It requires a regulating body to base their decisions on public data. That means data must be opened to the public AND they aren't allowed to pass regulations that go against sound science.
I'd like you to point out at least a couple of instances where that isn't true of the EPA's findings already.
But go ahead - tell me how global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world for political reasons. [snicker]
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.
So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?
The reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to leave IRAQ we didn't bother to finish stabilizing the situation.
We could be there 50 years and still have no hope of stabilizing the situation (maybe if we just installed another dictator like Saddam). Stabilizing is not something we can impose but is something they'll have to work out internally.
The middle class has been fading ever since Reagan was President. It's a product of supply side economics and the emphasis on the wealthy and the demonization of unions. The rich keep getting richer leaving less money available for the rest of us.
Ah... You apparently believe that climate scientists are "cooking" the numbers for nefarious reasons. The reasons and methods for the adjustments are all out in the open although it takes some scientific knowledge to understand them. Here is an explanation from Berkeley Earth about their data set and filtering. Everything they do there is out in the open.
So I await your scientifically based reasons not to accept the current adjusted temperature data sets.
Because news organizations think the error bars are too confusing for regular people. They're probably right. But the probabilities of 2014 being the hottest year were mentioned prominently in the joint NOAA/NASA press conference on the subject. Here are the graphics from that press conference. See page 5.
Maybe there is a correlation with temperature and lightening but where is the causation and what way does it flow? My guess would be since warming causes more atmospheric water vapor that could lead to more lightening.
Just use the satellite data, which can't be fiddled with.
There is far more "fiddling" done just to produce the satellite temperature data than there is to produce the surface temperature data. In the first place satellites don't measure temperature directly. Instead they measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules which serve as a proxy for temperatures in blobs of the atmosphere above the surface. They have to be adjusted for things like orbital decay, estimated sensor drift, changes in the time of observation and to account for things like clouds and high elevations (the Himalayas). Only then can they derive a temperature from the satellites.
Also the "average" temperature is not something that can be directly observed.
That may be true in the sense that you can't instantaneously measure the temperature of every square Planck length of area on the surface of the Earth. But by choosing a representative sample of stations around the world and consistently deriving an average temperature you can get an idea of how temperature is changing over time which is what we really care about.
Look around yourself. I don't know about you, but I can't say that losing this failed system we call civilization sounds more like a chance for a reboot than anything else.
Maybe so but that reboot process is going to take a while and be unpleasant for everybody (except maybe masochists). It might also mean a significant drop in world population.
Well, first of all "climate change" is a far older term than "global warming". Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" in 1958. The terms are used interchangeably.
The rest of your post is just hyperbolic.
I imagine you're giggling a lot more about the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are a major factor in Earth's climate than I am about penicillin.
Mann did disclose the source of his funding. That's the issue here, Soon didn't. Anything you need to know about his research is in his published work and that's what he should be judged on. Anything else is irrelevant.
Capitalism's problem as it is currently practiced is it's too easy to externalize costs and foist them off on someone else or society in general. It's a distortion of capitalism when the full cost of something is not included in its price.
I have to wonder what Freeman Dyson would say if he sat down for a day with someone like James Hansen who could speak with him on his level about the issues. I suspect he might change his tune.
The whole issue with Soon was not that he was funded by a fossil fuel company but that he failed to disclose that he was funded by a fossil fuel company. In most cases a study funded by a government grant is required to disclose the source of the funding in published papers and it's good scientific ethics to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Studies funded by the National Science Foundation, a major source of the funding you're talking about, explicitly require that you note the grant number in your published papers. From that you should have no problem auditing where the money went.
More money may be spent in climate research but how much of that goes into designing, building, launching and downloading data from satellites? How much of it goes into supercomputers and other hardware? How much goes in to funding expeditions to remote sites? Very little gets spent on that sort of thing by the other side.
Consensus is the exact opposite of science. If we went with the consensus, the Earth would be flat, the sun would revolve around the Earth, the moon would be made of cheese, etc. Science is questioning *everything*. Anybody who says there is a consensus in AGW and opposition is to be silenced or downplayed is anti-science.
What are *you* afraid of?
You don't understand what a scientific consensus is. In science a consensus exists when there are no longer arguments among the practitioners of a science about a particular point in that science. It's not something they vote on, it just happens organically.
It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community" producing the claims regarding global warming ^H^H "climate change." You know, the "global warming" ^H^H "climate change" studies that are used to justify calls for the government to seize all control of the economy and society to "prevent" "climate change." They want to protect their investment.
I wonder how much funding George Soros and his cronies have into this now?
Where are the "Funny" mods? I laughed so hard at that I had to explain to my coworkers what I was laughing at.
Slashdot Mirror
I know of at least 3 rightist scientists who would laugh at your characterization of climate science being fused with leftist ideology.
It requires a regulating body to base their decisions on public data. That means data must be opened to the public AND they aren't allowed to pass regulations that go against sound science.
I'd like you to point out at least a couple of instances where that isn't true of the EPA's findings already.
But go ahead - tell me how global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world for political reasons. [snicker]
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.
So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?
The reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to leave IRAQ we didn't bother to finish stabilizing the situation.
We could be there 50 years and still have no hope of stabilizing the situation (maybe if we just installed another dictator like Saddam). Stabilizing is not something we can impose but is something they'll have to work out internally.
The middle class has been fading ever since Reagan was President. It's a product of supply side economics and the emphasis on the wealthy and the demonization of unions. The rich keep getting richer leaving less money available for the rest of us.
Ah... You apparently believe that climate scientists are "cooking" the numbers for nefarious reasons. The reasons and methods for the adjustments are all out in the open although it takes some scientific knowledge to understand them. Here is an explanation from Berkeley Earth about their data set and filtering. Everything they do there is out in the open.
So I await your scientifically based reasons not to accept the current adjusted temperature data sets.
No one has done that and even if you took the raw unadjusted data and used that the results wouldn't be much different than using adjusted data.
If you think they're trying to take your money now just wait til you have to pay the cost of adapting to global warming.
Actually the next ice age is indefinitely postponed until CO2 levels drop below about 250 ppm again.
Because news organizations think the error bars are too confusing for regular people. They're probably right. But the probabilities of 2014 being the hottest year were mentioned prominently in the joint NOAA/NASA press conference on the subject. Here are the graphics from that press conference. See page 5.
What does that have to do with anything I wrote.
Maybe there is a correlation with temperature and lightening but where is the causation and what way does it flow? My guess would be since warming causes more atmospheric water vapor that could lead to more lightening.
Just use the satellite data, which can't be fiddled with.
There is far more "fiddling" done just to produce the satellite temperature data than there is to produce the surface temperature data. In the first place satellites don't measure temperature directly. Instead they measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules which serve as a proxy for temperatures in blobs of the atmosphere above the surface. They have to be adjusted for things like orbital decay, estimated sensor drift, changes in the time of observation and to account for things like clouds and high elevations (the Himalayas). Only then can they derive a temperature from the satellites.
Also the "average" temperature is not something that can be directly observed.
That may be true in the sense that you can't instantaneously measure the temperature of every square Planck length of area on the surface of the Earth. But by choosing a representative sample of stations around the world and consistently deriving an average temperature you can get an idea of how temperature is changing over time which is what we really care about.
Look around yourself. I don't know about you, but I can't say that losing this failed system we call civilization sounds more like a chance for a reboot than anything else.
Maybe so but that reboot process is going to take a while and be unpleasant for everybody (except maybe masochists). It might also mean a significant drop in world population.
Well, there have been science fiction stories about intelligent beings existing in/as plasma. Maybe we can figure that out.
Well, first of all "climate change" is a far older term than "global warming". Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" in 1958. The terms are used interchangeably.
The rest of your post is just hyperbolic.
I imagine you're giggling a lot more about the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are a major factor in Earth's climate than I am about penicillin.
Mann did disclose the source of his funding. That's the issue here, Soon didn't. Anything you need to know about his research is in his published work and that's what he should be judged on. Anything else is irrelevant.
Capitalism's problem as it is currently practiced is it's too easy to externalize costs and foist them off on someone else or society in general. It's a distortion of capitalism when the full cost of something is not included in its price.
I have to wonder what Freeman Dyson would say if he sat down for a day with someone like James Hansen who could speak with him on his level about the issues. I suspect he might change his tune.
The whole issue with Soon was not that he was funded by a fossil fuel company but that he failed to disclose that he was funded by a fossil fuel company. In most cases a study funded by a government grant is required to disclose the source of the funding in published papers and it's good scientific ethics to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Studies funded by the National Science Foundation, a major source of the funding you're talking about, explicitly require that you note the grant number in your published papers. From that you should have no problem auditing where the money went.
More money may be spent in climate research but how much of that goes into designing, building, launching and downloading data from satellites? How much of it goes into supercomputers and other hardware? How much goes in to funding expeditions to remote sites? Very little gets spent on that sort of thing by the other side.
If we are questioning Soon because in the PAST he had funding from sources disliked by the left,
The issue isn't who Soon was funded by but the fact that he failed to disclose who he was funded by.
Consensus is the exact opposite of science. If we went with the consensus, the Earth would be flat, the sun would revolve around the Earth, the moon would be made of cheese, etc. Science is questioning *everything*. Anybody who says there is a consensus in AGW and opposition is to be silenced or downplayed is anti-science.
What are *you* afraid of?
You don't understand what a scientific consensus is. In science a consensus exists when there are no longer arguments among the practitioners of a science about a particular point in that science. It's not something they vote on, it just happens organically.
It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community" producing the claims regarding global warming ^H^H "climate change." You know, the "global warming" ^H^H "climate change" studies that are used to justify calls for the government to seize all control of the economy and society to "prevent" "climate change." They want to protect their investment.
I wonder how much funding George Soros and his cronies have into this now?
Where are the "Funny" mods? I laughed so hard at that I had to explain to my coworkers what I was laughing at.
That's a pretty twisted interpretation of what happened.