Slashdot Mirror
Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data
mutube writes "The BBC is reporting that the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, target of 'ClimateGate,' has released nearly all its remaining data on temperature measurements following a freedom of information bid. Most temperature data was already available, but critics of climate science want everything public. Following the latest release, raw data from virtually all of the world's 5,000-plus weather stations is freely available. Release of this dataset required The Met Office to secure approval from more than 1,500 weather stations around the world. The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission, the Information Commissioner ruled that public interest in disclosure outweighed those considerations."
IMHO, it's not even remotely reasonable to start making political decisions and implementing laws or policies based on climate information, if that information isn't freely available.
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.
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.
My work here is dung.
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.
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.
"peer" doesn't mean what you think it means.
these people are all competing for limited funding. meaning that they all want to prove how rigorous and innovative they are.
rest assured, scientists argue amongst themselves a lot more than you might imagine.
and, once again, in caps for emphasis and cool:
SCIENCE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO GET RICH.
this argument that peer review is useless because they're all riding the funding gravy train is just stupid. utterly, utterly stupid. if a scientist wanted to make lots of money, they'd become a plumber, or do modelling for a large bank. climate scientists predominantly want to save the world. i'm sure they'd love to see conclusive proof that everything's going to be fine, but it's just not there.
The fattest cat environmental group has only a small fraction of the oil and gas industries. If scientists were as vile and corruptable as the pseudo-skeptics always claim, they'd all be shilling for the fossil fuel industry. After all the scientists that do seem to do very well for themselves.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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. :(
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Is there any other areas of research where you would reject consensus opinions point to the invalidity of the accepted theory? I mean, pretty much all medical researchers agree that HIV causes AIDS, so do you just say "well, that's clearly groupthink, I think I'll go with a few lone wolfs who claim otherwise?" Evolution is agreed by almost all biologists to explain the diversity of life, so do you go "well, those biologists suffer group think, clearly Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute represent the appropriate skeptical view." Do you reject consensus views on radioactive decay? I mean, there are a few guys with degrees who insist that decay rates are invalid or mismeasured, or attack the statistical nature of decay. Do you immediately side with them because of the groupthink in the physics community on that matter?
You suffer that near universal trait of the pseudo-skeptic. You have a theory that for whatever reason you dislike. You know the majority of researchers accept that the theory, or at least some form of it does in fact represent reality. So you find a few scientists, cherrypicked regardless of expertise, decide "These guys reject the AGW consensus", and go with them. But to square that particular intellectually masturbatory circle, you have to come up with some rationale, no matter how unfounded or inapplicable, to wave away the consensus. In your case, you have some fucking book you read a long time ago talking about group think, put on your armchair psychology hat and declare the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate as suffering this phenomenon you have now decided you have the expertise and faculties to diagnose.
And you mock me...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
-- $G
Most of the deniers I meet don't know very much about science at all. As to the degree-packing skeptics, a goodly number are not active researchers at all, or not in any field closely related to climatology. There are a small number to be sure, but hell, Michael Behe is a molecular biologist with tenure at Baylor University and who is pretty much the laughing stock of the entire biology community for his evolution skepticism.
It's not as if all climatologists are Stepford Wife-styled drones who worship idols of Al Gore. There's plenty of good old fashioned scientific debate, scientists being among the most cantankerous people around who dream that they will be the next Darwin or Einstein who will revolutionize their discipline. When you get a bunch of these guys to agree that AGW is real, even if they can't all agree on the degree of any particular facet (it being a scientific theory, and not some sort of unchanging religious dogma) should signal that there probably is something to this theory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
An argument from authority is not a fallacy as long as the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and there is a consensus among the majority. With the exception of the scientists working for BP, Exxon, and the like who don't really qualify as legitimate experts b/c they're paid to make a case rather than objectively obtain knowledge, there is a near consensus among the scientific community that humans have caused climate change which can have disastrous effects.
I can make a skeptical case against the big bang, but being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical isn't logical. That leads to all sorts of conundrums such as being skeptical that one exists at all (hello insanity), or being skeptical of the structural integrity of the building you're in (hello paranoia).
Did you independently confirm that your roof is structurally sound? If not, why are you sitting under it? Perhaps you logically assumed that the framers, carpenters, roofers, et al. did their jobs correctly and proficiently.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
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.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
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.
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.
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.