Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Cleared of Misusing Global Warming Data
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The NY Times reports that an inquiry by the Commerce Department's inspector general has found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data (reg. may be required) to buttress evidence in support of global warming after climate change skeptics contended that e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity. 'None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA's understanding of climate change science,' says Mary Glackin, the agency's deputy undersecretary for operations. The inquiry, requested last May by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who has challenged the science underlying human-induced climate change, comes at a critical moment for NOAA, as some newly empowered Republican House members seek to rein in the EPA's plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, often contending that the science underpinning global warming is flawed. Inhofe says the report (PDF) was far from a clean bill of health for the agency, and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists 'engaged in data manipulation.'"
Is there enough statistically significant clear, objective data that is available to be verified that indicates anything with any amount of confidence?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Regardless of the validity of the data or their conclusions, I think the price of oil is going to reign in those pesky greenhouse gas emissions for us.
I'm pretty sure you'd die of asphyxia if you tried to read that opening sentence aloud. Holy run-on sentence, copyeditman.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The discrepancy doesn't appear to pertain to any climate data or research. Kind of seems like grasping at straws if you want to refute the academic credibility of the entire field (or for that matter, even that one researcher).
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
1/ do this experiment for yourself (this is known for over a century) :
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
2/ can you prove me how humans don't increase CO2 in the atmosphere like this :
gas/oil/wood/coal/... + O2 --> CO2.
Climate Audit is hardly accurately representing the situation itself (scientists conference call with attorney, misremember who actually gave what advice, are corrected by same attorney). The earth-shattering, agency-destroying advice of the report is:
"Given that federal agencies are legally obligated to publicly disclose records under FOIA, we recommend that NOAA carry out a proper search for the records sought in these FOIA requests and, as appropriate, reassess its response. Additionally, given the issues we identified in NOAA's handling ofthese particular FOIA requests, NOAA should consider whether these issues warrant an overall assessment ofthe sufficiency of its FOIA process.".
I'll just leave this here.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
“It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze,” he said, referring to an employee’s failure to provide material related to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a different body that compiles research, in response to a Freedom of Information request. " Mann's manipulation of data and failure to provide information about his research have been a long standing joke. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ It was really no surprise that he wouldn't want to provide the information. What is a giant surprise is that he is still in a position of any responsibility. Well maybe not so much if you want trillions of dollars to be spent on changing the country's energy economy.
Human beings generally get angry when you accuse them of being involved in a massive global conspiracy to defraud with no evidence.
Climate skeptics don't ask honest questions, they use questions to imply wrong doing.
They're not just asking questions though, they're saying things like "global warming is clearly a scam and politically motivated because look at all the snow we've had this year!"
Science doesn't mind (in fact, it thrives on) genuine critical appraisal of the work being done - it's how we learn and understand and develop more accurate theories.
What it doesn't support is the supposed "equal rebuttal" techniques used by the media and those with an agenda - you can say "I don't agree" if you like, but you had better have some supporting reason for that, and the distorted "facts" and data used (often not even any data, just opinion and 'common sense') used by those trying to discredit climate change really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, and people get tired of being faced with "all your science is wrong because of ($easily_discredited_propaganda_talking_point)"
The trouble is, a lot of the population are easily convinced by ($easily_discredited_propaganda_talking_point), because soundbites and well-funded media talking heads and purchased senators are easier to understand than the often complex science, and the less-than-media-savvy scientists working in the field.
To be clear, the "lie" in question is a discrepancy in one scientist's account of the origin of a piece of legal advice during an FOI request. It has nothing to do with the science itself.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Had the exposed emails I read been from scientists working in some other discipline, I think there'd be no doubt cast on the accusations of manipulation. I suspect that the huge political and financial agenda behind the so called global warming movement (political control, taxation and the sale of carbon credits) is whitewashing what any reasonable person can read as blatant manipulation of data.
Funny, because a similar report was released in the UK, under a government who is a lot more like the Repubs than the Dems with a "vested interest" (oh yes, and you think the the Republican administration that preceded it didn't have a "vested interest" in the results?)
Everyone has a "vested interest" in climate change because however it turns out, it is going to affect the human race enormously. We're not going to die out as a species because of it, but it has the potential to change the way we live, even if it is only to affect the nature of the seasons - becoming more extreme on both ends, is going to have an economic and social impact on how we live.
No I haven't RTFA'd but is this to do with the East Anglia University mail leak which is turn just shows that in order to make pretty graphs to justify your existence for large funding boards, you have to merge data from different data sets. IIRC there is anomalous tree ring data from the 1960s onwards, so it's more accurate to use actual temperature measurements but these don't match up perfectly with the pre 1960 tree ring data, so a small amount of "fudging" is required. Remember this was to create a graph of temperature over 4000 years for a high level overview - it is not part of the actual analysis.
That's right - put your heads back in the sand. The world is not getting warmer, and at least if it is, God would make sure that it didn't get too hot so as not to harm us. Damn those pesky scientists.
How does the president have a vested interest in this climate change issue? He doesn't stand to profit financially. Politically it's a tough issue that draws some people in and pushes others away.
Developers: We can use your help.
How do crooked bankers get propped up by something that is unquestionably bad for the economy? Sure the traders/exchanges/etc for carbon credit trading will like it. And some industries will like it (solar power, batteries, etc). But generic crooked bankers?
They want the economy to be growing as fast as possible, since that's how you make a fortune as a banker and it hides the crookedness too. It also helps when the government bails you out when it all comes tumbing down, but that's another issue.
The trouble is that they're the same questions that they've been answering for a decade. When the novel challenges to the concensus are things like the sun is made of iron, there's probably some pathological scepticism going on.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I don't think it's a matter of discrediting an entire field. Climate change research is needed whether you believe man is the causation or not. We have to be prepared either way. It does bring into question credibility, objectivity, and ethics. The question is more knowing the kind of people involved and is the report trustworthy. I'm far more concerned that each and every country represented in the study seems to have conveniently cleared their researchers but each also seemed to bring up serious issues with ethics. It's like saying, "Sure this guy lies about a lot of things but I see no evidence he lied about this." Of course, my contention is getting the U.N. involved in any study is a waste of time anyway. They are by nature corrupt and I would always wonder, and do, how much it had to do with money.
If the questions are well-thought and made by an informed, educated person, sure.
The questions posed by the denialist crowd, however, seldom rise above the level of an user shouting "no, I don't want that nerdy, DOS-thingy on my PC, go back to the graphics!" when you open a terminal to debug his internet connection. The only thing it helps you find out is the threshold of your patience.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Don't use inflammatory comments in your e-mail and most of all, take this stuff off line, you can't afford to be caught expressing a view which clearly states you are not open to disagreement.
While many government sponsored investigations have cleared these guys of manipulating data none cleared them of misinterpreting it or better put, showing any desire to prove Falsifiability of their conclusions.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It seems like scientists in this one field get angry if you challenge their conclusions. I'm not sure why they've adopted an Imperial "you dare challenge us, mortal?" attitude over this. I always assumed the more people who ask questions, the better chance you have of finding out problems.
Well, a couple of reasons.
Firstly, there aren't many areas of Science where so many people make so many objections. There are relatively few Geocentrics around nowadays, for example. One area that does have this is Evolution, and I can think of a few people *cough*dawkins*cough* who get unreasonably put out by critics. Granted, creationists can be annoying; but a very small subset of their arguments can be at least thought provoking (like "why is this not true?").
Secondly : politics. I'm sure you know what I mean.
Third is possibly that the scientists involved think that it is quite important to get it right. I know there are those that don't believe this, but I'm fairly certain that most climate scientists want to get the correct answer - whatever that is - not the answer they would prefer (see : politics). Questions that lead to a more accurate answer are always welcome; questions based on politics, fear, or anger generally are not so welcome
Actually, the Commerce Inspector General was appointed by President Bush. They are independent of the agency they cover, and serve for terms that overlap administrations.
regarding point #2: the scientists that generate the data (ie: PhD and MSc students) are typically flat broke.
Are you actually claiming that if his administration were to uncover fraud in climate science that he'd lose the vote of unions, trial lawyers, gay rights supporters, and civil libertarians? He'd lose the vote of just the few people for whom climate change is the biggest issue.
And if his agenda were based on fraud that his administration uncovered, he'd simply change his agenda. It's not an embarrassment if his assessments were based on a fraud that he himself uncovered.
I can not find any conflict of interest here. I think you're looking too hard for one.
Developers: We can use your help.
The NY Times reports that an inquiry by the Commerce Department's inspector general has found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data (reg. may be required) to buttress evidence in support of global warming after climate change skeptics contended that e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity.
?
sudo ergo sum
Yes, I ignore statements by Rush Limbaugh. Having people from GE on an advisory panel does not profit Obama personally.
Developers: We can use your help.
If this had failed, think of all the people who bought solar panels and had done the ROI math based on state and federal credits, rebates, incentives. :)
Without the CO2 issue, this could have looked bad. With the expected rush over carbon reduction schemes, wow
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That was enough to convict Scooter Libby of malfeasance in the eyes of a lot of Slashdotters whom will hypocritically give this guy a pass for just agreeing with them politically.
The "skeptic side" has always had an audience.
Heck, they've retrenched their position several times now. Back when "skepticism" was the default and climate science was fighting to be heard, it used to be "Is it even happening?" and changed to "Well, it happening, but it's not people's fault". Now--especially that actions are being taken---the dialogue has gotten particularly shrill and it's either "Well, how can we trust the scientists when there's 'differences of opinion'" or "It's a conspiracy!". And while I'm sure that there's a few genuine skeptics out there, the bulk of the argument is carried by people better described as "denialists" who aren't skeptical of the science but do have a vested ideological or financial issue with changing our consumption patterns.
Very few "skeptics" don't think it's happening and are generally arguing about degree and detail. Denialists are taking that disagreement in much the same way Creationists take debate about the details of how evolution works and proxy it into "Not even the scientists are certain, so how can we be sure it's happening at all?"
--srj/mmv
When the outcome of a Presidential election frequently comes down to an almost even 50-50 split of the electorate, neither side can afford to lose "just the few people."
And changing a huge chunk of the Presidential agenda isn't that easy. If global warming were suddenly discredited, the Republicans would have a field-day mocking President Obama as a gullible fool. To put it mildly, it would make him look like a jackass (and most certainly cost him any hope of reelection).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
record high temperatures in some areas = "man made global warming"
record cold temperatures in some areas = "man made global warming"
if you have decided the results you are going to get BEFORE you start your "scientific study" then something is probably wrong...
*duckandrun*and did the internal combustion engine cause previous "ice ages"? */duckandrun*
Wow, that's quite a misrepresentation of Anthony Watts website. Pretty much the opposite of his conclusions, in fact.
Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released). Meanwhile, the increasing temperatures of urban stations are not adjusted to eliminate the Urban Heat Island effect. Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.
Is the climate warming? He would agree with you that the climate warmed through (plus or minus) the year 2000 so, but possibly has now entered a cooling phase. Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycles, (b) that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, (c) the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.
In short: the earth warms and cools. We do not understand all of the factors that influence these climate cycles, but CO2 is almost certainly not a precursor of increased temperatures. In any case, a warmer earth is in many ways preferable to a cooling earth. The entire panic about CO2 is politically driven, and many scientists have hooked their wagons to it, in order to get research funding.
My take is that Anthony Watts wants to present the objective truth - whatever that may be - and to discredit bad science and politically driven science.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Shorter jav123:
I don't think this discredits the entire field. Here's some FUD why it discredits the entire field.
Someone had to do it.
Right, and his felony conviction was due to looking a bit like a bad person. The man was obviously a saint.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"Told you so" doesn't really work that well in politics. Just ask John Kerry.
But who were they cleared by? Scientists! I think I smell some collaboration!
-Hosni Mubarak promised a full investigation to find out who ordered the use of excessive force
-Wall St. firms were cleared of any wrongdoing in the financial bust by SEC/TREAS Timothy Geithner
-Google announces the Wifi data logs, SSN numbers, etc., were all just innocent mistakes
-MS announces itself cleared of all charges of manipulating the ISO process
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
All that greenhouse gas emission means nothing in the midst of an ecology that thrives on it
All the greenhouse gas emissions? rotfl, unless by ecology, you mean planet earth.
Yes, indeed, earth is a very small ecology.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
True, true, case-in-point, "A Convenient Truth."
The Commerce Department, which is part of the Obama Administration, which is admittedly all-in for Global Warming, has found no fault in the scientists' manipulation of data to fit the hypothesis.
File this under "Duh."
better yet, they should live without anything made by petrochemicals. Turn in your computers now, hypocrites.
But: who say's the ice is melting? Yes, there is less arctic ice than some years ago. What supporters of global warming somehow always omit is that the ice in Antarctica has increased by pretty much the same amount. We are seeing regional variations - for unknown reasons - that pretty much balance out.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Have you actually read the series of emails that "hid the decline" comes from? 13 years of stolen emails, and a classic case of cherry picking, and that is the best that denialists can come up with.
/that/ we fail to notice
You should really watch this (hide the decline starts at 4:10) and this, and try to pay attention.
Denial works by preventing your mind from processing information, and then making you forget about it afterwards. It is always felt as negativity in the body. You have to sit with that feeling if you really want to consider yourself "rational", whatever that means. See Goleman's Vital lies, simple truths for more information on the mechanisms of denial.
Consider this quote from Ronnie Laing's "Knows":
"The range of what we think and do
is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice
there is little we can do
to change
until we notice
how failing to notice
shapes our thoughts and deeds."
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If you have actually followed the debate that arose over the infamous "hockey stick" graph that erased the medieval warm period and little ice age (McIntyre and McKittrick) and sundry additional papers since, you know that while they may or may not have done anything to the data per se, they've abused the hell out of statistical analysis, for example experimenting with untested and unstudied methodologies until they get one that shows warming, then publishing results obtained using it without giving any hint of the fact that what they are doing is most sketchy. I've been following this with great interest for just under a decade now, and IMO there is absolutely no question that this has been repeatedly done in the past (by MBH and nearly all the papers on which any of them have collaborated) and continues to be done today. And I won't even go into the bristlecone pine problem and the general problem of using tree-ring proxies for temperature when tree ring thickness is not a monotonic function of temperature only.
For example, a recent paper was published in Science (Steig) that claimed that the Antarctic is warming at an alarming rate. I've read over the paper and the counterchallenge to the statistical methodology used (which basically coarse grained thermal sensors on the thin peninsula that sticks out into the ocean from continental Antarctica until their generally warming trend overwhelmed the generally and clearly trend of the mainland). This all involved infilling data on continental thermal sensors on the basis of temperatures basically on the other side of the continent, an effect clearly visible if one computes the (infilled) sensor-sensor correlation as a function of sensor separation. The actual real (not infilled) sensor-sensor correlation falls off with distance fairly rapidly, as one might expect (Chicago weather isn't like LA's weather). The infilled correlation function shows substantial station correlation out at two or three thousand kilometers. If one simply includes one more principle component in the PCA, this effect disappears, and so does most of the warming; cooling for the last 30 years appears instead.
Is this lying with or manipulating data or simple lack of competence with statistics? You decide.
A reliable statistical estimate of warming of the sort that somebody with no horse in the race might do (and the sort that is done in computing the actual global average temperature from satellite data) shows moderate warming from 1957 to 1980, and cooling from 1980 to 2010. The latter, of course, confounds the predictions that as CO_2 goes steadily up, everything gets warmer; the fact that the fifty year warming is completely negligible is anathema to the scientists who make a living from the AGW hysteria.
Of course, anyone in the world who wants to can go read the climategate emails (or the comments in the actual hockey stick code), where it is made perfectly clear that the "hockey team" set out to erase the MWP and LIA and does anything and anything necessary to defend the AGW conclusion, right up to having journal editors fired if they dare to print a paper that concludes otherwise. Perhaps science is broad enough that they did all of this in good faith, although if they pulled these sorts of shenanigans in medical research e.g. verifying drug safety there would be immediate, permanent, negative sequellae. But it doesn't make it good science.
Anybody who actually understands statistics and things like R^2 and principle component analysis can read over things and judge for themselves, of course. If I point out that R^2 for the infamous hockey stick graph in the extrapolated region was basically 0, you will understand exactly what that means...
AGW may or may not be true, but so far it has been a poster child for confirmation bias, incredibly poor statistical analysis, cherrypicking of data (of course it has happened and continues
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
This is another meaningless assertion made by a political organ absolutely unqualified to make any statement on the matter. Note the sentence "The report was not a review of the climate data itself." The Commerce Department can't clear someone of misusing scientific data, this is as stupid a congress declaring there was no data manipulation a day after the "climategate" leaks hit the news.
1. When given too much power or we have a big enough voice we feel superior.
That would explain why the fossil fuel industry runs so many of those condescending, smarmy commercials that all but declare that scientists are a bunch of political hacks, and that the energy industry has your best interests at heart.
2. When there is a group willing to give you a big check expecting some results you find them those results.
That would explain all those contradictory "studies" and "grass roots" organizations that all happen to be funded by groups with a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
3. When you are challenged your impulse is to Fight or Flight.
Well, the industry is certainly putting up a fight.
4. When everyone else treats you as much smarter then they are you begin to believed it.
This obviously couldn't apply to climate scientists, who are quite regularly derided as liars, political servants, idiots with no common sense, and/or self-serving bullshit artists who'll say anything you want for a buck. At least that's what I hear in those industry commercials and from right-wing pundits.
The entire panic about CO2 is politically driven, and many scientists have hooked their wagons to it, in order to get research funding.
Yeah, I'm sure you're an atmospheric physicist. No? Well, I have news for you. As a scientist who has worked in multiple fields I can tell you that scientists do not take positions just to get research funding. Yes, there may be an occasional bad apple who does, but they are very few. The large number of scientists who have looked at the data and run computer simulations (not you), and have reached a common conclusion is insurmountable.
Your statement is deluded and insulting.
It would be kind of funny if Anonymous DDOSed someone like Fox News, or maybe just the Republican Congressman's personal e-mail by spam e-mailing links to this study.
Ah, a man can dream.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
He's "my" senator, unfortunately. He comes from Oklahoma, and we still make quite a bit of money on oil here. The refinery is probably all that keeps my town alive.
With the exception of the Tar Creek cleanup (an old lead mine from the '30s that he manages to get cleanup funding for tacked onto important bills), I don't agree with anything this guy stands for. It's quite embarrassing for me that I'm "represented" by him. Oklahoma's very much a red state (our only democratic representative just happens to be the son of a quite popular republican representative, otherwise he wouldn't have the job), and he's the senior senator with quite a few cronies in Washington, so until he dies we're all going to have to deal with him.
Fortunately, he's getting up there in years. Granted, when he's gone, my fellow Oklahomans will just vote in a clone, but at least the new guy won't have all the clout in congress that Inhofe has, and our other senator (Coburn) has burnt enough bridges in congress that I doubt he'll reach Inhofe's level of influence.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
There's a difference between perjuring oneself, which by definition involves deliberate deception, and simple error.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I don't think there is a massive conspiracy... Just a massive case of groupthink. Not to mention a lack of understanding of the effects of the warming. Fearmongering policies like claiming Florida will be flooded, and billions will die because of it does not support the science. If anything they should clearly present both bad and GOOD effects of global warming. Claiming that there are only negative effects shows a definite bias.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
But their research labs aren't...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Some challenges are just ignored; "Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record." Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
With the subtle difference that it has actual verifiable science in it. No doubt it is an easily digestible piece of film, with an agenda, and there are one or two questions on some of the talking points in it, the majority of the data presented in that film is accurate.
It was manufactured by the media. They saw something they didn't understand, and certain media outlets went nuts showing how this thin they don't understand totally disproves this other thing they don't understand, ans scientist are a bunch of liars.
It was stupid, shameful, and there was no need for an investigation.
Since some people can't actually use science and data to back up their belief that man can't impact the environment they do shot like this to stir the pot in hopes a tine thing will causer the public to rally against the EPA.
It's called FUD, and it's a classic Neo-Con trick.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Which report would you believe: A report written by somebody who's salary depends on coming up with a particular answer, or a report written by somebody who will remain employed no matter what they conclude?
Tenured university researchers and government scientists can't be fired for coming up with the 'wrong' answer than other scientists. Hence they have significantly less motivation to lie than somebody working for Greenpeace or BP.
I am officially gone from
Didn't RTFA, but in the summary it says "found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data" then goes on to say "was far from a clean bill of health for the agency, and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists 'engaged in data manipulation.'"
Colour me confused.
It sounds to me like the report is shit, the reporting by NYT is shit, and that the summary is shit.
Always wonderful to add more FUD to the pile.
Sorta like the moderators who labeled your quite reasonable comment as a "troll".
Records show that since the Earth was created over 4 billion years ago, that CO2 levels have steadily increased with the proliferation of life, its worked out pretty well so far for us.
"creationists can be annoying; but a very small subset of their arguments can be at least thought provoking "
no, they aren't. They also want to change how science is done, and put made up fairies before fact.
What happens is a large group starts spreading lies and FUD and the general public begins to believe it because some how it 'feels right'.
People are intuitively scared of change, so when something goes against what they are used to, the 'feel' like it isn't right.
These people want to dictate science, they want to dictate responses, and they don't even know how to think about a problem correctly,.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What what? Claiming Florida will be flooded is not a policy. It's a prediction. A policy would be a proposed course of action to mitigate the predicted effects. I don't see anyone claiming that "Florida will be flooded", although there is a prediction that sea level will rise by about a meter this century, and this would mean that Florida would lose 10% of its area. Those predictions are well supported by the science. I don't see anyone predicting that billions will die -- that is a straw man. A warmer climate indeed has both positive and negative effects, but the net effects on the economy are negative wen the warming is above 2 degrees Celsius. There is widespread agreement on this, which is why it's the target for the Copenhagen Accord.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Denialists, jews, niggers, kikes, honkies, towel heads. .. . do you ever tire of being a child that calls people names?
I somehow question their ability to predict the effects on global temperatures on the economy since they can't predict the economy at all. More to the point, are they basing that assumption on what the economy currently is? I'm sure people will be able to take advantage of the warmer climate. It is entirely possible that the economy will do better with more land area to use.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I was going to write a lengthy reply to the parent about how lumping everyone into the same group was disingenuous and dangerous.
However, All I really need to do is thank you for your short and to the point reply that sums it up way better then my 20 paragraph rambling could have.
Thank you.
Talking to some neo-cons, I was under the impression "ClimateGate" had once and for all proved how global warming was nonsense created by "progressives" to ruin the American way of life. I'll have to let them know about this, I'm sure they'll be glad to see and will stop pretending ClimateGate somehow refutes the huge body of AGW science.
1980 : The forests are dying, acid rains : our countries are becoming deserts - we're all going to die
1990 : The ozone layer depletion : dangerous radiations will hit us . we're all going to die
2000 : Global warming : Poles will melt, huricanes will hit us - we're all going to die
2010 : ????
I happen to know the fucker. And I know the tactics of him and his cronies. If you aren't goose-stepping with them, they will stomp you into the ground, whether or not your in their way.
Remember their saying: "You're either with us or against us."
If you try and compromise with them, they will crush you.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
If the best way for a scientist to get ahead is by proving his colleagues wrong, how can they do that if there is a debate about the accuracy and reliability of the data? Consistency is meaningless if everyone is working on the same datasets. Of course if everyone has the same numbers and the same models they are going to get the same answers. The real question is, does somebody have independent data that corroborates the theory? The reality is, we have one data set, maybe a few theories, and a bunch of analysts. What we don't have is any data from experiments. Where has this hypothesis been tested? Would your 6th grade teacher have allowed you to run a bunch of simulations on one set of data and then use that to examine your hypothesis?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
s/aj/in
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
I would suggest that anybody who wishes to discuss this scandal, or global warming in general, watch this video of Dr. Richard Muller discussing the current state of global warming science. Its about an hour long but well worth it.
EVERYONE learns this in Freshman - I'm talking HIGH SCHOOL FRESHMAN - Science class. The Scientific method is a process. You write your hypothesis. You design your experiment. You collect your data. You eliminate outliers and match the data to a model that helps predict - according to your hypothesis and formula(e). Will the predicted FUTURE data have outliers that don't come out of your formula(e)? Of course. But if the gathered data fit the curve, that's a pretty good indicator that your hypothesis was a good guess. This is like, the most basic concept in Science that there is. It's not fraud in any sense of the word.
Everyone learns this. Everyone is required to take at least this minimal level of Science education; at least to get the High School diploma.
Compare this . . . to the blatant skullduggery that goes on in the pseudoscience of Economics. . . the counterargument that limiting Carbon via Economic Policy - is going to "harm our economic growth". (as if deregulation and tax cuts from 2000-2008 have not CLEARLY and demonstrably done so!). Go on, Doctor Economics. Take your payoff from the Heritage Foundation for your "consultation" - and don't bother to cite your affiliation on your "scientific paper". We believe you. And your Invisible Hand.
Hell. Let's call this a basic reasoning FAIL - on the part of an entire nation. An entire civilization. An entire species. WTF?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yeah, or those same people who print money if Saudi or Algier regimes become destabilized. I'm guessing the upside to their gamble is significantly greater than the downside you propose if AGW is defeated. You know, we still have resources controlled by repressive regimes, dwindling supplies, economic competitiveness, and speculation that can easily increase ROI compared to business as usual. Generally, in the US residential solar adopters received their economic incentives up front anyway...
But it' s still getting warmer year after year. Who's responsible for that then if not NOAA? Al Gore? Is he manipulating our climate?
regarding point #2: the scientists that generate the data (ie: PhD and MSc students) are typically flat broke.
I guess you missed the news.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Even with a confirmation of the data, the kinds of blatant bias exhibited shake confidence in those scientists selection of what data is significant and for any conclusions the scientists involved may reach.
And if you don't like the .sig, guess what? Inhofe was one of the inspirations for it.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
I appreciate the wisdom of your reasoning. It is an effective way to deal with incomplete information. But the crucial part of what you consider unknown about climatology is not unknown. It is known, knowable, proven fact.
American Institute of Physics
"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.(9)
This kind of intuitive physical reasoning had already appeared in the earliest speculations on how atmospheric composition could affect climate. It was in the 1820s that a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, first realized that the Earth's atmosphere retains heat radiation. He had asked himself a deceptively simple question, of a sort that physics theory was just then beginning to learn how to attack: what determines the average temperature of a planet like the Earth? When light from the Sun strikes the Earth's surface and warms it up, why doesn't the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier's answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space. But when he calculated the effect with his new theoretical tools, he got a temperature well below freezing, much colder than the actual Earth.(9a*)
The difference, Fourier recognized, was due to the Earth's atmosphere. Somehow it kept part of the heat radiation in. He tried to explain this by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (The main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away, although the glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping.) Nevertheless, trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect."(11*)
Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2 or water vapor, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation.
This can now be proved in any respectable chem lab.
Roger Wilco:
There are also clues that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two, but as I understand that's less clear.
Marc Morano, Jim Inhoffe and the Viscount #3 of Brenchley, so-called "Christopher Monckton" and their corporate overlords would very much like for us to believe that, but it simply isn't so. As in any field of science broad enough to be its own field, some things remain to be determined. Some of the coupling constants in the Global Circulation Models are known with higher confidence than others. But the first order effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is absolutely not one of the things that remains to be determined. It is known, and has been a known fact since the 19th century. Later, quantum mechanics told us why this is so; certain wavelengths correspond to heat, and carbon dioxide refuses to emit wavelength at a significant portion of the
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
So, where is the evidence for the well established man-made part, along with the data so it can be reproduced and verified?
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
LoL! And Friss-Christensen -- stop, you're killing me!
Oh, wait. It's not really funny, because you actually are killing me (slowly). And in the meantime, you're killing 300,000 people every year who don't have the good luck of being born in the United States. Go read some real climate scientists. Go read as much climate science by legitimate scientists who are not climate science deniars as you have already read by climate "scientists" like Svensmark and Friis-Christensen who are in fact climate science deniars, and in the meantime,
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP.
You are telling lies that are literally killing people. You are an accomplice to mass murder, you brainless waste of carbon.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p