Smithsonian 'Toned Down the Science' In Climate Change Exhibit 372
An anonymous reader writes "According to an International Herald Tribune article, the Smithsonian pre-emptively toned down the scientific content of a climate change exhibit put into place last year. The changes, including removal of scientist conclusions and muddying of displayed data, were made to ensure that the exhibit would not offend the Congress or the White House. Pressure brought to bear by Institute officials resulted in the resignation of Robert Sullivan, a sixteen year veteran of the organization. 'This is not the first time the Smithsonian has been accused of taking politics into consideration. The congressionally chartered institution scaled down a 1995 exhibit of the restored Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, after veterans complained it focused too much on the damage and deaths. Amid the oil-drilling debate in 2003, a photo exhibit of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was moved to a less prominent space.'"
Overheard at the Smithsonian (Score:5, Funny)
Overheard at the Smithsonian:
Worker: Sir, I have this old display of Noah's Ark you asked for. Where did you want it?
Curator: Put some dinosaur models on it then set it up in the Geology Wing.
Worker: Will do, sir. Oh I also changed all the signage in that wing from "millions of years" to "thousands of years".
Curator: That's what I like: proactive thinking! What about the Adam & Eve diorama?
Worker: It's where the Galapagos Islands exhibit was, just as you requested.
Curator: My boy, you have a bright future in science!
Re:Overheard at the Smithsonian (Score:5, Funny)
The moral of the story? Piss off the public and they WILL shoot you.
Sometimes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the museum curator in the parent posting existed or not, I salute anyone with the guts and gall to question assumptions and place integrity above deceit. And, yes, such people probably will lose jobs and - in rare cases - possibly a whole lot more. History teaches us, however, that in the long run, inaccuracies do get weeded out. Nobody these days uses Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the British Kings as a textbook, and popular Victorian school texts (which depicted Iron Age Britain as filled with unkempt cave-dwelling barbarians with no language or culture) have been replaced with more reliable and infinitely more believable studies of Celtic life.
Pissing off the public with the truth is inevitable. It will happen, sooner or later. May as well get it over and done with quickly, even if that carries risk. Life is all about risk - so why not take risks that might make a difference?
Re:Sometimes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Devil's Advocate:
How do we know that? Maybe historians of all times view their current generation as most accurate, even if they're really re-writing history less accurately.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, with this approach, you WON'T make a difference. There ARE ways to change things more effectively, and without getting fired or shot. The guy who comes in and immediately upsets every applecart will be immediately dismissed as a madman and disposed of.
The trick is moderation and respect. You don't come in and destroy every icon that the public holds dear. Maybe you quietly change the "This is George Washington's musket
It's not about pissing, Its about voting. (Score:4, Insightful)
If, however the general public actually learns that the problem is real and hasn't been attacked aggressively then they'll start shopping around for someone else to protect them.
While historically speaking the comparison to evolution is apt it might be better to compare it with the level of "terrorist threat" or the war with Eurasia. In the former case the issue is one of protection, are we making our "way of life" safer. With the War on Terror(tm) the claim is that Bush and Cronies are fighting the enemy and succeeding (look how many terrorists we have convicted and put behind bars). With Global Warming the claim is that it isn't a problem so they don't have to act on it. In either case the tendency to lash out at those who say that they are doing a bad job with respect to terror (journalists, PBS, research scientists) or global warming (scientists again, schools and museums) is just a natural reaction. Because if they aren't doing a good job they lose the license to give kickbacks and generally ruin things that they now have.
At the end of the day it is all about power and money.
Re:Overheard at the Smithsonian (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to put it more elegantly: You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.
They are following the "Golden Rule". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are following the "Golden Rule". (Score:4, Funny)
science (Score:2)
Re:science (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(Not you specifically.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, showing "An Inconvenient Truth" to high-schoolers four or five times makes them indifferent, or worse, nihilistic.
Get the kids some exercise, get them playing some sports, get them into photographing nature. Make the bad things seem boring.
Summary: the positive approach is the better long-term investment, unless you're a shrink or an anti-depressant vendor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Money ALWAYS comes with strings attached (Score:4, Funny)
Get it from private industry, expect to answer to the CEO and board
Get it from an individual, expect to answer to him
Get it from Microsoft, expect to answer to Satan
Re:Money ALWAYS comes with strings attached (Score:5, Insightful)
The Smithsonian institute are funded by the government of the United States.
Most of the current Congressmen / Senators / President which make up the government of the United States are funded by the big Oil companies.
The big Oil companies obviously don't want to see pictures of Climate Change or pictures of the national parks they are in the process of trashing and so get what they see as their subsidiary company to "make the changes".
Courtesy of United States Inc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All hail lord Xenu!
Self-policing (Score:5, Insightful)
There's two kinds of people: those that change their beliefs to fit the facts and those that change the facts to fit their beliefs.
When you're changing the facts to fit other people's beliefs, well, I guess you get the budget dollars but lose all self-respect.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are closely akin to the latter, but you are instead making up "facts" to fit your belief.
For all we know, Bush himself called up and made chimplike screeching noises to the heads of the board of the Smithsonian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They like their jobs. They decided that being asked to quit to "spend more time with family" a la a US Attorney was not the way they wanted to go...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you forgot the third kind: the one's who go against department politics and end up ASKING for spare change...
Re:Self-policing (Score:5, Interesting)
By most accounts, and I've talked with curators at the Smithosonian about this, Small was a terrible leader of the organization. He apparently did bring a lot of money into the organization, but you didn't see any evidence of this behind the scenes at the museum. Instead, he had almost $50,000 spent on furniture for his office, $15,000 spent on the doors at his house, spent $160,000 spent on renovating his office at the Smithsonian castle building, and by using his house to host a few Smithsonian functions, was given $1.15 million dollars in housing allowances. All your tax dollars. Not to mention, his total salary for 2007 was supposed to be $915,000- nearly a million dollars, more than the president and vice president combined. Meanwhile, science seems to have taken a back seat at the Smithsonian, and I suspect the scientists threw a party when he finally resigned. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/03/18/AR2007031801369.html [washingtonpost.com]
But Small is just one symptom of a much larger problem, which is appointing incompetent hacks to important government positions, and pushing politics over facts. This is what happened at FEMA with Heckuvajob Brownie. This is what happened in Iraq, when the White House sent over people who had the proper Republican Party credentials, but not the credentials to do the job; it's one of the major reasons the occupation there has been such a disaster. The problem has been summed up pretty well by the phrase, "the triumph of the hacks over the wonks". See, the wonks are the policy guys, the analytical guys who can analyze the facts and tell you what you need to do in order to achieve a desired outcome. They are the political equivalent of a computer geek, except they write policy instead of code. The hacks are the political guys, the guys who don't give a shit what the facts are, they are only there to push their party agenda. And this administration has favored the hacks over the wonks, so the result is that facts get shoved aside by politics, whether it's climate change, or the debatable effectiveness of "abstinence-only" education, or the infamous case of General Shinseki getting sacked by Rumsfeld after he said we would need several hundred thousand troops to effectively occupy Iraq.
PC... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Ain't paying taxes anymore!"
-Rick
Hate to be the grammar nazi... (Score:2)
The good news is ... (Score:5, Funny)
well (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and there's more ... (Score:3, Funny)
By muddying the data, they're inferring that the climate will get wetter and the mud will obfuscate the data. I would love to see the memo that explicitly tells the janitorial staff NOT to clean up the mud off of the data! That would be a smoking gun!
Fucking Government, they think they outsmart me?!? HA!
Lines from the article, with commentary (Score:5, Insightful)
"...officials omitted scientists' interpretation of some research and let visitors draw their own conclusions from the data..." Why would they do that? Don't they know the great unwashed can't be trusted to draw trhe "proper" inferences?!?!!?!!
"...changes were made for reasons of objectivity. And some scientists who consulted on the project said nothing major was omitted." Speaks for itself, I guess.
*AND*, despite the summary above, "Sullivan said that to his knowledge, no one in the Bush administration pressured the Smithsonian."
Re:Lines from the article, with commentary (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and Gonzo can't remember anyone from the White House giving him a list of lawyers to fire. What's your point?
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
For some reason, this phrase conjured pictures of his spleen plotting against his pancreas...
Just look at this one line from the article (Score:2)
Sorry! (Score:2)
"Now, just *who* is doing the accusing is left out, as is *who* at the White House has the muzzle, as are specific scientists and projects.
This isn't journalism. This is utterly shameless fear-mongering.This isn't journalism. This is utterly shameless fear-mongering."
bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how I read this story. It seems to me that most of the complaints are not that "science" was removed from the exhibit, but that the exhibit isn't political enough!. They want people manipulated politically using "conclusions" that can't be reasonably drawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Plausible deniability is a great thing as long as everyone keeps their mouths shut.
Re:Lines from the article, with commentary (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, science has uncertainty. The problem is in injecting more uncertainty than the scientific studies originally concluded.
"...officials omitted scientists' interpretation of some research and let visitors draw their own conclusions from the data..." Why would they do that? Don't they know the great unwashed can't be trusted to draw trhe "proper" inferences?!?!!?!!
Hell, even other scientists have trouble looking at a graph and drawing conclusions from it, unless they're experts in that specific field. That's why scientific papers and scientific talks have words to go along with all those pretty graphs.
Look at all of the abuses of science that go on in Slashdot global warming threads when you take away the interpretation.
Raw data: graph showing CO2 increases following temperature increases, instead of leading them
Implied conclusion: CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases
Missing scientific interpretation: temperatures cause CO2 increases, which in turn amplify and prolong the original temperature increase
Actual scientific conclusion: CO2 does cause temperature increases (and vice versa!)
Raw data: graph showing CO2 increasing smoothly in the 20th century, but temperatures falling mid-century
Implied conclusion: CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases
Missing scientific interpretation: there were non-CO2 cooling effects in the mid-20th century, including heavy air pollution and a brief spike in volcanism
Actual scientific conclusion: CO2 does cause temperature increases (and other manmade and natural factors also influence the climate)
Raw data: graph showing temperatures and solar intensity increasing
Implied conclusion: solar brightening causes global warming
Missing scientific interpretation: the increase in solar intensity is real but too small to produce the observed warming, and did not increase at a rate similar to the increased rate of late 20th century warming
Actual scientific conclusion: solar brightening can only account for a small minority of the global warming
Raw data: graph showing Earth and Pluto temperatures increasing
Implied conclusion: solar brightening causes global warming everywhere in the solar system
Missing scientific interpretation: see above, and the fact that Pluto has recently been unusually close to the Sun
Actual scientific conclusion: solar brightening isn't responsible for global warming on Earth or Pluto
There is nothing wrong with explaining how scientists interpret data. The data themselves only give part of the picture, especially to non-scientists who don't know as much about the issues.
Re:Lines from the article, with commentary (Score:4, Insightful)
It helps to look at all of the data. In each case you listed, it would be wild speculation at best to reject the "implied conclusion" in favor of the "interpretation", unless you did so based on more "raw data" that you presented. How do you know that CO2 causes additional temperature increases? How do you know there was a brief spike in volcanism? How do you know the increase in solar intensity is insignificant? These are key questions - good scientists don't look at fixed data sets and choose interpretations to rationalize the conclusions they've already made. Instead, they come up with ideas, use them to design calculations/experiments and predictions, carry through, examine the result, and repeat.
That said, it's unrealistic to expect people to properly analyze all the data on climate change in the half hour or less they spend in the exhibit. The best approach in presenting science to the public is to give people a taste of the process (some evidence with the best present analysis, maybe some history of the field, maybe walk them through devising a simple experiment), an idea of where to learn more (maybe books in the gift shop), and also the result. That result is what most scientists currently believe, with their stated level of confidence. ("Result" isn't quite the right word, since it can change, but it will have to do.)
Not too surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like newspaper reporting now- skimp on the facts and give some conclusions, maybe put in a few emotional bits. Good luck trying to find objectivity, anywhere, anymore.
Why Not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Al Gore toned down the science for his film. Or, he substituted science with hype. Even the scientist who accept the man-caused model find Al's wild *ssed misuse of science a little frightening.
If anyone is going to take it seriously, hyped arguments, with incredibly weak holes are going to drive people away from the true science. When a true scientist says, "Look, I have proof of man-caused climate change", the Gore-Hype-Doom-Weary-Joe-Everybody is going to ignore it.
Ignore Gore, DiCapprio, Robbins, Mado
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, most people who think that it was bad don't even understand that trees respire.
So, how about you? do you ahe an example of incorrect science or conclusion based on selective evidence?
No, I don't think so.
Here's one (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, I liked the movie. However, one thing that he did exaggerate (by omission) was his discussion of the 20 foot rise in sea levels. Sure, if either the ice on Greenland or the West Shelf of Antarctica melts, sea levels will rise (at least) 20 feet. If both melt, sea levels will rise 40 feet. Of course, no scientist (that I'm aware of) is predicting either to happen in the next 100 years. So, his facts were right, but the implication (that this would happen reasonably soon if things don't change) is not.
Global warming is serious and should be addressed in an intelligent, deliberate manner. Over-hyping it is counter-productive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about the UN report, and other NGO's talk about the sea level rising a matter of inches (17 inches approximately) and Gore goes hyperbolic (20 feet)?
Look, Gore is as good to the environmental movement as Jerry Falwell was to the Christians. Falwell permanently cast the movement as a whacko fringe. Make of point of saying you are a Christian and you will find yourself categorized with Falwell, Robertson, and Reed. Gore is going to make it so that saying you are an environmentalist will put you in the c
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, Gore did give the impression that Greenland could melt soon, which is not correct.
Ice melting predictions (Score:2)
Should read "since the observed rate of ice melting is greater than any models [that fail to take into account imprecise knowledge of how ice rivers act] predict". They knew they were underestimating when they made these predictions, but since they didn't know how to accurately factor in the ice rivers, they chose to go conservative. I know you already know this, but I thought I'd emphasize it, nonetheless. Even so, I don't think any
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If exaggeration is the quickest way to lose an argument, why do the opponents of global warming continue to hold their ground
Re: (Score:2)
That's like [not exactly but similar] to saying well if you're sure there is no god, go prove it.
The problem I have with climatologists [???] is that they overlook trivial solutions [or at least steps in the right direction] and go directly for whatev
Al Gore's not perfect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are my damn bus routes? Where are the tax breaks for telecommuting? Where are the tariffs on waste production? etc, etc, etc.
It's one thing to sit there all pretty with a slide show spelling out the obvious. It's another to get real action engaged. And since I caved and bought a car anyways, I
I just assumed you cared about accuracy (Score:2)
My bad. When you were made that comment about him doing it to sell books, etc., I assumed you'd appreciate the information.
Is he a hypocrite? Yes. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid point. Don't get angry at him because you don't have good bus routes. Find out who's fault that is and lobby for change.
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is very important for people to remember. I forget who said it first, but the fastest way to lose an argument is to exaggerate. Even if you're right, if you're blatantly obvious about exaggerating your own points and failing to acknowledge your opponents points, people won't believe you. Even if you're right.
When dealing with a topic like global warming, credibility is incredibly important because almost no one (by which I mean among laymen) understands the science. Even relative to other sciences, studying climate and weather is incredibly complex and imprecise. So in order to preserve the credibility of those warning us about global warming-- people, please don't exaggerate. Don't try to convince people of things you yourself don't understand. Don't predict unlikely worst-case scenarios when the likely scenarios are bad enough. Just make honest arguments about only the things you understand, admit to the places where your understanding is unclear, and settle down on the hype.
If we exercised this sort of restraint, our arguments on a wide variety of subjects would probably be more productive. I say "probably" only because I'm basing this on nothing wider than my own personal experience. When you overstate your points and exaggerate the support for your arguments, you're only giving your opponents ammunition to shoot you down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to live in the world you imagine, but it's hard to reconcile that idea with the popularity of "young Earth" creationism. Religion and pseudoscience do what you call the fastest way to lose an argument, yet in the minds of many Americans they haven't lost...
I don't really want to bring the conversation in this direction, but since you brought it up:
I think people who get extremely angry about creationists do just the thing I'm talking about when arguing in favor of evolution. They try to arg
It is a freaking museum (Score:4, Funny)
If they wanted a timely exhibit on climate change, they could randomly assign visitors to either side of an amphitheatre where they would don earplugs before yelling at each other at the top of their lungs while mathematical models that nobody in the room could understand flashed on an IMAX screen.
Amphitheatre? This raises the obligatory question (Score:2)
(note: includes graphical scenery from the movie 'Gladiator')
Re: (Score:2)
(My favorite grudge I've come across was found in one paper, a comment, and a reply to the comment. Two teams of French geologists were trying v
The motivation is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet another reason I prefer NYC's American Museum of Natural History to its inferior counterpart in D.C.
And *I* am one of those folks who feels that there is less certainty to the science behind climate change than some researchers (let alone the public) do. So I should be pleased, but I'm not at all. Putting more research up, whether to clarify the picture or to show that most of it is inconclusive, that would be fine. But "toning down" stuff in an unscientific manner (you can "tone down" projections if a statistical analysis makes it appropriate, I suppose) and hiding information is just irresponsible.
Ever visited the Yasukuni shrine's museum? (Score:2, Interesting)
You should. Before accusing the US government of polishing up its record, check out what the kind, benign, "Hello Kitty" modern Japan is doing.
The annexation of Korea? Peaceful merger agreed upon by both countries.
Colonization (and attempts of same) of the rest of Asia? Defending the fellow Asians from the racist Europeans. (Yes, the same government, that for decades continued to deny citizenship to Koreans in Japan is accusing someone else of "racism")...
Murder of civilians? Impossible — becaus
Why should that excuse anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? What connection is there between how Japan portrays it's military history and whether the Smithsonian's exhibits are correct, other than the word "museum"? Both institutes have a duty to convey accurate information; they both failed to do so, and in my view that makes them both short of the standard.
And that's the point: if your standard is "not as bad as the other guy", yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, while I do find the exhibits in Yasukuni's "museum" sick, there is a glaring difference between it and the Smithsonian:
Yasukuni is a privately run, privately funded institution - The americans made sure to separate it from the government during the U.S. rule of Japan after the 2nd world war.
Call it biased - it is, and doesn't hide that - but the j
Warming vs CO2 (cause effect)?? (Score:2)
Cheers,
_GP_
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Historically (eg, glacial/interglacials): current best theory is that the first mover was orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles) leading to ice sheet retreat. Ice sheet retreat leads to warming. Warming leads to CO2 outgassing from oceans, CH4 being produced from melting permafrost. CH4 and CO2 increases lead to more warming.
Present-day: CO2 increase is solely due to human activity. This CO2 increase is a priori expected to lead to temperature increases, and the actual temperatur
Just to add to that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's both: there is a mutual feedback. CO2 increases cause temperature increases. But temperature increases can also cause CO2 increases (reducing the ocean's capacity to sink CO2), although this takes place on century-to-millennium timescales. In 500-1000 years we should see more natural CO2 in the atmosphere due to the current warming (which in turn is currently due mostly to manmade CO2).
Caught me off guard... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly what else was that exhibit supposed to focus on? It was a war. Contrary to what our mass media and politicians would like us to believe, people actually do die in war, and it normally doesn't happen as movies and television like to dramatise. That plane dropped an atomic bomb, the first of its kind and one of only two to ever be dropped, that was responsible for the most deaths ever from a single explosive. If it didn't have that distinction, no one would care. It would just be yet another bomber from World War II. Personally, I think the exhibit should have been far more detailed than it was. Maybe a few shots of the barren wasteland that was once Hiroshima, or victims' fucking shadows etched into the sand from the detonation. The after-effects of the radiation, perhaps.
All exhibits, however, regardless of how important they seem, should be as detailed as possible. We should absolutely strive to put them in the correct context, and present the facts, unabashed, to the best of our knowledge. Kowtowing to any particular group or person does a grave disservice to society as a whole, because it will only result in the dissemination of misinformation, or at the very least only partial information. We can all digest the facts and come to our own conclusions, but the facts themselves are essential to the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it said:
"This plane killed children and was flown by killer for killer to kill...orphans."
I mean, accurate, but not really the point.
Or maybe it was perfectly balance and some vetrans got a bug up they're but since they are old and believe they will be seeing 'God' soon.
My point is, these blurbs are alway out of context and we have no idea of knowin
Re:Caught me off guard... (Score:4, Informative)
You can find the original scripts, just search for the title "The Crossroads: The End of World War II, the Atomic Bomb, and the Origins of the Cold War"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ITYF (Score:2)
Y'know, Americans and all.
This might be a bit off-topic (Score:4, Insightful)
I was on assignment in Washington DC for the spring and summer months of 2004. The last time I had been there prior to 2004 was when I was about 8.
In what time off work I could find, I went to the Smithsonians (except the portrait museum, as it was closed, and the Native American museum, because it had not yet opened), and was rather disappointed by all but one.
The Air and Space museum, although home to a lot of really cool planes, was filthy. Dust everywhere, stained floors, etc. Also, from what I do remember about my visit now nearly 20 years later, much of the museum's public collection was the same. In fact, I didn't find much to look at there beyond the planes themselves. There were no interesting placards that I can recall, no interesting multimedia, and seemingly no information newer than about 1991.
The same goes for the American History museum. It seemed very propaganda-y. Major cultural divides throughout US history were glossed over or ignored completely. I remember specifically reading about how something to the effect of "some native peoples were unhappy about the country's expansion across the Great Plains." Yeah, I bet at least a few were unhappy.
What saddens me the most is that while I was there, the Natural History museum was the best one. Their displays were modernized, they had exhibits about current issues, the IMAX I went to was great, the facility was clean and the placards with the exhibits, although were somewhat simplified, were appropriate for a somewhat educated audience.
The Smithsonian Institution really is one of America's treasures. When people visit London, they hit the British Museum. In Paris, it's the Louvre. DC has the Smithsonian(s). Those facilities are home to much of the physical historical record of this country. They see millions of visitors per year.
Why not put politics aside, at least mostly, and let them be run as well as they deserve to be?
Sadly, I suspect I already know the answer.
What fucking blows me away (Score:3, Interesting)
When I got to Europe in 1986, there was snow in winter on the local hills near to Zurich here in Switzerland so that kids could go skiing almost all winter, and people said they were used to that. Since then, the winters have gotten progressively warmer until there is often no snow on those local hills anymore long enough for more than one or two days of skiing, the whole winter. The summers have been starting earlier and earlier, so that this last April, the warmest EVER in HUMAN MEMORY, I was in a short sleeves in very warm sunny weather. In 2003, Europe had the hottest summer EVER. Last october, was the second hottest EVER recorded. The mountains in the Alps are losing their glaciers VISIBLY, not just in some geeky scientific measurements. The permafrost holding many of the highest together, is melting, causing massive landslides.
South Africa, where I come from, has gotten progessively warmer and drier in the same time. The high plateau inland down there, which at no point is below 1000 metres above sea level (about 3300 feet for the metrically challenged), didn't used to get much warmer than around 30 degrees Centigrade (86 Fahrenheit) in summer due to the altitude. In the summers now, the temperatures have regularly started to reach 36 degrees centigrade.
Australia, where my sister lives, is having one of the worst if not the worst drought the country has ever experienced, so much so, that scientists are beginning to think it might actually be a climate shift, i.e. it might be semi permanent.
What fucking blows me away, when climate change is pretty obvious to the naked, dumbass eye, without needing to see scientific measurements, is that some people are still fucking disputing this. I'm not talking about Greenland or Antarctica or northern Canada, since I don't live there. I'm talking about stuff that I can see. It blows my mind that so many here dispute it. Is there no such obvious change in America? Or is it that Americans spend so much of their lives in air conditioned houses that they don't notice?
Re: (Score:3)
Well then submit a story on it. News for nerds, right? Does he run embedded *nix, or that other OS? Can he be hacked to play XBox games? Do tell, do tell...
Re: (Score:2)
Common knowledge? On what channel? (Score:2)
Really? Common knowledge, or something you just made up? Perhaps you're just trying to be funny and I missed it, but your later comments suggest that you were being serious (or have a very dry sense of sarcasm).
If you're being serious, please provide a source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the order of events for you (Score:2)
Oblig. (Score:2, Funny)
8. Profit!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously haven't looked at the report. Check out the SPM drafting authors. Just off the top of my head, I recognize Alley, Hegerl, Joos, Stocker, Stouffer, and Stott
Hell, read the report, or even the summary for lawmakers. See how often the words "could" and "if" are used.
Wow, scientists aren't 100% sure what will happen. The United Nations must be corrupt.
Re:Common knowledge? On what channel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, spin. Was Tennekes dismissed for asking uncomfortable questions? There is no evidence of this; as far as I can tell, he simply retired, and most of his public skepticism was after he left. (And even if he was dismissed, what were the circumstances? Was he speaking in an official capacity, or his own? He arguably doesn't have free reign to use his job title to trump up support for a position at odds with his employer.) Was Winn-Nielsen a tool of the coal industry? Did Sutera and Speranza lose funding for raising uncomfortable questions? Or because they were out-competed by other proposals? It's not as if they were blackballed: they're both still publishing, as is Lindzen!
The notion that if you're ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don't have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing
A straw man. The IPCC does not push such a notion.
It is not okay to say that we're going to put a large number of cities underwater
The IPCC does not say this.
and that we are certain that is all on the back of CO2.
Nor this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government funding (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess these guys have to be as politically neutral as possible.
That's crap. Politics has no place in science. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it" comes to mind when politics and science meet.
Re:Well waddaya know.... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you guys still spreading misinformation about the hockey stick?! [newscientist.com]
It's 2007...
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the removal of the bristlecone pines is the main thing that keeps McIntyre & McKintick's analysis from showing the same results as Mann's. So their analysis is not sensitive to the inclusion of the pines.
Oh? Please explain how it is statistic
Re:Well waddaya know.... (Score:4, Informative)
What ARE you talking about? The HS was replicated by McIntyre. The HS was the result of the massive overweighting of bristlecone pines, a proxy known to be NOT a temperature proxy. McIntyre showed that without the bristlecones, the HS shape disappeared.
Their analysis should that with or without the bristlecones, the HS failed multiple statistical tests for significance.
Oh? Please explain how it is statistically insignificant? No one, not even McIntyre & Mckintick, claimed that the findings were statistically insignificant -- they just disputed the data samples and reconstructed the graph according to their own cherry-picked data. Note that even when analyzed over the 1000-year mean, instead of Mann's original 20-year mean, the hockey stick still appears, and is still statistically significant.
It fails two key tests, R2 and the Durbin-Watson. Both showed zero significance.
M&M DID claim that the findings were statistically insignificant. And just in case you think its a fluke, a replication by friends of Mann, Wahl and Ammann also showed zero significance for the R2 test.
The rest of your statements are simply rubbish.
Re:Well waddaya know.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In point of fact, the independent NAS review panel found that when you correct Mann's hockey stick you get
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That Panel also recommended that bristlecones shou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the same Stephen McIntyre who holds no advanced degree and has never been published in an ISI peer-reviewed journal?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need data from millions of years ago to know that the Earth is warming now. All that will tell you is how the Earth has warmed (or cooled) in the past.
Seriously though, 100-150 years of meteorological data (and the fact that
Re: (Score:2)
Mola Ram: The British in India will be slaughtered. Then we will overrun the Moslems. Then the Hebrew god will fall. Then the Christian god will be cast down and forgotten. Soon Kali Ma will rule the world.
Random little break from the debate. Smirk, even smile a little bit... aaaand back to the flamewar.