Consider that these same scientists could be sucked into serial lawsuits regarding undisclosed emails, methodology of data filtration/smoothing, disclosure of raw unmodified data which in some cases doesn't exist anymore, detailed explanations of climate models, etc.
Scientist's emails are beside the point. It's what they say in their published, peer reviewed papers that matters. As far as the rest of that, methodology is in the published papers, raw data has not been deleted* and the source code for several of the major climate models is freely available for download. If scientists get sued over any of that they'll win easily.
* Back in the 1980's when the cost of storing data was much higher than it is lately the CRU threw out some data that they no longer needed but the original sources of the data still have their copies so no data was lost.
They also gave money to the Berkeley Earth project. That one didn't quite turn out like they wanted.
They also tried to give money to the Florida State University Economics Department with some provisos:
First, the curriculum it funded must align with the libertarian, deregulatory economic philosophy of Charles Koch. Second, the Charles Koch Foundation would at least partially control which faculty members Florida State University hired. And third, Bruce Benson, a prominent libertarian economic theorist and Florida State University economics department chairman, must stay on another three years as department chairman — even though he told his wife he’d step down in 2009 after one three-year term.
Of course there are. They like climate science deniers are unscientific ideologues. When I have the opportunity I try to point out their failures as well. The science it what it is and is not subject to political arguments from either side.
That's a reference to the climate science deniers in the previous sentence. More specifically someone whose ideology drives them to be "skeptical" of some scientific knowledge but who will uncritically accept something that appears to support their position even though usually they're just misinterpreting what was said. As an example they hear the news that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in extent lately and automatically assume that means it must be getting colder therefore no global warming. They never bother to dig deeper into the scientific research about it.
Mueller was a skeptic in the true sense of the word in that he had is reservations about global warming data but when he researched it he was convinced by the evidence. That's as opposed to the many climate science deniers who like to call themselves skeptics. Most of them are "skeptical" of mainstream climate science but will wholeheartedly accept anything that appears to call it into question with no skepticism at all.
Also, his study failed to adequately account for the heat-island effect, and had trouble getting published for that reason.
I've heard nothing about problems Berkeley Earth had with the heat island effect. As I understand it the reason they had trouble getting some of their early stuff published was because it was just a repeat of stuff that had already been published by others and was therefore redundant.
I am an engineer with chemical and biological background. I've seen more than I want to in commercialized conclusions by PhD scientists that were really just hired guns, corporate and academic. In some cases they got unhired because I proved things otherwise and showed long stretches of repeated, highly biased results.
I think paycheck corruption in science today is even worse, like with the CAGW promoters.
In over 25 years of intense study (the IPCC was formed in 1988) no one has yet "showed long stretches of repeated, highly biased results." You'd think if climate scientists were really practicing the bad science that they get accused of it wouldn't be that hard to take them down and get them "unhired".
A scientist first understands the process of science. That's why people who try to dismiss non-climate scientists with a wave of the hand and the statement "you aren't a climate scientist", when the issue is how data are handled, are wrong. Any scientist has standing to say "you can't just throw out all the data that doesn't support your hypothesis and then claim you've proven it."
While what you say is true I have yet to see anyone prove that climate scientists have mishandled their data in any significant way.
The Airbus A-380 is about 20% less costly than the 747-8. They're wasting taxpayer money as usual.
Since the 747-8 is closely related to the older model 747s that they modified for the current AF1 fleet it should but much easier and less costly to make the modifications for the new ones. Modifications for the A-380 would be completely new designs.
The last CO2 spike comparable to the current one was the PETM about 55.8 million years ago. The rate of carbon increase then appears to be at least 10 times slower than it is now and there was a mass extinction that accompanied it on benthic formaminifera. If the rate today was 10 times slower ocean life would have a much better chance of being able to adapt.
I don't think that's true. On a cloudy but windy night in the desert it doesn't get nearly as cold as on a clear windless night all other things being equal. In fact when I searched for "Desert nighttime cooling" here is the first thing that came up. It basically says under clear low humidity conditions at night radiative cooling is by far the the largest reason for cooling.
1 nanosecond..., honestly, that's typically British. In the US that battery would have been trashed already. The Brits are way too much attached to these long lasting historical figures. And royalty is another example.
As you can see the temperature rise from 1904-1903 to 2004-2014 is 0.99 degrees. Looking at it in decadal slices takes out the noise of year to year variability.
In the "big picture", there aren't many effective levers to pull to solve the warming problem, and the cost of pulling them is higher than the benefit.
Sez you. I've seen plenty of analyses from others including economists that say otherwise. At the rate we're going the "small amount" of warming over a few hundred years is still 10 times faster than the warming at the end of the last glaciation (ice age) and will cause sea level rise in 10's of feet.
I would probably vote no because solar and wind power are cheaper than nuclear. I'm not against nuclear power for environmental reasons although it has its problems there but because they are expensive. If someone develops inexpensive modular nuclear power units I'd be willing to see them deployed.
So what? 2014 certainly is in the top 5 hottest years ever in the instrument record. As I said you're getting lost in the details and not seeing the big picture.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's only the climate science deniers who try to equate all denial with holocaust deniers in an attempt to get some sympathy.
"
Consider that these same scientists could be sucked into serial lawsuits regarding undisclosed emails, methodology of data filtration/smoothing, disclosure of raw unmodified data which in some cases doesn't exist anymore, detailed explanations of climate models, etc.
Scientist's emails are beside the point. It's what they say in their published, peer reviewed papers that matters. As far as the rest of that, methodology is in the published papers, raw data has not been deleted* and the source code for several of the major climate models is freely available for download. If scientists get sued over any of that they'll win easily.
* Back in the 1980's when the cost of storing data was much higher than it is lately the CRU threw out some data that they no longer needed but the original sources of the data still have their copies so no data was lost.
They also gave money to the Berkeley Earth project. That one didn't quite turn out like they wanted.
They also tried to give money to the Florida State University Economics Department with some provisos:
First, the curriculum it funded must align with the libertarian, deregulatory economic philosophy of Charles Koch. Second, the Charles Koch Foundation would at least partially control which faculty members Florida State University hired. And third, Bruce Benson, a prominent libertarian economic theorist and Florida State University economics department chairman, must stay on another three years as department chairman — even though he told his wife he’d step down in 2009 after one three-year term.
So much for academic freedom.
Reminds me of a song by Fred Small: "Hot Frogs on the Loose" about radioactive frogs at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory getting loose.
Of course there are. They like climate science deniers are unscientific ideologues. When I have the opportunity I try to point out their failures as well. The science it what it is and is not subject to political arguments from either side.
That's a reference to the climate science deniers in the previous sentence. More specifically someone whose ideology drives them to be "skeptical" of some scientific knowledge but who will uncritically accept something that appears to support their position even though usually they're just misinterpreting what was said. As an example they hear the news that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in extent lately and automatically assume that means it must be getting colder therefore no global warming. They never bother to dig deeper into the scientific research about it.
What makes you think those two sentences were about scientists?
That's just plain silly. If your science isn't rigorous enough you'll surely be one of the ones who perishes.
Mueller was a skeptic in the true sense of the word in that he had is reservations about global warming data but when he researched it he was convinced by the evidence. That's as opposed to the many climate science deniers who like to call themselves skeptics. Most of them are "skeptical" of mainstream climate science but will wholeheartedly accept anything that appears to call it into question with no skepticism at all.
Also, his study failed to adequately account for the heat-island effect, and had trouble getting published for that reason.
I've heard nothing about problems Berkeley Earth had with the heat island effect. As I understand it the reason they had trouble getting some of their early stuff published was because it was just a repeat of stuff that had already been published by others and was therefore redundant.
I am an engineer with chemical and biological background. I've seen more than I want to in commercialized conclusions by PhD scientists that were really just hired guns, corporate and academic. In some cases they got unhired because I proved things otherwise and showed long stretches of repeated, highly biased results.
I think paycheck corruption in science today is even worse, like with the CAGW promoters.
In over 25 years of intense study (the IPCC was formed in 1988) no one has yet "showed long stretches of repeated, highly biased results." You'd think if climate scientists were really practicing the bad science that they get accused of it wouldn't be that hard to take them down and get them "unhired".
Far more than you'll ever figure out.
Maybe so but in the end the scientific method overcame all of that. That's the beauty of science. There is ultimately no opinion, just reality.
A scientist first understands the process of science. That's why people who try to dismiss non-climate scientists with a wave of the hand and the statement "you aren't a climate scientist", when the issue is how data are handled, are wrong. Any scientist has standing to say "you can't just throw out all the data that doesn't support your hypothesis and then claim you've proven it."
While what you say is true I have yet to see anyone prove that climate scientists have mishandled their data in any significant way.
The Airbus A-380 is about 20% less costly than the 747-8. They're wasting taxpayer money as usual.
Since the 747-8 is closely related to the older model 747s that they modified for the current AF1 fleet it should but much easier and less costly to make the modifications for the new ones. Modifications for the A-380 would be completely new designs.
You're sidestepping the question. As Shakespeare said "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
For the President's Goodluck sake (yes, Goodluck is actually his real name) ...
Actually it should be President Jonathan as his full name is Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan.
I was commenting more on the "In the US that battery would have been trashed already." comment than anything else.
The last CO2 spike comparable to the current one was the PETM about 55.8 million years ago. The rate of carbon increase then appears to be at least 10 times slower than it is now and there was a mass extinction that accompanied it on benthic formaminifera. If the rate today was 10 times slower ocean life would have a much better chance of being able to adapt.
I don't think that's true. On a cloudy but windy night in the desert it doesn't get nearly as cold as on a clear windless night all other things being equal. In fact when I searched for "Desert nighttime cooling" here is the first thing that came up. It basically says under clear low humidity conditions at night radiative cooling is by far the the largest reason for cooling.
1 nanosecond..., honestly, that's typically British. In the US that battery would have been trashed already. The Brits are way too much attached to these long lasting historical figures. And royalty is another example.
Well, there is a light bulb in Livermore, CA that's been burning for 114 years. That hasn't been continuous as there have been some power outages and it's been moved a few times but the Livermore fire department seems pretty attached to it.
I think you'll be surprised how soon the base load issue of solar and wind get solved.
Living in the Pacific Northwest we have lots of hydro-power and wind.
As I posted in a previous reply here is more of a big picture look at it:
GISTemp Decadal Global Surface Temperature
(Anomaly from 1950-1981 mean)
Decade_______Anomaly
1884-1893_____-0.26
1894-1903_____-0.25
1904-1913_____-0.40
1914-1923_____-0.28
1924-1933_____-0.17
1934-1943_____+0.00
1944-1953_____-0.03
1954-1963_____-0.02
1964-1973_____-0.02
1974-1983_____+0.10
1984-1993_____+0.24
1994-2003_____+0.46
2004-2014_____+0.59
As you can see the temperature rise from 1904-1903 to 2004-2014 is 0.99 degrees. Looking at it in decadal slices takes out the noise of year to year variability.
In the "big picture", there aren't many effective levers to pull to solve the warming problem, and the cost of pulling them is higher than the benefit.
Sez you. I've seen plenty of analyses from others including economists that say otherwise. At the rate we're going the "small amount" of warming over a few hundred years is still 10 times faster than the warming at the end of the last glaciation (ice age) and will cause sea level rise in 10's of feet.
I would probably vote no because solar and wind power are cheaper than nuclear. I'm not against nuclear power for environmental reasons although it has its problems there but because they are expensive. If someone develops inexpensive modular nuclear power units I'd be willing to see them deployed.
So what? 2014 certainly is in the top 5 hottest years ever in the instrument record. As I said you're getting lost in the details and not seeing the big picture.
Try Berkeley Earth. The source files for their analysis are here. The description of their dataset is here where they say they used raw data wherever possible and describe the filtering they did.