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."
That's cute. A "legitimate dispute" where one participant is willing to destroy all the evidence of the other's argument, just to win. Not to be correct, not to have a debate, just to win. Billions of dollars of research being flushed down the drain, research that could save billions of lives in a few decades when the effects of global warming become more severe.
That isn't a "legitimate dispute," any more than it was a "legitimate dispute" to burn books you didn't agree with. That is one idiot proclaiming to the world that his belief is more important than your evidence.
I wouldn't doubt you voted for the cocksucker, you should be on a terrorism watch list for doing that to your country.
Hollywood movie stars are great propaganda for the whipping up support among the unwashed, unthinking masses; that's why political leaders and Scientologists have always sought public association with them.
"Deniers" ... are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
For example?
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/
Cute. When was there a scientific consensus that the world was flat? Oh, that's right. There never was. The scientific method as we currently understand it originated with people like Galileo, Bacon, and Newton in the late 16th and early 17th century. And there has been overwhelming expert consensus that the Earth is spherical since around 350 BC. Plato, Archimedes, and Eratosthenes all developed ways to measure the diameter of the earth. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument that there is legitimate dispute about the scientific basis of climate change.
NASA's raw data on global temperature and the GISTEMP code they use to analyze it are all openly available online. NOAA's climate data is openly available and there are good R packages to make it easy to download. NCDC's climate data archives for the US and for the whole world are freely available online. NASA's satellite climate data is all available on line. Paleoclimate data from ice cores is all on line. NOAA measurements of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases is all on line. All the code for NCAR's community climate model and NASA's GISS Model E are available on line. Other integrated assessment models, such as GCAM are open-source.
I have been teaching climate change for years, and I have found it very easy to write scripts in R and Python to automatically download the raw climate data from various public government repositories (NASA, NOAA, NCDC, ORNL, etc.), and process it to produce up-to-date figures for my lectures. It's really easy to do.
So what data do you think the government is not making openly available to the public?
ExxonMobil already did some comprehensive, high quality research on climate change in the 1970s. They discovered AGW but decided to bury their research and go about a campaign to discredit anyone who made similar findings. Or perhaps you haven't been following the news lately?
You are free to install your own sensors world wide and start capturing data. Maybe in 50 years you will be able to calculate a trend.
The fact that you didn't do it doesn't mean climate change isn't happening.
I don't think his issue was necessarily with how data was being collected, it was about how it was being interpreted by said models. The raw data and models should be released to the public.
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.
But disproving an establish theory is real science, and real science has no place in this debate! All we need is Al Gore.
97%? You must mean 97% of a cherry picked group of 74 people, quite a few of whom lack actual backgrounds in climate or meteorological science.
Well, there are several sources for the ca. 97%, but they seem to have been too conservative (in the non-political sense of the term). The latest analysis among actually publishing scientists (by James Powell) finds "above 99.99%", or what he calls "virtual unanimity". The fact that several studies with different methodologies all find support in the high 95+% is a nice example of consilience, and that usually is takes as very strong evidence for a fact.
Of course an alternative explanation is that all the scientists, all the editors, and all the scientific organisations are conspiring to keep THE TRUTH from us, with only a small number of heroic conservative think tanks and fossil fuel companies desperately trying to defend it. You take your pick...
Stephan
I thought I did since most climate research is funded by tax dollars.
Stating a fact is not a strawman argument. Trump did petition to have a sea wall installed and in his petition it is specifically stated it is because of the possibility of rising sea levels due to climate change. The exact words:
"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland."
Further, he sent out flyers to the local populace in regards to this proposal in which it states:
"Predicted sea level rise and more frequent storm events will increase the rate of erosion throughout the 21st century."
So Trump being Trump, he says one thing but does another. Like his golf course in Connecticut which he has repeatedly bragged is worth $50 million but wanted to claim on his taxes was only worth $1.5 million.
Then again, the con artist has done the same thing around the country with his golf courses, bragging about being worth X millions but claiming for tax purposes significantly lower values.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I wonder how much better productivity would be if people were healthier due to lower pollution.
Anyway, short term profits don't trump averting a long term disaster.
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. 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
The latest analysis among actually publishing scientists [sagepub.com] (by James Powell [wikipedia.org]) finds "above 99.99%", or what he calls "virtual unanimity".
In other words, a crap study. There aren't that many climate researchers in the world to maintain a 10,000 to 1 ratio over the publishing skeptics by probably two orders of magnitude.
Powell counted 69406 to 4, and apparently the referees and editors at the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society agreed. The full paper including the methodology is online, as are the data sets.
Stephan
China? What a great example. It's a country that has curbed the rise in CO2 emissions far more than the USA over the past 2 years. And I mean who do they think they are with being number 20 in the list of countries in emissions per capita. The USA is far better at ... well fuck we are number 7... Actually per capita we emit 3 times as much as China and 9 times as much as India.
Yeah those bloody developing nations ruining the world. Damn them right?
Idiot.
+1. The US is responsible for almost 30% of all the historical emissions :
https://www.theguardian.com/en...