I tell you what, if they come to me and tell me I have to pay umteen thousands of dollars a year to follow the agenda of the environ whackos, they better have it fucking laid out song and verse...
YOU aren't paying thousands of dollars. YOU are paying a couple of bucks. Climate research makes up.1% of the national budget. Yet I don't see you making this claim of the bulk of the thousands of dollars YOU DO pay every year to the government in taxes on, well, just about everything.
...and if I have questions they damned well better not call me names...
No one's calling you names because you aren't important enough. You don't have the qualifications to judge the complex science behind climate studies. Honestly, most scientist care very little of what the layman thinks because any dog and pony show with enough flash and cash can change the layman's mind. Unless you've got three letters after your name in a field related to climate science, they're not going to pay attention to you.
Besides, what incentive do they have to answer your questions. So far, every time they've tried to explain they've been shouted down by the mad dog skeptics. The average person simply does not understand the scientific process, let alone climate science. You don't need to be a genius to figure this out; just go to any skeptic site. Almost all of them boil down to "SHE'S A WITCH!!!".
Now what about everyone else in the government who doesn't answer your questions? Do you hold them to the same standard?
If the don't and then do, they and you can go fuck yourself.
Precisely their general response to mad dog skeptics. They've been telling skeptics to put up or shut up, and so far no one seems to want take up the challenge. There are no models out there that show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere DOES NOT increase global average temperatures, for example.
For that matter, before they try the bullshit cap and trade, they should be advocating nuclear energy.
Agreed.
Because if everything they say is true, that is the only way out. Not fucking windmills or wave generators. Not solar or geothermal.
Not true. Renewable sources have their place, but it would be hard to supply world energy needs by using JUST renewable power. For example, we (the US) could have reduce 30%+ of our reliance on fossil fuels for electricity if instead of bailing out banks we took that money and deployed solar panel systems to every household in the US.
We need to mindful of our energy sources AS WELL as our efficiency in using them.
The fact that they are not advocating this and want us to live in the fucking stone age means they are probably gaming the whole thing.
You're confusing scientists and enviro-nuts. Scientists are presenting research and advocating we do something about it. Some may even make suggestions. But ultimately those decisions are made by the governments, which to my knowledge, are unlikely to drop back to oxen pulled plows and parchment.
As with any group, there are individuals who are out for personal gain (though why they'd bother in climate science I don't know; there really isn't a lot of money in it). That happens. But just because YOU do not understand something doesn't mean that any particular group must answer to YOU.
Repeat a lie often enough and soon people will believe it is the truth.
How can the average citizen fight back against a corporation? How can Joe Sixpack run for Senator when Jane Doughnut has Big Oil buying out the airwaves for her? Will anyone even know Joe Sixpack is running?
The direct result of this is corporate interest will win. Republican or Democrat, candidates will cater to their corporate sponsors. Remember Steven Colbert's campaign for presidency sponsored by Doritos? WELL THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO FUCKING HAPPEN!
Unless you got boatloads of your own cash there is no way to fight a multi-corporate propaganda machine. Think about the RIAA or the MPAA. Jumpin' Jesus in a trash compactor, think of fucking Fox News!
We will see how this plays out this fall. You might want to get your cable disconnected.
Senator: "We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks!" TSA1: "I can see your penis." Senator: "Err....well...uhhhh..." TSA2: "Your wife has nice tits, too." Senator: "Now wait a just a minute..." TSA3: "Mmm...barely legal T&A. Are you sure that daughter is yours?" Senator: "May God smite you! I am outraged!" TSA1: "Sir, you are behaving in an odd manner. I'm afraid we'll need to do a full cavity search." TSA2: "The wife's mine." TSA3: "Dibs on the daughter!" Senator: "My God, what have I done?" God: "Fucking idiot."
I know. Maybe the CIA can help spin... explain how anthropogenic global warming is causing the worldwide Arctic blasts right now that are causing the coldest winter in decades worldwide, I'm glad the CIA is getting involved to help push the political agenda along.
Well climatroll, first you need to understand the difference between climatology and meteorology. Seems a lot of the mad dog skeptic crowd can't differentiate between these two very well and seem to have tendancy to claim that their backyard thermometer refutes the science. It doesn't.
Then perhaps you could pick up a book on basic meteorology and climatology and...you know...see for yourself. But to explain it simply, We have a strong El Nino going on along with several other anomalies that have have been pushing the arctic air masses out of the arctic. This cold air, amazingly, has to head south. Since we are in winter here in the northern hemisphere, there are no strong subtropical or tropical air masses to counteract these air masses (when there are, you get massive storms such as in sprint in the midwest).
And despite the cold temperatures we are still at a net positive anomaly. In the NORTHERN hemisphere we may end up going net negative, but temps in the southern hemisphere are quite toasty.
Nothing says "increase government power" like a worldwide spy agency.
Nothing says paranoia like "AHHHH! THERE OUT TO GET ME!!!!". If you RTFA, you'll see that this is using data the CIA already has (in the form of images and the like) to get a better idea of what areas are being impacted by climate change. This actually isn't new, since the were doing this before.
Funny how in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming, but in the winter, it becomes anthropogenic climate change.
I guess you haven't been paying attention. It's been "climate change" for a while, since "global warming" (as you have so eloquently demonstrated) has and continues to be used in a disingenuous way. The average temperature of the planet is warming, but not everywhere is going to get warmer. A number of places will get cooler.
Seriously, as long as the data is honestly looked it at and made public and not "influenced" by any political factors, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to twist the facts in order to push political agenda.
Why do you need politics when you got Glen Beck and Sean Hannity?
And sorry, but everything is political. Where there is money, you will find politics. But more to the point, what are you talking about? What is the nefarious purpose of the global climate science community? Considering even now that climate research money is a mere pittance compared to just about anything else, exactly what is the drive of the evil global cabal? Cleaner air? Less pollution? Less reliance on foreign fossil fuels?
Hell if all they wanted was money they just need to switch careers since a lot of fields pay more.
Along these lines, as another poster mentioned, it is actually in the government's interest for there to NOT be climate change. Do you think Uncle Sam wants to pay billions in public works to minimize climate impacts instead of diverting those funds into the slush-piles of senator's pet projects and pockets?
The flat earth society has more credibility than a climate conspiracy.
Now we have governments offering billions to people who prove climate change - do you really think any of them are going to provide evidence to their masters that it's not real?
Oh yes billions. Oh all those billions making climate scientists filthy rich.
Except that the total budget last year for climate related studies in the US was $2 billion. The only reason it was so high was because a good chunk of that money is going towards new satellites for monitoring weather AND climate. The rest goes towards grants and the like.
Oh and the fact that $2 billion isn't even pocket change when compared to the national budget. And there are DARPA grants that are bigger than than COMBINED grant money going towards climate research.
There's also the fact that the average pay for a climate scientist is less than the average IT person as well.
You don't get rich being a climate scientist. Come up with a better conspiracy theory, climatroll.
This is supposed to inspire fear? Some idiot sets himself on fire and then gets his ass kicked up and down the plane, and that's supposed to inspire fear?
Oh. Sorry. Forgot this is the land of FOX. Land of the sheep, home of the inane. All visitors to America, please have your passports and be ready for anal violation.
If your content shows up in Google's results and they make any money off it, then you as the creator of that content should get a portion of that money.
You are. You're getting free advertising. If you want even better advertising, you can pay more for it. But only the utterly delusional/idiotic would think that they are getting NOTHING from having Google link to their content.
Otherwise why do we have copyright laws at all?
Originally? Or now?
The original copyright laws were to grant the author a monopoly for a fixed period of time to reward them for their works. Now, copyright laws are used to create a perpetual monopoly and act as cultural sledgehammer.
Look, if you want to be a complete jackass and prevent any search engines for indexing your content, then lock your precious copyrighted materials behind a paywall. Use robots.txt. Make requests to have your content removed. But I'll bet you dollars to dog nuts that you're shooting yourself in the ass by doing so. These days, if it doesn't come up in a search engine IT DOES NOT EXIST.
In a fair world, google and bing should need to set up accounts for each website and pay back a portion of their revenue each time that site's contents appears in a search result with ads in it
In a fair world, you should be on your knees thanking the gods of technology and software that something like Google even exists to link your content to the outside world FOR FREE. You are getting advertisement FOR FREE. Thousands, if not millions of people who would never know you're content existed will know it does FOR FREE. You are getting worldwide exposure FOR FREE.
So choose. Pay for that exposure out of you're own pocket, or have search engines like Google do it FOR FREE.
Actually, the problems today began back in the 80's when the first wave of banking deregulation happened under Reagan. That eventually lead to the S&L scandal. However, that didn't keep deregulation from happening. The late 90's was the next big flub. After World War Web happened, interest rates were dropped through the floor. The deregulation removed leverage limits and all those other pesky regulations that prevented banks from acting like drunken sailors. Then the whole thing fell apart when everyone realized they were holding steaming piles instead of pipe dreams.
There is no one party to fault here. This was helped along by both sides of the aisle, at the insistence of big banking. Enough green and you can make anything happen in congress. It also helps if your elected congress creature can't tell the the difference between a CD and a CDS.
In any event, the greed fueled money orgy was pushed for by the banks and granted by congress with BOTH parties. The measures were signed by presidents of BOTH parties.
WE, the people, were screwed by just about everyone. At least they bought us a drink ("stimulus" checks).
So every mad dog skeptic should get his day in court? I hardly think that is an efficient use of time and/or resources.
How about sticking to qualified skeptics, i.e. those who have established credentials in the climate sciences (yes, they exist). I shudder to think of the three ring idiot circus it would be to let the clowns from Climate Audit in on any realistic discussion of climate science.
No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs. We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad.
Quite the contrary. Arguments, not to dissimilar to the ones we here now about climate change were all the rage at the time. The internet wasn't as pervasive so there as a lot less noise about it, but it was there. You can run a few searches on CFC skeptic and the like.
This attitude that when it comes to climate science it is a "With us or against us," sort of thing. Either someone accepts that humans are causing climate change, that the results will be catastrophic and so on or they are the ENEMY.
Before skepticism became a religious warcry, skeptics had no problem engaging in scientific debate. The mad dog skeptics destroyed what was once solid scientific debate, much as they did with evolution.
If you have the attitude that anyone who is skeptical of your theory at all is to be dismissed a priori, well then you aren't going to win many converts, are you?
The mad dog skeptics have only themselves to blame. And converts? Have you read any skeptic forums lately? You might as well try to convert a devout catholic to atheism. You could have $DIETY itself come down and tell these mad dogs that humans have induced climate change and they wouldn't believe it.
The thinking skeptics are the ones who, with enough data and research, could change their minds. The mad dog skeptics, which unfortunately make up most of the skeptics, will NEVER, EVER be convinced otherwise.
Whenever people act in a manner that demands unquestioning support, when they simply shout down those that disagree and attempt to silence them, when they are secretive about their methods and data, when they appeal to a consensus, when they say debate is over, well that raises my bullshit alarm.
As it should. But the scientists aren't demanding unquestioning support (don't generalize, many papers and their associated data can be accessed). I also haven't seen any scientist shouting down anyone (don't confuse Gore with the thousands of climate scientists). I would hardly call peer reviewed journals "secretive" (but to each is own). You do no appeal to ascientific consensus, you arrive at one when it appears a lot of scientific research seems to point to the same conclusion. The scientists also are not saying the debate is over (perhaps with the mad dog skeptics, but then again there never was a debate with them).
But that sword cuts both ways. The skeptic camp has done a good job of making themselves look like a bunch of anti-science fanatical zealots who scream so loud they drown out the thinking skeptics who SHOULD be engaging in the scientific debate. The self-styled climatologists Watts and McIntyre have done little to help in that area.
They present you with what they say as absolute truth and shout down those who would dare question it.
That's an odd perception. Perhaps you could point out why then pro-climate change papers are rejected from science journals? The science has to make sense and be well done.
They want to present you with only their reality, because they are indeed full of shit and they don't want that to come out.
Of course. Every last climate scientist is a conniving self-serving weasel who is only looking to make vast piles of cash by milking the climate-change cow. Considering that most technical positions earn more than a climate scientist, what's the more likely scenario:
1. Climate scientist are doing research that, for the most part, is science and the results are more or less accurate to the extent of our knowledge and understanding of climate dynamics. 2. Climate scientists have colluded to form an intricate climate conspiracy for the paltry sum of money they get in grants since they're too stupid to earn better money by working in a career that doesn't require a Ph.D.
As such they attack those that question them and try to silence them, because they want to deflect from the questions.
You're doing a good job of making yourself out to be a victim. But the attacks are in your head. I have yet to hear of any scientists hacking into an Exxon server and posting internal emails. Nor have I heard them use 1/1000 of the venom and spittle coming from the mad dog skeptics. Now, scientists just don't bother to respond to idiotic rantings and ravings because they have better things
How did this get modded up? Two links to a discredited climate blogger?
On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."
When the NOAA slapped him down, he suddenly became the "victim".
But of course, the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well, right guys?
This has been available for some time. And despite all the whining and yelling about closed source models and the like, over the years there have been no submissions from the open source community for fixes to bugs, aside from the occasion tweak for the makefile to compile on yet another platform.
There are also several books, multiple papers, etc. on how to write your own. There are several public sites that contain data you can use in your model as well.
In short, nobody is preventing you from educating yourself about atmospherics, computational fluid dynamics, and other related topics. Write your own. Write a paper. Show that the current consensus is horribly wrong. Win a Nobel.
It is unfortunate that the signal to noise ratio on the skeptic side is low.
I have no problem with thinking skeptics. I think there should be more of them. But the problem is almost all the skeptics are fanatical mad dog skeptics with solid Ph.Ds in arcmchair climatology backed by B.S's in BS. It's become like evolution vs. intelligent design, only worse.
There are few good skeptics out there, but the overall onslaught of the mad dog skeptics have made it so that it is that much harder for them to be heard. It's clear from the emails that the science community now views any skeptic, no matter how reputable, as 100% hostile, and this hack has done nothing than make it 100 time worse than it already was.
It's really sad, but the mad dogs have done it to themselves. Every idiotic thing they do, they only make skeptics in general look worse. If all the mad dogs would just shut the hell up so the skeptics who know what they're talking about could engage into a useful scientific dialog then perhaps things could get back to science instead of political mud-slinging.
How do you know any of what you say is true if can't see or trust the raw data?
This is a false argument. How can you ever be sure about the integrity of anything unless you are the one doing it? How can you trust the raw data if you are not collecting it? How can you trust the analysis if you are not the one analyzing it? How can you trust the satellite data if you didn't build the satellite?
How can you trust the food from the store if you're not the one making it? How can you trust your prescription if you're not the one giving it? How can you trust your car if you didn't build it?
Or in other words, you are arguing from the standpoint of paranoia/conspiracy. Everyday you rely on total strangers to make sure your life keeps humming along. You are surrounded by black boxes that you don't have access to yet you seem perfectly content in assuming that people are doing their jobs. Why are climate scientist suddenly the target?
For example, how do you know if your local transportation authority is really doing the best job to keep traffic moving? They could have incentive not to, such as increased tax flow to the coffers by making motorists spend just that much more on gasoline. Or perhaps their even getting kickbacks from a couple oil boys for making sure consumers spend their quota.
Conspiracy? Well, how do you know it's not happening? Can we get access to the raw data of the traffic grid? Can we get the source code for the programs running the traffic network? It's publicly funded, so WE should be able to get access and review ourselves, right?
No one is denying climate change.
I take it you haven't visited any mad dog skeptic sites lately. There are plenty of people denying exactly that with a passion and dedication that most religions would kill for
The climate is and always has changed for billions of years. What is up for debate is WHY the climate is changing.
The mountains of research done on this is pretty clear about why it's happening. But I don't expect facts to get in the way of beliefs anytime soon. Be that as it may, why is not the important. The important questions, and the ones the climate scientists spend a lot of time working out, are how it's going to affect us and what we can do to prepare for it.
Why delete an article at all? You could just move the article to an "removed" or "suspect" area.Normal searches would miss it but advanced searches with the right options could search those. That way, if some "random fucktard" finally gets his/her way, the original author(s) can get it re-instated.
Version control and rollback features aren't exactly a new concept.
Thanks for the name calling. I guess people like you out there are getting a little concerned now that your schemes are coming out to the open.
It's called frustration. It happens sometimes.
My schemes? I have no "schemes". I follow climate science research.
1) To use your capitalization PEER REVIEW doesn't mean squat if the PEERS don't have the data that you did your research on...
This is why I get frustrated. The data IS available. The only time it isn't PUBLICLY available is when there are contracting, licensing, or confidentiality restrictions on the data. The peer reviewers STILL get the data, but Joe Sixpack won't.
This has nothing to do with "evil" climate scientists. This is the way it's done in all branches. For example, scientists working on stealth technology don't release their data to the public for security reasons. The NWS doesn't release come of their data to public for confidentiality reasons. There are also several companies who specialize in processing/providing various data an analysis products that must be bought or licensed that don't allow free distribution.
There is nothing nefarious about this. And as I said, the peer reviewers still get the data. You may not be able to get it, but your are not a peer reviewer.
Or by PEER REVIEW does it mean reviews by those who agree with you on anything and won't need any RAW DATA to arrive at their findings?
You're starting to sound like the wild-eyed conspiracy skeptics.
Articles are peer reviewed by an anonymous selection of peers in your scientific field. You seem to think that all climate research is focused on climate change. It isn't. In fact, a fair portion of climate research is about how different parts of our climate interacts and affects other aspects, such as atmospheric chemistry.
If your specifically focusing on the singular topic of climate change then, given the consensus, you're most likely to be reviewed by people who share the same point of view. But here again, you're implying that all climate scientists agree on the amount and the impacts. They don't. There may be a consensus on climate change but that hardly means that they all agree on what that may imply. From that perspective, it is unlikely you will get all your reviewers agreeing with what you have to say.
Are you saying that these PEERS were actually given the DATA?
Uh...yeah. It would be kind of difficult for the peer reviewers to ascertain the accuracy of the research without the data to examine. But if you're part of the wild-eyed skeptic crowd, then I guess you believe that the peer-review process is a farce.
How is that possible? Wasn't the DATA protected by the frigging IP laws that you keep spouting about?
You're a bizarre individual. Perhaps you've never worked in an industry where this would come up, but exceptions can, and are, made in regards to contracts and licenses. Had you read any of these research papers they even mention this. For example, an exception can be made to allow peer reviewers access. That doesn't mean they've suddenly been given permission to distribute proprietary information all over the internet.
Why is that the IP laws suddenly didn't apply when the Royal Society of Biological Sciences forced Briffa to release the data after he published an article in their journal?
Did he use restricted or proprietary information in his research? It doesn't appear so, but I haven't read that paper so I don't know what his sources are. I'd also be reluctant to respond to someone who has made completely baseless accusation against me (Steve McIntyre) who isn't a scientist in my field. People usually don't like dealing with hostile people. That might be considered a "waste of time" (which in the current set of emails, that's what he's classified as).
Back to your question though, the hacked emails were in regards to other requests, not Briffa's. BTW, McIntyre's so called "findings" in regards to the Briffa/Yamal matter hav
Wait. So you're going to judge the scientific community based on a piece of source code written by a "shitty programmer"...no wait...comments in the source code that you have absolutely no idea of whether it is even used or not?
How can you even verify that it's real? How do you know if that was a finished piece of code?
You're reading on slashdot, so I assume you have some programming background. You should know better. Someone was trying to fix a piece of legacy code (how old?) that was undocumented and uncommented. Did you analyze the function? Was it really squaring? I know of no compiler that would take x*x and return a negative number, so it's quite obvious the code was doing more than simple squaring.
Now granted, science codes are never that well done but if it was done based on research papers then the code is, at the very least, validated against the results of the paper. If there were no validation at all, then there is little chance of a climate model maintaining numerical stability for an few hours, let alone a 100 year climate simulation.
Scientists are human. They make mistakes. But the models are backed tested against the observational record. If they can't replicate the climate from say, 1850 to today and have the model get within a margin error then the model is broken. However, the models perform quite well and you can see this in the IPCC report. Or you can download a model (like GISS ModelE, it's source so you'll have to build it) and the data (also from GISS) and run it yourself.
You're not really implying that the whole of modern climate science should be tossed out based on an incomplete discussion about single craptastic piece of code are you?
No you didn't. It's pretty clear from what you have said that you didn't. It is clear that you have read only what you've wanted to read though.
Of course Dr. Tim Ball agrees with you. He's been agreeing with you since the whole "Friends of Science" debacle. He's hardly a person I would go to for an unbiased interpretation considering his history of climate research misrepresentation. You might as well go to the tobacco companies for lung cancer studies.
I think I will continue to rely on the PEER-REVIEWED science being done by the vast majority of the climate community. Thanks.
You got modded troll because you made wild ass accusations based on nothing. The emails do not contain anything nefarious. They don't. You can get them from bittorrent and read them yourself. Nothing like taking an incomplete set of emails and pulling quotes completely out of context to make yourself look good.
The other reason you're modded a troll is because you appear to have no idea how the peer review process works. When a researcher submits an article to reputable journal, the journal sends the article out to a group of reviewers. The reviewers are other scientists in the field, and they remain anonymous to the submitter.
During the peer review process, the reviewers read the paper, and based on the data and the methods laid out in the paper, attempt to reproduce the results. Although sometimes it doesn't get that far if an error is found in the data and/or the methods.
This process usually takes a while (unless the paper is short/simple) with several rounds of submission, critiquing, fixing, and resubmitting. After all the reviewers finally sign off on it, then it gets published.
And you are 100% wrong about UAE. They do release data, especially to reviewers. What they DON'T release is data that they don't have the right to release, such as third party proprietary data. The data is always released to peer reviewers, but they don't release to any TD&H who suddenly thinks they are climate scientist. You CAN make a formal request or you can negotiate with the data provider yourself if you really want the data (in the papers, they mention who the providers are) but it may not come cheap.
Like any research, you come across bad data. For example, a temperature reading of -120C over California is probably not a realistic piece of data. Sometimes an entire data set has to be thrown out because, when compared to other regional or proxy data it doesn't make any sense.
For example, in one of the emails they're talking about data from a tree ring proxy. The proxy was useful up until about 60 years ago. At that point, the proxy started diverging from the instrumental record (the deviation was caused by pollution).
So, do you use the proxy data anyway or do you use the instrumental record instead? Pretty obvious that you'd want to ditch the proxy at that point.
And if you did read the papers associated with this, you'd see that it actually is mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
I tell you what, if they come to me and tell me I have to pay umteen thousands of dollars a year to follow the agenda of the environ whackos, they better have it fucking laid out song and verse...
YOU aren't paying thousands of dollars. YOU are paying a couple of bucks. Climate research makes up .1% of the national budget. Yet I don't see you making this claim of the bulk of the thousands of dollars YOU DO pay every year to the government in taxes on, well, just about everything.
...and if I have questions they damned well better not call me names...
No one's calling you names because you aren't important enough. You don't have the qualifications to judge the complex science behind climate studies. Honestly, most scientist care very little of what the layman thinks because any dog and pony show with enough flash and cash can change the layman's mind. Unless you've got three letters after your name in a field related to climate science, they're not going to pay attention to you.
Besides, what incentive do they have to answer your questions. So far, every time they've tried to explain they've been shouted down by the mad dog skeptics. The average person simply does not understand the scientific process, let alone climate science. You don't need to be a genius to figure this out; just go to any skeptic site. Almost all of them boil down to "SHE'S A WITCH!!!".
Now what about everyone else in the government who doesn't answer your questions? Do you hold them to the same standard?
If the don't and then do, they and you can go fuck yourself.
Precisely their general response to mad dog skeptics. They've been telling skeptics to put up or shut up, and so far no one seems to want take up the challenge. There are no models out there that show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere DOES NOT increase global average temperatures, for example.
For that matter, before they try the bullshit cap and trade, they should be advocating nuclear energy.
Agreed.
Because if everything they say is true, that is the only way out. Not fucking windmills or wave generators. Not solar or geothermal.
Not true. Renewable sources have their place, but it would be hard to supply world energy needs by using JUST renewable power. For example, we (the US) could have reduce 30%+ of our reliance on fossil fuels for electricity if instead of bailing out banks we took that money and deployed solar panel systems to every household in the US.
We need to mindful of our energy sources AS WELL as our efficiency in using them.
The fact that they are not advocating this and want us to live in the fucking stone age means they are probably gaming the whole thing.
You're confusing scientists and enviro-nuts. Scientists are presenting research and advocating we do something about it. Some may even make suggestions. But ultimately those decisions are made by the governments, which to my knowledge, are unlikely to drop back to oxen pulled plows and parchment.
As with any group, there are individuals who are out for personal gain (though why they'd bother in climate science I don't know; there really isn't a lot of money in it). That happens. But just because YOU do not understand something doesn't mean that any particular group must answer to YOU.
~X~
Repeat a lie often enough and soon people will believe it is the truth.
How can the average citizen fight back against a corporation? How can Joe Sixpack run for Senator when Jane Doughnut has Big Oil buying out the airwaves for her? Will anyone even know Joe Sixpack is running?
The direct result of this is corporate interest will win. Republican or Democrat, candidates will cater to their corporate sponsors. Remember Steven Colbert's campaign for presidency sponsored by Doritos? WELL THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO FUCKING HAPPEN!
Unless you got boatloads of your own cash there is no way to fight a multi-corporate propaganda machine. Think about the RIAA or the MPAA. Jumpin' Jesus in a trash compactor, think of fucking Fox News!
We will see how this plays out this fall. You might want to get your cable disconnected.
~X~
Senator: "We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks!"
TSA1: "I can see your penis."
Senator: "Err....well...uhhhh..."
TSA2: "Your wife has nice tits, too."
Senator: "Now wait a just a minute..."
TSA3: "Mmm...barely legal T&A. Are you sure that daughter is yours?"
Senator: "May God smite you! I am outraged!"
TSA1: "Sir, you are behaving in an odd manner. I'm afraid we'll need to do a full cavity search."
TSA2: "The wife's mine."
TSA3: "Dibs on the daughter!"
Senator: "My God, what have I done?"
God: "Fucking idiot."
~X~
Why is this ignorant tripe modded insightful?
I know. Maybe the CIA can help spin... explain how anthropogenic global warming is causing the worldwide Arctic blasts right now that are causing the coldest winter in decades worldwide, I'm glad the CIA is getting involved to help push the political agenda along.
Well climatroll, first you need to understand the difference between climatology and meteorology. Seems a lot of the mad dog skeptic crowd can't differentiate between these two very well and seem to have tendancy to claim that their backyard thermometer refutes the science. It doesn't.
Then perhaps you could pick up a book on basic meteorology and climatology and...you know...see for yourself. But to explain it simply, We have a strong El Nino going on along with several other anomalies that have have been pushing the arctic air masses out of the arctic. This cold air, amazingly, has to head south. Since we are in winter here in the northern hemisphere, there are no strong subtropical or tropical air masses to counteract these air masses (when there are, you get massive storms such as in sprint in the midwest).
And despite the cold temperatures we are still at a net positive anomaly. In the NORTHERN hemisphere we may end up going net negative, but temps in the southern hemisphere are quite toasty.
Nothing says "increase government power" like a worldwide spy agency.
Nothing says paranoia like "AHHHH! THERE OUT TO GET ME!!!!". If you RTFA, you'll see that this is using data the CIA already has (in the form of images and the like) to get a better idea of what areas are being impacted by climate change. This actually isn't new, since the were doing this before.
Funny how in the summer, it's anthropogenic global warming, but in the winter, it becomes anthropogenic climate change.
I guess you haven't been paying attention. It's been "climate change" for a while, since "global warming" (as you have so eloquently demonstrated) has and continues to be used in a disingenuous way. The average temperature of the planet is warming, but not everywhere is going to get warmer. A number of places will get cooler.
Seriously, as long as the data is honestly looked it at and made public and not "influenced" by any political factors, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to twist the facts in order to push political agenda.
Why do you need politics when you got Glen Beck and Sean Hannity?
And sorry, but everything is political. Where there is money, you will find politics. But more to the point, what are you talking about? What is the nefarious purpose of the global climate science community? Considering even now that climate research money is a mere pittance compared to just about anything else, exactly what is the drive of the evil global cabal? Cleaner air? Less pollution? Less reliance on foreign fossil fuels?
Hell if all they wanted was money they just need to switch careers since a lot of fields pay more.
Along these lines, as another poster mentioned, it is actually in the government's interest for there to NOT be climate change. Do you think Uncle Sam wants to pay billions in public works to minimize climate impacts instead of diverting those funds into the slush-piles of senator's pet projects and pockets?
The flat earth society has more credibility than a climate conspiracy.
~X~
Now we have governments offering billions to people who prove climate change - do you really think any of them are going to provide evidence to their masters that it's not real?
Oh yes billions. Oh all those billions making climate scientists filthy rich.
Except that the total budget last year for climate related studies in the US was $2 billion. The only reason it was so high was because a good chunk of that money is going towards new satellites for monitoring weather AND climate. The rest goes towards grants and the like.
Oh and the fact that $2 billion isn't even pocket change when compared to the national budget. And there are DARPA grants that are bigger than than COMBINED grant money going towards climate research.
There's also the fact that the average pay for a climate scientist is less than the average IT person as well.
You don't get rich being a climate scientist. Come up with a better conspiracy theory, climatroll.
~X~
No it doesn't. Just look at people with autism. Usually they have larger skulls and brains, but that doesn't mean they are wired up correctly.
Other possibilities for a larger brain could be that the brain wasn't as well "packed" or specialized as ours.
Cranial capacity is a poor metric for determining intelligence.
~X~
This is supposed to inspire fear? Some idiot sets himself on fire and then gets his ass kicked up and down the plane, and that's supposed to inspire fear?
Oh. Sorry. Forgot this is the land of FOX. Land of the sheep, home of the inane. All visitors to America, please have your passports and be ready for anal violation.
~X~
If your content shows up in Google's results and they make any money off it, then you as the creator of that content should get a portion of that money.
You are. You're getting free advertising. If you want even better advertising, you can pay more for it. But only the utterly delusional/idiotic would think that they are getting NOTHING from having Google link to their content.
Otherwise why do we have copyright laws at all?
Originally? Or now?
The original copyright laws were to grant the author a monopoly for a fixed period of time to reward them for their works. Now, copyright laws are used to create a perpetual monopoly and act as cultural sledgehammer.
Look, if you want to be a complete jackass and prevent any search engines for indexing your content, then lock your precious copyrighted materials behind a paywall. Use robots.txt. Make requests to have your content removed. But I'll bet you dollars to dog nuts that you're shooting yourself in the ass by doing so. These days, if it doesn't come up in a search engine IT DOES NOT EXIST.
In a fair world, google and bing should need to set up accounts for each website and pay back a portion of their revenue each time that site's contents appears in a search result with ads in it
In a fair world, you should be on your knees thanking the gods of technology and software that something like Google even exists to link your content to the outside world FOR FREE. You are getting advertisement FOR FREE. Thousands, if not millions of people who would never know you're content existed will know it does FOR FREE. You are getting worldwide exposure FOR FREE.
So choose. Pay for that exposure out of you're own pocket, or have search engines like Google do it FOR FREE.
~X~
Actually, the problems today began back in the 80's when the first wave of banking deregulation happened under Reagan. That eventually lead to the S&L scandal. However, that didn't keep deregulation from happening. The late 90's was the next big flub. After World War Web happened, interest rates were dropped through the floor. The deregulation removed leverage limits and all those other pesky regulations that prevented banks from acting like drunken sailors. Then the whole thing fell apart when everyone realized they were holding steaming piles instead of pipe dreams.
There is no one party to fault here. This was helped along by both sides of the aisle, at the insistence of big banking. Enough green and you can make anything happen in congress. It also helps if your elected congress creature can't tell the the difference between a CD and a CDS.
In any event, the greed fueled money orgy was pushed for by the banks and granted by congress with BOTH parties. The measures were signed by presidents of BOTH parties.
WE, the people, were screwed by just about everyone. At least they bought us a drink ("stimulus" checks).
~X~
The grits. Hot grits. You MUST be covered in HOT GRITS!
~X~
Proving once again we just can't keep it in our pants.
~X~
But now we can have soldiers that go to eleven!
~X~
So every mad dog skeptic should get his day in court? I hardly think that is an efficient use of time and/or resources.
How about sticking to qualified skeptics, i.e. those who have established credentials in the climate sciences (yes, they exist). I shudder to think of the three ring idiot circus it would be to let the clowns from Climate Audit in on any realistic discussion of climate science.
~X~
No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs. We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad.
Quite the contrary. Arguments, not to dissimilar to the ones we here now about climate change were all the rage at the time. The internet wasn't as pervasive so there as a lot less noise about it, but it was there. You can run a few searches on CFC skeptic and the like.
~X~
This attitude that when it comes to climate science it is a "With us or against us," sort of thing. Either someone accepts that humans are causing climate change, that the results will be catastrophic and so on or they are the ENEMY.
Before skepticism became a religious warcry, skeptics had no problem engaging in scientific debate. The mad dog skeptics destroyed what was once solid scientific debate, much as they did with evolution.
If you have the attitude that anyone who is skeptical of your theory at all is to be dismissed a priori, well then you aren't going to win many converts, are you?
The mad dog skeptics have only themselves to blame. And converts? Have you read any skeptic forums lately? You might as well try to convert a devout catholic to atheism. You could have $DIETY itself come down and tell these mad dogs that humans have induced climate change and they wouldn't believe it.
The thinking skeptics are the ones who, with enough data and research, could change their minds. The mad dog skeptics, which unfortunately make up most of the skeptics, will NEVER, EVER be convinced otherwise.
Whenever people act in a manner that demands unquestioning support, when they simply shout down those that disagree and attempt to silence them, when they are secretive about their methods and data, when they appeal to a consensus, when they say debate is over, well that raises my bullshit alarm.
As it should. But the scientists aren't demanding unquestioning support (don't generalize, many papers and their associated data can be accessed). I also haven't seen any scientist shouting down anyone (don't confuse Gore with the thousands of climate scientists). I would hardly call peer reviewed journals "secretive" (but to each is own). You do no appeal to ascientific consensus, you arrive at one when it appears a lot of scientific research seems to point to the same conclusion. The scientists also are not saying the debate is over (perhaps with the mad dog skeptics, but then again there never was a debate with them).
But that sword cuts both ways. The skeptic camp has done a good job of making themselves look like a bunch of anti-science fanatical zealots who scream so loud they drown out the thinking skeptics who SHOULD be engaging in the scientific debate. The self-styled climatologists Watts and McIntyre have done little to help in that area.
They present you with what they say as absolute truth and shout down those who would dare question it.
That's an odd perception. Perhaps you could point out why then pro-climate change papers are rejected from science journals? The science has to make sense and be well done.
They want to present you with only their reality, because they are indeed full of shit and they don't want that to come out.
Of course. Every last climate scientist is a conniving self-serving weasel who is only looking to make vast piles of cash by milking the climate-change cow. Considering that most technical positions earn more than a climate scientist, what's the more likely scenario:
1. Climate scientist are doing research that, for the most part, is science and the results are more or less accurate to the extent of our knowledge and understanding of climate dynamics.
2. Climate scientists have colluded to form an intricate climate conspiracy for the paltry sum of money they get in grants since they're too stupid to earn better money by working in a career that doesn't require a Ph.D.
As such they attack those that question them and try to silence them, because they want to deflect from the questions.
You're doing a good job of making yourself out to be a victim. But the attacks are in your head. I have yet to hear of any scientists hacking into an Exxon server and posting internal emails. Nor have I heard them use 1/1000 of the venom and spittle coming from the mad dog skeptics. Now, scientists just don't bother to respond to idiotic rantings and ravings because they have better things
How did this get modded up? Two links to a discredited climate blogger?
On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."
When the NOAA slapped him down, he suddenly became the "victim".
But of course, the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well, right guys?
~X~
Source and data to one of the models: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
This has been available for some time. And despite all the whining and yelling about closed source models and the like, over the years there have been no submissions from the open source community for fixes to bugs, aside from the occasion tweak for the makefile to compile on yet another platform.
There are also several books, multiple papers, etc. on how to write your own. There are several public sites that contain data you can use in your model as well.
In short, nobody is preventing you from educating yourself about atmospherics, computational fluid dynamics, and other related topics. Write your own. Write a paper. Show that the current consensus is horribly wrong. Win a Nobel.
~X~
It is unfortunate that the signal to noise ratio on the skeptic side is low.
I have no problem with thinking skeptics. I think there should be more of them. But the problem is almost all the skeptics are fanatical mad dog skeptics with solid Ph.Ds in arcmchair climatology backed by B.S's in BS. It's become like evolution vs. intelligent design, only worse.
There are few good skeptics out there, but the overall onslaught of the mad dog skeptics have made it so that it is that much harder for them to be heard. It's clear from the emails that the science community now views any skeptic, no matter how reputable, as 100% hostile, and this hack has done nothing than make it 100 time worse than it already was.
It's really sad, but the mad dogs have done it to themselves. Every idiotic thing they do, they only make skeptics in general look worse. If all the mad dogs would just shut the hell up so the skeptics who know what they're talking about could engage into a useful scientific dialog then perhaps things could get back to science instead of political mud-slinging.
~X~
How do you know any of what you say is true if can't see or trust the raw data?
This is a false argument. How can you ever be sure about the integrity of anything unless you are the one doing it? How can you trust the raw data if you are not collecting it? How can you trust the analysis if you are not the one analyzing it? How can you trust the satellite data if you didn't build the satellite?
How can you trust the food from the store if you're not the one making it? How can you trust your prescription if you're not the one giving it? How can you trust your car if you didn't build it?
Or in other words, you are arguing from the standpoint of paranoia/conspiracy. Everyday you rely on total strangers to make sure your life keeps humming along. You are surrounded by black boxes that you don't have access to yet you seem perfectly content in assuming that people are doing their jobs. Why are climate scientist suddenly the target?
For example, how do you know if your local transportation authority is really doing the best job to keep traffic moving? They could have incentive not to, such as increased tax flow to the coffers by making motorists spend just that much more on gasoline. Or perhaps their even getting kickbacks from a couple oil boys for making sure consumers spend their quota.
Conspiracy? Well, how do you know it's not happening? Can we get access to the raw data of the traffic grid? Can we get the source code for the programs running the traffic network? It's publicly funded, so WE should be able to get access and review ourselves, right?
No one is denying climate change.
I take it you haven't visited any mad dog skeptic sites lately. There are plenty of people denying exactly that with a passion and dedication that most religions would kill for
The climate is and always has changed for billions of years. What is up for debate is WHY the climate is changing.
The mountains of research done on this is pretty clear about why it's happening. But I don't expect facts to get in the way of beliefs anytime soon. Be that as it may, why is not the important. The important questions, and the ones the climate scientists spend a lot of time working out, are how it's going to affect us and what we can do to prepare for it.
~X~
Why delete an article at all? You could just move the article to an "removed" or "suspect" area.Normal searches would miss it but advanced searches with the right options could search those. That way, if some "random fucktard" finally gets his/her way, the original author(s) can get it re-instated.
Version control and rollback features aren't exactly a new concept.
~X~
Thanks for the name calling. I guess people like you out there are getting a little concerned now that your schemes are coming out to the open.
It's called frustration. It happens sometimes.
My schemes? I have no "schemes". I follow climate science research.
1) To use your capitalization PEER REVIEW doesn't mean squat if the PEERS don't have the data that you did your research on...
This is why I get frustrated. The data IS available. The only time it isn't PUBLICLY available is when there are contracting, licensing, or confidentiality restrictions on the data. The peer reviewers STILL get the data, but Joe Sixpack won't.
This has nothing to do with "evil" climate scientists. This is the way it's done in all branches. For example, scientists working on stealth technology don't release their data to the public for security reasons. The NWS doesn't release come of their data to public for confidentiality reasons. There are also several companies who specialize in processing/providing various data an analysis products that must be bought or licensed that don't allow free distribution.
There is nothing nefarious about this. And as I said, the peer reviewers still get the data. You may not be able to get it, but your are not a peer reviewer.
Or by PEER REVIEW does it mean reviews by those who agree with you on anything and won't need any RAW DATA to arrive at their findings?
You're starting to sound like the wild-eyed conspiracy skeptics.
Articles are peer reviewed by an anonymous selection of peers in your scientific field. You seem to think that all climate research is focused on climate change. It isn't. In fact, a fair portion of climate research is about how different parts of our climate interacts and affects other aspects, such as atmospheric chemistry.
If your specifically focusing on the singular topic of climate change then, given the consensus, you're most likely to be reviewed by people who share the same point of view. But here again, you're implying that all climate scientists agree on the amount and the impacts. They don't. There may be a consensus on climate change but that hardly means that they all agree on what that may imply. From that perspective, it is unlikely you will get all your reviewers agreeing with what you have to say.
Are you saying that these PEERS were actually given the DATA?
Uh...yeah. It would be kind of difficult for the peer reviewers to ascertain the accuracy of the research without the data to examine. But if you're part of the wild-eyed skeptic crowd, then I guess you believe that the peer-review process is a farce.
How is that possible? Wasn't the DATA protected by the frigging IP laws that you keep spouting about?
You're a bizarre individual. Perhaps you've never worked in an industry where this would come up, but exceptions can, and are, made in regards to contracts and licenses. Had you read any of these research papers they even mention this. For example, an exception can be made to allow peer reviewers access. That doesn't mean they've suddenly been given permission to distribute proprietary information all over the internet.
Why is that the IP laws suddenly didn't apply when the Royal Society of Biological Sciences forced Briffa to release the data after he published an article in their journal?
Did he use restricted or proprietary information in his research? It doesn't appear so, but I haven't read that paper so I don't know what his sources are. I'd also be reluctant to respond to someone who has made completely baseless accusation against me (Steve McIntyre) who isn't a scientist in my field. People usually don't like dealing with hostile people. That might be considered a "waste of time" (which in the current set of emails, that's what he's classified as).
Back to your question though, the hacked emails were in regards to other requests, not Briffa's. BTW, McIntyre's so called "findings" in regards to the Briffa/Yamal matter hav
Wait. So you're going to judge the scientific community based on a piece of source code written by a "shitty programmer"...no wait...comments in the source code that you have absolutely no idea of whether it is even used or not?
How can you even verify that it's real? How do you know if that was a finished piece of code?
You're reading on slashdot, so I assume you have some programming background. You should know better. Someone was trying to fix a piece of legacy code (how old?) that was undocumented and uncommented. Did you analyze the function? Was it really squaring? I know of no compiler that would take x*x and return a negative number, so it's quite obvious the code was doing more than simple squaring.
Now granted, science codes are never that well done but if it was done based on research papers then the code is, at the very least, validated against the results of the paper. If there were no validation at all, then there is little chance of a climate model maintaining numerical stability for an few hours, let alone a 100 year climate simulation.
Scientists are human. They make mistakes. But the models are backed tested against the observational record. If they can't replicate the climate from say, 1850 to today and have the model get within a margin error then the model is broken. However, the models perform quite well and you can see this in the IPCC report. Or you can download a model (like GISS ModelE, it's source so you'll have to build it) and the data (also from GISS) and run it yourself.
You're not really implying that the whole of modern climate science should be tossed out based on an incomplete discussion about single craptastic piece of code are you?
~X~
No you didn't. It's pretty clear from what you have said that you didn't. It is clear that you have read only what you've wanted to read though.
Of course Dr. Tim Ball agrees with you. He's been agreeing with you since the whole "Friends of Science" debacle. He's hardly a person I would go to for an unbiased interpretation considering his history of climate research misrepresentation. You might as well go to the tobacco companies for lung cancer studies.
I think I will continue to rely on the PEER-REVIEWED science being done by the vast majority of the climate community. Thanks.
~X~
You got modded troll because you made wild ass accusations based on nothing. The emails do not contain anything nefarious. They don't. You can get them from bittorrent and read them yourself. Nothing like taking an incomplete set of emails and pulling quotes completely out of context to make yourself look good.
The other reason you're modded a troll is because you appear to have no idea how the peer review process works. When a researcher submits an article to reputable journal, the journal sends the article out to a group of reviewers. The reviewers are other scientists in the field, and they remain anonymous to the submitter.
During the peer review process, the reviewers read the paper, and based on the data and the methods laid out in the paper, attempt to reproduce the results. Although sometimes it doesn't get that far if an error is found in the data and/or the methods.
This process usually takes a while (unless the paper is short/simple) with several rounds of submission, critiquing, fixing, and resubmitting. After all the reviewers finally sign off on it, then it gets published.
And you are 100% wrong about UAE. They do release data, especially to reviewers. What they DON'T release is data that they don't have the right to release, such as third party proprietary data. The data is always released to peer reviewers, but they don't release to any TD&H who suddenly thinks they are climate scientist. You CAN make a formal request or you can negotiate with the data provider yourself if you really want the data (in the papers, they mention who the providers are) but it may not come cheap.
~X~
Which proves either:
1. You did not read the emails.
2. You did not understand what was in the emails.
Like any research, you come across bad data. For example, a temperature reading of -120C over California is probably not a realistic piece of data. Sometimes an entire data set has to be thrown out because, when compared to other regional or proxy data it doesn't make any sense.
For example, in one of the emails they're talking about data from a tree ring proxy. The proxy was useful up until about 60 years ago. At that point, the proxy started diverging from the instrumental record (the deviation was caused by pollution).
So, do you use the proxy data anyway or do you use the instrumental record instead? Pretty obvious that you'd want to ditch the proxy at that point.
And if you did read the papers associated with this, you'd see that it actually is mentioned.
~X~