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."

Comments

Pesky critics

[Scareduck]

Demanding these heroes of the people show their work. What's next, letting actual statisticians vet their modeling?

<runs in terror>

Re:Pesky critics

[Mashiki]

Hmm I seem to remember it taking a lot to get this information. Lawsuits, and the threat of cutting off funding. Nasty business that.

Re:Pesky critics

[Anonymous Coward]

Their research was peer reviewed. Who does the modeling is irrelevant. Don't set up strawmen to attack climate change.

Re:Pesky critics

[JackCroww]

If all the peers have the same incentives to mis-represent the data (i.e., funding), what good is peer-review?

Re:Pesky critics

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

"Bury the researchers under mountains of FOIA requests" has been a tactic of the deniers and oil company shills for some time now. It'll be interesting to see what happens now that they've ostensibly gotten everything they wished for. My bets are on them moving the goalposts (again).

Re:Pesky critics

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Proper flamebait but it's a good point. I'd prefer confirmed-skeptic-review to peer-review on pretty much everything. Not just climate change. 'Peer' just doesn't imply any objectivity.

Re:Pesky critics

[LordLucless]

Nah, but labeling people you disagree with as deniers and shills seems to be

Re:Pesky critics

[Freddybear]

How many is "Mountains of FOIA requests"? One? Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.

It would be trivial, if they had ever intended to publish the data and analysis.
Just put everything in a tarball on a public server. Simple as that.

Re:Pesky critics

[ivandavidoff]

My bets are on them moving the goalposts (again).

Or they'll just have someone mess with the numbers. It's amazing how results can be changed by jimmying the margin of error, or selectively weighting certain numbers based on subjective judgement. By focussing on the raw data, the larger picture is obscured.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Re:Pesky critics

[derGoldstein]

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.

Re:Pesky critics

[artor3]

They will dig through the data and find the one datapoint (taken when Jimmy the REU accidentally spilled coffee on the sensor) that disagrees with the other 99 million points. They will then trumpet that one datapoint to the high heavens, and the disinterested masses will pay only just enough attention to get the subliminal impression that there is some doubt about climate change.

It really is absurd that purportedly educated people can believe that climatologists would spend over a decade in school, working long hours for peanuts, only to risk their professional careers by accepting bribes from fat cat environmentalists, all while those poor defenseless oil companies can't afford to defend themselves. It would be laughable, if only it weren't such a frightening display of the power demagogy holds over people.

Re:Pesky critics

[blair1q]

I expect, if necessary, they will rewrite textbooks on statistics to create mathematical systems that prove up is down, black is white, night is day, and hot is cold.

Their goal is to make money, not to prove the truth. I don't think that's the case for their opponents.

Re:Pesky critics

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Bad example but for medical research, for example, I'd prefer doctors who went into it thinking the material to be reviewed was at least probably bullshit. We've seen far too many times throughout history that people (the scientific community included) have some severe resistance to ideas that don't mesh with their commonly held beliefs. It's honestly more important that a skeptical eye be turned on material that fits well with the common wisdom than fantastic results outside the norm; the latter never has any problem finding skeptics.

Re:Pesky critics

[Deus.1.01]

Global cooling can not be attributed other then a media fuck up, the vaccine biy was attrocius but in the end the lancet and other threw that quack out in the cold where he belonged.

Re:Pesky critics

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they got lots within a two day period. They never refused to supply anything, they only stated that they could not get the data together in the required time, which is very much true given the requests.

FYI, the data was never even the issue. In fact, there really wasn't any sort of issue except the guy who blew it up into some international media frenzy not understanding basic Science or maths.

Go read up on the whole thing. It was basically some idiot blogger, read another idiot bloggers blog (an anti-climate guy who had some old emails from the scientists), came up with stupid conclusions after doing zero research and published it in national press.
The Scientists were asked to take two data sets and create a few graphs for a presentation to non-experts. They did so, splicing the data at the end. They did that because the data sets differed at their tail end. The Scientists used the more reliable data and ditched the less reliable data, perfect;y reasonable, given the task at hand. This gave them graphs that the non-experts would not get confused by and everybody was happy! ... until the idiot made his bogus conclusions and then the circus began. It's a non-story that's been shown to be crap many times.

Re:Pesky critics

[geekpowa]

Flawed analogy. It is not about seeking independent diagnosis and then selecting the one which was more popular (how long is the emperors nose problem). It is about analysing how a diagnosis/recommendation is arrived at and determining if the practitioner performed their professional duties with diligence and competency; if you lack the reasoning functions and capacity to analyse work and you uncritically assume that someone else is policing them; you can look forward to going through life been duped and manipulated by others; be it carpenters, doctors and climate scientists. If a practitioner is confident in their diagnosis they have no reason to fear an adversarial critique of their work. And like the parent said, an adversarial review is far more useful for everyone than a friendly one.

My sister-in-law, a rural citizen in a developing country went to a local GP to inspect a breast lump. The doctor proscribed her a very expensive drug. I researched the drug name on the net and discovered it is nothing more than a basic anti-inflammatory. I have no medical background, but I smelled a rat. Put her on a plane to the capital city to get some proper medical diagnostic treatment straight away.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

Peer review is merely the first step in reviewing new science. It makes sure there aren't any obvious errors and that the research was done in a sound fashion. Once it passes peer review then it's open for kudos or pot shots from any qualified scientist.

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

We've seen far too many times throughout history that people (the scientific community included) have some severe resistance to ideas that don't mesh with their commonly held beliefs

This is true, but people who say this seem to always imply that their armchair philosophizing is somehow better, and that is /false/ and a long stretch.

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

Global *cooling* was not a consensus, but merely a possibility that was put forward in a famous paper, and explored for a little bit.

But this little bit of information will do nothing to dent your certainty that science is just plain flawed.

Re:Pesky critics

[derGoldstein]

I gave the medical example because that's something that an individual would seek a second opinion about, rather than a group or an organization.
But in broad terms, how do you define "skeptical"? And where/when do you apply it? Do you set up "rival" teams of researchers? Do you have two isolated teams each do the research, and when they're done they have to review the other team's work? I can think of all sorts of "mechanical" solutions, as well as real-world examples ("a jury of your peers"...), but any effective, reproducible solution would require redundancy, and thus more funding, which is always where the buck stops.

Maybe I'm just overly-pessimistic, but I've witnessed too many examples where proper research was denied because it was in no-one's interest to fund it. It's just the nature of things. You have to find a party who will -- A) have an incentive to verify the data with some veracity, and B) do not have a clear objective to oppose/disprove the research.
That would be almost impossible to find.

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

But it *is* denial, of the pathological kind.

I know it is polite and all to be nice to people, but we are dealing with psychosis here, and a lot is at stake.

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

So it boils down to a conspiracy theory. So we have the Creationists claiming a cabal of biologists intentionally attacking Creationism, the asbestos industry questioning the legitmacy of research indicating the health risks, the tobacco industry questioning research that smoking causes lung and cardiovasular disease, an climatologists in a vast conspiracy to lie about climate change.

Have I missed anything here?

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.

They handed over the information that they had access to, and then told the interested parties where to get the rest. Apparently that wasn't good enough. More to the point, the "skeptics" were just plain not interested in the data, and just saw a way to make a nuisance of themselves.

Re:Pesky critics

[mug funky]

"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.

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

Their goal is to make money, not to prove the truth.

As someone in the university system, I can attest to the fact that /anyone/ would have their career made, and tenure at big-university-of-choice if they could come up with a substantive claim against climate change science. Heck, if /you/ want to make money, you surely could do that yourself.

Truth is, there is more money to be made as an oil industry shill (just ask Soon and Ballonis). Skeptics already have their minds made up. By definition, that is arrogance, and has nothing to do with seeking truth.

Re:Pesky critics

[The Mighty Buzzard]

It wouldn't be difficult if one of the above became the de facto standard. As to finding funding from an impartial source, yeah, that's a pipe dream. Doesn't mean the research has to be as corrupt as the impetus behind it though.

Re:Pesky critics

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Shrug, I default to not believing anything either side of the argument says. There've been far too many outright lies not to mention people spouting off on things they know nothing about in this argument alone. Which is why I'd like a few more checks on funded research.

Re:Pesky critics

[Freddybear]

They tried to palm off some heavily processed "cleaned" datasets in place of raw data. Of course that wasn't "good enough".
And "go get it yourself" isn't good enough either.

Re:Pesky critics

[derGoldstein]

I clarified what I meant in the reply post above (the original post was more of a gut reaction).
In theory, sure, I'd like everyone's work/research to be looked over with a skeptical eye, and then a few more skeptical eyes. In reality, achieving that goal is difficult. I mean in the most practical sense -- how do you find the right "intensity" of adversarial critique? The only solution I can think of involves multiple reviews. If an academic paper is published in journal X, readers will have some incentive to disprove it because that in itself is something they can add to their resume. But suppose no one cares. Suppose it's in no one's best interest to review the research, unless they're paid to do so -- and no one's willing to pay.

Like I said above, I'm kind of biased because I've "been there", if indirectly.

Re:Pesky critics

[LordLucless]

Sorry, was that link supposed to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, or just spruik a book?

Re:Pesky critics

[Culture20]

So if a doctor says you're ill, you'd get a second opinion from a carpenter?

No, but if Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) were to tell me I had a deadly subluxation and needed chiropracty STAT, I wouldn't seek the second opinion of another chiropractor. Quackery fuels quakery. Asking a medical doctor about those subluxations might be prudent. A lot of people view climate scientist as quacks. Maybe they're not, but asking someone without a vested interest in saying the same thing would be prudent.

Re:Pesky critics

[geekpowa]

You've completely missed the possibility of group-think within a tight community of people for whom professional diligence, competency and quality, critical workmanship have been substantially weakened by a tribal quasi-religious zeal to save the human race. Go read Mackay's 'Popular delusions and the madness of crowds' to appreciate, how generation after generation after generation, our civilisation uncritically rushes into some new ridiculous mass-belief. Although the book is quite old now; we are no different.

But by all means, cling to the strawman that sceptics are conspiracy theory nutters if you wish. It will save you the hassle and bother of having to properly consider and analyse the views of those whom you disagree with.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

And if there was any actual evidence to back up your assertions you might have a point that people would listen to.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

If you compared the results you get from their "cleaned" datasets to the results you would get from the raw data the difference would hardly be detectable to a layman. The "cleaned" data is just a little more accurate which helps reduce uncertainty.

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

Why should it take an FOIA to see the data in the first place? Publish your results, and publish ALL the data you collected and used, as well as the methods, in reaching your conclusions. Seems it would have stopped any of those FOIA requests before they even started.

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

To a layman? Sure. To another scientist or, when dealing with modeling, a mathematician? We're seeing otherwise...

Re:Pesky critics

[Mashiki]

Sadly all you need to do is go back and look at the journals and articles of the 70's. And you will find exactly the same hysteria, and use of 'consensus' including the top scientists of the time agreeing that it was the greatest catastrophe that mankind will ever face. If your public library, or university doesn't have these documents(including news articles, and publications, and opinions by the flappy head of the day) in paper. You can ask for them in microfiche. I know, such an archaic form of media transfer and storage, but if you've never used it...it'll be a great learning experience too.

Re:Pesky critics

[Mashiki]

And if I go out to my machine shop, and eyeball a cut to 1/64", and say "it's good enough" and use it to seal a high pressure valve loop, I can tell you right now that "close enough, and cleaned" doesn't cut it anymore in machining as it does in mathematics.

Re:Pesky critics

[Swave An deBwoner]

So if a doctor says you're ill, you'd get a second opinion from a carpenter?

Sure, who better to build a coffin for the remains?

Re:Pesky critics

[Freddybear]

That reduction of uncertainty is exactly what is wrong with using "cleaned" datasets for further analysis. Unless the associated statistical errors are carried along through all subsequent analysis, any conclusions are worthless.

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

We're seeing otherwise...

Is that your paranoid imagination, or do you have something to back that up. Didn't think so.

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

This is simply not true. There was some media panic over a good story, but not in the scientific community. You can learn about the history here.

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

More and more scientists are finding other, more interesting relations. For example, tree ring widths are more affected by the presence/absence of herbivores than temperature. Was that factored in to the Mann/Briffa/Jones work on that SINGLE Yamal bristlecone from which their temperature reconstructions arose?

Or is it better to just attack and hurl names at those who do what the Scientific method calls for - skeptical, independent confirmation?

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

So scientists aren't liars, they're just delusional half wits. Is that basically what you're saying? Furthermore, the small group of PhDs in the employ of the Heartland Institute, those are the canny ones, the ones that have escaped the groupthink bubble that has trapped the overwhelming majority of the climatology community.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

To another scientist the differences are not significant enough to substantially change their conclusions. It's just fiddling around with the edges.

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

So, you speak for all other scientists, even when we're just now getting the actual, raw data?

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

Ok, you've destroyed tree ring proxies, now you need to move on to ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

Raw data from NOAA and the GISS has been available online nearly forever (in internet terms). It doesn't contradict the CRU data.

Re:Pesky critics

[Falconhell]

Its no strawman, every denier I have met was some kind of conspiracy nut. Calling the trutth a straw man is pathetic.

I dont even bother reading denialist stuff anymore as they are frankly fruity lop nutjobs.

Adults have moved on to addressing the very real problem, and shouldnt even bother to argue with the fruity loops.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

No, the datasets are "cleaned" to remove obviously erroneous data and correct for known errors. Reducing uncertainty improves the results and gives the scientists more confidence in their results.

Re:Pesky critics

[geekpowa]

It is remarkable how you insist on conflating opinions you don't like to the point where there are ridiculous and thus easily dismissed; inspite of the fact I not-so-subtly pointed out that this is what you are doing. I guess I could continue to try and articulate my point of view in the hope that we could eventually reach a point where a real conversation would commence, but I suspect that it would be just as rewarding talk climate science with you as it would be with my pet dog.

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yet, until this time, that could not be shown since the CRU data wasn't available... It's really simple, this isn't about the presence or absence of AGW - it's about good science. And it is NEVER good science to hold back your data. NEVER. That goes directly against the whole Scientific method.

Re:Pesky critics

[TapeCutter]

How many is "Mountains of FOIA requests"? One? Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.

According to the various formal investigations, there were 50 something FOI requests over a 2 day period from the lovely folk at climate audit, most of them were requests for information that was already published so clearly they were not interested in doing any research. Phil Jones and his crew had every right to bitch and complain about such an obvious abuse of the justice system, however Jones overstepped the line in his reaction when he asked Mann to delete some emails (Mann ignored him).

As has been explained a billion times and discussed at great length in the formal investigations, the "hidden" data that was a couple of percent of the entire data set was under non-disclosure agreements so a tarball was not an option. One of the formal investigations also explains how it's 'layman' members were able to source copies of the "hidden" data in 48 hours simply by contacting the references given in papers published by Jones and his team (ie: basic research)

This article explains they have now done the legal legwork and are free of the constraints that prevented publication of something that has fuck all impact from a scientific POV.

Re:Pesky critics

[Falconhell]

Yes, ad isnt it funny hoe those same people view the opinions of scientists employed by the nuke industry
of not being biased, and when they say its safe we should believe them. (And they are actually PAID by their industry!

Selfish moronic hypocrits deniers.

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

Ok, you've destroyed tree ring proxies, now you need to move on to ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites.

The fact you want to characterize this as a "destroy" type issue shows you're not a scientist, and do not understand what the Scientific method is. It's quite simple - show ALL your data, show ALL your work, and then you can claim your result is correct. Failing to do either is, in the Scientific method, a de-facto refutation of your claims.

Science is really simple if you are honest, forthright, and follow the method. Doing what the CRU did - hiding data, hiding methods, claiming original data was "lost" - simply destroys their own credibility. The onus is upon the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their position true. That does not happen when you refuse to release ALL your data.

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

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...

Re:Pesky critics

[Freddybear]

If they were indeed "already published" then it would take no time at all to respond to them, so that argument goes out the window.

Re:Pesky critics

[geekpowa]

Funny, most 'deniers' I've met are educated and intellectually competent people, typically engineers of various disciplines, educators, academics. So the hypothesis that 'deniers' are conspiracy nutters is falsified; as such it is a straw-man. But feel free to cling onto your examples of people you have met who are nutters (yes there are plenty of them out there; and I have met a few), as a basis for rejecting any and all criticism of your point of view and allow you to cultivate absolute conviction that beyond all reasonable doubt your are correct.

Good for you for moving onto the problem of saving the human race from this modern reincarnation of doomsday hysteria. I'm sure in generations to come they'll build statues of you and celebrate how awesome you were.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

Well over 90% of the CRU data was available. Just not in a convenient form for people that don't know how to gather it.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

It was just a snarky comment. If you read the published papers over the years they outline the methods. I guess you want it all handed to you on a silver platter.

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Pesky critics

[BCoates]

[citation needed]

Re:Pesky critics

[russotto]

So it boils down to a conspiracy theory. So we have the Creationists claiming a cabal of biologists intentionally attacking Creationism, the asbestos industry questioning the legitmacy of research indicating the health risks, the tobacco industry questioning research that smoking causes lung and cardiovasular disease, an climatologists in a vast conspiracy to lie about climate change.

The irony is strong in this one.

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Pesky critics

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well over 90% of the CRU data was available. Just not in a convenient form for people that don't know how to gather it.

So if I release not all my data (just a large majority of it), and do it in a form that is not usable, then I've provided full disclosure? I assume you'll sign a contract that has 10% of the paragraphs missing and is in a code format that changes from section to section?

Again, the fact that data was knowingly withheld, and needed to have an FOIA issued to get at it, is the root problem. It is INHERENTLY not Scientific. At all. You cannot pick and choose which steps of the Scientific method you want to adhere to, and still call it science. Doesn't work that way.

It might be interesting work, and curious results, but it is NOT science. And trying to claim otherwise, and paper over the issue in the first place is about as unscientific - and purely political - as one can get. Pro or con AGW, we should ALL be upset with the CRU for their actions and their sullying of science and the Scientific method.

Re:Pesky critics

[geekpowa]

Maybe you didn't pick up the point I made in my last post. I don't respond to consensus, I respond to evidence. I reject concensus in my own domain of expertise and I go for what is demonstratable and proven; even though it regularly puts me offside with my peers. Of course it is impossible to construct an evidence based approach to everything; there is too much happening in the world. So on many issues I provisionally side with experts and go with consensus; as I did originally with climate change; until I started digging deeper.

Re:Pesky critics

[Rary]

Sadly all you need to do is go back and look at the journals and articles of the 70's. And you will find exactly the same hysteria, and use of 'consensus' including the top scientists of the time agreeing that it was the greatest catastrophe that mankind will ever face.

Horseshit. And here's a pretty pie chart to back that up. And a more detailed graph as well.

The summary on the second link is also interesting (emphasis added):

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.

Re:Pesky critics

[riverat1]

I have looked at the pertinent emails. They provide no evidence for your assertions.

Re:Pesky critics

[Bemopolis]

*citation needed* ...excuse me... *peer-reviewed citation needed*

Re:Pesky critics

[Truth_Quark]

You've completely missed the possibility of group-think within a tight community of people for whom professional diligence, competency and quality, critical workmanship have been substantially weakened by a tribal quasi-religious zeal to save the human race.

Tight community?

Science is competitive, not a community activity. (Although the community certainly benefits, if it is clever enough to use the science).

And there have been over 100,000 scholarly papers written on climate science ... most in the last 5 years.

That's a lot of output for a tight community don't you think?

Many people might think that there are diverse people from all over the world working and publishing on the subject.

Re:Pesky critics

[darkshadow88]

No. Global warming, with suitable data, could be proven false, just like you need suitable data to prove it true. If I make the claim that climate change is real, you could prove it wrong if you performed some significance tests on the data and showed that climate change is not happening (in other words, a climate where the average temperature is not increasing) with some level of significance (say, p

I recently read an article where one of the more skeptical climate scientists said that climate change had not been proven to p < .05 due to insufficient data, but that it was close (p < .07 or thereabouts). This does NOT mean that climate change is not happening, but rather that there is only a 93% chance that it is happening (whereas a scientist will usually want at least 95% or even as much as 99% to affirmatively make a claim). There has been no research whatsoever, though, to demonstrate to any reasonable p-value that climate change is not happening. So while we may not have irrefutable proof of climate change (depending on whom you ask), I'm going to go with the 93% chance it is real and not the 7% that it's not.

More importantly, politicians should be taking the problem of climate change seriously. If we thought an asteroid were going to hit Earth with a 93% probability, we would be taking that a lot more seriously. Since global warming doesn't strike all at once, though, we somehow think it's OK to ignore it.

Re:Pesky critics

[Retron]

Part of that reasons is because the Met Office in the UK has a nice little sideline selling climate data - if it's all available for free they'll lose that income. It was a bit daft though, as there were cases of people who'd submitted data to the Met Office for years having to pay for their own data when they lost their local copy! Other European meteorological agencies have similar policies.

It's a different culture in the US where all this data is freely available and interestingly the same applies to the raw weather model output too - the American GFS is free for all (and is widely used commercially in the UK) while the equivalent from the ECMWF costs a small fortune to access, especially ensemble output.

Re:Pesky critics

[shmlco]

"Maybe they're not, but asking someone without a vested interest in saying the same thing would be prudent."

I know! We can ask an Exxon representative.... Coal-fired power plant owner? Your local Republican congress-critter?

The point being that there are just as many -- if not more -- people out there on the other side of the fence. And all with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so we can keep on doing business as usual...

Re:Pesky critics

[grumling]

Well-oiled... Funny guy.

Re:Pesky critics

[Retron]

Bah - having looked at the data it's only a tiny, miniscule portion of what's available - a far cry from "virtually all" as the article stated!

In the 100-mile radius of where I live, there's only Gatwick. Gravesend, Brogdale, Sheerness, Manston, Southend, Shoeburyness, Heathrow, Lydd and more are nowhere to be seen and I know they all provide data to the Met Office as they appear elsewhere online.

So, either the climate research is only being done with a small number of stations or there's a hell of a lot of data still to be released. The Met Office's money-spinning climate data service is safe for now, it seems.

Re:Pesky critics

[Truth_Quark]

Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”)

- Skeptical Science

Re:Pesky critics

[Sique]

State attorneys with a zeal to actually sue the people for misusing the state provided funds looked at the emails and had to retract, because there was nothing in there. A single out of context quote doesn't make for a good case. So as long as no suit is brought forward and gone to court, you can be sure that there actually is nothing relevant discovered in the emails (except you are adhering to the church of the global "global warming" conspiration which even counts state attorneys elected on a "we will show the climate alarmists" ticket as being part of the conspiration).

So whoever is still quoting the climategate emails and how damning and revealing they are has a lot of explaining to do how it comes that nothing judgeable came out of them, before someone else has an incentive to even listening to his other arguments.

Re:Pesky critics

[AmiMoJo]

I don't think "peer" means what you think it means in this context. Peer reviews are supposed to be sceptical and demand firm evidence. If that didn't happen in this case then someone is doing it wrong.

Re:Pesky critics

[mug funky]

actually, it's not about showing your workings so much as being able to reproduce the experiment and arrive at the same conclusion.

of course, that does imply a certain sharing of data, but quite often the data is of limited use.

reproducibility is the key.

Re:Pesky critics

[mug funky]

oh, for fuck's sake - they were trying to draw graphs with that "cleaned" data. they weren't using it to draw their conclusions.

do you sue your city's transport operator because their maps are not to scale? fuck off.

Re:Pesky critics

[mug funky]

but it begs the question: why did they bother to make 50 FOI's in 2 days? why not just make 1 big one?

what it looks like to me is they were trying to make the paperwork as painful as possible in an attempt to distract and slow down people who really just want to do their science, and certainly don't want to be dealing with PR and news agencies and other things not related to their jobs.

Re:Pesky critics

[mug funky]

what? you think governments have more money to spend on science than big fossil has to spend on PR?

nice one!

hey, i've got over 9000 soon to be ex-NASA employees you can go talk to about that!

Re:Pesky critics

[21mhz]

Ha-ha, but I remember a community effort on the net by some self-proclaimed statisticians to try to validate the scientists' conclusions based on the publicly available data sets (with a very sceptically predisposed eye at that). I haven't heard about their progress in a while now...

Re:Pesky critics

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall a barrage of people mocking those who wanted to see deeper into the data that was driving policy. They would claim that there was no remaining data to release and anything else stored in the institution was not even remotely related to climate data(like personal information). Now, I knew back then that very few people knew one way or the other and that this behavior was just a knee jerk reaction. A sort of circling of the wagons for the tribe so to speak, perhaps to cling to the notion that these people were not fallible at least with respect to dedication to the truth.

So, it isn't really surprising to me(and presumably most of you reading this) when this sort of news breaks, but I do want to remind people of how certain many of them were(one way or the other). Hopefully it will encourage people to be more critical of what they accept. Consider it a sort of meta skepticism about climate skepticism.

Re:Pesky critics

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...how EXACTLY is that flamebait? Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make them magically immune to money ya know. If carbon credits get forced upon the west (which BTW WILL destroy what little industry we have left, as China and India has already said they won't play the carbon game) we are talking a multi BILLION dollar industry, and those that support it will get mucho funds for more papers that say "You're doing the right thing!"

Conversely putting scrubbers on the ancient coal plants on the east coast and putting hard limits on the amount of carbon allowed will cost several corporations BILLIONS of dollars so they are naturally gonna likewise make sure that those that make papers that say "That's a stupid fucking idea!" get lots of money to continue making papers that say its bullshit.

The whole damned thing has become so politicized and so many leeches like Goldman Sachs are lining up to empty wallets and blow bubbles that frankly if a scientist told me it was raining outside I'd want to stick my arm out the door just to make sure. When you are talking billions of dollars to the winner? Well frankly nobody is immune to those kinds of numbers.

Re:Pesky critics

[sydneyfong]

but it begs the question: why didn't they bother to publish the data? Why resist until they were served FOI requests?

what it looks like to me is that they were trying to make the verification of their published results as painful as possible in an attempt to distract and slow down people who really want to do science and verify their global warming claims.

I normally don't respond to posts in such a flippant manner, but seriously that's what I think Jones, Mann, etc are doing. Their results may be correct, or their conclusions may be correct, but if you're going to make a point of how pesky the "deniers" were, then they were just returning the favor.

Re:Pesky critics

[jandersen]

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.

Re:Pesky critics

[sg_oneill]

And considering the long history of governments threatening to defund scientists if they keep writing reports saying we're in trouble, believe me, not a lot of that government megabux is hitting climate science.

Family members working in the field are always complaining that they are getting political interference from politicians trying to cut their funding.

Climate science is struggling , and there are huge financial carrots being dangled for scientists to sell out their principles and start writing bogus science for oil companies. For the small fraction that have taken the carrot, I doubt they sleep well at night. Still the bills have to be paid.

Re:Pesky critics

[dave420]

So you're saying we should just fuck the world, and live like kings for a century or two, and hope something happens that stops climate change? Awesome logic.

Re:Pesky critics

[mmcuh]

Much of "the west" don't need to have carbon credits forced upon it, they already have it. And I don't see their industry crumbling, definitely not more so than in the US.

Why is it that policies that seem to work fine elsewhere are always assumed to wreak havoc if they were to be applied to the US?

Re:Pesky critics

[crossword.bob]

Plus, you like to label people with derogatory names.

followed immediately by:

These are compelling signs of a right-wing nut job.

Epic

Re:Pesky critics

[O('_')O_Bush]

Do you have any evidence of the claim that most scientists are after only truth? Last time I checked, many scientists are funded by universities or political think-tanks, where they are driven by the "produce or die" syndrome that affects most of academia. If they don't produce something radical or paradigm changing in their field at a university, or results that align with the viewpoint of the organization providing funding at a think-tank, then they risk losing their funding and cushy 150-500k$ salaries. That is plenty of incentive to make claims that meet political or ideological goals rather than align truthfully with the results.

Re:Pesky critics

[GameboyRMH]

I always say that the first person to disprove, or break cover on the "vast international conspiracy" of climate change will be the 21st century's Einstein. So what's the hold up?

Re:Pesky critics

[The Mighty Buzzard]

most scientists are primarily interested in the surprisingly idealistic goal of discovering the scientific truth about something

You are extremely naive.

Re:Pesky critics

[tbannist]

I read what you're writing but one thing doesn't make sense to me. If all they want is money, why aren't they working in Finance. They're smart enough to know they can make a lot more money in the Finance industry and they're probably smarter than three quarters of the people already working there. Frankly, if as you indicate the job is hard to get and hard to hold, why not aim for lower hanging fruit that pay as well in other industries.

I mean, the oil companies are having a damnable time finding enough people to work for them declaring that climate change isn't happening. I don't understand why that would be if what you think is true.

Re:Pesky critics

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually the other way round, having urban growth in the area disqualifies the station as it causes a rise in local temperature, if they included all the stations the rise would be 2-3 plus degrees higher. The stations they picked and their reasoning are all available, if not conviviality, so go and double check. Did you think they would not be ripped to shreds for such a obvious trick, with so many determined people with lots of time and lots of hated for them out there checking their every word for errors.

Re:Pesky critics

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it has gone over the 5 percent threshold this year, and if the climate scientist you are talking abut is the same one I heard abut he agreed that the evidence had now become overwhelming.

Re:Pesky critics

[Xyrus]

Peer review is skeptic review. The science community is very competitive. If you think peer review is simply rubber stamping any research that comes through because it agrees with your perspective, you are horribly mistaken. Peer review is is a difficult, and often vicious process. It can take months to years for any paper to finally get through. You may have to rewrite sections or the entire paper depending on the criticisms. Or you may have your research thrown out entirely due to errors you never thought of.

Anyone thinking peer-review is a rubber-stamp process has never written a paper before.

Re:Pesky critics

[Xyrus]

Informative? How is this ignorant tripe informative?

You give no proof of your accusations. None. While on the other hand, you ignore that mountains of data and research, some of which even the most uneducated people can verify with some data and a few graphics tools.

You imply conspiracy, with no evidence. You imply cronyism, with no evidence. Wild ass accusations like this is why there can be no reasonable discussion of the science.

Deniers and conspiracy theorists are nutters. Skeptics are not. Unfortunately, the real skeptics are drowned out by the near cacophonous roar of the idiotic and insane. If you read an real science journals you would see that there are more than a handful of real skeptics with real credentials and real research. McIntyre and others of his ilk are not real skeptics and do nothing besides FUD the issue up.

If you're going to make such claims, it is up to you to provide the solid research and proof of them. If you can't hen you're just another nut on the internet.

Re:Pesky critics

[blueg3]

A lot of places do this (though often access to the data is delayed so that the group can get publications out of it first). However, often research groups find that they can get access to a lot of data from another organization -- data that improves the accuracy of their work and would otherwise be prohibitively expensive to gather. These other organizations then place restrictions on that data, so the research group can't release it. So they're stuck with a decision between getting better results or being able to release all of their data. The former is the right choice.

Re:Pesky critics

[Tarsir]

You're setting up a false dichotomy: Either scientists want money, and therefore will work outside of Academia, or they want truth, and will work inside Academia.

I'm studying Computer Science at a post-graduate level, and I'm not aware of a single student or professor who is only after truth without caring about the practical requirements of Academic career advancement. At my school, to be hired as a professor you need X publications, and at least Y need to be Journal Papers. To get tenure you need even more publications and journal papers. And if you want funding, or to be published, you need to be aware of which methods and fields are currently in vogue. Conditional Random Fields are big. Sentiment Analysis is big. WordNet is big. If I want my career to go somewhere (I don't, I'm going back to Industry), I should work those into my Thesis.

That's just an anecdote. Maybe I'm at a particularly mercenary faculty. Maybe Computer Science is different from other sciences. But I doubt it. I see no reason to believe that scientists in general care any less about their careers than any other group of people.

Re:Pesky critics

[yourmommycalled]

No it didn't take law suites or anything other than the scientists and administrators getting fed up with the likes Tony Watts.Mark Morano, Steve Miloy and Steve McIntyre. Steve McIntyre posted on his web pages that his readers should flood CRU with the English equivalent of a FOIA request. The stated intent was to prevent scientists for conducting any further work. Steve McIntyre coordinated the filing of the FOIA requests. Not so strangely 39% of the UK FOIA requests came from outside the UK and hence not a legal request and 39% of the FOIA requests came via the email from untraceable addresses. Go ahead and tell me again how this wasn't a coordinated attack on CRU, how/why CRU should respond to a threat from an unknown/untraceable source and how/why they should respond to requests from someone who's stated reason for the request was to delay any further research. Maybe CRU knew that Willis Eschenback had deliberately packed 60 FOIA requests in a single day and did so across multiple days to tie up administrators handling the requests. Then Willis was able to whine and moan about how CRU didn't respond in a timely fashion. If these people were really critics there wouldn't be a problem, they are not they are paid shills trying to harass people.

Re:Pesky critics

[Dan Ost]

Rubbish!

"There is no Yeti in my lunchbox"

* opens lunchbox and peers inside *

Negative proven.

It's hard to prove some things, negative or positive. But you can't categorically say that negatives are hard to prove.

Re:Pesky critics

[Dan Ost]

The simple fact that this was not how the climate scientists originally proceeded is why so many are suspicious of their conclusions.

No rational skeptic wants to be told the conclusion without being given the data and tools to understand how the conclusion was determined.

Re:Pesky critics

[microbox]

So what's the hold up?

The hold up is that someone needs to make an actual cogent argument. Nobody who knows anything about this topic has done that. Monckon et al. just spout nonsense, which is easy enough to see if you actually CHECK INTO HIS CLAIMS. You only need to check two or three, because his fidelity is about 90% wrong.

Re:Pesky critics

[GameboyRMH]

I agree, I was placing a rhetorical question.

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

You still haven't justified your skepticism. You talk about "digging deeper" but thus far the only thing you've even actually concretely claimed is some fucking book on group think.

Frankly I think the only digging you've done is around some denier sites.

Re:Pesky critics

[tbannist]

Not really, I'm just pointing out that if what scientists really want is money, that "research scientist" is a poor method for achieving the goal, and most of the people who are research scientists are smart enough to be aware of this. I expect they still want reasonable and just compensation for their work, however, the notion that all scientists are willing to sell out for the modest money they are paid, seems ludicrously conspiratorial. It would require Saturday morning cartoon villain thinking to take that approach to getting rich.

Also, I think Computer Science may be qualitatively different from other sciences (I also have a degree in it).

Re:Pesky critics

[Tarsir]

I'm just pointing out that if what scientists really want is money, that "research scientist" is a poor method for achieving the goal, and most of the people who are research scientists are smart enough to be aware of this.

Conceded. Someone with a scientist's training who is after a big paycheck probably would not become a research scientist.

I expect they still want reasonable and just compensation for their work, however, the notion that all scientists are willing to sell out for the modest money they are paid, seems ludicrously conspiratorial.

The point I, and I believe Bush, was making is that selling out for a big paycheck is not the only reason to question a scientist's work, and further that scientists on the 'Big Oil' side aren't the only ones with a possible ulterior motive. A climate scientist dedicated to an academic career may experience pressure to conform to the AGW theory because any research that contravenes AGW may be dismissed as shilling for Big Oil.

Therefore, an analysis which only goes as far as "Big Oil scientists are paid to produce results that Big Oil is looking for; while everyone else is primarily interested in the idealistic goal of discovering the scientific truth about something" is incomplete at best, and naive at worst.

Also, I think Computer Science may be qualitatively different from other sciences (I also have a degree in it).

We can only hope.

Re:Pesky critics

[phlinn]

Many Bothans died to bring us this information.

Re:Pesky critics

[intheshelter]

Hey dumbass, he DID explain why the groupthink explanation does not apply. Go back and re-read the post you just replied to.

I guess he was right, you're too busy being full of yourself and making strawman arguments to have a meaningful discussion.

Re:Pesky critics

[intheshelter]

Those who you agree with are climatologists. Those who you disagree with are "deniers".

This is one of the reasons people don't take this topic very seriously. It's a borderline cult mentality and if someone doesn't accept your opinion on climate change, or even asks a simple question, then you and your supposedly rational cohorts instantly begin to mercilessly attack them. Beware of any discipline where you are shouted down for asking questions or disagreeing.

Re:Pesky critics

[Politburo]

American Exceptionalism works both ways..

Re:Pesky critics

[geekpowa]

I don't know why I bother responding to you; you are clearly a fool or a troll or both. Either way you don't bother to read my posts. When I posted this above:

I've even gone to the point of getting some CC papers published by my national weather bureau and replicating the results. I was appalled by poor statistical and analytical workmanship demonstrated.

Does this whet your curiosity and appetite? Did you even read it? Probably not.

Re:Pesky critics

[geekpowa]

In my original post; I am more-so floating the possibility when the GP asked "Is there something I have missed here?". I am saying, yes, there just might be. And the climate-gate email correspondence is one source of evidence that provides us a fly-on-the wall view of how these institutions functions; and when I trawl through these emails I see evidence of very unethical and unprofessional conduct; including direct evidence of cronyism: “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.” (Phil Jones).

For the record, yes I have poured through mountains of data as you put it. I got national bureau data, the supporting published papers and I replicated the results; for my own curiosity. I was appalled by poor analytical and statistical methodologies used. I want them to live up to their namesake of 'expert' so that I can cultivate an informed opinion on this issue that I can have confidence in, but sadly the level of veracity I would prefer is not offered, not even close; and in it's absence I have to suffer been called a nutter by people such as yourself.

In my own profession, people cultivate careers insisting they have expertise in a particular domain; but should anyone, like myself, bother to challenge it I am again surprised and appalled just how quickly the veneer falls away and it is revealed that are lazy, incompetent or both. I believe this is a truism in all technical/engineering/science professions; I suspect it is the norm, not the exception; lots and lots of people groping around in the dark and only a few demonstrate competency and a willingness to seek professional excellence. So many people here nurture some fantastical and idealistic notion that science is some sort of meritocratic individual medially. It is anything but this, it is a factional, aggressive, competitive and highly social-political work environment and climate-gate emails, again show this to be the case.

Re:Pesky critics

[mug funky]

read the rest of the thread, at least.

they were not trying to hide anything - most of the information the FOIs were seeking was not their own - they had to seek permission to get it released from the originators of it.

they also probably were not expecting to need to release it - they were rightly assuming that whoever seeks the same data should acquire it in the same way that they did - ask the appropriate people for it.

Re:Pesky critics

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

More to the point: you have much better chance at cherry picking with raw data. That's why deniers love raw data. Well, some of it.

Re:Pesky critics

[AthanasiusKircher]

I read what you're writing but one thing doesn't make sense to me. If all they want is money, why aren't they working in Finance.

They aren't working in finance because they find what they are doing to be more interesting.

And it's not at all true that "all they want is money," but they often have families to feed and will take an easier course when possible to get tenure or retain a position.

This easier course usually doesn't mean a grand conspiracy or collusion. It simply means that it's easier to get funding for an article and easier to get it published if it relates well to current theories, uses appropriate buzzwords that are in vogue, etc.

And to get to that end, there are various levels of bias that could enter the picture. Some things get studied, and others don't. Things that are within the current paradigm are more likely to be studied. When setting up a study, collecting data, etc., scientists are more likely to use accepted methods, look for particular things, collect data in particular ways, design experiments in particular ways, etc. In all of these steps, decisions are made that subtly can support what a scientist already believes or leads him/her in the direction of ultimately collecting data that is more likely to support existing theory.

Then we enter into the realm of more questionable practices. Scientists today make use of complex statistical software packages that use methods which most scientists don't really understand in detail. They can easily doing thousands of different statistical tests on data until they find something that seems "interesting." You do enough tests on even randomly generated data, and you'll find *something*. Again, if a scientist already has an idea of what to look for, it will bias the methods of analysis in small ways to make it more likely that he/she would choose an interpretation and analysis that supports what he/she believes "makes sense," which usually is more in line with what is accepted in the scientific community.

And that's before we get into the truly unethical stuff like randomly throwing out data you don't like for trumped up reasons, which studies have shown to be more prevalent than we might like to think. (I know of a few cases personally where conclusions in studies were affected and I knew the reason for ignoring some data wasn't quite justified.)

It's not that scientists are setting out to do things badly, but it's usually easier for most people to seek out data that supports what they already believe, often unconsciously biasing the way they conduct research. And when you put more pressure on the system so that success of research is part of a professor's livelihood (no matter how menial), it makes scientists more likely to try to come up with results that will be acceptable to those who grant funding and those who grant tenure.

The situation is not dire, but if you believe that scientists are completely unbiased truth-seekers, that's a bit naive.

Re:Pesky critics

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

And the oil and gas industries only have a small fraction of the money of governments.

And governments only spend a tiny amount of their money for all of science, of which climate science only gets a mall amount.

And that isn't even accounting for the fact that oil companies get all sorts of money from governments.

Re:Pesky critics

[shmlco]

No, I get it. We can't ask climate change scientists, earth scientists, or weather specialists, since they all supposedly have "vested" interests.

But since we can't ask the people who've actually studied the problem... who can we ask?

Your mom?

Religion is studiously ignoring the work of practically every scientist in the field, just because the talking head on Fox news said to do so.

Re:Pesky critics

[shmlco]

Yeah, but all the oil and gas industries have to do is put that money in the hands of the right lobbyists and Senators. Drop a few million on "studies" from the Cato institute. Support Fox's "unbiased" new channel.

Then it all doesn't matter, and we can go back to business as usual.

Re:Pesky critics

[TapeCutter]

if you're going to make a point of how pesky the "deniers" were, then they were just returning the favor.

Exactly, the deniers threw 50 turds at them and then complained because they ducked

Re:Pesky critics

[TapeCutter]

What's next, letting actual statisticians vet their modeling?

Been there, done that, the deniers were and still are wrong.

Re:Pesky critics

[metrix007]

Jesus kiddo. Consensus is not an argument for anything. Consensus simply means that's the current opinion held by the majority of people. That's it. Going against consensus is not a bad thing, and should be encouraged when the consensus is not backed up by data, is not reproducible or verifiable and simpler explanations exist. The whole AGW thing is extremely prone to groupthink, exactly because people are taking the consensus as proof when there isn't enough data to back it up. It is no longer science, and now politics which in this case is also groupthink. And fuck you for asking for qualifications. Statistics is not that hard, and you don't need qualifications to do it. If someone notices something amiss they should be presented with a reasonable explanation, not have their claims dismissed because they don't have qualifications.

Re:Pesky critics

[MightyMartian]

Translation: I can't come up with a meaningful response, so I'll repeat the groupthink bullshit and then claim some expertise in statistical analysis. Oh yeah, and experts texperts choking smokers!!!

Re:Pesky critics

[metrix007]

No, that isn't what I did. I provided a counterargument as to why your claims were wrong. As it is, you come across as an ignoramus who doesn't understand how science works, but wants to claim that he does. By all means, keep deferring to consensus and criticizing those who are skeptical of claims made with good reason. Just don't pretend to be any better than the average christian.

Good!

[King_TJ]

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).

Re:Good!

[interkin3tic]

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.

Information has been freely available for quite a while. Delaying only makes things worse. You say now "We need to at -LEAST- wait until this particular data set is available." What's the next reason to hold off going to be?

We need to wait until EVERY researcher is on board, even these ones who are funded by BP.
It's not reasonable to start changing things until we're -sure- temperatures are rising everywhere.
We can't curb CO2 emissions until we are sure these rising temperatures are actually doing something bad.
Well OBVIOUSLY we can't cut CO2 emissions now, we're in the middle of a recession!
Why would we start now? These scientists are saying it can't -possibly- get hotter, all the damage has been done.

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

I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home. I see a few people who have vested interests in trying to prove this data wrong, and I see some people who don't want to believe hard times are ahead trying to shoot the messenger. Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.

Re:Good!

[10101001 10101001]

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.

Out of curiosity, would you mind clarifying what "that information" is? I ask because I'm uncertain of what you expect as far as climate information goes. I also ask because I'm curious if you have the same standard for all sorts of other topics of similar scope. For example, I don't think I've seen much discussion about the raw data about the health effects of mercury, lead, etc, yet I don't really see anyone arguing that we should halt all consideration of pollution laws precisely for that reason; I have seen people argue over cost, constitutionality, etc reasons, though.

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.

While I would certainly agree the information shouldn't fall automatically into a protected class of information the general public shouldn't be allowed to see--and further, I'd say it shouldn't be in a protected class of information the general public shouldn't be allowed to see--, that doesn't translate into the information being readily available to everyone. Consider, for example, how difficult is to track down how money is borrowed, collected, or spent in the government as a general point and you'd recognize that often times you have to do a good bit of leg work if you're interested. I wouldn't say that's a good thing, but it's just a natural course of things when there's no mandate to publicly divulge information.

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!

Who are "the most interested parties", though? It'd seem the whole world is "the most interested parties" given the potential scope of climate change, but I don't think you're arguing that we're all responsible for footing the bill to collect the information and bundle it for our own use.

This is good news (except for Poland, who for SOME reason is holding out on releasing their numbers).

Well, at least you didn't forget Poland. :)

Re:Good!

[Ruke]

I'm in agreement here; waiting until we have perfect information before making decisions just means that you'll never make any decisions. You take the information available, and weigh all of the options available now with their costs and benefits.
I'm of the opinion that the cost of doing nothing and being wrong far outweighs the cost of acting and being wrong. Worst case in one case is deepening the recession, where worst case in the other is unreversable catastrophic climate change.

Re:Good!

[Coolhand2120]

Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.

There's a name fore people like that.

Re:Good!

[hedwards]

Questioning with ignorant questions isn't any more useful than failing to ask any questions at all, which is the problem. But in a competitive field like science where you can make a name for yourself disproving evolution or climate change, going with the majority conclusions is perfectly reasonable. It's not like there haven't been many people looking to shoot the ideas down.

Re:Good!

[microbox]

There's a name fore people like that.

"Not paranoid" is two words, so I will stick with "sane".

I bet you are incapable of sitting through this 10 minute video, because you are too emotionally invested in your paranoid bizarro-world.

I happen to personally know something about the science, and the academic debate on the issue has nothing to do with the laughably paranoid public "debate", which is really just a bunch of intransigent know-it-alls flogging one tired dead argument after another, without stopping to ever learn something about what they are saying.

Re:Good!

[interkin3tic]

Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.

There's a name fore people like that.

A name for people who see no reason to question the experts but question them anyway? I can think of several names for people like that. "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" is one of the more polite ones.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Idso, Singer, and Lindzen used to be the fossil fuel funded trilogy of dissenters, and their articles live on today.

My favorite is Idso, who argued, in a quite plausibly conducted bit of research, that the radiation spectrum blocked by CO2 (thus causing the greenhouse effect) was saturated, so more CO2 would no more harm. In that bit if I recall there was actually a "well, screw it, we're screwed" acknowledgement of sorts.

Then people who just hate science got involved, and we went from poor science to just stupid nonsense.

Basics: does CO2 contribute to the greenhouse effect? Of course (seriously, everyone agrees). Does human activity result in more CO2? Of course (again, agreement). The real place for discussion is how the resulting effects impact humanity. "Global Warming" was such a poor name, I guess "Global Climatic Instability" does have the ring (or make a good TLA). But somewhere in there, we stumbled on some visceral refusal to meet with reality, some refusal to acknowledge that we could contribute to (adverse) change, or some "not in my lifetime" vein that caused a huge (mostly conservative politically) backlash.

Without belaboring this post, I think the complications of explaining simple economics (such as the tragedy of the commons, p.s. don't hit me for picking an overly simplified example) resulted in a lopsided value calculation: immediate pain or "what the scientists say will happen." It was always a false choice (not just a Faustian one).

Sometimes I hope Idso was right, so that we can reasonably absolve our selves of culpability in a collective sense. Like children. :(

Re:Good!

[LynnwoodRooster]

A name for people who see no reason to question the experts but question them anyway? I can think of several names for people like that. "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" is one of the more polite ones.

We used to call those people innovators and researchers and scientists.

Re:Good!

[Bing Tsher E]

For example, I don't think I've seen much discussion about the raw data about the health effects of mercury, lead, etc, yet I don't really see anyone arguing that we should halt all consideration of pollution laws precisely for that reason

Arsenic is a better substance to examine. Shortly before Dubya become president, new methods of measuring even smaller amounts of arsenic were devised. Everybody knows that this means that new even more restrictive standards for arsenic amounts in drinking water should thus be established. A few people asked how much was enough, but they were obvious shills for the dubya and nobody needs to pay them any mind.

Asbestos is another example. It's bad stuff and shouldn't be used anymore. But the opportunists used the frenzy about asbestos exposure to develop a whole new industry of moon-suit companies to go and whip all the asbestos up into the air. It could have been identified, contained, and dealt with as buildings became obsolete or needed renovation. But those big cleanup operations saw the opportunity to 'clean up' and so thousands of public buildings were condemned. Representatives from the Building Trade are always eager to find new business, so it's a win-win for everybody but the taxpayers.

Common sense never wins in these sort of issues.

Re:Good!

[dbIII]

Let's try changing a couple of words to show how ridiculous an assertion that is:

it's not even remotely reasonable to start making political decisions and implementing laws or policies based on military intelligence, if that information isn't freely available.

You could substitute just about anything into the bold print and it would still come out as being ridiculous. Now do you understand how stupid the suggestion is? The important thing is whether the experts can get hold of the information and not if the local fish and chip shop owner can get hold of it.

Re:Good!

[haruchai]

Greenman3610 is awesome.

Re:Good!

[Solandri]

I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home. I see a few people who have vested interests in trying to prove this data wrong, and I see some people who don't want to believe hard times are ahead trying to shoot the messenger. Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.

That's hardly scientific. Science doesn't care if someone is doing something because they have a vested interest. It only cares if the results are reproducible and independently verifiable. If the people who are skeptical of global warming (no matter their rationale) aren't allowed to try to prove the data wrong, who else is going to do it? People who already believe in global warming?

Let them make what they can of the data. If they can't come up with any substantial, then it validates the data and your theory. If they come up with something you can't counter, then they've found a serious problem with your theory or your methodology which needs to be addressed.

If the problem is that the public doesn't understand what scientists are saying and why some arguments are bunk, then that's an independent problem which needs to be dealt with separately. If you're afraid that "vested interests" will wage an unscientific PR war to overturn the recommendation of scientists, the solution has to be within the PR domain. It cannot involve compromising the free exchange of scientific information and ideas. Destroying science is not a valid way to save science.

Re:Good!

[salesgeek]

I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home.

That was never the issue with climategate. The issue was that disclosed emails brought into question the motives of the leadership of the CRU who expressed an ends justifies the means philosophy. The CRUs opponents demanded to look at the data. When the CRU would not release data, that gave the anit-global warming movement PR ammunition leading to much of the public deciding that the CRU (and other climate researchers) were not to be trusted. As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime, and in this case the CRU's behavior set back public perception 5-10 years.

Re:Good!

[IICV]

The issue was that disclosed emails brought into question the motives of the leadership of the CRU who expressed an ends justifies the means philosophy.

Really? I don't remember seeing anything like that in the CRU e-mails. Since they're freely available, do you mind pointing out where that's stated?

Re:Good!

[willy_me]

Are you sure? My experience is that doing something and being wrong often worsens or causes the problem.

In this case we are not talking about doing something, we are talking about not doing things - in this example, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Stopping, or at least curtailing our current action will not worsen the problem. So taking action by modifying our behaviour really has no downside with the exception of the obvious economic costs.

Re:Good!

[baxissimo]

I found Hansen's book to contain a good explanation of the science and data telling us that CO/2 is warming us up. Much easier to read than the studies themselves, but still much more detailed than what you get from any journalist. And plenty of pointers to studies if you want to look those up.

Re:Good!

[mSparks43]

Erm, you do know Hadley is funded by BP.

Oh, and this information has been available from gcn for a long time.

see:
http://www.creditcrunch.co.uk/forum/topic/10004-the-machinery-of-climate-denial/

For the latest warming cheerleader leaving with his tail between his legs.

Re:Good!

[baxissimo]

Let them make what they can of the data. If they can't come up with any substantial, then it validates the data and your theory. If they come up with something you can't counter, then they've found a serious problem with your theory or your methodology which needs to be addressed.

Definitely, let them keep at it. But it's already been a few decades and very little evidence seems to be falling on their side. We can't and shouldn't wait until every single one of them is convinced. 97% of people actively researching in this area are convinced humans are causing global warming*. How certain do we have to be before start to act?

* From wikipedia:
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

Re:Good!

[baxissimo]

Well, in the past, it has, in fact, proved a pretty poor idea to make political decisions and implement policies based solely on military intelligence....

Re:Good!

[Boronx]

And these overreactions suggest to you that we'd have been better off to not restrict Arsenic and Asbestos? If not, what's your point?

Re:Good!

[mug funky]

my god, did you even read his post?

for all your ponitifcating about your idea of what the scientific method is, surely "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" doesn't fit your definition of what a good scientist should be.

the sad thing is, you're probably not even being paid for your opinion here. way to waste time.

(you could say the same for me, i'm well aware. but i'm off the clock right now and not in too much of a hurry to get back home, so i'm gonna argue a few minutes more).

Re:Good!

[data2]

You might want to read your last link again. There, the people saying that the CRU e-mails contained those hints are pretty much witch hunters...

Re:Good!

[pinkstuff]

This was blown out of all proportions by skeptics. the guts of it is based around swapping reading from tree rings to instrumental data:
"If you were to go solely by these tree rings — and if you were looking at just ring density and width — you'd erroneously conclude that temperatures were falling when, in fact, they were rising. That's why scientists sometimes omit tree-ring data from recent decades in favor of the more accurate instrumental data."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1215/Climategate-global-warming-and-the-tree-rings-divergence-problem

Re:Good!

[GameboyRMH]

Hide the decline! HIDE TEH DECLINE!!!!!!1111UNO!!!

Re:Good!

[salesgeek]

I already have and have no interest in doing your homework for you.

Re:Good!

[BCGlorfindel]

I'm in agreement here; waiting until we have perfect information before making decisions just means that you'll never make any decisions. You take the information available, and weigh all of the options available now with their costs and benefits.
  I'm of the opinion that the cost of doing nothing and being wrong far outweighs the cost of acting and being wrong. Worst case in one case is deepening the recession, where worst case in the other is unreversable catastrophic climate change.

I agree with your logic, but I think you misunderstand the science of it.

Human CO2 emissions are about 3-4% that of naturally occurring emissions. CO2 accounts for about 10-25% of the greenhouse effect. If we want to look at cost effective solutions to global warming, even catastrophic global warming, we need to know how much impact cutting our emissions is going to have. The evidence is very strong that the trillions of dollars it would cost, every year, to cut out our emissions in half is probably better spent on mitigation measures to live with the rising temperatures that are coming. Furthermore, that is assuming that cutting trillions of dollars out of the global economy can done with out triggering WW3, which seems at least equally as likely as our continued emissions triggering irreversible catastrophic climate change. As a matter of fact, WW3 would seem liable to cause it's own irreversible environmental damages.

Re:Good!

[sbrown123]

Politics aside, this information should have been public to begin with due to its scientific use in many areas (even outside climate study). This is similar to certain companies trying to copyright the human genome and make payment gates for access to the information. I understand that study and operation of research requires money but the CRUs have been well funded to date.

I personally have no use for this information, but I don't think it should be held from those who might.

Re:Good!

[Oo.et.oO]

there is ALSO scientific/professional data showing that the economic costs are only short term and in incentives. this can be offset by taxes on the producers of CO2. building a new energy infrastructure will produce millions of NEW skilled jobs and billions of dollars in NEW revenue.
but right now our government is run by special interests who have a fully vested shares in keeping the petroleum and natural gas funding as is.

Re:Good!

[SleazyRidr]

pssst, they've just released the data. what exactly do you think they're 'covering up'?

Re:Good!

[Candid88]

But there never was any evidence from the emails of a cover-up, there was just politically motivated loud mouths screaming "conspiracy, conspiracy" until some people believed them. Most of the key data was already publicly available, but some wasn't released due to contractual reasons. Not that the accusers were clamoring to use the data, few would have the slightest clue what to do with it.

It's the same old usual story, clueless politically motivated people like politicians shout the loudest and so get listened to more than the scientists and people who actually know what they are talking about.

Re:Good!

[intheshelter]

I saw it and came to the same conclusion. Since they're freely available you can look it up and read it for yourself just like I did. No, I'm not going to give you a page reference because you have no intention of changing your mind anyway, so it's a waste of my time.

Re:Good!

[benhattman]

No, the actual issue was that a group of people with ulterior motives spotted a chink in the armor of legitimate scientists and they exploited it to reaffirm for some collection of the masses that climate scientists are untrustworthy. Of course, when the real facts came out some time later, they didn't have time on talk radio to admit their witch trial was erroneous, because they were too busy riling people up over the imminent danger of sharia law.

Re:Good!

[jafac]

AGW opponents were looking for a reason. Whether the CRU gave them a valid one or not - doesn't really matter. They could have forgotten to wash their hands after going to the bathroom, and it would have been enough.

Never mind the comparative wrongdoings of the financial community which has been screaming "don't regulate us, don't cap n trade us." - we're still suffering through a crashed economy, and no, we haven't capped and traded or regulated. So it kind of makes their arguments a moot point. Their obscene payscales - justify some kind of superhuman financial expertise? I doubt it. They are simply dishonest, they've fucked up, and they want to blame others for their problems - and they're certainly making 99% of the rest of the world suffer for their crimes.

And they focus on this issue by the CRU as the reason why we should be cautious about regulating carbon output? Fucking rude, man.

Re:Good!

[IICV]

Your first link is to a general Slashdot posting about the fact that the e-mails were leaked; that's not a specific e-mail referencing "an ends justifies the means philosophy", as the original poster promised. I hope we can all agree that the leak happened, and that this fact is not in doubt.

Your second link is another Slashdot posting about the fact that the e-mails were leaked, referencing a blog post at Watt's Up With That. The referenced blog post pulls out a few e-mails:

1. Someone mentioning that in a class of journals it is customary to release data and (presumably source) code, but then saying that their legal department believes (I'm guessing from IPR) intellectual property rights associated with such things do not allow such a release. Which, interestingly enough, is topical! The reason why there's a "virtually all" in the title of this Slashdot article is because some countries refuse to let their data be released - they claim ownership of the data and do not want it in the public domain, for whatever reason.

2. The infamous "Mike's Nature trick" e-mail, which has been discussed ad nauseum and does not reference any foul play (if it had, wouldn't Nature have retracted the paper originally referenced by "Nature trick"? They haven't - as your third link mentions later)

3. An e-mail from a scientist who is uncomfortable getting directly involved in politics by signing a letter to the Senate; he recommends letting the AGU (the American Geophysical Union) do it, since they are a political body. His primary concern is that this is not something scientists should be doing as individuals, and cautions other scientists to not jump in without the support of their co-authors.

None of these are indicative of any sort of foul play or even concerns about global warming. There are a thousand comments after that, so hopefully you didn't mean there was evidence somewhere in there? Presumably the editor of the blog would have pulled better e-mails up into the main body of the post if such things were noted in the comments.

Your third link, much like the first, mentions no specific e-mails, but funnily enough references another Slashdot article that you left out of your list; perhaps it is because the article is about the journal Nature reviewing the e-mails, and stating that they do not form a "substantive reason for concern." As a sibling poster said, the rest of the article is about the way the leaked e-mails were used to trump up a baseless witchhunt.

So, I have to wonder - if these emails suggesting questionable motives and practices exist, why can't you link directly to them? If you're having trouble finding the archive online, there's a copy right here.

If I don't see those e-mails despite looking for them, perhaps it is because they just don't seem to exist?

I really hope you're right, though; I would very much prefer to live in a world where everything looks fine and there is a global conspiracy of scientists to make us think it isn't, than in a world where things are looking scary and scientists are trying to warn us about it, but we're mostly ignoring them.

Re:Good!

[seantide]

You can make a name for yourself by jumping on the global warming bandwagon too, and there are plenty of people with an agenda ready with funding to help you do that.

This works both says.

This is beside the fact that reducing emissions should not depend on the eventual truth anyway. It improves our technology if we make reasonable changes to reduce emissions even if humans have no appreciable effect on climate. Interestingly a lot of the emission reduction we have had so far was funded by energy companies. I know some people working for a few of them, and they aren't trying to fund opposition to the global warming fan club. What they are trying to do is avoid knee jerk reactions which cripple us.

A lot of proposed climate change legislation and regulation is just plain stupid, and serves mostly to further the agenda of people who don't want certain people to have a strong economy and industry.

The frightening irony of it is all is that as we become more economically and industrially crippled because of idiots like the EPA and dangerous regulation and legislation, we become less able to make better and cleaner technology.

A good number of the people who claim to want to reduce pollution in the world, are in effect making it worse.

Re:Good!

[IICV]

But I did read them, and I saw no evidence of foul play. The editors of Nature agree with me, so I'm not just crazy (it's always nice to have some confirmation); however, it's entirely possible that I've missed something, and since your opinion differs from mine I was wondering what led you to form your opinion.

This is why I asked for a specific link; none of the e-mails I read show a "the ends justifies the means" philosophy among the CRU leadership. I assume you've read some e-mails that I haven't, and thus would be able to point me towards the ones that led you to this conclusion. The archive is still available here, if you change your mind; surely you remember some key words or phrases from the e-mails you read, and would be able to find them quickly?

Re:Good!

[salesgeek]

No, the actual issue was that a group of people with ulterior motives spotted a chink in the armor of legitimate scientists and they exploited it to reaffirm for some collection of the masses that climate scientists are untrustworthy.

Actually, that's not too far off from the CRU's point of view. The moral of the story is do not have chinks in your armor. If you do, get them fixed before someone rams a spear into your side.

Re:Good!

[salesgeek]

clueless politically motivated people like politicians shout the loudest and so get listened to more than the scientists and people who actually know what they are talking about.

The CRU should have never, ever given them an excuse to start yelling. The existence of the emails and the "it's not big deal" response combined with excuses for incomplete data disclosure were a sequence of PR mistakes.

Re:Good!

[salesgeek]

AGW opponents were looking for a reason.

Aren't "Anti Global Warming opponents" the same as "Global Warming Supporters"?

They (financial community) are simply dishonest, they've fucked up, and they want to blame others for their problems - and they're certainly making 99% of the rest of the world suffer for their crimes.
The same financial community will be raking it in on trading carbon credits. Look at any commodity trading - who always wins? The losers will be working people, and the poor as it ads a whole layer of cost that is paid by the consumer.

Sinister!

[ivandavidoff]

Just what are Trinidad and Tobago hiding?

Re:Sinister!

[tkrotchko]

I almost posted the same thing.

It makes you smile. Maybe they were hoping for more money.

Re:Sinister!

[Boronx]

"Maybe they were hoping for more money."

How craven. It's enough to give an oil company shill the vapors.

Re:Sinister!

[GameboyRMH]

It's worth noting that T&T's economy is HEAVILY dependent on oil exports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago

Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission...

Wait, on what grounds? You can't copyright/patent/trademark facts. Why did they even bother asking?

Re:Refuse Permission?

[nuggz]

I think it is important that this information is released.

However it sets a VERY scary precident that all researches should be afraid of.
If someone grants linformation for a particular purpose, it should be only used for that purpose, and only released withthe consent of those providing the information.

For someone to simply overrule that agreement suggests they aren't enforcable or even valid. Which means researchers can't guarantee confidentiality. Breaking nconfidentiality agreements should always be done very carefully, and only for very specific reasons.

Maybe this was such a case, but it really shouldn't be taken lightly.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[abulafia]

You can't copyright/patent/trademark facts.

In the U.S. You might notice that Trinidad and Tobago (and England, for that matter) happen to not yet be an official vassal of the empire, and is still a sovereign nation that makes its own rules.

It isn't clear from the article what rules and agreements govern here, but it certainly isn't U.S. copyright.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Seriously? I don't see any reason it should ever have been kept confidential. It's gathered data on temperatures and such not matters of national security and it's not ownable IP because it's just facts. I mean I could see an NDA being useful on things like product specs before you've officially released finalized specs but on temperature/humidity/wind speed? Seriously, WTF?

Re:Refuse Permission?

[blair1q]

http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/copyright_information/berne_convention_signatories

And if you click-through a link at TFA, you find that the Polish sect is still holding out because it does, in fact, sell its data sets.

You can copyright an expression of facts, and a collection of data you emailed to a wonk in Blighty counts as an expression of facts. They would have to somehow reformat it so it's not the same expression, but just changing the instruments doesn't make a tune any different, so changing formatting or number systems doesn't change a data set.

I bet Trinidad & Tobago is pissed and willing to sue.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Really? I thought we'd taken annexed them last year.

Yes, my reply was asinine. I'm fine with that though since what I was replying to also was. Bare facts not being subject IP law is extremely common worldwide.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[edjs]

Wait, on what grounds? You can't copyright/patent/trademark facts. Why did they even bother asking?

Perhaps not, but you can hold the facts as confidential, and require anyone you give the facts to to agree to treat the data as confidential. By breaking that agreement you risk sanctions such as not being given facts in the future.

Whether there's any good reason to keep this data confidential is another matter.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[artor3]

Give me your full name, your high school transcripts, every essay you've ever written, all emails from the past five years, and the names of every person you've ever slept with. After all, they're just facts. You can't trademark, copyright, or patent them. Therefore I should (by your bizzarro logic) be able to compel you to waste time complying with my every demand, even though you know I only want to info so I can find a way to harass you with it.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[Xyrus]

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.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Strawman argument. There's a world of difference saying you have no right to keep information private and saying you have a right to determine how any facts you share are used in perpetuity.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[microbox]

I don't see any reason it should ever have been kept confidential.

I bet it all has to do with money. It /does/ cost money to collect data you know.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[Jeremy Erwin]

If Trinidad's meteorological authorities have made a contract with CRU to supply certain otherwise proprietary datasets month after month, disclosure may abrogate the contract. CRU had to decide whether full disclosure outweighed the possibility of losing continued access.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[GumphMaster]

There is a little thing called The-rest-of-the-World where your nation's law does not necessarily hold. In a lot of places data generated by Govt. bodies, as climate data often is, is not automatically in the public domain. In a lot of places a compilation of facts into a database is protected by copyright while each individual fact is not (try to sell a reproduced phone book and see if you end up in court). Even in the absence of copyright protection, a contracted condition of access to a data set might preclude distribution. An NDA is useful to permit others to use the data you have put significant effort into collating, sanitising, etc. while protecting your ability to gain from first use of that data. The Hubble program achieved this by providing a 12 month exclusive period to the original researchers: effectively a self-imposed NDA.

In any case, it is plain common courtesy to ask the originator of the data set you are using if they mind you making another use of it.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[artor3]

Fine, then compile every post you've made on Slashdot, and all other forums, and give me that. Your cynical privacy argument no longer applies. The point is that the goal of these demands is to harass scientists, and nothing else.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[riverat1]

No, but you can copyright your collection of them. I think as a small nation Trinidad and Tobago probably look for anyway they can to pick up a little cash.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[riverat1]

We could if we wanted to. Their GDP was only $26.4 billion in 2010 according to Wikipedia. Hardly a rounding error in the current deficit limit discussion.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the weather business. Most national meteorological agencies charge for much of their data, particularly to companies or agencies not paying taxes in their jurisdictions. The data is valuable, as it can be used to make profits in everything from aviation routing to energy trading. You can't just cry "freedom of information" and ask people to hand over to you information that they normally would sell to you.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[elsurexiste]

Likely, they just had very different reasons, possibly financial in nature.

I thought I was the only one sane. Thank you! :)

Nowhere in the article mentions copyright as an issue. Why jump into conclusions? Maybe the data isn't sanitized, maybe there's bureaucracy, and maybe they are waiting for a huge batch of data (assuming old equipment).

Re:Refuse Permission?

[Boronx]

Have you ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement? You certainly can do this and there's plenty of good reasons to.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[xaxa]

Seriously? I don't see any reason it should ever have been kept confidential. It's gathered data on temperatures and such not matters of national security and it's not ownable IP because it's just facts. I mean I could see an NDA being useful on things like product specs before you've officially released finalized specs but on temperature/humidity/wind speed? Seriously, WTF?

The organisation I work for is partly funded by the UK government, and partly from the income we make selling data (and partly other stuff).

The same data might be sold for £1000s to a big company, and given (with conditions) for free to a university. If the university releases the data then we can't make any money from it, and we'd either not collect the data (and who would? it's probably not worth the full cost of collecting the data for the big companies, so science suffers) or we'd need more government funding.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[Rufty]

The wind direction and speed at an airfield determines which landing strips are useable and what types of aircraft can use it. For this reason the weather forecasts and prevailing wind data were British Official Secrets WWII and on.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[zippthorne]

Credit scores are actually a pretty good example. Information that the credit companies collect about you, which can affect you greatly. In the US, they are considered important enough that laws have been written to require the credit reporting agencies to provide you with your score on a periodic basis (if you ask) at NO charge.

The claims made by this group have public policy implications. Since their interpretation of the data could affect your lifestyle personally, don't you feel you should have the right to check their work? This means it needs to be obtainable by individuals at reasonable (i.e. no more than reproduction) cost.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[jbester1]

In the US, case law supports GP's argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

The key bit, is if it's published and a fact or collection of facts it can be reused.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[beanyk]

Credit scores are actually a pretty good example. Information that the credit companies collect about you, which can affect you greatly. In the US, they are considered important enough that laws have been written to require the credit reporting agencies to provide you with your score on a periodic basis (if you ask) at NO charge.

I don't think that's true. The agencies are required by law to provide you with your credit REPORT yearly at no charge. The credit SCORE -- that single number presumably distilled from the report by whatever arcane algorithms they use -- is still privileged information that you have to pay for.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

In the UK, yes you can copyright a specific collection of facts. I'd be interested in knowing whether that copyright is still in effect once they've been removed from the covered database and made part of a much larger one that would hold its own copyright.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Valid point, if they were at war.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Fair point. I'm inclined to think that a business model based on being a gatekeeper of data is a bad, bad idea in this day and age though.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[stdarg]

The posts are already compiled and available afaik: google

Do you think that the link I just posted is (or should be) illegal?

How about if he publishes a book of his Slashdot posts that he earns money from? Does that suddenly make my link illegal?

Re:Refuse Permission?

[Rufty]

Valid point, if they were at war or considered war to ever be possible. There, fixed that for you.

Re:Refuse Permission?

[seantide]

On that's just not true, you made another invalid argument. You need to look those up so you can avoid them in the future.

Every post he's made on Slashdot and elsewhere is already public, so he's therefore done what you suggest by posting.

This is beside the fact that personal privacy is a totally different animal.

I thought we had it already

[Coolhand2120]

I was under the assumption that the public already had this data. Certainly many people have trumpeted "Look at the raw data". Others still have claimed that the "raw data has been deleted" presumably a long time ago. Why wasn't the data released 5 years ago? So many questions, this just creates a dozen or so more.

Re:I thought we had it already

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I'm going to go with: Because an informed public is in no party's best interest.

Re:I thought we had it already

[WeatherGod]

Yes and no. The data that was already released was the "reanalysis" data which is the culmination of many, many, many observations from all around the world. These observations were all done at different time intervals, with different methods and different instruments. The raw data is nearly useless as it contains faulty data, biases and other effects that have to be accounted for. The work of those at CRU and other places have been to meticulously quality-control and analyze the raw observations down to a uniform grid (spatially and temporally).

In addition to the reanalysis data that was already fully released, much (but admittedly not all) of the raw observational data used to generate the reanalysis data was also already released. The data that was not already released was being withheld by the various organizations that accrued that data (some European countries and such). CRU was not allowed to release that data that they were given access to -- until now.

Personally, I think all data should always be available and most scientists and research groups do abide by this tenet. However, I can't bring myself to hold it against a research unit for being able to obtain some proprietary data and publish results on that information. When I was an undergraduate student, I had the opportunity to work on an analysis of snow storms/ice storms using an insurance company's accident dataset. That is highly proprietary information, and we were very lucky to even get a glimpse of a small subset of this information. If companies thought that one day down the road, some government would come along and force their proprietary datasets to be opened up just because part of it got shared with a public university, then we would never get access to such data and be able to publish useful research based on it. Heck, researchers within various companies would never publish their works either because of that looming threat.

Again, I repeat, I personally believe that all that data should be open anyway, but as a pragmatist, I would rather have some of the proprietary data rather than none.

Re:I thought we had it already

[microbox]

All the information wasn't released because there was not license to do so. It is just a matter of rules. /Most/ of the data was released though. This is purely a storm in a tea-cup.

Re:I thought we had it already

[WeatherGod]

I usually don't reply to AC, but what the heck. All of the published methods were reproducible with established datasets, and the "massaging" process was also reproducible. The data being directly massaged into climate data was available (just not "freely" available -- as in gratis). You would have had to pay money to get at that data, just as CRU did for many of them. People did not want to do the legwork that CRU had to do. CRU was more than happy to release the data, but they were contractually bound not to. But when the same people kept on insisting that CRU break the contractual obligations, that is when they got testy.

Re:I thought we had it already

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes and no. The data that was already released was the "reanalysis" data which is the culmination of many, many, many observations from all around the world.

Or, as in the case of the Briffa and Jones, from a single tree. Yes, hundreds of samples were taken, but all but one were excluded before reaching the conclusions that solidified the IPCC's position. A single tree.

I guess if you look at that same data set many, many, many times it could in some way qualify as "many, many, many observations"...

Re:I thought we had it already

[LynnwoodRooster]

I usually don't reply to AC, but what the heck. All of the published methods were reproducible with established datasets, and the "massaging" process was also reproducible.

Thank you for confirming what the AC said. IF you use their pre-selected data set, then you will get their results. Surprise - that's what happens. Of course, as the AC contends, the data set was NOT the full set of data but a subset pre-selected. How was it pre-selected, what was the criteria? Was the selection valid?

If I take a sampling of the people I meet today, here in Shanghai, and exclude any of those who don't really meet my qualifications - let's say at least 1.8m tall and blonde - then after my extensive set of data is collected I will be able to justifiably conclude that only tall, blonde people live in Shanghai. Here - have my pre-selected and qualified data and see for yourself!

Re:I thought we had it already

[WeatherGod]

That is a separate discussion. This data release is about weather station data. This was something I am much more familiar with. How the tree ring data was collected and used is outside my field of expertise. If the data was strictly from a single tree, then that would be a severe problem. However, since I generally work from scientific publications and correspondance and not "The Telegraph", I hope you would excuse me from immediately vilifying Dr. Mann and his associates.

Re:I thought we had it already

[riverat1]

Having the raw data isn't going to change a thing.

Re:I thought we had it already

[sydneyfong]

It was a relief to read your posts.

At least you show that not *everybody* (on both sides) has become irrational and crazy when it comes to "climategate".

Thanks.

Re:I thought we had it already

[petermgreen]

The work of those at CRU and other places have been to meticulously quality-control and analyze the raw observations down to a uniform grid (spatially and temporally).

How do we know that they did this "quality control and analysis" in a fair and unbiased manner rather than fudging it to produce the results they wanted.

Re:I thought we had it already

[WeatherGod]

For the raw data that was freely (as in gratis and libre) available already, several other research groups have taken their published methods for quality-control and duplicated their results for that data. For the data that was not freely available, there were some groups that purchased the data themselves (much of this data was always available for purchase) and reproduced and published results as well.

On top of that, there were other research groups that performed "quality-control and analysis" on completely different sets of data, and their results agree well with results published by others. Note that I said the results "agree well" with each other. They are not perfect matches, and where there are differences, subsequent research and analyses have yielded refined methods and results. Think of it as a large bootstrapping problem.

Now, you ask that how do we know that the analysis was done in a fair and objective manner in all places? Well, we could never be 100% sure until each and every single datapoint has been vetted and doing this is now easier than before (not that it was impossible to do before). However, analyses and research on the published datasets have not revealed any such tampering so far, therefore *I* am fairly confident that it didn't happen. If you are not convinced, then feel free to take these datasets and others and perform the analysis yourself. Just remember to publish your findings whether they are for good or naught.

Re:I thought we had it already

[WeatherGod]

By and large, most of the active scientists and researchers directly in the climate field and those in the periphery (like myself) are like this (including Dr. Mann). We often have to call out BS publications (on both sides of the argument) that uses shoddy statistics and methods. However, because most of the scientific discourse is within the community, the few things that catches the attention of the general public and "armchair scientists" provides a highly skewed picture of the active debate. Add in that the media loves a good drama, and things go hell in a handbasket.

The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate".

[Anonymous Coward]

The CRU was the source of "climategate".

Re:The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate".

[microbox]

No, there were definitely the target. Watch here and here.

Re:The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate".

[abigsmurf]

Why do climate scientists pretend they're the only ones who get targetted by death threats?

Scientists who test on animals, doctors involved in abortions, stem cell research, cloning, studies that disprove religious beliefs, studies that looks at racial or sex differences, studies that show drugs to be harmful, any study that directly effects people's livelihoods. All of these are areas of study that provoke angry reactions, some of them far far worse than anything climate scientists have ever received.

Scientists studying in these other areas however, do not use this as an excuse to shirk their legal responsibility to make public the research that was funded by the tax payer.

Re:The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate".

[KeensMustard]

Why do climate scientists pretend they're the only ones who get targetted by death threats?

Strawman

Scientists studying in these other areas however, do not use this as an excuse to shirk their legal responsibility to make public the research that was funded by the tax payer

You think the scientists at the CRU had a legal responsibility to release the data? You're wrong.

Re:The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate".

[microbox]

You think the scientists at the CRU had a legal responsibility to release the data? You're wrong.

LOL! Rotfl! The joke is on you pal. If you RTFA, you will see that they /still/ couldn't get permission to release all the data.

I suspect you are not one of those "information should just be free" FOSS people (maybe you are). More likely, you just want to hold scientists to irrational standards, because that is easier then educating yourself.

Re:The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate".

[Coolhand2120]

Sort of like Nixon was the target of the watergate scandal?

And what was the problem, what took so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't people be allowed and even encouraged to criticize, and have access to verify or discredit the data? The tone of the submitter seems to be "shut up and take what your told as fact"

This is the basis for a major realignment of global policies. Not all of us trust the new one world government completely.

Is criticism of the new emperor not allowed?

Note, I am not talking about the existence of or lack of global warming, I'm talking about the citizens right to take part in the new world order. Do we just not want transparency at all?

Re:And what was the problem, what took so long?

[jjohnson]

An excessive insistence on access to the "raw data" is a stalling tactic by climate deniers to tie up climate researchers in meaningless paperwork. People like yourself are useful idiots for those deniers.

The data was always widely available to any climatologist who wanted it. "Climategate" happened just because of the release of a bunch of emails between a wide variety of people who were already working with the data. It just wasn't conveniently available to people with little familiarity with climate science and little ability to do meaningful work with the data. Now it is. And now the climate deniers will find some other bogus point to harp on to delay making any policy changes based on the already voluminous data that shows climate change is real and man-made.

This isn't about transparency. This is about intellectual piety being manipulated for political purposes.

Re:And what was the problem, what took so long?

[LynnwoodRooster]

The data was always widely available to any climatologist who wanted it.

Then what was just released, if it was always widely available? Pet rocks?

Re:And what was the problem, what took so long?

[Boronx]

A huge wealth of data for free, or did you forget that data costs money?

Re:And what was the problem, what took so long?

[Richard_at_work]

Do you not see the difference between "available on request" and "available to download through a website"? The first is still "freely available", you just have to make some effort to request it.

Re:And what was the problem, what took so long?

[sydneyfong]

Bad analogy time: An excessive insistence on access to "justice" is a stalling tactic by criminals to tie up prosecutors in meaningless paperwork. People like yourself are useful idiots for those criminals.

Seriously, world changing policies are based on these research, and requests to publish data that's fundamental to these policies is "excessive paperwork"? Would somebody think of those poor, poor scientists?

Billions of public dollars, worldwide, are involved, and no you just can't be allowed to see the data because that's too excessive. You idiots won't know what to do with them anyway.

Re:And what was the problem, what took so long?

[jjohnson]

You're right: your "justice" analogy is terrible.

There's a difference between not allowing people to see the data (which was not the case), and not gift wrapping it for people who can't and won't actually make use of it, who are demanding it only because the demand itself seems to demonstrate some flaw in the conclusions of people who actually work with it.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog. Read the talk page as well for an illuminating look at how a challenger of evolution simply won't wrap his head around the fact that the data shows what it shows, and doesn't even really know what he's asking for when he repeatedly demands the "raw data".

If you can't find the link to the data yourself...

[NemoinSpace]

You probably shouldn't draw any conclusions from the work you do on it.
Anyway, give this a try

The Zip File

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/zip/e/0/station_files.20110720.zip

For those into bits.

The real story here

[Anonymous Coward]

UEA has refused for years to show any data. Details on http://climateaudit.org/

Re:The real story here

[Dan Ost]

And now we wait to see the analysis of the data by 3rd parties.

This is how good science is done.

OIl and coal companies will be sued

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bury the researchers under mountains of FOIA requests" has been a tactic of the deniers and oil company shills for some time now. It'll be interesting to see what happens now that they've ostensibly gotten everything they wished for. My bets are on them moving the goalposts (again).

In the future, what happened to the cigarette companies will happen to the oil, coal, and all the other greenhouse gas making industries: crushing lawsuits for "causing" the problem.

You'll see. All those politicians who are in bed with the oil and coal industries will suddenly flip because of public outrage and hold those Congressional hearing where they grill the executives ... it'll happen. I'm telling you.

Re:OIl and coal companies will be sued

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

And I don't advocate that, either. It's counter-productive. I fail to see why it's so complicated to say "you know, since the Industrial Revolution started, we've been digging/drilling up billions of tons of trapped carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere. Maybe that's a little irresponsible, and we should try to not be such profligate wasters of both non-renewable resources, AND the atmosphere". Further, I don't understand why the deniers insist on being allowed to do ANYTHING they please. The problem with the Tragedy of the Commons is that it's both a Tragedy, and it's the Commons.

Isn't It Obvious?

[eldavojohn]

This is good news (except for Poland, who for SOME reason is holding out on releasing their numbers).

Isn't it obvious? Poland's numbers show that in twenty years, they're going to be the only ones on Earth with cold left. Siberia and Minnesota? Completely out of cold by 2031. Think of it. People will climb over themselves to get to the cold in Poland. China will buy cold pipeline through countries just to have access to it. Europe will be cast back into World War II-like conflict, you might even see England trade a piece of Poland back to the Ruskies just to end the conflict again. Barrels of crude cold will start trading at massively high prices. Ice cubes will be traded illegally on the street like crack until they've all melted. Obama's already foolishly dropped all of the United States' reserves to lessen the suffering during this heat wave--what are we going to do? Canada can easily blockade us from Alaska and claim what is left of the Inuit Cold for their own.

You're probably saying "Oh, America will just do what it always does and get shitfaced instead of worrying about that." How? We won't have any cold for our drinks. What, you're going to drink room temperature wine? Sure and afterward be sure to stick your tannin coated tongue out so everyone knows you're French.

Poland is trying to keep this strategic advantage hidden from the rest of the world. Gentlemen, I think the question here today is not how can we defer or lessen global warming but instead how quickly can we take Poland by surprise with unilateral action from land, air and sea. You might argue that we cannot afford a third war but I say that greedy selfish Poland has brought this upon themselves.

Re:Isn't It Obvious?

[kelemvor4]

We'll strap a big "window unit" air conditioner onto the ISS with some really long bungee cords. That'll do the trick.

Re:Isn't It Obvious?

[digitalmuse]

poland cannot into global warming?

Re:Isn't It Obvious?

[GameboyRMH]

Yes, they accidentally the whole thing.

Re:Isn't It Obvious?

[drainbramage]

I thought the US won the cold war...
No?
This sends a chill up my spine. Brrrrrr.

Global Warming Denial

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the skepticism on slashdot. There is a worldwide scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up and humans are a major factor. It has been known since the 19th century that C02 in the atmosphere absorbs and emits infrared radiation back to the planet. It is also uncontroversial that humans have been putting ever increasing amounts of C02 in the atmosphere. And that it takes a century or two for that C02 to be taken out of the atmosphere. It is also known that glaciers and ice caps are melting / receding. It is also well known that there is a lot methane trapped below the Greenland ice and in the deep sea as sludge. If enough warming on land and in the seas occurs, a lot of methane could be released. It is known that methane is a much more potent green house gas than C02, even though it is shorter lived in the atmosphere.

It's funny how people accept the scientific enterprise as a great tool for understanding the world right up until their views or wallets are impacted. Oh and as for who has the most incentive to misrepresent facts. Why those would be the people who make the most money from fossil fuels. And those with an ideological axe to grind. God forbid reality get in the way of ideology.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[blair1q]

No, I believe that large changes in the large amount of significant greenhouse gas has been proved to affect Earth's climate. Because that's what happened.

Why you find the need to deny every part of it is the mystery. It's going to make your future hell, unless you're heavily invested in everyone else's future becoming hell, in which case you can go to hell.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[hldn]

There is a worldwide scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up..

yes.

and humans are a major factor.

not so much.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[iggymanz]

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is minute. On the other hand, the concentration of the most powerful and dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is quite large. we cannot model the effects on climate of that most powerful greenhouse gas, because it is too complex. Plenty of credible scientists have many problems with the current version of AGW, already the earth's climate is not following the myriad of models produced with the billions of dollars wasted on the effort.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Co0Ps]

You need to understand that Slashdot is American. It's mainstream to be a climate denier here. /thread

Re:Global Warming Denial

[WeatherGod]

Right... so, half the energy goes up into space (assuming the simple RTE model) and half goes down to the earth's surface. Let's consider that energy that went up to space as "lost". What about the half that went down to the Earth's surface? Well, some gets reflected, and most gets absorbed. Then, what happens to that absorbed energy? It gets radiated back out to the atmosphere. Some of which passes right through, some of it gets reflected down to the surface (top of the loop again), and some of it gets absorbed (back at the beginning).

This is taught in undergraduate meteorology courses. Graduate-level courses use even more intricate models that account for far more. Were you under the assumption that climate scientists were not "considering both sides of the molecule"?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[shermo]

Energy from sun is not in the infrared so CO2 has no effect. However energy radiated from the Earth is in the infrared, so it interacts with CO2. As a consequence, some of it is radiated out to space, but some of it is radiated back to earth, when previously all of it would have radiated out to space.

That's how I understand it from school physics anyway.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[mswhippingboy]

...and quiet filled the room as Nemo picked himself off the floor, wiping the sweat from his brow

"I'm rubber and your glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" he shouted as he picked up his marbles and ran out the door.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[mswhippingboy]

Right. Out the entire diatribe, the "Christ on a fucking pogo stick" was the only thing that made any sense.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

Energy from sun is not in the infrared so CO2 has no effect.

Seriously? Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49% of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths I'd damn well call 49% a slight bit more than "no effect"...

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Nemyst]

The data has already been confirmed by experts in the field that used the full scientific method, including having a prior hypothesis and then making experiments to attempt to confirm or deny it.

Unfortunately, most climate skeptics tend to hold the dogma that there is no climate change. This is not compatible with the scientific method.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

How could the data be confirmed when - as this story indicates - not all of it was available? Guess what - if I provide you a pre-selected set of data, and tell you the model I used to fit that data, you'll get the same results as I did! That, of course, says nothing about how I pre-selected the data, or even what the original raw data was.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[sunyjim]

Concensus has always been the enemy of science, there was concensus that the earth was the center of the universe, there was concensus that the earth was flat, there was even concensus that people should be bled with leaches to balance their fluids and make them well again, and there was concensus in the 1970s that after 40 years of cooling that Global Cooling caused by man made emissions from cars and smoke stacks was going to lead to the next ice age. Then concensus gave us Global Warming in the mid 80s, and now that it's not really warming anymore now the concensus is global instability. Science on the other hand is about doing an experiment and getting the same result, imagine if you would that nobody liked Newton, he was a jerk, didn't bathe, and was ugly. A horrible dinner companion, but regardless of his lack of popularity we have Newton's laws, anyone, everyone, anywhere can do Newton's experiments and get Newton's results. That is science, not computer models that can't predict the weather next Monday, can't take into account the sun spot cycle, can't take in all the variables of everything that affects the climate. Computer models are not experiments, they are fantasy and who's to blame people out there for being dubious of the outcome when the people spewing that nonsense have so much to gain financially (CO2 Cap and Trade), and the majority of the greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 is plant food, it makes things grow, it doesn't kill the planet!

Re:Global Warming Denial

[MightyMartian]

This is a bizarre statement. Does this universal consensus on the germ theory of disease mean that the germ theory of disease is false? Consensus is not a condemnation in and of itself.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[shermo]

OK I read into this a bit more. What I said was correct in concept, however I got the spectrums a bit wrong.

So substitute 'the lower end of the infrared spectrum' for the first infrared and 'the higher end of the infrared spectrum' for the second infrared.

The second to bottom graph on this page explains it graphically. http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/co2/

Re:Global Warming Denial

[RazorSharp]

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.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[riverat1]

The most powerful greenhouse gas is sulfur hexafluoride. It is not present in quantities large enough to be significant on the short term. But I suspect you're talking about water vapor. Yes, it is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. But since it only has an average lifetime of 9 days (compared to at least a decade for other significant GHG's) it can't force climate change, it can only be a feedback.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

What makes an authority? Someone who's claims have been shown to be correct. Can you say unequivocally if that authority does not share their data or methods to reach their conclusions? Science is supposed to be skeptical by nature; witness the fact we're STILL testing Einstein's theories to see if he was, in fact, correct. If we still skeptically test such an authority on the theory of relativity and physics, then why not those climate "scientists" (quotes on purpose, because of their refusal to adhere to the Scientific method) who do not share their data, their methods, or both?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

Oh, and as far as the roof goes - I did not trust the framers, carpenters, and roofers to do a good job - I had my own independent expert (an inspector) confirm that the data provided, and the method used, was in fact satisfactory. In fact, that's the law - you must have that independent certification and confirmation when having a new roof built. The roof-building industry itself is inherently skeptical, by statute.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[sunyjim]

It's not concensus that gave us germ theory it is the amazing work of Louis Pasteur - instituting changes in hospital/medical practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes or germs, - discovering that weak forms of disease could be used as an immunization against stronger forms and that rabies was transmitted by viruses too small to be seen under the microscopes of the time, - introducing the medical world to the concept of viruses. These were proven to anyone in the scientific community who wanted to attempt the experiments that germ theory was right. Other scientists and doctors did those experiments and came up with the same results. You assume that because we all believe it, there must be concensus. The real question is why do we all believe it? It's because we can prove it.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

I'd be interested to know where his data for the graph came from... Also interesting to note he uses the geological data for temperature and CO2 levels that confirms CO2 levels lag temperature changes, not lead. The Earth first warms, then CO2 increases; the Earth cools, and CO2 decreases.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

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.

I agree, up to a point. Skeptics should be welcomed and engaged, as anyone trying to figure out the truth behind a complex subject should.

But how many 'skeptics' in climate change debates are actually skeptics as opposed to concern trolls and deniers who refuse to look at any evidence you present? What do you do when it becomes clear the person you're debating with has no interest in a reasoned debate and simply wants to try and discredit you as much as possible?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[BZ]

This "objectively obtain knowledge" thing is only true to the extent that the funding agencies disburse funds that way. Scientists working for BP et al are clearly biased. Scientists working for an NSF committee (which is more or less the other alternative) are likewise biased to work on things the NSF committee will fund and to produce results that will result in more grants.

Now the NSF is a lot more interested in objectivity than BP, but that's a pretty low bar. From what I've seen, they're not really _that_ interested in objectivity in many cases...

Re:Global Warming Denial

[shermo]

The graph I was referring to was about the absorption spectrum of different molecules and the spectrum of sunlight. That's all quite well established.

I confess I haven't read the entire page, I just skimmed Google for the spectrum data. My only position on global warming is "woosh" - as in it's all much more complicated than I can understand.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Arlet]

Do a google search for "Younger Dryas" and tell me that it is man that has to be the major factor in any warming which may be occurring today.

Except that's not how science works. We didn't go: "the earth is warming, man must have done it". Instead, scientists tried to understand the mechanisms, and the exact sequence of events that led to warming. They did that both for the modern era, and for the Younger Dryas. In both cases, they came up with a theory. The fact that these theories are different doesn't mean one is less likely to be correct than the other.

The theory than man is causing the warming is a perfectly reasonable one. We know man has increased CO2 in the atmosphere (by over 30%), we know that CO2 helps to block IR radiation that would otherwise be escaping from the earth. Ergo, the earth should be expected to warm. Also, when you do the calculations based on that, the results match the real temperature pretty well, not just for the modern era, but also for the glacial cycles and other events.

And if man didn't cause the warming, what is the alternative theory ? "Natural cycle" isn't a theory without explaining how this natural cycle works, and where the heat is actually coming from, and why it's happening now.

Todays scientific community runs on grant money I do not expect objectivity

Still, it's more likely than a worldwide conspiracy between scientist to produce a result nobody really wants to hear, not even the people handing them the grant money.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[iggymanz]

faulty reasoning, there is one more consideration to the effects of any greenhouse gas than just average lifetime, and that is maintained level in atmosphere coupled to production rate. if something causes the average level of water vapor in the atmosphere to rise or fall over long time periods, climate can change. This has happened repeatedly in the history of earth, even when carbon dioxide levels much higher but earth's temperatures lower.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[riverat1]

The only things that can change the average level of water vapor in the atmosphere are atmospheric temperature and the availability of water to evaporate into the air. There is nothing else that has much effect on atmospheric water vapor levels. Even if you put a big mirror in synchronous orbit and beamed sunlight into a particular spot on the ocean 24/7 (barring the occasional eclipses of the Sun by the Earth) it wouldn't affect worldwide water vapor that much, just regionally. You just can't overload the air with water vapor, if it gets to be more than the air can carry it precipitates out and becomes water on the surface.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Bemopolis]

Oh, and as far as the roof goes - I did not trust the framers, carpenters, and roofers to do a good job - I had my own independent expert (an inspector) confirm that the data provided, and the method used, was in fact satisfactory.

And what, pray tell, was your methodology to verify the legitimacy and competence of the inspector?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Bemopolis]

I might have more confidence in your understanding of consensus if you could manage to fucking spell it right once, even by accident.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[AdamHaun]

It's founded on the principles of skepticism and independent confirmation.

True, but skepticism is just a tool to keep from fooling yourself. If you use it as a debating tactic or to avoid dealing with conclusions that make you unhappy, you won't get closer to the truth.

For if your theory is correct - your proof in the face of skepticism will show it, unequivocally.

In the real world, not everyone is trained in rationality and evaluation of evidence, and not everyone is willing to be honest and put their egos aside. Few people are climate scientists. What, exactly, constitutes unequivocal proof? Unless you take all the measurements yourself and do all the analysis yourself (which you won't), you have to trust other people at some point.

With that in mind, consider which of these options should provoke more skepticism:

1. A worldwide scientific consensus based on empirical data, understood via well-known physical mechanisms, and confirmed by ongoing measurements.
2. A worldwide conspiracy theory to promote political control of the (American?) economy, which failed for decades but everyone went along with it anyway and now it's finally gaining traction.

Because really, that's about all the deniers have -- a bunch of hand-wavy statements about how politicians will do anything for control, scientists will do anything for grant money, and developing nations will do anything for subsidies. Never mind that it's almost impossible to get people worked up about a disaster that's decades away. Never mind that such a conspiracy makes no sense in the political context of countries like China or Nigeria. Never mind that the scale and length of such a conspiracy would be ludicrous -- is this supposed to be some leftover project from the Cold War?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[quantaman]

Here's the secret of /., we all think we're smarter than everyone else. In school we were probably among the smartest in the class, and now many of us specialize in IT, which means we have a far greater ability to retrieve and consume information than the vast majority of the population, which makes us feel any smarter.

Of course a lot of us are programmers, not researchers, which puts us a rung down on the intellectual totem poll and we feel we don't get the respect we deserve. So how do we get that respect? We say, "oh, not only am I an expert programmer, I think I'm also an expert biologist, doctor, economist, climatologist, politician, etc". Sometimes we agree with the real experts, but when it comes to climatology we go "oh no, you guys are corrupt/doing it wrong and this is the real answer", and try to show how smart we are with our ability to retrieve endless facts.

I might be wrong here, after all I'm not actually a psychologist or sociologist so I could be completely wrong about the factors in play. And I'm not saying you shouldn't try to educate yourself and share that knowledge, but I'm tired of people forgetting just how much they don't know and don't understand, and spreading a lot of BS as a result.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[quantaman]

Did they share every last bit of data and code? No.

Did they have good legal/IP reasons for not sharing every last bit? Yes.

Did they share more than enough code and data to justify their conclusions? Yes.

Did the results change when you used only the public data? No.

Did they stop testing their theories? No.

If a scientific group was found to be falsifying their relativity experiments would that falsify relativity? No.

If CRU was actually found to be falsifying their climate research would that falsify climate change? No.

Does the scientific consensus on climate change vanish if you wipe CRU off the planet? No.

Do your criticisms bear up to scrutiny? No.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[pidge-nz]

If the climate scientists don't know how the natural cycles work, how can they exclude natural cycles as the cause?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

Did they share every last bit of data and code? No.

Check out the Yamal issue with Briffa et al - 2000. A single tree, massive dropping of data, subsequent merging of other sources, and stonewalling of delivery of data for a decade. And when that single tree is actually merged with the original data set, the rise simply goes away. Basically cherry picking down to the level of a single tree to get the desired result - there is no other way to explain it. Then refusing to release the data for nearly a decade after publication, and only doing so when the Royal Society told him he had to publish the data used for his paper.

Sorry, the Scientific method calls for openness and welcomes scrutiny. Hiding data, refusing to release it, and even when releasing it releasing it in nearly incomprehensible formats is simply not scientific. No surprise, then that the conclusions originally reached simply cannot be sustained when independent eyes look at the same data.

This isn't about pro-or-con AGW - this is about the integrity of science itself, and when people try to defend the actions of those who pull such data-hiding and obfuscation stunts, they hurt the scientific community as a whole.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

In my case, certification of his current license, and his knowledge of required building codes. All of which was easily confirmed with a single call, to verify his business license and standing. Plus the fact that he was working for me - if he found problems, then the roofers would need to fix them and I'd have to pay him to re-inspect my roof - he was working for me, not the roofers.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

I agree, up to a point. Skeptics should be welcomed and engaged, as anyone trying to figure out the truth behind a complex subject should.

But how many 'skeptics' in climate change debates are actually skeptics as opposed to concern trolls and deniers who refuse to look at any evidence you present? What do you do when it becomes clear the person you're debating with has no interest in a reasoned debate and simply wants to try and discredit you as much as possible?

Provide them ALL your data, your methods, and how and why you reached your conclusion and let the scientific community work it out. Hiding data, claiming data is "lost", obfuscating algorithms and data, adding fudge factors with no reason - those are not the signs of a scientist who trusts his own work. Release what you have, it may take time for the naysayers to go away - but the truth will win out in the end. That's how the Scientific method works.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[LynnwoodRooster]

So, to summarize: we can ignore good science and the scientific method in this case because you don't believe the skeptics have a real reason to be skeptical. Is that correct?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Boronx]

Shouting down skeptics doesn't sound great on its face, but shouting down idiots is a long standing and important tradition in science.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Boronx]

The scientific method has nothing to do with satisfying skeptics.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Richard_at_work]

Surely the collection of the data is the main starting point for anyone wishing to confirm anothers results? There is no point confirming something from the same set of data, surely?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[sydneyfong]

Even if we accept that the climate change proponents are methodically correct in using an "argument from authority", it does *not* automatically follow that any skepticism is invalid.

Even the legitimate experts can be wrong, and if there is a reason to believe that, then such skepticism is indeed warranted.

I think it is true that the "wallet" consequences of climate change does affect the levels of skepticism a bit -- but it is for good reason: you're asking us to shell out big $$$ and all you have to say is "just trust us"?

If Warrent Buffet tells me to invest a million in Company X because "I'm the expert, just trust me", and refuses to give further reasons, I will be skeptical about it too.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[Arlet]

First of all, you'd have to specify what kind of "natural cycle" we are talking about. If it gets warmer, where does the heat come from ? The number of possible sources is limited. Possible candidates are the sun, change in albedo, change in ocean currents, change in atmosphere,and maybe a few more things. For each of those, it is possible to go out, do measurements, and see if there is correlation. These things have been looked at (and people are still looking at them), and so far, nothing has been found that could explain the temperature change.

At the same time, we have a perfect explanation based on CO2 greenhouse effect.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[salesgeek]

Unfortunately, most climate skeptics tend to hold the dogma that there is no climate change.

Taking it on trust is the definition of faith. Without data and full disclosure of source code for computer models, there is nothing to believe in other than, "trust us". Even if that trust is in "experts in the field" is is still faith. Faith is not science.

My hope is that the data release will quell the questions that Climategate raised.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[GameboyRMH]

There aren't that many climate deniers on Slashdot. I have pretty much all of them on my Foes list - there are anti-vacc'ers, creationists and stem cell deniers mixed in there, but the majority are climate deniers. Setting science deniers as foes gives me X-ray vision on Slashdot.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[GameboyRMH]

Ah the old "scientific consesnus is meaningless because there used to be consensus by non-scientists on things that were clearly wrong" argument. We need a convenient shorthand name for this, like Godwin's law. Does anyone know if one already exists?

BTW you probably can't be assed to look this up and/or have blocked it from your mind, but there was no consensus on the global cooling scare.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[RazorSharp]

1. Relying on the inspector is an appeal to authority, not an independent confirmation. An independent confirmation would be becoming an expert yourself and doing the inspection yourself.

2. Have you done this for every building you've ever entered?

Re:Global Warming Denial

[k6mfw]

> And those with an ideological axe to grind.

All you need to say about those that deny global warming:
1. Oil companies
2. Shipping companies
3. Russians

Because with less ice in Arctic Ocean area,
1. Oil companies examining more closely for drilling
2. Shipping companies planning for the long desired "northern passage"
3. Russians grumbling more about mineral rights in that area of the planet

If there was no global warming, then these guys would not take interest like they have been recently.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[AdamHaun]

No. I'm talking about practical decision-making in a world where everyone has partial knowledge and some people are (intellectually) dishonest. What I'm saying is:

The people who are best able to determine if the science is good (other scientists) think the science is good. The scientific consensus is global, crossing political, economic, generational, racial, gender, etc. boundaries. This means there is less chance of a systemic bias.

Climate skepticism as a movement is selective, with (impossibly) high standards for climate science but low standards for other science (or the implications of its own ideas). It is driven by politically-motivated non-scientists who care more about the implications of climate change than they do about understanding climate. There is no reason to give climate skeptics the benefit of the doubt since there's nothing special about the belief that humans aren't causing climate change. (The real skeptical position is "we don't know", not "it isn't happening".) Furthermore, the alternate explanation includes an implausible conspiracy theory. Climate skeptics follow the pattern of denial, moving goalposts and repeating old arguments.

As a non-climate scientist (like most on Slashdot), I have to decide what to believe based mostly on the credibility of the people involved. I see no reason to doubt the global scientific community, which has a good track record for figuring things out. I see lots of reasons to doubt climate skeptics. Therefore, as a practical matter, I go with the scientists. Your standard is nice in theory, but in practice it would force me to also be skeptical about relativity, the Holocaust, the September 11th attacks, Obama's citizenship, evolution and the age of the earth, etc., which is a spectacular waste of my time. No matter how good the evidence, you can never convince everyone, especially when egos and fortunes are on the line.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[SmurfButcher Bob]

This is what consensus gets you: "100 Scientists Against Einstein".

Albert said it best in his rebuttal - "...it would only have taken one"... but we'll never get to hear that one guy, whatever side he's on - the power of consensus is more important to the fanbois than any actual fact. Consensus is an automatic "I WIN" card that they can drop, and it cannot be refuted. It's the penultimate troll tool.

And THAT is why consensus is treated with malice when used as an argument. It means you're likely a troll who cannot actually defend the claims you make.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[blair1q]

It precipitates less if the temperature is higher.

CO2 can make the temperature higher, world-wide.

As the temperature rises the water-vapor content of the atmosphere rises with it, amplifying the effect of the CO2.

So when the poster with the attitude said that CO2 was negligible as a proportion of the atmosphere's mass, he must have meant it in the same way a bullet is negligible as a proportion of its victim's body-mass. In the way that his own systems, by pumping blood out of the holes it leaves, amplify its effect out of proportion to the mass ratio, by doing something otherwise completely normal and natural.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[GameboyRMH]

I can get behind that.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[BCGlorfindel]

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.

And how many authorities are there who are legitimate authorities in ALL of the required fields to declare that human CO2 emissions have caused the last century of warming? It spans virtually every scientific discipline that there is. There is meaningful individual consensus on specific, isolated facts. It has indeed been warming over the last 100 years. Human's have indeed been releasing measurable levels of CO2. CO2 is indeed a GHG that contributes to warming. I'm afraid however, that there is no legitimate expert and majority consensus that those individual pieces prove unprecedented and potentially catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is underway.

The legitimate experts that tell us the last 100 years have been warming equally have records showing similarly high temperatures within the last 2k years, with temperatures previously dropping as quickly as they are warming today(see even Mann's own corrections to his previous work). That seems to argue against the last 100 years of warming indicating catastrophic AGW is underway.

The legitimate experts that tell us that humans are emitting measurable levels of CO2 each year also tell us that those are a mere 3% of the natural emissions our planet produces every year. That seems to argue against our CO2 emissions being proof that catastrophic AGW is eminent.

The legitimate experts that tell us that CO2 is a powerful GHG also tell us that it is responsible for 10-25% of the greenhouse effect, while water vapor accounts for better than 70. Combine that with the small contribution humans make to natural CO2 emissions, and it is hardly compelling that catastrophic AGW is upon us.

The tricky part about science is cross-disciplinary studies and a failure to recognize uncertainties in results that get picked up as input from another discipline. The IPCC has tried to get around that with committees of experts, but it seems to have only managed to add the additional problem of politics into the mix.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[iggymanz]

The geological record shows earth at times with much higher temperature and higher water concentration in atmosphere, and CO2 levels rising AFTER that as a reaction.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[iggymanz]

The geological record shows at times carbon dioxide concentration higher than today, but with much lower global average temperature. Global warming has flattened out, we are no longer following a "hockey stick"; the models are false. As an engineer, I deal in facts, not religion fueled by hysteria, imagined guilt, and financial backers.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[seantide]

There are a lot of experts in the field, who have no connection with all those "evil" energy companies, who disagree. They get shot down and refused funding because they have not jumped on the bandwagon. They aren't stupid, nor do they want to harm the Earth. What they are is under siege by largely leftist militants who oppose rational argument.

Some of us really don't have a side in this. We don't agree man is a huge factor because there is data which suggests otherwise, and the global warming fan club has been openly dishonest and hidden a lot of their data. Al Gore in particular in the USA funded a lot of research based on known bad sensor data and trumpeted it to the world as fact. In my opinion, people like him hurt either argument because the truth people like Al Gore are all about themselves anyway.

Most of us who are skeptical don't deny global warming, we question the cause and the knee-jerk policy, regulatory, and legislative changes which have been so incredibly damaging in the past. We think you should reduce emissions and make our technology cleaner. Its really annoying to have all these peole say we oppose that, when its simply not true.

In America we are faced with dealing with an overpowerful, agenda ridden, and corrupt EPA and other factors which, rather than helping situations like pollution, are in the long term crippling our ability to deal with it.

There are too many people on both sides fueled more by agenda that has nothing to do with global warming, pollution, industry, and technology, or anything worthwhile for that matter, and until we learn to ignore them we are going to have trouble over all of this.

There is no reason not to make reasonable changes to reduce our emissions and make us more efficient. Likewise there is no reason to adopt knee-jerk reactionary changes that will do more harm than good, especially since we still know relatively little about all of this.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[seantide]

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.

.

That's a gross generalization. Scientists working for energy and technology companies have made positive change to reduce emissions and make technology more efficient. They aren't all corrupt, and most of the improvements in our efficiency and emissions have been done by them. They are after all in the best position to do so.

Likewise a lot of scientists are paid by people outside the energy industry who also have agendas. Money buys a lot of mind share all around. No funding, no job.

I think some people feel such a great need to take a side, they'll do it even if it undermines what they claim to believe in. Its disappointing to watch energy companies shoot themselves in the foot when they could take positive changes as business opportunities. Likewise it is frustrating to see someone who claims to want to reduce pollution push changes that actually hamper our ability to do so.

Re:Global Warming Denial

[blair1q]

No, the correlation is much tighter than you're claiming.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Re:Global Warming Denial

[riverat1]

Well, higher water vapor in the atmosphere would be a result of higher temperatures, not the cause (although the additional water vapor would add it's own increase to the temperature). In the long run things like plate tectonics can have a substantial effect on the climate. For instance it is generally believed that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago, cutting off the flow of water between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, was a major cause of the present Ice Age. It's true that CO2 will be released from carbon sinks as temperatures rise but that doesn't prove anything about CO2's ability to raise temperatures if the level is raised by other means.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Coolhand2120]

From: Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.

Isn't the CRU constantly breaking "one of the strongest" rules of scientific life: appealing to the state and or populace when your science fails to convince? Science does not require the rule of "Might makes right" to persuade. Logic and strong correlation of data are all that is required. Thus far, in my opinion, CRU has shown themselves to be anything but scientific. They appeal to the head of state and to the public at large! This, more than anything proves that they are not scientists. What other respected branch of science reaches out for a "consensus" in the government or the populace to prove their theories? Science is not the blatant politicizing of science to overpower the paradigm group you disagree with.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[ivandavidoff]

What other respected branch of science reaches out for a "consensus" in the government or the populace to prove their theories? Science is not the blatant politicizing of science to overpower the paradigm group you disagree with.

Yes, which is why CRU's work is hopelessly tainted, as is any peer review of their work. That entire branch of science should be mothballed, then secretly resurrected, this time keeping the well-meaning laymen the hell out.

But, just because the CRU screwed up, and a bunch of politicians got involved in all this, does not mean that all the science is unsound. The CRU are not the only ones working on this.

Even so, the IPCC suffers from the same mix of hard science, sensible conclusions, wild speculation, and political calls to action.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[artor3]

The scientific community already has a consensus. But you can never convince someone who's decided that they don't want to be convinced. Should we be forced to prove evolution to the satisfaction of creationists before teaching it in schools?

Don't answer that... you're probably some slack-jawed Republican, so I'll go ahead and guess that your answer is an emphatic "yes!"

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[microbox]

when your science fails to convince?

But the science /does/ convince on its own merits. Nobody who actually knows anything about the science could possibly be a sceptic unless they were stark raving mad.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Namarrgon]

there was consensus that the earth was flat too.

That was certainly not scientific consensus. Natural philosophers (the ones that actually looked at the facts, starting with the ancient Greeks) realised quickly that the earth was not flat.

So which "experts" are you blindly believing? Not the ones who've been studying the facts, I'll warrant.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Hellsbells]

Those egghead scientists in their ivory towers. What have they ever done for us?

I don't know about you, but if there's a difference of opinion between the scientific institutions of the world and some conservative talk-back radio hosts/bloggers, generally I'd side with the scientific institutions of the world - they have a very good track record when there's this much scientific consensus on a topic.

Can you even name a time when there was complete consensus between NASA, the Royal Academy, the National Academy of Sciences, CSIRO, and every other major scientific institution of the world and they were wrong?

And you even go on to suggest that we teach every whack-job's pet theories in schools and ask students to make up their own minds?
Learning about perpetual motion machines and how water can cure cancer has no place in a science classroom. It is misleading and a complete waste of time and resources.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[PerformanceDude]

In my humble opinion, your comment is actually the key cause why so many people are sceptical about the science. When somebody trumpets and shouts to the high heaven that they are right and everyone who questions any detail is a "denier", you have most people's BS sensor move to high alert. Especially when in the same breaths we are told that it is also too complicated for non-climate-scientists to understand, so we must just accept the "consensus" on pure faith.

This week, an Australian scientist published a peer-reviewed article based on actual water level measurements, that showed that water level rises are slowing and that based on an extrapolation of the observed data (not models), the most likely water level rise in Australian waters over the next century is 15cm. That is a far cry from the doom and gloom spouted by most climate advocates (like Al Gore - who most certainly isn't a scientist).

Personally, as a scientist and engineer, I am convinced that we are encountering climate change. To what extend that is man-made and to what extend it is natural is still not in any way shape or form a "consensus" to me. As an engineer, I believe climate models is a poor substitute for emperical data and based on how well scientists in other disciplines manage to model complex systems (think economists) - I think the jury is still very much out on what our climate will look like 100 years from now.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[dbIII]

Governments are making very stupid choices based upon lies sold by expensive PR hence a media campaign to refute such lies. Stating it so baldly tends to piss people off so you see a lot of softer euphemisms for lies. There's really no point pretending anymore.
The worries about climate changed outlined in a report that landed on President Johnson's desk have not changed and details found since then have provided a great deal more evidence. All that has changed is PR from those that want to continue to pollute at current levels and various parasites and clowns making a living by travelling the world ironicly pretending that every expert on earth is more of a liar than the PR firms that do it for a living.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Capsaicin]

Isn't the CRU constantly breaking "one of the strongest" rules of scientific life: appealing to the state and or populace when your science fails to convince?

No.

The science is convincing on it own. The appeal to the state is for a policy response based on the imperatives revealed by this convincing science. The appeal to the public, such as it is, is an attempt by a few scientists to disabuse the victims of the disinformation industry.

Logic and strong correlation of data are all that is required.

It's there. And unlike almost any other field or research, it's virtually all publicly available. There is little excuse any more for ignorance.

Thus far, in my opinion, CRU has shown themselves to be anything but scientific. They appeal to the head of state and to the public at large!

You opinion seems ill founded. It's simply nonsensical to claim that CRU has ever appealed to any head of state or the public to establish any matter of science.

What other respected branch of science reaches out for a "consensus" in the government or the populace to prove their theories?

Again, Climate science does not "reach out to government or the populace" to prove any theories. It reaches out to urge government and the populace to take action to avert a clear and present danger. The 'consensus' referred to is that >95% of active publishing climate scientists agree among themselves (and without regard to what heads of state or a systematically disinformed public happen to believe) on a number of propositions about the nature of recent climate change and the role of human activity in bringing it about. Which is not to say they agree about everything (or anything) else in the field.

Science is not the blatant politicizing of science to overpower the paradigm group you disagree with.

That is absolutely right! Unfortunately, as your and many other posts evidence, those who are politically overpowering science seem to have been stunningly effective.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[artor3]

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.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[BZ]

> When I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic.

More precisely, for any sort of non-trivial work, you go to several independent mechanics, and get estimates, then cross-check them against each other. Unless you know a mechanic that you trust personally quite outside his professional capacity. Note that this breaks down if the mechanics have a reason to collude and a way to communicate with each other; if that happens they typically overcharge you for unnecessary work. Of course they may also be honest, but the incentive structure is not conducive to it.

This last case is an interesting analogy for how funding tends to work in science nowadays, especially in the parts of it that involve calling for government action.... Except in the mechanics case a group of mechanics can't prevent another mechanic who won't inflate the estimates from seeing customers, while in science as practiced this is quite possible and actually happens.

So the problem at that point is that I actually do have more faith that car mechanics are not trying to sell me a bill of goods based on what will get them funding than I do for scientists in some fields (including, but not at all limited to climate science) or for that matter doctors (who in fact often say a medicine will help when the data shows that it doesn't help, or even hinders). Now doctors are in fact right in many other cases, but I personally know several people who would likely be dead if they had not double-checked a doctor's orders for sanity, and have at least one relative who is dead for precisely lack of such double-checking. And I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of climate research is completely aboveboard, but for any given claim I just have no way to tell. Especially because the claims that do make it to the news are precisely the ones that people have the most incentive to screw with...

So at heart, the problem is that in many of your examples above it's possible to ask for an independent second opinion (somewhat limited in the architect/engineer case because of common received wisdom), but getting an actual independent second opinion in some science fields is _hard_.

> but if most agree that my computer and OS and
> browser aren't stealing my passwords, then I'll
> trust them.

This is probably flat-out a bad idea. ;) Unless they built your computer from scratch, they have no basis for that judgement. All they can likely offer you is that probably no one cares enough to have messed with your hardware.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[PerformanceDude]

Sorry, but that is not human society as I know it. That is much more human society as "big brother" would like it.

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.

If you blindly trust your mechanic to do the right thing, then you are in for a very large bill. Mechanics can easily detect when someone doesn't understand what they are dealing with and will happily sell you a "headlight fluid change". It's been done. Trust me!

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 had an architect design my house, I disagreed with much of what he had done. The house may well have stood, but some areas were not practical to live in and I had several rooms changed, even to the point of having the way doors opened changed.

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.

I'm mostly with you on this one. However, if I step onto a bridge and it feels unsafe and creaky under my feet, then I will go back - no matter what some "dude in a hard-hat" tells me. Engineers are not infalible. Remember the Maccabiah bridge collapse?

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.

Tell that to the thalidomide children... (OK - that was a low-blow - but you get the point)..

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.

Yes, McDonalds markets themselves as a restaurant and certainly have gone out of their way to say their food is edible and nutritious. Not wanting to be sued into oblivion, I just want you to draw your own conclusions from that statement.

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.

Hmmm - had any ID fraud lately? Listened to and paid the guy (with a credit card) who calls you from "Security Maintenance International", who has detected that your computer is infected with a virus and for a small fee will help you remove it over the phone?

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.

And see, this is where things fall apart. People are opportunists. Most climatologist have read the same textbook, been taught by the same teachers and compete for the same grants to survive. They are not infalible or more trustworthy than doctors, mechanics, engineers or anyone else. "Peer reviewed" is not a substitute for good science, sometimes it just means they've all attended the same conference. I once had a teacher who told me that if you could not explain a complex concept in laymen's terms so that anyone with an average IQ could understand it - then you had most likely failed to fully understand it yourself. And telling everyone that disagrees with you that they must be a Republican or a Creationist is just plain silly. It is just like me saying you must be some 20 year old with no life experience and an authority figure submission complex. Please keep the debate on

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[artor3]

I'm not going to respond to most of this stuff, because frankly you're talking past me by ignoring the fact that I said, over and over and over and over, to trust a majority consensus.

But in response to the notion that human society as you know it doesn't employ specialization, let me just say that you are either a recently unthawed cave man, or a moron. You can't go a single day without using the works of a thousand other people whom you will never meet. You trust they do their jobs without even thinking about it. It's been that way ever since ancient man started having people specialize in digging irrigation ditches or building homes, while others farmed, and still others hunted.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[BZ]

> Are you really suggesting that all the climatologists
> the world over are in some big conspiracy?

I'm suggesting that "scientific consensus" tends to be self-perpetuating. People who may disagree with it don't get funded to actually do the checking of whether it's right. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does lead to the "science advances when the old scientists die" effect.

> firefox doesn't steal my passwords and send them
> off to the Mozilla foundation

I _have_ checked the code, and I'm pretty sure that you're right as far as that goes

What I can't guarantee to you is that your particular copy of Firefox isn't stealing your passwords and sending them to the author of the virus infecting your computer. In fact, I can guarantee that there are probably many people in the world right now for whom just that is happening and that there are definitely people for whom it's happened in the past.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Bemopolis]

PR? What decade are you living in? These days corporations purchase their politicians outright?

PR...how quaint...

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[BZ]

And to be clear, I think that the evidence for climate change is pretty solid. The evidence for anthropomorphic causes, at least in part, is fairly decent. That's based on a small dose of checking things myself and a large dose of trusting; as you point out the only way to avoid the latter is to go and specialize in the field myself.

What I'm not as convinced on, because as far as I can see the data really doesn't support them and they rely on projections which are not that rooted in reality, are some of the proposed courses of action. That includes concerns about both efficacy and necessity. And honestly, I'm more worried about the former than the latter...

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[PerformanceDude]

WOW!

First you construe my argument wrong by implying that I said that human society does not employ specialization. I said no such thing. I said that I do not always trust the specialist to be right. Secondly, you go on to call me a "recently unthawed cave man and moron" - which frankly is adding very little to the debate. You are clearly one of those people who resort to attacking the person when you can't refute the argument.

My point was that majority consensus is not necessarily the truth and by using your style of debate (shouting down and denigrating anyone who opposed your particular point of view), you are making people feel that there is something "fishy". If the science was so convincing it could stand by itself, there would be no reason to doubt it or name call opponents. Evolution is convincing to me (I can see it and understand it). Climate change is convincing to me - it has been happening for millenia and will continue to happen - humans influence it of course - but what precise impact humans have on it, that is still not settled.

You can go back a few years and take another look at the "inconvenient truth". In that film (and also in the "majority climatologist consensus" at that time), we had some dire predictions about millions of climate refugees swarming to higher lying countries by 2010. The models "clearly showed" that many island countries would be under water by today. So, the models were clearly wrong, based on simple observation. This basic fact has effectively tarnished all climatologist with an alarmist brush and people start querying all the predictions (and how can you possibly find anything wrong with that?). If you cry wolf, you pay the price.

What needs to happen in the climate change debate is that the climatologist (and their supporters) needs to calm down, stop the name calling and learn to communicate the science and data in such a way that it can be understood and verified by anyone with an interest in the field. Giving people a bunch of raw data and the source of the program used to crunch over it is not that difficult - nor is publishing how any normalization of that data was done. Taking this open source approach would massively increase the credibility of those scientists. Taking the approach that "I know better and you are a moron condemning our children to die under 30 feet of water", is about as scientific as you making the assumption that I am a recently "unthawed" cave man (it is "thawed" BTW - if I was unthawed I'd still be frozen - just saying...).

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[21mhz]

See, climate change science was nothing controversial, until the fossil fuel industry and useful idiots from the "free enterprise" crowd got wind of some of its implications on public policy.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[orzetto]

This week, an Australian scientist published a peer-reviewed article based on actual water level measurements, that showed that water level rises are slowing and that based on an extrapolation of the observed data (not models), the most likely water level rise in Australian waters over the next century is 15cm.

I highly doubt the author wanted to convey the opinion that extrapolating observed data is a reliable way to predict the future.

Also, who cares the author is Australian? Can you cite him properly? Which journal was it?

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[PastaLover]

My point was that majority consensus is not necessarily the truth and by using your style of debate (shouting down and denigrating anyone who opposed your particular point of view), you are making people feel that there is something "fishy". If the science was so convincing it could stand by itself, there would be no reason to doubt it or name call opponents. Evolution is convincing to me (I can see it and understand it). Climate change is convincing to me - it has been happening for millenia and will continue to happen - humans influence it of course - but what precise impact humans have on it, that is still not settled.

This is just ridiculous. Evolution sounds convincing to you, so you accept it, but man-made global warming does not, so you do not. That's certainly one way to look at the world, but it's not a very sensible one. There are only two logical options here: you either accept what the experts say, or you become one yourself. You're clearly not interested in doing either so here's a third way: just shut up because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

From: Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.

Isn't the CRU constantly breaking "one of the strongest" rules of scientific life: appealing to the state and or populace when your science fails to convince?

No. If you want an example for that: deniers and Inhofe.

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[KeensMustard]

In my humble opinion, your comment is actually the key cause why so many people are sceptical about the science.

No - the reason that people deny the facts is that they don't like those facts. Many people interpret it as a statement contradicting their worldview (e.g the aspirational worldview) and therefore the work of "others" who seek to undermine our good and decent society. Or they see climate change as a matter of opinion, declare a contrary opinion, and expect a response from the science that seeks a middle ground - in much the way that politics works, those with the strongest rhetoric are expected to prevail. When the science does not budge, they grow hostile - for such people the notion of fact has a contradictory meaning to that portrayed by the sciences.

Especially when in the same breaths we are told that it is also too complicated for non-climate-scientists to understand, so we must just accept the "consensus" on pure faith.

Notably, it is those who deny the science who say that it is too complicated to be understood. When pressed to explain their theory, the theory they must have that explains their assertion - the assertion that some other factor is causing the earth to warm, at precisely the rate that we would expect, given our observations of the behaviour of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and our observations of the increased concentrations og greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to our measurable emissions - when pressed to explain the mechanic behind this mother of all coincidences, they tell us it's all too complicated. Not so complicated, apparently, that they cannot be confident that the warming will stop before serious damage occurs. But too complicated for it ever to be discussed in public.

Unless you would care to take a punt at it?

This week, an Australian scientist published a peer-reviewed article based on actual water level measurements, that showed that water level rises are slowing and that based on an extrapolation of the observed data (not models), the most likely water level rise in Australian waters over the next century is 15cm. That is a far cry from the doom and gloom spouted by most climate advocates (like Al Gore - who most certainly isn't a scientist).

Really? Because my understanding of previous projections was that they were in that range - What was the previous figure that was quoted?

Is 15cm a little? I would have thought that a 15cm rise in sea height would have a devastating impact on say, coral reefs around the subtropical perimeter of Australia, on mangroves that line the tropics and their resident ecology, and on the fragile ecology of the river mouths? That a 15cm rise would destabilise beaches all around the coastline?

Personally, as a scientist and engineer, I am convinced that we are encountering climate change. To what extend that is man-made and to what extend it is natural is still not in any way shape or form a "consensus" to me. As an engineer, I believe climate models is a poor substitute for emperical data and based on how well scientists in other disciplines manage to model complex systems (think economists) - I think the jury is still very much out on what our climate will look like 100 years from now.

Let's not faff about.

So what is causing the climate change?

If you've looked at the empirical data and say that it proves the models wrong - how are the models wrong?

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[strikethree]

"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."

This one was a VERY bad example. Cars were designed to fail and mechanics as a group were set to take advantage of you as much as possible during the 70s and 80s in America. People like me remember this and will STILL not buy an American car nor trust a mechanic that we do not have a personal relationship with.

So, appealing to "all the climate scientists say" really bothers me. I expect my mechanic to describe in enough detail any problems and I expect the same out of climate scientists. If the scientists hide data or refuse to entertain dialogue, what they say no longer matters even if it is correct.

strike

Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[seantide]

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.

Funny. Your examples are interesting, but I wonder if they say what you think. Playing devil's advocate...

A good number of buildings today meet "consensus" regulation, but blow down the first time a storm comes through, while some 100 year old buildings that don't meet the consensus remain standing. I live in a heavy storm area so this example is particularly funny to me.

The software industry is in an embarrassing state, with horrible security, code quality and UI design. Microsoft is the most popular and also one of the primary offenders.

Doctors are notorious for giving us medication we don't need because everything in their office is paid for by drug companies. We are the most over-medicated generation in history. I'd be dead right now if I'd blindly listened to my doctors.

Bridges in the USA and most of the world are probably the single biggest maintenance disaster in modern engineering, with a ton of experts telling us they were safe when in fact thousands of them are not. The problem is so bad that fixing them in some countries would require more than their entire transportation budget.

Likweise McDonald's, which sells horrible food, sells more food than anyone else.

Trust but verify is an ancient wisdom. I question any "scientist" who opposes that.

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.

Your post was almost interesting, but then you shot it all down with this.

Just FYI: a lot of us skeptical about anthro climate change and what we need to do regarding climate change are Libertarians in the USA, not Republicans :)

Well whether you believe in man caused climate...

[brim4brim]

change or not, can we all agree to clean up our environment so that it is more pleasant to look at and we can breathe clean air again. Coming from a rural area, it takes a while to adjust to smells of pollution in towns/industrial areas and there is sometimes a fog around. More popular in foreign countries than Ireland since we have few of those resources and a heavy manufacturing skipped us as a result. Very noticeable when abroad though don't worry, Dublin still smells like **** so getting rid of industrial pollution won't make towns/cities smell like flowers unless we buy a record amount of scented candles but then we'll be back to square one on the climate change thing :P

but

[nimbius]

this is science, not a popularity contest. 31 scientific institutions have already confirmed the scientific theory of climate change, its causes, and its impacts.
independent analysis of the agency in question and its study have found no fault .

climate change critics have formed their monster, and they want it as big, bold, brassy and sassy
as it can be. In this regard more 'documents' has been equated with more damning and scandalous email.
actual scientists and scientific minded members of the public dismissed this scandal about 3 days after it was
released by a guy who wrote "The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History" and subsequently covered by
a news agency accused of bribing police and buying politicians.

Why would a FOIA request even be necessary?

[Quila]

It's scientific data. For the purposes of advancement of science, transparency and honesty, it should have just been released upon basic request.

That ANY effort was used to fight the release of the data makes me extremely suspicious.

Re:Why would a FOIA request even be necessary?

[scorp1us]

UEA, is a British organization. They do have FOIA, but they don't work the same as NOAA. NOAA can only use public information, and generates public information. UEA does use public info, but it also uses private info. That private info was the holdup[1]. They need permission to release that. Does the private info matter? Well it seems so in that the NAM sucks the GFS (European) model is more accurate.

[1] The holdup was also in that UEA was inundated with requests for data and viewed the FOIA requests as a denial of service attack. They did then pripriitixe and release info, but selectively, which gave the impression that climate skeptics/deniers were not being serviced fairly which only added to the skeptics/denier's anger. And on more than one occasion info was released to non-skeptic/deniers that should not have been.

Now the only question is did they release raw data, or the "adjusted" data...

Re:Why would a FOIA request even be necessary?

[AmiMoJo]

It wasn't released initially because it would have required permission from every weather station they gathered data from, and there were over 1000 around the world. In the end not all of them agreed anyway but it was deemed that meeting the FOI request was more important.

This is not uncommon. Weather gathering agencies naturally want to be paid for their work so sell the climate data at a premium. Often they give the data away for free to academics on the understanding that it will not be published.

Re:Why would a FOIA request even be necessary?

[serviscope_minor]

It's scientific data. For the purposes of advancement of science, transparency and honesty, it should have just been released upon basic request.

Not their data to release.

That ANY effort was used to fight the release of the data makes me extremely suspicious.

This comment shows a staggering lack of understanding about the whole process.

It is a lot of work to comply with those requests. In order to do so thay have to take time away from their day job which is doing science and publishing papers. This decreases their work output. Pecause noone wants to publicly fund unproductive scientists, a drop in work output means a drop in their future job prospects.

So they have a choice between helping a bunch of deniers uninterested in the science and out to prove a point no matter what the data says while simultaneously reducing the chance of future employment .... or not.

Which would you do?

Re:Why would a FOIA request even be necessary?

[bugs2squash]

Now the only question is did they release raw data, or the "adjusted" data...

Exactly; I want to see the data's birth certificates.

pfft

[kiddygrinder]

there's no such thing as climate

Re:Yep

[jellomizer]

For the true skeptic. They want to look at all the data and all the claims. Not that I doubt global warming but how much impact man is causing on it. Sure there is a correlation with carbon, but what about volcanic activity, perhaps water vapor (as many cities are popping up in the desert opening deep underground water sources and people planting grass), how about the effect of the suns output. Maybe our carbon is a minor factor but the earth is in a "perfect storm" of many factors.

No data will convince the politically motivated group who are courted by the oil companies to make sure that there product isn't put in a bad light. But people who want to see the truth and doesnt trust either side.

Re:Well whether you believe in man caused climate.

[MightyMartian]

The worst part about it all is that AGW is only one bad thing that's going to happen out of unsustainable fossil fuel use. Just wait to oil starts spiking in price as reserves drop. Modern agricultural products suddenly becoming vastly more expensive. Many pharmaceuticals become vastly more expensive. Many materials and industrial processes become vastly more expensive.

When we start running out of complex long chain hydrocarbons, the industrialized world may find that a good deal of what makes it industrialized becomes a helluva lot more expensive, not just in transportation, but in basic materials technology. Oil is used for a vast number of important processes beyond gassing up the directors of the Heartland Institute's SUVs.

Unless someone magically finds an energy efficient way to convert less complex hydrocarbons like methane into complex molecules on an industrial scale, I'd say in about fifty or sixty years the fact that tiny island nations are now swimming and the rain belts are all shifting will be on page three.

The skeptics, well, mostly around here, ignoramuses, are driving the bus into a cliff. AGW is only one facet of this. Once we pass peak oil, and unless we have some whizbang way of making those more complex organic molecular chains, then things in many different aspects will get a helluva lot worse. Cheap oil has driven an agricultural boom, so what happens when the oil ain't so cheap any more.

Knowledge is the new currency.

[FatSean]

Witness the growth of laws protecting IP. Be it music, movies or patents.

Most of the Data is Freely Available

[ideonexus]

Like the article says. Most of this data was already publicly available online:

• HadCRUT Data
• NASA Data
• UAH Data
• RSS Data
• NOAA Data

I took this data and plugged it into Cornell’s free data analysis software Eureka and it found a clear warming trend in the data. I'm not statistician, so I was just playing around, but I have yet to see anyone use this data to argue for anything but a warming trend (Note: I have seen skeptics use parts of this data to show short-term cooling trends). My favorite email attacking the results the software gave me was that I had "manipulated" the data by copying-and-pasting it into Excel.

I'm glad more data is being made publicly available, but, like someone else said, that just means it's time for the skeptics to move the goalposts again. Either put up a competing hypothesis that explains the data or shut up.

Re:Most of the Data is Freely Available

[cosm]

I wrote an import into SQL and am seeing generally the same thing with my off the cuff statistical analysis.

Re:Most of the Data is Freely Available

[GameboyRMH]

My favorite email attacking the results the software gave me was that I had "manipulated" the data by copying-and-pasting it into Excel.

Not arguing for the nutbags, but that CAN cause some long floats to be truncated. Open/Libreoffice Calc doesn't do that.

Re:Most of the Data is Freely Available

[Garwulf]

Okay, seriously, I'm a historian and an AGW skeptic - and _I_ say that we're in a warming trend.

The question is not "are we warming?" - we're right on schedule for a warm period, just as we had a thousand years ago, and a thousand years before that. The question is "to what degree is human activity influencing this warming?"

And for that, I only know of one real-world study comparing UV coming in vs. UV bouncing out compared with CO2 content in the atmosphere using EBRE data, and its results came in at the opposite of what climate computer modelling had suggested. But, this still has to be reproduced.

Re:Most of the Data is Freely Available

[Coolhand2120]

When you copy and paste data into excel a lot of unusual things can happen to the data. This behavior is totally unpredictable because it changes from version to version and IMHO the functionality never had any logical reason to be there in the first place. Who's at MS thought "Oh these number's you've pasted have too much resolution, they should be truncated, not even rounded, but only on alternating Tuesdays." And god help you if you have a damn alpha character. So ya, pasting into excel can really easily manipulate your data in very unexpected ways.

God, I hope the CRU didn't use excel!

Re:Most of the Data is Freely Available

[Nazlfrag]

Yep, even skeptics agree that the world has been in a warming trend over the last 160 years, which is about the limit of the instrumental record in most places around the world. Problem is, 85% of mankinds CO2 contributions have happened in only the last 60 years, leaving 100 years of natural warming. All that is apparent is a natural trend continuing that existed before mankind could have possibly influenced events. In any case, CO2 is just one forcing among hundreds, and is easily eclipsed by H20. What's next, a ban on steam? Demonizing CO2, the giver of life, into pollution was the worst mistake the green movement has ever made.

I'm saddened that slashdot is so empty of a real scientific mindset. Since when was reproducing and verifying others experimentation anti-scientific instead of the very bedrock, the foundation of the scientific method?

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't believe CO2 is causing global warming because of a correlation, we believe it because we've understood molecular spectroscopy for over a hundred years.

We know water isn't the cause, because water only stays in the atmosphere for approximately 5 days which means it comes into equilibrium too fast to drive long term temperature change.

We know volcanic activity isn't the cause because of volcanic activity because there hasn't been any increase in volcanic activity.

We know the sun's output isn't the cause, because the sun's output hasn't been increasing and because the upper atmosphere is decreasing in temperature rather than increasing like it would if the sun's output was increasing.

Climate scientists aren't idiots and they've been working on these issues for over a hundred years.

Re:Well whether you believe in man caused climate.

[amber0170]

The arguments of this article http://latest.shawcapitalmanagement-headlines.com/ is too thin to be even acknowledged. Work of a newbie I suppose.

Re:Yep

[riverat1]

In a normal year volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as human emissions. Even such a large eruption as Pinatubo in 1991 only added 0.2% to that. Water vapor is strictly limited by temperature and can't drive climate change. The Sun's output absolutely has an effect on climate. It's just that it hasn't changed enough to account for the global temperature changes we've seen. We've had very good measurements of the Sun's output from satellites since the 1980's Those issues have all been examined by climate scientists and factored in.

Re:Yep

[TemperedAlchemist]

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.

Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Tree ring widths are more affected by sheep than temperature. Much of the early concern regarding climate change was from the Mann (and later, Briffa and Jones) "hockey stick", which used a single bristlecone pine tree as the basis for temperature reconstructions.

.
Did that data set consider migratory patterns, or herding of local sheep/cows/yaks/whathaveyou? That alone could skew the results heavily one way or another. This is why you want to release ALL your data, because other scientists might find other causalities or variables in your data/models that you didn't originally anticipate.

Rather than demand acceptance of a theory, it's best to provide the data, welcome the skeptics, and use ALL the data to show what you did, why you did it, and what conclusions you reached. Hiding data, or hiding your modeling/screening methods simply breaks the fundamental approach of the Scientific method. You're left with something that might be interesting, but by definition - it's not scientific.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[Falconhell]

"Rather than demand acceptance of a theory, it's best to provide the data, welcome the skeptics, and use ALL the data to show what you did, why you did it, and what conclusions you reached. Hiding data, or hiding your modeling/screening methods simply breaks the fundamental approach of the Scientific method. You're left with something that might be interesting, but by definition - it's not scientific."

Name ONE other field of science where this would be insisted on.................
Thought so. There is no point in trying to convince the sceptics as their objections are at heart based on their
fear of losing soem of their money rather than the facts. They wont even look at the data, never mind think about it.
  Total waste of time, I just ignore them now.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[MightyMartian]

Because, of course, no one has done any more research in thirty odd years.

You're like the Creationist who tries to use Piltdown Man to disprove evolution.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[mrsalty]

If you had actually read up on the subject you would know the answers to your questions. It is much easier to cast unfounded doubt though.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[LynnwoodRooster]

In my field, acoustics, it's required. Same with high voltage research, and ultrasound research (I have been involved in both, in the private and public financed research sectors).

.
If you're not a skeptic of your own work, you're not a scientist. Science by its very nature is skeptical.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[LynnwoodRooster]

This is, in fact, new research. And it should be a factor in reconsidering previously-reached conclusions. Are those conclusions still correct in light of new facts? A scientist would say "I'm not sure" and re-evaluate - scientists are supposed to be skeptical by nature. Someone with an agenda to push, however, will simply ignore the new data and say "the science is settled" and then hurl insults at the source of new data - basically behaving the exact opposite of how a scientist would actually behave.

.
Much like you just did.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[mrsalty]

If you want someone else to do the research for then it has already been done. You reject their conclusions so why would my input be any different? If independent verification is what you require then get to work boring your own trees and analyzing the rings. Gather your own weather data and crunch the numbers. Write it up for the world to read and critique. Until then you are armchair quaterbacking.
Me, I have a job and it isnt as a statistician, mathematician, or climatologist. So when those people talk about their field of expertise I listen up and ask them dumb questions. I hope they would do the same if they had questions relevant to my field.
relevant Mr Show quote (NSFW)

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Sorry, that's not how science works. Each step of the analysis, each link of the chain needs to be checked and verified. One of the steps being wrong is quite sufficient to break the conclusion. One step that needs to be verified is the one that takes raw data and converts it into normalized data.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Citation given. Note that McIntyre shows his work, and Briffa - in his responses - does not deny McIntyre's methods or conclusions.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here you go, a pretty good summary. A single tree used - YAD061. If the original data had been published with the paper, and the original processes actually documented, then none of this would have been an issue. It's only when scientists abandon science and do not provide the data, methods, or adhere to the Scientific method that things break down.

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[LynnwoodRooster]

The strength of your argument is simply overwhelming. I am shamed into the corner by the erudite words proffered, and the unassailable logic in your post. I will, post-haste, immediately and without equivocation go and learn of this wonderful Scientific Method you have so generously provided to me, and I will study deep its arcane and enveloping knowledge!

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Except there seems to be an issue: a single tree - YAD061 provides ALL the resulting warming trend. Remove that tree from the dataset and it shows no trend. It is the presence of a single tree that causes the entire model to show warming. Curious, indeed!

Re:Here's why you want to release ALL your data...

[dkf]

Someone with an agenda to push, however, will simply ignore the new data and say "the science is settled" and then hurl insults at the source of new data - basically behaving the exact opposite of how a scientist would actually behave.

But someone with an agenda pushed by Big Oil and Big Coal will be wholly reliable and trustworthy? No possible corruption or willful distortions there.

It's dead simple. Basic physics tells us that CO2 will cause more energy from the sun to be retained in the atmosphere (and hence in the oceans as well, though they're much slower to respond for basic physical reasons). We can measure that CO2 levels have increased substantially over the past few centuries, particularly over the past 50 years, and it is a reasonable surmise that a fair chunk of that is anthropogenic; there have been a lot of people very busy building power stations, etc. all over the world. Consequently, it is expected that more energy will be retained in the atmosphere (the effect crudely known as "global warming", though reality is much more complex). The open scientific questions remaining are to what extent are non-anthropogenic sources forcing things (hard to predict based on previous data, as the current situation does not appear to have a good precedent, to within about the accuracy afforded by the geological record) and what this will actually mean in terms of the ability of various parts of the earth to support particular human activities. However, based on the Precautionary Principle it is reasonable to take steps to minimize the likelihood of large-scale disaster; no sense putting off stamping on the brakes until after you've shot off the edge of the cliff. (The real problem? We don't know exactly where the cliff really is.)

So why do people resist this very simple view? Well, big energy production companies clearly have a vested interest as the sane policy outcome above is directly opposed to their own profitability. (Duh!) In order to avert it, they would be expected use the sorts of techniques invented by the tobacco lobby to try to discredit the science, and to also fund selected fringe groups that are inclined to just ignore the policy necessity. (Because of non-linearities in the system, they would not need to fund every group; funding ones with the right sort of connection to society would be sufficient.) Do they do this sort of shenanigans? Well, from their immediate perspective they'd be foolish not to, even though it's not clear that its even in their long term interest. People don't do long term well...

In any case, if you're fighting for Big Energy's position and yet not getting any kickbacks from them for it, you might want to revise your position. At least hold out for some money for yourself! :-)

Typical Science Fiction plot but REAL!

[bussdriver]

Why does all this seem to remind me of a typical science fiction movie?

All the pricks are ignoring the nerd's warnings and disaster is around the corner... Unfortunately, only in the movies do the "anti-science" people suffer and/or DIE by the end.... Then the hero uses some factual discovery to win the day within 30 minutes; usually with the help of the expert or by using inductive reasoning. We can only hope the life reflects art and we find a solution before too many people die from the character flaws of the deniers.

Low number of weather stations

[Plainswind]

The number of weather stations for something like this seems rather low. Hell, in Sweden alone, if you were to use all correctly placed sensors, you'd have access to well over a thousand stations, and in many cases, you'd have to drop the data from the SMHI climategate-associated ones, since they are deliberately placed in locations where they get artificially warmer results than the national average would be.

Re:Pesky critics HIV AIDS

[sunyjim]

Well since you mentioned it. My favorite scientist Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, and a few thousand of his peers have a bit of trouble with the HIV causes AIDS, you see he was asked to work on that project since he is a Nobel prize winner, and the reasons we now are able to do DNA testing. Well his issue is that nobody actually did any sort of study or paper or experiment, ever, anywhere, that can be shown that HIV developed into AIDS. "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." read more at http://www.virusmyth.com/ Another case were consensus is the enemy of science, people are dying of AIDS and potentially billions of dollars are being wasted on research that will never find the cure.

Re:Pesky critics HIV AIDS

[MightyMartian]

The same Kary Mullis that believes in astrology and who has long been condemned for making grand proclamations on fields he has no expertise in. Him and "a few thousand peers". Funny how skeptical you are of some things, but how fucking gullible you are in other areas.

that's right

[publiclurker]

He forgot self deluded corporate whores who think that just because reality doesn't agree with reality, that everyone who actually knows what they are talking about are, instead, the deluded ones.

Re:Pesky critics HIV AIDS

[Man On Pink Corner]

So, you're not the least bit troubled by the fact that medicines that target HIV also have the oddly coincidental side effect of saving the lives of AIDS patients?

Re:Yep

[Bemopolis]

Yeah man, you just don't get it. You see, all of those academic types pore over their "data" up in their ivory towers. And since they're up high they are closer to the Sun,so it's warmer to them.

Now compare that to the OP, who knows what's really happening on the surface of the Earth, since he can easily observe it through the window of his mom's basement...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yep

[Israfels]

I didn't think Climatology experts were Heliology experts as well. There may be a few, but I doubt they're properly represented in these climate reports.

Awesome

[Arancaytar]

Now get ready as self-declared statisticians interpret and reinterpret the data to say what they want it to say. Put on some rubber boots, the bullshit is going to get knee-deep.

Re:Awesome

[sangdrax]

Or the data will quite simply be called fake.

Re:Awesome

[dkleinsc]

As a general rule, there's less BS in beef farming than there is in any form of public debate.

Re:Yep

[GameboyRMH]

A "true skeptic" would figure out that climate change is a real thing after less than a week of research, assuming a high-school-level science education. So the "true skeptics" should be a vanishingly small group with high turnover. You have to REALLY want to believe that it's an international conspiracy to have any doubts at this point.

Also check out this link, I had it in my sig for the last few weeks:

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml

A volcanic eruption is equal to 3-5 days of human activity.

Whoops...they forget this

[sycodon]

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted

Signal to noise ratio

[ResidentSourcerer]

One of the largest problems with the whole climate sideshow is that you have a very small signal (1 to 5 degrees C per century) buried in a mass of temperatures fluctuating 15-30 C per day.

It doesn't help that large numbers of your instruments have changed during the measurements, and another large number have become embedded in urban spaces.

(Recently they changed the specification for the paint used for the Stefanson (sic) boxes -- the white louver sided instrument hutches in the met office back yard. They were still painted white, but the pigment didn't have the same IR absorption band. Made some fraction of a degree difference. So now, to tease the signal form the noise, you have to track down when the boxes were painted, and what they were painted with.)

It doesn't help that global warming doesn't mean everywhere warming. Some places cool. But other places warm more than the some cool.

People aren't very good at perceiving very slow baseline change in a chaotic and rapidly varying series. (Look how many people do not see the gradual depletion of their wealth while gambling...)

Add to that: People are set in their ways. The changes required to stop CO2 buildup are non-trivial, and are buried deep in our infra-structure. For first world countries, the easiest (and not cheap) change is to re-insulate our houses. Doing this in a way that is both effective and healthy is not trivial. (Too often insulating and air sealing a house results in mold and mildew growing in the walls. The house has to have active ventilation. The detailing becomes important. Hole in the vapour barrier in the top of a wall, and exiting warm moist air condenses inside the wall. Newer standards for building are better, but a house has an average lifespan between 0.5 and several centuries.

Changing our love affair with the car will be harder, and I suspect that the only way will be to keep increasing the cost of fuel. to the point that people look for alternatives.

If fuel went to 20 bucks a gallon what would change in your life? Would you move to a house closer to your work? Would living quarters be part of the benefits package with large employers?

Houses right now have really narrow side yards. At what point does it become effective to merge single units into row houses, using the between space as semi-heated storage, just to stop the heat loss. (Is this cheaper than re-insulating that exterior wall?

At what point does it make sense to abandon the concept of single detached dwelling?

I'm a farmer. I live 75 km from the Big City. At this point if I take my pickup to town, it's about $30 for gas. Even at this price, I plan my day with some care and try to pick up or drop off a load to amke the pickup's use worth while. At $150 per trip, I'd likely own a smaller pickup in addition to this one, as well as a small fleet of utility trailers to use with the car.

I'm not denying climate change. Living on the land I see the change in new weeds, new bugs. I don't think we can stop it, and that our efforts to put Pandora's troubles back in the box are futile. Rather, we need to get off our butts and learn how to adapt. Ecologies are changing. We need to become ecological engineers to manage this change.

Re:Yep

[BCGlorfindel]

In a normal year volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as human emissions. Even such a large eruption as Pinatubo in 1991 only added 0.2% to that. Water vapor is strictly limited by temperature and can't drive climate change. The Sun's output absolutely has an effect on climate. It's just that it hasn't changed enough to account for the global temperature changes we've seen. We've had very good measurements of the Sun's output from satellites since the 1980's Those issues have all been examined by climate scientists and factored in.

Right, volcano emissions must be insignificant compared to human emissions, since they are a mere 1% of what humans emit. Before reading any further, think hard about whether or not you accept that logic, it seems pretty solid.

Here's the trick, human's emit 3-4% as much CO2 as natural sources. If the above logic still holds, we might almost dismiss human CO2 emissions out of hand as insignificant, right?

The reality is that human CO2 emissions, despite being tiny, are special in that they fall outside the earth's natural cycles. The real question is, how much impact does that small 3-4% contribution we add make on a grand scale. To answer that we need to understand what kind of flux there is in natural CO2 emission and absorption, which is openly admitted to be poorly understood, it is the consensus, if one likes that kind of phrase. AFTER that is understood, we can begin to estimate the impact of the whatever net increase in CO2 we are causing has on temperature. That means understanding the role of water vapor, as it accounts for ~70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 is a comparatively meager 10-25%. And, once again, the 'consensus' for those that like that phrase, is that the role of water vapor is poorly understood, so much so that different climate models aren't even agreed when to use water vapor as a positive or negative feedback...

Sorry, I'm just some ignorant, unscientific heathen trying to understand things out loud.

There's your assumption

[Quila]

"So they have a choice between helping a bunch of deniers uninterested in the science and out to prove a point no matter what the data says "

No, it couldn't be ANYONE who wants to do a scientific analysis of the data, could it? Anybody who disagrees is a "denier"!

Re:Yep

[Dan Ost]

The problem is that we don't know what the climatologist accounted for or how they accounted for it because they didn't show their work.

Now that we have the data, we can do our own analysis and decide if the climatologists were right, kind of right, wrong, or malicious.

Re:Yep

[riverat1]

Hmm... I think you generally have it right but saying humans only emit 3-4% as much as natural sources while true is misleading. If you understand the carbon cycle you know that every year the natural sinks absorb about the same amount of CO2 as the natural sources emit so the long term average level of CO2 in the atmosphere remained at 280 ppmv for thousands of years until humans started adding significant amounts of carbon to the cycle about 200 years ago. In fact the carbon cycle processes absorb more than half of the human emissions so the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels amounts to about 42% of human emissions.

Water vapor and clouds together amount to ~70% of the greenhouse effect but water vapor is well understood and is always a positive feedback. Clouds are less well understood and have both positive and negative feedbacks. The overall net effect of clouds on the greenhouse effect appears to be slightly positive according to the latest studies I've seen.

Here's some new data;

[ROMRIX]

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

"Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models."

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Re:Yep

[Asmodae]

Typically Volcano Emissions are brought up to say something like "OMG one volcano outputs 100's of times the CO2 that people do in a whole year OMG are you dumb people can't cause global warming! think of the volcanoes!" This is probably why it's become standard argument to say that volcano emissions do not overwhelm human activity and cite percentages. Not that volcanoes have no effect, just that humans have more and probably both should be accounted for.

Re:Yep

[BCGlorfindel]

Hmm... I think you generally have it right but saying humans only emit 3-4% as much as natural sources while true is misleading. If you understand the carbon cycle you know that every year the natural sinks absorb about the same amount of CO2 as the natural sources emit so the long term average level of CO2 in the atmosphere remained at 280 ppmv for thousands of years until humans started adding significant amounts of carbon to the cycle about 200 years ago. In fact the carbon cycle processes absorb more than half of the human emissions so the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels amounts to about 42% of human emissions.

Water vapor and clouds together amount to ~70% of the greenhouse effect but water vapor is well understood and is always a positive feedback. Clouds are less well understood and have both positive and negative feedbacks. The overall net effect of clouds on the greenhouse effect appears to be slightly positive according to the latest studies I've seen.

Ah, but the scientific "consensus" is that we DON'T really understand the carbon cycle, is it not? Go do a google scholar search on the subject, half the papers are studies on why there is such discrepancy in past results. The other half that try and make claims like yours use absurd methodologies, like trying to find the correlation between human CO2 emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. That might sound like a decent study, save for the consideration that human CO2 emissions are 3-4% of natural emissions, so if natural emissions(or sinks for that matter) vary at all, the human contribution is all but lost in the noise. I've a very simple theory why their results are inconsistent and vary so much, the 3% human contribution being looked at is getting lost in the noise of the other 98% that is being ignored.

As for clouds, I have problems with arguing that it is separate from water vapor AND with any study using them as a net positive feedback. Maybe I'm relying too much on my own experience(anecdote), but I understood clouds to be inextricably linked to water vapor, almost as though being virtually the same thing in many cases. Additionally, I've never found a day to generally be warmer for the presence of clouds, making them as a positive feedback a hard thing to swallow.

Remember when skepticism in science was good?

[Quila]

Of course throughout history the person who fights against the group-think has been persecuted, so maybe skepticism being undesired is the history and persecution of deniers is the norm.

I was hoping we'd left that behind along with the witch hunts.

Re:Yep

[BCGlorfindel]

Typically Volcano Emissions are brought up to say something like "OMG one volcano outputs 100's of times the CO2 that people do in a whole year OMG are you dumb people can't cause global warming! think of the volcanoes!" This is probably why it's become standard argument to say that volcano emissions do not overwhelm human activity and cite percentages. Not that volcanoes have no effect, just that humans have more and probably both should be accounted for.

Agreed on them both needing to be accounted for. Why is it then that a google scholar search for scientific studies on increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT include volcanoes, or ANY other natural sources, and instead try and correlate only human emissions to to measured atmospheric CO2 increases?

How about the IPCC's projections for atmospheric CO2 levels? They too include the built in presumption that the only variation in the carbon cycle is human emissions. That may be useful as a comparison number to say the difference humans might make, all other things ignored. It doesn't tell us anything about the overall human contribution though. A 1% shift in natural sinks and sources, which we understand poorly, throws a wrench in everything.

The science that is settled is that things have been warming the last 1-200 years, that CO2 is a GHG, and that human activity is about 3% of annual global CO2 emissions. The science that isn't settled is EVERYTHING tying those together in any quantitative manner. Our future actions rely entirely on just how much of the past and future warming is contributed to by human vs. natural activity, and one other piece of the science that is well agreed upon is that we do NOT understand the role of the natural carbon cycle and climate change very well at all.

How I'd love to be loaded

[Quila]

My "carbon footprint" would shrink to a tiny fraction of what it is now. I'd have an ultra-insulated house, underground pool to help the cooling, rewire the house for LED lighting, solar panels, an electric car for 90% of my driving (no hybrid, electric would do it), an ultra-efficient fridge, and ultra-efficient washer/dryer, etc.

Anybody got a couple hundred grand lying around to make me eco-friendly through technology?

A lot of these dreamers forget that not everybody's rich.

Re:Yep

[scot4875]

For the true skeptic. They want to look at all the data and all the claims.

No they don't. They want to hear one soundbite that confirms their "skepticism," so they can keep calling everyone else Chicken Little and not have to worry about their own impact on the planet.

--Jeremy

Let me guess, it's a conspiracy, right?

[Benfea]

The 90% of scientists you claim are part of this vast international conspiracy get paid the same no matter what their research shows. By contrast, the tiny number of climate skeptics you give credence to are all paid by people who stand to lose billions of dollars depending on the result of the research. Which do you think is more likely to misrepresent the data?

As for peer review, now is a good time to bring up the nature of peer review particularly as it pertains to climate science. Peer review is not the end-all be-all of testing the validity of research. Too many people think that any research that has been peer-reviewed can be treated as true or likely to be true, but peer review is only the beginning of the process of verifying/testing the results of a particular research.

A good example is that notorious and oft-cited research by climate skeptic hero Ross McKitrick. He is the most prominent and most-cited scientist of the climate skeptic crowd, and one of the few to be published in proper peer-reviewed journals. One of his research papers made it through the peer-review process and was published in a reputable journal (which is why right wingers still cite this study to this day). After it was published, someone tried to duplicate his results and found that he got his conclusions backwards because he got degrees and radians mixed up in his calculations. While this "mistake" is pretty staggering, the peer review process did not and could not catch an error of that nature.

Re:Yep

[Asmodae]

Agreed on them both needing to be accounted for. Why is it then that a google scholar search for scientific studies on increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT include volcanoes, or ANY other natural sources, and instead try and correlate only human emissions to to measured atmospheric CO2 increases?

As I understand it, this is In large part because natural sources and sinks balance each other out over time. I.E. A point perturbation like a volcanic eruption will eventually be removed in time. Over time average volcanic activity doesn't overwhelm sinks enough to raise average atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So if concentration due to natural sources and sinks is largely fixed, and there's an increase, look at new sources and check the data. The rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere correlates remarkably well with man's outoput. There is a pretty close match with man made sources.

A 1% shift in natural sinks and sources, which we understand poorly, throws a wrench in everything.

The science that is settled is that things have been warming the last 1-200 years, that CO2 is a GHG, and that human activity is about 3% of annual global CO2 emissions.

Annual CO2 emissions are irrelevant on their own, they need to be considered with sinks. The carbon cycle including all natural sources and sinks appeared to be stable, then man started adding to it continuously. What's being looked at is rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that is tracking observed and modeled rises in global mean temperatures for the most part. The debate is in where the differences lie and how to resolve them, how to make the models more accurate, etc.

Re:Yep

[seantide]

So the scientists where I worked at NASA, supporting satellite data like CERES and so on... who all said the Sun has been heating up and that CO2 is the result not the cause of warming... they are all idiots?

Certainly there are a lot of people who are being paid by oil companies and others, money has influence.

But then, there are also a lot of "climate scientists" who are depending on funding that would go away if they started to not believe in human caused global warming, because they are after all also being paid by people with an agenda.

Neither "side" has been very honest about any of this from the start.

Re:Yep

[riverat1]

I'm not aware of any consensus that we don't understand the carbon cycle. It's very complex and there are lots of details to be filled in but I believe we understand it fairly well on a large scale. I looked through the first 6 pages of Google Scholar - carbon cycle and didn't see anything that made me reconsider that. If you have something specific to point out to me please do. For over a million years the atmospheric CO2 level has varied between 180 ppmv and 300 ppmv, now all of a sudden, after remaining around 280 for thousands of years, in less than 200 years it's over 390 ppmv. Why? The last time CO2 was 390 ppmv was over 15 million years ago, long before the genus homo evolved. The obvious answer is that human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for most of it. Putting carbon that's been sequestered for many millions of years back into the active carbon cycle where it spreads out into the various sinks (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere & geosphere) and creates a new higher balance in all of them. Where else is it going to go?

Water vapor and clouds are of course closely related but they are two different things when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is always a positive feedback. Clouds on the other hand can be positive or negative feedbacks. Low fluffy clouds reflect more energy in the visible range than they absorb in the infrared range, high wispy clouds capture more infrared energy than they reflect visible light energy. But at night clouds capture infrared energy emitted by the surface. Ever notice how much colder it gets on clear nights as opposed to cloudy nights? That makes thinking of them as only a negative feedback hard to swallow. And around the terminator clouds can actually reflect sunlight down to the ground adding a bit. As I said, the latest study I've seen says clouds are most likely a slightly positive feedback with the uncertainty ranging from slightly negative to moderately positive.