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."
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.'"
"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.
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 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.
Nah, it's an intractable problem because there is only one earth. Better to burn all the research to the ground and call it a day. Strangely enough trump petitioned scottland for variances to account for rising sea levels on his golf course there. But he wouldn't say one thing and believe/do another would he?
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. That should tell you something.
Instead, they're going with "You don't need to know what we've been doing for the last several years, because, um, censorship? Something? Only Nazis would want scientific accountability!"
I've been to a UN Climate Conference. No science, just politics and a vacation on government money. When the weather turned unseasonably cool in Cancun one year, all of the important people left early because they couldn't sit on the beach and party.
Yes, it happened. The questionnaire is public record. After the outcry, the Trump transition team claimed it was "not authorized", which basically means they got caught and then pretended it didn't happen.
Claims of "fake news!!" are going to be harder for the Trump administration to make now that everything, including the tweets of Drumplethinskins himself are going to be public record by law.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact; if it were, we'd all still believe that the Earth is flat, etc.
Let's put this idiotic meme to bed once and for all.
(1) There has never been a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.
The consensus among natural philosophers since the time of Aristotle (4th century BC) has been that the Earth is spherical. In the third century BC Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth as 252,000 stadia, which works out to 39,838 km. The modern figure for the circumference of the Earth is 40,030 km. Since Eratosthenes was dealing in round numbers, he had an accurate figure that is merely less precise than the modern figure. The Portuguese had a more accurate figure for the size of the Earth, which is why they rejected Columbus's expedition which was based on an estimate that was 1/3 too small.
In medieval universities astronomy was one of the "liberal arts", and the standard texts considered the Earth spherical. The "flat earth" notion was only widely held by the ignorant.
(2) Scientific consensus is not about eternal truth, it is about who currently bears the burden of proof.
Science is unique in that it admits, even depends upon crackpot ideas, but it imposes a high burden of proof on them. On the other hand it imposes a low burden of proof on ideas that have a long history of standing up to scrutiny.
This is discrimination, but it's not unfair discrimination. It's a system that allows those crackpot ideas a shot at becoming a new scientific consensus, without burdening everyone else with endless recapitulation of the evidence for things that currently enjoy the support of overwhelming evidence.
When evidence supports a change in the scientific consensus, it changes very rapidly. Take the Heliocentric theory. Copernicus's model had a number of shortcomings, but after the work of Tycho Brahe and Kepler it rapidly gained support among professional astronomers. The main opposition to heliocentrism was political -- not actually religious. The Pope was a Renaissance humanist and an admirer of Galileo; but he had a problem with the Spanish cardinals and couldn't afford to appear "soft on heresy". It's a familiar problem to us today.
3) The existence of scientific dissent does not somehow make an idea more credible.
Dissent, even crackpottery, is not only inevitable, it is an important feature of science that even crackpots are allowed to participate. It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove. So if your critieria of evidence is scientific unanimity, you won't get it on just about any topic. Not even conservation of momentum. Everything is open to debate. Even "real" debate.
This means that if you take the "some scientists disagree" route you can go scientist shopping for whatever position you want. Science would have no value whatsoever if we used it that way. You can of course cite dissident scientists if you want of course, but their dissent in itself isn't proof of anything. You have to drill down to why they believe what they believe and why you believe that is correct. People who rely on the scientific consensus within a field need only rely upon the fact that it *is* the scientific consensus.
This reflects the same asymmetrical burden of proof that happens within science. One side is making an extraordinary (in scientific terms) claim and needs equally compelling evidence. The other is making a non-controversial claim.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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."
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.