Slashdot Mirror
Climate Researchers Fight Back
tomduck writes "The Guardian reports that climate researcher Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post newspaper in Canada in a libel action for publishing 'grossly irresponsible falsehoods.' The Post claimed he cherrypicked data to support his climate research, and tried to blame the 'evil fossil fuel' industry for break-ins at his office in 2008 to divert attention from mistakes in the 2007 IPCC report. This comes fast on the heels of another Guardian article describing lessons learned from the exoneration of UEA scientists involved in the so-called Climategate affair. Are climate scientists finally fighting back against their critics, who they were previously more inclined to ignore?"
Real climate scientists have been fighting for years... It is the climate evangelists that have been ignoring everyone else up until now.
So you could say that... the situation between climate scientists and the anti-climate-change crowd is heating up?
IMHO, if the guy's data is on target, it should stand on it's own without needing backup via lawsuits.
The National Post is Canada's newspaper equivalent to the US Fox TV news... We don't have an equivalent right-wing TV news. The Post has been bashing the notion of climate change (and other liberal facts they don't like) here for quite a while. I suspect this case won't really go anywhere, but it is interesting.
It is good peer reviewed journal articles and making the data available for public scrutiny that will determine right from wrong, in as far that there is a right from wrong in such matters - I doubt a court room would come close to what other scientists can do to each others work. Do they really think a lawyer could even get close to understanding the statistical models these guys use? The other issue is public perception and the potential damage false accusations can inflict. And I also doubt that a court room would appease public sentiment. I can understand why they might feel aggreaved and hope they win - I just don't think the excercise will cover the big issues.
Said Canada's environment minister John Baird in 2006. He then proceeded to eviscerate all government funding for climate research.
i consider removing data points because they don't fit the proposed model as lying.
"exoneration of UEA scientists"
No one is buying the white wash. Just so you know.
Are climate scientists finally fighting back against their critics, who they were previously more inclined to ignore?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
Is a game that once you start to play, everyone loses, including you, and everyone you ever care about. Rigging or making look rigged climate data is a move in a very similar game in the potential final consequences, but yet some people try to play that game,
They had 1 day of testimony. And their results still aren't reproduceable.
That doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, but UEA can't prove it's happening.
The national post are already bankrupt, so whatever they have to pay out will come from their backers - the oil industry - which means we'll all pay for this needless dalliance with truth and justice. Look at how much the oil industry have had to pay to take over governments, dismiss science, and promote "the responsible truth as it pertains to the maintenance of oil industry profits". It's not like they dig this money of the ground - they extract it from you and I. The longer you resist, the more you will suffer.
there was no 'climagate' but private interests and right wing news organizations (ie fox news) picking and exaggerating on some piece of criticism in climate research. the kind of inside criticism in scientific community which is not only normal, but generally mandated to be there, in order for a research to be considered valid and scientific.
the same kind of news organizations which easily went as far to say 'what global warming, it is snowing here' while doing serious news pieces.
Read radical news here
We're spending so much on climate research and exactly how much on planning for the fallout?
Man made or not, climate change is inevitable, history proves it. Where is the best use of the billions going to research the cause?
I'd think some planning and building and maybe even relocating would be a good idea.
In climate data, that "suggests" global warming, and then the assumption that it is our doing. Yes I know industry releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but considering the short time that we have been monitoring climate data as a species can we really make the statement that we are responsible for global warming based on the current length we have been keeping climate data? For all we know the climate shifts in this manner on it's own. We know the poles have shifted before, and will in all probability do it again, this global warming could be just a precursor to this, or who knows what. Could be nothing. I believe that global warming is happening, but I'm not ready to jump on a band wagon and shout that it is our fault without more data to back up that claim.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Anyone that's done a little research knows the scientists there really did some questionable stuff. They would also know that they've (CRU/IPCC) been taken to task by others in the scientific community for doing so. This suit is about bad journalism. But it does not change the facts about the shenanigans at the CRU.
addition to the parent AC:
how funny is it to consider that if the temperatures did rise, people would be still using the term GLOBAL WARMING. the dangers of correlation as causation and the politicizing of science.
people have been lousy at predicting weather for hundreds of years... but human arrogance knows no bounds (especially when propaganda movies are involved).
How dare you, using the word 'loose' correctly like that on /.? Astounding arrogance, who do you think you are?!
You can't handle the truth.
You mean like Ross McKitrick? Or do you perhaps mean one of the guys who actually manages to be less qualified, less prominent, and less competent than even McKitrick?
Let anyone say anything. HOWEVER, the media should be required to state clear disclaimers before reporting "facts" which they have not attempted to verify.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
...libtard slashdolts...
Ad hominem attack
-the so called climate research data is corrupt and is a geopolitical hoax
Unsubstantiated ad hominem attack indirectly attacking the honesty of scientists.
-the perpetuation of this faux science was simply to perpetuate funding streams...
Ad hominem attack, questioning the motivations of scientists.
-the prime motivation is still what its always been, the create new financial "tools"
Again, an ad hominem attack, seemingly attacking the motivations of scientists.
Now as one measely volcano on the surface of a planet full of them spews ash into the sky and shuts down northern europe for a week with no ability to really know what the future brings in regard to more ash and sun blocking, volcanism and solar activity have become the obvious answers to climate drivers for even the most intellectually challenged on the street.
I'm not sure what a single volcano does to undermine the idea of greenhouse gas forcing. This statement is a muddled red herring.
All of course except for the so called "scientists" who are really nothing but massage artists and belong working in a brothel
Ad hominem attack on scientists. Working in a brothel??!!! WTF
What has been will always will be in human terms you fucking ninnies and I fucking told ya so.
Grammatically nonsensical sentence.
If this incoherent rant is what passes for a score 5 Interesting comment on Slashdot, I have something to say to the moderators. This is a troll comment.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I'll have to paraphrase, but there's a saying that you should have run into throughout your many years of Slashdotting: "Never blame conspiracy when incompetence is just as plausible." Your theory is so absurd that that it's lacks any credibility. A global scientific conspiracy motivated and funded by . . .?????? The nice thing about science is that it's not your encyclopedia or a journal or the consensus opinion of a handful of professors, science is a method for discovering knowledge. Not all knowledge is obtainable but when it comes to physical phenomena the scientific method has proven itself to be the most reliable path to understanding.
Climate scientists work within the framework of the scientific method to understand a system so complex that it is really impossible to understand 100%. But their research brings them much closer to understanding how the earth's climate functions than you or I could ever know. When studying basic logic one learns that when trying to assess a case that is beyond one's understanding it is best to 1) rely on expert opinion if there is a consensus or near-consensus 2) suspend belief if expert opinion is deeply divided 3) become an expert yourself through years of research.
Your conclusion that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy is illogical because #1 is the case, there is a near consensus among climate researchers that humans are accelerating climate change by way of pollution and the effects on future generations could be catastrophic. Because #1 is true we know #2 is false. I'm assuming #3 is also false because if you were an expert in the field and you truly believed the crap in your post you wouldn't be posting as an AC and you would have actual evidence to back up your claims rather than just wild speculation.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
> I don't give a crap about the "climate evangelists" (whatever exactly that is).
I know who they are, they usually hang out in fields scaring crows.
Any AGW scientist who isn't completely transparent in their research gets no trust from me. When scientists play politician, people will lose trust. They should be researching, educating, and advising-- not politicizing science.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
People need to understand the National Post. It is a prominent and important national paper in Canada, but it is a bit like Fox in the U.S.
It was created and payed for by Conrad Black - a well know Canadian Conservative (bit and little 'c') who I believe is still in jail - specifically in order to promote his Conservative values. He was very clear about this (I personally heard him articulate this in a TV Ontario interview by Steve Pakin) and about his disdain for any attempt at objectivity in journalism.
So, the idea that the National Post would concern itself with journalistic standards does not make sense in light of its genesis.
red shift is centrist
Funny, I always saw red shift as moving toward the left...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You're exactly right except everything you just said was wrong :).
The globe is still warming and it's well known not to be caused by volcanism and solar activity because:
1. Volcanoes are known to release about 1% as much CO2 as humans release into the atmosphere. There are other things that volcanoes release, but those tend to cool things down, so they can't cause warming.
2. The amount of energy coming from the sun has been steady, or slightly decreasing, for the last 40 years. So that couldn't cause the warming.
From the story title I was expecting a group of scientists in lab coats karate kicking an iceberg back to the south pole.
Boy, was I disappointed.
In this case, frankly, it doesn't matter what the newspaper is. If they truly libeled the guy, then they should pay for that. If not, then they're free to publish whatever they want.
I can only say that it's good that this has finally landed in a court, so that the issue can be resolved with all due diligence, rather than by a mob with torches and pitchforks acting on the heat of the moment. Whatever decision comes out of it, I'll trust it much more than any /. speculation, whichever way it is slanted.
Um, why don't you go to their website and download their data and models and do just that? Contrary to what you may have heard, they released all the data they were allowed to. There was data that was owned by various governments that it was illegal for them to release, but everything else was released. Sure, you won't understand it because you don't have the education, but when has that stopped you from commenting before? :)
If a fact has been altered, is it still a fact? Or does it become an opinion at the point that is it altered?
Using temperature data as an example, raw data as recorded by stations is a fact but after it has been altered to account for urban heat island effect, more temp sensors in the city than in the country or any other data, would it not become the theory of the person who altered the data?
Aaron Z
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
Cow farts have also increased over the past 100 years, due to the fact that there are more and bigger cows. How do we know global warning is not due to bovine activity? To say nothing of cow, sheep, and termite farts!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Weather control device activated.
We're pwned
So if it's true, then the NP has nothing to fear. So why is taking the National Post to court wrong?
Either NP have lied in which case you agree that they have committed an actionable act or they've told the truth, in which case, the NP have nothing to fear going to court.
Not true. The headline for this article says that the UEA were exonerated and I don't believe it at all.
As I said when climategate first started, this is only the beginning of the end. There is much more that has come out recently and there will be more in the future. You'll know when the end is near when the RWP, MWP and LIA are restored in the climate history. It was pure hubris that removed them from the record. I'm sure most of the climate scientists would like things to go back to 2008, a banner year to be sure, but if you want to repack an opened can of worms, you're going to need a bigger can.
Glad to see that almost no one is using the term 'climate change' anymore. There is nothing to be ashamed about when using the term 'global warming', if that is what you believe in.
Way back in the last millenium, I attended a seminar put on by Dr. Weaver. At that time, he was an untenured professor doing climatology. Dot Com was about to explode and oil was less than $15/barrel. Nobody except a few grad students like myself knew or cared about his research.
He reported on ice core drilling in Greenland and mentioned that periods where the average temperature was higher coincided with a higher standard deviation in temperature. In other words, when the average temperature is warmer, the variability of the weather increases. Coupled with climate theory that predicts increasing temperature with increasing CO2 concentration, you get a pretty reasonable argument that the weather is going to get bad in the future.
At that time, he was part of a research institute and what he had to say was just part of his research. He was doing his job and didn't have any incentives from any lobby groups outside academia because at that time, there weren't any. There were no Wall Street backroom boys slipping him dollars, nor was any greenwash organization encouraging him.
I have a hard time believing he falsified data given the circumstances and time. If you are still skeptical, I encourage you to try reading some of the papers he put out or contact him or the climatology center to get a look at the data.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Point A:
Let's dispense with any questions about whether so called "greenhouse gases" can actually cause the "greenhouse" effect.
Scientists can produce the greenhouse effect in laboratories. This is not speculation, this is empirical evidence. A little knowledge of chemistry (which I believe is still considered "hard" science), and you can understand why. Without the "greenhouse" effect life would not exist on Earth, but would simply be a frozen rock. The greenhouse effect is what keeps the planet warm. We also know empirically that the more CO2 and/or methane that is pumped into a closed system, the greater the effect. Again, this is all elementary earth science. If one is ignorant (or in denial) enough to dispute that there is such an effect, then there is really no point in discussing the issue father, because in their case, facts don't matter.
Point B:
We know that certain activities produce greenhouse gases. Burning fossil fuels, cows farting and others all generate quantifiable amounts of CO2 and methane. Again, this is not in question. This can be, and has been proven in laboratories many times. We can also calculate how much CO2 is produced each year though surveying the amount of fossil fuels consumed, so there is no wiggle room here either.
Point C:
We know plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. We can also, without doing any guesswork, quantify how much CO2 is absorbed by the density of plant life across the globe. We know without a doubt that the amount of plant life is decreasing as the area of rainforest is decreasing at the rate of about 30 million acres per year. Therefore, it is an absolute fact that the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plant-life is decreasing at an alarming rate. Again, no one (in their right mind) can argue with this fact.
I'm sorry, but there is just no reasonable justification for denying that there is an increasing greenhouse effect taking place on Earth and that humans are contributing to it. Even if you choose to ignore the measurements taken over the last several years that show the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing and write it off as a natural cycle of the earth. Points A through C are not disputable. Even if there is a natural cycle taking place, wouldn't it be prudent (knowing points A though C) to try and slow the process down by limiting the amount of emissions and reversing the deforestation?
Do people really have to shoot themselves in the head to know that a bullet going through soft brain tissue is likely to cause some damage?
I'm all for a healthy debate, but can we check ignorance and stupidity at the door please?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
They should have just accused him of being chinese.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
As the article you linked to says, this has already been accounted for and it accounts for something less than 18% of the greenhouse effect. It's well known how effective each greenhouse gas is - that's just everyday physics and has been tested in labs and known for decades. CH4 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but there's much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere than CH4. So CO2 causes more warming than CH4. Now no one says that CH4 isn't a problem, it is. But CO2 is well known to be a bigger one.
http://www.venganza.org/2008/04/14/somalia/
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
I do not envy Mr. Weaver in this case. IANAL but as I understand Canadian libel law, not only must he prove false claims were made, he must also prove they did damage to his reputation. So he will essentially be required in open court to trash himself.
In addition, I believe this sort of lawsuit is counter productive. I agree that the science should stand on its own, and now, despite his lawyers claims that the libel has 'gone viral,' the supposedly libelous story will witness a new level of exposure.
Also, according to the article, he is suing the paper, three writers and will attempt to sue commentors on the paper's website. I say to him, good luck.
Are climate scientists finally fighting back against their critics, who they were previously more inclined to ignore?"
Because the last thing you'd ever expect a scientist to do is something as silly and irritating as respond to criticism.
You can't verify the results without all the data, so a partial release is about as worthless as no release at all.
That has been the problem, it's not joe-public who needs the data, it's scientists who have not been allowed to view all the data, which hamstrings the entire peer-review process. You can't review their methods if you don't have access to the data they used, plain and simple.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I've seen those Greenland ice core temperature graphs; they don't look good for AGW alarmists, which is probably why you never see them. They show that temperatures were significantly warmer about 15 thousand years ago than they are today, followed by a slow, steady decline. There is a significant dip that coincides with the "Little Ice Age", then a fast rise to current levels, which are still within the limits of the original steady decline, if a touch on the high side.
They basically show little to no link between humans and climate, at least for the European area, which is where you would naturally expect to see it the most (though if temperatures continue to rise for too much longer, that goes bust).
The core data for the 50 thousand years prior to that is even more impressive - temperatures changed by massive amounts over the course of hundreds of years. The temperature readings for the last 15 thousand years are a bunch of short peaks and valleys, showing the temperature fluctuations, while during the ice age temperature changes were much smoother but much more drastic. It's no wonder so many species went extinct (including several species of humans).
Frankly, I'd much rather have the minor fluctuations of a warm period than the steady but drastic changes of a cold period. To give you an analogy, it's like the difference in frequency of AM radio compared to FM - One is long and smooth with huge variations, the other is tighter with small but very quick fluctuations.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Congratulations! You've just committed the well known (though still often used) fallacy known as "Poisoning the Well".
Just because the National Post is a dirt-bag organization (I have no idea if they are or aren't, just making a point) does not have any bearing on the validity of their statements.
It does not mean you can dismiss their statements out of hand, it simply means you need to approach their "facts" with a healthy dose of skepticism. The less trustworthy they are, the bigger your dose. ;)
This same fallacy is often committed on Slashdot with regards to Fox News. In other forums this happens with CNN and MS-NBC or the BBC, or just about any newspaper or news magazine or news organization. Having a bias does not invalidate the arguments at all, and merely claiming that they have a bias does not invalidate any of their arguments either. It is disingenuous to dismiss an argument out of hand for no reason other than the source of the argument.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Not to mention that CH4 stays in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks or so. If you stop putting it into the atmosphere, it disappears pretty quickly.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Why can't they get the data by buying it from the various countries' Met offices? All the climate scientists can buy that data, what's prohibiting these others? Many of these other scientists get plenty of funding from the energy companies, so it's not like they couldn't afford it. If the Met offices won't sell the data to the other scientists, then the beef should be with the various Met offices. If these scientists don't like paying for the data, they should talk to their respective governments. Governments seem to want the Met offices to support themselves by selling this weather data and they're the ones that won't let it be released.
Or are you saying that any climate scientist needs to subsidize every other scientist that wants to use this data? I'm not in the climate field, but if anybody told me that I had to pay for other scientists to get computer time in order to check my work, I'd be plenty pissed.
The only other alternative would be that you'd prefer that this data just not be used. But that would hamstring science.
The fact is that at least a good number of anti-AGW scientists do have access to this data and they still haven't find anything profoundly wrong with the results from the mainstream climate scientists. And haven't for decades. This isn't to say they haven't done any good. It's healthy in science to have skeptics, as long as they are capable of understanding the science.
I don't think that there should be any long term correlation between humans and climate because the bulk of growth has happened in the last 50 years.
As for core data, it is not the actual temperatures but the variance of temperatures that is of concern. If I remember the seminar correctly, a comparison was made between temperature deviations back in the 90s and in a period where the temperature was 2C warmer. Standard deviation was much higher during the warm period, indicating more severe weather changes.
If more relevant data exists now, then colour me stupid. But for the moment, I am assuming that less carbon means less weather fluctuation. If I am wrong, all it means is that my bank account is smaller.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Do you know who else threw around the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy like a red-headed newborn baby out of a highrise window?
Hitler did.
I posted this on the CBC news website:
Okay, I'm going to try to do a bit of an analysis of Weaver's claim. Now, I am not a lawyer - I'm a writer, a researcher, a publisher, and I work part-time doing writing and editing for a faculty of law. So, any errors are my own.
This is essentially a far-reaching libel claim. This means that two things have to be proven: first, that the National Post made a deliberate misrepresentation; second, that the Post did so with malice - they did it specifically to cause harm. If both can't be proven, the claim doesn't stand in court.
So, Weaver is launching a two pronged attack here - the first is against the Post itself for certain articles. The second is against some of the posters commenting on those articles.
First, the National Post itself: this will become a battle of sources. If the Post defends itself on that one, it will attempt to demonstrate that Weaver did say those things, and he's actively trying to rewrite history. So, the Post will have to bring out original rough notes for the articles to back-date Weaver's comments. So long as they can do that, even if the Post did say something wrong, then they can demonstrate that the errors were not deliberate, and the libel claim will fail.
Second, the NP forum posts: this one strikes me as a boneheaded move, frankly. There is simply no way to prove that the forum posters made any deliberate misrepresentations. Even if some of the comments were vicious, there isn't any way to demonstrate that an anonymous voice on a forum was knowingly lying.
Finally, malice: again, another very difficult thing to prove. This would require a paper trail or somebody able to testify that there was a targeted attack. Right now, the claim itself has innuendo, but not a trail to prove an attack.
For those who want to take a close look of their own, the claim is at http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/andrew%20weaver%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
"Sometimes scientific theories turn out wrong" is just as meaningless and empty a statement about global climate change as "sometimes scientific theories turn out to be right". I could say laypersons doubted heliocentrism, plate tectonics, and evolution too. Would that prove global warming is real?
Certainly, your list of "scientific theories" is dubious at best. Flat earth and phrenology aren't scientific ideas by any standard and cold fusion and N-rays were discredited less than a year after they were publicized.
Yes, their results are reproducible. The evidence clearly shows that global warming is happening. Quit being a fucking idiot.
Clever signature text goes here.
Why do I feel a "chilling effect"?
"McConchie Law said it was seeking an "unprecedented" court order that would require the newspaper to help Weaver remove the articles from across the internet. Media law experts said that such demands were becoming increasingly common in complaints to publishers, but this could be the first time they were tested in court."
Using the legal system to silence or punish your intellectual opponents does wonders for your credibility...
Liberty in your lifetime
that was quite enlightening. thanks.
Read radical news here
all i see here is, unbridled capitalism infiltrating and skewing judicial system in america as well as anything else. and its bad. the one with the most money buys the law, literally.
Read radical news here
Astrology!
Our modern day climate researches want:
1. Fame
2. Power
3. Money
not in that order.
What about ... Climate?
What about ... Science?
Our modern day climate scientists disdain such because they desire to be the fairest of the Pharaoh's Advisors, whose bearth-right is to devine the fortune and extole the grander of the Pharaoh.
Just ask the Grand Inquisitor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, the Favored of the Pharaohs.
Generating CO2 is just one of many ways that man can affect the climate, there are several other gases that strongly attenuate IR, all sorts of aerosols and don't get me started about contrails.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
"A new ruling by the Supreme Court in Canada will allow journalists and bloggers greater protection from defamation lawsuits, establishing the new defence of responsible journalism.
If sued for defamation, journalists will be able to defend themselves by proving that they acted in the public interest and that they acted in a responsible way to gather the information. This rule will still apply even if particular facts are found to be false." - Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Press Freedom"
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/09/the-new-defense-of-responsible-journalism
Sure they are. Just not for grants from politicians.
So, they've published the method by which they modified the raw temperature data? Last thing I heard, they'd lost it.
Pro global-warming climate scientists have been hiding away in the closet for decades.
Fighing battles in court for years on end to keep their research data secret from prying, undeserving eyes.
Acting like the all knowing high priests of a cult of earth salvation, where the ignorant masses are required to put their blind faith into the words of that cult, which at times seems more geared towards the occult, than to the laws of reason.
I for one accept the notion that the earth's climate is warming up and that man has a role to play in that.
But the abysmal arrogance of many in the climate community is at times bewildering to me.
They are being paid with taxpayer money for their research, yet they file lawsuits to keep their data hidden aways a "private intellectual property"?
They gather away at closed door international meetings, with politicians and leaders of industry, where they elect non-scientific spokespeople and political appointees to make deals that affect us all - and those deals are then presented to the general public in a "take it or leave it" kind of way.
Researches who "fudge" their data, and claim they have a right to do so, because they think they are entitled to "correct nature" when it fails to confirm their predictions.
More than once I thought that its the climate researches who are the heirs of the tobacco industry in this fight.
Free will is the illusion that our wits could compensate for our brain's faulty circuitry.
See subject. Not difficult.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Why do you think people go into science, particularly academic science? It doesn't pay all that well--you don't make the sort of money that you could make as, say, a lawyer. Most scientists live pretty modestly.
People go into science because they are fascinated with discovery, with learning new truths about the world. So what would you say about a scientific career dedicated to knowingly maintaining and promulgating a falsehood? Ask any scientist, and he will tell you that it is pretty close to his idea of Hell.
Yet the global warming deniers want us to believe that not one or two, but hundreds of scientists in countries all over the world are doing just that, and indeed are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain this falsehood. Why? So that they can continue to get more research funds to continue researching something that they know is wrong.
That is idiotic.
If CO2 makes it so that heat is kept on the planet instead of going out into space, then that means that the satellites would get an infrared reading lower then what is actually on the ground. So that means to correct the data to see what they actual ground temperatures are, they would have to assume that carbon dioxide is preventing heat from escaping and add in the lost heat. So doesn't that mean that their assumption that Carbon Dioxide is warming the planet has skewed their data collection?
Given how many climate scientists refuse to release their raw data, the discovery portion of a US civil trial would be extremely interesting.
Sun spots are predicting much colder winters IMMEDIATELY you can bank on that !!!
Global Warming/Climate Change/Furless Monkeys is nonsense !
Animals have fur even in the tropics because COLD is more DANGEROUS then HEAT !!
Humans don't have fur because they are intelligent enough to behave totally illogically if they choose and they LIE a LOT -- THUS, we don't have fur !!!
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
That's because you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. The former is far easier to make intelligent predictions about than the latter. You can think of climate as the global, long-term average of local, short-term weather. This is why 2009 can be tied for the warmest year on record AND have record-breaking snowfall during the blizzard in the mid-Atlantic US states that year.
Think of it like baseball. It's far easier to predict what someone's batting average will be like next year than it is to predict whether they will hit the ball on their next swing. Whether a person hits the ball or not has a lot of uncertainty, but the batting average is a clear predictive trend.
That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it.
You're confusing science "journalism" for science. That's a huge mistake that has unfortunately clouded many public policy-science debates. The list of sins by science reporters against public understanding of science are frankly too long to enumerate here. Just because newspapers want a sensational story doesn't mean that actual academics are in huge disagreement.
Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.
This is another example of another tempest in a teacup created by the media and people with a political axe to grind.
The "hide the decline" fiasco originated in an attempt to deal with a specific set of tree ring temperature proxy data that does not match actual temperatures on record. Proxy records are used for approximation and aren't perfect, and it's well known that after 1960 latewood tree rings show a decline in temperatures despite the fact that all of our other records, including direct temperature measurements by thermometers, show a trend of warming.
That's the "decline" that was being "hidden." Not an actual decline in temperatures -- a false decline from bad proxies. You don't stick with bad data when you have proof its bad. (Unless you're one of these types who actually prefers tree rings to thermometers or who just desperately clings to *any* data that conforms to your world-view no matter its relative merit.)
You can read more about it here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So you agree that all those AGW advocates who attack every opponent by questioning their objectivity and ethics ("he's paid by Big Oil, that's all you need to know") or calling them idiots or worse, are in the wrong. That those who react to every letter in the editor in the local paper that questions AGW with a vitriolic response questioning the author's parents and lineage are behaving poorly.
Yes. I'd agree. Partisan idiocy is partisan idiocy no matter the party or position.
I know who you thought you were attacking, but the facts show that the opponents to AGW are a lot more civil about it than most advocates.
Could you show us those "facts?"
What you're probably experiencing is selection bias. Your favored news sites, blogs, etc. that cater to a more "skeptical" crowd probably tend to receive much more polite responses from people who agree with the position than don't. On the other hand, if you favor "believer" sites, you'll tend to see more polite responses from people who agree with that position and more trolling / hate from the opposite. Compare the comments section on Fox News's website v. Huffington Post after a climate change story runs, and you'll see the population difference. Also, you could simply be remembering idiocy from people who disagree with you more because it riles you up more. People tend to focus on the negative in their memories.
If you've got an objective, demographic study that actually show that as a population, one side is more vitriolic than the other, than I'd love to it, but I'm going to have to be a little skeptical about it until then.
For the advocates, the debate is OVER, the FACTS are the FACTS, there is no room for doubt, and anyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragger.
Well, the scientific literature *is* pretty conclusive if you've dug into it deeply. I'll say that most people who believe climate change is happening *haven't* and are just appealing to authority, much like the people they bash.
It's like the evolution debate. The science is solid and clear and supported by 99% of the people working in the field. However, the main "debate" largely rages on both sides between in the uninformed masses of people who aren't scientists and who are just repeating catechisms at each other.
The pseudo-skeptics...
Yes, such a civil response, you can't even admit they exist.
That depends on how you're using the word. There's a difference between a "skeptic" and a "denier." A skeptic questions a position and wants to find out the truth. They will work to try to find that answer and can be won over if the facts suggest their position is wrong.
However, most laymen on both sides of the AGW "debate" are just believers and anti-believers attempting to thump dogma with little regard for truth-seeking beyond gratifying their own confirmation bias. Those people aren't skeptics no matter what their stance is.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
But that's grant money, as in money they don't get to take home with them. It's only use is to fund their research (pointless if the field is just made up), and to increase their standing with the university.
You're missing his point. It doesn't matter that you don't get to take the grant money home. What matters is that without the grant money to support your research, you don't have a job to justify the separate salary that you do get to take home. No grant money; no research; no justification for employing you. The scale doesn't matter -- merely the dependency on attention / approval from the right people to keep your job.
Not that I'm of the opinion in the slightest that climate change is all cooked up just to get grant money from whatever liberal overlords want to fund it for whatever mysterious purposes AGW deniers concoct in their fevered nightmares of government control. I'm just not going to go so far as to whitewash the fact that research is sometimes driven by concerns of whether or not one can get funding to actually do it. The need to earn a modest salary to make ends meet as a middle-class academician is arguably a far more powerful motivator than seeing another few points on oil investments that just buy luxuries for a rich man. (Hence why many scientists turn into industry shills, actually.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Having a bias does not invalidate the arguments at all, and merely claiming that they have a bias does not invalidate any of their arguments either. It is disingenuous to dismiss an argument out of hand for no reason other than the source of the argument.
Actually, that's just not true in reality. It's more true of people making cases, but less true people stating "facts" (where facts may be true or false). If you've got someone who you know from experience often reports false facts, it's perfectly reasonable to ignore their facts since constantly checking them is more than any sensible person can or should do.
Or do you check the National Enquirer each week to see what they've erroneously reported? Because, hey, just because they've been wrong two thousand weeks in a row, it doesn't mean that they'll be wrong this week.
(Also, for the record, what the grandparent said wasn't exactly poisoning the well. There's a world of difference between questioning the reliability of a source legitimately and smearing the source on unrelated or unsubstantiated grounds. Hell, you've just as much "poisoned the well" (the grandparent) as the grandparent did.)
Yes, some people may benefit from global warming, particularly those that live in northern climates, which may experience a longer growing season.
Who loses? People who live near the oceans (where most major US major cities reside). People who live in countries that currently have a temperate climate and as a result enjoy high agricultural productivity (the United States for example).
No, because it isn't true. The original raw data is still where it always was--in the possessions of the meteorological services that acquired it. Anybody who bothered to look into the issue at all quickly learned that CRU never had the original raw data--just copies, so they were never in the position to delete the original data even if they wanted to.
You might want to think about who told you this falsehood, and what their motivation might be to lie to you in this way.
No, they didn't lose anything. You are thinking about the "raw data deleted" nonsense, which is in fact just another lie. A small part of a local copy of some raw data was deleted to save space when moving. But the original raw data was still at the place they licensed it from. So no, they haven't lost anything.
Clever signature text goes here.
So how do you get from the raw to the modified data?
What on earth are you talking about?
Clever signature text goes here.
I actually work in an area of climate research in Australia. We are pressured to tow the government line on global warming or else face hardships in the workplace by upper management.
Most researchers I have worked with agree that most of the changes in climate are natural with some influences by humans such as land clearing and soot on ice.
Please do not judge all of us by the policy makers of the IPCC and the United Nations. We want more transparency and would like to have our findings replicated by other parties but unfortunately, we are constrained by bureaucracy and politics.
Climategate was the best thing that ever happened to climate research. Hopefully, we can improve processes to create a more open environment in climate research.
Thank you all for taking interest in the subject.