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."
Oh yes, those Hollywood movie stars and all their money putting the poor old entire traditional energy industry out :( Oh, if only oil companies could afford lobbyists just like Hollywood actors all have!
The true measure of scientific fact is how well it survives the opposition trying to disprove it. Given that the opposition to climate change has given up on producing data disproving that the Earth is getting warmer on aggregate and instead resorted to attacking it politically, I would say it's doing pretty well as scientific theories go.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Then list these legitimate criticisms. And no, someone's blog or a WSJ article is not legitimate criticism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Well, if you insist on burying your head in the political sands, then I suppose that would be your interpretation of what's going on. "Deniers" (nice little marketing associating with the Holocaust) have produced and are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
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.
Also, it's a fine time to put our money where our mouths are, as donations are being matched (presumably out of the same concern):
Dear Internet Archive Patrons:
You’ve come to the Internet Archive in search of knowledge, to find Web pages you would have lost. Now we need your help in return. Will you help sustain this non-profit library built on trust? We have a huge mission: to give everyone access to all knowledge, forever. For free. The Internet Archive has only 150 staff but runs the #250 website in the world. Your privacy is very important to us, so we don’t collect your personal information. We don’t accept ads. But we still need to pay for servers, staff and rent. That’s where you can help us. Right now a generous supporter will match your donation 1-for-1. So you can double your impact! If you find our site useful, please give what you can today. Thank you.
Guess I'm chipping in again...
http://archive.org/
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
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.
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
The ones who assume work doesn't prove the foundation of their research is true though,
they just further developed the theory, which doesn't receive adequate funding for critical truth analysis.
"Deniers" ... are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
For example?
I'm personally waiting to see all the climate model source code - and RAW data.
ALL OF IT. With every change made over time.
If it's science, it can withstand the scrutiny.
If it can't stand up to that scrutiny, it's not science.
Ever look at hurricane predictions? Where the predicted path is published for a bunch of different hurricane models? Most of the time, they mostly agree pretty closely. But every now and then, there's a huge outlier or two where the predicted path from one hurricane model differs drastically from all the others.
That's the nature of modeling.
BUT WHERE THE HELL ARE ANY CLIMATE MODEL OUTLIERS?!?!?!
That's certainly moving the goalposts. Now it's "warmer on aggregate". Before it was droughts, floods, hurricanes, no arctic ice, no snow in England or New York, mass extinctions, 100 meter sea level rise, mass starvation worldwide, point of no return, end of the world.
Next time stick with "somewhat warmer on aggregate" and keep things scientific -- rather than dividing people into tribes to fight each other so leaders can gain power and wealth.
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
The ones who assume work doesn't prove the foundation of their research is true though, they just further developed the theory, which doesn't receive adequate funding for critical truth analysis.
LOL. For any scientist, disproving an established theory is a dream come true. This is the stuff to make careers. And it's not as if people haven't tried. Former climate sceptic Richard Muller got funded by the Koch brothers, and, with his team, did a completely independent reconstruction of the temperature record of the last. Of course, he came up with essentially the same results NASA, NOAA, and the HadCRUT team had previously found, and, as a good scientist, changed his position in response to the data.
Of course, we don't fund science by desired result, but by the importance of the questions asked and the plausibility that progress towards an answer can be made. Assuming equal quality of grant applications, if 97% of working scientist hold one broad position, you would expect 97% of funding to go to this group. And, from what I have seen of so-called "sceptic" science, "equal quality" would be a long stretch...
Stephan
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.
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.
Are you saying some greater purpose is being served by not releasing all data and methodology on climate change?
I'm saying that the greater purpose of bringing up this different topic was to draw attention away from this claim:
Someone asked for an example of this peer-reviewed scientific work and all we got was an off-topic rant about seeing the raw temperature data. That was not the example that was requested which would prove the original assertion. I believe that the only reason why this irrelevant and sudden change of subject was posted here was because the alternative would be to admit that deniers aren't producing anything remotely like science. The original statement was a lie, and this business of climate model source code is just your attempt to distract us from the original question.
It is the usual denier tactic of rapidly switching to the next bullet point on their favorite denier website the moment anyone picks a hole in their crazy theories, or indeed actually answers their question. I have no doubt that if I posted a link to the raw data that you think is so important that you would quickly jump to the next prepackaged denier post.
May I suggest for the next leap in the discussion that we haven't see the old "they have fogotten about about the sun" line for a while. It's a shame that you can't point to 1998 anymore to "prove" that the climate is actually getting colder; that was always a good one. Don't you think that being a denier would be so much easier if it just would stop getting hotter?
And he really doesn't like it when the evidence contradicts him. Especially not when it reflects on the (in)advisability of his policies.
He might not personally order a wipe, but with a view to running the country as a business, he has appointed some "climate sceptics" who could very well appoint like-minded trustees to actively realign publicly funded research efforts with national priorities, restructure research departments with a view to national needs, and focus monetary and computing resources in accordance with those needs and priorities.
Translation: he has appointed a few idiots who in turn might appoint a posse of yahoos who see it as their mission in life to vanish anything or anyone the boss doesn't like and hide the evidence. As in: fire anyone who openly says global warming is a fact, have their funding cut, their computing resources confiscated, and their data wiped. That's what "running the country like a business" means, you know.
Given that perspective ... why not extend and enhance current backup policies to guarantee continuity of valuable research data with an eye towards potential refocusing of research priorities and allocation of means.
Tanslation: why not save an offshore copy of your work while you still can?
Ordinary precaution I'd say.
He was given plenty of data, he just didn't like what it was saying so kept trying to get some more to his liking.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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
Actually China looks a lot more effective than the US at combating climate change long term. In the US it all depends on whether big oil has bought the government of the day. China makes all the solar pv cells for the world and has an actual plan.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
In the US:
Is CO2 "pollution" to you? If so, CO2 has nothing to do with health, so "not any better". If not, US has massively reduced air pollution since I was young - to the point that the only places that even have a problem are a handful of cities where for some reason there's very poor circulation between the air above the city and the atmosphere in general. So "almost no difference, but maybe a little".
I China or India: it's a big deal. But it's no worse than the US when we were going through the industrial revolution, so it's not like we have any moral high ground here. They'll eventually get on top of the problem, just like we did.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Poe's law in full effect now, but given your posting history I'm guessing you're not joking.
I'm curious how you believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase UV emissions? If the atmosphere heats up we'll get more water vapor and thus increase the UV albedo of the atmosphere, yes?
Drowning? Are water levels increasing faster than people can walk part of your religion? Falling debris? I'm sure you'll explain how climate change causes earthquakes - I know I've seen that claim in the media a couple of times now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Are those scientific sources? Why would you even mention them? Are you a fucking idiot?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You must be like the guy telling the Jews in the mid-1930s "Don't worry, they just want to register you. It'll be just fine..."
Trump has made it clear he doesn't accept the science. He's surrounded himself by people who either don't accept the science, or have strong commercial reasons to try to suppress it. He has a Congress stacked with people who either think God wants coal to be burned or who take their orders from fossil fuel companies.
But you know what, it doesn't fucking matter, because the laws of nature don't give a fuck about Donald Trump, and CO2 has the properties it has, and all the delicate little Republican snowflakes in the world won't make a bit of difference. You cannot stop the laws of physics with a fucking vote.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.