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>
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm I seem to remember it taking a lot to get this information. Lawsuits, and the threat of cutting off funding. Nasty business that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a different culture in the US where all this data is freely available and interestingly the same applies to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pesky critics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: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.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
"Maybe they're not, but asking someone without a vested interest in saying the same thing would be prudent."
I know! We can ask an Exxon representative.... Coal-fired power plant owner? Your local Republican congress-critter?
The point being that there are just as many -- if not more -- people out there on the other side of the fence. And all with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so we can keep on doing business as usual...
Re: (Score:3)
Peer review is skeptic review. The science community is very competitive. If you think peer review is simply rubber stamping any research that comes through because it agrees with your perspective, you are horribly mistaken. Peer review is is a difficult, and often vicious process. It can take months to years for any paper to finally get through. You may have to rewrite sections or the entire paper depending on the criticisms. Or you may have your research thrown out entirely due to errors you never thought
Re: (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: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: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: (Score:3)
Re:Pesky critics HIV AIDS (Score:4, Informative)
The same Kary Mullis that believes in astrology and who has long been condemned for making grand proclamations on fields he has no expertise in. Him and "a few thousand peers". Funny how skeptical you are of some things, but how fucking gullible you are in other areas.
Re:Pesky critics HIV AIDS (Score:4, Interesting)
So, you're not the least bit troubled by the fact that medicines that target HIV also have the oddly coincidental side effect of saving the lives of AIDS patients?
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: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: (Score:2)
Global cooling can not be attributed other then a media fuck up, the vaccine biy was attrocius but in the end the lancet and other threw that quack out in the cold where he belonged.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Informative)
But this little bit of information will do nothing to dent your certainty that science is just plain flawed.
Re: (Score:3)
And if there was any actual evidence to back up your assertions you might have a point that people would listen to.
Re:Pesky critics (Score:4, Interesting)
I have looked at the pertinent emails. They provide no evidence for your assertions.
Re: (Score:3)
State attorneys with a zeal to actually sue the people for misusing the state provided funds looked at the emails and had to retract, because there was nothing in there. A single out of context quote doesn't make for a good case. So as long as no suit is brought forward and gone to court, you can be sure that there actually is nothing relevant discovered in the emails (except you are adhering to the church of the global "global warming" conspiration which even counts state attorneys elected on a "we will sh
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly all you need to do is go back and look at the journals and articles of the 70's. And you will find exactly the same hysteria, and use of 'consensus' including the top scientists of the time agreeing that it was the greatest catastrophe that mankind will ever face.
Horseshit. And here's a pretty pie chart [skepticalscience.com] to back that up. And a more detailed graph [skepticalscience.com] as well.
The summary on the second link is also interesting (emphasis added):
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.
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.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Their goal is to make money, not to prove the truth.
As someone in the university system, I can attest to the fact that /anyone/ would have their career made, and tenure at big-university-of-choice if they could come up with a substantive claim against climate change science. Heck, if /you/ want to make money, you surely could do that yourself.
Truth is, there is more money to be made as an oil industry shill (just ask Soon and Ballonis). Skeptics already have their minds made up. By definition, that is arrogance, and has nothing to do with seeking truth.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, ad isnt it funny hoe those same people view the opinions of scientists employed by the nuke industry
of not being biased, and when they say its safe we should believe them. (And they are actually PAID by their industry!
Selfish moronic hypocrits deniers.
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:Why would a FOIA request even be necessary? (Score:4, Informative)
UEA, is a British organization. They do have FOIA, but they don't work the same as NOAA. NOAA can only use public information, and generates public information. UEA does use public info, but it also uses private info. That private info was the holdup[1]. They need permission to release that. Does the private info matter? Well it seems so in that the NAM sucks the GFS (European) model is more accurate.
[1] The holdup was also in that UEA was inundated with requests for data and viewed the FOIA requests as a denial of service attack. They did then pripriitixe and release info, but selectively, which gave the impression that climate skeptics/deniers were not being serviced fairly which only added to the skeptics/denier's anger. And on more than one occasion info was released to non-skeptic/deniers that should not have been.
Now the only question is did they release raw data, or the "adjusted" data...
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't released initially because it would have required permission from every weather station they gathered data from, and there were over 1000 around the world. In the end not all of them agreed anyway but it was deemed that meeting the FOI request was more important.
This is not uncommon. Weather gathering agencies naturally want to be paid for their work so sell the climate data at a premium. Often they give the data away for free to academics on the understanding that it will not be published.
Re: (Score:3)
It's scientific data. For the purposes of advancement of science, transparency and honesty, it should have just been released upon basic request.
Not their data to release.
That ANY effort was used to fight the release of the data makes me extremely suspicious.
This comment shows a staggering lack of understanding about the whole process.
It is a lot of work to comply with those requests. In order to do so thay have to take time away from their day job which is doing science and publishing papers. This decrease
Re:Pesky critics (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, but labeling people you disagree with as deniers and shills seems to be
Re: (Score:2)
How many is "Mountains of FOIA requests"? One? Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.
It would be trivial, if they had ever intended to publish the data and analysis.
Just put everything in a tarball on a public server. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.
They handed over the information that they had access to, and then told the interested parties where to get the rest. Apparently that wasn't good enough. More to the point, the "skeptics" were just plain not interested in the data, and just saw a way to make a nuisance of themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
They tried to palm off some heavily processed "cleaned" datasets in place of raw data. Of course that wasn't "good enough".
And "go get it yourself" isn't good enough either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is it better to just attack and hurl names at those who do what the Scientific method calls for - skeptical, independent confirmation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pesky critics (Score:5, Informative)
How many is "Mountains of FOIA requests"? One? Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.
According to the various formal investigations, there were 50 something FOI requests over a 2 day period from the lovely folk at climate audit, most of them were requests for information that was already published so clearly they were not interested in doing any research. Phil Jones and his crew had every right to bitch and complain about such an obvious abuse of the justice system, however Jones overstepped the line in his reaction when he asked Mann to delete some emails (Mann ignored him).
As has been explained a billion times and discussed at great length in the formal investigations, the "hidden" data that was a couple of percent of the entire data set was under non-disclosure agreements so a tarball was not an option. One of the formal investigations also explains how it's 'layman' members were able to source copies of the "hidden" data in 48 hours simply by contacting the references given in papers published by Jones and his team (ie: basic research)
This article explains they have now done the legal legwork and are free of the constraints that prevented publication of something that has fuck all impact from a scientific POV.
Re: (Score:3)
but it begs the question: why did they bother to make 50 FOI's in 2 days? why not just make 1 big one?
what it looks like to me is they were trying to make the paperwork as painful as possible in an attempt to distract and slow down people who really just want to do their science, and certainly don't want to be dealing with PR and news agencies and other things not related to their jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
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: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:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm of the opinion that the cost of doing nothing and being wrong far outweighs the cost of acting and being wrong. Worst case in one case is deepening the recession, where worst case in the other is unreversable catastrophic climate change.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a name fore people like that.
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:Good! (Score:4, Informative)
There's a name fore people like that.
"Not paranoid" is two words, so I will stick with "sane".
I bet you are incapable of sitting through this 10 minute [youtube.com] video, because you are too emotionally invested in your paranoid bizarro-world.
I happen to personally know something about the science, and the academic debate on the issue has nothing to do with the laughably paranoid public "debate", which is really just a bunch of intransigent know-it-alls flogging one tired dead argument after another, without stopping to ever learn something about what they are saying.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Idso, Singer, and Lindzen used to be the fossil fuel funded trilogy of dissenters, and their articles live on today.
My favorite is Idso, who argued, in a quite plausibly conducted bit of research, that the radiation spectrum blocked by CO2 (thus causing the greenhouse effect) was saturated, so more CO2 would no more harm. In that bit if I recall there was actually a "well, screw it, we're screwed" acknowledgement of sorts.
Then people who just hate science got involved, and we went from poor science to just stupid nonsense.
Basics: does CO2 contribute to the greenhouse effect? Of course (seriously, everyone agrees). Does human activity result in more CO2? Of course (again, agreement). The real place for discussion is how the resulting effects impact humanity. "Global Warming" was such a poor name, I guess "Global Climatic Instability" does have the ring (or make a good TLA). But somewhere in there, we stumbled on some visceral refusal to meet with reality, some refusal to acknowledge that we could contribute to (adverse) change, or some "not in my lifetime" vein that caused a huge (mostly conservative politically) backlash.
Without belaboring this post, I think the complications of explaining simple economics (such as the tragedy of the commons, p.s. don't hit me for picking an overly simplified example) resulted in a lopsided value calculation: immediate pain or "what the scientists say will happen." It was always a false choice (not just a Faustian one).
Sometimes I hope Idso was right, so that we can reasonably absolve our selves of culpability in a collective sense. Like children. :(
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: (Score:3)
Really? I don't remember seeing anything like that in the CRU e-mails. Since they're freely available, do you mind pointing out where that's stated?
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to read your last link again. There, the people saying that the CRU e-mails contained those hints are pretty much witch hunters...
Isn't It Obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
This is good news (except for Poland, who for SOME reason is holding out on releasing their numbers).
Isn't it obvious? Poland's numbers show that in twenty years, they're going to be the only ones on Earth with cold left. Siberia and Minnesota? Completely out of cold by 2031. Think of it. People will climb over themselves to get to the cold in Poland. China will buy cold pipeline through countries just to have access to it. Europe will be cast back into World War II-like conflict, you might even see England trade a piece of Poland back to the Ruskies just to end the conflict again. Barrels of crude cold will start trading at massively high prices. Ice cubes will be traded illegally on the street like crack until they've all melted. Obama's already foolishly dropped all of the United States' reserves to lessen the suffering during this heat wave--what are we going to do? Canada can easily blockade us from Alaska and claim what is left of the Inuit Cold for their own.
You're probably saying "Oh, America will just do what it always does and get shitfaced instead of worrying about that." How? We won't have any cold for our drinks. What, you're going to drink room temperature wine? Sure and afterward be sure to stick your tannin coated tongue out so everyone knows you're French.
Poland is trying to keep this strategic advantage hidden from the rest of the world. Gentlemen, I think the question here today is not how can we defer or lessen global warming but instead how quickly can we take Poland by surprise with unilateral action from land, air and sea. You might argue that we cannot afford a third war but I say that greedy selfish Poland has brought this upon themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, would you mind clarifying what "that information" is? I ask because I'm uncertain of what you expect as far as climate information goes. I also ask because I'm curious if you have the same standard for all sorts of other topics of similar scope. For example, I don't think I've seen much discussion about the
Most of the Data is Freely Available (Score:5, Informative)
Like the article says. Most of this data was already publicly available online:
I took this data and plugged it into Cornell’s free data analysis software Eureka [cornell.edu] and it found a clear warming trend [ideonexus.com] in the data. I'm not statistician, so I was just playing around, but I have yet to see anyone use this data to argue for anything but a warming trend (Note: I have seen skeptics use parts of this data to show short-term cooling trends). My favorite email attacking the results the software gave me was that I had "manipulated" the data by copying-and-pasting it into Excel.
I'm glad more data is being made publicly available, but, like someone else said, that just means it's time for the skeptics to move the goalposts again. Either put up a competing hypothesis that explains the data or shut up.
Re: (Score:3)
Refuse Permission? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission...
Wait, on what grounds? You can't copyright/patent/trademark facts. Why did they even bother asking?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is important that this information is released.
However it sets a VERY scary precident that all researches should be afraid of.
If someone grants linformation for a particular purpose, it should be only used for that purpose, and only released withthe consent of those providing the information.
For someone to simply overrule that agreement suggests they aren't enforcable or even valid. Which means researchers can't guarantee confidentiality. Breaking nconfidentiality agreements should always be don
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? I don't see any reason it should ever have been kept confidential. It's gathered data on temperatures and such not matters of national security and it's not ownable IP because it's just facts. I mean I could see an NDA being useful on things like product specs before you've officially released finalized specs but on temperature/humidity/wind speed? Seriously, WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
You can't copyright/patent/trademark facts.
In the U.S. You might notice that Trinidad and Tobago (and England, for that matter) happen to not yet be an official vassal of the empire, and is still a sovereign nation that makes its own rules.
It isn't clear from the article what rules and agreements govern here, but it certainly isn't U.S. copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I thought we'd taken annexed them last year.
Yes, my reply was asinine. I'm fine with that though since what I was replying to also was. Bare facts not being subject IP law is extremely common worldwide.
Re: (Score:3)
We could if we wanted to. Their GDP was only $26.4 billion in 2010 according to Wikipedia. Hardly a rounding error in the current deficit limit discussion.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Fine, then compile every post you've made on Slashdot, and all other forums, and give me that. Your cynical privacy argument no longer applies. The point is that the goal of these demands is to harass scientists, and nothing else.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement? You certainly can do this and there's plenty of good reasons to.
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: (Score:3)
http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/copyright_information/berne_convention_signatories [copyrightaid.co.uk]
And if you click-through a link at TFA, you find that the Polish sect is still holding out because it does, in fact, sell its data sets.
You can copyright an expression of facts, and a collection of data you emailed to a wonk in Blighty counts as an expression of facts. They would have to somehow reformat it so it's not the same expression, but just changing the instruments doesn't make a tune any different, so changing formatti
I thought we had it already (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I usually don't reply to AC, but what the heck. All of the published methods were reproducible with established datasets, and the "massaging" process was also reproducible.
Thank you for confirming what the AC said. IF you use their pre-selected data set, then you will get their results. Surprise - that's what happens. Of course, as the AC contends, the data set was NOT the full set of data but a subset pre-selected. How was it pre-selected, what was the criteria? Was the selection valid?
If I take a sampling of the people I meet today, here in Shanghai, and exclude any of those who don't really meet my qualifications - let's say at least 1.8m tall and blonde - then aft
Re: (Score:3)
The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate". (Score:2, Insightful)
The CRU was the source of "climategate".
Re:The CRU was not the "target" of "climategate". (Score:5, Informative)
If you can't find the link to the data yourself... (Score:3)
Anyway, give this a try [metoffice.gov.uk]
Global Warming Denial (Score:2, Informative)
I don't get the skepticism on slashdot. There is a worldwide scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up and humans are a major factor. It has been known since the 19th century that C02 in the atmosphere absorbs and emits infrared radiation back to the planet. It is also uncontroversial that humans have been putting ever increasing amounts of C02 in the atmosphere. And that it takes a century or two for that C02 to be taken out of the atmosphere. It is also known that glaciers and ice caps are melting
Re: (Score:2)
There is a worldwide scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up..
yes.
and humans are a major factor.
not so much.
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: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: (Score:3)
I agree, up to a point. Skeptics should be welcomed and engaged, as anyone trying to figure out the truth behind a complex subject should.
But how many 'skeptics' in climate change debates are actually skeptics as opposed
Re: (Score:3)
Shouting down skeptics doesn't sound great on its face, but shouting down idiots is a long standing and important tradition in science.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I believe that large changes in the large amount of significant greenhouse gas has been proved to affect Earth's climate. Because that's what happened.
Why you find the need to deny every part of it is the mystery. It's going to make your future hell, unless you're heavily invested in everyone else's future becoming hell, in which case you can go to hell.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Energy from sun is not in the infrared so CO2 has no effect. However energy radiated from the Earth is in the infrared, so it interacts with CO2. As a consequence, some of it is radiated out to space, but some of it is radiated back to earth, when previously all of it would have radiated out to space.
That's how I understand it from school physics anyway.
Re:Global Warming Denial (Score:5, Informative)
Except that's not how science works. We didn't go: "the earth is warming, man must have done it". Instead, scientists tried to understand the mechanisms, and the exact sequence of events that led to warming. They did that both for the modern era, and for the Younger Dryas. In both cases, they came up with a theory. The fact that these theories are different doesn't mean one is less likely to be correct than the other.
The theory than man is causing the warming is a perfectly reasonable one. We know man has increased CO2 in the atmosphere (by over 30%), we know that CO2 helps to block IR radiation that would otherwise be escaping from the earth. Ergo, the earth should be expected to warm. Also, when you do the calculations based on that, the results match the real temperature pretty well, not just for the modern era, but also for the glacial cycles and other events.
And if man didn't cause the warming, what is the alternative theory ? "Natural cycle" isn't a theory without explaining how this natural cycle works, and where the heat is actually coming from, and why it's happening now.
Still, it's more likely than a worldwide conspiracy between scientist to produce a result nobody really wants to hear, not even the people handing them the grant money.
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, you'd have to specify what kind of "natural cycle" we are talking about. If it gets warmer, where does the heat come from ? The number of possible sources is limited. Possible candidates are the sun, change in albedo, change in ocean currents, change in atmosphere,and maybe a few more things. For each of those, it is possible to go out, do measurements, and see if there is correlation. These things have been looked at (and people are still looking at them), and so far, nothing has been found t
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: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: (Score:3)
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?
No.
The science is convincing on it own. The appeal to the state is for a policy response based on the imperatives revealed by this convincing science. The appeal to the public, such as it is, is an attempt by a few scientists to disabuse the victims of the disinformation industry.
Logic and strong correlation of data are all that is required.
It's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This week, an Australian scientist publishe
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: (Score:3)
> When I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic.
More precisely, for any sort of non-trivial work, you go to several independent mechanics, and get estimates, then cross-check them against each other. Unless you know a mechanic that you trust personally quite outside his professional capacity. Note that this breaks down if the mechanics have a reason to collude and a way to communicate with each other; if that happens they typically overcharge you for unnecessary work. Of course they may also be honest,
Here's why you want to release ALL your data... (Score:3)
Did that data set consider migratory patterns, or herding of local sheep/cows/yaks/whathaveyou? That alone could skew the results heavily one way or another. This is why you want to release ALL your data, because other scientists might find other causalities or variables in your data/models that you didn't originally anticipate.
Rather than demand acceptance of a theory, it's best to provide the data, welcome the skeptics, and use ALL the data to show what you did, why you did it, and what conclusions you reached. Hiding data, or hiding your modeling/screening methods simply breaks the fundamental approach of the Scientific method. You're left with something that might be interesting, but by definition - it's not scientific.
Re: (Score:2)
I almost posted the same thing.
It makes you smile. Maybe they were hoping for more money.
Re: (Score:3)
In a normal year volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as human emissions. Even such a large eruption as Pinatubo in 1991 only added 0.2% to that. Water vapor is strictly limited by temperature and can't drive climate change. The Sun's output absolutely has an effect on climate. It's just that it hasn't changed enough to account for the global temperature changes we've seen. We've had very good measurements of the Sun's output from satellites since the 1980's Those issues have all been examined by clima
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:Yep (Score:4, Funny)
Now compare that to the OP, who knows what's really happening on the surface of the Earth, since he can easily observe it through the window of his mom's basement...