×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Where the Global Warming Data Is

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the premiere-cru dept.

Earth 1011

Several readers noted the latest fallout from the Climate Research Unit's Climategate: the admission by the University of East Anglia that the raw data behind important climate research was discarded in the 1980s, "a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue" according to the Times (UK) article. The Telegraph quotes Phil Jones, beleagured head of the CRU: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them." Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that jamie located up at the Real Climate site: a compilation of links to a wide variety of raw data about climate. From the former link: "In the aftermath of the CRU email hack, many people have come to believe that scientists are unfairly restricting access to the raw data relating to the global rise in temperature. ... We have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1011 comments

Oh, hey, (3, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265480)

Where did I read that RealClimate.org was a propaganda arm of the AGW movement? Was it in those hacked emails?

Re:Oh, hey, (-1, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265498)

You heard that at the meetings where you deniers organize the propaganda against climate science.

Re:Oh, hey, (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265526)

please please PLEASE/ don't use the word science when talking about this shit, those of us that actually do real scientific research find it offensive. Science is about knowledge, systematic testing of theories and analysis of those results. Whether AGW is real or not, most of the garbage being presented as evidence is NOT scientific.

Re:Oh, hey, (0, Troll)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265558)

please please PLEASE don't try to speak for all of us. Some of us that actually have a different opinion than you find it offensive.

Deniers? (0, Troll)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265874)

Look, the lid is blown off a scam of Große Lüge [wikipedia.org] proportions.
Deal with it like an adult, or deal with it like a leftist.
You're lovely either way, PMF, and we love you you for it.

Re:Oh, hey, (5, Informative)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265600)

I think they're exaggerating the lost of one particular set of data, from one set of researchers, in one university, compared with thousands of different climate research around the world. So this case of data mismanagement at one university, isn't going to make much difference to the case for global warming being caused by humanities energy usage.

---

Global Warming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Oh, hey, (5, Informative)

HanzoSpam (713251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265760)

I think they're exaggerating the lost of one particular set of data, from one set of researchers, in
one university, compared with thousands of different climate research around the world. So this
case of data mismanagement at one university, isn't going to make much difference to the case
for global warming being caused by humanities energy usage.

Problem is, some of the other sources aren't looking so good, either. [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:Oh, hey, (-1, Troll)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265934)

Anyone using the Daily Telegraph (let alone a blog on said rag) as an authorative source immediatly loses credibility with me, and hopefully, anyone else who understands logic and reason.

Just sayin.

AGW = ? (2, Interesting)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265658)

So does AGW stand for "anthropomorphic global warming" or "anti-global warming"? And would "anti-global warming" mean you are against global warming (meaning you think it's happening) or you are against the theory that global warming is happening?

Re:AGW = ? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265972)

AGW is Anthropogenic (of human origin) Global Warming. Anthropomorphic Global Warming would be treating Global Warming as a person, which is uncommon but not unheard of.

It's a scientific question whether humans are causing or affecting global warming and I'm all in favor of open data and models from credible sources. I don't happen to think realclimate.org is one, but that's an opinion.

It's an opinion also whether or not global warming is a bad thing. Certainly as few reasonable people would like to see glaciation return to south Florida as would like to see it sink into the sea.

Re:AGW = ? (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265982)

"Anthropogenic Global Warming"

"Anthropromorphic Global Warming" would be what hippies do. E.g., singing to the earth until it felt warmth in the cockles of its heart.

The emails were stolen from realclimate.org (3, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265732)

The site is the web page of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit [realclimate.org] (CRU), whose data, models and bias is under scrutiny here. This is the server the material was stolen from, and they're struggling mightily to do damage control. The material was assembled in response to a FOIA request and intended to be destroyed when the request was legally thwarted. This same organization has claimed to have "lost" the primary data their published information is based upon, and one of the researchers in a stolen email actually stated a preference for destroying the raw data to releasing it. Their newfound love of openness is nothing but damage control and the data they give should be treated with suspicion. Using them as a primary reference for this issue is of debatable worth.

And yes, one of the emails did reference using the site for advocacy - I just can't find the reference just now. If you know where it is, please post it here. As to whether or not the site is actually used for policy advocacy, don't trust me. Read it yourself. [realclimate.org]

So there, mister "flamebait" moderator.

Re:The emails were stolen from realclimate.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265898)

As to whether or not the site is actually used for policy advocacy, don't trust me. Read it yourself [realclimate.org].

Thanks, that makes for interesting reading, very informative site.

after seeing all this (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265490)

After seeing all this talk about these guys, they sure do seem like a motley CRU.

too early to make drastic decisions... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265522)

when there aren't cheap alternative energy sources

humanity will have to learn to control, to some extent, earth's climate eventually anyways, if it is sooner rather than later, so be it

Why are people getting so worked up (5, Insightful)

areusche (1297613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265530)

Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265578)

That's called conservation and stewardship.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265580)

We should start by your mother having fewer children.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (1, Troll)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265590)

Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.

Hippie.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (2, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265698)

Hippie.

You say that like its a bad thing. What skew is owed to your view?

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (2, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265780)

Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.

Hippie.

Actually, if I had a choice (regardless of any other environmental impact) if I wanted to live in a place that had clean air or a place that was filled with smog, I choose the clean air. I would prefer my kids not to grow up with hacking coughs and running short of breath after a short run.

Add to that, that whatever we put up into the air often comes back down in the rain, and suddenly rivers are lifeless or algae blooms, our nature reserves if we have them are infested with weeds as the native fauna struggles to survive, and it's very quickly a bleak picture.

If you can't cause less pollution to stop a greater environmental impact, stop polluting so much to keep the little area around you alive and hospitable. Your health, your kids health will be so much better for it.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265668)

The problem is the general creed that conservation and restriction is good, as long as you do it and leave me alone.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265984)

The problem is the general creed that conservation and restriction is good, as long as you do it and leave me alone.

I think you can be left alone just fine. As long as you burn the fossil fuels from your own land and do not import any.

The idea that it's fine to regulate and put import tarrifs on food but freak out when people put tarrifs on fossil fuels is not rational.

Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming (1, Informative)

reporter (666905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265676)

If global warming is, by some remote possibility, neither real nor caused by human activities, then the current convulsions about who should do what to save the planet will be much noise about nothing.

On the other hand, suppose that global warming is real and is caused by human activities. Then, who shall be responsible for the oceans flooding nations like Great Britain and Japan, shrinking their territories to one-tenth of the original size?

Common sense tells us that if a nation -- e. g. , China -- pumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with wild abandon and if such an act causes global warming which greatly enlarges the oceans, thus flooding much of Great Britain and Japan, then such an act is essentially an act of war against the British and the Japanese. The British and the Japanese then have the moral right to initiate war against China in order to seize Chinese territory for settlement by the Japanese and the British.

Losing 90% of Japanese (or British) territory due to Chinese thoughtlessness is not a laughing matter and is an act of war. Military force is a legitimate way to eradicate Chinese thoughtlessness and to compel the Chinese to protect the environment.

Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming (2, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265734)

You might be correct, except that the US is more responsible than China and the UK/Japan are hardly innocent either.

This is less an act of war or one-sided recklessness, and more something akin to a bunch of ignorant fools drinking liquor and shooting their guns into the air not knowing that the rounds will return to the earth and strike them in the head.

(I will pre-empt the 'well the US does it more efficiently than China' responses with an I DON'T GIVE A CRAP because that is like us all sitting in a hot tub and we all kinda poop in it, but I poop the most and then I say "well, I really needed to and it felt better to me")

Every industrialized nation is to blame here.

Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265906)

You might be correct, except that the US is more responsible than China and the UK/Japan are hardly innocent either.

China is the world's largest CO2 producer. US isn't far behind.

Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265858)

Even for slashdot, you with the handle "reporter" is one certifiable crackpot.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (4, Insightful)

wrf3 (314267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265724)

If I were to be "worked up" it would be because it is not rational to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.

Why are people not getting worked up enough (0)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265996)

And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.

I agree. Whenever I hear "even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still ..." I wonder, given the evidence unequivocally demonstrates AGW, why you want idly to while away your times considering non-real states, when the real state demands our attention somewhat more urgently. AGW is, to the best of our knowldege, not "wrong," and what's more, it's time we took the money away from the scientists who have been telling us this for years and gave it to the engineers to get us out of this mess.

The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.

Again I agree. And it clearly does.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (5, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265762)

if global warming is false

Look at pictures of Mount Kilimanjaro [wikipedia.org] today, 20, 30 and 50 years ago. Where have the glaciers gone? Travel to any of the glaciers fields in Europe, North America or Asia. Where have the glaciers gone [wikipedia.org]? Global cooling sure as fuck hasn't caused them to recede drastically.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (3, Insightful)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265816)

Where are all of the glaciers from 10,000 years ago? You can't tell me that wasn't man-made warming as well.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (5, Insightful)

sien (35268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265836)

Kilimanjaro has been retreating since the 1800s [nationalgeographic.com].

C02 in the atmosphere has only been shooting up since the 1950s. Pre-industrial C02 levels were about 2.8 parts per 10 000. As opposed to 4 or so now [noaa.gov].

If these things pre-date C02's big increase this indicates a large role for natural climate variations.

This is what many skeptic say.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265968)

ok...
  • A comparison of ice core records suggests conditions today are returning to those of 11,000 years ago.
  • A study by Philip Mote formerly of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria concludes that the shrinking of Kilimanjaro's ice cap is not directly due to rising temperature but rather to decreased precipitation.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (3, Insightful)

dlcarrol (712729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265804)

There has, to my knowledge, never been a platform or group of any appreciable size or influence that really wanted, as an end, to mess up the environment.

People are getting worked up because of the perception, well-founded or not, that certain people's preferences for how and when to normalize improvements will become mandatory soon and thus result in less choice at a higher cost.

Compounding this via genetic fallacy, the same people that congregate for various AGW factions also tend to flash-mob for "stimulus plans" and the like. And we know how well those expenditures of our money have gone.

Eventually, one just gets tired of know-ier than thou showing up looking for a hand-out.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265814)

More importantly we need to find a way to do so that is cheap or even profitable to the United States, China, India and other high CO2 emission countries otherwise meaningful reductions in emissions will be difficult. Combinations of technologies like Coal [wikipedia.org] + Algae diesel or [wikipedia.org]Nuclear [wikipedia.org] + water thermal cracking [wikipedia.org] + Fischer-Tropsch [wikipedia.org].

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265830)

Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.

Reminds me of those stories "eat your veggies or the big monster will get you". There's no monster, but you need your veggies. You're just too stupid to realize why you need them. I suppose comparing humanity to a small child is apt given how poorly are we handling the whole situation.

Re: Christmas sale, free shipping discounts (-1, Offtopic)

coolforsale134 (1689450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265908)

http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com] (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.

Re:Why are people getting so worked up (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265980)

Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment.

I'm with you on that. Of course, the best thing we can do for the environment is to get as many people as possible out of subsistence farming, which is tremendously destructive. We don't slash-and-burn in the industrialized countries.

-jcr

Just another day (5, Insightful)

Davemania (580154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265542)

This is just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue. If there was any substance to these email, they would've produced the evidence by now. A few sentences blown out of context from a few cherry picked emails are merely red-herring.

Re:Just another day (1)

Machupo (59568) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265616)

it would be great if at the end of each quote in a newspaper, ad, whatever there was a requirement to include the p-value and e-value of the words used.

Re:Just another day (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265694)

And what is the real issue? If you call it smokescreen, at least enlighten us what it's screening.

Re:Just another day (1, Insightful)

Davemania (580154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265776)

Oh I don't know, were you in a coma for the last couple of years ? I just find it really funny that the new stratergy now is to call into question the honesty and ethics of the researchers or basically personal attacks instead of challenging the freaking DATA. Denier still know what data is defined as right ?

Re:Just another day (1)

inwo42 (1245506) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265772)

And it seems the real issue is who makes money off of the issue. As long as no one brings forth evidence, the subject can be debated for as long as it's profitable. For every claim for, you can find one against. Politicians drool over issues with no definite answers because it wins them emotional votes. And what happens if the evidence does materialize? Industry fights against legislation and/or install expensive pollution management, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.

I agree with and earlier poster. If the governments really wanted to do something substantial, they should attempt to link pollution emissions to health. At least that seems like it would be easier to track. The downfall, of course, is that the trial lawyers would have a field day with all the lawsuits linking every death to Big Industry pollution. Lawyers get rich, Big Industry fights against the legislation, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.

I'm not denying. (2, Insightful)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265798)

Of course the world is getting warmer. It has been for the last ten thousand years. You know, since the end of the last ice age.

Back then, the polar ice cap extended down into modern-day Illinois. If only we could have stopped global warming from melting the ice cap all the way to what it was 100 years ago.

As I understand it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265546)

they tossed the raw data and are only reluctantly providing data sets that have been massaged.

kill the jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265566)

burn all the jews and replace israel with a nazi reich

Damned if they do Damned if they don't (4, Insightful)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265576)

If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:

"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"

If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:

"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"

Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.

The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.

Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265650)

Oddly enough, there's quite a bit of overlap between the two crowds. Although why anybody who believes that fossils were put in the ground by the Devil to cover up the Earth's 6000 year age is allowed to HAVE an opinion about science is beyond me...

Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't (0, Troll)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265704)

It probably wouldn't suprise you then that when you look at who are funding climate skeptic research

http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm [heritage.org]

are the same people funding the creationist whackos

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev041905a.cfm [heritage.org]

Yeah, its the same guys lecturing climate scientists and accusing them of fraud that lecture biologists and accuse THEM of fraud.

No agendas here folks, move on citizen.

Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265746)

> Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.

I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated. If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible. Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at? How did 'respected' journals publish papers that they couldn't ask another serious scientist to do a proper review of? Why is work that, even if it COULD in theory be duplicated, in fact never will (and wasn't) be given any weight in the high councils of the world's leaders?

Should a scientist use a closed dataset to help his company decide which research line to pursue? Yes. Decide where to drill for oil? Yes. Publish in the peer reviewed journals? No. Make recommendations to world leaders with trillion dollar consequences? No.

Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265866)

Review and duplication does not require publishing all raw data. It requires publishing the methods used to obtain the raw data, so someone else can do the same thing and come to the same conclusion. For a proprietary dataset, this could mean, "go sign your own NDA and see the proprietary data", or it could mean, "go gather data the same way they did" (e.g. in the case of ice cores or other repeatable climate data samples.

Science has never required full access to the publishing scientist's lab notes, lab equipment, or diaries. That's the domain of historians, patent attorneys, regulators, and corporate spies.

Did someone miss the entire discussion train? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265754)

Strawman argument. Fight windmills much?

The researcher can write in a clearly visible footnote, "by the way, the data for this is unavailable to anyone as we had to sign an NDA to get it". The reader and peer-reviewers will then have to decide to view the results slightly more questioningly and rely more on the credibility of the researcher, and might when they pick a graph for the front page of their monthly magazine choose one with openly available data instead. This is the normal way to do it. In fact, it's the way anyone except trolls and disinformative idiots would do it. Would you provide an article to a peer-reviewed journal with a written policy of requiring disclosure of data, while not including such a footnote? Would anyone?

Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud.

It is clear from the discussions that being "unable to disclose" isn't the case most of the time - it's "not wanting to disclose". In your view these may be the same, but in realists' view they are not. Please ask me for quotes and references, including a couple of views provided by various professors.

"Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly.

Read. Read anything, because you obviously haven't. The CRU manipulated raw data using various statistical techniques and produced very widely published results that showed an alarming trend. Others have not provided what the CRU provided. When asked, the CRU stated that the raw data AND their transformations had been deleted. Based on their internal emails it is not clear that it HAS been deleted, and quotes can be found of "I would rather delete this data than send it under an FOIA request" (literally, which would be a criminal act). This means that "signing an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly" would not be possible even though you claim to do so, because the raw data and how the CRU has transformed it isn't available.

No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.

+5 for dismissing a case as conspiracy theorists while obviously lacking knowledge about it.

Nice that you understand politics (1)

xzvf (924443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265848)

The climate debate isn't about science anymore. It is political and regardless of which side of the debate you are on the odds are the incorrect action will be taken. Compromise, short term thinking and power (no pun intended) considerations will twist the debate. Instead of climate change, carbon footprints and cap & trade, redefine the debate as energy independence and job creation. This is a US centric policy, but it is where I'm at, so come up with your own. Set a goal of national energy independence, including drilling for domestic oil. The US has limited enough supplies that low consumption credits and alternative energy sources incentives will be required to prevent the importation of oil. Automation of manufacturing to bring jobs back to the United States. Since we shifted our manufacturing to less developed countries, we've also shifted our pollution. Instead of innovating to reduce local workforce expenses via automation, most companies took the short term gain of lower cost labor and limited regulation. By subsidizing the R&D of automation, many of the jobs may come back.

Yes, good. Call names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265852)

If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:

"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"

If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:

"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"

Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.

The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.

If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:

"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"

If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:

"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"

Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.

The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.

That'll do wonders for the impression that climate science is overrun with rabid ideologues that would rather trade insults (and fists?) than data.

Keep up the good work.

-- Your Friends at Chevron.

Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't (3, Insightful)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265890)

Of course, the e-mails from the CRU would support this if they weren't full of statements indicating data was being manipulated, that e-mails and other material subject to FOIA were not being systematically and deliberately purged, that the peer review system was not being gamed and manipulated to keep out any opposing views up to and including getting editors removed if they didn't do what the Team wanted.

If you can't check the data because the "dog ate my homework" then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy?

But only nasty people can ask such questions. Only people with agendas.

Redeye says it all....as always (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265586)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576887,00.html

The above link says it all

Global warming cover-up (1, Insightful)

Cr0vv (1223332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265602)

"The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them." Why would there be a cover-up in the first place? Much is reported in the news about it, who or why would you cover up data on Global warming? My opinion is that there is a cover-up because there is something to cover-up. It exists, "it" is the true cause of the Global warming, something that has been covered up since NASA discovered a rogue planet heading for our solar system in 1983. Don't give me no crap on this, it's documented in the Washington Post. Crow.

Science as Open Source (4, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265606)

Science was the first instance of open source. If someone else can't freely check your data and replicate your experiments you've got nothing. The raw data and source code for the climate models should have been available from day one. The fact that they weren't and that large quantities of data were "lost" throws the conclusions into serious question.

Re:Science as Open Source (4, Insightful)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265644)

That's not quite right. It's important that your results are reproducible. That requires a full description of how the data was gathered and how it was analysed. That way, someone can go and do their own experiments, collect their own data and conduct their own analysis. Giving out the raw data isn't a bad thing, but it's not necessary and actually doesn't happen that often.

You could make a case that it's in fact bad for people to all work off the same data set or code, as any mistakes (or even deliberate fraud) will then be common to all analyses.

Re:Science as Open Source (2, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265768)

That's not quite right. It's important that your results are reproducible. That requires a full description of how the data was gathered and how it was analysed.

So all the adjustments to the data and the algorithms used to analyse it are fully documented and available to any researcher.... oh wait!

Re:Science as Open Source (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265900)

No, just what the algorithm was intended to do. That's enough to duplicate the analysis, if a competent researcher is doing it anyway, as he'll work out the necessary corrections for himself.

Re:Science as Open Source (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265928)

Sorry, I realised that was worded badly. What I meant was that there were some aspects of analysis that would be known to any competent researcher. It should be spelled out in enough detail to be reproducible, bearing this in mind.

Any significant, non-obvious adjustment *should* be included in the published work. E.g. the discarding of tree ring data post-1960 was explained, rather than just silently replaced.

Re:Science as Open Source (4, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265786)

Personally, I feel that when you are an activist, not just a scientist, and pressuring for major policy changes based on your research, you should be held to a higher standard.

If you're going to stand up, proclaim the end of the world, and tell everybody that they need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to avert it... you have a moral obligation to publish your data.

Re:Science as Open Source (4, Insightful)

Mspangler (770054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265808)

"You could make a case that it's in fact bad for people to all work off the same data set or code, as any mistakes (or even deliberate fraud) will then be common to all analyses."

And that deliberate fraud issue, sadly, appears to be the case. How many good models were scrapped because the cooked data made them give obviously bogus results? How much good new data was discarded because it didn't match with the "approved" data. A huge amount of work is scrapped, or is about to be.

My dissertation was on non-linear modeling. If I had cooked the data like this bunch I'd have been in the dumpster with my data. Although I did not have to show every bit of input data, it was required to be traceable all the way from the raw input through any smoothing, transforming, and normalizing to get to the input of the model. Anything less and there would be no Ph.D. after my name.

So it's been less than a week, but why are these guys still employed?

Re:Science as Open Source (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265886)

That's not the impression I got from reading the emails. No obvious "cooking" was there, at least to my eyes. There are always difficulties in comparing data sets from different sources, and lots of calibration and modification may be required. I don't know what data you worked with, but I've had to understand odd discrepancies between data sets when doing analyses before. There wasn't nearly enough background provided there (unsurprising as they were private communications and notes) to say whether what they were doing was reasonable or not.

As was pointed out in the article, other independent sets with independent analyses give the same results, so any "cooking" can't have had much of an effect.

Re:Science as Open Source (1)

jpate (1356395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265834)

You could make a case that it's in fact bad for people to all work off the same data set or code, as any mistakes (or even deliberate fraud) will then be common to all analyses.

Right. As they say, there's no data like more data.

SOP for Min-Truth (3, Insightful)

Mspangler (770054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265618)

Translating Freely:

We cooked the data to show what we wanted it to show, then erased the originals to ensure that our version of the truth is the only version.

Those guys really took the lessons from the Ministry of Truth to heart. Way to inspire confidence guys. Way to convince the non-scientific public that there is a reason to quietly submit to a carbon version of a water command empire.

Why is Mr Jones still employed?

Re:SOP for Min-Truth (-1, Flamebait)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265828)

It saddens me what passes for debate these days. That worthless cynicism like the parent post can be considered an intelligent comment beggars belief.

This is Slashdot . . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265992)

. . . where it is oh-so-fashionable to deny that humans have anything to do with global warming. Get used to it.

Re:SOP for Min-Truth (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265910)

Why is he employed? Good question.

Professor Woo Suk Hwang was published in the most prestigious scientific journals, and feted by academic institutions around the world. And he was found out by a bunch of Korean bloggers.

I hope those guy's IT department is fired (2, Funny)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265620)

Why the hell weren't they using PGP?

Secure data you don't want on the web. How stupid can people be?

The Climatological Cult of Obama (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265638)

The Holy Religion of Obama Worship must not allow dissent. All heretics and apostates must answer to the Lord High Obama and his Czar Chamber. All data that does not fit the predetermined conclusion must be destroyed.

My A*& will be sore (4, Interesting)

wdhowellsr (530924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265646)

I have an energy patent that will go live January 2010. Forgetting for the moment that I don't own it - more when it's live - , within about sixty seconds of it being available to read, the scientific community will rip me several new ones until every single one of them can duplicate everything that I've done with their own labs and equipment.

Ponds and Fleishman said they successfully created cold fusion and they are now bus boys at Chili's. What I'm saying is that if the scientific community subjected the CRU to even the most basic scrutiny they would either be forced to prove their conclusions or sent packing.

Imagine for a moment someone spent thirty years recording data in any field then compiled a report based on their interpretation of the data only to delete all of the raw data. What reasonable person on this planet would say, "No problem, I trust you." Bull$#%@.

This isn't Republican or Democrat, American or European, this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on, that is don't give me bull$%#@ show me the data and your source, and most of all don't patronize me!

This world is going in the crapper unless we call everyone's BS.

"When the scientific principal is replaced by conventional wisdom or worse peer pressure, what prevents us from returning to the dark ages?"

William David Howell Sr.

Re:My A*& will be sore (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265818)

You obviously have not been reading everything about this subject or the related information.

I think you should go back and start from the beginning.

I think you've missed a lot and are quite obviously upset for lack of what was missed.

Re:My A*& will be sore (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265864)

this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on, that is don't give me bull$%#@ show me the data and your source, and most of all don't patronize me!

You must be new here.

Climate change was NO issue in the 80s (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265648)

It was not "not as pressing". It was no issue. No, wait, before you mod me flamebait, I don't mean really no issue. It was politically no issue. It was deemed something people don't give half a shit about, but that they do give a lot about the question whether they have jobs, whether these jobs are endangered by eco-friendly regulation laws and to make matters worse the eco movement was forming and people started to care about ecology and environment, and that their nature was going the way of the dodo (which eventually led to the formation of green parties and, to make matters REALLY worse for the leading politic figure heads, to them entering the parlaments of Europe).

You can see a similar development now with privacy and overreaching surveillance, and politicians lacking the foresight to see that people care about it, the founding of parties that ride almost exclusively on the privacy ticket and ... well, let's hope history repeats itself.

But back on topic. It was simply not politically interesting to publish or even push this information. It was not "withheld". It was just not interesting, neither for any political party nor for any media outlet.

Re:Climate change was NO issue in the 80s (1, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265710)

In the 80's they were getting us all apeshit over a hole in the ozone layer.

In the 70's it was the coming Ice Age.

Each iteration has allowed these Bilderberger manipulators opportunity and experience to refine their forays against reality.

NOAA data is fudged and tampered now:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html [climate-skeptic.com]

What moron destroys original data? (1)

thinktech (1278026) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265652)

I think I'd rather have people believe I was covering up a conspiracy rather than think I'm such an idiot that I 'discard' my original data.

What would be the point...? (1, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265682)

What would be the point of releasing the raw data to the general public? Seriously, why bother? I know that I don't have the skills or expertise to analyse it effectively and come up with any conclusions that have *any* scientific merit. Surely the people who know how to analyse/process this data and draw meaningful conclusions already have access to it.

Re:What would be the point...? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265914)

The same point as releasing the source code of software. Most people won't be able to do anthing with it but there's much to be gained from those who can make heads or tails of it. There is no harm in releasing the data. As a scientist myself, I can not see anything good coming from withholding this kind of data.

You missed the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265946)

The upshot of the emails is that the 'team' made darn sure that the data wouldn't get into the hands of 'unreliable' scientists who might come to the wrong conclusions.

We didn't need the leaked email to know than Briffa was cherry picking his dendro data to show the hockey stick. That data got leaked when Briffa published in a journal that insisted that he release the data. The analysis of Briffa's misuse of the data is well documented.

We have to wait a while for people to analyze the leaked data. Whoever leaked the data leaked juicy stuff. The truth is in the data but the analysis will take a while. Be patient.

Worse than the emails, check out the comments in the computer code. It makes it apparent that the modelers have no clue how the climate really works.

Re:What would be the point...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265970)

Its not about releasing it to the general public, its about releasing it to ANYBODY, including OTHER SCIENTISTS. They destroyed it, they released it to NO ONE. NO ONE could verify it, since NO ONE had it, except for the people who created the original report.

Deleted data (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265696)

If Jones lost the data in the 1980's, then why do many of the emails from Jones (written from 1997 to 2009) talk about deleting the data should a successful FOIA request ever materialize? Oh well. I guess inquiring minds no longer read slashdot.

Mod parent up (2, Informative)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265916)

The "statement" from the "beleaguered" "head" is nothing more than a distraction.

From May 2008 [eastangliaemails.com] comes this little tidbit (sorry about the formatting):

Phil Jones wrote: > >> Mike, > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? > Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. > > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't > have his new email address. > > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Right there is the reality of "deleted data" in clear violation of the FoIA.

do you really trust it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265708)

Isn't REALCLIMATE.ORG the website started by Dr. Mann... Go back and read the emails. You'll see how much he's pushing avoiding using certain data, didn't like the other website and that Canadian that made him change his data once before. All of a suddent they have "New" data. Really, Fell for it once, not again.

These are FRAUDSTERS. Remember the days when COLD FUSION was proven to be a fraud! Same style. Dump the data and dump the lying bastards. Start over and lets see how the new trends work. Is it too late? Nope, keep the current green tech but don't enter into life changing treaties on FALSE DATA! If the green cars / solar / wind, etc work, fine... we will naturally move to that as prices drop this tech and things are developed, but we don't need it FORCED down our throats! Especially now that most of the data can't be trusted.

And I'm serious, if I commited fraud like this in my job, I'd at least be out of a job, and maybe blacklisted. I'm on the edge of wanting them in JAIL because of the amount of fraud that may have been perpertrated for grants / awards / prizes, etc. On behalf of the world, I call shenanigans!

Let's Do That (2, Informative)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265718)

Phil Jones, beleagured head of the CRU: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results."

Sounds fair. Let's ignore your findings and recompute using the other's data sets and see if everything comes out equal.

This is science. If you can't show your work so that other's can reproduce your results, you're out.

Re:Let's Do That (2)

dachshund (300733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265758)

Sounds fair. Let's ignore your findings and recompute using the other's data sets and see if everything comes out equal.

I think he's saying that you can do that, and it will come out equal. Go ahead and do it if you don't believe him, assuming you're qualified to do so. Don't waste you time posting on Slashdot about it.

Re:Let's Do That (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265938)

Go ahead and do it if you don't believe him, assuming you're qualified to do so

Of course, if that other data depended upon data that is now no longer with us, which qualification will be required and will it involve clairvoyance?

First Hand Knowledge? (4, Interesting)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265792)

Outside of the science, all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed. Plants which you could not grow before, you can grow now. I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before. I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before, I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently, I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I couldn't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation, I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long, with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them, ten times a week for as long as I've been alive, and I know that sea captains don't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take.

Everything else is told to me by strangers. Maybe the arctic is intact, maybe the rainforests never actually existed. Maybe Mt. Kilamajaro doesn't exist, maybe it's all a mind control plot. All plausible answers I suppose from people telling me that climate change is a myth.

Has anyone here seen a rainforest? Have you seen the clearcutting? Maybe none of this is real. Right now, the temperature where I am is 6 Celcius. Is my thermometer tampered with by some global warming co-conspirators? If I wrote it down, would somebody question it 100 years from now? Maybe the celcius scale has been tampered with.

Re:First Hand Knowledge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30265932)

what you have not said is whether this is a BAD thing.

Why not just recreate it? (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30265806)

It seems if they have their methodology and processed data resurrecting the original should be trivial.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...