Since the dawn of the satellite era (about 1979) we have gotten a lot better at covering the whole Earth. The only area that still gets missed to some extent is very near the poles since the orbits don't go directly over them. At the South Pole we have a permanently manned station that collects data but we can't put a permanent station at the North Pole.
I cannot ever recall groups of people who are not experts in a field so fervently trying to discredit the experts in that field, and to disprove the science in that field, all while using anything but the generally accepted methods of that field.
With the possible exception of #3 in your list I think it could be applied to the evolution issue too. #3 could apply if the creationists/ID'ers gain enough traction to remove the consideration of what we know about evolution in biology but that seems unlikely.
What Roger Pielke, Jr. has is a B.A. in mathematics, an M.A. in public policy and a Ph.D. in political science. But he also has his father who is a highly cited atmospheric scientist so he's probably better versed in the science than many. They are both what is commonly called lukewarmers in that they accept the science to a large degree but think the effects have been exaggerated by others. Pielke, Jr. worked for a time a the National Center for Atmospheric Research which is probably why he has been published in climate journals.
Someone (in this case Pielke, Jr.) writes up their research then others with expertise in the field get to criticize it, hopefully producing something better ultimately. What is irritating is criticism from people who obviously don't know what they're talking about.
If I could still use my mod points in this discussion I would give you an Interesting. Thanks for the report from someone in the front lines. You understand the finer points often missed in a high level overview like Pielke's.
We've gone from grouping those who doubt that human CO2 emission costs more than eliminating it would with modern Nazis who deny the Holocaust...
The people making that connection are the climate science deniers themselves. They're just trying to redefine the meaning of "denier" to take the heat out of it. Mark Twain famously said "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" long before there was any Holocaust denial.
Pielke Jr. is a lukewarmer. He accepts that climate science is basically right but thinks the effects won't be as bad as it's being made out to be.
One of the criticisms I've seen of this paper is that Pielke doesn't take into account the fact that we've built more resilient structures in response to past natural disasters so the fact that the costs remain about the same means either those responses haven't been very effective or that the natural disasters have been getting worse but the additional resilience keeps the costs about the same.
The "proof" is summarized in the IPCC WG I report. Refute it if you can.
The East Anglia/Climategate email hack and subsequent quote mining only matters to those already predisposed to disbelieve the scientists about anthropogenic global warming and amounts to practically nothing.
In effect all published scientific papers, especially those that break new ground are preliminary research. Peer review is akin to spell and syntax checking. After the paper gets published the broader field gets to weigh in and take their whacks at it. Only then if it continues to stand up does it become established science. Even a paper that doesn't hold up can still help you get pointed in the right direction since it shows places to not go.
An showing them to be wrong took someone putting in the hard word to scientifically refute it. Until someone does that for AGW (unlikely IMHO) you have nothing to stand on.
Is that your idea of science? "My cause is the right one, therefore it shouldn't ever be challenged."
No, if you want to seriously challenge climate science orthodoxy (or any other scientific orthodoxy) you need to put in the work first to really understand the science so you can intelligently challenge it in a scientific manner. Repeating past challenges that have been refuted many times already or not paying enough attention to what the orthodoxy is actually saying so you can address it directly just doesn't cut it.
For example the recent claims of 16 years of no warming. If you analyze the temperature records since 1998 statistically it's impossible to say whether the previous trend has continued unabated or if the trend is 0 increase in temperature. The period is just to short. But that doesn't stop climate science deniers from proclaiming it as evidence for the failure of climate science.
Same thing with the claim that climate models failed to predict the current pseudo-pause. If you understand how climate models work and how the results are presented as an average of many individual model runs you would know that they wouldn't be expected to predict such a short term deviation from the average.
So if you really want to challenge current climate science do the work, understand what the current orthodoxy is and come up with something that does a better job of explaining the evolution of climate. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air.
Huh?!!!!! I've got a lot of money tied up in my house. Should it have First Amendment rights separate from my own? If I want to use my money to extend my First Amendment rights I may have to liquidate some of my assets. What's the difference if it's my house or my investment in a corporation?
Actually, that brings up good point. Corporations are property. They are owned by humans. They don't have consciousness on their own. We don't grant rights to property, just to humans. My position is still that humans don't lose any of their existing rights by being associated with a corporation so why should the corporation have First Amendment rights beyond what their associates have individually on their own.
But it becomes illegal, if it's $1 million of a corporation's money. The people whose interests the corporation represents just had their First Amendment rights taken away.
That's just bullshit. Those individuals can make their own expenditures in support of their First Amendment rights which are no less than the First Amendment rights that anyone not associated with a corporation has. If the corporation has rights then they are in addition to the rights their associates have on their own. I haven't always supported the positions of the corporation I'm associated with and it offends me that they can imply that I do through their expenditures.
You seem to think that money is equivalent to free speech but in reality it is merely an amplifier of free speech. Most corporations (especially the large ones) have resources far in excess of of most individuals. That stacks the deck in favor of corporations and wealthy individuals enough and I'm tired of my voice being drowned out by them.
September 2016 is two and a half years from now. If NASA's lucky it'll wear out and stop functioning by then. If not then probably a big hue and cry will arise and funding will be found to keep it going.
It turns out that sure, you could - if there was some legal equivalent to corporate personhood to protect your rights in this situation. Otherwise you wouldn't be correct in that assertion.
I fail to see how my rights are curtailed in any way by the corporation I'm associated with not having all the rights you seem to think they should have.
I'm not saying that corporations shouldn't have any rights. There is good reason to grant corporations a limited amount of personhood so they can be treated as a single entity legally and so their investors have liability limited to what they've invested in the corporation but that's about all the rights they need as far as I'm concerned.
One thing to keep in mind is that these towers would be set in ice that is moving so they would have to realigned regularly. The ice at the South Pole is moving about 10 meters per year toward the Weddell Sea.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the dawn of the satellite era (about 1979) we have gotten a lot better at covering the whole Earth. The only area that still gets missed to some extent is very near the poles since the orbits don't go directly over them. At the South Pole we have a permanently manned station that collects data but we can't put a permanent station at the North Pole.
I cannot ever recall groups of people who are not experts in a field so fervently trying to discredit the experts in that field, and to disprove the science in that field, all while using anything but the generally accepted methods of that field.
Ahem, evolution.
With the possible exception of #3 in your list I think it could be applied to the evolution issue too. #3 could apply if the creationists/ID'ers gain enough traction to remove the consideration of what we know about evolution in biology but that seems unlikely.
What Roger Pielke, Jr. has is a B.A. in mathematics, an M.A. in public policy and a Ph.D. in political science. But he also has his father who is a highly cited atmospheric scientist so he's probably better versed in the science than many. They are both what is commonly called lukewarmers in that they accept the science to a large degree but think the effects have been exaggerated by others. Pielke, Jr. worked for a time a the National Center for Atmospheric Research which is probably why he has been published in climate journals.
Wow, you folks must have been scrambling pretty hard back in January when that chemical spill in the Elk River occurred.
Someone (in this case Pielke, Jr.) writes up their research then others with expertise in the field get to criticize it, hopefully producing something better ultimately. What is irritating is criticism from people who obviously don't know what they're talking about.
If I could still use my mod points in this discussion I would give you an Interesting. Thanks for the report from someone in the front lines. You understand the finer points often missed in a high level overview like Pielke's.
We've gone from grouping those who doubt that human CO2 emission costs more than eliminating it would with modern Nazis who deny the Holocaust ...
The people making that connection are the climate science deniers themselves. They're just trying to redefine the meaning of "denier" to take the heat out of it. Mark Twain famously said "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" long before there was any Holocaust denial.
Pielke Jr. is a lukewarmer. He accepts that climate science is basically right but thinks the effects won't be as bad as it's being made out to be.
One of the criticisms I've seen of this paper is that Pielke doesn't take into account the fact that we've built more resilient structures in response to past natural disasters so the fact that the costs remain about the same means either those responses haven't been very effective or that the natural disasters have been getting worse but the additional resilience keeps the costs about the same.
The "proof" is summarized in the IPCC WG I report. Refute it if you can.
The East Anglia/Climategate email hack and subsequent quote mining only matters to those already predisposed to disbelieve the scientists about anthropogenic global warming and amounts to practically nothing.
In effect all published scientific papers, especially those that break new ground are preliminary research. Peer review is akin to spell and syntax checking. After the paper gets published the broader field gets to weigh in and take their whacks at it. Only then if it continues to stand up does it become established science. Even a paper that doesn't hold up can still help you get pointed in the right direction since it shows places to not go.
An showing them to be wrong took someone putting in the hard word to scientifically refute it. Until someone does that for AGW (unlikely IMHO) you have nothing to stand on.
Is that your idea of science? "My cause is the right one, therefore it shouldn't ever be challenged."
No, if you want to seriously challenge climate science orthodoxy (or any other scientific orthodoxy) you need to put in the work first to really understand the science so you can intelligently challenge it in a scientific manner. Repeating past challenges that have been refuted many times already or not paying enough attention to what the orthodoxy is actually saying so you can address it directly just doesn't cut it.
For example the recent claims of 16 years of no warming. If you analyze the temperature records since 1998 statistically it's impossible to say whether the previous trend has continued unabated or if the trend is 0 increase in temperature. The period is just to short. But that doesn't stop climate science deniers from proclaiming it as evidence for the failure of climate science.
Same thing with the claim that climate models failed to predict the current pseudo-pause. If you understand how climate models work and how the results are presented as an average of many individual model runs you would know that they wouldn't be expected to predict such a short term deviation from the average.
So if you really want to challenge current climate science do the work, understand what the current orthodoxy is and come up with something that does a better job of explaining the evolution of climate. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air.
I think it was because of the awesome omelets you could make with their eggs. No eggs hatching no chicks. (TIC)
Not if their money is tied up in corporations.
Huh?!!!!! I've got a lot of money tied up in my house. Should it have First Amendment rights separate from my own? If I want to use my money to extend my First Amendment rights I may have to liquidate some of my assets. What's the difference if it's my house or my investment in a corporation?
Actually, that brings up good point. Corporations are property. They are owned by humans. They don't have consciousness on their own. We don't grant rights to property, just to humans. My position is still that humans don't lose any of their existing rights by being associated with a corporation so why should the corporation have First Amendment rights beyond what their associates have individually on their own.
Whoever modded that Offtopic didn't read it very carefully, or at least should have modded me Offtopic too.
But it becomes illegal, if it's $1 million of a corporation's money. The people whose interests the corporation represents just had their First Amendment rights taken away.
That's just bullshit. Those individuals can make their own expenditures in support of their First Amendment rights which are no less than the First Amendment rights that anyone not associated with a corporation has. If the corporation has rights then they are in addition to the rights their associates have on their own. I haven't always supported the positions of the corporation I'm associated with and it offends me that they can imply that I do through their expenditures.
You seem to think that money is equivalent to free speech but in reality it is merely an amplifier of free speech. Most corporations (especially the large ones) have resources far in excess of of most individuals. That stacks the deck in favor of corporations and wealthy individuals enough and I'm tired of my voice being drowned out by them.
Yeah, hemp doesn't make very good armor.
and what if it was paid for by using bitcoin...
Created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
I don't believe corporations should be able to freely spend their money on partisan politics. The Citizens United decision was a travesty.
September 2016 is two and a half years from now. If NASA's lucky it'll wear out and stop functioning by then. If not then probably a big hue and cry will arise and funding will be found to keep it going.
It turns out that sure, you could - if there was some legal equivalent to corporate personhood to protect your rights in this situation. Otherwise you wouldn't be correct in that assertion.
I fail to see how my rights are curtailed in any way by the corporation I'm associated with not having all the rights you seem to think they should have.
I'm not saying that corporations shouldn't have any rights. There is good reason to grant corporations a limited amount of personhood so they can be treated as a single entity legally and so their investors have liability limited to what they've invested in the corporation but that's about all the rights they need as far as I'm concerned.
I think by treaty Antarctica is a nuclear free area.
One thing to keep in mind is that these towers would be set in ice that is moving so they would have to realigned regularly. The ice at the South Pole is moving about 10 meters per year toward the Weddell Sea.
Finding a sea lion head surprised me considering how much lower sea levels were at the time.