Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data 507
mutube writes "The BBC is reporting that the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, target of 'ClimateGate,' has released nearly all its remaining data on temperature measurements following a freedom of information bid. Most temperature data was already available, but critics of climate science want everything public. Following the latest release, raw data from virtually all of the world's 5,000-plus weather stations is freely available. Release of this dataset required The Met Office to secure approval from more than 1,500 weather stations around the world. The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission, the Information Commissioner ruled that public interest in disclosure outweighed those considerations."
Pesky critics (Score:2, Insightful)
Demanding these heroes of the people show their work. What's next, letting actual statisticians vet their modeling?
<runs in terror>
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, it's not even remotely reasonable to start making political decisions and implementing laws or policies based on climate information, if that information isn't freely available.
Just because someone sold the numbers to someone else doesn't mean it's automatically part of a protected class of information the general public shouldn't be allowed to see. It only makes sense that the most interested parties would be the ones to foot the bill to get the initial information collected up and bundled for their use -- but this content can't be treated like a copyrighted work you can't redistribute without permission!
This is good news (except for Poland, who for SOME reason is holding out on releasing their numbers).
Re:Pesky critics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pesky critics (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pesky critics (Score:3, Insightful)
The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate". (Score:2, Insightful)
The CRU was the source of "climategate".
Re:Pesky critics (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, but labeling people you disagree with as deniers and shills seems to be
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, it's not even remotely reasonable to start making political decisions and implementing laws or policies based on climate information, if that information isn't freely available.
Information has been freely available for quite a while. Delaying only makes things worse. You say now "We need to at -LEAST- wait until this particular data set is available." What's the next reason to hold off going to be?
We need to wait until EVERY researcher is on board, even these ones who are funded by BP.
It's not reasonable to start changing things until we're -sure- temperatures are rising everywhere.
We can't curb CO2 emissions until we are sure these rising temperatures are actually doing something bad.
Well OBVIOUSLY we can't cut CO2 emissions now, we're in the middle of a recession!
Why would we start now? These scientists are saying it can't -possibly- get hotter, all the damage has been done.
It only makes sense that the most interested parties would be the ones to foot the bill to get the initial information collected up and bundled for their use
I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home. I see a few people who have vested interests in trying to prove this data wrong, and I see some people who don't want to believe hard times are ahead trying to shoot the messenger. Most of us see no reason to question the conclusions of the experts.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pesky critics (Score:4, Insightful)
They will dig through the data and find the one datapoint (taken when Jimmy the REU accidentally spilled coffee on the sensor) that disagrees with the other 99 million points. They will then trumpet that one datapoint to the high heavens, and the disinterested masses will pay only just enough attention to get the subliminal impression that there is some doubt about climate change.
It really is absurd that purportedly educated people can believe that climatologists would spend over a decade in school, working long hours for peanuts, only to risk their professional careers by accepting bribes from fat cat environmentalists, all while those poor defenseless oil companies can't afford to defend themselves. It would be laughable, if only it weren't such a frightening display of the power demagogy holds over people.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the CRU constantly breaking "one of the strongest" rules of scientific life: appealing to the state and or populace when your science fails to convince? Science does not require the rule of "Might makes right" to persuade. Logic and strong correlation of data are all that is required. Thus far, in my opinion, CRU has shown themselves to be anything but scientific. They appeal to the head of state and to the public at large! This, more than anything proves that they are not scientists. What other respected branch of science reaches out for a "consensus" in the government or the populace to prove their theories? Science is not the blatant politicizing of science to overpower the paradigm group you disagree with.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:2, Insightful)
I expect, if necessary, they will rewrite textbooks on statistics to create mathematical systems that prove up is down, black is white, night is day, and hot is cold.
Their goal is to make money, not to prove the truth. I don't think that's the case for their opponents.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a name fore people like that.
Re:Global Warming Denial (Score:3, Insightful)
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is minute. On the other hand, the concentration of the most powerful and dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is quite large. we cannot model the effects on climate of that most powerful greenhouse gas, because it is too complex. Plenty of credible scientists have many problems with the current version of AGW, already the earth's climate is not following the myriad of models produced with the billions of dollars wasted on the effort.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Questioning with ignorant questions isn't any more useful than failing to ask any questions at all, which is the problem. But in a competitive field like science where you can make a name for yourself disproving evolution or climate change, going with the majority conclusions is perfectly reasonable. It's not like there haven't been many people looking to shoot the ideas down.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:3, Insightful)
We've seen far too many times throughout history that people (the scientific community included) have some severe resistance to ideas that don't mesh with their commonly held beliefs
This is true, but people who say this seem to always imply that their armchair philosophizing is somehow better, and that is /false/ and a long stretch.
Re:Refuse Permission? (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me your full name, your high school transcripts, every essay you've ever written, all emails from the past five years, and the names of every person you've ever slept with. After all, they're just facts. You can't trademark, copyright, or patent them. Therefore I should (by your bizzarro logic) be able to compel you to waste time complying with my every demand, even though you know I only want to info so I can find a way to harass you with it.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:3, Insightful)
So it boils down to a conspiracy theory. So we have the Creationists claiming a cabal of biologists intentionally attacking Creationism, the asbestos industry questioning the legitmacy of research indicating the health risks, the tobacco industry questioning research that smoking causes lung and cardiovasular disease, an climatologists in a vast conspiracy to lie about climate change.
Have I missed anything here?
Re:Refuse Permission? (Score:5, Insightful)
You pay for your credit scores. You pay your insurance premiums. There are numerous industries that generate information that is not available to the public because it is the product they sell.
Not all climate and weather data is generated by government agencies. The government may buy it, but the government is subject to contracts just like everyone else. They may be able to distribute products based on the data, but they may not be free to distribute the data. Happens all the time.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Insightful)
"peer" doesn't mean what you think it means.
these people are all competing for limited funding. meaning that they all want to prove how rigorous and innovative they are.
rest assured, scientists argue amongst themselves a lot more than you might imagine.
and, once again, in caps for emphasis and cool:
SCIENCE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO GET RICH.
this argument that peer review is useless because they're all riding the funding gravy train is just stupid. utterly, utterly stupid. if a scientist wanted to make lots of money, they'd become a plumber, or do modelling for a large bank. climate scientists predominantly want to save the world. i'm sure they'd love to see conclusive proof that everything's going to be fine, but it's just not there.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Score:2, Insightful)
The scientific community already has a consensus. But you can never convince someone who's decided that they don't want to be convinced. Should we be forced to prove evolution to the satisfaction of creationists before teaching it in schools?
Don't answer that... you're probably some slack-jawed Republican, so I'll go ahead and guess that your answer is an emphatic "yes!"
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Insightful)
The fattest cat environmental group has only a small fraction of the oil and gas industries. If scientists were as vile and corruptable as the pseudo-skeptics always claim, they'd all be shilling for the fossil fuel industry. After all the scientists that do seem to do very well for themselves.
Why would a FOIA request even be necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's scientific data. For the purposes of advancement of science, transparency and honesty, it should have just been released upon basic request.
That ANY effort was used to fight the release of the data makes me extremely suspicious.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Score:4, Insightful)
when your science fails to convince?
But the science /does/ convince on its own merits. Nobody who actually knows anything about the science could possibly be a sceptic unless they were stark raving mad [youtube.com].
Re:Pesky critics (Score:3, Insightful)
So if a doctor says you're ill, you'd get a second opinion from a carpenter?
No, but if Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) [slashdot.org] were to tell me I had a deadly subluxation and needed chiropracty STAT, I wouldn't seek the second opinion of another chiropractor. Quackery fuels quakery. Asking a medical doctor about those subluxations might be prudent. A lot of people view climate scientist as quacks. Maybe they're not, but asking someone without a vested interest in saying the same thing would be prudent.
Re:Yep (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't believe CO2 is causing global warming because of a correlation, we believe it because we've understood molecular spectroscopy for over a hundred years.
We know water isn't the cause, because water only stays in the atmosphere for approximately 5 days which means it comes into equilibrium too fast to drive long term temperature change.
We know volcanic activity isn't the cause because of volcanic activity because there hasn't been any increase in volcanic activity.
We know the sun's output isn't the cause, because the sun's output hasn't been increasing and because the upper atmosphere is decreasing in temperature rather than increasing like it would if the sun's output was increasing.
Climate scientists aren't idiots and they've been working on these issues for over a hundred years.
Re:Global Warming Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get the skepticism on slashdot.
It's called the Scientific method [wikipedia.org]. It's founded on the principles of skepticism and independent confirmation. Without access to the full and complete set of data used originally, then you cannot provide that independent confirmation. And shouting down skeptics is, in fact, the opposite of the scientific method. Rather than shouting them down, they should be welcomed and addressed with all sincerity and substance as possible. For if your theory is correct - your proof in the face of skepticism will show it, unequivocally.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Score:3, Insightful)
This week, an Australian scientist published a peer-reviewed article based on actual water level measurements, that showed that water level rises are slowing and that based on an extrapolation of the observed data (not models), the most likely water level rise in Australian waters over the next century is 15cm. That is a far cry from the doom and gloom spouted by most climate advocates (like Al Gore - who most certainly isn't a scientist).
Personally, as a scientist and engineer, I am convinced that we are encountering climate change. To what extend that is man-made and to what extend it is natural is still not in any way shape or form a "consensus" to me. As an engineer, I believe climate models is a poor substitute for emperical data and based on how well scientists in other disciplines manage to model complex systems (think economists) - I think the jury is still very much out on what our climate will look like 100 years from now.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
So a climatologist, who has dedicated his life to the study of the Earth's climate, wouldn't have accounted for something as basic as solar radiance?
That's like asking a rocket scientist if he accounted for gravity.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any other areas of research where you would reject consensus opinions point to the invalidity of the accepted theory? I mean, pretty much all medical researchers agree that HIV causes AIDS, so do you just say "well, that's clearly groupthink, I think I'll go with a few lone wolfs who claim otherwise?" Evolution is agreed by almost all biologists to explain the diversity of life, so do you go "well, those biologists suffer group think, clearly Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute represent the appropriate skeptical view." Do you reject consensus views on radioactive decay? I mean, there are a few guys with degrees who insist that decay rates are invalid or mismeasured, or attack the statistical nature of decay. Do you immediately side with them because of the groupthink in the physics community on that matter?
You suffer that near universal trait of the pseudo-skeptic. You have a theory that for whatever reason you dislike. You know the majority of researchers accept that the theory, or at least some form of it does in fact represent reality. So you find a few scientists, cherrypicked regardless of expertise, decide "These guys reject the AGW consensus", and go with them. But to square that particular intellectually masturbatory circle, you have to come up with some rationale, no matter how unfounded or inapplicable, to wave away the consensus. In your case, you have some fucking book you read a long time ago talking about group think, put on your armchair psychology hat and declare the vast majority of researchers in fields related to climate as suffering this phenomenon you have now decided you have the expertise and faculties to diagnose.
And you mock me...
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home.
That was never the issue with climategate. The issue was that disclosed emails brought into question the motives of the leadership of the CRU who expressed an ends justifies the means philosophy. The CRUs opponents demanded to look at the data. When the CRU would not release data, that gave the anit-global warming movement PR ammunition leading to much of the public deciding that the CRU (and other climate researchers) were not to be trusted. As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime, and in this case the CRU's behavior set back public perception 5-10 years.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the deniers I meet don't know very much about science at all. As to the degree-packing skeptics, a goodly number are not active researchers at all, or not in any field closely related to climatology. There are a small number to be sure, but hell, Michael Behe is a molecular biologist with tenure at Baylor University and who is pretty much the laughing stock of the entire biology community for his evolution skepticism.
It's not as if all climatologists are Stepford Wife-styled drones who worship idols of Al Gore. There's plenty of good old fashioned scientific debate, scientists being among the most cantankerous people around who dream that they will be the next Darwin or Einstein who will revolutionize their discipline. When you get a bunch of these guys to agree that AGW is real, even if they can't all agree on the degree of any particular facet (it being a scientific theory, and not some sort of unchanging religious dogma) should signal that there probably is something to this theory.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to human society. We have this neat little thing called specialization.
When I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. I don't understand everything he does, but if most mechanics agree I need an oil change, then I'll trust them.
When I need a home to live in, I go to an architect. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my home will stay standing, then I'll trust them.
When I need to cross a river, I go to a civil engineer. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that the bridge is safe, then I'll trust them.
When I feel sick, I go to a doctor. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that a certain medicine will help, then I'll trust them.
When I am hungry, I go to a chef. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that something is edible and nutritious, then I'll trust them.
When I need to go online, I go to electrical engineers and programmers. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my computer and OS and browser aren't stealing my passwords, then I'll trust them.
When I want to know what is happening with the climate, I go to a climatologist. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that human release of CO2 is altering the climate, then I call them a bunch of damned liars and frauds and demand they make it all easy enough for me to understand!
It's a blatant double standard, and it only applies to fields that Republicans don't like, such as climatology and evolution.
Re:Global Warming Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority [wikipedia.org]
An argument from authority is not a fallacy as long as the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and there is a consensus among the majority. With the exception of the scientists working for BP, Exxon, and the like who don't really qualify as legitimate experts b/c they're paid to make a case rather than objectively obtain knowledge, there is a near consensus among the scientific community that humans have caused climate change which can have disastrous effects.
I can make a skeptical case against the big bang, but being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical isn't logical. That leads to all sorts of conundrums such as being skeptical that one exists at all (hello insanity), or being skeptical of the structural integrity of the building you're in (hello paranoia).
Did you independently confirm that your roof is structurally sound? If not, why are you sitting under it? Perhaps you logically assumed that the framers, carpenters, roofers, et al. did their jobs correctly and proficiently.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't give a fuck what you're point of view is. Anybody who tries to justify his rejection of a consensus view by some psychobabble claptrap he read once probably is not in possession of a point of view worth listening to. I've already challenged you to explain why your group think explanation does not apply to every other fucking consensus view in science, and all you can manage for that is this sort of pitiable "you're not listening to me" bullshit. As to your complaints about statistical analysis, I mean come on, who the fuck do you think you're kidding? Where are your fucking qualifications? Provide some links to the department you work at so your qualifications on judging the researchers' statistical analysis can be assessed.
But let's get back to the fucking point, pal. I want you to tell me right fucking now why the consensus view of geologists on the age of the planet at by 4.5 billion years old is not simply a manifestation of your group think claim? I want you to tell me why the cosmologists consensus view that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old isn't an example of scientists falling pray to group think. I want you to tell me why calculated radioactive decay rights are not an example of group think and errant statistical analysis. Can you do that instead of the pathetic crocodile tears and handwringing so evident in every fucking response you've made to me.
Re:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Score:2, Insightful)
When I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. I don't understand everything he does, but if most mechanics agree I need an oil change, then I'll trust them.
If you blindly trust your mechanic to do the right thing, then you are in for a very large bill. Mechanics can easily detect when someone doesn't understand what they are dealing with and will happily sell you a "headlight fluid change". It's been done. Trust me!
When I need a home to live in, I go to an architect. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my home will stay standing, then I'll trust them.
When I had an architect design my house, I disagreed with much of what he had done. The house may well have stood, but some areas were not practical to live in and I had several rooms changed, even to the point of having the way doors opened changed.
When I need to cross a river, I go to a civil engineer. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that the bridge is safe, then I'll trust them.
I'm mostly with you on this one. However, if I step onto a bridge and it feels unsafe and creaky under my feet, then I will go back - no matter what some "dude in a hard-hat" tells me. Engineers are not infalible. Remember the Maccabiah bridge collapse?
When I feel sick, I go to a doctor. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that a certain medicine will help, then I'll trust them.
Tell that to the thalidomide children... (OK - that was a low-blow - but you get the point)..
When I am hungry, I go to a chef. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that something is edible and nutritious, then I'll trust them.
Yes, McDonalds markets themselves as a restaurant and certainly have gone out of their way to say their food is edible and nutritious. Not wanting to be sued into oblivion, I just want you to draw your own conclusions from that statement.
When I need to go online, I go to electrical engineers and programmers. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my computer and OS and browser aren't stealing my passwords, then I'll trust them.
Hmmm - had any ID fraud lately? Listened to and paid the guy (with a credit card) who calls you from "Security Maintenance International", who has detected that your computer is infected with a virus and for a small fee will help you remove it over the phone?
When I want to know what is happening with the climate, I go to a climatologist. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that human release of CO2 is altering the climate, then I call them a bunch of damned liars and frauds and demand they make it all easy enough for me to understand!
It's a blatant double standard, and it only applies to fields that Republicans don't like, such as climatology and evolution.
And see, this is where things fall apart. People are opportunists. Most climatologist have read the same textbook, been taught by the same teachers and compete for the same grants to survive. They are not infalible or more trustworthy than doctors, mechanics, engineers or anyone else. "Peer reviewed" is not a substitute for good science, sometimes it just means they've all attended the same conference. I once had a teacher who told me that if you could not explain a complex concept in laymen's terms so that anyone with an average IQ could understand it - then you had most likely failed to fully understand it yourself. And telling everyone that disagrees with you that they must be a Republican or a Creationist is just plain silly. It is just like me saying you must be some 20 year old with no life experience and an authority figure submission complex. Please keep the debate on
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd prefer doctors who went into it thinking the material to be reviewed was at least probably bullshit
This is populist nonsense. First of all, you implicitly suggest that traditional peer review is carried out by a bunch of cronies who have a common, shameful agenda hidden away, and that it has to do with access to funding. But, believe it or not, most scientists are primarily interested in the surprisingly idealistic goal of discovering the scientific truth about something - the ones that are mostly after the money find jobs outside scientific research, because scientists are mostly paid modest salaries.
Secondly, peer review is only a small part of the scientific process - it is carried out to ensure that the articles published are not complete nonsense - even a scientific journal has a reputation to protect, and it is so infinitely easier to produce empty-headed nonsense rather than real, scientific data, so the real science would simpy drown if there were no peer review.
And of course, once you have published an article, the truth is that there is a whole world of scientists who are trying to pick your article, your data, your calculations and your conclusions apart - so where is the need to find somebody who are, a priori, prejudiced against your work, like you "would prefer"? No, I think your aim here is simply to discredit the sincere and trustworthy scientists who dare to reach conclusions you don't want to hear.
Really, what scientists have a severe resistance to is the thought of having to fend off the same, stupidly repeated falsehoods and misunderstandings over and over, which is what they have to deal with when it comes to creationism, just to mention one glaring example. And in climate research as well, of course.