Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc.
Did they become famous by the degree with which they adhered to the leading theories of their day? Not exactly.
Scientists achieve professional success by achieving important results--showing the shortcomings of the current theory, and (importantly) proving that their approach is more correct.
The idea that all scientists march in lock step in order to maintain funding is a myth. For one thing, it begs the question because the "current theory" must have diverged from prior theory at some point in time. If all scientists march in lock step, how was that possible?
For another thing it disregards the lessons of scientific history--he who proves everyone else wrong, wins. Of course each scientist has their own failings, biases, and preconceived notions. But the point is that he (or she) has to prove it, objectively, to other scientists. Merely pointing out that a scientist is capable of failure is not counterproof to their scientific findings. Einstein was ultimately wrong about quantum mechanics because he wished to believe in a deterministic universe. That does not take away from the many areas in which he was proved correct.
People concerned about the policy proposals currently being put forward have focused way too much energy on questioning the scientific findings of current and recent warming. It's so unnecessary because scientists understand, and will readily admit, that there is much greater uncertainty when the models are run forward to predict future decades.
The models can be tuned and validated against historical data, then different forcings backed out to assign relative significance. This is where you get statements like (paraphrasing) "70% of recent warming has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with 90% confidence." Some estimate of confidence is possible because of the validation against historical empirical data and climate reconstructions. Independent lines of inquiry can reinforce each others' findings. This is solid science, and where the "climategate" PR stunt falls down. The e-mails provide good fodder for insinuation, but no answer to the quantitative agreement seen in independent lines of study.
But when we run the models forward, there is not yet any empirical confirmation. Distinct models, using distinct data sets, can be seen to agree to some degree--but how much of that reflects reality, and how much reflects common assumptions? Every forward-looking run must assume some set of future values for human activity and natural processes, including ones that are parameterized (like cloud formation) that might advance beyond currently validated bounds. The uncertainty grows when the models are asked to bring their predictions down to local conditions--the distinction between predicting global average climate, and predicting long-term local weather. Will Kansas get hotter or colder, wetter or drier? There is quite a bit of uncertainty in such predictions--again, as working scientists clearly understand.
Layering on the biological response to these uncertain predictions creates even more uncertain predictions. One recent study at Woods Hole seemed to indicate that some animals might respond to ocean acidification by growing thicker shells. I'm not taking that one study as gospel, but it is worth considering that we do not fully understand biological systems and how they will respond to changing climate conditions.
Finally we get to the societal and economic layer, which sits, at least partially, atop uncertain biological predictions. Global warming may causes shifts in where certain crops can be grown--these changes will exact a cost on human society. Will they also confer a benefit? It's not scientific heresy to think that changes to climate can produce benefits as well as costs--although perhaps not to the same subset of the population. We may have to invest substantially in new areas and ways of farming, in new transportation routes. It's not inconceivable that the end result could be greater efficiencies and healthier produce. And of course there is also substantial error (to say the least) in multi-decade economic models.
The greatest threat is probably sea level rise. Wealthy nations might make the decision to invest in mitigation, rather than prevention. It is possible to raise or move cities, and to build barriers to keep out the sea. Such decisions are policy, but must be informed by the best scientific understanding we have--but that understanding must include understanding of uncertainty.
But instead what we see is a concentrated dose of PR and ignorance, attempting to raise doubts about scientifc conclusions about climate change that are well-supported (like whether human emissions can change the climate). You see people trying to simultaneously point out problematic sitings of temperature stations, and demonize working scientists for adjusting temperature data to minimize the error due to such siting. You see people repeatedly gesturing toward the sun, when numerous direct measurements indicate flat or declining insolation over the recent decades. They come off looking stupid, and smart people dismiss them.
In short, lay the average temperature rise from 1908 until 2009 over that for 1803 until 1904 and see what you get. I would strongly suspect that you will see little if any change cycle to cycle.
Good thinking. It's a lock that in decades of research, no one else has ever thought to test for cyclical patterns in temperature data.
A mid-range or high-end recent inkjet will produce very high quality photo prints. Many professional photographers use inkjets to produce their fine art prints for sale. The best inkjets have a color saturation and sharpness that is superior to dye sub, with droplet size small enough that it takes a strong loupe to distinguish. Most people have trouble with inkjets because they buy cheap inkjets.
That said, the biggest argument against them is the frequency of use. You do have to use an inkjet to keep it in fine printing condition.
The entire point of a carbon trading system is to raise energy costs, which changes the cost/benefit analysis of investments in efficiency.
It's preferable to a carbon tax because private companies and brokers make the money instead of the government. They have to put their riches somewhere, thus it becomes private capital for business investment. And it's more flexible than a carbon tax because carbon brokers can change their rates without an act of Congress or federal rulemaking.
Throughout this entire thread people are performing political analyses--who are all the players, and what do they have to gain? That's a political analysis.
But none of that shit matters if we are talking about scientific conclusions. If people fudged data, it should not be hard to prove it scientifically, as CRU does not hold the only temperate data and model code in the world. Data tampering should be easy to spot. So where is the scientific proof? Conversely, if the data is accurate, Satan himself could publish it, and it would not make it any less accurate.
Not that I'm asking you to prove tampering, of course. Like most posters to this thread, you are probably in the IT field and have never conducted publishable scientific research in your life.
I just think he's a terrible journalist. Earlier this year he wrote a blog post about my employer that was so poorly researched, so overtly biased, and just plain wrong, that it boggled my mind. Had nothing to do with Microsoft. He's just bad. He got the gig at Newsweek because of the popularity and visibility of Fake Steve Jobs. And I have to say that I loved to read Fake Steve when it started. Dan is a very good writer, especially when he has free reign to just make stuff up. The big problems come when he tries to write about real people and real companies.
I think you are presenting a choice that is often false, but continues to be hotly debated in all aspects of human society.
The choice is usually presented thus: "either I personally guide it, or it fails." It is often false because it fails to take into account the interests and enthusiasm and worldviews of other people. In economic terms the choice is usually presented as "either we centrally control our economy, or it will spin out of control." In moral terms the choice is usually presented as "either we restrict what people are allowed to say and do, or the society will fall into moral decay and sin." In management terms it's often thought of as "if I don't micromanage every aspect of my staff, they will produce subpar work, if they work at all."
I hope people can see that none of these are true. If a system is set up that privileges a small set of people to wield power indefinitely over others, it will not be stable long-term. The power-wielders will grow weary, and no one else will be able to step in and refresh the project. A system that empowers the greatest number of people to lead and drive change looks sketchier in the short term, but in the long term is the most flexible and adaptable.
By drawing the protections ever-tighter around Wikipedia's content, the current leadership of the project are jeopardizing its future. I know that I have stopped making edits because I had almost no freedom to do so without running into bureaucracy. Reduce the bureaucracy and you will engage ever more people, keeping the project going and adapting. Circle the wagons to keep everyone else out, and over time you'll find that there aren't enough people inside the circle anymore to drive the wagons anyplace else. People age, priorities change, life goes on. In the meantime an entire new generation risks learning that they are not welcome on Wikipedia--and so decide to spend their time online elsewhere.
Wikia went hand-in-hand with the noteworthiness filter as a strategy to try to make Jimmy Wales into a Big Internet Entrepreneur. Maybe it's not working but it's not for lack of trying.
I think the answer is to allow all Wikia content on Wikipedia and allow Wikipedia to accept advertising. That neatly solves many problems at once. It brings all the information into one place, which moves Wikipedia toward its stated goal of all human knowledge. Advertising would defray hosting costs and thus reduce the need for a "noteworthiness" filter. I do not believe it would affect the usage of Wikipedia in the slightest. While many hardcore geeks get up-in-arms about online advertising, the vast majority of users simply don't care as long the site is highly useful.
If it matches previously observed phenomena, which the summary says it does, then it is supported by those observations and can be considered a theory. To replace existing theory it would also need to produce new hypotheses and answer them better than existing theory.
Read your parent post again. CRU is only one of very many research teams studying the Earth's climate. You could throw away every piece of data and every conclusion from them and there would be plenty of strong science left.
A theory is only as strong as the people, data, and process to support it.
Definitely true. The point being that there are many more people, data, and processes than CRU, that have led to the current understanding of the Earth's climate. Here's a short list of just the U.S. government agencies that are involved.
There's no "committee in charge" of climate science. This is borderline conspiracy theory. Each research university controls its own funding, each government agency directs its own budget, each technical journal has its own editorial staff. Bad science doesn't get funded or published because it is bad, not because of some central committee who controls everything. Some people are bad scientists. They can't prove anything scientifically; so all they have are PR stunts like this e-mail hack.
Because this is not a scientific research project or paper. There are no new data or equations in anything posted. The leak of personal e-mails is a public relations issue and thus essentially political.
Neither those defending global warming, nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issue.
If you're defending it or questioning it, and you're not a working scientist producing new research to do so, you're acting politically.
Slashdot Mirror
Other research centers also collect similar data, and some have open-sourced their algorithms.
And yes, their conclusions are similar to those of the CRU. That's what the GP means by saying that criticisms have been answered.
Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc.
Did they become famous by the degree with which they adhered to the leading theories of their day? Not exactly.
Scientists achieve professional success by achieving important results--showing the shortcomings of the current theory, and (importantly) proving that their approach is more correct.
The idea that all scientists march in lock step in order to maintain funding is a myth. For one thing, it begs the question because the "current theory" must have diverged from prior theory at some point in time. If all scientists march in lock step, how was that possible?
For another thing it disregards the lessons of scientific history--he who proves everyone else wrong, wins. Of course each scientist has their own failings, biases, and preconceived notions. But the point is that he (or she) has to prove it, objectively, to other scientists. Merely pointing out that a scientist is capable of failure is not counterproof to their scientific findings. Einstein was ultimately wrong about quantum mechanics because he wished to believe in a deterministic universe. That does not take away from the many areas in which he was proved correct.
Real skepticism provides criteria by which it can be satisfied. Unchanging skepticism in the face of evidence is not scientific.
People concerned about the policy proposals currently being put forward have focused way too much energy on questioning the scientific findings of current and recent warming. It's so unnecessary because scientists understand, and will readily admit, that there is much greater uncertainty when the models are run forward to predict future decades.
The models can be tuned and validated against historical data, then different forcings backed out to assign relative significance. This is where you get statements like (paraphrasing) "70% of recent warming has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with 90% confidence." Some estimate of confidence is possible because of the validation against historical empirical data and climate reconstructions. Independent lines of inquiry can reinforce each others' findings. This is solid science, and where the "climategate" PR stunt falls down. The e-mails provide good fodder for insinuation, but no answer to the quantitative agreement seen in independent lines of study.
But when we run the models forward, there is not yet any empirical confirmation. Distinct models, using distinct data sets, can be seen to agree to some degree--but how much of that reflects reality, and how much reflects common assumptions? Every forward-looking run must assume some set of future values for human activity and natural processes, including ones that are parameterized (like cloud formation) that might advance beyond currently validated bounds. The uncertainty grows when the models are asked to bring their predictions down to local conditions--the distinction between predicting global average climate, and predicting long-term local weather. Will Kansas get hotter or colder, wetter or drier? There is quite a bit of uncertainty in such predictions--again, as working scientists clearly understand.
Layering on the biological response to these uncertain predictions creates even more uncertain predictions. One recent study at Woods Hole seemed to indicate that some animals might respond to ocean acidification by growing thicker shells. I'm not taking that one study as gospel, but it is worth considering that we do not fully understand biological systems and how they will respond to changing climate conditions.
Finally we get to the societal and economic layer, which sits, at least partially, atop uncertain biological predictions. Global warming may causes shifts in where certain crops can be grown--these changes will exact a cost on human society. Will they also confer a benefit? It's not scientific heresy to think that changes to climate can produce benefits as well as costs--although perhaps not to the same subset of the population. We may have to invest substantially in new areas and ways of farming, in new transportation routes. It's not inconceivable that the end result could be greater efficiencies and healthier produce. And of course there is also substantial error (to say the least) in multi-decade economic models.
The greatest threat is probably sea level rise. Wealthy nations might make the decision to invest in mitigation, rather than prevention. It is possible to raise or move cities, and to build barriers to keep out the sea. Such decisions are policy, but must be informed by the best scientific understanding we have--but that understanding must include understanding of uncertainty.
But instead what we see is a concentrated dose of PR and ignorance, attempting to raise doubts about scientifc conclusions about climate change that are well-supported (like whether human emissions can change the climate). You see people trying to simultaneously point out problematic sitings of temperature stations, and demonize working scientists for adjusting temperature data to minimize the error due to such siting. You see people repeatedly gesturing toward the sun, when numerous direct measurements indicate flat or declining insolation over the recent decades. They come off looking stupid, and smart people dismiss them.
It's a shame because lost in the battle ove
A one-L-lama is a priest, and a two-L-llama is a beast, but a three-L-lama is a major fire in Boston.
[say it out loud]
Don't you see??? By saying that their investigation found nothing wrong, they have proven their complicity in the conspiracy!!
One of the world's most respected scientific journals vs. the Web site of a former TV weatherman without even a bachelors of science.
In short, lay the average temperature rise from 1908 until 2009 over that for 1803 until 1904 and see what you get. I would strongly suspect that you will see little if any change cycle to cycle.
Good thinking. It's a lock that in decades of research, no one else has ever thought to test for cyclical patterns in temperature data.
A mid-range or high-end recent inkjet will produce very high quality photo prints. Many professional photographers use inkjets to produce their fine art prints for sale. The best inkjets have a color saturation and sharpness that is superior to dye sub, with droplet size small enough that it takes a strong loupe to distinguish. Most people have trouble with inkjets because they buy cheap inkjets.
That said, the biggest argument against them is the frequency of use. You do have to use an inkjet to keep it in fine printing condition.
You're happy with Google's search results? No problems with their products whatsoever? Really?
It could have something to do with the allegations that Google and Apple had an informal, probably illegal agreement not to recruit from each other.
"See, we avoided recruiting from Apple for vague altruistic reasons, not some secret anti-competitive deal."
What's the going rate on that whooshing sound over your head?
The entire point of a carbon trading system is to raise energy costs, which changes the cost/benefit analysis of investments in efficiency.
It's preferable to a carbon tax because private companies and brokers make the money instead of the government. They have to put their riches somewhere, thus it becomes private capital for business investment. And it's more flexible than a carbon tax because carbon brokers can change their rates without an act of Congress or federal rulemaking.
That's how you'll know it's happening. So I wouldn't worry about being too upset.
How can you kill that which has no life??
Throughout this entire thread people are performing political analyses--who are all the players, and what do they have to gain? That's a political analysis.
But none of that shit matters if we are talking about scientific conclusions. If people fudged data, it should not be hard to prove it scientifically, as CRU does not hold the only temperate data and model code in the world. Data tampering should be easy to spot. So where is the scientific proof? Conversely, if the data is accurate, Satan himself could publish it, and it would not make it any less accurate.
Not that I'm asking you to prove tampering, of course. Like most posters to this thread, you are probably in the IT field and have never conducted publishable scientific research in your life.
Ok!
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/terminatrix.html
I just think he's a terrible journalist. Earlier this year he wrote a blog post about my employer that was so poorly researched, so overtly biased, and just plain wrong, that it boggled my mind. Had nothing to do with Microsoft. He's just bad. He got the gig at Newsweek because of the popularity and visibility of Fake Steve Jobs. And I have to say that I loved to read Fake Steve when it started. Dan is a very good writer, especially when he has free reign to just make stuff up. The big problems come when he tries to write about real people and real companies.
I think you are presenting a choice that is often false, but continues to be hotly debated in all aspects of human society.
The choice is usually presented thus: "either I personally guide it, or it fails." It is often false because it fails to take into account the interests and enthusiasm and worldviews of other people. In economic terms the choice is usually presented as "either we centrally control our economy, or it will spin out of control." In moral terms the choice is usually presented as "either we restrict what people are allowed to say and do, or the society will fall into moral decay and sin." In management terms it's often thought of as "if I don't micromanage every aspect of my staff, they will produce subpar work, if they work at all."
I hope people can see that none of these are true. If a system is set up that privileges a small set of people to wield power indefinitely over others, it will not be stable long-term. The power-wielders will grow weary, and no one else will be able to step in and refresh the project. A system that empowers the greatest number of people to lead and drive change looks sketchier in the short term, but in the long term is the most flexible and adaptable.
By drawing the protections ever-tighter around Wikipedia's content, the current leadership of the project are jeopardizing its future. I know that I have stopped making edits because I had almost no freedom to do so without running into bureaucracy. Reduce the bureaucracy and you will engage ever more people, keeping the project going and adapting. Circle the wagons to keep everyone else out, and over time you'll find that there aren't enough people inside the circle anymore to drive the wagons anyplace else. People age, priorities change, life goes on. In the meantime an entire new generation risks learning that they are not welcome on Wikipedia--and so decide to spend their time online elsewhere.
Wikia went hand-in-hand with the noteworthiness filter as a strategy to try to make Jimmy Wales into a Big Internet Entrepreneur. Maybe it's not working but it's not for lack of trying.
I think the answer is to allow all Wikia content on Wikipedia and allow Wikipedia to accept advertising. That neatly solves many problems at once. It brings all the information into one place, which moves Wikipedia toward its stated goal of all human knowledge. Advertising would defray hosting costs and thus reduce the need for a "noteworthiness" filter. I do not believe it would affect the usage of Wikipedia in the slightest. While many hardcore geeks get up-in-arms about online advertising, the vast majority of users simply don't care as long the site is highly useful.
If it matches previously observed phenomena, which the summary says it does, then it is supported by those observations and can be considered a theory. To replace existing theory it would also need to produce new hypotheses and answer them better than existing theory.
Read your parent post again. CRU is only one of very many research teams studying the Earth's climate. You could throw away every piece of data and every conclusion from them and there would be plenty of strong science left.
A theory is only as strong as the people, data, and process to support it.
Definitely true. The point being that there are many more people, data, and processes than CRU, that have led to the current understanding of the Earth's climate. Here's a short list of just the U.S. government agencies that are involved.
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/meteo.html
There's no "committee in charge" of climate science. This is borderline conspiracy theory. Each research university controls its own funding, each government agency directs its own budget, each technical journal has its own editorial staff. Bad science doesn't get funded or published because it is bad, not because of some central committee who controls everything. Some people are bad scientists. They can't prove anything scientifically; so all they have are PR stunts like this e-mail hack.
Because this is not a scientific research project or paper. There are no new data or equations in anything posted. The leak of personal e-mails is a public relations issue and thus essentially political.
Neither those defending global warming, nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issue.
If you're defending it or questioning it, and you're not a working scientist producing new research to do so, you're acting politically.
I'm sure Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are just about to release their own personal e-mail histories as well.