Slashdot Mirror
Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data
mutube writes "The BBC is reporting that the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, target of 'ClimateGate,' has released nearly all its remaining data on temperature measurements following a freedom of information bid. Most temperature data was already available, but critics of climate science want everything public. Following the latest release, raw data from virtually all of the world's 5,000-plus weather stations is freely available. Release of this dataset required The Met Office to secure approval from more than 1,500 weather stations around the world. The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission, the Information Commissioner ruled that public interest in disclosure outweighed those considerations."
IMHO, it's not even remotely reasonable to start making political decisions and implementing laws or policies based on climate information, if that information isn't freely available.
Just because someone sold the numbers to someone else doesn't mean it's automatically part of a protected class of information the general public shouldn't be allowed to see. It only makes sense that the most interested parties would be the ones to foot the bill to get the initial information collected up and bundled for their use -- but this content can't be treated like a copyrighted work you can't redistribute without permission!
This is good news (except for Poland, who for SOME reason is holding out on releasing their numbers).
So if a doctor says you're ill, you'd get a second opinion from a carpenter? People of the same profession will "flock together". We can hope that some competitive spirit exists which will push some to criticize others (I wanted to say "we can hope that integrity and morality will guide them", but I couldn't stop laughing...). Most other alternatives will end up like the fairness doctrine.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
You pay for your credit scores. You pay your insurance premiums. There are numerous industries that generate information that is not available to the public because it is the product they sell.
Not all climate and weather data is generated by government agencies. The government may buy it, but the government is subject to contracts just like everyone else. They may be able to distribute products based on the data, but they may not be free to distribute the data. Happens all the time.
~X~
"peer" doesn't mean what you think it means.
these people are all competing for limited funding. meaning that they all want to prove how rigorous and innovative they are.
rest assured, scientists argue amongst themselves a lot more than you might imagine.
and, once again, in caps for emphasis and cool:
SCIENCE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO GET RICH.
this argument that peer review is useless because they're all riding the funding gravy train is just stupid. utterly, utterly stupid. if a scientist wanted to make lots of money, they'd become a plumber, or do modelling for a large bank. climate scientists predominantly want to save the world. i'm sure they'd love to see conclusive proof that everything's going to be fine, but it's just not there.
The fattest cat environmental group has only a small fraction of the oil and gas industries. If scientists were as vile and corruptable as the pseudo-skeptics always claim, they'd all be shilling for the fossil fuel industry. After all the scientists that do seem to do very well for themselves.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't get the skepticism on slashdot.
It's called the Scientific method. It's founded on the principles of skepticism and independent confirmation. Without access to the full and complete set of data used originally, then you cannot provide that independent confirmation. And shouting down skeptics is, in fact, the opposite of the scientific method. Rather than shouting them down, they should be welcomed and addressed with all sincerity and substance as possible. For if your theory is correct - your proof in the face of skepticism will show it, unequivocally.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So a climatologist, who has dedicated his life to the study of the Earth's climate, wouldn't have accounted for something as basic as solar radiance?
That's like asking a rocket scientist if he accounted for gravity.
Is there any other areas of research where you would reject consensus opinions point to the invalidity of the accepted theory? I mean, pretty much all medical researchers agree that HIV causes AIDS, so do you just say "well, that's clearly groupthink, I think I'll go with a few lone wolfs who claim otherwise?" Evolution is agreed by almost all biologists to explain the diversity of life, so do you go "well, those biologists suffer group think, clearly Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute represent the appropriate skeptical view." Do you reject consensus views on radioactive decay? I mean, there are a few guys with degrees who insist that decay rates are invalid or mismeasured, or attack the statistical nature of decay. Do you immediately side with them because of the groupthink in the physics community on that matter?
You suffer that near universal trait of the pseudo-skeptic. You have a theory that for whatever reason you dislike. You know the majority of researchers accept that the theory, or at least some form of it does in fact represent reality. So you find a few scientists, cherrypicked regardless of expertise, decide "These guys reject the AGW consensus", and go with them. But to square that particular intellectually masturbatory circle, you have to come up with some rationale, no matter how unfounded or inapplicable, to wave away the consensus. In your case, you have some fucking book you read a long time ago talking about group think, put on your armchair psychology hat and declare the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate as suffering this phenomenon you have now decided you have the expertise and faculties to diagnose.
And you mock me...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most of the deniers I meet don't know very much about science at all. As to the degree-packing skeptics, a goodly number are not active researchers at all, or not in any field closely related to climatology. There are a small number to be sure, but hell, Michael Behe is a molecular biologist with tenure at Baylor University and who is pretty much the laughing stock of the entire biology community for his evolution skepticism.
It's not as if all climatologists are Stepford Wife-styled drones who worship idols of Al Gore. There's plenty of good old fashioned scientific debate, scientists being among the most cantankerous people around who dream that they will be the next Darwin or Einstein who will revolutionize their discipline. When you get a bunch of these guys to agree that AGW is real, even if they can't all agree on the degree of any particular facet (it being a scientific theory, and not some sort of unchanging religious dogma) should signal that there probably is something to this theory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Welcome to human society. We have this neat little thing called specialization.
When I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. I don't understand everything he does, but if most mechanics agree I need an oil change, then I'll trust them.
When I need a home to live in, I go to an architect. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my home will stay standing, then I'll trust them.
When I need to cross a river, I go to a civil engineer. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that the bridge is safe, then I'll trust them.
When I feel sick, I go to a doctor. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that a certain medicine will help, then I'll trust them.
When I am hungry, I go to a chef. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that something is edible and nutritious, then I'll trust them.
When I need to go online, I go to electrical engineers and programmers. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my computer and OS and browser aren't stealing my passwords, then I'll trust them.
When I want to know what is happening with the climate, I go to a climatologist. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that human release of CO2 is altering the climate, then I call them a bunch of damned liars and frauds and demand they make it all easy enough for me to understand!
It's a blatant double standard, and it only applies to fields that Republicans don't like, such as climatology and evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
An argument from authority is not a fallacy as long as the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and there is a consensus among the majority. With the exception of the scientists working for BP, Exxon, and the like who don't really qualify as legitimate experts b/c they're paid to make a case rather than objectively obtain knowledge, there is a near consensus among the scientific community that humans have caused climate change which can have disastrous effects.
I can make a skeptical case against the big bang, but being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical isn't logical. That leads to all sorts of conundrums such as being skeptical that one exists at all (hello insanity), or being skeptical of the structural integrity of the building you're in (hello paranoia).
Did you independently confirm that your roof is structurally sound? If not, why are you sitting under it? Perhaps you logically assumed that the framers, carpenters, roofers, et al. did their jobs correctly and proficiently.
"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 fuck what you're point of view is. Anybody who tries to justify his rejection of a consensus view by some psychobabble claptrap he read once probably is not in possession of a point of view worth listening to. I've already challenged you to explain why your group think explanation does not apply to every other fucking consensus view in science, and all you can manage for that is this sort of pitiable "you're not listening to me" bullshit. As to your complaints about statistical analysis, I mean come on, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? Where are your fucking qualifications? Provide some links to the department you work at so your qualifications on judging the researchers' statistical analysis can be assessed.
But let's get back to the fucking point, pal. I want you to tell me right fucking now why the consensus view of geologists on the age of the planet at by 4.5 billion years old is not simply a manifestation of your group think claim? I want you to tell me why the cosmologists consensus view that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old isn't an example of scientists falling pray to group think. I want you to tell me why calculated radioactive decay rights are not an example of group think and errant statistical analysis. Can you do that instead of the pathetic crocodile tears and handwringing so evident in every fucking response you've made to me.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'd prefer doctors who went into it thinking the material to be reviewed was at least probably bullshit
This is populist nonsense. First of all, you implicitly suggest that traditional peer review is carried out by a bunch of cronies who have a common, shameful agenda hidden away, and that it has to do with access to funding. But, believe it or not, most scientists are primarily interested in the surprisingly idealistic goal of discovering the scientific truth about something - the ones that are mostly after the money find jobs outside scientific research, because scientists are mostly paid modest salaries.
Secondly, peer review is only a small part of the scientific process - it is carried out to ensure that the articles published are not complete nonsense - even a scientific journal has a reputation to protect, and it is so infinitely easier to produce empty-headed nonsense rather than real, scientific data, so the real science would simpy drown if there were no peer review.
And of course, once you have published an article, the truth is that there is a whole world of scientists who are trying to pick your article, your data, your calculations and your conclusions apart - so where is the need to find somebody who are, a priori, prejudiced against your work, like you "would prefer"? No, I think your aim here is simply to discredit the sincere and trustworthy scientists who dare to reach conclusions you don't want to hear.
Really, what scientists have a severe resistance to is the thought of having to fend off the same, stupidly repeated falsehoods and misunderstandings over and over, which is what they have to deal with when it comes to creationism, just to mention one glaring example. And in climate research as well, of course.