![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
Open v. Closed Source-Climate Change Research 443
theidocles writes "The ongoing debate over the 'hockey stick' climate graph has an interesting side note.
McKitrick & McIntyre (M&M), the critics, have published their complete source code and it's written using the well-known R statistics package (covered by the GPL). Mann, Bradley & Hughes, the defenders, described their algorithm but have only released part of their source code, and refuse to divulge the rest, which really makes it look like they have some errors/omissions to hide (they did publish the data they used). There's an issue of open source vs closed source as well as how much publicly-funded researchers should be required to disclose - should they be allowed to generate 'closed-source' solutions at the taxpayers' expense?"
Short answer, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
No. I paid for it I want to see it. How else will we know if it works the way they say it works?
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:2)
It's always bugged me that our elected officials hand our money to any vendor they'd like, but then on the flipside, one could argue, that's why they're elected officials.
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
The government buys licenses for Microsoft Windows, Office, etc. just like it buys toilet paper or doorknobs.
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
shares of MSFT in the portfolios of government decision makers, and
selection of Microsoft products to support new projects.
No real cures for this hypothetical problem that wouldn't be far worse than the disease, alas...
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Same goes with any government function. Even with the freedom of information act, there is still classified information and the like. If someone doesn't want to give you their research... it's their research no matter who funds it.
They have no legal obligation to give *you* anything.
Thats the way the world works and the way it *should* work. Deal with it.
Actually, why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not?
There is a bill before congress right now that says basically that - in relation to automobiles. It says basically that people have a right to be able to fix thier own autos and manufactures do NOT have the right to make you go to a dealer for repairs because they hide the source for automotive computer systems.
Now living in a country where so many people can
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not when the secret is current, and espionage is a concern. This is of course the current state of affairs.
Once the secret is no longer of military importance, all information that can be released should be released. In general that's what happens - note the wealth of information available on the WWII atomic weapon program for instance.
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
No agency can possibly do this outside the government.
The government (the current administration moreso than most, but not *much* more) has a definite "make it secret" reflex. It's shocking to me how little outcry various abuses of that have been (like a redacted FOIA on an internal audit, where the redacted sections were exposed, and were revealed to be the parts of the audit where the agency failed).
Of course they have a "make it secret" reflex. That is called "erring on the side of caution".
Secrecy is of course prone to abuse, which is why there are Congressional oversight committees. How effective those are is another topic of course...
Sadly, although unsuprisingly, both the populace and the government have forgetten who's supposed to be the servant.
Nice non sequitur.
Covert Perpetuation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Covert Perpetuation (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the same analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in the case of research, federally funded research should have a complete disclosure. If you have a scientist doing work, and not disclosing the entire body of it, then in reality, the end product must not be regarded as science, but opinion. If Mann does not disclose his entire body of work used to comprise his conclu
Re:Short answer, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Science Fails (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is supposed to be about peer review, rigor, that every assumption behind every assertion can be challenged. If, all we have is someone with a Phd can claim that they have a fact as our science, then, what is the point of even trusting them?
Without independent verification and an open process, there's nothing to separate scientists from creationists, and the people are going to pick whoever makes the most attractive sales pitch.
science succeeded, politics is failing (Score:3)
As sad as it is to say, people will believe the Mann paper no matter what is published. Look, the source data are published already and people still believe. Numerous independent reviewers (which is to say _e
Scientists agree doesn't mean a lot (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole notion of "it makes the scientists happy so we should just trust them" goes against every single thing that we in the west have fought for since the renaissance.
Your whole argument illustrates this problem precisely. You argue that, "well, even though the key piece of statistical evidence in global warming is questionable, we should still believe in the conclusion."
This is so wrong.
Maybe if scientists published all of their data in a uniform format, to a uniform site, with exact steps to reproduce, all of their source data, and how they draw conclusions from them, then, you might have a field that is useful. But right now, you have got hyper expensive journals all over the place as a repository for articles that only sketch out a discovery and not actually do it, and that simply is not good enough to be taken credibly.
The scientific process is excellent. But today's scientific product sucks.
Re:Science Fails (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus we have the nonsense of Nature publishing a Corrigendum on MBH 98 and Mann saying that it doesn't materially affect the paper when Nature's policy is that Corrigendums are only published when they *do* materially affect the conclusions of the paper.
Something is seriously wrong with MBH 98 and it's a foundational study in an important field that is causing public policy to move in ways that could really hurt a lot of people.
How much is enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of it, baby. We're paying for it -- we should have the right to:
a) Know what you're spending our money on
b) Have the right to make it better ourselves
c) Learn of security flaws early so we can correct them
Especially when there is some doubt [slashdot.org] about the nature of the results in the closed source model from Mann et al.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How much is enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, often you will only be paying for part of it. It is common for research to come out of a combination of `projects' funded from different sources.
What should happen if, for instance, a drug company funds a project into developing statistical theory and signal analysis and so on to improve analysis of early candidate drug screening data, and then the researchers use the prototype implementation in a publicly funded project they are involved in on climate data and find something significant?
Or what happens for part-state, part-commercially funded projects?
I think one thing which could be done is to give companies a (bigger) tax break on money put into research (internal or when they give grants) if they sign up to give out not only all the data, but things like source of programs and detailed design of prototypes and experimental setups.
Another thing would be to set up some kind of peer review process and then treat published source as a publication for the researcher. If your peers sign off to say that you have produced and documented the code to the level where it is a useful resource for other researchers, then it should count towards departmental and personal evaluations just as a journal article would. The formalised review process is important -- the average bit of lashed-together-to-get-the-data research code is more equivalent to a scribbled note on a whiteboard than to a journal article.
Perhaps all that is needed is an online journal set up and run as a properly organised accademic journal, but specialising in publishing code. Imagine an infrastructure not a million miles away from sourceforge, but with a peer review process to decide what gets counted as a release.
Re:How much is enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the idea of establishing incentives for fuller release of data and methods is a great one. Not only can it speed work, but it can finally start to break down the "build-it-yourself" mentality that seems to pervade science (or physics at least), and get people to think in terms of platform compatibility when they build software to solve a particular problem. The amount of repeated software work is simply staggering.
On the other, there are legitimate reasons to want to withhold your cod
Re:How much is enough? (Score:2)
Interesting. Seems to be a step in the correct direction. I couldn't see anything about quality standards. Just because the code generated publishable results, that does not mean that the code is publishable.
I think the important thing would be to have the quality threshold be high enough and reliable enough that there could be no sane argument that the creation of something in the archive was not as much of a contribution to the field as producing a journal article.
Re:How much is enough? (Score:2)
It should be called argh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It should be called argh! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It should be called argh! (Score:2)
I don't think Open vs. Closed source politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxpayer funded whitewashes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Taxpayer funded whitewashes (Score:4, Informative)
Mr. Tobin. Well, probably the most prominent--actually, there were two main areas negating the missile theory. One, of course, again, is the absence of impulsive loading, or very high-speed fracture and failure mechanisms.
But second was there were serious issues with every theory, or almost every theory, as to access of an external missile to the fuel, to the fuel tank. Even with, as I indicated earlier, if one would focus on an area where we did not recover all of the fuel tank, there were components nearby that would have blocked or at least recorded passage of any externally penetrating object. And if that were not the case, there were many layers, including the external underbelly of the aircraft, and that was recovered almost--a huge portion of that was recovered.
So that, basically, the only plausible theory for some of the missiles to have occurred would have been if there were missiles such that could maybe get through a 1- or 2-inch opening, make an immediate left, go 90 degrees through a seam, and then maybe take another 90-degree right, and then maybe reverse itself and come back over. But those were some of the considerations.
Re:Taxpayer funded whitewashes (Score:3, Insightful)
The point I was making is not that TWA800 was shot down, just that the CIA and NTSB released a 'closed-source' animation purporting to totally refute the many, many, many eyewitness accounts of a "streaking light" intercepting the aircraft. The animation is hugely flawed but they refuse to let anyone subject it to analysis.
Show me the RAW data. (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of times they select subsets of the data and then normalize or otherwise massage the data.
Thanks
Re:Show me the RAW data - two legs! (Score:2)
Re:Show me the RAW data. (Score:3, Insightful)
The debate (Score:3, Insightful)
For all we know, there could be a very valid reason why they haven't released all of it. I'm not sure what that reason could be, but given that we don't have anything to go on, we're stuck to just guessing.
Re:The debate (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The debate (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The debate (Score:2, Informative)
Expected Slashdot answer (Score:2)
What isn't quite so obvious is employers owning works of an employee. It seems obvious that it should be restricted to stuff that is currently job related and developed on company time, but we all know of scenarios where companies reach too far. So without looking too deeply, I wonder if the other side considers some aspects of their work not relevant to that which wa
Re:Expected Slashdot answer (Score:2)
That's correct under English Common Law. But at least the "open sourc" group is from the Netherlands, and they work under the maximes of the Berne Convention. In German Law (43 UrhG) it states explicitely:
No brainer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Closed science is half a step from religion. You are expected to have faith in the researcher's methodologies, analysis, assumptions, and motives. Sorry, but good science does not rely on faith.
Re:No brainer... (Score:2)
Re:No brainer... (Score:4, Interesting)
I run quite a selection of software on my machines, and to be honest, I've never done a security review of ANY of it. To be equally honest, I'm not really competent to do a security review of the code, though with effort I could well become so. But by and large, I pay attention to OSS community discussions, and know that others who appear to be competent have review that software. Note that I use the term "appear to be competent," since I have no personal knowledge of their qualifications. However, when enough people who "appear to be competent" reach a concensus, either:
1: They're all incompetent in the same way.
2: They're all email aliases of the same guy hunched over the keyboard in his parents' basement.
3: They're the techno-incarnation of the Club of Rome, bent on World Dominatino.
4: They're a variety of informed backgrounds and opinions who have come to a rough concensus.
I submit that 4 is most likely. 1 is possible, given that there are common misconceptions, but the larger the group, the less likely 1 becomes. 2 and 3 are just plain for the tin-foil hat club.
I argue that the work needs to be open for the self-selection of reviewers. If the reviewers are selected by the authors, no matter how hard they try to find 'fair and neutral' parties or even antagonists, something will be missed.
Re:No brainer... (Score:2)
Re:No brainer... (Score:2, Insightful)
But to many in the environmental movement it is a religion. Orthodox Environmentalism is just as strict as any other orthodox religion, and just as faith-based and close to new ideas.
Re:No brainer... (Score:2, Insightful)
No brainer. I think that means you didn't really think about the problem.
In science, as in industry, there is a necessity to maintain a competitive advantage. The competition isn't over sales, it's over papers. Pape
Just because it's code it should be open? (Score:3, Interesting)
complicated...
Re:Just because it's code it should be open? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just because it's code it should be open? (Score:4, Insightful)
It shouldn't. But of course there are two ways to resolve this inconsistency:
Option 2 please.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Just because it's code it should be open? (Score:2)
Where? (Score:2)
Uhrm
and it's written using the well-known R statistics package
Re:Where? (Score:3, Informative)
Unless I'm mistaken...
Source [climate2003.com] Data [climate2003.com]
Arguments for & against open-source (Score:5, Interesting)
Arguments against open-source science:
I'm sure there are arguments on both sides.
Re:Arguments for & against open-source (Score:2)
Re:Arguments for & against open-source (Score:2)
The "value of intellectual assets" is paid by the government, and thus, is a property of the government (and thus goes into Public Domain).
If you want a monopoly on the fruits of your research, sure, go ahead! Just use your own funds for it. We deserve the results of the research we paid for with our taxes.
Re:Arguments for & against open-source (Score:2)
You mean a patent? Anyone care to comment on a related note about why publicly funded research (like at a university) should be able to secure patents for the researchers? I have seen many an experiment hampered by a patent/NDA/legal nightmare when collaborating with other universities. The university pushes for
Re:Arguments for & against open-source (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the "arguments against open-source science" mentioned here are not about science at all. The secrecy surrounding commericial and national-security "science" is good only in a financial or political sense: they do not help science, per se, at all. And personality conflicts are a factor as well: I suspect that Mann et al's reluctance to release source stems from an extreme personal frustration at McKitrick et al's persistent and (in my view) not always well-supported attacks.
Voodoo, not science (Score:5, Insightful)
And to say because the research is done with "taxpayer's money" is missing the point: If you can't reproduce every step, it's voodoo, not science. And we make policy decisions based on science, not voodoo (I hope).
real government research goals (Score:5, Informative)
Not in all cases. (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of work peformed for government agencies is contractual with businesses. These same businesses employ tricks of the trade and such to deliver what is required. To have them detail how the work is just suicidal. The same goes for software they develop for use by the government. Unless specifically addressed in the contract I do not believe there is a right to disclose the code, let alone make it available to the public.
That last part is key. Even if they disclose the source to the government there is no obligation on either party to make it public.
This argument that they have something to hide is childish. It is designed to provide no leeway. Simply put, once labeled as such what other option other than disclosure exist? You might as well say "You have to release it, its for the children" and then proceed to use whole "hates kids, wants kids to die" guilt trip that is far to common in politics today.
Summary. Release it if only its an upfront requirement of the project and agreed upon by both parties. In the future a requirement by law that all government projects must be fully disclosed to include the source of any software may be nice but I bet it would have so many exceptions written into it that it would result only in a "feel-good" law.
Re:Not in all cases. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not in all cases. (Score:2)
taxpayers vs boffins (Score:4, Informative)
This is an extremely difficult issue, although it sounds pretty trivial.
For one thing, the taxpayer is rarely participating in discussions like this one. Moreover, the success of scientific institutions is often measured in terms of number of patents, successfully launched businesses by former students/researchers, etc. So not only is there little or no opposition to closed-source software (or scientific articles!), there are also good reasons for researchers to go the closed-source road.
Some researchers have a tendency towards secrecy. Some even seem a little paranoid when it comes to their data and methods. You could compare this to the tendency of the OSS zealot to suspect bugs, glitches, and omissions in any piece of closed-source software.
And as a German side-note: There are laws over here that require you to have the patentability of any piece of software you develop checked by university lawyers. GPLing something is technically illegal for a researcher. I have no idea how this is regulated in other countries.
If you were wondering what real scientists think (Score:3, Informative)
So a team of real scientists (that is, by folks who work in climate science, not reporters or pundits) wrote a Dummies Guide [realclimate.org] to the latest controversy. Click on the link for a nice question-by-question breakdown, but I'll spoil the conclusion for you:
(MBH98 is the old paper with "closed" source, MM05 is the new "open source") paper)
Read the rest [realclimate.org] for more explanation.Re:If you were wondering what real scientists thin (Score:2)
Which is reasonable since MM's argument is about source data and not methodology (as per this guide [realclimate.org]).
Re:If you were wondering what real scientists thin (Score:4, Insightful)
You're over-trivializing a DRAMATICALLY IMPORTANT POINT. The original study is focused on North American data almost exclusively for certain time periods. That data (from a single species of tree) skews the results in such a way as to make the current trend seem unique and drastic. On the other hand, if you treat that data source in such a way as to balance it with the other data that is available, you see a VERY DIFFERENT TREND!
The response has been to claim that weighting the data in this way reduces the number of data points unacceptably (I would agree, but that doesn't make MBH98 right).
That's the whole point here, and the other side continues to say, "you're throwing away data" when any competent researcher would have thrown it out in the first place (note: there's an exception. if you produced a report that was specific to N. America, MBH98 would be your model, and it seems to be a fine model for that... N. America is seeing record warming as compared with the last few centuries, and that's all you can extract from MBH98).
Also keep some perspective in mind here. We're in a period where temperatures could rise MORE than ANYONE is predicting and not make a dent in the graph over the last 10million years. If you graph out the last 10 million years, you see that temperatures over the last 10,000 years have been part of a huge, cyclical spike in temperatures. We're at what is likely the peak of a drastic temperature swing, and it WILL plumet again into a new ice age (unless we decide to and are capable of coming up with a way to prevent it). I'm not drawing any conclusions from that, just pointing out that there are natural forces at work here, capable of making temperature changes that we a) cannot yet conclusively explain and b) the likes of which no human has ever experienced.
It's important to keep a sense of perspective and to remember that we have very impressive climate models... all of which might be wrong.
Re:If you were wondering what real scientists thin (Score:4, Informative)
Second of all, there was a flaw in the original algorithm that was pointed out by McIntyre and McKitrick before they even got to the bad data being put into the equation.
And, to top it off, Mann's equation always produces hockey-stick graphs [newsweekly.com.au], even with randomly distributed data.
Don't point at Mann's own site as a defense of Mann.
Re:If you were wondering what real scientists thin (Score:4, Interesting)
However there was a link to McIntyre and McKitrick's website [uoguelph.ca] in the topic summary. Why was it relevant for Timothy to include that link, but not include a link to the matching item on RealClimate.org [realclimate.org]? Is it just non-scientists who are allowed to have weblogs about this stuff?
Regards
Luke
Re:If you were wondering what real scientists thin (Score:3, Informative)
Should they be _allowed_? (Score:2)
I think it's not fair for a public-funded project to do something like create a product and sell it without source code, or patent their work. But that doesn't mean that every artifact of the research project needs to be made public, necessarily. In this case, the end product that the grants paid for is the scholarly paper, not a computer program. Just as we don't demand their notebooks, time cards, e-mails, and meeting
Re:Should they be _allowed_? (Score:2)
But the program is part of the authority of the paper. Put it like this: if the program was revealed to be a random number generator, do you think it would reflect badly on the value for money the taxpayers got? In which case, don't researchers have a duty to publish the program in order to help show the validity of their research, in all cases, not just this one?
TWW
Replication (Score:3, Informative)
Not detailing the methods used (in this case; giving the entire algorithms, either as source or as a 100% comlete and unambiguous description) basically limits the usefullnes of the resultant data as mere speculation, not proof nor even theory.
If I remember correctly, the computermodel in this case is known to include a rather lacking model of rainfall, which seems like a pretty big omision in a climate model to me.
in biology it happens too... (Score:3, Informative)
How can you repeat results? (Score:2)
with open source, everyone can see you're dumb (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Better question to ask. (Score:2)
Also, since the results have to be reproducable by ANYBODY, without the source you can not garuntee that the program is doing what it is being said it can do. Af
Science in the public interest? (Score:2)
That's BS, and all the more so because of the political implications of such research.
Science and Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there is no reason to demand that scientist should publish their source code, since scientist usually reuse their code and share their code with people they work with, but should not be obliged to help other scientist that they are competing for funding with to get their own simulation programs.
The demand on scientist are clear though, they should give enough information in their publications so anyone interested (or who want to refute their results) can reproduce what they have done. So any statistical or mathematical methods used should be mentioned. And if they use commercial packages (with closed source usually for all parties), mention which packages they use would be wise so that if there are found bugs in these programs, any influence on their results can be taken into consideration. If enough information is given, then any scientist who can program, can check out the literature how to implement the nummerical algorithms and write their own program. Often they can buy (fairly expensive) commercial packages or even find open source liberies that have already implemented these algorithms, and then reproduce the results.
If these two economist were able to reproduce the results of some major climate scientist, then these climate scientist have given enough information to their fellow scientist and the general public. So lets forget about these two guys, or buy their book if you want to believe they know better about climate changes than the general scientific community.
Obviously YES (Score:5, Insightful)
In my case, the answer to that question is, "Lots." I have had it happen in pure science (neutrino physcis), applied science (medical physics) and software development (database programming, data analysis, etc.)
I am painfully aware that my own published descriptions of algorithms have often left out minor details that may be critical in some applications, but that page limits in peer-reviewed journals necessitate. It is not uncommon to get a call from someone doing similar work asking for details about what you've done, how you've done it, and in some cases, asking to look at source code.
In contentious areas of science such requests are not always met with full disclosure, which is a sign that the people involved are no longer doing science. They are doing politics. This happens a lot, and it brings the scientific process to a halt on the question at issue.
In the case at hand, the original authors have done a very poor job of describing what they have done, and an extremely poor job of defending their work. Their refusal to publish their source code for their analysis gives credibility to their critics.
There are certainly legitimate cases where code ought not be published. If a lab has spent many, many years developing a framework for solving a certain type of problem and wants to get the most advantage out of that framework before releasing it, they may reasonably want to limit it's disemination for a while. But those sorts of reason don't apply in this case, and the source should be made available to anyone who wants to reproduce their actual results. That would just be good science.
--Tom
Replication (Score:3, Informative)
1) Science functions only on open review. If you can't duplicate someone's results, they are useless (c.f. Ponds and Fleischman [sp?]). A scientific result is only of value if it describes a consistent replicatable process. This is why I consider the closed source work to be completely meaningless. It may be perfect, it may be bug-ridden garbage, we'll never know!
2) Every tax paying American has paid for my code and work. While I regularly feel they're not getting their money's worth, I definitely don't feel they're paying me to enrich me. They are, in a very real sense, my bosses, and I AM obligated to report to them, if they care. Think of it as a company requiring rights to your work.
3) As an academic working on a fairly limited budget, open source and free software have been a godsend for me and everyone else I know. We run linux because it's more efficient, secure and FREE; we use free or open-source compilers; and we cobble together high-perormance computers and beowulf clusters out of miscellaneous bare metal and lots of googling. The only piece of software I routinely have to pay for is MATLAB.
The Bayh-Dole Act changed all that (Score:3, Informative)
It's worth noting that, while it makes sense that taxpayer-funded research should generate 'open-source' solutions, federal law dictates otherwise.
The Bayh-Dole Act [uc.edu] was passed 25 years ago, which dictates:
So in other words the government has dictated since 1980 that government-funded research should not produce open-source solutions, necessarily, as the results of research are to be considered private-sector profit-generating centers for the host universities. (The implications for the 'next BSD4.3 TCP/IP stack', or similar advanced research, are obvious.)
Anyway, regarding the 'hockey stick' controversy, Tim Lambert's weblog [unsw.edu.au] is worth a read.
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:2)
The problem is nutters on the Green side equate people saying "you still haven't proven it" with people meaning "it doesn't exist." Is global warming real and a problem? Very well may be. As shown in the original posting, however, there is still a way to go before anyone can say its proven.
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, 99% of the well-educated people today incorrectly believe that 99.9% of the scientists in the middle ages believed in the concept of a flat earth.
The has been a generally accepted notion that the earth is round [wikipedia.org] since the 1st century A.D.. Disputes have only been about (1) whether the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around, and (2) what the radius of the e
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:3, Informative)
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whiteb03.html
The "doctrine of the antipodes" asserted that even if the Earth was spherical, no humans lived on "the other side" because they'd have their feet in the air, wouldn't be able to observe the descent of Christ at the 2nd comi
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:3, Insightful)
No they weren't. The earth being a sphere has been the consensus expert view (at least amongst European experts) since midway through the first millenium BC at least.
But if the consensus has arisen because the hypothesis has been 'proven' (ie hasn't failed any of the tests it has been subjected to so far
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:2)
Also ice core samples and fossil records can show what the climate was like much longer ago than that.
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:2)
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:2)
So what exactly is YOUR solution? Nuclear is a perfectly viable solution until we come up with something better. At the very least, it's far cleaner than burning coal for our energy.
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:2)
*If* the information is as bullet proof as you say, then they have nothing to be concerned about. Since only one side has done this, only one side is opening itself up to peer review.
This is the equivalent to SCO saying "you have our code!", not producing any evidence to demonstrate this, and then IBM delivering truckloads of evidence to the contrary.
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:2, Troll)
That "99.9% of scientists" agree with the theory doesn't mean much. Scientists are generally as much herd animals as the rest of humanity, sadly enough. Since this particular topic also has a strong political aspect, it is even more prone
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:2)
I don't know the details about this issue, but Kyoto is about CO2 budgets, not about air pollution. Burning wood for cooking may produce soot, but it doesn't produce extra CO2 as long as new trees take the place of the once that are burnt.
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but that is why the Kyoto protocol is flawed. The authors of the cooking fire study estimated the warming effect of the soot was 30 times worse than that of the same mass of CO2.
Re:Man-made and natural (Score:2)
The amount of crops in other areas grow for each degree the temp goes up as well. Places like Siberia and Canada get warmer and become capable of supporting plant life. The growing season gets longer and more crops are produced as well. What we have in temperature vs. crop yield is an upside down parabola with a peak somewhere. If we are on the side of the peak where temperatures ge
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:3, Informative)
This is the big problem for people trying to fight the critics. For me though it's easy. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been as high as they are now (at about 370ppm) and they're expected to increase up to 700ppm if we finish off the oil (which may be in 70 years or longer). But the poi
Re:But the Hockey Stick is True! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous
Re:You are not entitled (Score:3, Insightful)
The easiest way to do that is to show the source code.
These "closed source" scientists need to remember their high school math teacher's admonitions to show their work.
Re:You are not entitled (Score:2)