't even have a prototype. "Gadget" was the first atomic explosion triggered (aka: The Trinity Test), but it wasn't really a bomb. 'Fat Man' was the second.
There was no testing. No demonstrations that I've ever heard of. Isn't Bimini in the Caribbean? Why would Japan be paying attention to that? Everything I've ever heard said that Japan had no idea the bombs existed. The Germans didn't even really know about it. Only the Russians were aware of the existence of the working weapons. That was (I've been told) the major reason why the second bomb was dropped. The destruction was so shocking and unbelievable that the Japanese leaders were only coming to terms with the horror of the things when Nagasaki was bombed.
I'll admit I'm curious to see if I've been confused all this time, but I'm finding this a little hard to believe.
Well, it could be tested...
... but that would involve a certain amount of time travel.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The successes I've experienced, and similar stories described in history, reveal something interesting. Human understanding isn't a continuum, it is quantized. It has to jump the gaps in one go. It has to receive sufficient impetus to make that state change in a single leap. When my efforts were exactly what was needed, the change produced was impressive.
The failures reveal something else - direct challenges to thinking might sometimes be what is needed, but that isn't even close to being the most common method required. More moderate, respectful methods produce better results far more often. Even when direct challenges work, they might not be the only method that would have produced the desired result.
Ultimately, though, the methods that work will not be "quiet" in all respects. In their own way, whatever way that is, they must be just as dramatic and just as powerful. There are no half quantum leaps.
Finally, I'll briefly cover your point that a museum is not the same as a University with life tenure. A museum holds our collective memories of our past. That is its job. It's often used for public amusement, but its primary role is remembering and its secondary role is to educate the present on those memories. It's certainly not there to make money, although many are run that way, and is most definitely not there as a political mouthpiece for any party or organization. Now, I don't know how you best achieve this. The BBC is far more independent, neutral and outspoken than any US media outlet, despite being Government-funded, because of the charter system. However, that's a different scenario operating in a different country with a radically different culture. I don't know how you'd make museums truly free to be honest, in the US, or what the best method of achieving that would be. All I can tell you is that this needs to be the goal and a method needs to be found.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
At a fixed partial pressure, the oceans are definitely losing their ability to sink CO2. However, as we dump more CO2 into the atmosphere, we increase the partial pressure. I'm basing this entirely off of basic chemistry/physics (i.e., I could easily be wrong) and off the fact that CO2 concentrations in the oceans are, in fact, going up. I think it sort of depends on how you look at it. I don't know how much you know about physics, but sometimes the problem seems to change depending on whether you look at it in momentum space or in position space (for example). Of course, the underlying reality hasn't changed at all, just one's definitions of certain terms. OTOH, it's possible that after a certain point (assuming a certain human output of CO2), the temperature change will be great enough that it overshadows the increased partial pressure. If that human output is constant, then I suspect we would eventually reach a new quasi-equilibrium in terms of both CO2 concentrations in the oceans and atmosphere and average temperature.
The main point, is that I'm pulling this out of my, er, the air, and so I have no references to give you. Take it with a grain of salt as it could surely be wrong. However, I'd like references myself before I'm willing to abandon my personal intuition. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Right. I stand for all of the constitution, and the rights of all people to believe as they choose and to be the best people they can be in a cooperative society where abusing the helpless is not tolerated.
You must obviously believe in hurting everybody around you. Plus, you're a huge coward. And, your name is Pudge, we all know that. You cunt.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
When Bush and Congress stand up for their stump speeches and tout how well they've done they feel that its important that we actually believe that, particularly when they say they've done a good job studying global warming because we don't know enough as Bush is wont to say.
If, however the general public actually learns that the problem is real and hasn't been attacked aggressively then they'll start shopping around for someone else to protect them.
While historically speaking the comparison to evolution is apt it might be better to compare it with the level of "terrorist threat" or the war with Eurasia. In the former case the issue is one of protection, are we making our "way of life" safer. With the War on Terror(tm) the claim is that Bush and Cronies are fighting the enemy and succeeding (look how many terrorists we have convicted and put behind bars). With Global Warming the claim is that it isn't a problem so they don't have to act on it. In either case the tendency to lash out at those who say that they are doing a bad job with respect to terror (journalists, PBS, research scientists) or global warming (scientists again, schools and museums) is just a natural reaction. Because if they aren't doing a good job they lose the license to give kickbacks and generally ruin things that they now have.
At the end of the day it is all about power and money.
I think I got the original line from The Simpsons. Your picture fits more with The Family Guy. But I like it.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off somewhat condescending. Yes, I'm an American, and I'm proud of it. Yes, I realize that 100 years is not a very long time in the grand scheme of things. However, I'm not aware of any scientific articles that project beyond 100 years (which could very well be due to my own ignorance). Perhaps there are some, but most of the global warming discussion centers around the next 100 years. Don't blame me for choosing that time frame, it's the longest one that I'm aware of in the public discourse.
For the record, my wife and I only own one car between us, and it's a Honda Civic Hybrid. When I drive it, I regularly get 48 mpg - with passengers. Of course, I usually walk into work, so it's rare that I drive it at all.
Absolutely. However, my impression from the movie is that he was talking about events that would happen in the next 100 years, so that's why I felt it was inaccurate not to be specific about the actual time frame in question. Is it 200 years? My impression was that it was well beyond that, even.
That said, I absolutely recognize that our country and our culture are not doing their fair share with respect to combating global warming. Insulting us, however, is unlikely to be an effective way of persuading us to change. Challenge us, engage us, and give us time - we are changing, the signs are all around.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This article isn't saying what you think it is saying. They are saying that poor George and the poor Republicans (hi pudge) can't read all that well. All those scientific words just confuse them. The new exhibit tries to simplify things, preferably in terms of pet goats.
meh
And yet the removal of the bristlecone pines is the main thing that keeps McIntyre & McKintick's analysis from showing the same results as Mann's. So their analysis is not sensitive to the inclusion of the pines.
What ARE you talking about? The HS was replicated by McIntyre. The HS was the result of the massive overweighting of bristlecone pines, a proxy known to be NOT a temperature proxy. McIntyre showed that without the bristlecones, the HS shape disappeared.
Their analysis should that with or without the bristlecones, the HS failed multiple statistical tests for significance.
Oh? Please explain how it is statistically insignificant? No one, not even McIntyre & Mckintick, claimed that the findings were statistically insignificant -- they just disputed the data samples and reconstructed the graph according to their own cherry-picked data. Note that even when analyzed over the 1000-year mean, instead of Mann's original 20-year mean, the hockey stick still appears, and is still statistically significant.
It fails two key tests, R2 and the Durbin-Watson. Both showed zero significance.
M&M DID claim that the findings were statistically insignificant. And just in case you think its a fluke, a replication by friends of Mann, Wahl and Ammann also showed zero significance for the R2 test.
The rest of your statements are simply rubbish.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
The error bars are simply double the standard deviation, but the error analysis was wrong. Because the R2 metric was zero, the true error bars should be "floor to ceiling" according to testimony given to that same Panel.
Don't you read ANYTHING or is it just parrotted off RealClimate?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
In point of fact, the independent NAS review panel found that when you correct Mann's hockey stick you get ... a hockey stick: they concluded that the recent warming is a robust feature of the data, although they said the error bars on the earlier reconstructions should be widened. And that doesn't even begin to address all of the other paleoclimate reconstructions by other researchers, using different and independent methods, which also found hockey sticks.
That Panel also recommended that bristlecones should not be used as they were not a robust temperature proxy - but all of them included Mann's PC1 with its heavy overweighting of bristlecones, as a Proxy. They all failed tests for statistical significance, just like the HS.
In no sense were the others "independent". They used the same set of proxies over and over again.
Skeptics like to hold up Mann (or Hansen, or Gore) as some kind of archetype, who if knocked down would bring down the whole scientific theory of global warming with them, but that is far from true. The scientific case for global warming does not rest on any one individual.
The archetype is the complete lack of ethics by any of them as well as a willingness to exaggerate their asses off. ALl of this has been documented.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Would that be the same McKitrick whose research is funded by the Fraser Institute, whose main benefactors are the oil and gas industries, particlucarly ExxonMobil, who stipulated that the funds they donate are for research of climate change? FYI, The Fraser Institute has collected over $400k since its inception, and over half that has been from ExxonMobil ($120,000 in 2003-4 alone).
That would be Ross McKitrick , an UNPAID associate for the Fraser Institute.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good smear and a conspiracy theory to boot. After all if you don't have to smear the man, then you would have to tackle what he said, and that would never do.
And the same Stephen McIntyre who holds no advanced degree and has never been published in an ISI peer-reviewed journal?
What about Geophysical Research Letters? Oh shit, it demolishes your smear job. Shame about that.
No, you wouldn't be close. Further research and sampling will (surprise, surprise) cause people to update their data sets to reflect the further research. The hockey stick model still fits, though possibly not as dramatically as Mann's original model.
The HS stick model is bad statistics, bad math, and bad data control. All of which has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Beware, 2006 is going to be the worst hurricane season ever.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
I agree, money shouldn't influence results. Yeah, you're right about that one. This is why I prefer to work with bacteria...they never worry about politics :)
I personally wouldn't care WHO it's from. If someone LIVES somewhere, points to a region (you can go get the topographical maps too.) and says that USED to be above water..wtf does it matter who he is or where he lives? Does the info have to come from some guy in a $6000 suit to be the truth???
B.T.W. Disregarding information simply because you are prejudiced against the source (hence the source of your comment of him being a 'fucking swamp rat') is unwise.
My 2 cents,
A.A
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
But seriously, the americans amongst us are fucked.
I have no problem with people disputing "facts" as they're presented; this is the way the civilised world has learnt to look at the options on the table and see which makes most sense in the cold light of day. For example, you might believe in God; I might disagree. We'll have that argument, and you might convert me, I might enlighten you, but either way we should have that debate without fear the that he who comes out on top will fuck over the person whose position doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You're reaching the point where you're too scared of the fight to raise your point of view, and that makes your idea of freedom of speech irrelevant. I'm posting this because you might be right, I could be wrong, and I'm waiting to hear your point of view.
You're free to say what you think. People are starting to not say it if they think the US government won't like it. I can't begin to express how wrong that is.
Warning: May contain nuts
Sgt_Doom (Sons of the American Revolution)
Hmmmm....might that be one of the reasons that newsies have all but given up on reporting any newsworthy items anymore in America - since a number of them ended up in jail - or fired???
Of course, the other reason being the complete and total corporate/military contractor ownership of the media - and then there's that situation in Oklahoma and Texas when a bunch of newspapers starting criticizing that NAFTA Superhighway and the Macquarie Group (Australian financial group that will operate the toll roads) bought up around 40 small newspapers to stop their stories.
if it want to be worm or we are making it hot, then
think a way to live with it
Al Gore and Dianne Feinstein have done to science what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have done to religion:
BASTARDIZE AND PERVERT IT INTO A POLITICAL IDIOLOGY! ----- (Something both should never be!)
BOTH want money, BOTH want publicity, BOTH want political power, and BOTH think they know ".....what's best for us."
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Yes, it's obviously leftist political bunkum. What saddens me is the negative effect it's going to have on legitimate science for decades to come. When I was a teenager, the idea that people were stupid enough to fall for things like Global Warming was laughable. We all looked back on discredited ideas like phrenology and laughed. We never thought science would hit such a deeply regressive trend again.
Done already:
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
Mind you, that t-rex was a vegetarian, and children had them as pets. The animatronics must prove it...
don't start me on xenu, you godless heathens. Monkies evolved from the bible!
If you're going to attack the fidels, at least give them a fighting chance. All it would take to disprove all that big bang physics stuff is a single act of a god, i.e., the observable creation of another universe or a life form ex nihilo. It's just that the probability of such things happening is rather low.
But even if we note the creation of new universes by one or more gods, somehow proving that a god created the universe wouldn't help us understand the one we're in, so creation science wouldn't enhance our understanding of our world, nor help us predict what this god thing will do next.
Dawkins is fun.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Here in Europe, where I live, in Africa, where my mother lives, in Australia, where my sister lives, the climate has obviously been changing over the last one and a half decades.
When I got to Europe in 1986, there was snow in winter on the local hills near to Zurich here in Switzerland so that kids could go skiing almost all winter, and people said they were used to that. Since then, the winters have gotten progressively warmer until there is often no snow on those local hills anymore long enough for more than one or two days of skiing, the whole winter. The summers have been starting earlier and earlier, so that this last April, the warmest EVER in HUMAN MEMORY, I was in a short sleeves in very warm sunny weather. In 2003, Europe had the hottest summer EVER. Last october, was the second hottest EVER recorded. The mountains in the Alps are losing their glaciers VISIBLY, not just in some geeky scientific measurements. The permafrost holding many of the highest together, is melting, causing massive landslides.
South Africa, where I come from, has gotten progessively warmer and drier in the same time. The high plateau inland down there, which at no point is below 1000 metres above sea level (about 3300 feet for the metrically challenged), didn't used to get much warmer than around 30 degrees Centigrade (86 Fahrenheit) in summer due to the altitude. In the summers now, the temperatures have regularly started to reach 36 degrees centigrade.
Australia, where my sister lives, is having one of the worst if not the worst drought the country has ever experienced, so much so, that scientists are beginning to think it might actually be a climate shift, i.e. it might be semi permanent.
What fucking blows me away, when climate change is pretty obvious to the naked, dumbass eye, without needing to see scientific measurements, is that some people are still fucking disputing this. I'm not talking about Greenland or Antarctica or northern Canada, since I don't live there. I'm talking about stuff that I can see. It blows my mind that so many here dispute it. Is there no such obvious change in America? Or is it that Americans spend so much of their lives in air conditioned houses that they don't notice?
..but it really isn't "just another political report I think we will just have to aggree to disagre here. In my experiance the UN and things like the IPCC are poltical. In fact its hard to claim that the whole GW debate is anything but political. You tread very carfully when you ask for funding for example. I have seen one atmophearic group lose there funding because they said publicly that there is little *proof* that we are the cause of the warming. (Note: I was there, this is a fact, not something i made up, its why I'm currently in mathmatical biology now!)I do find realclimate a bit biased as the are the papers that come out at this point in time. Of course this is nothing new. Most groups of scientists have popular ideas to explain whatever it is we are working on. Probably the most fustrating thing i find is that there is little senistivity anaylis of the models. Many still just use a simple 50 meter surface ocean models and never mention its shortcomming when discusing long term climate predictions. Realclimate doesn't talk about them either. Even the varation of forcing terms, or the lack of climate prediction histroy are simply not discused in enough depth if at all IMO.
But that fact that we aggree on the action part is the most important point. We should be looking at what to do rather than arguing details we simple can't reliably answer at this point in time. Few of the big GW advocates are that proactive on action. They are proactive by telling others (aka the Government) that they should be doing something. Look at how many people complain when the price of petrol goes up. We folks in the western world love to talk.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Yup, the NHC forecast another good year for them, a bit above average. It's getting so bad it's starting to resemble the mid 20th century. After 2006 turned out to be such a bummer. If we actually get hit with a category 1 over in VA during 2007, it'll be the worst hurricane ever and the worst hurricane season every.
From a practical consideration, the difference between a good hurricane season and a bad hurricane season is whether a category 3+ hurricane came to a neighborhood near you - or not. Unless you live on a barrier island where there really aren't such things as a good hurricane season.
On the other hand, I notice that you do seem to like parrotting climate audit...
The reason why those other studies all "back up" the Hockey Stick is caused by the facts that they all use a large number of the same proxies AND use Mann's PC1 as a proxy in its own right, with its massive overweghting of bristlecones intact. Since they use the same linear algebra as well, trained to the instrumental record, then its not surprising that they look similar.
No you haven't read the NAS Panel - you've parrotted the lies put on RealClimate, not even guessing that the objection made by qualified scientists were all censored.
If you had read the NAS Panel report, despite its flowerey language and bending over backwards to not reject the Hockey Stick, it upheld every single criticism made by Steve McIntyre: the non-independence of proxies, the inappropriateness of using PCA, the lack of transparency of data and methodology, the failure of the statistical significances, the lack of empirical demonstration that trees respond to temperature in the linear fashion assumed.
So those "other" studies all use the same flawed proxies, use flawed methodologies, hide their lack of statistical significance, misstate their true error bars ("floor to ceiling") and it doesn't matter because you'll believe every word.
I'm not parrotting Climate Audit - I've read the very reports that you are too afraid of reading for yourself, like the Wegman Report which called the Hockey Stick simply "Bad Science".
The correct response would be to dismiss the Hockey Stick and the other iterations and start again, but you're not going to. It's much easier going with the flow of sewage than getting out of it, isn't it?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question