Slashdot Mirror
US Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change (cnn.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader ClickOnThis quotes CNN:
Some scientists and academics are embarking on a frenzied mission to archive reams of scientific data on climate change, energized by a concern that a Trump administration could seek to wipe government websites of hard-earned research... The chief concern: publicly available climate change data and research found on government websites would be wiped clean or made otherwise inaccessible to the public. Some worry the information could only be retrieved with a taxing Freedom of Information Act request.
One associate professor at the University of Texas tells CNN, "There is a very short window for when the new administration will come in and that's why there's a lot of anxiety. There's a lot of information to save."
One associate professor at the University of Texas tells CNN, "There is a very short window for when the new administration will come in and that's why there's a lot of anxiety. There's a lot of information to save."
Hillary wasn't elected, what's the worry?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact; if it were, we'd all still believe that the Earth is flat, etc.
There are legitimate criticisms about the climate models, the interpretations of measurements, and even the very way in which certain mathematical principles are applied. Like it or not, there is a real dispute, and the side that has the support of the Taxman and the liberal Hollywood elite should really be suspect.
All they need to do is make a deal with archive.org to take the materials off their hands in a deal which doesn't involve a robots.txt file, as a special collection. This is precisely what the internet archive is for...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What you don't know can't hurt you. Obviously we need to defund NASA and move it to NOAA but in a crazy coincidence that money will get lost and go to pet projects. Maybe Trump will grab someone else by the pussy at the same time so the media talks about that instead of real issues.
FN trollbait. A scientist, and cant figure out to preserve research. Buy a FN usb drive.
I have observed climate change. It is obviously caused by deforestation, paving wide swaths of land, and depleting the water table resulting in drought. Not one of these factors is addressed by climate change zealots and what they do address happens over centuries not the decades I have observed personally.
Save a website that is already saved on the wayback machine if you want, but can we at least get a life based on observable short term trends?
JJ
Shouldn't as part of standard policy already be backups somewhere? You all are worried about Trump, when something as simple as a hardware failure could have done the same.
"Some scientists and academics are embarking on a frenzied mission to archive reams of scientific data on climate change"
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit will be happy; in the past he's had endless struggles trying to get data from climate scientists.
..public information if it is being used to justify legislation.
we saw that data was being falsified in advance of a vote to establish an international agreement on carbon taxes during the climategate scandal, by interests positioned to profit from the creation of a carbon tax credits trading exchange (who funded the falsification).
I don't think this is a Trump issue, but a general issue, and while there's so much FUD going about, at least it's bringing attention to the problems inherent in the climate change issue.
It just snowed in the Midwest. Global warming isn't happening. We need to continue reducing our spending on education to give tax cuts to millionaires. Screw spending money on roads and bridges. I've got an airplane and a yacht!!!
The Nazis destroyed "entartete Kunst", "Degenerate Art" not reflecting what they considered German virtues. The Trumps will destroy "entartete Wissenschaft", "Degenerate Science" not reflecting what they consider American interests.
"This should never have existed" is boorish for art. For scientific knowledge, however, it is downright criminal, not just in the way the sentiment is pursued but even in its principal notion.
Motivations aside, remember when the climate skeptics said, "Make the raw data public so we can analyze it!" and actual government agencies, supposedly working for the public were like, "nooooooooooo. You wouldn't understand it the right way, so we can't do that! We only show it to certain people that we've pre-vetted to ensure that they think like us. We'll release these summarized graphs that prove our point!"
Yeah, ignore the fact that the whole of science actually works when people share their ideas and findings, and in this case, it's not like they were protecting monetized corporate secrets or anything. There was really nothing stopping them from widely distributing this data, and not in fits and bursts and rollups rather than raw.
Well, good going, now you've screwed. I hope you choke on the fruits of your labor, it's what you deserve from so highly politicizing your science.
The chief concern: publicly available climate change data and research found on government websites would be wiped clean or made otherwise inaccessible to the public.
There is no reason to believe this will happen. It's FUD, fake news, whatever you prefer to call it.
I do think there is a legitimate problem with our climate and that us humans are more than capable of influencing it for good or for worse even if it was an entirely natural cycle, if nothing else we should be able to ensure our survival.
The problem I see is indeed the politicized parts of it. We are donating large swaths of money in the form of carbon credits to the very nations that should be improving their situation, but instead we export our "dirty air" and allow them to make it worse even though Chinese smog particles are now affecting coastal cities in the US. In the end it's just a taxation to offset debts and improve their economy and when it comes time for "them" to pay up they'll just back out of whatever agreement they signed, just like Trump wants to do.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
there's tons of raw data out there. I see folks on /. periodically doing their armchair analysis of some of it. And anyway, if they were just holding on to the data because they were nefarious scientists (probably just sucking on that sweet sweet grant money) than why would they care if it got preserved? If they were never going to give it up anyway what difference does it make if it's saved?
See, this is one of those things I always thought was funny. You've got a bunch of folks with PHds, usually with a heavy emphasis on math and statistics, but the implication I get again and again from folks is that they're somehow trying to cheat us all for the mountains of grant money.
These folks are in ridiculously high demand in the private sector. They command salaries 2-3x the public sector at the drop of a hat (and if they go to Wallstreet 5-10x). I'm not saying there won't be the occasional bad apple or just plain wrong person, but really, if they were out for personal gain they have much, much better alternatives and they're smart enough to know what they are.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Summary title: "US Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change"
From TFA:
at schools like the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Toronto, academics are attempting to download and save as much data as possible. The Canadian school on Saturday is set to host a "guerilla archiving event" in collaboration with the Internet Archive's End of Term 2016 project, which will archive the federal online pages and data that are in danger of disappearing during the Trump administration, including climate change, water, air and toxics programs.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
There was no climategate scandal. There was made up propaganda bullshit by right wing shills misinterpreting emails written in what to the scientists involved was colloquial language. If you're not in the profession, any profession actually, it's easy to misinterpret shorthand slang, or to use it in a well funded smear campaign like the well funded right wing for profit denial machine does.
And before some idiot brings up the whole Clinton/Podesta email thing--most of those messages are clear language and not easily misinterpreted. That was actually the problem there from their point of view--saying they were misinterpreted would be unbelievable because it was hard to do that.
Release ALL OF IT as a torrent and encourage people around the globe to download it.
Honestly all this shit needs to be in the hands of regular people and not sequestered away for only the chosen to look at.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Long story short, my father-in-law was asked why he didn't believe in human caused global warming and after listening to 20 minutes of him spouting the same old talking points that we have all heard many times before, it came down to other people's money. Having to fork over money to other countries to help them cope with global warming.
That's it. What it comes down to is that folks are afraid that their standard of living will decline. They will lose.
I have some horrible news - our standard of living is guaranteed to go down.
What has always happened when climate changes drastically is that arable land and fresh water declines dramatically and even disappears in some areas. And what do the people do? They migrate. Where to? Where there is fresh water, arable land and other resources - or even dry land.
Unfortunately for them, there are always other people there. And what do humans do? They don't share because it means that the people who are already there have to lower their living standards to share the food, water and land.
WAR. And wars are the most expensive things on Earth. Loss of money, life, property, freedom, .... I think it's better to help other cope than deal with mass migrations or better yet, stop the problem itself - but getting people to give up their big cars, burgers and steaks and live more environmentally friendly is too much to ask.
So, if anyone thinks that by denying Global Warming or keep clinging to the hope that it's not true will accomplish nothing.
You, me and most of us are going to lose.
Our way of life is over unless we can stop global warming.
I do think there is a legitimate problem with our climate and that us humans are more than capable of influencing it for good or for worse even if it was an entirely natural cycle, if nothing else we should be able to ensure our survival.
The problem I see is indeed the politicized parts of it. We are donating large swaths of money in the form of carbon credits to the very nations that should be improving their situation, but instead we export our "dirty air" and allow them to make it worse even though Chinese smog particles are now affecting coastal cities in the US. In the end it's just a taxation to offset debts and improve their economy and when it comes time for "them" to pay up they'll just back out of whatever agreement they signed, just like Trump wants to do.
The United States with 318 million citizens produces something like 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions with an upward trend that is set to become even sharper now that Trump is president, persecuting climate scientists and promoting fossil fuels process that looks set to continue for the next eight years since there is little reason to believe that Trump won't be re-elected. The EU 28 with 508 million citizens manages to produce 10% of Greenhouse gas emissions with a downward trend. Pundits in the US likes to blame China for emissions and makes the case that China is a bigger emissions sinner than the US and that people should stop unfairly picking on the US which ignores the fact that China emits less per capita than the US. This is not to say that China should be exempt form emissions reduction but it is worth keeping in mind, when American Conservatives start whining about China's emissions and how the US is being treated unfairly by people demanding a decrease in US emissions, that compared to Europe the US should be producing about 6% of Global emissions in stead of 16%. The way I see Trump, Tillerson the entire US coal and oil lobby, Putin, Rosneft and the rest of the Trump administration's buddies in Moscow the Gulf states and the rest of OPEC is the they diehard holdouts of a dying energy industry. People can go on endlessly about nuclear which is alway going to be a leper in any discussion about energy production reform and they can pin their hopes on fusion but the countries that will dominate the energy production in the future are those that are working on renewables and perfecting related technologies (unless fusion finally pans out after being just around the corner for half a century).
Well spoken ... USA globalists are pimping the chi.com dragon to pollute the earth at the expense of (among others) American workers. EDEP fanatics & wealthy globalists HATEHATEHATE well-paided American workers and will do anything to crush them out. Historians advise putting-down with-all-due-malice a few dozen over-wealthy globalists and eco-freaks.
Historians speculate if mangled Rolex-laden bodies are kicked into the gutter for dogs to eat bet the singsong changes fast. Kinda like what Sulla did to the lubricious Roman Senate.
I think they need two build an ark before the great flood comes..
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You never know after all, Donald "Satan" Trump might start to eat a few newborn. Any time now.
Dont get me wrong he is a hack and a buffoon however he is not evil incarnate as some would like to portray him.
I honestly thought that this kind of demonizing was reserved for the right against their opponents like they did to Obama, but apparently the left can play this game too.
Hillary's private server in her bathroom might have some space.
>You are just a hysteric drama-ridden latte-sipping liberal.
Someone just got #triggered - time to grow up. May I suggest attending and paying attention in science class on your second stroll though childhood?
>however he is not evil incarnate as some would like to portray him.
Indeed. However, the people he is putting in charge of major departments of the government ARE evil incarnate, and that's what worries those who value scientific freedom.
As for eating the newborn - nobody is worried about that. They can fend for themselves. What we have to worry about is him going after the unborn, for they are more important than their mothers under the new rules the hard core right wingers will propose over the next 4 years.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
TLDR: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the c.â1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to describe someone's overly frequent and vehement attempts to convince others of some matter of which the opposite is true, thereby making themselves appear defensive and insincere.[not verified in body] In rhetorical terms, the phrase can be thought of as indicating an unintentional apophasisâ"where the speaker who "protests too much" in favor of some assertion puts into others' minds the idea that the assertion is false, something that they may not have considered before."
Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact; if it were, we'd all still believe that the Earth is flat, etc.
True but widespread consensus amongst scientists working on the problem has historically been shown to be the absolute best indication of scientific fact. When the ancient greek philosophers first suggested that the world was a sphere and then managed to measure its radius the population listened, learnt and based on the scientific consensus changed their mind. So the exact reverse is true: had there been an ancient greek Donaldus Trumpus opposing the idea that the world was a sphere we might still believe that the world was flat (although probably not because at some point the evidence is just too overwhelming).
The problem with global warming being caused by green house gas emissions is that there is a huge impact on the economy from doing something about it. Hence the debate now is really a political one about what should we do about it. Those who stand to lose financially want to do nothing and just deal with the issues of rising temperatures. However they know that people will not go for this if they know we are causing global warming so the only way they can achieve the goal of doing nothing is to deny the science motivating action. I don't for a second believe that Mr. Trump and his friends really disbelieve in global warming, it's just the only argument they have to achieve their goal.
They should send all their data to Wikileaks, or otherwise put it somewhere on the public Internet not hosted on a U.S.-based server, then let the general Internet public know it's there so it can all be copied and diseminated widely and freely. We all know that once you post something on the Internet it's never, ever going completely away, and I believe this is their best strategy to preserve and protect the products of their research. Between that data being released and data from scientists in other countries, climate change research should be safe.
I'd also like to point out that if the Trump administration actually did literally destroy the data from climate change research, in my opinion that would be roughly equivalent to burning books -- and I'm morally offended by the idea -- and I don't get 'morally offended' very easily or very often; this is one of those deal-breakers for me.
C'mon slashdot - some person in the world has a concern about the incoming administration hiding data and it warrants this silliness?
I personally think people understand things are getting warmer - especially over the last 50 or so years. The question is why is it getting warmer? What is the cause and effect? Can spending trillions of dollars make any real difference other than an emotional one?
When I sense the political, university, and Hollywood crowd all bashing anyone with doubt, shaming people, blackballing non-compliant researchers, mocking, playing cute with the data and trying to unlock the government coffers it gives me large pause. I don't line up against their view. However, it makes me want to equally hear opposing views.
It is now so political, and this article re-affirms the political based go-forward approach, I can't see the solution to global warming through the trees. Have we crossed into 'agree or else' or science as a religious cause?
Now, where did we leave those scientific principles?
Are you just going to keep posting this story over and over again hoping it will stick? This is the 3rd one in a week. It's old news and also just dumb as well
A few things to remember:
1. Trump has pledged to defund NASA's "politicized" climate science
2. Trump has put a climate conspiracy theorist in charge of the EPA transition team
3. Many on the right believe that Obama and Hillary are literal, supernatural demons, who emit a sulfurous stench.
Does anyone know if torrents are being set up for replication?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I love it when liberal hippies are hypocritical (read: always). I thought it was only the gun-loving rednecks that believed paranoid conspiracy theories about the ill intent of government.
If those scientists were doing real science, they'd be proud to have their names associated with their actions. Instead, they're ashamed and trying desperately to hide.
Yeah. Just like those cowardly geneticists hid in the shadows rather than stand proud of their fake science during the era of Lysenkoism.
Your analogy is wrong. You believe that somehow "Global" warming only impacts America? You must similarly believe that the US is the only ones that can, and need to, somehow solve the problem. I have no idea how you ignore China, India, Pakistan, and Russia, and quite frankly the majority of what we call "Developing Nations" (most of the planet) who have been increasing pollutants and industrialization over the same time the West has done the opposite. Governments of the West want their populaces to pay into Tax systems with no Government plans to address anything.
Sure, the problems are vast. No, demanding taxes and a halt of productivity in the West is not the answer. Hillary is not for fixing global climate issues, she is anti American. The same can be said for numerous politicians who despise the US Constitution and believe somehow their socialist plans will be better than any other socialist plan ever conceived. No, it's not just a R versus D issue. Both sides have people with similar beliefs demonstrated by the current state of Politics in the US.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Couldn't they just make it all up again? The whole thing is a powergrab by nanny-state socialists.
--
roman_mir
-- These guys are using weird units nobody else uses.
-- Oh, come on, everybody has quirks... at least, they're paying for research.
-- But they're paywalling everything.
-- Well, I suppose it's a way to keep the infrastructure working.
-- But what about the exchange of knowledge?
-- Listen, it won't be safer behind totalitarian regimes, isn't it?
-- Now they're locking up everything just like those regimes!
-- We shouldn't have put all our eggs in one basket... it's all our fault!
they are scrambling to protect their sorry arses, doing everything they can to delete any incriminating evidence they have been lying or at the very least distorting facts to serve their political agenda.
Scientific theories need to be proven as true before anyone can try to disprove them.
I suggest you take a look at the Steps of the Scientific Method: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Which step is the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) on?
Anybody got an extra Peta-byte hard drive?
And there's where climate 'activist' are just idiots. They think an emotional appeal somehow countermands the need for people who question a controversial scientific subject with a snide comment on social media. Contrary to those 'the debate is settled' ass holes there is no such thing as a settled scientific debate that can never be questioned. That's not science. That's called a religion.
Yeah, it's not like evolution, gravity, or the shape of the planet is settled. There's no point in making decisions about life and determining public policy on those three items because just because there's "only" a consensus, because who knows, the science may change on the (e.g.) shape of our planet. NASA should stop following the Hollywood actors saying the earth is spherical and keep studying things to make sure the supposed reality doesn't change. /s
Seriously: there are two possibilities
a) humans are the cause of climate change
b) humans do NOT cause climate change
What's the worst that can happen if we assume (a) and are wrong? We become more efficient at using energy and diversity our energy sources. What's so bad about?
What's the worst that can happen if assume (b), and do nothing? A whole lot of pain and suffering for millions of people.
So from a risk perspective, why not side with the 95% of climate scientists and start planning for the worst? If the science is wrong we still get a bunch of good benefits.
It's too bad that there's no massive network of interconnected computers that researchers could have release all their research in all sciences over the past 20+ years openly for all of mankind to benefit from instead of having to keep it at the mercy of scientific journals. If something like that existed then it would basically be impossible to censor as it would spread and be archived all over the world. Oh well, back on the internet to watch cat videos.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The data for reproducing climate model predictions and published research already should be fully released, and as a practical matter, archived. Here is a set of links:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
So what is this other data that they are trying to rescue from Trump?
If there is data missing, then that should be published. The climate research community might also want to update their computational tools from the dusty Fortran decks to something more modern. Everybody should be able to reproduce climate models on a modern desktop computer with a GPU and check for themselves.
Really?
In a section titled “Patterns of Immigration,” a speech bubble pointing to a U.S. map read: “The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
"This is erasure,” Dean-Burren said in an interview with The Washington Post. “This is revisionist history — retelling the story however the winners would like it told.”
In calling slaves “workers” and their move to the United States “immigration,” she noted in viral Facebook posts Wednesday and Thursday, the textbook suggests not only that her African American ancestors arrived on the continent willingly, but also that they were compensated for their labor.
If you lived in Texas, which I do, you'd be aware of the right wing Evangelical Christian batshit crazy supremacist white trash bitches like former governor Rick Perry.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Climate scientists are scrambling to hide,obscure,change,alter and otherwise manipulate he data to protect their lying butts.
When you're 35 and can't get another engineering job in Silicon Valley because you're too old, come back here and tell us all how you're retraining to be a Walmart greeter to maintain your lifestyle.
there's tons of raw data out there.
If that is try why the rush to "back it up"?
More than likely what they are doing is hard-coding in changes they want to make to cook the data, back THAT up, then destroying the real raw data.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only consensus we have on climate change is that in 2100, it will be a couple of degrees warmer, and that human emissions may contribute to this. That's it. Science has nothing to say about what we can or should do about it; that's a question of economics, values and preferences.
I have yet to see anyone worried that he might eat newborns (other than in jest).
I see a LOT of people scared about stuff that I would ordinarily consider paranoia, except for the fact that they're based 100% on things the man has done or said he's going to do. He's really quite a train wreck.
Nothing to say? Really?
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Send it all to Trump's twitter accont 140bytes at a time.
Perhaps he will learn what 'Big Data' is all about. Or at the very least, he can't rule by tweet.
If he starts to do this then the exodus of scientists from the USA will be huge. A veritable tsunami.
That won't help make America great again now will it?
>16% of global greenhouse gas emissions
Citation please? Human caused or total?
Besides, I seriously doubt Trump would do that even if he could. He's a lot of bluster and hot air.
Maybe if you use he full 280 bytes available for a tweet, then? Would that help?
Really all a human problem. The earth will survive. Maybe not inhabitable by humans, but if climate change doesn't get us overpopulation will. No matter.
Telling that this comment gets no response.
1. Climate change is something we need to do everything about ASAP.
2. Climate change is something we can take time to figure out more about.
And even those may not be entirely accurate. If climate change is a problem we need to do something immediately about, it doesn't matter if humans caused it until you get to talking about remedies.
In fact, two positions could be:
1. Man should do everything to gain control of himself and his environment.
2. Man should leave everything up to forces not under his control, and not play God.
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
It's actually not.
There are some scientists who say we need to replace coal immediately, otherwise civilization could be destroyed. Most scientists are more moderate, and consider that too rash, but there's no broad consensus on what we should do.
In one survey of climate scientists, for example, half of scientists said mitigation was the approach we should take, and half said we should favor adaptation in the face of climate change. So clearly there's no consensus there, I don't know why you even thought there was.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"There is a very short window for when the new administration will come in and that's why there's a lot of anxiety. There's a lot of information to save." should read There is a very short window for when the new administration will come in and that's why there's a lot of anxiety. There's a lot of information to manipulate.
Who?
Name over of these scientists claiming civilisation will be destroyed if we don't immediately stop using coal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So climate scientists are economists now? Sorry, I don't follow your religion. The climate models are barely predictive - still not outperforming the null hypothesis. The idea that you could use them to predict precisely what's going to happen to sea levels and weather patterns around the world 50 years from now, contrasting with and without a change in human activity, is farcical.
Climate science is still in it's infancy. It's useless for problems like "if humans reduce CO2 emissions by X, the economic impact will be $Y" to even one significant digit.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Repeating stupid bullshit doesn't make it true - just ask the lunar conspiracy theorists that have been trying for half a century.
It's a reasonable precaution based on what other right-wing incoming administrations have done.
And generally it is - but there's a lot of it. You going to get a bunch of your winger pals together and store all this stuff when a single study can involve terabytes of data, and checksum the shit out of it to make sure none of it is altered?
Okay, I present for my case the most recent IPCC report. It's peer reviewed, data published, methodology widely reviewed.
What do you have?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So it's not destroyed by an incoming right-wing government.
If the data were really "out there" as claimed how could the government destroy it? That's the issue to me. Either they did publish the data in which case the government cannot possibly destroy it. Or they never did in fact publish the data, in which case the government could possibly destroy it, but it hardly matters since what they were doing was not science.
You don't need the maximum dosage of horseshit pills
Well I guess you'd be the expert to talk to on horseshit. since you seem to be shoveling quite the load yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
James Hansen. He must believe it too, because he is willing to go out and protest, and even be arrested to try to change things. So good on him for being sincere.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
>16% of global greenhouse gas emissions
Citation please? Human caused or total?
<colin_faber is a lazy shill>
global greenhouse gas emissions first result from google.com is:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
</colin_faber is a lazy shill>
...than the "good old days". In the words of head CRU scientist Phil Jones:
Maybe make all the data and code open source, for anyone to peruse, and you won't have to worry about it being "saved".
Of course, if you make it too open, maybe someone will find something wrong with your grid cell adjustments...
Climate change can also reduce sunburn and skin cancer, and drownings, and freezings, and blunt force trauma, and starvation, and any other number of health benefits.
Not all change has negative consequences.
Five seconds with Google shows you lied. In his latest paper states that we are close to the point of no return, i.e. the moment when we can't undo the damage. That's a long way from the end of civilisation.
He recommends a 6% emissions reduction per year. Doesn't specifically say we need to stop all coal use immediately, only 6% across the board.
Anyone else you want me to debunk?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Five seconds with Google shows you lied
You couldn't find something said by someone in 5 seconds in Google, and conclude it wasn't said? Do you also think the universe disappears if you close your eyes?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
wikipedia says that he actually called for coal to be phased out by 2030. So, no, you lose. Try again?
I found something that contradicts what you claim his position is. Your argument uses a straw man.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down." He wants to reduce the CO2, not stop its increase.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hansen wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down."
Hansen pretty clearly wants CO2 emissions to be reduced so much that CO2 levels drop, not remain level.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So therefore he supports specifics different than the specifics he actually supports?
No, using strongly worded but very general hyperbole is not the same as supporting very specific policy ideas like immediately stopping the use of coal. He supports phasing it out by 2030. Stop failing so hard.
Scientific theories need to be proven as true before anyone can try to disprove them.
"Proof" is very different matter in the empirical world. There one would look for data and tests that allow one to distinguish between rival hypotheses.
Which step is the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) on?
Which AGW theory? We actually have strong evidence that there is an AGW effect. For example, isotope concentrations of carbon isotopes (C14 having a short half life, is not present in fossil fuels, but is present in surface carbon due to solar radiation) indicate that in the last couple of centuries, there has been a considerable increase in atmospheric carbon from geological sources like fossil fuels or volcanoes (with human generated sources overwhelming all other known sources of geological carbon). It's varies in difficulty to determine the human contribution of some other greenhouse gases, methane tends to be harder since geological carbon contributes far less to that, but CFCs are easier (since non-human contributions are very low).
This demonstrates the first pillar of any AGW theory, that humans have made a significant contribution to the growing CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.
Second, we can directly observe the radiative and reflective properties of default atmosphere (excluding clouds and other weather effects). These indicate that CO2 does indeed block certain infra-red spectrum gaps of water vapor and thus, causes the atmosphere to retain heat. That demonstrates the second important part of any AGW theory, namely, that increased levels of CO2 do result in some degree of warming of the Earth.
There are plenty of issues with determining the human contribution past that, but it remains that the key two aspects of any AGW theory are pretty much nailed down qualitatively.
The real problem comes in with what the effects of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are and how much harm those effects will cause. There, I think climate research has gone off the rails completely. For example, short term warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 1.5 C per doubling, based on the actual temperature changes of the past century and a half and the actual changes in the concentration of CO2. The IPCC claims that the long term warming from a doubling of CO2 is 3 C per doubling (actually 1.5 C to 4.5 C per doubling due to the huge errors in the estimate) due to positive feedback mechanisms, most which have not been demonstrated as existing while simultaneously downplaying negative feedback such as weather.
There there's the accounting games played with estimating the harm of global warming. For example, a common ploy is to greatly deflate time value via a discount rate. For example, the Stern Review, an early attempt to calculate the cost of global warming used a 1.4% discount rate (I believe derived from the historical growth rate of UK GDP at the time the report was issued) versus roughly 3% discount rate (derived from the growth rate of world GDP over a similar time frame), if we assume that GDP is roughly proportional to the size of an economy and that the current global growth rate continues for a century (aside from climate change-related adjustments), we get roughly that a 10% reduction of the global economy now is equivalent in the Stern report to a 5% reduction in the global economy in 50 years or a little over a 2% reduction in 100 years.
Other sorts of harm are similarly exaggerated such as rising sea levels, movement of agriculture, or extreme weather. The last is particularly notorious for being a textbook confirmation bias thing, in particular with the moral hazard of US public flood insurance (which has long encouraged humans to live in flood zones and is responsible for a huge increase in US property damage from floods and hurricanes to the extent that it swa
Trump declared that climate change is a hoax from Gina (as Trump pronounces it. like vagina just without the va). After making that up there is no need for any hard researched facts. Trump rejects reality and substitutes his own...especially when it makes a lot of money....unless of course the opposite is the better option, then he flip flops on what he said yesterday. It appears as that there are way more places with lead in the water than Flint, otherwise there is no explanation for that many ridiculously....oh, sorry, rediculously stupid people who voted for Trump. And lastly, a shoutout to Putin for effectively destabilizing the US, nicely done!
... those hockey pucks ... er hockey sticks ... er blue-lines ... er ... er ... Molson ! And WTF is offsides about a long pass? New England throws them every week !
Whatever. What scientist in their right mind would leave over a hypothetical that is inconsistent with current time law? Government funded research is open. Period. OSTI is the clearinghouse and everything, paid journal articles included after 1 year, are stored there according to law. Unless the work is classified, which is doubtful is this case, it is publicly indexed. If the work is restricted, then it's still there but, as the name suggests, it is restricted. Don't just assume that click bait is right and the president will ignore law.
Most Slashdotters may not know about the minute details of Russia's propaganda-war on Ukraine, but it had salvos like "When Ukrainians enter cities, they crucify little children".
Trump could seek to rape every woman too, should these "scientists" not attempt to hide their wives and daughters instead of some data?
OMG! Now we are learning, FoIA-requests are undully taxing...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Okay, so the reference is to human caused activities vs other? I can't seem to locate the total green house gas production, only the total "human caused". The numbers are big, relativity, but meaningless without proper context? If it's 16% of 0.0000001% of the total, then who cares? If it's 16% of 100% then that's concerning.
Since when did it become science to predict unpredictable things?
We can call it science after the fact, but global events like humans extincting themselves have no presedence, so is unscientific.
The scientific consensus IS that humans are causing it. What politicians, ACs on /. and bloggers think is utter irrelevant.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Can you define "barely predictive"? They all point to warming, which confirmed by the data. This appears to be one of those goal post moving arguments.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I saw this quite interesting video on TED Talks:
https://www.ted.com/talks/mich...
The speaker makes a rather compelling case for using nuclear power. We've been making great gains in wind and solar world wide but that growth is overshadowed by gains in fossil fuel use. The one energy source that has had the greatest reductions in CO2 emissions is nuclear power and we're shutting them down at a rate greater than we're opening new ones.
Those that think we can reduce our carbon footprint without nuclear is just plain fooling themselves. We simply cannot. This includes the current administration. Trump is far from the biggest advocate for reducing carbon output but he might actually be someone that would actually create the carbon reductions that Obama has failed to do.
Sure, Obama gave some lukewarm support for nuclear power at the end of his administration, but he had eight years with his pen and phone and failed to merely allow nuclear power to grow. These nuclear power companies aren't looking for a handout like wind and solar, they are just looking for permission to build. Obama from the beginning only made happy mouth noises for nuclear power, talking about "funding research" which never came.
I am optimistic now with Trump coming into office that the government might actually do something about climate change and build some nuclear power plants. Obama's policies of funding solar panel companies that didn't build any solar panels, and electric car companies that didn't build any cars, did nothing. If Trump starts handing out licenses to build nuclear power plants at a rate greater than replacement then he'd be doing more in building just one new nuclear power plant than what Obama has done in his entire eight years in office. Mr. Michael Shellenberger did the math in his speech, just a handful of new nuclear power plants could do more to reduce carbon output than wind or solar could ever do.
Words mean nothing to me. It's action that counts. Obama might have said a lot about how we need to stop global warming but he did next to nothing to stop it. Trump might be nothing more than a carnival barker in a trucker hat but if he puts people in the EPA, Energy, and NRC that will make nuclear power grow then he could do more to stop global warming in his first 100 days than Obama did in his entire political career.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That's what the deniers say. They keep on wheeling out economists to deny the arguments of actual scientists.
It has been more than a century since the El-Nino/La-Nina cycle was identified by climate scientists. When Scott went on an expedition to Antarctica just over a century ago he took some climate scientists with him.
You have been conned by very expensive PR so it's not your fault, but it is somewhat pathetic.
Check out some uranium mining sites sometime
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This time never really existed. Some scientists might have said that laymen cannot understand the raw data, because most of them can't, but the data is and has been publicly available on many places for a long time.
That does not explain the rush to preserve the data. If it was publicly available, and people have been asking for it, then would not the desire to assure the data was preserved be a mere matter of making some phone calls to make sure the people that retrieved the data kept their copies?
The university I attend offers degree programs in topics related to climate change and I know that there are students in these programs that would love to have this data. This is just one university of hundreds that has the facilities and interest to preserve this data. If they are frantic about preserving this data now then what were they doing with the data before? Should this data not already have been preserved in multiple locations by now? In places that even a "book burner" like Trump would be unable to seek out and destroy?
This all sounds like a bunch of FUD to me to get some headlines. Congrats, mission accomplished.
Oh, right, even "mission accomplished" is now a right wing conspiracy or something.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"Warming"? A random guess has a 50% chance of predicting "cooling" or "warming" correctly.
Barely predictive as in 2 sigmas, statistically. Given there are hundreds of models, you'd expect several models that predictive if they were all random. Of course, they actually do better than random guessing, but not to the point that any given model would be accepted in most fields - heck, even some social science models do better.
The discussion here is not about "warming", in case you missed the point, but about economics. How much will it cost to reduce CO2 by X, and how much economic benefit will we accrue by doing so. Do you get that?
It would be very impressive for a climate model to be that usefully predictive, but then many fields of science are very impressive.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You've avoided the question entirely.
If we reduce CO2 emission by X, how much does that save us in damages, measured economically, by decade. That's the interesting question, and it's one that climate science could indeed make predictions about, if it were far more mature and predictive than it is now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That's a question for economists you goose and a distraction from the physics.
Sorry, I don't follow your religion.
Yeah, they don't even have a Jesus.
It's the interesting question, politically: should we reduce CO2 emissions, and, if so, by how much. We need far better climate models to even start on such a discussion, but also economists to finish the discussion. You've stumbled on my entire point upthread: when scientists start making such claims, they are speaking as unqualified economists.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Now you've called people in politics "scientists". You are using the disgusting little high school debate trick of pretending a huge number of unconnected groups is a single person - shame on you!
I think the deniers don't like to admit (whether consciously or unconsciously) that GW/AGW is happening because the mitigation would be in conflict with their ideological or moral beliefs (turns out there is a correlation between opinion on GW and political beliefs). I wish they rather followed the example of George Carlin, who said fair and square that he doesn't care about humanity (anymore), rather than doubt the science.
If that was the case, perhaps we'd find out that people who don't care about the future of humanity are in a majority, and perhaps I shouldn't be concerned about the future of humanity in the first place. At least I'd feel better when reading discussions about climate on Slashdot.
Actual scientists also make such claims, you know.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Another interesting TED Talk on the subject:
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi...
Dr. MacKay goes through the math on what it would take to replace fossil fuels with carbon free energy. A couple notable statistics is that it would take a 5x increase in nuclear power or a 20x increase in wind power for the UK to provide current energy needs carbon free. This is an older video, and a nuclear reactor or two have been shut down since so it's likely closer to 6x now.
The resources needed for wind or solar to meet current energy needs for nations like the USA or UK are mind boggling. On the other hand we know we have enough manufacturing capacity to build up enough nuclear power to meet all our energy needs. The resources needed might still be mind blowing but it is manageable.
Near the end of Dr. MacKay's talk he speaks of energy conservation in a way that reminds me of Amory Lovins talks on "negawatts". Lovins likes to give these very convincing talks on how we can solve the world's energy problems with energy efficiency and "green" energy but the difference is that after thinking about MacKay's talk you don't get the feeling that you've just been shoveled a bunch of BS. Lovins will give a talk with a lot of optimism but in the end he lacks any real numbers and a lot of hope that new technology can save us. Dr. MacKay gives real numbers and after doing the math with him it seems quite obvious that nuclear power must be part of the energy solution or we will end up with some very expensive energy that relies on favorable weather, favorable relations with neighboring nations (since there would be a reliance on freely buying and selling of energy), and technological developments favorable to wind and solar.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
All of this data should be archived somewhere else. Only a fool would keep one copy of data and have that one spot a web server.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I agree.
And what scientists think is utterly irrelevant when it comes to deciding what to do about climate change. And, yes, doing nothing is a reasonable decision.
I'm not concerned he might eat newborns.
I'm concerned that he's not too unlikely to nuke them, and all the adults, pets and wildlife anywhere near them, as he escalates from his spoiled-four-year-old-like behavior on Twitter to spoiled-four-year-old-like behavior in the White House. When he "Rosie O'Donnell's" some foreign leader - China seems like a likely target at the moment - and the war of words escalates, his words from March 30, 2016, may come back to haunt us (for about 15 minutes):
The man is an immature, habitually dishonest, narcissistic putz prone to knee-jerk reactions, and that's the nicest thing I can say about him. The people who elected him were duped - no judgement on why any particular person was duped, but overall, that's exactly what happened. Because in no alternate universe, anywhere, much less this one, is that man qualified in any sense at all to hold the presidency of the United States.
It's going to be a tremendous four-to-eight years. Tremendous.
The scientific consensus only says "if you want to keep temperature increases below X, you need to reduce carbon emissions to Y".
Scientists have no legitimacy determining what consequences society is willing to live with, or how we go about reducing carbon emissions.
I have the IPCC report. It says "if you do nothing, then in the worst case, this will happen..." And to that I say: I can live with that, so let's do nothing. Lots of other people are saying the same thing.
Now, what do you have?
No, using strongly worded but very general hyperbole is not the same as supporting very specific policy ideas like immediately stopping the use of coal. He supports phasing it out by 2030. Stop failing so hard.
I don't need to use hyperbole lol, his actual statements are extreme enough.
The actual point is that there is no consensus on how to address AGW. I hope you didn't miss that point while you were attacking a strawman.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In reality or in your lumped together strawman?
Citation needed. Context is also important.
Considering how you declare century+ old climate science is "new" your word is not going to be enough.
I'm pretty sure "worker" is an accurate term though. I don't think it implies monetary compensation. Just that they worked. Laboured. Picked cotton. Whatever.
"Immigration", however, may not be.
When Jimmy Carter was President he had some solar energy panels installed on the roof of the White House. It was, of course, symbolic as opposed to practical or cost effective. When Regan became President, those solar panels where ripped out, also a symbolic act.
Meanwhile, the Energy Department had been working on a problem with large electrical generating wind turbines. The mechanical gearing could not keep up with the fast changing spin from no wind to gusts of wind, and they burned out frequently. The Energy Department solved that issue by skipping a mechanical transmission and using electrical smoothing of the generated energy. But, the Regan Administration shut that program down and locked away those inventions. It took a decade or more and lawsuits to pry that info loose.
Next:
"Between 1992 and 1996, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) sponsored development of a series of 19 clinical practice guidelines." Here is a link to see them; note that they are out of date: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/guidelines-recommendations/archive.html
I happen to be a chiropractor. Guideline #14 on acute low back pain caused a bit of a ruckus; it said that a fair percentage of back surgery being done at that time was not warranted, supported by any evidence or improved outcomes. (It also had about 1/2 a page saying manipulation gave some benefit. Us chiropractors where ecstatic!)
According to some poobahs in the chiropractic field, the AMA responded to this guideline and others by lobbying Congress to stop funding any more studies!
Healthcare was entering a new era, where entities, government, researchers, academics, leaders in the fields, where becoming players in deciding what was reasonable care. Prior to that it was left up largely to the individual practicioner.
Anyway, the AMA lobbying paid off, and no more guidelines were published after #19.
However, #20 on headaches had been nearly completed. Some chiropractors requested the release that information, suspecting there may be a few lines in there supporting manipulation as having some benefit in treating some headaches. Eventually, it escalated to a lawsuit and years later that information was released. And yes, there were some tidbits supporting manipulation as being beneficial in some people with headaches.
I believe this is a common game in governments in general, playing politics with the release of information.
In my two examples the raw data was not erased, but locked away.
But, we have the recent example of the CIA report on Torture, or the CIA destroying almost everything on the MK Ultra program. So, yeah. Do I think some of Trump's appointees would like to erase scientific date on climate control. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to erase everybody's Social Security and Medicare Records to try to get out of paying either, and everyone's IRS data because they don't like the income tax, and that would really go a long way in defunding the Federal Government. Another one of their goals.
Ah, okay, so you accept the science, you just don't give a shit. As long as we are clear about that I don't think I need to comment any further.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Plus the IPCC is notorious for exaggerating things. Just not feeling the urgency either.
I do give a shit. I think objectively, our best choice is to do nothing. Climate activists, on the other hand, are willing to sacrifice millions for self-aggrandizement.
our best choice is to do nothing
For values of "our" that don't include the people who suffer to save you a few bucks in the short term. Maybe you are old and will be dead before it gets really expensive where you live too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When I saw the "renormalized" data from earlier in the 20th century and it was all a degree or two less than what was actually recorded, it pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the "global warming" BS. After all, I remember back in the 70's when everyone was screaming about the impending Ice Age and scientists were talking about how the globe was cooling. The problem was that Al Gore wasn't making money off that - now he owns the software company that produces the "only" authorized software for calculating carbon-emissions. (That's why he's now a billionaire.)
Yes, the "climate" is changing - its been changing for 4.5 billion years, and will continue to do so. Humans have as much impact as a piss-ant... Volacanos and other natural phenomena dwarf everything we can do. It is as simple as that. The "climate alarmists" over played their hand and that is why Trump was elected - among all of the other abuses from the left. He has a mandate to tear it back to reality - so all of the "cooked" numbers should be trashed. The REAL numbers tell the truth - upticks and downticks - with no statistically significant variance. Too many useless people are making money producing non-sense data - get them back to work on reality...
Yes - it's BS... Plain, simple. You can spout BS all you want, doesn't make it true...
"just a couple of degrees"
when talking about global averages, that's a fuckton.
just a couple degrees cooler and we had snowball earth, with ice sheets that extended south beyond new York city.
ice sheets 2 miles or more thick.
for reference, that also meant that all of Europe , except for the very southern tips of spain and Italy and turkey were covered by those ice sheets.
the only continents left unscathed were Africa (incidentally the period when hominids evolved, and homo sapiens spread across the land), the Indian subcontinent, china, and Australia. South America's southern tips would have been covered too.
oceans were also 400 feet below where they are today.
a couple degrees the other way, and we're back in dinosaur land, with a tropical Antarctica, and seas 200+ feet above current levels.
so yeah...its "just a couple of degrees".
what does it matter?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The government is required to maintain its research. The problem is flaws in the data which decisions have been made from would invalidate regulations. Climate scientists have been playing a wack-a-mole game with the truth.
reality is not a religion.
but apparently ignorance is.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no, you don't think.
that's the problem.
you aren't objective.
youre just stupid.
3/4 of the worlds population lives in areas where they will be displaced by rising seas.
that's 5 billion people.
where are they supposed to go?
who takes them in?
how do you avoid conflicts as a result of mass migration of such numbers of people?
so no.
you don't think.
and if you did, you wouldn't then have the gall to state that its the climate activists who are willing to sacrifice millions.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The climate models are barely predictive - still not outperforming the null hypothesis
Blatantly false BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
There's a train a coming.
You're on the tracks.
It's a long ways off.
But you can see it.
And people are telling you to get off the tracks.
And you're stating that staying on the tracks is a reasonable decision.
You're an idiot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Because it'd be harder than hell to have to manipulate all that data again and come up with the same results.
Let's not wait for a "Ask Slashdot" on how to retrieve large amounts of deleted research.... Anyone have good ideas / suggestions on what individuals should focus on if they would like to help? #ThinkOfTheData
To quote the first sentence in the above link:
The brain-dead leftist media isn't really in the news business anymore.
Clearly, this site is a paragon of objective reporting...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That isn't what the IPCC says or the scientific consensus says. What the science actually says is that society will incur some significant costs $X from climate change 50-100 years ago, and that we could theoretically prevent that if we were able to institute massive economic changes that cost $Y now.
Your analogy is misleading because it assumes that $X is infinite (death) while $Y is small (getting off the track). But that's not what "the science" or the IPCC say. According to the IPCC, $X and $Y are comparable in magnitude and, neither of them is lethal, and each just amounts to a small cost relative to GDP.
To bring this down to a smaller scale, assume we're just talking about a family. What you're advocating is that your family spend $10000 right now so that your great-grandchildren in 80 years may avoid having to spend $20000 (in real dollars). To use your words, "you're an idiot". The rational thing to do is to leave the maximum amount of money you can to your grand children; instead of paying $10000 right now, if you just safely invest $1000 in the economy, your great-grandchildren will have $20000 to deal with whatever you fear.
About 3 million Dutch are living below sea level and doing quite well. After WWII, West Germany accepted massive numbers of German returnees, is it doing poorly economically? Israel is built in an inhospitable country mostly from displaced people, is it hurting economically?
We can't stop sea level rise or climate change; it's already a done deal. So these people will have to deal with the consequences no matter what. And the best way of dealing with it is by helping the rest of the world develop economically as rapidly as possible. The only proposals on the table result in massive economic costs for only a slight slowdown.
No, you don't think, and that's your problem. You keep advocating action on climate change as if any action could stop it; it cannot.
I certainly do have that gall, because self-righteous pricks like you need to understand the harm you are advocating.
"Snowball earth" refers to a climate state more than half a billion years ago; global average temperatures weren't "a couple of degrees lower", they were -50C/-74F. What you actually seem to be referring to is the last glacial period (110000 to 15000 years before present) of the current ice age (5-7 million years ago continuing until the present). Temperatures were about 6C lower than they are now. We are currently in a warm period; without AGW, we'd be returning to that state again. Cold is bad. With AGW, we may avoid that fate.
Yes, and that would still be far preferable to the frozen wastelands that the glaciation cycle would return us to. Temperatures would be mild pole to pole, there would be more precipitation and fewer deserts, and plenty of new arable land would open up for people displaced by sea level rise. And sea level rise would be gradual enough (a thousand years or more) for human populations to adapt without even noticing.
The entire point of articles like this is for politicized scientists to draw attention to themselves and their imagined plight under an administration full of political 'others'.
They've likely lost easy funding reproving climate change using reams of carefully hand-edited climate data, and they are afraid they might slip into obscurity under Trump.
Let's imagine their worst fears are realized, and the next administration wipes their data from public resources - so what? Weren't these 'experts' smart enough to make backups?
Ken
Until the current administration FOIA requests were trivial, under the current administration it too-frequently requires a federal judge to order the timely release of information from the self-declared 'most transparent administration ever'...
Ken
We gotta worry about the end of civilization in 1000 different ways. At a minimum, what would Slashdot report on?
What does Bill Nye, the science dogma guy, think of this?
Why is it that America is so susceptible to the climate denier lies while most of the rest of the world just gets on with dealing with it? Is there a special be-dumb additive in the water?
Only boring people are ever bored.
You apparently can't read.
Go above and read what you wrote.
You said,
There are some scientists who say we need to replace coal immediately, otherwise civilization could be destroyed.
AmiMojo called you on your bullshit and demanded you name the people you were trying to slander. You took up the challenge, even though you knew you made it up, and named James Hansen.
So I looked it up and found out you're full of shit. He's saying the same as everyone else, that it should be phased out. He says by 2030. That refutes your claim.
Then you respond by quoting his hyperbole. You don't even comprehend the words that were said; you can't even tell what is being called hyperbole. But you're arguing anyway; after you've been totally refuted. Pathetic. And then you yackity-yack about a strawman, look, you made the original accusation, and that's what I'm still on. I didn't even make an analogy, where is there room for a straw man accusation? You're failing harder and harder by your irrational insistence on being right even after being caught making a factually incorrect intentional statement. (also known as a lie)
Remember him? Deleted, what, 25,000 emails SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO RETAIN. Such short memories you rightwingers have when it's Hilary to pillory.
There are four possibilities
a) humans are the cause of climate change
b) humans do NOT cause climate change
c) The surface data WAS tampered with
d) The satellite data is wrong
If c is True and d is False then what we need is a good housecleaning, also known as draining the swamp.
When people question the solution to climate change they are immediately labeled as deniers.
I hate these stories that talk about "climate change" without offering any solution ideas to discuss. It is a waste of time.
Well, whatever your on preferences in this matter may be, it's not a scientific decision, which was my point. Hence, scientists are neither qualified nor empowered to make that decision.
You're an idiot. See? I can insult you too. Actually, I've been watching you for a while on Slashdot, and you don't say anything sensible.
Do you feel better? My point was, that there is no consensus on what should be done about climate change. You got caught up on a stupid argument on whether one scientist says coal should be phased out by 2030 or immediately. You proved that right, good job, but it's a side issue. You completely missed the major point.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
as has already been pointed out in this thread there's terabytes and terabytes of data. After the initial fervor over a new study is over It's often stuffed on tape archives and the like. Available on request and with little fanfare.
I'll put it in nerd terms: Remember the crappy port of FF7 for PC? That's because square didn't keep the data around. This is like that, but since you can't emulate the environment we're all going to die of starvation because we didn't save the data needed to fix crap.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I tried to find an earlier Slashdot news report on actual factual measurable change of the Earth's Axis. Funny. The news report is now gone. The Earth's changing axis doesn't get a thousandth of the coverage that global warming gets. Very interesting.
If the global climate models were at all accurate at predicting things, then they should be listened to. For now, that kind of prediction is still science fiction. Ergo, developing public policy on those models wouldn't be a wise thing. Reducing KNOWN pollutants would. We've got several hundred novel chemicals created each year with no idea of the long-term environmental impacts of them before they get released into the wild in products. We have nano-particle car exhaust pollution crossing the blood-brain barrier, linked to neurological problems...we can all tackle these things first..and ignore boogey men set up by partisan journalistic companies.
The best way to make a change is to attack problems that folks on all sides of the political issues agree on. There is broad support for reducing chemical pollution. There is strong market demand for an electric vehicle at price-parity with an ICE vehicle, which would shift pollution to central sites that could handle the waste more effectively. Some of these things will happen when the technology is there, others when we agree that we ought to stop giving out farm subsidies, so that organic farms can effectively compete, and we can reduce the nitrogen fertilizer runoff that has burned the Mississippi river delta...personally, I'll start believing the global climate models when the climate models are accurate at predicting SOMETHING. Until then, we don't know enough about how to solve the problem other than to be more efficient with our materials (cradle to cradle) and introduce restrictions on novel man-made chemicals with unknown long-term environmental effects.
Remember, the IPCC summaries were originally written by politicians and filled in with cherry picked info. That should be enough to cause pause for anyone.
Is there a special be-dumb additive in the water?
No.
It's much easier to explain than an off-the-wall guess like that.
The fossil fuel industry is in its death throes and putting up a fight.
Your first clue would be Trump's proposed nomination for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.
The second would be his choice for Energy Secretary, former governor of Texas Rick Perry.
Third up: Head of EPA, Scott Pruitt.
So ... it's not the water.
It's the money.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
As I thought - you have nothing - take your propagandist bullshit to a fucking political site.
True, unless they explicitly weren't compensated. Then the only appropriate term would be slave.
Oh wait...
"Slavery" sure as goddam hell would be accurate.
What
The
Simple
Fuck?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Don't want to insult but I think you are naive. Doesn't matter what I think. Judy sayin'
Sure, but it doesn't fit into the sentence, does it?
The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of slavery from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
It's pretty obvious that they're referring to "slave worker" anyway, if that's any common as a collocation.
The current President ignores the law, perhaps they are concerned that the next President will follow suit, but in different ways.
Anyway, if worst comes to worst and the data is lost I'm sure they can just make it up again when the Democrats get reelected. ;)
Oh boy, I suppose that since Trump eats ethnic babies and is going to destroy the world it makes no difference. Honestly hasn't this bash Trump nonsense gone far enough. I know it hasn't gone as far as the lefty's greatest fears and hallucinations, but apart from the political wrangling and fake news networks I've just about given up on anything I read or hear. I cannot think of a time when people were acting just so plain stupid.
Fear mongering on mostly the left but on the right as well is totally out of control. The "disinformation" highway is pressing on to new levels of absurdity. Social media has people hiding in their closets and barricading the door. Get a life people.
Face it, people. "Climate change" research has always rested in the hands of true believers and they have meddled with it. The NOAA has changed the way it records sea temperatures but failed to document what corrective adjustments it made (if any) when amalgamating this data with older data, and the UNCC was caught outright twiddling their data in the raw to make it reflect global warming when it inconveniently failed to do so - their internal emails documented this unequivocally. This lead to a UN internal "investigation" that whitewashed the whole affair and left the same people in charge of the data.
Admit it, "global warming" is big business and there are billions to be made if you're in a position to fake data or might be in the future - or if you pretend to have a "solution" to it. When you changed the name of it from "global warming" to "climate change" because the globe wasn't warming you admitted in no uncertain terms you weren't doing science any more! If "warming" proves "climate change" and "cooling" proves "climate change" and "neither warming nor cooling" proves "climate change" - it isn't science! It's religion masquerading as science! Liberals claim they aren't religious but they will spout all kind of Gaia nonsense if you ask them about Earth Sciences. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!
Not one of the catastrophic global warming models has worked out. ALL of them predicted far, FAR too much warming. Also, the predictions of what "bad things" could happen is relentlessly negative, and fails utterly to point out that the people most at risk for it are RICH PEOPLE who OWN BEACHFRONT PROPERTY! Don't give me the bleeding-heart routine about the "poor islanders", no one in government LEFT or RIGHT cares whether THEYhave land left or not, but you can BET that every hotel in Miami Beach is worried about losing it's slice of beach. You can bet the rich people in the Hamptons are FAR more worried about losing their cheap flood insurance on their expensive beachfront homes - homes that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BUILT WHERE THEY ARE IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED IN GLOBAL WARMING!
If the Democrats really believed in global warming, why did they vote to rebuild New Orleans just where it was, instead of relocating it inland? Raising the dykes a couple of feet won't stop the NEXT cat 5 hurricane from wiping it out all over again. The same with the recent flooding. IF GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE SPENT A FORTUNE TO LEAVE THESE PEOPLE STILL PERCHED ON THE TAILGATE OF FATE HEADING FOR THE VERY NEXT POTHOLE!
And in the final analysis, people, we ARE IN AN INTERREGNUM period between glaciations. There is ZERO evidence the next one is either delayed or coming early, and we KNOW that the height of these warm periods inevitably see the Earth WITH NO ICE CAPS. And, by the by, global warming IF and WHEN it comes, will convert tens of millions of square miles of land from useless tundra into arable land - or do we not worry about people STARVING any more?
When the Federal government's "solution" to global warming is Solyndra and other rip-offs of the American taxpayer, it's LONG PAST TIME to smell the rat! The Democrats demagogue the issue UNMERCIFULLY, but the only real data we have DOESN'T JUSTIFY SENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PUBLIC POLICY! It DOES justify HONEST monitoring, and HONEST attempts to develop better models, and MAYBE, SOMEDAY, those models will help guide policy - but that day is not this one. Trump understands that, Democrats refuse, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE SCIENCE. And THAT is their REAL problem with Trump! He offered to prioritize US - the people who SUFFERED under the Democrats - BEFORE he did the fat cat executives of Solyndra and their ilk.
You want to understand what the "problem" is in the American election system? It's putting a CROOK up as a candidate! It's DELIBERATELY knocking down your only other candidate - a POPULAR candidate - in favor of someone who is just as comfortable in the muck as the UNCC is, a woman who has made a FORTU
We also need to remember that Trump lives in the umpteenth floor of a skyscraper. So even in the worst case he will remain good and dry.
Whereas the Democrats supporting action on climate change live in their government-insured multi-million dollar beach homes while their "green energy businesses" that do nothing to prevent climate change rake in billions in subsidies and "grants". Let's not forget that too.
These aren't 1 mb comma separated values files that can easily be shared between you and your Randian study group. A single dataset from a single study can take up terabytes of storage - and how are you going to ensure that none of it is tampered with? Try to copy Bitcoin's chain-of-custody verification process?
I'm not the one engaging in conspiracy theories so lame that they would have anti-vaxxers and lunar conspiracy theorists shaking their heads in disdain.
The Trump fans and the Trump haters will, once he's been in office office a while, be all disappointed and relieved to learn he wasn't all they had hoped and feared he was going to be, respectively.
Or maybe they'll both be disappointed. Seems like some of them really enjoy being afraid of The Next Hitler (sm).
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.