Cherry Picking is coming to a conclusion using only the tree data that supports your claim and then ignoring all tree data that doesn't saying you will "come back to it later" and then release a graph based on your data that is used to "prove" climate change is happening and then later have to get called out on the fact that you haven't fully explained the dissenting data yet.
No, I don't think its worth billions or trillions of dollars to try and stop global warming other then increase our research into Fusion and Solar power. If I can steal something from Michael Chrichton,
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about."
No you weren't, if Cuccinelli was a Supporter of Climate Change Science, and Mann came out with evidence against climate change, the same thing would probably be happening.
If we weren't doomed, then there would be no reason to change our behaviors. The focus would be on adapting to the changes instead of preventing them.
And there were plenty of unanswered questions, like Solar Activity that had to be looked at AFTER they came out with their conclusions. And more questions are brought up all the time.
The way I see it, the cherry picking of data should have been the focus of climate gate, which was only slightly touched upon with the "hide the decline" part.
Science should never have a problem with questions being asked.
And in my opinion, if Global Warming is man-made, then I am not worried at all. In the next 30 years, technology will be developed on its own that will solve all our problems. Most notably, Fusion power. Once it comes along, Fossil Fuels will probably stopped being used within 20 years?
In fact, Global Warming is probably much more dangerous if it is not man made.
I thought Copenhagen stalled because a third of the poorest countries were angry that they would not be allowed to develop and that us Big Countries were getting to much of an advantage?
Yeah, and if its not political groups doing it, its other scientists.
Scientists have persecuted other scientists with dissenting opinions for just as long as there has been science.
You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of climate change?
And if its not able to stand up against political pressure, those people Will Never be coerced.
The greater the Implications of your Discovery, the Greater Burden of Proof there is. The fact that the Climate Scientists came out and said that we are doomed unless we change now, with so many unanswered questions, is bad science.
From his point of view, his state may have spent a large deal of money on something that may have given tainted results.
How many pro-climate change supporters would act any different in the same position had Michael Mann brought proof against global warming?
Religion is a behavior, it's not something should be regulated like race and other innate attributes.
I mean we don't want special legislation protecting people who are homo- or xenophobic.
I want Milton Bradley to come out with a version of Monopoly that involves the players being Pirates and they try to combat the rigors of IP law as they go around the board and collect rare and valuable IP.
True someone else can make it, but it would be satire and not parody.
A right to privacy is inferred upon by the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
The way I see it, this is an ok use of the legal system. They are using civil law in this matter, not criminal and they are trying to get a judge authorized subpoena for the records. At least they aren't using some tool to get the info that doesn't involve the courts.
Now we can argue whether or not you agree with the company to be able to sue for the amounts they can and all that.
Personally, I would love if the US would go to the newly mandated Right to Internet Anonymity that Israel has. An IP cannot be traced to a person...what in this day of being able to spoof IPs and stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Cherry Picking is coming to a conclusion using only the tree data that supports your claim and then ignoring all tree data that doesn't saying you will "come back to it later" and then release a graph based on your data that is used to "prove" climate change is happening and then later have to get called out on the fact that you haven't fully explained the dissenting data yet.
No, I don't think its worth billions or trillions of dollars to try and stop global warming other then increase our research into Fusion and Solar power. If I can steal something from Michael Chrichton,
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about."
No you weren't, if Cuccinelli was a Supporter of Climate Change Science, and Mann came out with evidence against climate change, the same thing would probably be happening.
If we weren't doomed, then there would be no reason to change our behaviors. The focus would be on adapting to the changes instead of preventing them. And there were plenty of unanswered questions, like Solar Activity that had to be looked at AFTER they came out with their conclusions. And more questions are brought up all the time.
But 10 years of no statistically significant warming?
At what point do they decide...something fishy is going on here?
The way I see it, the cherry picking of data should have been the focus of climate gate, which was only slightly touched upon with the "hide the decline" part.
Science should never have a problem with questions being asked.
And in my opinion, if Global Warming is man-made, then I am not worried at all. In the next 30 years, technology will be developed on its own that will solve all our problems. Most notably, Fusion power. Once it comes along, Fossil Fuels will probably stopped being used within 20 years?
In fact, Global Warming is probably much more dangerous if it is not man made.
I don't think you understood what I wrote.
Wouldn't it be more like that the warming was so low that it could easily be explained with sampling accuracy error.
The point is, I would highly doubt that a news periodical like Time would just pull a story out of their arses without any actual basis to them.
The problem with treaties are, most other nations can cheat on them, but when we have a treaty, by our Constitution, they become law.
I don't know about you, but I would expect the glaciers to recede and the arctic ice to thin in periods between ice ages.
There is also the part that arctic ice has actually been increasing over the past few years.
There was an article in Time magazine about it 40 years ago. So how can you say it was a myth?
And if not genetic, at least hormonal.
Didn't one of the leading climate scientists come out and say there wasn't any statistically important heating of the earth over the past 10 years?
I thought Copenhagen stalled because a third of the poorest countries were angry that they would not be allowed to develop and that us Big Countries were getting to much of an advantage?
Yeah, and if its not political groups doing it, its other scientists. Scientists have persecuted other scientists with dissenting opinions for just as long as there has been science.
But how many of those thousands of papers and researchers used Mann's research as a basis?
You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of climate change? And if its not able to stand up against political pressure, those people Will Never be coerced.
The greater the Implications of your Discovery, the Greater Burden of Proof there is. The fact that the Climate Scientists came out and said that we are doomed unless we change now, with so many unanswered questions, is bad science.
From his point of view, his state may have spent a large deal of money on something that may have given tainted results. How many pro-climate change supporters would act any different in the same position had Michael Mann brought proof against global warming?
When Scientists act like politicians, I don't find it hard to believe that politicians will soon act like scientists.
Religion is a behavior, it's not something should be regulated like race and other innate attributes. I mean we don't want special legislation protecting people who are homo- or xenophobic.
I want Milton Bradley to come out with a version of Monopoly that involves the players being Pirates and they try to combat the rigors of IP law as they go around the board and collect rare and valuable IP. True someone else can make it, but it would be satire and not parody.
A right to privacy is inferred upon by the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments. The way I see it, this is an ok use of the legal system. They are using civil law in this matter, not criminal and they are trying to get a judge authorized subpoena for the records. At least they aren't using some tool to get the info that doesn't involve the courts. Now we can argue whether or not you agree with the company to be able to sue for the amounts they can and all that. Personally, I would love if the US would go to the newly mandated Right to Internet Anonymity that Israel has. An IP cannot be traced to a person...what in this day of being able to spoof IPs and stuff.