North America was covered by an ice sheet until about 10,000 years ago.
Strawman argument. Nobody is denying that there have been ice ages in the past. And ice in the last glacial period didn't cover all of North America, just parts of it - have you even read the article you link to? "ice covered most of Canada, the Upper Midwest, and New England, as well as parts of Montana and Washington".
Several studies have shown that these types of incentives tend to cause the behavior to become worse
This only happens when the penalty cost of the action is lower than the true cost of the externality. For the opposite case, consider the successful regulation of sulphur dioxide emissions by the EPA, where an auction based credit system resulted in both significant emission reductions and a credit cost that ultimately became almost negligible to emitters.
If it was cost effective to install greener technology and produce less carbon today, companies would do it and save money.
It will only be cost effective to prevent any form of pollution if that pollution is taxed. If the externality cost of the pollution is paid for by other people (e.g. the tax payer), then it will always be more cost effective to pollute.
"The Hockey Team" and their data had been discredited a long time ago.
Wrong. The "hockey stick" was investigated by a 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, which found that:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."
So, the "hockey stick" is okay, unless you think that the US National Academy of Science are a) liars and b) taking part in a global conspiracy.
The Microsoft research is reproducible. Since we know they used Microsoft software, we can duplicate (after obtaining appropriate permission and licensing from Microsoft) the research.
How do you know Microsoft would provide the source code to another researcher? It's not exactly open, is it? Or how about Intel's research? Much of it is not reproducible without access to CPU models, which they don't provide to anyone else.
We don't even know that any part of this dataset is actually licensed.
The British government does not maintain monitoring stations globally. How do you think it gets global data if it isn't licensed from other nations? Magic?
It should not require an FoI (not FOIA, that's the US equivalent) to extract this information.
In this context, the FOIA acronym stands for Freedom of Information Act. This is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Yes, the act has the same name in the United States, but the term "FOIA" is used to refer to both.
They should be willingly providing this information.
How is the officer processing the request expected to guess that you may want access to some other dataset? If you explicitly say "I want access to dataset X" there's no reason to provide any other dataset - the law does not require going beyond what is requested. As I said, if you want access to another dataset, and you know it is public domain, then request it. If they deny, take the case to court, and you will win. Unless you believe that the entire legal system is also part of the conspiracy...
You ignore my point. Public funds were most likely not used to develop Microsoft code. So a FoI request would not apply.
Public funds were used to generate research that relied on closed Microsoft code. Public funds were used to generate research that relied on a closed climate dataset. It is exactly the same situation. If you are arguing that the climate dataset should become public domain because public funds were used to pay for research that relied upon it, then the same argument means that Microsoft code should become public domain because public funds were also used to pay for research that relied upon it.
Having been in the situation of being unable to reproduce research due to use of commercial CPU models, I'm fully aware of the difficulties of non-reproducible research. I support fully reproducible research and find the counter argument of "well, you could just implement your own models" to be an annoyance. The counter argument in this case would be "well, you could just build your own climate dataset". In both cases the argument is strictly correct - it would be possible to reproduce the research from scratch by building your own dataset or models - but it would take orders of magnitude more time and effort.
The key to understanding this is the meaning of the word "reproducible" - "reproducible" doesn't mean that the experiments must be easily reproducible, it just means that they can be reproduced. An obvious example of this would be the LHC - the total cost is upwards of €4 billion euros, and reproducing the data they generate would mean building a new LHC at significant cost. So, is the research "reproducible"? Sure, if you have €4 billion euros to spend. Does this mean that the LHC research is "not real science"? Most scientists would disagree with that assertion.
If you can't reproduce the data from the sources, then it's not real science.
As I pointed out, as frustrating as this is (and it is a situation I am familiar with), this is the reality of much science today. We live in a world of "Intellectual Property Rights" - copyright and patents - and the reality is that much "science" is built upon closed data and models. I personally have a lot of sympathy for the view that "it's not real science", but understand that many people would disagree - this argument would mean that the research Intel does on CPU models is "not real science" because they don't publish the models and hence the research can't be easily reproduced. Yes, you could build your own CPU models, and yes, there are valid commercial reasons for not publishing the models, but the point still stands that the experiments detailed in the published papers can't be exactly reproduced without access to the original CPU models.
So I should ask everyone possible for permission to receive a copy of this dataset and hope I got them all?
Actually, yes, if you want to show that the dataset is flawed, then this is exactly what you should do. That's how science works - you generate your own data, compare it to the existing models, and see if you can generate a new model that better fits the data. Discovery of some discrepancy between your hypothetical validated, open dataset and a closed one, which had been relied upon in previously published research, that indicated a flaw in the closed dataset would be major news, and would certainly be publishable in the appropriate journals.
This isn't about whether or not an answer is "scientific". It's about whether an answer is correct or not. Saying that something is "impossible" when you know that it is possible is just plain wrong. Why not use the correct terminology, and just say "outcome X is possible, but I think it is unlikely" if that is what you mean?
I see no evidence that this data is licensed from anyone.
So you believe that the British government maintains climate monitoring stations worldwide? If not, where do they get the data from? Do they, perhaps, license it from corporations and organisations in other countries that do maintain monitoring stations abroad? Hmmm? I don't know why you find the idea of commercial licenses for climate datasets so unbelievable, a simple search would find plenty of providers like this one.
That's the claim, but I see no evidence that it's true.
Lying in response to a FOIA request is a crime, and given that most data in this world is copyrighted, the burden is on you to prove that the data is actually public domain. Obviously this is frustrating when you aren't a climate researcher or working at a British university and hence don't have legitimate access to the dataset. On the other hand, a pirated copy of the dataset has been released, and what did it show? Nothing.
Nor will they release data that isn't bound by licensing agreement.
The FOIA request only asked for one dataset. If you want to request another, make another request.
If British public funding is used to develop MS Windows code, then yes, you are right.
Go ahead with the FOIA request. The British government will not open source Windows for the same reason it won't open source any commercially licensed data. The Freedom of Information Act does not override copyright law.
Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. It's possible that we're all living in a simulated universe created explicitly to test various scenarios under which the human species would go extinct. In the case of co2, it is possible that loss of carbon sinks and positive feedback mechanisms could combine to generate catastrophic effects. Or that regional fighting over scarce food resources could escalate into global thermonuclear war.
To be a scientist, you have to accept that anything is possible. What concerns us is the probability.
Those businesses have a valid reason. They are protecting their competitiveness. Releasing this information can lose them lots of money. What's the excuse for hiding scientific data with no obvious business application?
But there already is a business application - the various datasets are commercially licensed by different corporations and countries. Given that this already happens, and real money does change hands in exchange for licensing of these datasets, there obviously is a motive and reason to copyright them.
Given that they were publicly funded? Yes, they must conduct open and free research.
I agree. There are researchers at British universities who work on the Microsoft Windows source code. Let's use an FOIA request to open source that, too. I'm sure the British government will do it, after all, the research they fund must be completely free and open, right?
Intel is not a government agency. An FOIA can't apply to them.
Exactly! The dataset you are talking about is not under Crown Copyright. Most of it is licensed from corporations and government agencies of other nations. You are trying to apply a British FOIA request to a commercially licensed dataset with the logic that it should be free because it is *used* by a British government agency. The request has the same legal standing as a request to free the Windows source code because some British government sponsored researchers use the Windows source code in their research.
Most of us programmers work in a corporate environment where we expect all our emails to be read by our superiors.
No we don't. In fact, reading a person's work email without evidence or need is a crime in many countries.
Comments like, "this works but I don't know why" are common but hardly damning.
Sure, you and I understand that. But do you really think that everyone else in the world would see it the same way? The reality is that a large section of the population would forever think that you were the idiot who barely managed to hack stuff up without understanding how any of it worked. Hey, you said so yourself!
Insulting coworkers in the code is a no-no, and I've never seen it.
But insulting other people does happen. Remember "Netscape engineers are weenies"? Didn't make those Microsoft programmers look very professional, did it?
Fair enough but what exactly is in climate research that needs patenting?
If you're talking about raw datasets, then that is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. If you're talking about climate patents, then there are loads relating to climate tech, e.g Intellectual Ventures "stratoshield".
If the researcher comes back and says "There's no issue with a warming planet." then what kind of funding will they get.
Integrity is everything. If a researcher's science is shown to be fraudulent, what kind of funding will they get? You are essentially arguing that you couldn't ever accept any scientific hypothesis if the scientist making the claim were to gain financially in some way. That is clearly not a rational approach to evaluating science.
So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!. Holy Fucking Shit! How can science do that and still remain respectable?
You have a point. Unfortunately tech corporations like Intel and biotechs like GlaxoSmithKline do not release their raw data either. Science and "Intellectual Property Rights" are unfortunately linked. What is your solution - a law mandating that every scientist must conduct open and free research? Keep in mind that you'd really have to do away with IPR completely to separate it from pure science.
The oil companies can spend however many trillion dollars they want without it coming out of *my* pocket.
Really? You don't buy any goods that are manufactured from oil based materials, using oil driven industrial machinery, or transported in vehicles powered by combustion of oil based liquids?
Scientists who refuse to release raw data when serious questions are raised about their conclusions are not real scientists, and their work is entitled to no credibility whatsoever.
There are loads of scientists who work for corporations like Intel and GlaxoSmithKline who don't release the raw data from their experiments. Temperature datasets are, in many countries, copyrighted by the corporations that gather the data. Attempting to get the datasets by issuing a FOIA request to the British government for the raw data is like trying to open up Intel's semiconductor research by issuing a FOIA request for the raw data. There's just no legal basis for the data to be released under an FOIA request. FOIA requests get turned down every day, and yet when a single FOIA request of a climate sceptic is turned down, people suddenly cry conspiracy...
No it isn't. Plays4Sure was a proprietary Microsoft format for Windows Media DRM. The PC is effectively an open standard that can be implemented by anyone. Android is effectively an open standard that can be implemented by anyone. The analogy of Android to the PC world is much more apt than the analogy to a Windows Media DRM scheme.
Honestly, the BBC is so slanted I don't know how you can say any of that with a straight face.
BBC News doesn't even come close to being biased like Fox. I don't really know how you can say its the same. There are no "Glenn Beck" figures ranting on BBC News. I have never seen a BBC News presenter stating their personal opinion on anything - and the neutrality provisions mean that the organisation as a whole doesn't endorse anybody. How can this be compared to a channel whose a presenter repeatedly calls the President a racist? Not even reporting news that somebody else called the President a racist, but actually just stating their own personal opinion, without any real evidence?
I also think that the BBC as a whole is quite representative of the British nation, which is to say, politically to the left of the US. That you may be politically to the right does not mean that the BBC is non-representative of its population.
You are confusing popularity with quality. Having said that, BBC News gets five million viewers a night just for its News at Ten. That's more than your figures for Fox, CNN and MSNBC combined, in a nation that with 1/6th the population.
A proper market accounting system would have made the mining corporations pay for the cleanup.
The problem is that when people suggest that corporations should pay tax on the externalities that their operations create they get called "tree hugging socialists" or something. There's a huge section of society that doesn't know what an externality is, doesn't care, and has been convinced that taxing companies based on the pollution they generate is some form of anti-freedom anti-American communism.
Slashdot Mirror
North America was covered by an ice sheet until about 10,000 years ago.
Strawman argument. Nobody is denying that there have been ice ages in the past. And ice in the last glacial period didn't cover all of North America, just parts of it - have you even read the article you link to? "ice covered most of Canada, the Upper Midwest, and New England, as well as parts of Montana and Washington".
That Mars is suffering "climate change" too.
Ah, that old chestnut. Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too
Several studies have shown that these types of incentives tend to cause the behavior to become worse
This only happens when the penalty cost of the action is lower than the true cost of the externality. For the opposite case, consider the successful regulation of sulphur dioxide emissions by the EPA, where an auction based credit system resulted in both significant emission reductions and a credit cost that ultimately became almost negligible to emitters.
If it was cost effective to install greener technology and produce less carbon today, companies would do it and save money.
It will only be cost effective to prevent any form of pollution if that pollution is taxed. If the externality cost of the pollution is paid for by other people (e.g. the tax payer), then it will always be more cost effective to pollute.
"The Hockey Team" and their data had been discredited a long time ago.
Wrong. The "hockey stick" was investigated by a 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, which found that:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."
So, the "hockey stick" is okay, unless you think that the US National Academy of Science are a) liars and b) taking part in a global conspiracy.
And I doubt there are any nations in the world licensing weather data.
How about Canada or New Zealand, or EU wide. The UK data is licensed by the MET Office and the Department for Rural Affairs.
And that's just from a 30 second Google search.
The Microsoft research is reproducible. Since we know they used Microsoft software, we can duplicate (after obtaining appropriate permission and licensing from Microsoft) the research.
How do you know Microsoft would provide the source code to another researcher? It's not exactly open, is it? Or how about Intel's research? Much of it is not reproducible without access to CPU models, which they don't provide to anyone else.
We don't even know that any part of this dataset is actually licensed.
The British government does not maintain monitoring stations globally. How do you think it gets global data if it isn't licensed from other nations? Magic?
It should not require an FoI (not FOIA, that's the US equivalent) to extract this information.
In this context, the FOIA acronym stands for Freedom of Information Act. This is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Yes, the act has the same name in the United States, but the term "FOIA" is used to refer to both.
They should be willingly providing this information.
How is the officer processing the request expected to guess that you may want access to some other dataset? If you explicitly say "I want access to dataset X" there's no reason to provide any other dataset - the law does not require going beyond what is requested. As I said, if you want access to another dataset, and you know it is public domain, then request it. If they deny, take the case to court, and you will win. Unless you believe that the entire legal system is also part of the conspiracy...
You ignore my point. Public funds were most likely not used to develop Microsoft code. So a FoI request would not apply.
Public funds were used to generate research that relied on closed Microsoft code. Public funds were used to generate research that relied on a closed climate dataset. It is exactly the same situation. If you are arguing that the climate dataset should become public domain because public funds were used to pay for research that relied upon it, then the same argument means that Microsoft code should become public domain because public funds were also used to pay for research that relied upon it.
Having been in the situation of being unable to reproduce research due to use of commercial CPU models, I'm fully aware of the difficulties of non-reproducible research. I support fully reproducible research and find the counter argument of "well, you could just implement your own models" to be an annoyance. The counter argument in this case would be "well, you could just build your own climate dataset". In both cases the argument is strictly correct - it would be possible to reproduce the research from scratch by building your own dataset or models - but it would take orders of magnitude more time and effort.
The key to understanding this is the meaning of the word "reproducible" - "reproducible" doesn't mean that the experiments must be easily reproducible, it just means that they can be reproduced. An obvious example of this would be the LHC - the total cost is upwards of €4 billion euros, and reproducing the data they generate would mean building a new LHC at significant cost. So, is the research "reproducible"? Sure, if you have €4 billion euros to spend. Does this mean that the LHC research is "not real science"? Most scientists would disagree with that assertion.
If you can't reproduce the data from the sources, then it's not real science.
As I pointed out, as frustrating as this is (and it is a situation I am familiar with), this is the reality of much science today. We live in a world of "Intellectual Property Rights" - copyright and patents - and the reality is that much "science" is built upon closed data and models. I personally have a lot of sympathy for the view that "it's not real science", but understand that many people would disagree - this argument would mean that the research Intel does on CPU models is "not real science" because they don't publish the models and hence the research can't be easily reproduced. Yes, you could build your own CPU models, and yes, there are valid commercial reasons for not publishing the models, but the point still stands that the experiments detailed in the published papers can't be exactly reproduced without access to the original CPU models.
So I should ask everyone possible for permission to receive a copy of this dataset and hope I got them all?
Actually, yes, if you want to show that the dataset is flawed, then this is exactly what you should do. That's how science works - you generate your own data, compare it to the existing models, and see if you can generate a new model that better fits the data. Discovery of some discrepancy between your hypothetical validated, open dataset and a closed one, which had been relied upon in previously published research, that indicated a flaw in the closed dataset would be major news, and would certainly be publishable in the appropriate journals.
This isn't about whether or not an answer is "scientific". It's about whether an answer is correct or not. Saying that something is "impossible" when you know that it is possible is just plain wrong. Why not use the correct terminology, and just say "outcome X is possible, but I think it is unlikely" if that is what you mean?
I see no evidence that this data is licensed from anyone.
So you believe that the British government maintains climate monitoring stations worldwide? If not, where do they get the data from? Do they, perhaps, license it from corporations and organisations in other countries that do maintain monitoring stations abroad? Hmmm? I don't know why you find the idea of commercial licenses for climate datasets so unbelievable, a simple search would find plenty of providers like this one.
That's the claim, but I see no evidence that it's true.
Lying in response to a FOIA request is a crime, and given that most data in this world is copyrighted, the burden is on you to prove that the data is actually public domain. Obviously this is frustrating when you aren't a climate researcher or working at a British university and hence don't have legitimate access to the dataset. On the other hand, a pirated copy of the dataset has been released, and what did it show? Nothing.
Nor will they release data that isn't bound by licensing agreement.
The FOIA request only asked for one dataset. If you want to request another, make another request.
If British public funding is used to develop MS Windows code, then yes, you are right.
Go ahead with the FOIA request. The British government will not open source Windows for the same reason it won't open source any commercially licensed data. The Freedom of Information Act does not override copyright law.
So you are aware that it is possible, but because you are not a scientist, feel justified in saying the opposite? Your logic makes no sense.
2. No. It's not possible.
Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. It's possible that we're all living in a simulated universe created explicitly to test various scenarios under which the human species would go extinct. In the case of co2, it is possible that loss of carbon sinks and positive feedback mechanisms could combine to generate catastrophic effects. Or that regional fighting over scarce food resources could escalate into global thermonuclear war.
To be a scientist, you have to accept that anything is possible. What concerns us is the probability.
Those businesses have a valid reason. They are protecting their competitiveness. Releasing this information can lose them lots of money. What's the excuse for hiding scientific data with no obvious business application?
But there already is a business application - the various datasets are commercially licensed by different corporations and countries. Given that this already happens, and real money does change hands in exchange for licensing of these datasets, there obviously is a motive and reason to copyright them.
Given that they were publicly funded? Yes, they must conduct open and free research.
I agree. There are researchers at British universities who work on the Microsoft Windows source code. Let's use an FOIA request to open source that, too. I'm sure the British government will do it, after all, the research they fund must be completely free and open, right?
Intel is not a government agency. An FOIA can't apply to them.
Exactly! The dataset you are talking about is not under Crown Copyright. Most of it is licensed from corporations and government agencies of other nations. You are trying to apply a British FOIA request to a commercially licensed dataset with the logic that it should be free because it is *used* by a British government agency. The request has the same legal standing as a request to free the Windows source code because some British government sponsored researchers use the Windows source code in their research.
Most of us programmers work in a corporate environment where we expect all our emails to be read by our superiors.
No we don't. In fact, reading a person's work email without evidence or need is a crime in many countries.
Comments like, "this works but I don't know why" are common but hardly damning.
Sure, you and I understand that. But do you really think that everyone else in the world would see it the same way? The reality is that a large section of the population would forever think that you were the idiot who barely managed to hack stuff up without understanding how any of it worked. Hey, you said so yourself!
Insulting coworkers in the code is a no-no, and I've never seen it.
But insulting other people does happen. Remember "Netscape engineers are weenies"? Didn't make those Microsoft programmers look very professional, did it?
Fair enough but what exactly is in climate research that needs patenting?
If you're talking about raw datasets, then that is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. If you're talking about climate patents, then there are loads relating to climate tech, e.g Intellectual Ventures "stratoshield".
If the researcher comes back and says "There's no issue with a warming planet." then what kind of funding will they get.
Integrity is everything. If a researcher's science is shown to be fraudulent, what kind of funding will they get? You are essentially arguing that you couldn't ever accept any scientific hypothesis if the scientist making the claim were to gain financially in some way. That is clearly not a rational approach to evaluating science.
So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!. Holy Fucking Shit! How can science do that and still remain respectable?
You have a point. Unfortunately tech corporations like Intel and biotechs like GlaxoSmithKline do not release their raw data either. Science and "Intellectual Property Rights" are unfortunately linked. What is your solution - a law mandating that every scientist must conduct open and free research? Keep in mind that you'd really have to do away with IPR completely to separate it from pure science.
You obviously aren't a scientist. A scientist would not make such bold and certain claims that discount the possibility of specific outcomes.
Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.
How do you know?
The change will be extremely slow and gradual.
How do you know? Isn't it *possible* that the change may be fast?
The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.
Why do you discount the possibility of humans going extinct? Is it possible?
There is nothing humans can do to stop it.
Several mechanisms have already been proposed. How do you know they will all fail? Isn't it possible that some will work?
The oil companies can spend however many trillion dollars they want without it coming out of *my* pocket.
Really? You don't buy any goods that are manufactured from oil based materials, using oil driven industrial machinery, or transported in vehicles powered by combustion of oil based liquids?
Scientists who refuse to release raw data when serious questions are raised about their conclusions are not real scientists, and their work is entitled to no credibility whatsoever.
There are loads of scientists who work for corporations like Intel and GlaxoSmithKline who don't release the raw data from their experiments. Temperature datasets are, in many countries, copyrighted by the corporations that gather the data. Attempting to get the datasets by issuing a FOIA request to the British government for the raw data is like trying to open up Intel's semiconductor research by issuing a FOIA request for the raw data. There's just no legal basis for the data to be released under an FOIA request. FOIA requests get turned down every day, and yet when a single FOIA request of a climate sceptic is turned down, people suddenly cry conspiracy...
That's the same thing they said about Plays4Sure.
No it isn't. Plays4Sure was a proprietary Microsoft format for Windows Media DRM. The PC is effectively an open standard that can be implemented by anyone. Android is effectively an open standard that can be implemented by anyone. The analogy of Android to the PC world is much more apt than the analogy to a Windows Media DRM scheme.
Honestly, the BBC is so slanted I don't know how you can say any of that with a straight face.
BBC News doesn't even come close to being biased like Fox. I don't really know how you can say its the same. There are no "Glenn Beck" figures ranting on BBC News. I have never seen a BBC News presenter stating their personal opinion on anything - and the neutrality provisions mean that the organisation as a whole doesn't endorse anybody. How can this be compared to a channel whose a presenter repeatedly calls the President a racist? Not even reporting news that somebody else called the President a racist, but actually just stating their own personal opinion, without any real evidence?
I also think that the BBC as a whole is quite representative of the British nation, which is to say, politically to the left of the US. That you may be politically to the right does not mean that the BBC is non-representative of its population.
You are confusing popularity with quality. Having said that, BBC News gets five million viewers a night just for its News at Ten. That's more than your figures for Fox, CNN and MSNBC combined, in a nation that with 1/6th the population.
A proper market accounting system would have made the mining corporations pay for the cleanup.
The problem is that when people suggest that corporations should pay tax on the externalities that their operations create they get called "tree hugging socialists" or something. There's a huge section of society that doesn't know what an externality is, doesn't care, and has been convinced that taxing companies based on the pollution they generate is some form of anti-freedom anti-American communism.