Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Climategate 961
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, was one of the central figures involved in the 'Climategate' controversy, which saw many private email conversations between researchers posted publicly. Now, an investigation (PDF) by the National Science Foundation has found "no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence." Phil Plait points out that other investigations have found similarly that claims of Mann's misconduct took his statements out of context. 'A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that's not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn't a big deal, or else they would've been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.'"
AGW (Score:3, Informative)
1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.
-->here is the wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect [wikipedia.org]
-->and here are the youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo [youtube.com]
2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...
1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've got science backwards. AGW is the hypothesis, natural variation is the null hypothesis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Further, if we're tlaking science we should stop using the term "greenhouse effect". A greenhouse works by stopping convection; its effect on IR radiation actually cools the inside.
The Earth's climate is mostly convection as well, with IR radiation from the surface a lesser form of surface cooling. As blackbody radiation goes with the forth power of temperature, and the upper atmosphere is pretty cold, it's not obvious why surface-emitted IR warming of the atmopshere would make make difference to surface
Easily tested (Score:3)
The Earth's climate is mostly convection as well, with IR radiation from the surface a lesser form of surface cooling.
How does that warm air get cooled to space? Oh, wait -- radiation, right? So how much does air radiate, vs. how much does the surface radiate? (Bear in mind that the upper atmosphere is cold, and remember that T^4 rule.)
Let's test this: if the atmosphere radiates heat at night and sinks to cool the ground, the air will cool more rapidly than the ground does. If, on the other hand, the ground cools by radiation at night the ground will be colder than the air. On an autumn morning when you first see fr
Re:AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, a greenhouse works by preventing convection. The article you linked says this, and not what you claimed.
You may not have read the entire article you linked. It starts off by saying: "If you've ever heard an explanation of how a greenhouse works, it was most likely based on the differing transparency of glass to solar and thermal infrared radiation", but then the article goes on to show how that explanation is incorrect.
Re:AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
1: CO2 doesn't absorb as much IR as generally accepted theory states.
2: Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.
There. That was easy. I think understand why people like to post these statements. It's so easy, you get to feel so smug, you don't need to read actual research papers or do real research..... Man, being ignorant is kinda cool. Maybe I can even make money off of it... although that field is awfully crowded right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The globe is warming on average. This point is virtually undisputed, and is verified by temperature readings all over the globe and by satellite IR reading
Gas is the cleanest fuel source. (Score:3)
Oh, you're cheating. Don't shift the argument.
We need to replace power plants that release radiation and geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere with power plants that use fuel produced from biologically sustainable sources. There's not a damn thing wrong with gas fired power plants, the problem is how we are feeding them.
Granted, coal plants have to go, but it's not fair to lum
Re:AGW (Score:5, Informative)
CO2 released by human activity far outpaces volcanic CO2 release. [usgs.gov] Looking for a citation for a claim helps people avoid saying things that are easily proven to be incorrect.
From the USGS article:
"....not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "
Re:AGW (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the problem:
People who believe that drek, will read it and agree. And it will propagate.
SO it's important to note that, in fact, those statement are blatantly false. Not for the poster, but for the readers
Re:AGW (Score:5, Informative)
"Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year."
in the off chance you weren't kidding:
Volcanoes 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
Human 69 Billion tonnes per year.
Fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times larger than maximum volcanic CO2 fluxes.
Re:AGW (Score:4, Informative)
1. Considering CO2's IR absorbance is extremely easy to test and the information is vital to the accuracy of medical equipment used all over the world, I'm guessing that you read this somewhere and never fact checked it. Provide some primary sources.
2. Humans produce 100 times as much CO2 per year as volcanic eruptions do. Volcanic eruptions have been shown over and over to usually result in net cooling of the climate from sulfer dioxide emissions.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php [usgs.gov]
It's ironic because I consider ignorance to include reading shit off a blog and not looking for primary sources or fact checking, which coincidentally seems to be exactly what you did.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they could just kill you... just sayin'.
Or maybe, just maybe, we should work to solve the problem? no. no, you can continue to make simple remarks for simple people.
The youtube video is completely out of context. I suggest you take you simple mind, and read about what was going on prior to that, and what that was about. Don't read too much, I wouldn't want your lips to get tired.
Re: (Score:3)
2: Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.
While this is possibly true (and I'm not saying it is or is not), it misses the point. The problem is balance, rate, and source. Without man made sources of CO2 the Earth ecosystem has to deal with naturally occurring CO2. If there are more producers than consumers of CO2, then ecosystems will shift over time to have more consumption of CO2. However man-made sources have increased it within the last 150 years. The rate of CO2 addition is far faster than ecosystems can consume.
As an analogue, take oil s
Re: (Score:3)
Because CO2 is part of a positive feedback loop for global temperatures. Once CO2 goes up, temperatures keep going up, regardless of why they went up in the first place. Another way to start the loop is to increase CO2 concentrations.
Capiche?
Re:AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problem is, we honestly have no clue what's going on. Anyone who says we have this all figured out is either an idiot or someone pandering for funding.
There is lots of contradictory data and that's ignoring the fact that some of the data is extremely suspect from the start. Hell, some of the data has several multiples more noise the then signal they hope to detect. When questioned, literally the official response is, "Shhhh....noise doesn't effect our signal." Which is, of course, a major WTF??!?
Seriously, should we learn more about it? Absolutely! Should we be wary of absolute claims? Absolutely! Again, we honestly have no idea what's going on. Some 20% of climatologists admit this. Some 80% of meteorologists admit this. Please note, meteorologists don't get their funding from "Climate change grants."
Re:AGW (Score:4, Interesting)
Again, we honestly have no idea what's going on.
I personally find that the deniers are the ones who are the most "certain" in their claims. There are stated mechanisms that could cause global warming. They are being measured and tested. You complain about them being funded, but how else do we find out what's going on without funding those who claim to have the ability to show us, if only they had one more year...? People speaking against global warming find plenty of funding and don't even pretend to follow science in their denials. The best they can do is point to possible confounds and say things like "see, they didn't account for pollen that year, so their findings are wrong, thus proving the opposite." I agree we don't know and it seems mostly silly, but the worst offenders seem to be those who complain loudest about the other side being the worst offenders. The deniers argue from ignorance, "if we don't know how or why it is happening, then that's proof it isn't happening and we should stop funding anyone who says otherwise." and other such illogical irrelevancies.
Re: (Score:3)
Acidification will only occur under the assumption that the CO2 is not uptaken through photosynthesis. If the temperature mildly increases and the supply of CO2 increases, wouldn't the algae population find itself in a more favorable environment?
Or at least, isn't it plausible to assume that the types of algae which do favor a warmer environment would have see their biomass increase? Changing eco system is not necessarily a "screwed up" eco system. There are cycles which depend on more than just changes
Re: (Score:3)
That's because during the temporary elevated increase in CO there was a corresponding cover of earth with particulate matter.
We actually see that now with water vapor; but the amount of heat reflected due to increased water vapour is less then the heat trapped by long term CO2.
These event where MANUFACTURED. there was never wrong doing.
It IS fair to say CO2 is the prime culprit of climate change.
"And frankly, atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated. It isn't easily simplified. We don't fully understa
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ [realclimate.org]
Excerpt:
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
Re: (Score:3)
World total CO2 emissions by man kind: 29,888,121 metric tons (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions [wikipedia.org])
Read your source again. The 29,888,121 figure is thousands of metric tonnes or 29,888,121,000 written out fully.
That is opposed to more than 130,000,000 tonnes from volcanoes which means volcanic emissions are about 0.43% of human emissions. Actually the generally stated value is around 1% but getting precise figures for volcanic emissions is a bit difficult.
I agree though that the CO2 is pretty evenly distributed through the atmosphere once you leave the immediate vicinity of a source.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true as far as it goes. Each increment of CO2 is a bit less effective than the previous increment. That relationship is expressed in the term Climate Sensitivity [wikipedia.org] which expresses the temperature increase expected for a doubling of CO2. The number is thought to be around 3 degrees C. So for example if you increased the CO2 level from 100 ppmv to 200 ppmv the temperature goes up by 3C, go from 200 ppmv to 400 ppmv, another 3C. But we're not anywhere close to the situation of the example in your cite
Re: (Score:3)
All his data is cherry picked, much of it is factually wrong, and he does NOT include natural cycles in is temperature projects and changes.
He is basically doing everything deniers accuse actual scientists of doing.
Ignoring is contact attack against Al Gore, and ignoring that Al Gores data was actualy backed by science, He fails to recognize that there is normal cycles, and the man made CO2 effect is on top of normal cycles. That is why 2010 was a record high even though the natural cycles would indicate it
Re: (Score:2)
By a LOT you mean about 3% of all CO2 found in the atmosphere? Which is like ~0.003675% of all the atmosphere?
Fast and loose with the truth (Score:3)
Current estimates is about 392 ppm (as of 2011). It was 335 ppm in 1985. So that's at 17% increase in just 26 years.
I wonder how many "sceptics" will be fast and loose with the truth when responding to this article.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Now run those experiments,
Yes, run the experiment..... oh yea, we can't because we don't have a couple of spare earths around.
So everyone runs computer models and expects us to believe the results of that instead. But I have seen some of what passes for climate modeling and it is pathetic. And it has NEVER produced a testable result. There are ZERO predictions made by a 'reputable' climate scientist from 10 or twenty years ago that matched reality 10 or twenty years later. No model can predict the
Re:AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
I work at a weather company. We are very good at predicting the weather a day out. More than ten days and it slips into random territory.
Luckily for the climate scientists, that has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to predict the climate. You know how December is colder than July? That's climate. Trying to say we can't predict the climate is like saying that next December could be warmer than the following July. If you believe that, or if you pretend to believe that in order to make stupid points in internet forums, then you are a blockhead.
Re: (Score:3)
No kidding. Wow! I can't predict when a particular atomic nucleus of radium decays, so therefore radioactive decay half-lifes must be bullshit!!
Do you ever get the feeling that some of the deniers around here are genuinely stupid people?
Re: (Score:2)
So, like, we should plant more plants for each additional unit of CO2 we produce? Sounds... reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does. Clouds aren't made of water vapor, they're made of water droplets and frozen ice crystals [wikipedia.org].
The reason CO2 has such a big effect despite being less concentrated in the atmosphere than water vapor is because water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing [youtube.com], and the warming effect of CO2 kicks off the vicious cycle by inducing more water vapor into the air. (Remember, warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.)
A little late (Score:5, Insightful)
The "scientists are tricking us" motif is already well cemented in the minds of the GW deniers. Coming out with vindications this far from the initial story is like farting in the wind.
Re:A little late (Score:4, Insightful)
If we assume cognative dissonance then it's safe to say that this will just be taken as additional proof that the establishment is self-serving/incompetent/oppressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. The damage has been done. I suspect AGW won't be accepted again by the general public until the more overt effects begin being felt.
Re:A little late (Score:4)
The problem is that the "more overt effects" have to be measured generationally over decades, rather than instantaneously, and most of the public - especially those retards who keep voting Republican - have an attention span less than that of a goldfish these days.
Or as John Stewart has been saying lately in covering the Republican primaries and the media reactions... "Squirrel! [youtube.com]"
Point out the long-term trend, and you get "but it was just cold yesterday" or "but we just had (insert record cold/hot day here)." Bah. Entire brain structures dedicated not to handling data and excising the bad from the good to avoid "garbage in, garbage out" but instead to deliberately destroying good data so that no matter what you put in, you get garbage out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
use of the term "deniers" is already well cemented in the minds of the warmers. Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.
Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.
OMG, don't do that! Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2! Fart into a bag and bury the bag deep in the earth! Fart sequestration!
Re:A little late (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but at some point the evidence is clear enough and compelling enough to take action on.The accuracy of the assumption that dumping huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is harmful is much better supported than the notion that we can dump whatever we like without consequence.
Had we taken heed 30 years ago and done something about it, the cost would have been substantially lower and ultimately if we were wrong it would be dirt cheap to go back to our old ways.
That being said, deniers need to come up with some actual credible science if they wish to engage in this debate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> That being said, deniers need to come up with some actual credible science if they wish to engage in this debate.
Why? It is the warmers who want us to spend trillions and accept a greatly lowered standard of living because of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to date the warmers have none.
Computer models are not extraordinary evidence unless they can demonstrate an ability to predict the future with measurable skill. None yet exist. Show me the computer model run
Irresponsible (Score:3)
Why? It is the warmers who want us to spend trillions and accept a greatly lowered standard of living because of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to date the warmers have none.
Interesting that you quote Sagan, who accepted climate science. There was consensus in the community by 1979, according to a NAS. Deniers just make a crap shoot of already discredited claims, and constantly shifting the bars of evidence. They are called deniers, because nothing will satisfy them. They cannot even make a coherent argument against what scientist say. It is all about having their way, and so far they have succeeded.
Meanwhile, humanity is still engaged in a huge geographcial experiment. Talk
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. It wouldn't settle the issue, but it would be a piece of actual evidence. As of now their side has zero evidence that passes the requirements to be called 'scientific evidence' and you need that and more to meet the 'extraordinary evidence' threshold.
So why don't these scientists put up or shut up? Get together and do your consensus thing (bah. that is politics, not science but whatever) and agree on the best model you can come up with. Publish a detailed prediction of the general climate with a
Re:A little late (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing more than a clever restatement of epistemological nihilism. Basically restated it says, "Because we cannot produce a perfect theory, we can have no theory whose predictions we can have a high degree of certainty about,"
It's a moronic position when you consider that the same basic fact that no theory is complete applies to all theories, including theories like Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics, both of which despite obvious missing pieces and flaws are among the most successful theories ever developed.
A theory does not need to be complete to have explanatory power. Maybe you should stop trying to defend oil company shills and inventing bullshit claims about how science works, and, you know, actually learn how science fucking works.
Re:A little late (Score:5, Insightful)
The money scientists have "gobbled up" amounts to a rounding error on the balance sheets of the petrochemical industry. So, yeah, if we use the "follow the money" reputational test the scientists still come up looking better.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that scientists don't get to put much of that grant money into their pockets. Most scientists live fairly modestly, because their salaries are limited by university policy. And most of that grant money goes to pay graduate students and postdocs at about minimal wage (considering the hours they put in). The only important thing that grant money buys you is the ability to do more research--more long hours for modest pay. That's OK with scientists, because the enjoyment of discovering new truths about n
Re: (Score:3)
Name one useful prediction of AGW theory. Now tell me how many attempts have been made to falsify it. Hint: zero because such a test can't be devised and wouldn't be funded if it could. Such a test can't be devised because AGW makes no testable predictions.
How about this. If global warming is caused by the Sun heating up you would expect the stratosphere to heat up but if it's caused by increased greenhouse gases you expect the stratosphere to cool some. And in fact observations have shown that the stratosphere has cooled some.
Re: (Score:3)
We need scientists to be believable to the general public.
What you're really asking for is for scientists to shut up and stop saying things the public doesn't want to hear, so why not just come straight out and say that?
We need a wall between science and politics more than a wall between politics and religion.
Close enough, never mind.
Re:A little late (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong [bartonpaullevenson.com]
Sure, tomorrow we may find discover some object that is not affected by gravity, and have to switch to an "intelligent falling" theory. But it's not likely. So while there will almost invariably be some scientist, somewhere, willing to challenge any theory whatsoever (scientists being a contentious lot), some theories are about as close to settled as any science every gets. AGW certainly falls into that category, with over 95% of scientists actively publishing in the field agreeing that temperatures are rising as a result of human activity [uic.edu]
Re:A little late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A little late (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is never theoretically settled, but I'm bored by people pretending that suddenly tomorrow gravity could become a repulsive force, or electrons could suddenly double their mass.
No, dude, some science is settled. In fact, a lot of it is. AGW isn't quite one of those things, but it is above the threshold of reasonable denial, until a mountain of evidence appears to overturn it. Until then, there is only unreasonable denial.
Re: (Score:3)
Science is NEVER settled
Correct.
The existence of atoms is merely a theory, one supported by enormous quantities of evidence.
it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.
Correct. If and when contradictory evidence is found and some other theory better explains all of that evidence, then science will throw out atom theory.
The standard in science is basically the same standard used in the courtroom... sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyone who doubts the existence of atoms, evolution, or global warming, is at best grossly uninformed, and most
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, really, the best thing we can do at this point is sell them all of the oceanfront property.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have Phil Jones to blame. The graph he produced when talking about the "trick" was, in fact, deceitful, even if Mann's original graph wasn't. Phil Jones was also the one recorded in email saying that he'd rather delete data than release it, and also the one to ask other researchers to erase email.
I don't think there's a vast conspiracy among climate scientists, but the science was definitely politicized and oversold.
Re: (Score:3)
Data was withheld because of legal constraints.
The CCE review I linked to disputes this, as does the email from Jones himself which shows him using it as cover. The email was quoted in the review, and it is quite damning. He just didn't want McIntyre to critique it. The data was handed out to other researchers.
There was no intentional deceit over "hiding the decline" and mathematical "tricks". That is just bizarro land.
What's bizarro is that you can interpret "hide the decline" as anything but deceit. No, it's not "OMG global warming is all a fraud!!!", but the intent was to hide a discrepancy. And there's just no excuse for showing three separate graphs from di
What will it take to reduce CO2? (Score:2)
How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or alternatively: What will it cost not to reduce CO2?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
our lives. Really, there is a point where it isn't habitable by humans; how about we plan to avoid that, mkay'?
Re: (Score:2)
What will it cost if we don't?
-Rick
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we know plants frigging *LOVE* the stuff... so if we don't we can probably anticipate higher crop yields. Which isn't a bad thing considering the population growth on the planet.
Curbing it will further restrict of things like vaccines, health-care, education, and advanced agricultural adoption in developing nations so that's a bad thing.
CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but we animals sort of, you know, *exhale* the stuff.
Lots of people die and starve because they don't have access to GM crops and coal pow
Re: (Score:2)
well.. we can trap it, but how do we store it?
We can planet more trees, but that would not only mean immediately stopping the rain forest clearing, but also a regrowth plan.
We could plant blackberry bushes and bambo in the non farming areas in the mid west. Can cattle graze on bambo and/or blackberry?
But, right now? there isn't really much we can do about the CO2 that's in the atmosphere. we can move to reduce further emission.
If we could find a cheap and easy way to bind CO2 to another elements and then s
Re: (Score:2)
What will it cost not do it? How much do you suppose it will cost to try to replace oil-based energy production once we've passed peak oil and suddenly reserves and production start to plummet.
Think of it this way. Replacing the 20 year old roof on your house is expensive, but not nearly as expensive as replacing the 30 year old roof that's now leaking and destroying the underlying structure and all your worldly goods.
Re: (Score:3)
depends.
1) replacing 20 year old roof at $3000 every 20 years =~ $15,000 every 100 years.
2) replacing every 30 years $3000 + $1500 in additional damage =~ $13,500 every 100 years.
3) replace every 50 years and patch as needed $3000 +$3000 in patching over the years =~ $12,000 every 100 years.
citation:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+roof+repairs [google.com]
Break It Down Now (Score:4, Interesting)
How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?
This is a fool's errand. Let's make this learning process more granular. Break it down into separate steps:
Given that climate scientists are constantly attacked by political witch hunts [slashdot.org] (and, no, there have been no formal charges of fraud against scientists claiming global warming is fake). The heart of the problem here is that the first two steps should be almost completely scientific endeavors free and devoid of any politics. Yes, the studies cost money but there's money to be had both ways (I would even say that there's more money to be had if your findings absolve polluters of any guilt).
... meanwhile the polluters are counting their money and protecting that profit margin by lobbying and funding "think tanks" and spreading lies.
Once everyone is at step two, we can proceed with the clusterfuck that is world politics. I recognize the core problem is that some politicians cobble it together and go back to step two or -- god forbid it -- step one and then attack those. Instead of recognizing that we've already made ground, we go back and people mire everything up with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And then the witch hunts begin and we're not making any progress
Can we all just scientifically get to step two and then we'll go from there? The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientists because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?
Re: (Score:3)
There's been, in the past few years, evidence coming out that both ice core samples and tree ring samples are not NEARLY as reliable as we thought they were when it comes to recording the climate of the past -- in the case of ice core samples, it was discovered that there's gas migration, and that they are not the perfect records of the atmosphere of the past that we believed they were. in the case of the tree rings, it was discovered that sheep grazing nearby had a larger impact on the formation of rings
Re: (Score:3)
Here's my citation.
It's your post.
Simply pointing out that some of the data used as the basis for the AGW conclusions is not as reliable as was believed when those conclusions were formed was enough for you to paint me as "one of them", was enough for your hackles to stand on-end and for you to personally attack me.
I'm not saying the conclusions are wrong. I'm saying they may be less right than initially believed. That's how things FUCKING WORK, dude. Get off your high horse, you're every bit as devoted
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the research is being done with money from government grants, and grants have been (very much) selectively given to people known to be on the "AGW" side of the argument.
No, the money is given to people who have demonstrated competence in that scientific field. If that group strongly correlates with the group of people who think AGW is happening, what does that tell you?
Or, how about this: what incentive does a government have to want to fake evidence that global warming is human caused? The measures to deal with it are politically unpopular, so there are no votes in it. Not to mention all the lobbying from powerful industry groups. The motivations for faking evidence lie s
Re: (Score:3)
Improve energy efficiency. That doesn't cost money -- it saves money. It's a no-brainer.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, we'll also need to begin to switch away from fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) to alternative energy sources such as nuclear, solar, biofuels, and so on. How much it costs to do it will depend on how much we can improve energy efficiency, what mixtures of energy sources we use, how much research and development we put into alternative energy sources so that the tec
Doesnt matter.. (Score:2)
In other words, it will never be seen as evidence that Michael Mann isnt the perpetrator of the most sinister hoax/conspiracy in history to destroy conservatism and the US economy, it will be seen as evidence that the NSF is obviously corrupt - and any other issues they henceforth weigh in on will be seen as tainted.
One can't help but have a little terrifying respect for just how w
This was a media manufactured (Score:4, Insightful)
issue from the beginning. It was never a big deal to be who work in scientific fields.
It's what happens when a 'news' channel is a arm of a specific ideological group.
Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Idiots (Score:2)
Fixed the headline for you
Still not sounding quite "settled" (Score:2)
Very true, but that doesn't really square with the claim that "the science is settled," does it? Many of the anti-AGW arguments are about methodology, yet the pro-AGW types often seem quick to dismiss (if not slander) anyone who questions their methodology.
Re: (Score:3)
Since "the decline" he was talking about is clearly an error in the recent proxy record, hiding it would benefit the truth.
Of course, most of the deniers have no idea what is meant by "the decline", and they assume is has something to with the temperatures in the last decade or so.
Oblig XKCD (Score:2, Informative)
http://xkcd.com/808/ [xkcd.com]
Are insurance companies selling flood insurance on coastal homes? If they are, are they making a killing on them? ^_^
Re:Oblig XKCD (Score:4, Interesting)
Insurance don't make a killing selling insurance polices that they know they're likely to pay out on. A more accurate measure would be whether costal flood insurance costs have been rising faster than other insurance premiums (Earthquake insurance might be a good reference point).
That at least would be proof that Insurance companies are including AGW models into their actuarial tables.
Infinite Recursion? (Score:4, Interesting)
To over-simplify it: the evidence that the data was faked was itself faked.
So what's to stop the other side from coming back by saying that the analysis of the faked evidence of the faked data was in fact faked?
Fake this noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Hahaha nice, I should try that, it would create a runaway reaction of infinite stupidity XD
It will either end with epic lulz or form a stupidity singularity that will consume the planet. Fun times, either way.
Re: (Score:3)
So stupidity singularity, then.
Re: (Score:3)
Not Surprising (Score:5, Informative)
After the most recent exoneration, Fox was holding out on this NSF report as the last word on the issue: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/ [foxnews.com] They felt that the NSF was the "only independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively"
Their findings are not surprising. Mann's research has been replicated using different methods time and time again. Here are just a few examples:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.abstract
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
no one argued that data was fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no one argued that data was fake (Score:5, Insightful)
The weather itself is not repeatable, but the measurements around the world to establish the proxy record of that temperature is perfectly repeatable. You can still examine trees, coral, drill holes, and so on. In fact, since Mann's work, it has been repeated several times, confirming his original graph.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, I'm was geniuenly surprised and I'm probably to the last person on earth to hear about this.
Why does it take FOIA filings to get access to the documents related to Mann's paleoclimatology research? Are these relevant data or is someone just fishing? Does anybody know anything about this?
Why is it necessary that people sue each other about this? Considering how important and visible this is, wouldn't it be better to just put everything out there?
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/08/univers [sciencemag.org]
Anonymous Coward Deniers are Numerous Today (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Data" is a plural word. "Datum" is the singular form.
Re:The data is were! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes you an expert on biology and perhaps on the usage in a technical context, but overall usage varies widely and I'm pretty sure is tending towards recognizing it as a mass noun. Nitpicking isn't going to buck the trend. (Of course it's fair to point out that "data are..." is a form still widely considered to be correct.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it really weren't fakeded..
Re: (Score:2)
They all drink from the same teat of government money, and therefore are all in cahoots. No one working in universities or research groups has any credibility. The only people who are not biased are the ones who only have a web site, and have otherwise nothing to do with climate science.
Well, you left out the people being funded by big oil and the Koch brothers. Why would they lie ?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the nihilist's view "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die..."
Anything so long as you don't have to change your behavior.
That is until peak oil hits and all of a sudden the price of a barrel of oil shoots into the stratosphere. By then, AGW will be undeniable and irreversible, and just as importantly, rejigging industrialized and industrializing economies away from the use of fossil fuels as a major energy source will become catastrophically expensive, costs for materials fabrication,
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice that when an investigation is concluded that if it fits your biases you never question the process?
Ever notice that when you've already decided global warming is a lie, you'd rather conclude that a worldwide grand conspiracy exists than re-examine your world view?
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice that when several independent investigations into a matter reach the same conclusion that the conclusions are strengthened?
Re:Bring it on! (Score:4, Insightful)
Structures built on permafrost will have to be completely rebuilt once the permafrost goes. Permafrost is also sequestering significant amounts of methane. Don't knock the status quo until you have tried the alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
I give up on answering them. Suffice to say that if you aren't going to put your name behind your comments, no one should give a shit what you say.
I suspect that most of these AC troll comments are from the same person, they certainly read the same.
Re:Faux News admitted the Earth is getting warmer (Score:5, Insightful)
actually I don't know what excuse they're on these days, all of those have been disproven.
All of them. It doesn't really matter which, since the conclusion ("We don't have to do anything") is foregone, and the rest is just details. Disprove one and they'll switch to a different one, and when you disprove that they'll jump back to the first, hoping you've forgotten about it.
They're still stuck with explaining how they, an ignoramus who would have failed high school algebra if they hadn't cheated off the nerd in the next row, is somehow more informed about climate modeling than the scientists. That's where the Global Socialist Conspiracy comes in.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, but at least he didn't accuse all of us deniers of being in the pay of the Koch brothers or the oil companies. So I guess that is progress. Personally I'm still waiting for my f'ing check from either of em.
The funniest bit is how he just ASSumes that regardless of the evidence the 'deniers' will just keep on denying, in other words his mind is already made up about both AGW and the motives of those who disagree. Exactly the sort of closed minded idiocy he projects onto his opponents.
I can be convinc
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK #2 is true, some of the data couldn't be publicly released because of copyright issues, but that data didn't change the conclusions and could presumably be accessed by other researchers.
As for the rest.
The data is public.
The code is public.
The papers are public.
What else do you fracking need?
Lets be honest here. This isn't about the science of global warming, all the information necessary to debate the science of global warming is out there, it can, and has been debated publicly and openly, and for th
Re: (Score:3)
Despite numerous allegations of flagrant misconduct, the NSF could not find even one that could be substantiated (just like all the previous investigations). The fundamental conclusions have been replicated over and over. The supposedly "missing" data was readily found. The statistical errors that were real turned out to be inconsequential with respect to the overall conclusions.
But because the NSF committee was unable to prove a negative, it's "a far f*cking cry from exoneration"?
Man, I hope I'm never acc
Re: (Score:3)
2. The Subject's data is documented and available to researchers.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
That's because you get your information from disinformers. The data has always been available. The methods are described in the paper. The results have been replicated time and time again using different methods. They are very sound. This is how science works. Mann was a pioneer. His methods were improved upon in subsequent analysis - by Mann and others. That the initial study is not perfect is not a sign of misconduct. That his results turned out to be right indicates that he was on the right trac