Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"
dtjohnson writes "The National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during
the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led
to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square
kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received
emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered
regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns
out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking
sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it
is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice
extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so
the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."
Obviously not, too cold. The more astonishing the fact they can make such errors.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
"We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data."
And our historical data shows terrible calamity awaiting us at every turn, and even if reality doesn't bear this out, it makes sense that we should continue to sound the alarm because if we do decide to face reality people may not take us and our hysterical blatherings seriously.
We'd rather just keep on using outdated modes of measurement and forecasting that give incorrect results every year because the results fit our hypothesis better. And what better to support a hypothesis than data that will back it up?
From the summary:'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.'
What's the point of being consistent with a flawed methodology? I would have thought the thing to do would be to collect the new data, base newer model off that and then perform a statistically weighted correction to the older dater. Both data sets can be maintained if required.
Am not sure I see a point in consistency for consistency's sake, when you in the light of newer information you now know the original measurements are flawed.
Cheers,
Ian
FTA, "Some people might ask why we don't simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions
OK, I can see their point, but using the EOS sensor may have given pause to researchers doing a comparison to current conditions using the traditional sensor, i.e. cross-reference current conditions to be more confident that your data is correct. Nothing like screaming "the sky is falling" due to bad data. Any science experiment, especially one that can produce sensationalist news, should not just rely on one piece of data.
...the world to take global warming seriously, when these jokers are making such wildly inaccurate predictions based on obsolete technology?
Didn't anyone notice before this that the two data sources were giving inconsistent data? Shouldn't this have alarmed someone when AMSR-E gave its first results and they disagreed significantly with the old method? You'd think that comparison would be the first thing you'd do.
Its bad science like this that gives various talking head pundits the ability to totally disregard and blast climate change as bogus fear mongering.
C'mon guys, you have to do better than that.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
But, then, look at this:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
The result has direct connections to NASA-funded studies conducted last year that found perennial, or year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of nine percent per decade and that in 2002 summer sea ice was at record low levels. Early results indicate this persisted in 2003.
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
they already made.
Look, they made up their minds and damn it, facts are not going to get in the way.
Just be glad we have doubters and amateur scientists who call out crap for what it is. Maybe, just maybe, more people will come to realize just how bad of a model we are working with because all our facts aren't worth the paper their recorded on. Like any other bureaucracy stuff like this happens because no one wants to step forward to a) upset the status quo, b) take responsibility for a decision, c) work.
Just be glad it was caught. Just like people found temperature sensors in parking lots, readings duplicated across months, and other sorts of fun. The ineptness of some of so called scientific groups when it comes to climate science makes me wonder if we do proper vetting of who is getting the money.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
By calling them "deniers" what you're saying is that science should be thrown out the window. You do realise that science is about collecting evidence, forming a theory and then trying to disprove it.
What "alarmists" do which is the kind of science you support is to cherry pick unrelated events from around the world and scare people into agreeing with them for the purposes of making money off such schemes as carbon off setting.
This is one of those things that grabbed by the neck and whipped around like a dog shaking a dead squirrel by the "It ain't warming up" folks.
Maybe it's because we are tired of people (read: activists and politicians) trying to take away our rights based on bunk data.
Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This error relates to Jan/Feb 2009 only. The problem has been identified quickly. It will be fixed quickly. No big deal.
For the climate change deniers among you, this is how science is supposed to work. Scientist A says something, scientist B says "hang on my experiment gives different results", scientist A checks and says "sorry, yes, we goofed" and it gets fixed.
In this case, Scientist A said "Yes, we knew that, but that data shows that our historical data is flawed, so we decided not to use it."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"n May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' "
No they didn't.
They said it was a remote possibility.
This was taken up by the anti global climate change, altered, and then used to "prove" that global warming wasn't happening when it didn't happen.
The fact it is presented that way by the story submitter shows which way they think, and thus how reliable the overall story is.
Compare it to a game benchmark or whatever. You keep a standard, even if it's flawed, because that's the only way you get comparable results. You can't take a raw number for MIPS or millions of polygons/second or transactions per second or whatever the metric of choice is in your field (here, one is obviously ice sheath coverage) and use numbers from wildly different methods to even try to devise a historical trend. The value observed might not correlate exactly (or even very well) with old ones, but unless the flaws in the method cause great variability within that framework, the historical trends will still be accurate, or at least more accurate compared to what would happen if you changed your methodology each year and still tried to extract longer trends.
It might not be a good choice, and suggestions to run double series over the (short) timespan where overlapping data is indeed available would of course be better, but you can't just switch to the latest and greatest if you want some kind of consistency in your data.
This error relates to Jan/Feb 2009 only. The problem has been identified quickly. It will be fixed quickly. No big deal.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Now, I understand that scientists can be wrong. That's perfectly acceptable. We are all human, after all. However, based on the fact that scientists can be wrong, and in this case and many like it they are, I'm not willing to give up rights, like the ability to regulate the temperature in my own home or drive myself to work, based on data that can be, and in this case is, flawed.
There is a British "science writer" named Nigel Calder who claims that AGW is a huge fraud by the scientific establishment, and that counter-evidence is always suppressed. This little episode shows that Calder is speaking out of his anus, which means it may serve some useful purpose.
If this revelation were made in 2008, you'd have a point, but to make a prediction as dire as this one and then come out a year later and say "oops, the data was bad" a year after your prediction has been proved false proves Calder's point, not the other way around.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
When a new sensor is thought to have greater accuracy or reliabilty than an old one, but produces data which are not entirely consistent with the older one, it does NOT prevent use of the new sensor or meaningful use of data from both sensors. One standard technique is to employ both sensors simultaneously for some time - in other words, the two data series would overlap for that time. If both series show a downward trend in ice cover, then the trend probably real, even if they always disagree about the level of ice cover or the rate of decline. Over a sufficiently long time, it should be possible to build a model to quantitatively explain the difference in readings.
Come on, guys. There must be a few PhD theses waiting to be written on how to reconcile these instruments...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
There is a lot of people interested in denying climate change whatever it takes. Taking a single error from a single study about climate change as proof of a non-existent climate problem is obtuse. The global warming shows itself in so many ways that no one can tell it isn't happening at all. Of course we can sit to discuss how are we responsible for this change and how much of the change will occur as part of a natural process. But there is no such discussion. Instead you see a bunch of corporations claiming "there is no such climate change, let us keep burning oil".
_Leo_
You think unfettered consumerism is a human right?
No sig today...
However you feel about this issue, I think it is a bit weak to try and claim a change over 4 years constitutes a 'trend' when it comes to global climate data.
"On February 16, 2009, as emails came in from puzzled readers, it became clear that there was a significant problem--sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean."
So far there is no Scientist A or a Scientist B. There's a data gathering satellite and readers of the data.
I would love there to be a few decades of data gathering and analysis before the world takes steps. But we're being told we have to take action NOW. Damn straight you're going to get Climate Change Deniers.
Politicians grabbing for money and power using non-existent emergencies is a common occurrence throughout history. The earth turning into a desert wasteland is not. Which do you think is happening here?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Fuck. Yes.
Any other questions?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Yes, the earth is MUCH warmer than it used to be. 10,000 years ago my house was under a giant glacier. The ONE thing we can predict with accuracy regarding the earth's climate is that it WILL change. It has changed drastically in the past, and will continue to do so. Hell, we were in a mini-ice age as recent as the American Revolutionary war.
The argument that somehow man is responsible for the earth heating up by a few degrees C is ludicrous, and is just a tool being sharpened for global political control. He who controls energy production controls the world.
Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards",
Err... no. What I see looking at the data is two very low years: 2007 and to a lesser extent 2008. Calling that a "pretty obvious trend" nicely reveals your bias, but not much else. I could as easily say it is a "pretty obvious oscillation", as 2008 is "clearly" recovering from the 2007 perturbation.
I can see why the guys doing this aren't using the new data, as there is no way that there is adequate statistical power here to make a judgement about trends. Unfortunately, now that the old data have been shown to be badly flawed, the dire predictions of an imminently ice-free Arctic no longer have any very robust empirical support.
THIS is the way science works: you look at the evidence, squeeze it hard and see if it breaks. There is no doubt that the evidence for a soon-to-be-ice-free Arctic is broken. Ergo, the plausibility of dramatic climate change effects in our near future has gone down, no matter what anyone's politics drives them to prefer.
The only robust signal for global climate change I'm aware of is global ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing. However, given the number of reversals of supposedly robust results in the field of climate science I want to take a much closer look at those data before being convinced by them.
I used to be very concerned about global climate change, and in open-minded arguing with "deniers" I took a hard, critical look at the data and the models, because I wanted to find a compelling, unproblematic argument to convince my opponents, whom I credit with being able to change their minds when faced with the evidence. What I found was that neither the data nor especially the models stood up to professional scrutiny. There is good science being done, but it is not the kind of stuff you'd want to base public policy on.
There are good arguments for environmental policy that do not depend on the risk of global climate change, and the environmental movement is doing itself no good by linking policy and science together they way they have, so that people think "if there is no risk of global climate change then driving my SUV must be ok."
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
You think declaring activities are "unfettered consumerism" is a human right?
"They"
Yeah, it's "them", "they" are causing the problems!
Listen to yourself. Alternative explanations for climate observations are all testable, and many have been tested. They are NOTHING like creationism or intelligent design, which are anti-scientific nonsense.
Saying things like "variations in cosmic ray flux may result in long-term changes to Earth's albedo which could explain observed climate variations" is not anti-scientific nonsense. It is a perfectly plausible, testable hypothesis of the best scientific kind (I believe, in fact, that it has been tested and found wanting.)
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
You think the government has a better idea of what you need, or should be permitted, to purchase than you?
After the what?
The problem was only a few weeks old. They found it via their quality control measures. It effects one month out of thirty years of observation.
Their self-correction enhances, not destroys, their credibility.
As usual, ACC deniers are grasping at straws to pretend that there is some significant doubt about the conclusion that human activity is affecting the climate.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
...that consistancy with historical data is worthless if that data is wrong.
Using your game analogy, assume that the metric for video card speed was a specific timedemo for Game X. There exists framerate data for Game X going back 10 years, so it is nice for showing historical trends.
Then a bug is discovered in the game rendering engine that causes actual delivered framerate to be understated by somewhere between 20-50%.
Well guess what - your test is WRONG. And all that lovely historical data is worthless, no matter how pretty the graph.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Congratulations. You appear to have been the first person here to read beyond the flamebait summary and respond to the actual content. On a site full of people conditioned by years of rickrolling (and worse) to never RTFA, you sir, are a member of a rare and vanishing breed.
Keep up the good work.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I used to be skeptical of global warming myself (years ago), until I realized that the best the anti-HCGW crowd could offer as counter case was crap like this--the scientific analog of "Marty look, your shoe's untied."
On the one hand, tons of data, much of which is easily checked, and all of which hangs together to form a consistent picture, and on the other a hodge podge of nonsense that doesn't stand up to a moments scrutiny glued together with this sort of BS. They've gotten as bad as the anti-evolution people.
Coming up next, I fear:
GLOBAL WARMING WEBSITE ISN'T W3C COMPLIANT
How can we trust their climate data when
they can't even get their HTML/CSS right?
It's been interesting to track the Global Warming/Climate Change drift over the years on Slashdot. A couple years ago, it seemed prevailing opinion (measured by high moderation scores and # of comments) favored the "consensus" Anthropogenic Global Warming view of the scientific community.
However, looking at the more recent global warming related threads, the posts moderated with 5's seem to be more and more in the "Open-minded but skeptical" camp regarding the "consensus" view.
Is this due to a miscalibration in the sensors, or are we talking about a real opinion shift here?!?
You will find that all your points are being addressed. Why do you think there are research stations in Antarctica and Greenland? By the way, if you care to look at the thickness of the ice on the Antarctic or Greenland, you will I think agree that issues of topography and water table are somewhat irrelevant.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No, it means that because the new measurement methodology is so new they can't get any accurate trend and they will use continue to use the older method to estimate the trend. Once enough measurements using the new method are available they will certainly switch to it. You have to realize that any measurement has an uncertainty which can be quite high depending on what and how you are measuring. Once you get better measurement method you don't just throw away older measurements. Some conclusions drawn from it are still valid. In this case the method estimates the amount of ice. It might not get accurate results but it might show pretty well how fast the ice is shrinking.
Those guys did the right thing. They acknowledged an error and made an assessment of the quality of previous data and found that it is good enough to estimate trends. Before publication the study was reviewed by peers and found satisfactory. If in the future further evidence based on the new measurement method (or other methods) might confirm or not their assessment. That's how science works and evolves.
"Some people might ask why we don't simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions, it actually provides less accuracy on the long-term changes over the past thirty years. There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time periods. Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. With that in mind, we have chosen to continue using the SSM/I sensor, which provides the longest record of Arctic sea ice extent."
In other words:
"We don't want to use the more accurate sensor for our primary data collection because it doesn't generate the (inaccurate) results that we want so we can continue to get funding for AGW research!"
Saying every time "those ignorant buffoons who don't understand squat about climatology but feel like they are entitled to contest world-leading researchers because the latter ones' conclusions threaten the former ones' god-given right to $1/gal. gasoline" is kind of cumbersome. "Deniers" is a good description, which also captures the irrationality of climate-change deniers: you are yourself a good example of that:
I guess you're right. Stereotyping and dismissing your critics is much easier if you can use 1 word instead of a run-on sentence. But you can include multiple assaults on their character and motivations with a long description, as you have clearly demonstrated. Using that many words, though, you should have been able to mention something about SUVs and killing kittens.
That's quite some cloak-and-dagger Illuminati conspiracy theory you have there. If climatologists were that greedy, they would:
The OP said the kind of science you support, not that any large group supports. You are the one trying to put everybody into either the "altruistic brilliant scientists and supporters" or the "ignorant greedy superstitious hick" group.
The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
Clearly, that's just wrong. There seems to be a consensus that:
The rest is up for debate. In fact, in recent months many studies have demonstrated that it is likely that the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is methane from animals (primarily livestock like cows, pigs, sheep). Sure, that's because of human activity, too, but would you advocate cutting back on our food supply to (maybe) slow global warming? Because carbon taxes won't reduce methane.
This whole thing really has gotten too much like a religious debate (or a political debate, or abortion debate, whatever). It's really very frustrating. And it seems the two sides either want to stop burning fossil fuels or just do nothing. Since the prevalent opinion seems to be that warming is happening, maybe we should be thinking about how to prepare for that inevitability. I mean, isn't that a more reasonable approach than to undertake a massive effort to try to change the climate (or stop it from changing). Nobody is even sure if it can be done. But we can prepare. Humans have adjusted to changing climates before, and can again.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Thats when you have a foregone conclusion and cherry-pick the data to support it.
This is a prime example of the sort of rationalization that passes for denialist reasoning. When confronted with a huge mass of evidence supporting an unpalatable conclusion, they cherry-pick any error, no matter how small or irrelevant to the conclusion, and insist "if this is wrong, then maybe it is all wrong." Since in any human endeavor, there are always errors, it is always possible to rationalize away any conclusion that you prefer not to confront.
This is of course quite typical. The data in question is real-time, raw data. In most scientific enterprises, such data is kept private by the researchers until it can be cross-checked and validated. But in climate research there is a level of openness and public access that is almost unparalleled in science, with even preliminary data publicly available. Of course, the actual scientists know that such data is subject to revision and do not base important conclusions upon it. So the error has no impact on the conclusion that there is a long-term decrease in Arctic ice due to global warming. But that won't stop denialists from talking about it as though it invalidates everything.
Fearing the end of the world or a great disaster is not a religious belief as nearly as much as it is an externalization of the fear or death and a mental mechanism for realizing how little control you have over the world. It is like, the mind plays out, what is the worst that will happen, as if to remind you that your time is finite and you are not as powerful as you think.
If there was no belief in God, people would still have some show on about the end of the world. Indeed, some of the more popular documentaries now are about comets slamming into the earth, supervolcanos sending us into a snowball earth, giant tsumanis from islands falling into the ocean, mega earthquakes, the reactivation of the siberians traps, a supernova of a nearby star baking the earth with gamma radiataion, or a change in the density of intersteller dust that somehow screws up the solar system as the sun orbits the black hole in the center of the milky way. There's enough genuine geological catastrophe completely outside of our power to control that makes a fear of total disaster a reasonable thing, even if the daily risk is rather low. And against all that, what harm does it really do if some people say: "dear God, please don't slam a comet into the earth today, I have a little boy and love him." It can't hurt anything, if there is no God, and even if it isn't your bag, having someone else hedge humanity's bets on the divine for you isn't too bad of a gambling strategy either.
This is my sig.
I think that having the government not interfere in my affairs is a basic human right and so did the founding fathers of the United States of America. The fact that there are so many people who don't think that way disturbs me.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I posted up this thread commenting that the extent of the error had been misrepresented, and deliberately being sharply critical of AGW deniers and Nigel Calder in particular. During the period when it's mainly Europeans who post, this got moderated up to +3. Then the US started to come on line and it's now down to -1 troll. I don't know whether this is a more coordinated campaign by US lobbyists, now they've lost the election, or whether it's something in the US Zeitgeist at the moment, but at least on Slashdot my suspicion is that Europe is diverging from the US. It's really odd, when you consider that it means that some US Slashdot posters now prefer the views of largely unqualified journalists to mostly American scientists. Odd and depressing, given that other threads seem to have people with limitless belief in the capabilities of those scientists and engineers.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The science of climate change, by contrast, is on very solid theoretical footing; but sometimes every science has to deal with bad data, as in this case
The problem with climate science is ironically the same as the problem with economics. Chaos theory says pretty plainly that you will never have enough data to make an accurate prediction and for that reason, you have lost the ability to have a control.
I mean, the whole idea is that you can take a sort of an average of events and call that climate - like, sorta look at lorenz attractor and say "well, the average is this". But the thing is, that average is still pretty unstable and you can jigger it pretty easily, which is really where all the global warming alarm comes from.
In fact, the thing is, that economics cannot make accurate predictions should be the canary in the coal mine for climate science. Economic modelling is based on trying to understand coupled dynamic systems in the same kind of math that climate science is. Economics is just about people, and its continually wrong, so, how could climate ever really be right, when it considers not only the effect of people, but of the planet as a whole, and all the organisms responding to, and influencing climate, plus any number of celestial and geological unknowns.
This is my sig.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Actually, no. They didn't. It was people like you who said that they said that.
And congratulations on completely misrepresenting the current conclusion by the scientists, as well as the actual facts behind the conclusion. It's stupidity, ignorance and lies like this that demonstrate to me that a) global climate change is happening (otherwise there'd be better counter arguments floating around) and b) we're all doomed (you. duh.)
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
My karma for some mod points.
People just need to admit to themselves that it is OK to want to make changes to make their environment better for themselves and their fellow members of the species. It's not some selfish, evil desire. You don't have to hide behind the banner of "SAVING THE PLANET!".
Controlling pollution could lead to a better standard of living and lower health care costs.
Slowing the hemorrhaging loss of money to foreign countries that don't have our best interests in mind is a good thing.
Understanding that renewable resources are actually *gasp* renewable allows for more efficient and economical use of those resources. Understanding that there really is no such thing as a free lunch will let us choose which resources to make use of in a more logical and economical manner.
Also that conservation and stewardship (something which most "environmentalists" don't really understand) do not mean locking an environment into a state of stasis. All those brush fires in California? Well, if you don't burn off or clear out the little stuff before it accumulates you're going to get the big fires that have enough fuel to burn hot and long enough that the system can't withstand it and it gets wiped out. Even though you were "protecting" by not allowing anything to change.
And if someone could find compelling evidence that indicated global warming wasn't happening, that would be welcomed by the climate science community. New evidence that overturns an old understanding is the holy grail of science.
I'll grant you for a moment that the climate is warming.
If so, considering that the climate has been both significantly warmer and colder in recorded human history than it is now, why panic? Why the apocolyptic talk?
Past that, what are the upsides of global warming? A longer growing season would certainly be an asset. Rising ocean levels- if they occur- can be managed (ref: Netherlands).
What the true believers of AGW suffer from is a lack of faith in human invention, and an unbridled fear of change. I have seen proposals for trillion dollar projects to 'turn back the clock', when several billion in dikes and relocations would manage the problem.
Now, back to my point...
Even if you are as pure as the driven snow, AGW has been forever tainted by demands for control and taxation by those who think themselves our betters.
I will consider treating it as a crisis when AGWs biggest proponents treat it as a crisis. As long as UN AGW conferences are plagued by a shortage of private jet parking and Al Gore buys carbon credit indulgences from his own companies in order to 'justify' his rich lifestyle*, I'm pretty sure I'm being bullshitted somewhere down the line.
Your science and research, pure as the driven snow as it might be, is represented by these sorts of clowns. It is a stench you will never escape.
*I have no problem with his lifestyle, per se. It's the whole preaching-doom-and-gloom-to-us while-excusing-himself thing I have a problem with.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
This is live data. It hasn't been QC'd or checked and therefore never got into ANY paper. The QC'd data that did get used will have an explanation of how they ratified the data as useful.
But this data? Never got into any paper. Which quite obviously excludes any paper telling how there's an error in it...
I have a simple metric to determine whether someone pushing "global warming panic" is really serious about CO2 emissions:
Do they favor nuclear power?
It is flatly impossible for someone to be serious about reducing CO2 and oppose nuclear power. They can assert their seriousness all they like, and they can, indeed, be quite convinced they are right, and be quite emotionally attached to the proposition.
Seriousness, however, means that one takes the effort to be informed.
And unless you have kids yourself, you'll never understand why we need to filter porn on the Internet.
Look I agree with you on the limited use of DDT for disease control. And unlike the grandparent post, I know that such use is still allowed.
I'm not a big fan of emotional manipulation though. My wife barely survived a bout with malaria in Madagascar (plus 2 relapses). But I know that doesn't make me informed on all the various aspects of DDT regulation.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
We're fucking sick of posting the same links over and over, refuting the same tired points over and over, and in general we're sick of people with no scientific training asking the same simplistic questions over and over and over again. Basically we're sick of getting trolled.
People: if you know more about the climate than the scientists do, publish your findings and get rich and famous. Best of luck!
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.