I can’t quite put a finger to what you are on about, here. Since you accept that the consensus favors the global warming hypothesis, is it your contention that the consensus was arrived at based on a massive conspiracy to deceive?
Or are you about protecting the sanctity of the Temple of Science? Which might mean that you accept that most of the science supporting AGW is valid, but are determined to stick it to a couple of guys who fail to measure up to your exacting standards.
Is this a nitpicking expedition, or are you after big game?
Not to speak for intention but the crap that these guys are pulling makes putting any trust in them or their conclusions just about impossible.
The way is should work:
They collect data
They look at the data and confirm it fits into their theory
They publish the **data **and the theory
Other scientists review the data and the theory to see if it correct. Other scientists test all the data and the theory for holes
Either the theory stands (for the time being, it is possible more data or a better theory may come along) or someone finds flaws in the theory.
What is happening:
They collected data
They looked at the data and confirmed it fit into their theory
They released the data only to people who agree with them already
They then tell the world that we must spend huge amounts of money to avoid disaster.
Do you see the difference?
An honest scientist would, not only provide the data along with the theory, but also point out to other scientists what may be wrong with the data or the theory.
Also there was consensus for thousands of years that the earth was actually flat. Does consensus make that true?
The basic problem here as I see it, is the political side. Since the amount of people that really can make heads or tails of the data in any form are limited to a select few, realistically speaking, then all the future legislation and tax dollars going to remediate what we can of AGW, if we can. Is going to be based on the integerity of these same science guys.
An accedemic slug fest on the mating habits of the Armenian tree toad may be amusing to us great unwashed, but it’s not quite the same as the possible changing of the tectonic plates of the worlds economy, with trillions of dollars at stake.
What I want to know is, do these scientists have the moral courage to admit that they have been wrong, the data does not support AGW and the earth is just tickety boo, and there is no disaster unfolding that our grandkids will suffer in some form.
Bear in mind I’m talking about integerity not data, like anyone else, my eyes start rolling like a Vegas slot machine with the explanation about Agw and that’s probably the idiots guide to global warming at that, but integerity , that’s something I can get behind.
Are these people capable of admitting that thier reputations , grant money, and what ever else are based on incorrect conclusions.
No dog in this fight, I just want to know how the hell “megabites” got past the editor of the linked article. Good lord. Surely that wouldn’t even get past a spellcheck, would it?
Uh, first, the info wasn’t illegally obtained, because it was similar to the good faith doctrine. Anyway, it’s still completely irrelevant.
Second, the FCC only deals with FOIAs served on the FCC. And even then, they will follow the law and release anything you ask for unless it is excepted in the statute.
And your last case is also irrelevant. You have to pay reasonable costs for FOIA information. The court didn’t waive the fees. I can’t tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you’re actually trying to argue here. You aren’t a very clear poster at the best of times, and you brought up all kinds of weird pointless shit, 90% made up, about FOIA requests and recommended that “the courts would frown on mentioning stolen emails”, when in fact none of that has any real bearing whatsoever.
I am not so sure about the number of people who can evaluate. I know a reasonable number of people (think 15 or 20) who work at Sandia National Labs and a few who are over at Lawrence Livermore. Most of those guys and gals have the skills. In fact, the guy I would want checking this, if I had a choice, is a guy who is really high up in the Lawrence Livermore supercomputer division. In fact, I think he runs it*. Used to go water skiing with him all the time. He is damned smart and very good at modeling. Most of the Sandia guys I know do very high level modeling, things like nuclear reactors and astrophysics. There are a ton of people at the national labs who are capable of this. I would also assume that most Universities with good math and physics departments would have people as well.
Slee
I haven’t talked to him in a year or two. I think he got the job, not sure about that though…
I disagree entirely. Climate science covers more scientific disciplines than any other scientific subject I know of. It includes meteorology, atmospheric physics, chemistry, physics, oceanography, economics, statistics, cryology, biology, soil chemistry, geology, solar dynamics, paleohistory, computer programming, proxy analysis, and a host of other disciplines. As a result, unlike specialized disciplines, most of the climate science papers are written so that the people in all of the disciplines involved can understand them.
I would say that most papers in the field of climate science are quite accessible to anyone with a firm grasp of mathematics. Unlike the physical sciences, the subject of climate science is an average. Climate is not a “something”, it is the average of weather over a sufficiently long time (typically 30 years). Thus a good grounding in math is necessary, but you don’t have to have a PhD in biology to understand a climate science paper discussing climate and the biosphere. This is not rocket science.
I already acknowledged that indeed stolen email can be used as evidence, but thanks for pointing out things that were already granted.
I checked also the freedom of information in the UK, and it is similar as the American one. It seems to me that eventually the courts will intervene if the case is pressed, because I predict that the climate researchers will not comply or the officers will deny the requests. My main point is that deniers will have to be careful in demanding their day in court as they may end up branded as a frivolous filers of requests by the courts just like they did to Barbara Schwarz.
Aw, not “deniers” again. I’m polite, I call your side “AGW supporters” or “AGW believers” and not “AGW lemmings” or “AGW alarmists”. Could you have the common decency to do the same, and refer to a whole class of people who happen to disagree with you as “skepics” or some less insulting term? “Deniers” is a term specifically chosen to echo “Holocaust deniers”, which is a very ugly thing for you to be parroting.
In addition, it is inaccurate in many cases. I think that humans are warming the planet, I just think we’re doing it by cutting down forests and emitting black carbon. So I believe in AGW, just not your AGW. That, I’m skeptical of. But I “deny” nothing.
Polite as in the previous thread where you changed the names of your opponents in the quotes and used “polite” insults?
As always, you are “forgetting” that the denier term originated in the 15th century.
“I see NOTHING! I know NOTHING!” is a good excuse for Sgt. Shultz.
BTW your pathetic point on the “Hockey Stick” was one of the most stupidest things said ever. The point remains that it is creationist level drivel to assume that just because few think that that was debunked that then one can apply that term to what you dislike.
To me it is easy then to see who is a reasonable skeptic and who is a denier by just asking about the “hockey stick controversy”. I expect a reasonable skeptic to just claim that there is controversy on the subject.
But “debunked”? The definition is clear, it is to ridicule something that is false.
Based on the evidence and support for it, it is a myth to claim that the hockey stick was debunked, the most honest way to deal with it was to say that there was/is a controversy, but debunked? Debunked is applied to items like Piltdown man, not to items that generate debate and have plenty of support.
Sure, I’ll insult you, as you insult me. It is a very different thing to insult a whole class of people, most of whom you’ve never even met. I try to refrain from doing that, and if it is pointed out to me … I stop doing it.
How 'bout you?
Many old words, like “faggot” from the 12th century, no longer have the meaning they used to have. They have a modern meaning, which may have nothing to do with what they meant in the 15th century, and which may be insulting or denigrating.
For many people, “denier” is associated with “Holocaust denier”, with the clear implication that it refers to someone who is denying something patently obvious. I have changed the terms I use to refer to the opposition in the climate debate, for a simple reason: someone here on the SDMB asked me to, saying the term I was using was insulting to him.
Since I didn’t say that, I don’t understand what you are babbling about.
The clearest statement on the Hockeystick mathematics came from Edward Wegman in the Wegman Report. He said:
In other words … debunked, because of newbie mathematical errors. Not debunked because I say so. Debunked because it was built on bad math. I also note that Wegman’s findings on the “independence” of the studies and the concealment of data by Mann et. al have been amply borne out by the CRU emails.
The Wegman Report was chaired by the eminent statisticial, Dr. Edward Wegman. Per Wikipedia:
So he is not just some mathematician off the street who claims the math is bad. He and several other equally eminent mathematicians looked at the math in Mann’s Hockeystick paper, and at Steve McIntyre’s deconstruction of the Hockeystick. They found absolutely nothing wrong with Steve’s work. Their conclusion on the Hockeystick is at the end of the quote above. So those of you who still cling to the outdated belief that the math behind Mann’s Hockeystick is scientifically sound, I invite you to take it up with Dr. Wegman.
I have looked at and understand the math in the Hockeystick paper (principal component analysis). Do you? Can you explain the problem Wegman is pointing to in the Hockeystick paper (uncentered principal component analysis)? Can you explain why, when you apply Mann’s method to random data, it mines for Hockeystick shapes?
If so, please explain to us where Wegman is wrong. In math, your usual tricks of ad hominem attacks and claiming the other guy is a tool of the forces of evil mean nothing. All that counts is the math. If you think Mann’s Hockeystick math is without blemish, show us where Wegman is wrong. Explain why Mann’s method mines for Hockeysticks. I can hardly wait for this explanation …
And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain why Mann was advised by Jones to delete his emails about the paleoclimate chapter of AR4, if everything is so clear and obviously correct in the world of proxy reconstructions?
This Wegman Report? What are we to make of it being “published” by Climate Audit, one of the main antagonists in this sordid little drama? Shouldn’t you have mentioned this yourself? Has the Report been published elsewhere as a study not connected to global warming or only in the proceedings of partisans to the argument?
You claim that the “hockey stick” is debunked, thoroughly and without doubt. But wouldn’t that mean that no reputable mathematicians and/or scientists still defend it? Or are you qualified to decide which scientists are valid, and which are not?
And again, shouldn’t you have at least mentioned the connection to Climate Audit?
I find out differently, the Wegman Report, though publicized by a partisan blog was not directly connected to its origin, that was the esteemed friend of science and Truth, “Smokin’ Joe” Barton. Hence, there was no need for you to mention the connection to Climate Audit, which may be nothing more than a happy coincidence.
The rest still stands, if there is controversy on this issue, your use of the word “debunked” is self-serving and misleading.
Can we at least agree that these emails suggest the following reform?
**The Sam Stone Open Source Climate Act
**
“From this point forward, any researchers receiving government financial aid for climate research will keep all data public, and it shall belong to the public domain. Furthermore, any software used to produce climate models must be placed under a Creative Commons license and placed in the public domain at the time the results of the model are published.”
Climate change research has implications for the entire planet. No small group of scientists should be able to place findings into the academic literature while keeping the data to themselves. This issue is far too important. Of course, privately funded scientists can do whatever they want, but if you’re publishing from a university or an agency receiving government assistance, you’re doing it all openly and publicly.
Why are you arguing with people about this? Not that I mind you beating your head against a brick wall, but religion and ignorance will trump science every time in the short term. None of these idiots are capable of understanding the basic math, let alone any problems with the way the data was presented. It’s like asking a caveman to derive the speed of light in a vacuum – they are just going to hit you in the head with a rock and prance around making chimp noises like in the first part of 2001.
I do notice that elucidator can say nothing other than to complain about the Wegner report’s provenance. 'luci, someday the light will go on and you will realize that math doesn’t give a shit about provenance. Either math is right or or it is wrong, even if you found it scribbled on a bathroom wall. If you think it is wrong, show us where. If not, keep babbling about where it was found …
However, I write more for the lurkers than for those doing the chimp dance. There’s a lot of smart people on SDMB who read and learn. That’s why I keep on writing. It’s taking longer than I thought …
Sam Stone, while you are right to call for transparency, that’s a scientist’s job description. It is indeed tragic that we have to make a special call in climate science for what is taken for granted in almost every other scientific field, and many non-scientific fields. If a medical researcher or an accountant tried this shit, he’d be strung up by the thumbs. But when Jones and Mann do it, scientists look the other way, and idiots on the SDMB line up to defend it … pathetic.
In fact, the NSF (which funds much of the US climate science) has clear policies on this. Nature and Science and the other journals have policies on this. Lack of policies is not the problem, it’s lack of enforcement. They just ignore their own policies all the time. Even when the journals are called on it, or NSF is called on it, they just look the other way and play dumb. So even if we adopt the Sam Stone plan, there’s the tiny problem of making it work …
How do I know this? Because I’m just a dumb foot soldier in this war, a guy who does stupid shit like writing letters to Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science Magazine, imploring him to follow and enforce his own guidelines on data archiving. Net result? … Nada. Nothing. Zip. He claimed to be powerless, said it was up to the authors to archive the data. Ah, well, I soldier on …
