Slashdot Mirror
Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Climategate
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, was one of the central figures involved in the 'Climategate' controversy, which saw many private email conversations between researchers posted publicly. Now, an investigation (PDF) by the National Science Foundation has found "no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence." Phil Plait points out that other investigations have found similarly that claims of Mann's misconduct took his statements out of context. 'A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that's not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn't a big deal, or else they would've been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.'"
1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.
-->here is the wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
-->and here are the youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...
1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
...it's that factual findings can still be ignored in the climate argument. This won't change anything.
The "scientists are tricking us" motif is already well cemented in the minds of the GW deniers. Coming out with vindications this far from the initial story is like farting in the wind.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
"Data" is a plural word. "Datum" is the singular form.
Really. When you take one datum and put it together with another datum, you get data. Plural. You get this little detail of Latin grammar drilled into your forehead in first-year biology, and if you screw it up, it is graded more harshly than any other grammatical error.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
More facts won't sway those who willfully ignore facts. T-bags like Rick Perry and his followers will never be swayed by evidence, only Faux news propaganda.
By the time any of this hits the "skeptic" crowd, if at all, it will be sanitized and spun like all the other inquiries.
In other words, it will never be seen as evidence that Michael Mann isnt the perpetrator of the most sinister hoax/conspiracy in history to destroy conservatism and the US economy, it will be seen as evidence that the NSF is obviously corrupt - and any other issues they henceforth weigh in on will be seen as tainted.
One can't help but have a little terrifying respect for just how well the FUD machine can work.
issue from the beginning. It was never a big deal to be who work in scientific fields.
It's what happens when a 'news' channel is a arm of a specific ideological group.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Fixed the headline for you
Yes, it really weren't fakeded..
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They all drink from the same teat of government money, and therefore are all in cahoots. No one working in universities or research groups has any credibility. The only people who are not biased are the ones who only have a web site, and have otherwise nothing to do with climate science.
Well, you left out the people being funded by big oil and the Koch brothers. Why would they lie ?
Very true, but that doesn't really square with the claim that "the science is settled," does it? Many of the anti-AGW arguments are about methodology, yet the pro-AGW types often seem quick to dismiss (if not slander) anyone who questions their methodology.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
http://xkcd.com/808/
Are insurance companies selling flood insurance on coastal homes? If they are, are they making a killing on them? ^_^
To over-simplify it: the evidence that the data was faked was itself faked.
So what's to stop the other side from coming back by saying that the analysis of the faked evidence of the faked data was in fact faked?
Fake this noise.
Ah yes, the nihilist's view "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die..."
Anything so long as you don't have to change your behavior.
That is until peak oil hits and all of a sudden the price of a barrel of oil shoots into the stratosphere. By then, AGW will be undeniable and irreversible, and just as importantly, rejigging industrialized and industrializing economies away from the use of fossil fuels as a major energy source will become catastrophically expensive, costs for materials fabrication, industrial processes and agricultural production will fly the roof.
It just amazes me all those who deny AGW are also the ones who seem to ignore the fact that once we burn up all the economically obtainable complex long-chain hydrocarbons, we're in a shitload of trouble. Yes, we can use methane, coal and related fossil fuels to some extent to replace oil, but altering these relatively simple hydrocarbons into something approaching what we can do with oil (and all the constituents of oil, let us not forget, it is not a homogeneous substance) will be so extremely energy intensive that we're going to see everything from pharmaceuticals to California tomatoes leap in price.
So you see, even if you just reject AGW as "religion", there is another way that will fuck us over just as bad, and if AGW is true, by about the time oil starts to become obscenely expensive, we should be getting full-on effects from climate change, so a lovely double kick in the balls.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ever notice that when an investigation is concluded that if it fits your biases you never question the process?
Ever notice that when you've already decided global warming is a lie, you'd rather conclude that a worldwide grand conspiracy exists than re-examine your world view?
Whichever side of the debate one is on, one problem remains: science must be open. The very definition of science is to produce results that can be independently verified. Michael Mann and too many other climate scientists do not release their data, do not provide information on how they process their data, and do not release the algorithms and computer code running their simulations. If your data isn't available, *of course* people are going to suspect you of fraud.
If you do not make your data and algorithms available, your results cannot be verified. This isn't science.Maybe it's corporate product development, maybe its marketing, maybe it's politics - but it isn't science.
When I was in research (too long ago), it was pretty standard to get requests for data used in a paper. In fact, this was always a motivator, because it meant the paper had made enough of an impression on someone that they *wanted* to test the results for themselves. We always sent the data out immediately - on a floppy, by email, whatever was appropriate at the time. Nowadays, the Internet makes it easy. Every researcher ought to have a website containing all of the data for all of their publications.
Without taking sides in the global warming debate, I am still critical of Mann. He may be innocent of deliberate fraud, but he is still guilty of hiding the data and algorithms behind his claimed results.
That makes you an expert on biology and perhaps on the usage in a technical context, but overall usage varies widely and I'm pretty sure is tending towards recognizing it as a mass noun. Nitpicking isn't going to buck the trend. (Of course it's fair to point out that "data are..." is a form still widely considered to be correct.)
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
since Miami Vice...
How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?
This is a fool's errand. Let's make this learning process more granular. Break it down into separate steps:
Given that climate scientists are constantly attacked by political witch hunts (and, no, there have been no formal charges of fraud against scientists claiming global warming is fake). The heart of the problem here is that the first two steps should be almost completely scientific endeavors free and devoid of any politics. Yes, the studies cost money but there's money to be had both ways (I would even say that there's more money to be had if your findings absolve polluters of any guilt).
... meanwhile the polluters are counting their money and protecting that profit margin by lobbying and funding "think tanks" and spreading lies.
Once everyone is at step two, we can proceed with the clusterfuck that is world politics. I recognize the core problem is that some politicians cobble it together and go back to step two or -- god forbid it -- step one and then attack those. Instead of recognizing that we've already made ground, we go back and people mire everything up with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And then the witch hunts begin and we're not making any progress
Can we all just scientifically get to step two and then we'll go from there? The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientists because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?
My work here is dung.
Ever notice that when several independent investigations into a matter reach the same conclusion that the conclusions are strengthened?
yes nature emits nearly 750 gigatons.
So I don't understand your definition of 'a lot'
That humans emit CO2 through their activities is not the question, it is how much of an effect it has. So simplistic answers and youtube videos are nothing to base a decision on.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That's sad, as 'data' is quite happy (in so far as nouns have emotions) to be singular depending on context/use case:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data
And despite what reference.com says about the plural form being predominant in scientific/academic writing, I see it written as singular quite often.
E.g.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anature.com+"data+was"
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asciencemag.org+"data+was"
That's not to say that GP is right in calling wtf on the plural form, of course.
with what my right hand is up to.
For the National Science Foundation to deny the validity of Michael Mann's conclusions would expose themselves as having been only too happy to use his alarmist theories for their own betterment. There's not a whole lot of flash in the realm of "it's not humanity's fault" and "This doesn't require massive socioeconomic overhaul" scientific inquiry.
After the most recent exoneration, Fox was holding out on this NSF report as the last word on the issue: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/ They felt that the NSF was the "only independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively"
Their findings are not surprising. Mann's research has been replicated using different methods time and time again. Here are just a few examples:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.abstract
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
Ever notice that you can just substitute names of various gods into climate-change arguments (on all sides) and the thrust remains exactly the same?
Here in Russia we have millions of sq. kilometers of land locked by permafrost. Structures are built on special platforms, resource extraction is difficult and much of the North has to by supplied by ice-breakers. I see much benefit to my country.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Ever notice that when an investigation is concluded that if it doesn't fit your biases you always question the biases of everyone who agrees with it?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Not me, and not a lot of people. However the scientific process vets those biases out over time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I suspect all religions; especially the ones that say they aren't one. The way you tell the difference between religion and science? One invites scrutiny and the other punishes it. Which side are you on? Spirited debate or orthodoxy?
I'm guessing orthodoxy since your immediate response was an attack instead of a invitation to debate.
Do you deny it?
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
A personal disaster doesn't prove anything, nor will it change minds.
Al Gore argued (incorrectly) that we can directly attribute Hurricane Katrina to global warming. And every year since 2005, we've had global warming advocates claim that we're going to have record storms that year as proof.
There is a brilliant article on "suicide fantasy" and how some seem to cheer on our own disaster, because it makes them feel better. It vindicates arguments and assuages the guilt of being a despicable White American.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/22/the-suicide-fantasy/
I do believe that global warming occurs, though I don't think we fully understand our impact on the globe. It seems we have two camps.
One thinks this is all a lie and a conspiracy because reducing pollution costs money, and they'd rather not do that. The other side is convinced that SUVs are definitively destroying the planet, but ultimately that is good because it punishes the evil bastards who drive them.
The side I never see is the one clamoring for unbiased, reasonable research. Alarmism generates more funding, so we go with that. We've turned science into partisan politics, which is the same as saying both sides have killed actual science.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Peak Oil is not necessarily tied to AGW.
This
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Ever notice that only the loonies out there think there is an actual conspiracy, and yet the warmers of the world still use that strawman without fail?
Conspiracy no.
Creating your own job security by warping any and all conclusions, regardless of any observational data, to state that "more research is required...", "it may cause positive feedbacks...", "might...", "could...", "perhaps...", you get the idea. Taglines like "this does not rule out the possibility of AGW" are the source of the shithole that climate "science" is falling into. Once warmers adjust their hypothesis to fit observational evidence, as the scientific method demands, the quotation marks can come off from around the word "science".
You get this little detail of Latin grammar drilled into your forehead in first-year biology,
And if we were speaking Latin, that would be relevant.
The OP never said global warming was a lie. But thank you for inserting bias and proving their point.
When a scientist emails people and says you should intentionally misrepresent and hide data to further the goal of alarmism for funding, that is misconduct. Defending such behavior because one has to be in political camps is abhorrent and anathema to actual science.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
How can anyone hate on Red Dragon (the only good movie Ratner ever directed)? The cast of Red Dragon is amazing. And Cox can't touch Hopkin's performance of Lechter.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Ever notice that you're a fucking retard?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you read my post, you'll note that I treat them as separate phenomena with separate outcomes. However, strangely enough, the solution to both is pretty much the same.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Only that the interpretation of the data was far fetched. That argument still stands. The "trick" that was the subject of the Climategate email was to splice 2 time series together and present them in the same context. In one of the contexts (presentation to the laymen) it was actually presented as one chart. What the conclusions of the "study" didn't mention is that one possible interpretation for discrepancy in the data is not an "error" (as they claimed) but that some of the variables in data collection were not accounted for. He was vindicated of the most brazen accusation. But the emails indicated the frame of mind of the scientists which is consistent with the accusation that they more than willing to overstate the certainty of their conclusions. What exacerbates this overstatement is their claim that peer-review is an adequate method for such fact finding. Peer review is only useful for repeatable experiments. Obviously, whether measurements are not repeatable. So peer review is wholly inadequate for this type of research. Fact finding based on non-repeatable events must be conducted through adversarial review. And that's precisely what they are trying to avoid.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Whether "Climate Change", or "Global Warming" or "Global Cooling" or "Global Dimming" before it, are real or not, why does it matter?
If there is one issue everyone should be able to agree on, for different reasons, it's that we need a new energy source. The reasons seems secondary, as long as it gets done.
Instead of continuing wars to attempt to "preserve peace" in oil producing regions, why not take that money and devote it to a Manhattan style moonshot project for finding a new energy source with the necessary energy density, positive EROEI, portability, etc... that can begin to rebuild our petroleum-based economy.
It's going to take at least a decade to transform our national infrastructure. Why Mr. President, aren't we getting started on that now? After all, we've got some recently unemployed NASA folks who actually are rocket scientists.
That is kind of a stupid question since retards are not known for their self awareness. Some are so unaware that they think they are smarter than other people. Often they makes asses of themselves in public with this sort of attitude but are not aware of it. Like I said, lack of self awareness.
So... what's your first name? Just look down on your shirt. It is probably pinned there.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
In a decade the original scandal will still be passed back and forth as fact.
It's SOP for conspiracy theorists. Completely fail to internalize anything contradictory to your view, and accept anything confirmatory with little or no analysis.
So if I'm reading the summary correctly he isn't lying. But his approach of using tree rings could still be significantly flawed.
So his "hiding the decline" was deliberate fraud. But it could be poor science.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
What do you suppose will happen to the global economy when the price of oil hits $500, $750 or $1,000 a barrel? Oh, I'll wager you thought oil is going to just last forever. Or maybe you think that methane, coal and other fossil fuels can replace oil. Except that oil is pretty fucking important to an incredible number of industrial processes, materials fabrication, pharmaceuticals and, oh yes, agriculture (and not just diesel in the rigs that bring those nice California veggies to your local grocery store).
I'll tell you what happens. Because we've basically been conned into believing that we can just keep behaving the same way forever, instead of investing heavily in alternative energies so we can keep the crude reserves we've got for much more important things, we're gonna hit a brick wall and the global economy is going to tank, and we'll be scrambling around then trying desperately to figure out how to keep the whole show going without cheap long-chain hydrocarbons.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And your position, as well, I take it, is that there is an infinite supply of long-chain hydrocarbons sitting there, eh? You only dealt with half my point.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
and what is to be done about it that will not destroy the global economy, which can and will also leave thousands starving and without medical aid
The global economy will suffer greatly when we have totally destroyed the earth. Which may have already been accomplished. Leaving billions starving and without medical aid.
Yes, the climate has always changed, and it always will, and climate changes in the past have brought about mass extinctions, and the climate has never changed anywhere close to the rate that it is currently.
I'm sure this investigation is just as thorough and unaffected by politics as the SEC's investigation of mortgage bankers and Bernie Madoff.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You say that like it is insane to believe it. It really isn't. It is no more insane that believing that anyone running for president is going to lie to you. Yes it is unfortunate, but that doesn't make it true. When peoples livelihoods are on the line, they frequently start rationalizing poor choices. When that is combined with religious fervor, things can quickly get out of hand.
The lack of wide scale rebellion actually throws a lot of doubt into my mind when it comes to climate 'scientists'. If someone outlined their plan to kill your spouse and child, you could verify that the plan would work, and they were clearly in the middle of carrying it out, what would you do? Would you just start flailing your arms? Would you you write reports about it that you already know is going to fall on def ears? With the killer in his car on his way to your home and his gun loaded, are you going to go into the office and check to see if the bullet in their heads will kill them in 1/2 second, or 3/4 of a second? No, you are going to lay in wait for them to burst through the door, and you are going to kill them first.
Every single climate research who claims the end is near, has a family, and has not joined a rebellion to destroy our oil consuming culture, loses a lot of credibility. They are predicting the end of human life as we know it within their own children's lifetime after all.
No need to read any further.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The It proves nothing, the major polar ice masses are not floating in the water, 90% of them are on land. They are sliding into the water.
STFU or sign your posts so we can point at you and laugh.
Clueless twit.
Just because it has happened before, it doesn't mean that we want all the widespread natural disasters that can come along with it.
And after listening to all the idiots spout over and over again that the earth isn't getting warmer, there's not a lot of credibility left on your side when you now state, "It is getting warmer, but we need hardcore absolute proof that it's man-made."
How about paying attention to the problems that are going to happen from increasingly warmer temperatures? As has been often mentioned before, the Earth will be just fine regardless, whether or not humans will still be here isn't so certain.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
It doesn't matter. It's too late.
Beneficiaries to ignorance around climate change such as a, not related to the article, Koch Brother's have come out on top in the debate. People won't see this retraction and even if they did they are already biased against it. Besides, put on some shorts: there is no way climate change will change the pursuit of billions of dollars in profits. And the fact is those profits would have to be severely curtailed to make a difference. That's not the way the world works. Forget about it and just be happy you have a decent chance of adapting to climate change with our Western infrastructures in a fairly good position to handle the disruptions. Those people in Africa? Yeah, apparently the answer to them is: fuck off and die of drought.
Shh.
We're not trying to datum. We just want some straight answers.
-when the United Federation of Planets finally installs that Weather Modification Network over Earth and we can put all this behind us. Well, at least until Q shows up..
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I have no problem with GW. It is happening.
I doubt AGW. It _may_ be happening...
And now the AC (probably the same one, or one of a few) plays the Nazi card.
"We're so self-important. So self-important! Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all, "Save the planet." WHAT? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet? I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Tired! I'm tired of fucking Earth Day! I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference! The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet... the planet... the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE! We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet will be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance. "
So you believe global warming is in some sort of quantum state, like the health of Schrodinger's Cat?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
He has not released his raw data. He has not released his methodology. It is impossible for a peer to take the data use his methodology and verify the results. Thus peer review is impossible. How can the science be settled when the science has never been disclosed? Furthermore, I love when people point out that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of light as if anyone disputes that point. It's a complete strawman to focus on that while totally ignoring the actual objection. If the statement that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths was sufficient to prove global warming then why do any further research on it at all? I mean, if that's what it takes to settle the science and nothing more then the science should have been settled about 100 years ago. Why do we need computer models, statistical tables, and legions of scientists if it's already been proven? Because it's not that simple. The earth is not a backyard greenhouse. The earth on average radiates about as much energy back into space as it absorbs from the sun every day. Could changing the amount of CO2 in our air cause the atmosphere to retain more heat? Sure. No one disputes that it's possible. But then it might be countered by a thousand and one other things. The global climate of the planet is very stable. CO2 doomsday scenarios rely on climate forcing. Basically, they know CO2 can't change the atmosphere much... that science is also settled. However, they hypothesize that a small increase in temperature will cause a runaway effect leading to a major change in global temperature. That requires a lot of proof and the evidence for the validity of climate forcing models is VERY thin. This is where the skeptics tend to enter the discussion. The skeptics aren't saying that CO2 doesn't block certain wave lengths or that increasing CO2 can't increase world temperature. They're mostly focusing on the climate forcing models and questioning whether increasing CO2 will actually have a significant effect. Beyond that there are very real questions about the quality of historical weather station data. Again this gets complicated. You have to look at the urban heat island effect. You have to verify that weather stations weren't moved at some point during their life time. It's very common for a weather station that's been in operation for 100 years or more to have moved several times. Remember the people that poll that station don't really care if it was one degree warmer or colder 60 years ago. They mostly care about what the temperature was is today with some records going back a year or so. At no point did anyone think these stations would need to be accurate down to a tenth of a degree with that level of accuracy maintained throughout decades. Thus we get into sticky problems like how many significant digits can we honestly say we have? Expanding or contracting the data pool doesn't allow you to add significant digits. This is basic high school science education... Everyone on this site should know exactly what I'm talking about. And then making everything contentious we have trillions of dollars being threatened or demanded depending on your perspective and very contentious political rivalries that result from that. Why is it surprising that this is controversial? The only thing I find surprising is how badly the scientists have conducted themselves. Disclose the raw data. If you don't have it, then start over. It its totally unacceptable that you not have the raw data. At a time when you can buy terabyte harddrives for 100 dollars I do not want to hear about how they don't have space for the data. Either they think we're stupid enough to buy a stupid lie or they're too incompetent to maintain vital scientific records. It's one of the two and I have no patience for either answer. Disclose the methodology. Just showing your conclusions without showing how you arrived at them is an automatic F on a math exam. It's also an automatic F on a chemistry exam. I would hope it is not acceptable in climate science or it's not much of a science. That means their answer is also an au
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You see the same thing here. Some of the posts about the current state of the world are almost gleeful in their tone. It's the wannabe rag tag rebels. It's funny to watch these pampered products of Western society rhetorically fap to fantasies of total collapse and revolution without realizing that people like them would be chewed up and shat out in the first days of a real societal disruption.
I'm not bucking a trend here—hundreds of thousands of scientists use it this way every day and are convinced the rest of the world is wrong. Both are trends. Both must be lived with.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
He has not released his raw data.
He has not released his methodology.
It is impossible for a peer to take the data use his methodology and verify the results.
Thus peer review is impossible.
How can the science be settled when the science has never been disclosed?
Furthermore, I love when people point out that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of light as if anyone disputes that point. It's a complete strawman to focus on that while totally ignoring the actual objection. If the statement that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths was sufficient to prove global warming then why do any further research on it at all? I mean, if that's what it takes to settle the science and nothing more then the science should have been settled about 100 years ago. Why do we need computer models, statistical tables, and legions of scientists if it's already been proven? Because it's not that simple.
The earth is not a backyard greenhouse. The earth on average radiates about as much energy back into space as it absorbs from the sun every day. Could changing the amount of CO2 in our air cause the atmosphere to retain more heat? Sure. No one disputes that it's possible. But then it might be countered by a thousand and one other things. The global climate of the planet is very stable.
CO2 doomsday scenarios rely on climate forcing. Basically, they know CO2 can't change the atmosphere much... that science is also settled. However, they hypothesize that a small increase in temperature will cause a runaway effect leading to a major change in global temperature. That requires a lot of proof and the evidence for the validity of climate forcing models is VERY thin. This is where the skeptics tend to enter the discussion. The skeptics aren't saying that CO2 doesn't block certain wave lengths or that increasing CO2 can't increase world temperature. They're mostly focusing on the climate forcing models and questioning whether increasing CO2 will actually have a significant effect.
Beyond that there are very real questions about the quality of historical weather station data. Again this gets complicated. You have to look at the urban heat island effect. You have to verify that weather stations weren't moved at some point during their life time. It's very common for a weather station that's been in operation for 100 years or more to have moved several times. Remember the people that poll that station don't really care if it was one degree warmer or colder 60 years ago. They mostly care about what the temperature was is today with some records going back a year or so. At no point did anyone think these stations would need to be accurate down to a tenth of a degree with that level of accuracy maintained throughout decades. Thus we get into sticky problems like how many significant digits can we honestly say we have? Expanding or contracting the data pool doesn't allow you to add significant digits. This is basic high school science education... Everyone on this site should know exactly what I'm talking about.
And then making everything contentious we have trillions of dollars being threatened or demanded depending on your perspective and very contentious political rivalries that result from that. Why is it surprising that this is controversial? The only thing I find surprising is how badly the scientists have conducted themselves.
Disclose the raw data. If you don't have it, then start over. It its totally unacceptable that you not have the raw data. At a time when you can buy terabyte harddrives for 100 dollars I do not want to hear about how they don't have space for the data. Either they think we're stupid enough to buy a stupid lie or they're too incompetent to maintain vital scientific records. It's one of the two and I have no patience for either answer.
Disclose the methodology. Just showing your conclusions without showing how you arrived at them is an automatic F on a math exam. It's also an automatic F on a chemistry exam. I would hope it is not acceptable in climate science or it's not mu
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You say that like it is insane to believe it. It really isn't.
And yet, it totally is.
Your metaphorical example attests to an understanding of the world that is primarily based on first-person shooters.
Not every problem can be solved by killing someone or blowing something up. In fact, very few problems can be effectively solved that way.
Put the controller down, once in a while, and read a newspaper.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Predominant is undeniable, though. Try running 'site:nature.com "data was"' vs. 'site:nature.com "data were"' through Google Fight. 38000 for "were", 6060 for "was". Sciencemag.org is about the same, giving 1700 for "was" and 9630 for "were". Typically, the stodgier the institution, the more rigourous they are about preserving the older convention.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
OJ was vindicated, too. Didn't help him much.
Well, statistically, we may be. English was a very poor language with very weak descriptive power until the Renaissance imported huge amounts of Latin and Greek vocabulary. More still comes from French loanwords.
I should stress that only in the past forty or fifty years have reasonably intelligent people been so uneducated in the Classics that they bitch about this kind of thing on a regular basis. As a speaker of English, you'll just have to learn to put up with it.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
This is nothing more than a clever restatement of epistemological nihilism. Basically restated it says, "Because we cannot produce a perfect theory, we can have no theory whose predictions we can have a high degree of certainty about,"
It's a moronic position when you consider that the same basic fact that no theory is complete applies to all theories, including theories like Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics, both of which despite obvious missing pieces and flaws are among the most successful theories ever developed.
One of the more insightful comments I have read in this thread.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
This is one of those scientific issues that has become so political that it is extremely difficult to believe anyone. The generally accepted consensus, at least in the political and mainstream media circles seems to be that AGW is real and the warming will be catastrophic if nothing is done. A number of theories have been proposed that correlate much better with climatic data and/or make more sense than the consensus view. Please remember that consensus is a political term and applying it to science is a tricky business, especially with a system as complex as a planetary climate.
One could argue (for example) that gravity is supported by the scientific consensus, and therefore a scientific consensus is relevant to science, but gravity is a directly observable and a relatively simple thing, and it has been repeatedly verified by observations. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that the current theory of gravity is in some way flawed. If a scientist stumbles upon such a thing and can demonstrate an experiment to support his hypothesis, and especially if someone can replicate that result, I am pretty sure that the scientific community would jump at the chance to improve (or even throw away and remake) the prevailing theory.
There is no such desire when it comes to the theory of AGW, or even just GW. The current view is set in stone and any alternate theories are shunned as heresy, ad-hominems fly all around (from both sides), such that instead of focusing on the competing theory either the credentials, funding sources or the publishing paper are criticized. Peer review has been corrupted at least to a point (skeptical papers have more difficulty getting accepted, while papers supporting the consensus view are not as critically reviewed). The science suffers because of a political need to be right, and because it is feared that considering alternative theories might hinder the political will to do something.
This politicization makes it difficult for me to believe that the 5 or so vindications of Mann are legitimate, that the important questions were asked etc. This, however, is mostly irrelevant since it is the science that is important, not who produced it. These inquiries are in no way relevant to the climate science, and I do not care one way or the other about whether Mann is guilty or not. Of course the taxpayers who fund him might be interested, but again it is irrelevant to the science.
While irrelevant to this specific topic (is Mann guilty or not), I'd like to point out that due to China's (and other emerging economies) heavy urbanization any attempts at reducing the CO2 emissions in the west are pure folly, because even if the entire western world ceased to exist right after me making this post, China's industrial development alone would take the global CO2 emissions back to the current level in less than 10 years. Going into the science is useless here at Slashdot, because of the aforementioned politicization (having a scientific argument about a politically sensitive subject on an open forum is about as productive as stabbing oneself in the eye).
Here is a picture illustrating the point rather well, taken from a lecture by Professor Richard Muller.
Here is a link to the presentation for those with more patience.
In light of this, I propose that reducing CO2 emissions is an economic suicide for the west, and focus should be turned from prevention to adaptation especially considering the uncertainties and alternative theories surrounding the science, of which at least one is supported by CERN's CLOUD experiment.
We aren't communicating in Latin. We are communicating in English and the meanings of words in languages, like English, that aren't dead yet change over time. They also aren't restricted to the meanings of the original words in the languages they were borrowed from.
Is there a study that paying more taxes will reduce CO2? China does not seem to be concerned, they will build far more coal burning power plants than the US will ever decommission; are we going to punish them with tariffs? Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo have invested in carbon credit trading desks; I am sure based on past experience these financial institutions will be above board, acting in the best interests of humanity. Throw in a global economic crisis, I am sure actions taken to restrict energy needs will be in the best interest of humanity. Is the explosion of human population growth coming from Western countries? Ultimately is not that the real problem that needs to be addressed?
Finally the UN sucks and should never be able to consolidate power using global energy unless you want to be ruled by oligarchs out of reach from your country's laws.
Okay. The oil companies made it all up to protect their profit margins, and Due Process is too slow to catch the conspiracy before they do major social and political damage. The world is going to hell, and the Neoconservative movement is mostly responsible. Indirectly responsible parties include the New Left, for being reactionary and obfuscating the issue, the Old Left, for prompting the creation of the the Neoconservatives, and the Old Right, for prompting the creation of the New Left. Humans will never learn the lesson that radicalism is the enemy of progress and civilization as long as there are short-term benefits to being a radical, and consequentially, we will never have flying cars, lunar colonies, interstellar travel, wealthy African nations, or a widely-distributed cure for AIDS or cancer. And we'll all be cooked and flooded to death just after we stop playing Chicken Little every time there's a warm winter or cold summer.
Is that sufficiently straight?
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I advocated for unbiased scientific research and that gets modded flamebait. Thanks for proving my point.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Most deniers do now admit that the earth is warming. Just not that human activity is causing it, and therefore, there's no need to do anything about it ;)
See, it's, uh, the sun! Or volcanoes! Or space radiation interacting with the upper atmosphere! Not the greenhouse effect though, that's highly questionable.
(actually I don't know what excuse they're on these days, all of those have been disproven. They may have fallen back to their weapon of last resort, The Global Socialist Conspiracy theory)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
3%? Do you /really/ believe that?
Current estimates is about 392 ppm (as of 2011). It was 335 ppm in 1985. So that's at 17% increase in just 26 years.
I wonder how many "sceptics" will be fast and loose with the truth when responding to this article.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You can recycle or safely dispose of batteries, the toxic contents aren't released into the atmosphere over the life of the vehicle.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Latin literacy was widespread in most English-speaking universities until the early 1980s, both in the sciences and the arts. As I showed in another response to my post, both Science and Nature magazines have about three times as much usage of data in the plural than in the singular. "Over time" in this case is basically the last ten years. In the mid-nineties, no one with a university background would have challenged the use of "data" as a plural term and not expect to get corrected. Much further back, and you would probably be ostracized.
Honestly, I'm not surprised, just disappointed at how completely people have stopped caring. The unbridled presentism that pervades in technology communities these days is desiccating culture at a furious pace. Just because we think about the world around us more logically than our ancestors did doesn't mean all of their accomplishments and creations should be thrown away.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations
His proxy doesn't do what he claims it does locally. His larger claims are considerably in doubt.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Since I don't think your post is sarcastic, I'm going to assume you're an idiot.
All of the ice that isn't floating in the oceans (on land, on mountain tops, etc.) would raise the water level when it melts. Maybe that's what they are talking about. Warmer temperatures cause ice to melt, and therefore, sea levels to rise, and more moisture in the air. More moisture in the air of varying temperatures causes more hurricanes and more flooding. Higher temperatures in places like Texas causes severe droughts and millions to billions of dollars in lost crops as is happening now. These are some of the negative effects of global warming, anthropogenic or not.
But if the polar ice caps are melting and shrinking every year, then yes, it is getting warmer on average, and therefore, we have a problem.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Just because English took a word from another language doesn't mean it has to preserve the inflections of the original language, or even the meaning. "Data" means something completely different in English to what as it did in Latin, for example. The way the word is actually used in English is much more like a mass noun than a count noun. How often do you say "those two data" compared to "2 gigabytes of data" for example?
I studied Latin at school, and my God am I glad that English doesn't work the same way. English has enough irregularities already without importing more from elsewhere.
actually I don't know what excuse they're on these days, all of those have been disproven.
All of them. It doesn't really matter which, since the conclusion ("We don't have to do anything") is foregone, and the rest is just details. Disprove one and they'll switch to a different one, and when you disprove that they'll jump back to the first, hoping you've forgotten about it.
They're still stuck with explaining how they, an ignoramus who would have failed high school algebra if they hadn't cheated off the nerd in the next row, is somehow more informed about climate modeling than the scientists. That's where the Global Socialist Conspiracy comes in.
I took a look at your Petition Project and I was surprised at one thing: when gathering signatures for a petition the fringe groups usually take anybody they can get, while the mainstream has standards. Mainstream groups will make it easy to find the qualifications of the signers, fringe groups don't. Your Petition Project is a fringe group, yet it damages its own propaganda value by noting that less than one-third of the petition signers had Ph.D.s and much, much more damaging breaking the signers down by discipline. Petition Project managed to get 112 atmospheric scientists, 39 climatologists, 94 earth scientists, 36 geoscientists, 253 environmental scientists, for a total of 534 persons who might be qualified at a professional level. We can only say might be qualified because we don't know what exactly they do other than some portion of members of these fields are experts at some issue related to AGW. This is particularly important for the earth, geo, and environmental scientists since most of them are not experts on AGW-related issues. We also can't say who in this group has a Ph.D.; if we were to assume that all 534 persons actually are involved in AGW-related work (unlikely), multiplying that by the overall percentage of Ph.D. signers gets us 153 PhD holders who might be in fields relevant to AGW. Restricting the group to just those where the majority are likely to have expertise on AGW and AGW-related issues and doing the same percentage count of PhDs leaves you with just 43 people.
Here's my citation.
It's your post.
Simply pointing out that some of the data used as the basis for the AGW conclusions is not as reliable as was believed when those conclusions were formed was enough for you to paint me as "one of them", was enough for your hackles to stand on-end and for you to personally attack me.
I'm not saying the conclusions are wrong. I'm saying they may be less right than initially believed. That's how things FUCKING WORK, dude. Get off your high horse, you're every bit as devoted to not changing your views as any other fundamentalist whacko.
Based on what was known, the AGW conclusions were not incorrect. New things become known. Conclusions must be revisited and the impact that the newly-discovered data uncertainty has on those conclusions must be evaluated.
Oh, and here you go, asshole.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005E%26PSL.229..183I
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GC000146.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/science/02obtree.html
None of that necessarily means AGW conclusions are wrong, but it does mean that the assumptions that were made to establish historical data points were not as reliable as was believed at the time they were made. I do not recall hearing about anyone revisiting their AGW conclusions to determine what effect this new uncertainty may have on those conclusions -- because any suggestion that they need to do so is taken as an attack on the AGW conclusions. It is not. It's simply good fucking science.
If tomorrow we discover that assumptions that we made and believed to be true which were used in calculating the speed of light may not have been as true as we believed them to be at the time, that does not mean we have the speed of light *wrong* but it DOES mean that we need to re-determine if our calculations of the speed of light are still correct. To simply assume so and attack any suggestion otherwise is not science, it's blind faith. Lashing out just like any other religious fundamentalist. It's embarrassing, and frustrating to be painted as some sort of monstrous denier of reason when your goal is to not destroy but IMPROVE knowledge and understanding and to evolve conclusions and ideas as new evidence presents itself.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
LOL, did anyone actually READ the report?
Quote:
"As part of our investigation, we attempted to determine i f data fabrication or falsification may have occurred and interviewed the subject, critics, and disciplinary experts in coming to our conclusions. As a result of our interviews we concluded:
1. The subject did not directly receive NSF research funding as a Principal Investigator until late 2001 or 2002.
2. The Subject's data is documented and available to researchers.
3. There are several concerns raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used in the Subject's research.
4. There is no specific evidence that the Subject falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.
5. There was concern about how extensively the Subject's research had influenced the debate in the overall research field.
Analysis and Conclusion
To recommend a finding of research misconduct, the preponderance of the evidence must show that with culpable intent the Subject committed an act that meets the definition of research misconduct (in this case, data fabrication or data falsification).
The research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the Subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results. Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he eniployed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct.
Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action"
BASICALLY, they're saying that vague claims of misconduct are vague. Lacking specific allegations and further lacking a mandate (according to their rules) over his research, they simply closed the investigation.
That's a far f*cking cry from exoneration.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
-Styopa
It is remarkable how many AGW deniers are posting here as Anonymous Coward today. I guess creating new sock puppet identities to shill for Big Oil and the anti-science right-wing is too obvious here, where their assigned number is a dead give-away.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
unless you can show, without the use of assumption, supposition, and sound-bite psuedo-logic that the current warming trend is entirely the cause of humans
In fairness, he only needs to show that the current warming trend is significantly the cause of humans; in other words, that the warming trend can be impacted in a significant degree by changes in human behavior.
No, but we can acknowledge the effects of both.
Once we do, we can also realize that conservation and encouraging the adoption of hybrids, electrics, mass transit, and alternative energy sources reduces our dependence on foreign oil, creates new jobs and helps the economy, dramatically improves our trade deficit and, oh, by the way, reduces our greenhouse gas emissions simply as an added bonus.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
During the 19th century, most scientific discourse in the Western world was conducted in Latin. It's less like we've imported Latin loanwords and more like we've stapled large amounts of English into Latin text. Many other characteristics of scientific writing are also borrowed (or meant to accommodate) quirks of Latin; we almost exhaustively use the passive voice, for example, because there's no way to avoid giving a direct subject in English. (This may be bogus.)
The reason English borrows and preserves so many Latin plurals (and it's just the plurals! You don't have to worry about genitives or datives or anything!) is out of reverence to the original source language. Latin's contribution as a carrier of communications in the arts and sciences is incalculably vast, and by choosing to preserve parts of its traditions in their language, English scholars during the Renaissance were deliberately helping to preserve its memory. At the time, of course, it was in part just a case of everyone's favourite mega-creole being a linguistic pickpocket to fill in its own deficiencies, but the respect that Latin has commended since its official death some time in the fifth century is still awe-inspiring.
By the way, plurals in English have never been all that consistent. Originally formations like "man" to "men" were much more common. In fact, viewed in the long history of things, the -(e)s formation only gained predominance more recently. Most European languages have two or more ways to form plurals based on the noun's case, just like (and often derived from) Latin, and English is peculiar in how regularised it is. You can choose to think of this as "it could've been worse" if you wish, but on the flip side it makes poetry much more difficult than in any other language.
If you're still really so upset about irregularities in language, though, you can always try Lojban or Esperanto.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I agree. The trend I was referring to was the overall process of movement from usage as a plural towards usage as a mass noun. E.g. newspapers shifting from disallowing singular data towards approving it. But it's a long, slow moving process.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Not every problem can be solved by killing someone or blowing something up. In fact, very few problems can be effectively solved that way.
Put the controller down, once in a while, and read a newspaper.
I would say given the current state of world affairs reading a newspaper would only encourage his beliefs that violence is the solution. It may be better for all of us if he doesn't put down the controller.
Time to offend someone
I've been surprised at the poor statistical methods used by many scientists, in climate studies or elsewhere. It's as if they memorized formulas to get a confidence level so they could publish, without really understanding statistical concepts.
I think things like this speak for themselves:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/photos/antarctica-gallery/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/mongolian-herders-feel-change-in-climate.html
http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Masters-Arctic-Ice/dp/B000R7I4AE
Masters of the Arctic Ice recently had a showing on PBS, and it was really disturbing to see that not only is the Western ice shelf melting, but the Eastern shelf is also showing signs of rapid deterioration from the bottom, and not from the top.
If both shelves go, it will put the ocean water levels up by approximately sixty feet or more world-wide.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Mod up parent! I didn't read it till I saw your post. Typical of people to go on and on here on slashdot without RTFA.
Sounds like he was exonerated in the minds of people that agree with him. To bad we have people that want to point political fingers and not look at all things in a unbiased, reasonable manner.
... since he is the author of the so much flawed and famous "Hockey Stick Graph". So what difference does it makes if someone says that the emails from the CRU aren't proof? Don't we have enough proof of how ridicule this "scientist" is already?
I'm glad the real justice system doesn't agree with that approach. The null hypothesis there is that the accused is innocent. All burden of proof rests with the accuser.
Or am I reading your post wrong? You appear to be implying that if somebody makes vague claims of scientific misconduct, the accused is required to vigorously prove a negative to clear his name.
you have to be an idiot to deny the earth is getting warmer. that is settled. what isn't settled is the cause.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
I thought they had moved on to french by the 19th century. Your point stands irregardless (ammarian-Greh oll-Treh).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I took two years of high school Latin in the 1980s. It should be thrown away. What a waste of time.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Take a look at the actual temperature data and you'll see that warming stopped after 1998 and has plateaued since. So the answer to "Is the Earth getting Warmer?" is "not in the past decade". Go look at NOAA's temperature data and see for yourself. And you can't just ask "If yes, does this have negative effects?" The question is if it has NET negative effects. If so, are the costs to do something about it larger than the net negative effects. I'm convinced it has warmed in the last 30 years. I'm not convinced that it will continue warming (it hasn't) for a decade, that warming is a bad thing (crop yields are positively correlated with temperature) or that it's worth the Trillion required to reduce CO2 emissions.
Plant CO2 is short cycle and back into the atmosphere. Desalination is just a way of trading oil/coal for fresh water.
We need to grow buttloads of plastic feedstock producing genetically engineered plants watered by rain. That way the city dumps become CO2 sinks. Most CO2 in the dumps these days comes from hydrocarbons or will break down in the next few centuries.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ever notice that climate science is the only science where all empirical evidence points to the prevailing theory no matter what happens? If it rains too much, AGW. If theres a drought, it's AGW. If it snows a lot, AGW. If it doesn't snow at all? You guessed it, AGW. If it's an unusually cold winter, it's AGW. If it's an unusually warm winter, AGW. If it's too hot in the summer, AGW. If it's too cool in the summer? Must be AGW.
I'm not a denier or a scientist, I'm agnostic. I don't think we have enough data to determine the cause of global warming with any certainty, though I believe that climate change is real.
Just repeating an observation I've read about in an editorial by a physicist.
It's the only science where theory is presented as though it's proven fact before the research is conclusive, and no one challenges it, there's no oversight, and any attempt to bring up valid challenges to the methods used by AGW zealot scientists meets with red tape, refusal and the formation of what amounts to a straw committee made up of AGW zealots to oversee themselves. If it weren't pseudo science they'd welcome oversight by impartial third parties. They don't.
They hide stuff and adopt obstructionist policy opposed to handing over the data they base their conclusions on.
Climategate not withstanding, there are big problems with the climate science community.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
The French made a big deal of trying to be the linguistic and cultural basis for everything in the eighteen hundreds, it's true, but to be honest the English and Germans, who made rather substantial contributions to Chemistry and Physics during that period, simply wouldn't've stood for it.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
What is the current price of whale oil?
Once a commodity hits a price at which it becomes uneconomic for fuel it will not move much further. Oil is only used in those other industries because it is cheap fuel for their processes.
You eco-nuts should want the price of oil to go as high as possible as soon as possible. It will make all your pipe dreams economical. But you overestimate our dependence on oil. Cars run good on natural gas for better then electric car type ranges.
Too bad it will make oil companies rich and lead to new drilling.
Still you think we will drive off a cliff and oil will run out all at once. The great thing about markets is that price is a signal that cannot be ignored (except by government for a little while). Find a fucking alternative, this is getting expensive.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yeah; who ever benefited from understanding the reason for anything?
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Global Tepid.
You can't even spell "Lecter" right. Dismissed.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
So you think there's some other source of complex long-chain hydrocarbons? Energy is the easy part... lots of coal and methane to burn... but the next time your little iShit consumer product or turn on your 50inch plasma flat screen and pop in your favorite pr0n DVD, try to fathom how much of those products got pumped out of the ground as oil.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm curious. Have you ever read anything on AGW beyond headlines and denier sites? Could you provide a brief bibliography of the articles and books you've read on the topic?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
It's less like we've imported Latin loanwords and more like we've stapled large amounts of English into Latin text. Many other characteristics of scientific writing are also borrowed (or meant to accommodate) quirks of Latin; we almost exhaustively use the passive voice, for example, because there's no way to avoid giving a direct subject in English. (This may be bogus.)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The passive voice is perfectly valid English and is useful when the subject is unimportant, and to the best of my knowledge has nothing to do with Latin. While Latin has a passive voice as well, it's formed quite differently to the English one.
If you're still really so upset about irregularities in language
I'm not upset about it. I've been using the language long enough to be used to it, but don't see any need to make English more irregular than it already is. If people use "data" in the manner of a mass noun, why not treat it as one grammatically? That's easier for everyone, and avoids the need to remember unintuitive "rules" such as data taking the plural verb form even though it typically isn't treated or thought of as a plural.
Yeah, man you are totally right. It's totally unfair to say he was exonerated when "no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results". Yeah, that doesn't at all mean that he was exonerated -- do the authors of the paper even know that the word "exonerated" means "Absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing"? Sheesh what numbskulls.
Why? It is the warmers who want us to spend trillions and accept a greatly lowered standard of living because of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to date the warmers have none.
Interesting that you quote Sagan, who accepted climate science. There was consensus in the community by 1979, according to a NAS. Deniers just make a crap shoot of already discredited claims, and constantly shifting the bars of evidence. They are called deniers, because nothing will satisfy them. They cannot even make a coherent argument against what scientist say. It is all about having their way, and so far they have succeeded.
Meanwhile, humanity is still engaged in a huge geographcial experiment. Talk about irresponsible.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Most of the research is being done with money from government grants, and grants have been (very much) selectively given to people known to be on the "AGW" side of the argument.
No, the money is given to people who have demonstrated competence in that scientific field. If that group strongly correlates with the group of people who think AGW is happening, what does that tell you?
Or, how about this: what incentive does a government have to want to fake evidence that global warming is human caused? The measures to deal with it are politically unpopular, so there are no votes in it. Not to mention all the lobbying from powerful industry groups. The motivations for faking evidence lie strongly on the "it's not happening" side - so the fact that the "it is happening" message has got through is impressive in itself.
My point was that the passive voice is much more awkward to form in English than Latin, yet we do it anyway, and exhaustively in scientific work. While it's true the subject is unimportant, the habit is at least partially influenced by the convenience of doing so in Latin.
English has always been extremely irregular. Pronunciation is scarcely uniform, and attempts at spelling reform almost always ruin the regularity of the language rather than restore it. And the parts of it that are regular are really ugly: "-ing" for the progressive aspect; possessives and plurals are too similar.
There's a certain point, I think, when there's no point in trying to save a burning ship.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
You are driving in a heavy fog. You see a sign that claims the bridge ahead is out. Then a sign that says the bridge is not out. Then another that says it is, and another claiming it's not.
How does a prudent driver proceed?
WALSTIB!
Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action"
That's a far f*cking cry from exoneration.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
I'm confused. If I accuse you of murdering a girl in 1990, and the prosecutor lacks any direct evidence of misconduct and closes the investigation, does that mean that you're not exonerated? Does that perhaps imply that you DID in fact murder a girl in 1990, despite no direct evidence of misconduct?
As for any data missing, your understanding seems a bit shoddy at best. Citation Needed, please.
Idiotic coward that can't post non-anonymously:
Since you obviously have no clue, I'll try to explain it for you. Global warming is talking about average temperature. It isn't talking about Siberia becoming a tropical zone. Slightly warmer average temperatures of only a couple degrees can melt vast amounts if not all of the polar ice caps and the ice shelves, etc. This causes much more (and much colder) moisture around the globe.
Basically, you have more hurricanes and floods when it's warm, and massive blizzards when it's cold. You're like the idiot on Faux News who showed a horrific blizzard and said, "What happened to global warming? We could use some more of that right now."
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
AFAIK #2 is true, some of the data couldn't be publicly released because of copyright issues, but that data didn't change the conclusions and could presumably be accessed by other researchers.
As for the rest.
The data is public.
The code is public.
The papers are public.
What else do you fracking need?
Lets be honest here. This isn't about the science of global warming, all the information necessary to debate the science of global warming is out there, it can, and has been debated publicly and openly, and for the most part the scientists all agree AGW is real.
So other than all the scientists simply making a giant honest mistake (which they're VERY adamant they're not doing) the only plausible scenario where AGW is wrong is if a few key scientists are skewing data to support AGW, and the rest of the field is just following them.
So what Climategate is about is showing that one of these key scientists is lying, the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that, there were a couple suspicious looking references in the CRU emails, but those turned out to be a red herring as this inquiry found. And further claims of misconduct are vague because there's nothing to base them on when everything is in the open and can be reproduced, but skeptics want the investigation to continue to find any dirt on him so the public will think it's all a big fraud.
Really? What could Mann be hiding, that can't be discovered in the published research, that's actually relevant to the science of global warming?
I stole this Sig
I never knew Michael Mann was also a climatologist. I guess this explains the naming of one of my favorite movies: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113277/
:/
Oh, you're cheating. Don't shift the argument.
We need to replace power plants that release radiation and geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere with power plants that use fuel produced from biologically sustainable sources. There's not a damn thing wrong with gas fired power plants, the problem is how we are feeding them.
Granted, coal plants have to go, but it's not fair to lump in gas plants with coal plants. In fact, it would be more accurate to lump nuclear plants in with coal plants, although that's also a kind of rhetorical cheating.
In the USA, we have more than enough cropland and sunlight to completely power our baseline with renewably produced methane gas that is already a part of the existing atmospheric carbon cycle, providing no change in the climate. Just harvesting the methane from all of the USA's municipal sewer systems would be a good start!
I don't want to fund oil companies that don't care if my children starve, I don't want to fund middle eastern terrorism, I don't want to fund militarized, centralized nuclear power production, I don't want to fund morally bankrupt, worker-abusing coal mining consortia, I don't want to increase the risk of my grandchildren contracting lung cancer, I don't want to fund creaky obsolete 1940s fission technology or even more obsolete 1800s petroleum technology. I want shiny 21st century biotech - gasoline-producing algae and rocket motor trees!
So sell me biologically produced methane gas, which I can access with existing infrastructure in my existing gas furnace, gas generator, gas stove, gas oven, gas dryer, etc. etc. with no dependence on foreign sources and I will be happy to pay you a fat profit - and it'll cost both of us far less than the cost of building, protecting and decommissioning nuclear power plants.
The Earth's climate is mostly convection as well, with IR radiation from the surface a lesser form of surface cooling.
How does that warm air get cooled to space? Oh, wait -- radiation, right? So how much does air radiate, vs. how much does the surface radiate? (Bear in mind that the upper atmosphere is cold, and remember that T^4 rule.)
Let's test this: if the atmosphere radiates heat at night and sinks to cool the ground, the air will cool more rapidly than the ground does. If, on the other hand, the ground cools by radiation at night the ground will be colder than the air. On an autumn morning when you first see frost, is the air temperature higher or lower than the ground temperature?
Alternately, you can do what atmospheric physics students do: take a spectrograph of the night sky. Care to guess which wavelengths of IR are coming back (reradiated) from the night sky and which wavelengths are missing because the sky is transparent?
Finally, for another read of the same question (radiated wavelengths of the Earth's atmosphere) you can look at the readings from NASA satellites looking down on the Earth. Care to guess which wavelengths are missing (absorbed) vs. radiated? Care to compare to the spectrum looking up?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
And why wouldn't increase in CO2 and temperatures cause an increase in algae population (which would then uptake the excess CO2)?
Because excessively acidic oceans tend to go anaerobic, which screws with the whole ecology including the algae. Just because an organism needs CO2 doesn't mean that more CO2 is good for it.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Go back and read the PDF. It says nothing about the quality or accuracy of his research; the investigation concluded that Mann did not do anything improper with NSF funding, and that because there was no direct evidence that he had done anything improper, the investigation was closed. It says nothing about the accuracy of his data or provide any corroboration of his conclusions, and anyone who takes the results of the investigation as providing any kind of endorsement of the conclusions Mann presents is deluding themselves.
Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.
Your basis for this assertion is ... ?
My sources indicate otherwise, but I'm willing to be persuaded.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Relax, chief. I'm not "denying" or even "questioning" and while I'm sure it's offensive to you that I'm not giving your beliefs the deference you're certain they deserve, in a way you've demonstrated my point.
For that we'll have to melt the glaciers on Greenland and the solid-ground portions of Antarctica.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
All of the raw data and analysis needs to be released. This can easily be an open source project. I started trying to track down the data and it was a bit difficult. Apparently in the old days the temperature was just recorded by hand at weather stations around the country. The thermometers had to be located away from structures to reduce heat island effect. There were quite a few data points missing in bad (ie cold) weather when the people operating the stations were too lazy to get the data. So data from near by stations was used to fill in that missing data. That is a big no no. You can try to interpolate data but you don't do it and include your interpolation as raw data.
Also the different data sets, tree rings, surface stations, and satellite data didn't agree well so they were massaged together. That is where I get really worried.
Some good information here.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
McCuccinellyism.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Your objections were infantile, and you expect a reasonable response? Bizarre.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I didn't object to anything, I just made a simple observation. Apparently your anger is leading you into some sort of confusion over who you're replying to.
So far as my expectations, I'd say you pretty much lived up to them.
Okay then, you're "observations" were infantile. If they were genuine, then I can only think that you're a fucking retard.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Despite numerous allegations of flagrant misconduct, the NSF could not find even one that could be substantiated (just like all the previous investigations). The fundamental conclusions have been replicated over and over. The supposedly "missing" data was readily found. The statistical errors that were real turned out to be inconsequential with respect to the overall conclusions.
But because the NSF committee was unable to prove a negative, it's "a far f*cking cry from exoneration"?
Man, I hope I'm never accused of a crime with you on my jury.
Ah and to top of epistemological nihilism, we get treated the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Here's a question for you. What percentage of the active researchers into climatology do you suppose reject AGW?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. The Subject's data is documented and available to researchers.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
That's because you get your information from disinformers. The data has always been available. The methods are described in the paper. The results have been replicated time and time again using different methods. They are very sound. This is how science works. Mann was a pioneer. His methods were improved upon in subsequent analysis - by Mann and others. That the initial study is not perfect is not a sign of misconduct. That his results turned out to be right indicates that he was on the right track.
I wish I had mod points for you. 99% of AGW skeptics come across as talking point machines with no real knowledge.
What we need are people willing to examine the fundamental axioms of AGW (tree rings and ice cores, for instance) in order to improve the science.
And we need people pointing out legitimate flaws in current theories without being dicks about it, or pretending that flaws mean more than they do.
So my hat's off to you, sir. The world needs more people like you.
Last post!
It's easier to predict long-term trends than day-to-day details. I don't know what time it will rain tomorrow (if at all), but I know that it will get warmer in Australia over the next few months because the season is changing. Climate change is a similar, large-scale effect. We can't predict where a hurricane will hit next week (much less 20 years from now), but we can make predictions about global temperature trends and whether hurricanes will become more frequent (or less) in general.
Isn't if funny how many people are missing your sarcasm and taking you seriously? Thanks for amusing me.
Al Gore argued (incorrectly) that we can directly attribute Hurricane Katrina to global warming.
Please provide a cite for that. I've never heard that Al Gore specifically attributed Katrina to global warming. He may have said that global warming might have strengthened it a bit compared to what it would have been without GW but I'd bet money you can't cite a quote where he said Katrina was caused by it.
I think you'd find, if you investigated, that most climate research is unbiased and reasonable. It's just that the other side wants to make it seem like it isn't because they don't have any real science themselves to counter it.
When a scientist emails people and says you should intentionally misrepresent and hide data to further the goal of alarmism for funding, that is misconduct.
Why don't you provide a cite that actually shows that. Nothing in the stolen emails from East Anglia shows that.
Nobody's going to fool a fool like you, right? If you want to simulate what happens when the ice on Greenland and Antarctica starts melting then take your ice tray out of the freezer and put a couple more ice cubes on top of it and let that thaw out. Does the water rise then?
And now argumentum ad populum! Someone's been reading their wiki :)
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
Appeals to authority are only fallacious if they reference people who are not authorities.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...and science doesn't get to help. In fact, I would submit that it really doesn't matter whether AGW is confirmed or not in step two. When it comes to making policy in step three, financially vested interests will determine what is best for their profits, and will instruct policy makers in government on what course to set. Would that it were otherwise, but science can't compete with the corporate bottom line.
I'm thinking, "insightful".
Cle-ver, plotting it in Kelvin, with so many gray dots that I can't check for a rise on the order of 1 degree C. This would make an excellent "bad example" for one of Tufte's books.
I could similarly plot a chart of the ocean's depth (taken at a variety of locations), and on that chart we would surely not notice a 0.1% increase. By similar logic, I take it you would be unsure whether we had a problem with rising sea levels, given such a graph. But at the beach I think you would reach a different conclusion, given a 12 foot rise in the sea level.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/20/fzgps.01.html Basically, pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The science sounds right.
If you really mean what you have written literally then it's yet another sign of a failure of science education, but I'll just assume it's a throwaway line without thought.
With a greenhouse convection of course still happens inside and outside and will actually be greater inside on a still day (and arguing about windy days is a pointless distraction since it's just an analogy for something else), but because it's enclosed the heat going from inside to outside flows via conduction to the outer surface and radiation through the transparent material. Glass doesn't transmit infra-red very well so the above poster is correct that there is less heat loss by radiation from the objects in the greenhouse than identical ones outside.
The greenhouse isn't a perfect analogy anyway because with the atmosphere you don't have conduction at the boundry and you don't have convection removing heat from the outside because it's a fairly serious vaccum at whatever point you want to call the boundary. Thus the analogy only applies for heat loss by radiation from a greenhouse and making noises about convection shows either ignorance of a very simple model or that some confidence trick is being played or parroted without thought.
Jimmy has four oranges. Billy gives him three. Does Jimmy now have more than four oranges?
Now here's one for the more educationally advanced denier:
Jimmy has four oranges. Every minute Billy gives him three. At the end of an eight hour day the teacher gives Jimmy four more oranges. Does Jimmy have more than eight oranges?
Expanding the usage of a word to cover some extra cases is not throwing away the accomplishments and creations of our ancestors. And having specific areas (say science publications) use a more restricted definition than general English is also just fine - there are plenty of examples of that.
False Dichotomy. We may well develop sustainable alternative forms of energy before we run out of oil.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
One thing you're leaving out, perhaps inadvertently, is that the fossil fuel energy also came from somewhere else.
No, I did not leave that out. I fully expect the fossil fuels to run out. There will be a point when the extraction of oil and coal will no longer be energy positive. Until that happens I see no reason to stop digging for it. Even if we are screwing up the planet in the process we will need that energy to survive what we in the Midwest call "winter". The global warming scare means nothing if we cannot survive the next snowfall.
Proceeding with that attitude will, even absent any concerns about the climatological impact, lead to a shortage, sooner, rather than later.
No, it won't. My attitude is that we need realistic solutions to the problem at hand. Here's my solution, nuclear power. That's not the end of the solution but the start. Once we can start building nuclear power plants to end our addiction to coal and natural gas fired power plants then we can consider ways to move away from petroleum.
Unless someone can offer a solution to the global warming problem then I don't care. Unless there is another path we can take that does not involve me freezing or starving to death this winter I will continue to happily fill my truck up with gasoline and heat my home with natural gas. The solution I see is nuclear energy. In the mean time drill, baby, drill.
When the oil runs out we will be forced to another solution. The tree huggers won't let us build nuclear power plants because its scary or something. Let's see how they think about that once people start cutting down the Redwoods for firewood.
Electrical energy and other aspects of technology that will render your concerns about living like a Sodbuster irrelevant.
I'm doing this to emphasize my point. Right now, today, we have no other choices. We might have some other choice in the future but if we rule out fossil fuels we can choose sodbuster or atom smasher. I fully expect the human race to at some point find a means to power our lives in other ways. I am optimistic about nuclear fusion power and I feel that once someone figures out how to make it work it will be a game changer. Until we discover something else this is what we have.
I will admit that our burning of fossil fuels has allowed us to build an infrastructure, and develop technologies, that will allow us to live in a wind, solar, bio, and hydro fueled world without having to revert completely back to the lifestyle of the sodbuster. One problem is that this world now has a population of a size that depends on the energy density that only fossil fuels and nuclear power can provide. Until that infrastructure can sustain our lifestyle without the use of fossil fuels the status quo must continue or many people will die from starvation, freezing, and scarcity wars. So, again, in the mean time we need nuclear power, or continued drilling for oil and natural gas.
Without the choice between nuclear power and fossil fuels there will be no army on this planet that can save the forests from the mobs of people that will do anything to keep from freezing. Until something better comes along we have fossil fuels, nuclear power, and Little House on the Prairie. We might have enough oil to last until something better comes along. I'm not liking my chances on that. That's a gamble that too many are willing to make and it disgusts me. We need nuclear power or we will have a very real environmental disaster on our hands as people fight over the last twig on this planet to cook the last crow.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Greenpeace revenue:
0.4 billion
ExxonMobil revenue:
383 billion
As I showed in another response to my post, both Science and Nature magazines have about three times as much usage of data in the plural than in the singular.
Just because we think about the world around us more logically than our ancestors did doesn't mean all of their accomplishments and creations should be thrown away.
Please explain the link between your first paragraph and your second.
Well, true enough - but apparently the editors aren't inclined to make them rectify the singular form before publishing either :)
By the way, great blog. Can I call it a blog given its back-end (cadre) nature? Anyway, I spotted the apparently missing node (vertex, spline knot point, etc.) in Bodoni's letter 'd' immediately. I guess Computer Modern at least got that one right :D
On the other hand, there is the Petition Project (easy enough to find) that has signatures from over 30,000 people from the US alone, all with advanced degrees, 9,000 of them PhDs... and all of whom put their names to a petition saying that AGW is probably nonsense.
Incorrect. The Petition Project has been dismantled multiple times. Many of the signatories aren't scientist at all and some of them were even dead at the time they supposedly signed it. Having an advanced degree doesn't prove anything if the degree is in a field different from the area of research. I don't ask my local veterinarian for input in my engineering projects because he doesn't have a clue about engineering. In the same vein, I don't ask the local veterinarian about global warming. I ask the climate scientists. Simply having an expertise in one area does not give you automatic validity in another area.
I have said this before and I am not the only one: This entire debate is misdirection. Firstly the debate about human vs natural global warming is a sub-misdirection within the global warming debate. If global warming is a problem for mankind we need to cut it back regardless of who caused it. If your house is on fire you get out FIRST and then argue about whether it was arson or an electrical fault. Secondly the entire climate change debate is a misdirection within the wider environmentalism debate. I am not denying climate change, or it's dangers, it is a misdirection because it is a complex problem that is difficult to quantify. This enables an endless debate which in turn enables people to continue profiting from the inaction that a continuous debate supports. To extend the analogy, we are now arguing about arson vs electrical fault while the city our house is in is being carpet bombed. There is little argument against the fact that groundwater pollution, fishstock depletion and deforestation are occurring, and are bad for the human race. Fixing these problems however would require great costs and great loss of profits for great multinational corporations. Whenever they lose a debate, they find a new one that will take even longer to lose, and this way keep the environmentalist lobby tangled up in the debate while they continue to log, overfish and pollute.
If anyone here cares about the destruction of our habitat, I beg you, don't get bogged down in these debates. We have our top climatologists working on the problem. Can we please focus on those areas where we know that mankind is destroying the environment and we also have viable solutions to prevent further destruction and reverse the damage. I will say it again: fishstocks, deforestation, pollution. I realise this is not a comprehensive list either. If you have another example of an imminent threat to the biosphere which we could prevent/reverse, then feel free to go with that. I want to see at least a few other people bring up these more relevant and solvable problems in climate change debates.
The real problem is very succinctly described by Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley (a who believes in AGW), who points out the problems wiht the data in this video: http://youtu.be/8BQpciw8suk
If you try doing this to your data in a high school physics class you will fail; it should not be acceptable from professional scientists. As Prof. Muller says, these are people whose conclusions can no longer be trusted because their actions forfeited that trust.
This is entirely true; I think I was just a little bit bitter yesterday; I may've muddled up your comment with someone else's and spilled a bit of vitriol in the process. One of the most beautiful things about language is that it keeps evolving, whether we like it or not. A language that truly stops evolving is one that is no longer the carrier of new ideas. (Although we seem to be reinventing the wheel an awful lot these days.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I think you'll have to elaborate more on your point of contention before I can provide you with a meaningful response. The second paragraph is bemoaning the situation described in the first, and selectively quoting those two sentences doesn't make that less true.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
You are talking about a single graph that was arguably misleading, in that it was not clearly labeled to indicate that tree ring data known to be incorrect, based upon actual temperature readings, had been dropped and the correct actual temperature data shown instead (although this was widely acknowledged and discussed in the scientific literature, where the same data had been correctly presented). Nevertheless, the conclusions of the graph are supported by a wide range of other data, so even if you misunderstood what the graph depicted, you would still draw the correct conclusions about the temperature trend.
Quite a lot of sound and fury over a single rather minor error in presentation.
Those sorts of culture wars are pretty much endless. Also of note is the eternal war on how to pronounce the humble char. (charcoal? character? charity? saccharine?) I think Bjarne Stroustrup encourages people to just enjoy the regional variations, as one does with accents.
I'm pretty sure if it's the contents of the articles that use blog templates with which you're pleased, then you can call it a blog. :) I have no idea what's wrong with that copy of Bodoni; you'd think a font would be more carefully ironed out than that. Fortunately, there are at least a dozen digital renditions to choose from, so it's not even really that big a deal. (And 'node' is the typical term.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I'm asking for clarification, not trying to "make something less true". What is the connexion between treating "data" as singular and throwing away the accomplishments of our ancestors?
The report says the data were not faked.
Was he ever accused of faking the data? The main accusation that should have been investigated is whether Mann (and the other climate scientists in his group) deleted emails to frustrate a legal Freedom of Information Request.
The scientific criticisms are different from the procedural questions.
Procedural
Is it okay to delete emails to frustrate an FOI request?
Is it okay to suppress the raw data that went into the analysis in a scientific paper?
Scientific
Is the "Hockey Stick" valid?
Do galactic cosmic rays influence global temperature by stimulating cloud formation?
Do climate models violate the laws of Thermodynamics?
I18N == Intergalacticization
The association is symbolic. For many hundreds of years, European scholars who were well-studied in matters of philosophy and literature originating in the Classical Mediterranean brought vocabulary from Latin and (usually Latinized) Greek for the purpose of enriching their own languages (especially Germanic languages where there was little influence.) Being experienced in dealing with Latin, as much academic exchange was previously conducted in it, they found that attempting to construct new inflexions for the other languages (such as, perhaps, "datums" or "spectrums") felt cumbersome and unnatural, so the original forms were preserved, which is not much of a challenge in Ecclesiastical Latin as most of the case endings had already vanished.
In essence, then, maintaining the usage and meaning of old language is a tradition, one that pays respect to the people who used the language in that fashion previously, and in particular the originators of the usage. When such stylings are no longer maintained and fall into disuse naturally, that is the inevitable, natural death of the tradition, and hence the custom falls out of cultural memory; conversely, when they are actively rejected in full knowledge of their origin and purpose, that is a statement that the reasons for preserving them are not worth remembering.
Recent years have seen a substantial increase in discarded traditions. Many of these were harmful and stupid (such as traditional gender roles) and many of them have been replaced with things that are harmful and stupid (such as current gender politics.) However, there are many others that have been victims of other changes: the average educated person's understanding of ancient history and culture (for one particularly relevant example) has decreased sharply, in part because of the perception that ancient historians are boring people who live in an unwieldy world of complicated languages and painful, inefficient memorization techniques. This cultural barrier has given Classical studies the highest attrition rate of all majors at most English-speaking universities.
As a result of the lack of understanding of the past, it has become increasingly common for students to believe that it has little or no relevance without having given it proper due. With the vast reach afforded to us by technology, and the superficially different challenges we face, we now carry a generally elitist attitude toward the past. We forget that they, too, were human, and had brilliant engineers who invented clockwork-driven orreries, basic steam engines, and questioned how their minds worked (with some fairly poignant questions that we still don't have good answers for.) By all means, they deserve respect for their achievements and for what they gave us. What we've achieved technologically and socially is arguably much more impressive, but that doesn't diminish the magnitude of those older accomplishments.
When tiny little bits of their impact on our culture vanish out of apathy or negligence, it's frustrating, because it means that we're one tiny little step closer to completely forgetting where we came from. A few decades ago this was no big deal, but with the explosion of change, we're looking at total cultural amnesia. That's eventually going to mean re-learning a lot of lessons, though it's hard to say when. In some regards, we're already sliding back into the decay of the Roman Empire: we mask the trite empire-building tendencies of our politicians under the guise of radical political motivations, but they are still just as self-serving and disinterested in protecting the integrity of their electorates as the last Byzantine kings. And just like the Library of Alexandria, our universities look like they will limp along for a few extra generations until (comparatively) nouveau riche Christian mobs burn them down for heresy and witchcraft.
And so, as flimsy as a premise as that may seem, it's hard for me not to see resistance to using "data" as a plural word as symbolic of a greater process toward decay.
Let me know if you still need any more connexions filled in.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
My concern was not that you didn't cover the fossil fuels running out, but that you didn't note how the energy from it did come from elsewhere. I recognize that you did cover the subject, but so briefly, that you didn't get to the real meat of the issue, which besides the difference of formation versus consumption, also emphasizes why we can do so many of the inefficient things we do today.
We're sponging off the residues of the ages. It's like somebody having built a cistern in the desert, and it built up a lot of water, so somebody starts using it profligately, without realizing that he just doesn't have a steady replenishment of the water.
That attitude will be costly.
I admit that fossil fuels will run and I expect and even demand we look for an alternative. How is that attitude costly?
And you don't see the consequences to this, which is becoming dependent on a supply of oil, which will, inevitably, not be there. You may think that the market will react in a prepared manner, but me, I think it'll be a catastrophic one, and we'll be worse off than if we slowed down and thought about what to do before it came close to running out.
I do not think the market will react in a prepared manner. I see this now in that this federation has not built a nuclear power plant in 35 years. The federal government (through the Department of (No) Energy, the EPA, etc.) has not allowed the development of known working energy sources. Instead the federal government has been subsidizing corn ethanol (which has not been shown to be energy positive), banned drilling for oil, and prevented the construction of new nuclear power plants.
The federal government seems to believe that we should increase our reliance on foreign energy. We have decades worth of oil and gas on our own lands. It would be stupid to not take advantage of that to avoid starvation, freezing, riots, and economic collapse while at the same time moving to an energy source that has been shown to be safe, cheap, and nearly limitless.
I believe we agree more than we disagree.
You should do a survey of people opposed to nuclear energy sometime. Cross-correlate it with attitudes on the environment. You'll find that many of those most staunchly opposed to nuclear energy are...strongly supportive of fossil fuel usage, and other attitudes that are not representative of the environmental movement.
Nuclear energy IS scary to some people, but they aren't all environmentalists.
Whatever. Don't care. Whatever labels these people choose for themselves, of have placed on them by others, is irrelevant. This fear of nuclear power is misplaced and needs to be dealt with. We need a federal government that will embrace nuclear power, endorse it, and make it happen. Sadly we have not seen that for some time. In the mean time we will continue to burn fossil fuels as the alternative is undesirable.
We have thousands of other choices. Your hyper-focus on one major choice is destroying your ability to recognize the many, many, other choices to consider.
Thousands? Please enlighten me. Of all the energy sources I have seen only nuclear power has the quantity and density available to us to have any real chance of replacing fossil fuels. All the others I have seen are much too expensive or scarce to work on a global scale. Few places in this world are blessed with hydro, geothermal, wind, or solar power in such an excess that people could have a modern lifestyle on that alone. The rest of us must choose coal, nuclear, or the dark and cold of winter.
And I'm afraid you'll make it go faster, by ignoring the many dozens of other things that can be done.
We re-built our cities just a few decades ago, we're still rebuilding them today, but you know what? Maybe we don't need all that sub-urban sprawl that practically mandates car-usage. Maybe we can utilize more local lands
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Right, I get where you're coming from, but you're not doing your argument any favours by using some of these hyperbolic comparisons. The Library of Alexandria? Please. If we anglicised all plurals tomorrow, if wouldn't make a jot of difference to the incidence of arson, and surely you can see that?
Moreover, you talk about "decay" but haven't convincingly shown why the Latin plural/singular treatment is any better. Should we go to meetings saying "these agenda look interesting"? By the reasoning implied in your post, we should, as that would pay greater respect to our forebears' influence and remind us where we came from. But that's nonsense, if only because there are so many other reminders of the roots of English. Why pick on one in particular?
Ironically, it is YOUR response that stems from a world that is primarily based on first-person shooters. The world has been filled with the use of violence being used to solve real large scale problems. It has been used throughout history, and is still in heavy use today. We are talking about people who claim that we are at the end of the world, and that the continued use of fossil fuels will lead to the early death or extreme suffering of their own children as well as the rest of humanity. Their claims put the oil companies in the role of the worst human rights offenders of all time. It places them as dwarfing the evil of Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Hitler combined.
We are not talking about claims of "It will make the Dow Jones drop by 10 points." We are not even talking about "Tens of thousands will die". We are talking about claims of an extinction level event. They are also claiming that we are at that tipping point now.
Only someone who has grown up in a world where violence is primarily fiction on a TV screen would make the comment that you just made.
"Agenda" in English comes from the feminine agenda and is already a correct singular term. If anything, the plural would be agendae. I'm not sure if that error means anything to either of our points, but I find it modestly ironic.
I never meant to pick on any one example in particular; the plurality of "data" is merely an instance of an instance of a set of reminders. Obviously, if "data" spends the rest of time used as a mass noun, it's not the end of the world. The example was simply relevant at the time and used to illustrate a point about the decay of such reminders. Latin plurals are not innately superior in any way; merely an additional token.
As for the relationship between the loss of reminders and the loss of civilization: it's symbolic. The reminders were added to English out of respect for the people who led the way to creating civilization; losing them indicates diminished respect/recognition/remembrance. One at a time, slowly, yes; but eventually.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
"Agenda" in English comes from the feminine agenda and is already a correct singular term. If anything, the plural would be agendae. I'm not sure if that error means anything to either of our points, but I find it modestly ironic.
Erm, no. It's the neuter plural of agendus, gerundive of agere ("to do"), with the literal meaning of "things to be done". The irony runs in the opposite direction, I'm afraid.
I never meant to pick on any one example in particular; the plurality of "data" is merely an instance of an instance of a set of reminders. Obviously, if "data" spends the rest of time used as a mass noun, it's not the end of the world. The example was simply relevant at the time and used to illustrate a point about the decay of such reminders. Latin plurals are not innately superior in any way; merely an additional token.
As for the relationship between the loss of reminders and the loss of civilization: it's symbolic. The reminders were added to English out of respect for the people who led the way to creating civilization; losing them indicates diminished respect [...]
Look, you're really going to have to evidence these sweeping statements about respect and decay and so on. We can't know for sure what people's motivation was in borrowing words from Latin, but I might equally well suggest: lending a scholarly air to technical vocabulary; acting as a shibboleth to weed out the less-well educated; or just the availability of a handy foreign language as a source for neologisms. If you want to instill respect for the past, then for goodness' sake teach history or classics; don't try to hold back linguistic evolution like some romanophilic version of King Cnut. You're giving classical education a bad name!
I think we'll leave things at that.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
No dimwit. Learn to read.
I think there will come a time when oil is too expensive to use a fuel. At that point it may or may not still be the economic source for chemical industry feedstock.
Oil will not 'run out' it will become too expensive to use a fuel.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What does studying a long dead language have to do with 'understanding the reason for anything'?
Seriously? WTF?
Latin can help you figure out definitions of words you don't know with latin roots (assuming you know the latin vocabulary). Latin grammar won't help you with anything.
Latin was a 'smart kids club' secret language from back in the day where every 'professional' had to study theology in addition to his/her profession. That is now ancient history and we are better for it. Irregardless of misused or invented words. ;-)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I recommend reading my exchange with Kavafy (starting in this comment.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Completely untrue. From wikipedia: "Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary."
You are equally unclear in those posts. If the 'reasons for anything' you are talking about are Latin grammar rules, then I can say nobody has benefited from studying those (beyond passing the class).
Apparently because a lot of effort used to go into something it should never be forgotten (by anyone).
Should we all study JCL as well? It was a bitch and required a lot of study. It's now basically useless.
There are people who study historical technical subjects. They need to understand latin and/or JCL. Useless to all others.
All costs are opportunity costs. Can you think of any subject that would have served you better then Latin? Pig-latin is more useful.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
JCL isn't a very good comparison; that would be like studying Sanskrit to make sense of English. For programming languages we use today, I would suggest something more along the lines of either Algol or IA-32 assembler. Incidentally, I was required to take a course on IA-32 and MIPS in second year.
Latin is extremely useful in understanding the origins of unfamiliar words. Over half of the English dictionary is derived from it; many of these are constructs that can be easily parsed with a small Latin dictionary and a comparatively compact set of Latin inflection rules. Of course, not all areas of expertise/interest involve a very large vocabulary, but it's still the case that a strong grasp of Latin and Greek is deeply beneficial to understanding English. This far outweighs the value of Pig Latin, which only has effectiveness as a method of encryption for about five minutes.
If you take the stance that learning things is an expensive, undesirable activity that can only be rationed for tasks directly relevant to... whatever it us you consider the goal of your life, I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye, anyway. You probably won't get anything out of continuing this conversation.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Why is the idea of a whole bunch of experts in a field being off the mark so unfathomable to you? All the economic experts swore there was no housing bubble right up until the house of cards fell apart as well. Yet they were all masters of their field -- why didn't they see it coming? Is it perhaps because they were biased? Incompetent? Or maybe because the economy is a large, chaotic, complicated system that can't be so easily predicted? Sound at all familiar?
And that attitude is even costlier. Fact of the matter is that we do have oil substitutes, lots of them in fact. Hell, we even have something called "synthetic oil" for use in cars. But they're all more expensive than oil, because oil is plentiful and therefore cheap. When oil becomes rare and more expensive, one of the things that is currently too expensive will suddenly become the "cheap way" to do things. Jumping to the more expensive solution early is ridiculous.
Why do you seem to think oil will disappear overnight? Why do you think oil will not become gradually more expensive as demand outstrips supply until its no longer financially feasible to continue using? The economics of oil will force us away from it LONG before we exhaust the oil on the planet.
Is it unfathomable that they're wrong?
No.
Is it a good bet that they're right?
Yes.
Experts can be wrong, but they're still by default the best opinion you're going to get on any subject unless you have good evidence to the contrary. And if you think you have good evidence to the contrary try asking the experts about it, chances are a) the evidence isn't nearly as good as you thought it was, or b) you misunderstood what the experts think.
BTW, I heard experts talking about how the housing bubble would cause a massive recession in the run up to the 2004 election, don't confused punditland with expert opinion.
I stole this Sig
Name dropping or calling to authority isn't going to help elevate your bullshit, which is yours by the way and not from the article which I've just read and does not say what you pretend it does. I suggest you read it again, if you are impatient the first paragraph should show where you have gone wrong.
Also you've taken the analogy way too far to the point where it is completely irrelevant. The earth doesn't have a fucking glass ceiling and is not floating in a vast dense interplanetary atmosphere. Only the radiation component of heat transfer matters in this model so your rambling about convection shows that you wish to mislead people or that you have been taken as a sucker and are parroting somebody else's bullshit.
Why do you think this is important enough to lie about? Why do you think we are all so poorly educated that we cannot see through the lie? What is your game here?
I wasnt debating climate science, but rather using an example of radiative transfer and refuting the poor naming choice of the "greenhouse effect". The mechanics described above hold for any molecule that interacts strongly with longwave radiation, a few of which are H2O, CH4, CO2, etc. If you disagree with my statements at their face value, I'd be happy to discuss further.
I don't say this often on Slashdot, because I am aware that this is not Wikipedia, but even so, [citation needed].
Sorry, but the signatories of the Petition Project have been published quite openly and publicly from the very beginning. So who has "invalidated" it? Can you point me to a study that was done on these people that shows they are not who they claim? More than 30,000 of them? Seems to me if that were true, it would be all over the newspapers, Google, Wikipedia, and all the Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda... but it's not. In fact I have found no mention of any credible refutation of it anywhere in the "AGW" propaganda that I have been able to find. Strange, that. If what you say is true, I'd sure be interested in seeing it. And so would many people, all over the world.
As for your other argument, I have already addressed it: you don't have to be a climate scientist to understand mathematics. And the primary criticisms have been about mathematics. So this is actually a rather stupid argument to try to make. It makes you look ignorant. I am sure you don't want that.
"No, the money is given to people who have demonstrated competence in that scientific field."
Sigh. If only that were true. I'd be a much happier person.
Hah! A rational response from a rational person!
If only you knew how relieved I am that you still exist...
Many people have posted to say that I was misinformed (or that I'm an evil "denier" for gullibly believing the disinformers' reports that the data was gone).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
(emphases mine)
Would you have believed it if Nixon said he dumped some of the Watergate tapes "to save space"? There is no way we can determine objectively - divorced from our native proclivities - the real reason WHY the original data was destroyed; saying it was done to save space might be credible, or it might be a cover-up.
-Styopa
Take a deep breath, and try to process the entire CCE findings. You can just read the executive summary, which is chapter 1, from which you have cherry-picked a single statement, and implied that somehow the CCE thinks there is some substance to the climategate charges.
For some hint on why climate scientists might be defensive, watch this video, which includes footage of Michael Mann reading death threats that were sent to him, and also shows how death threats are incited. Keep that in mind.
Denial is part of the human condition, and in particular, is driven by the confirmation bias, as negative emotions that stop you from placing your mind on disconcerting information.
Read the whole executive summary, take a deep breath, read it again, and then tell me that there is some substance to the climategate charges.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
This has nothing to do with Mann's study of paleoclimate records. All of his data is available. Mann's study has been replicated time and time again using different data and different methods for reconstruction. The results are solid.
Check the literature and ignore the media. The literature is motivated to find truth. The media is motivated to sell advertisements - and possibly there are other motivations depending on the media in question. If you are able, you would do well to go straight to the literature. I recommend starting with the IPCC AR4 WG1. It is about six years out of date but is a good summary of the literature at the time.
Regarding the CRU data (again, nothing to do with the Mann report). This was done in the 70's. This was a time when data was stored on reels of magnetic tape. The data was warehoused and someone tossed it. This was well before there was any political maneuvering by either greenpeace or industry. NASA tossed the original tape of the moon landing. I still believe that a man walked on the moon. Either way, if you don't trust the CRU then you should look at one of the other four reconstructions: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14
They all show the same thing.
The reason I posted the initial comment is because you can do an accurate thermal model of a greenhouse without considering convection inside at all. Heat loss and gain via radiation is the important factor and external convection from the outside skin and conduction into the ground are lesser factors. Convection inside? Who cares, it doesn't matter.
Now I know you keep pretending I don't know the obvious but irrelevant about the air in an enclosed space not losing heat via convection to the outside world. Maybe you could call that a "house" effect but it really has nothing to do with the way greenhouses are warmer than normal buildings. Replace air in the greenhouse with a vacuum and you'd still get the same temperature for all the objects inside because, as the article linked above and everywhere else says, heat transfer by radiation is what is happening.
Now do you see what I mean? Now do you see why it was so annoying when you pretended that I did not understand? Understanding that something is irrelevant is not the same as not understanding.
Look, I apologize for any nasty remarks. I shouldn't have responded in that way. I'm sorry if I offended you.
Let's just let it drop.
When considering radiation heat transfer through a solid:
Absorbion + Reflection + Transmission = 1
Pretty simple going one way while getting into the greenhouse so following me so far?
The thing with a greenhouse is the radiant heat reflects off stuff inside and then tries to get out again. Even if you have a perfect mirror inside when the heat tries to get out again you have once again:
Absorbion + Reflection + Transmission = 1
Thus with less than perfect transmission some heat does not radiate to the outside and the greenhouse gets hotter than something else that is the same apart from not being under glass
If you wish to go into more detail and do a simple 1D model a good introduction is J.P. Holman's "Heat Transfer" and look at chapter 8. You can find this or similar texts in many libraries or google will show you alternatives to obtain it for the less scupulous.
OK then, consider a flat sheet of glass on a frame above a patch of ground with no walls to stop air flow and the sheet mounted high enough above the ground so that it's not going to slow down heat loss by convection, the same air flow as if there was no glass there at all.
Is the area under the glass going to have a higher temperature in sunlight than another area exposed to the same light?
Now do you understand?
I've humoured you with your own example but you still cannot grasp the implications of that simple relationship between tansmission, absorbion and reflection and how not all of the heat getting in is going to get out.
The factor is NOT negligible but instead the entire source of heat input and the major mechanism of heat output.
Please stop parroting stuff out of context that doesn't mean what you think it means and instead get some understanding of what you are writing about before "correcting" people. I don't care if you can twist things from wikipedia in a way to make them look as if they contradict the entire field of heat transfer, with that polyethalene example the transmission is still not equal to one so it doesn't say what you think it does. It's interesting stuff so I suggest you look at the link to the free textbook from MIT. I tried to get you to understand with a few simple examples but it appears the message is not getting across so another source may help. I used to model heat transfer in furnaces which is why I'm so confident about a system that is vastly simpler.