Beta
×

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!

Russians Claim More Climate Data Was Manipulated

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the let-the-flamewar-begin dept.

Earth 715

DustyShadow writes "On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley CRU survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organization? (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468900)

Well, let's see if they have any bias [google.com] (although this is poorly translated):

Proposed supporters of climate alarmism methods to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not only scientifically unfounded - in the absence of extraordinary characteristics of modern climate change, but also incredibly expensive in economic terms. Especially dangerous such measures, if adopted, are for the medium and low levels of economic development, effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world.

I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, that's not what this is about. This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening. Until we establish it is or isn't, will the economic institutions relax and let the institutions who contain the most appropriate experts publish, release and make conclusions from the data.

Credibility skyrockets when I read the subtext of the blog's heading (that is linked to by the story):

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com

Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph, please visit his page that he shamelessly plugs.

Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468944)

Yeah, way to skip right over the actual allegation. Do their claims, in and of themselves, have merit? Wouldn't take long to find out. But attacking the claimants sure is a handy shortcut in logical argument, isn't it?

If the CRU letters are any indication, I guess this is how "science" is done these days, now, anyway.

Welcome to the "new science." Guess we better all just get used to it.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469014)

Yeah, way to skip right over the actual allegation. Do their claims, in and of themselves, have merit? Wouldn't take long to find out.

I hate to break it to you but neither side has given me data. Saying so and so skipped over data from here and there does nothing for me when I can't see the data and do my own statistical analysis. If the IAE is so sure and has the data, why don't they publish the adjusted figures to show us just how much we were lied to?

No choice but to listen to those with the data publishing the reports. Does it suck? Yes. But oftentimes that's how studies with empirical data works--especially if it cost a lot of money to acquire that data. We're not talking about a repeatable experiment here to be verified in another lab. And for some reason, we're not demanding they open the sequencing data on the cancer gene [slashdot.org] we just accepted that story and we trusted those scientists. But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?

Welcome to the "new science." Guess we better all just get used to it.

Grow up. Your faux apathy rhetoric is amusing after I listen to you accuse me of an ad hominem attack.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (-1, Redundant)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469212)

My reply is simply a +1 to back your CRITICISM of the CREDIBILITY of the source of this information. There is a big difference between an ad hominem and a serious inquiry. You also pointed to some interesting FACTS to make your CRITICISM more clear and RATIONAL.

Thanks. (I'm into science, so I appreciate logic, rational argument, and truth. You would think a person who knows what 'ad hominem' even indicates would know how to apply critical thinking... guess not)

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (4, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469424)

CAPSING random WORDS doesn't make your ARGUMENT stronger.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469240)

The problem with your assertion is that it is an appeal to authority type logical fallacy, in and of itself;

1) The scientists have the data, so 2) they must know more about the data than we do, so 3) we should trust them implicitly in their interpretations of that data.

This does not follow, because it totally ignores that the scientists with the data may have intrinsic bias, or even that they could be wrong. This is exactly why when you get a diagnosis from a doctor that says "Operate!", you get a second opinion.

The problem here, is exactly like you stated; The data to get the second opinion is not public. Unlike the patient who may need an operation, who's body is the evidence, and is available on demand for inspection by the doctor giving the second opinion, all the potentially qualified persons to give a respectable response to this question are blocked out because of finanical interests on the data.

Essentially, we have the global climate change fear mongers on one side, shouting "OPERATE!" (through drastic slashing of manufacturing technologies, draconian cap and trade taxation, repossession of private property, and a whole host of other proceedures of questionable value), and on the other, you have the alternative medicine quack that says "The pain is all in your mind" (EG, the non-scientists that say that human released carbon dioxide has no impact on the environment whatsoever, in spite of the fact that this is not supported by even the slightest bit of chemical evidence.)

The patient (which is represented by the public in this case) is then left seeking a REAL second opinion; Are cap and trade&Co really necessary? The patient WANTS a *REAL* answer to that question, but is continually fed the PR pamphlets from both (disreputable) extremists.

I for one, want the data to be released publicly. This is especially true if the data was collected using public funds, such as through NOAA, or in this case, through the russian government and russian taxpayer money.

Right now, the patient is basically pleading with reputable doctors for a second opinion, but the doctors have to turn them away, because the medical history is "Confidential."

Stop trying to sound high and mighty about how fantabulously reputable the CRU scientists are, when you know damned well that scientists are people, and people are faulty.

The *ONLY* way to settle this, is to release the data. Given the far reaching implications of the decisions that will be reached through interpretation of this data, FOR EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, I fail to see how the financial interests of the people who collected it can outweigh the invested interest of the rest of the whole world, who's economical and climatological futures hinge upon it.

If there is bad interpretation, and a misdiagnosis, sunshine will reveal it.

If not, Sunshine will also reveal it.

What we need is sunshine on the raw data; NOT specious arguments one way or the other on which side of the debate to "Simply Trust", when both have shown signs of being disreputable.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (2, Insightful)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469470)

>both have shown signs of being disreputable.

Who are these pro-warming scientists who won't release their data? It sounds to me like the anti-warming crowd has convinced you of false equivalency. e.g. "The other side is just as big scumbags as we are."

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469338)

good god, fucking niggers have such gigantic asses

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

sohp (22984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469040)

Where is their peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal? Is that too "sciencey"? Why do people with no credentials insist that their claims merit as much attention as carefully researched and reviewed investigations?

Because the game is rigged (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469110)

Where is their peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal?

The CRU made sure it was never published?

That's the problem with gaming the system you see, eventually people find out you were playing a game when they thought you were serious.

And since we have found they were suppressing opposing viewpoints in journals, it's a circular argument to claim the need to see peer-reviewed articles to prove the point...

Re:Because the game is rigged (2, Insightful)

sohp (22984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469210)

Conspiracy theory much? Claiming the game is 'rigged' because there are little or no published research supporting the denialists is, at best, disingenuous. Where is the support for this claim that alternative views are suppressed? Please cite something other than a blogger.

Re:Because the game is rigged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469258)

We found out about the suppression from the horses mouth, from the emails that came out, not from some blogger. You should pay attention more. Your paranoia and addiction to doomsday is making it hard for you to think clearly.

Re:Because the game is rigged (2, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469288)

Here is evidence that two papers about this very topic were suppressed. [LINK] [eastangliaemails.com] The specific quote:

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil

Of course it is not proof, but there it's not without reason that people believe some funny business is going on.

It's in the emails that were released (1)

daninaustin (985354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469344)

There is little doubt that the email and files that were released were from the CRU and they contain emails showing that some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints. Is it still a conspiracy theory when it's true?

Re:It's in the emails that were released (3, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469414)

"There is little doubt that the email and files that were released were from the CRU and they contain emails showing that some of the leading people involved WERE actively trying to suppress papers by people with opposing viewpoints. Is it still a conspiracy theory when it's true"

In other words: an academic writes a negative review about somebody else's paper and sends it in to the editor! Shock me Amadeus! Wasn't academia supposed to be all about 110% supportive people, there are no bad papers, everybody's computation is right in its own special way? Don't tell me it ain't so!

Quoting: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil"

And what if said reviewer honestly thinks that the other paper is wrong and bullshit? Guess what: sometimes paper submissions ARE wrong and bullshit!

And also, sometimes negative reviewers do have a stick up their rear---the editors of the journals have seen this before, many many many many times. They can sniff this out, and when they think the negative review isn't really valid they will publish the paper nonetheless.

This supposed mighty "power to suppress" literally consists of writing a reply to the editor of a journal---unpaid labor---with a summary rating and technical evaluation. That's it.

Compare this to the power wielded by those who have large financial interests in actually obfuscating pretty clear scientific results.

Re:Because the game is rigged (1)

rodarson2k (1122767) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469282)

To be fair, there are soooo many journals out there that you can get published in, you will always find one for your paper.

If the CRU is on the editorial board of journals XYZ, there's still 23 options, and that's just letters of the alphabet - there are way more journals than that out there.

There isnt enough manpower in such an organization to cover it all.

Rigged against idiots, yes (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469390)

since we have found they were suppressing opposing viewpoints in journals

[Citation needed]

The point of peer review is to suppress demonstrably inaccurate articles, or articles with such poor methodology that you can't tell whether they're accurate or not. If you have good evidence that some articles were dismissed on the sole basis of their viewpoints, please cite it - and perhaps suggest to the authors of those articles that they re-submit to some different journals.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (3, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469186)

Where is their peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal? Is that too "sciencey"? Why do people with no credentials insist that their claims merit as much attention as carefully researched and reviewed investigations?

They insist because they do not know. They do not know because they insist that they don't need to. It's a perpetuating result of the opinionated layman.

I urge all skeptics to become climate scientists. It requires the mere effort of education. I can assure you that many opinionated layman are pissed off at this very comment and insist that I don't make any sense right now.

So be it. Life is strange.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469478)

asking for a peer reviewed article is not a response, it's a cop out. you fail to address the questions at hand and instead go off on a tangent attacking the authors credability. that isn't science.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469244)

Well, the burden of proof really lies on the people making the claims. In this case its sufficient to show that what is obviously a right wing organization (its founder wrote things like: "Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements." source [exxonsecrets.org] ) with a vendetta, so its extremely unlikely to stand up to large quantities of peer reviewed research.

In the end, you can can either believe lots of peer reviewed science, or institutes that compared the Kyoto protocol to concentration camps. Does this mean that the Russian right wing think tank is wrong? I suppose not, but its extremely like that it is, which is good enough for this type of conversation.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

sams67 (880846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469438)

I think after quashing a hundred or so of this type of allegation, only to find out it was absolute rubbish put about for propaganda, one quite rightly gets tired of chasing down the filibustering allegations of the tin foil hat denialist brigade. The obviously fervent prejudices of this "Institute", plus the precise timing, sets off enough alarms to warrant skipping further analysis. As other people have said here, show me the top-tier peer-reviewed climate science journal article if you want to be noticed. If you believe there is some massive global collusion amongst scientists preventing such articles from being published, then you know very little about scientists (or global politics for that matter).

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1, Funny)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468966)

Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.

He links to the original Russian story. He's just reporting what the Russian experts say.

And we're supposed to trust experts right? We're not supposed to question them because we're not qualified right?

And asking for data? Now you're demanding data?!! You gotta be kidding me!

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469072)

> And we're supposed to trust experts right?

No! You are only supposed to trust the work of peer reviewed climate scientists. And only known trusted warmers can peer review the climate change data. It's circular you see.

If anyone had any doubt the recent bad behavior should have dispelled it. Watching the warming side circle the wagons and attempt to shout down any disent with the same "peer reviewed science" is the gold standard, if you aren't in the peer reviewed literature you need to STFU! When the peer review process being corrupted was one of the key charges being leveled.

Besides the corruption, I tend to suspect the whole "if you aren't peer reviewed you aren't allowed to have an opinion" line of argument to be just a dressed up appeal to authority. Peer review is useful but should never be an argument ender. And then they go back to the appeal to authority well and try to say anyone who isn't a degreed climatalogist you can't have an opinion. Nope, just another appeal to authority.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (3, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469132)

Become a peer. All you have to do is get an education. Quit being a lazy skeptic and man up. Become a climate scientist. I dare you.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (3, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469312)

> Quit being a lazy skeptic and man up. Become a climate scientist. I dare you.

What would be the point? You see, I actually have spent some time reading through the leaked data and email. The whole game is rigged. If you aren't known to be a warmer you don't get to peer review for the journals considered important to the climate change game. When an editor broke with the unwritten rule the warmers had the offending editor removed. Another journal allowed a few doubting papers in, the warmers are writing about organizing to not publish in, cite from and generally shun the heretical journal. In other words the science is settled, therefore dissent isn't going to be considered science.

More important, you don't need to be a climate scientist to realize these guys aren't practicing science. They suppress debate, suppress the data and the details of the models used to analyze it. Basically they are putting on their Science! priesthood robes and making pronouncements we are expected to accept without question based on their authority.

But the funny part is they aren't even claiming to be experts in most of the stuff they spew. Several papers have been blown up because they were making claims based on statistical models put together without the input of a real statistician. The Hockey Stick debacle came about because someone used math they didn't really understand... or was outright fraud. Then beyond proclaiming impending DOOM! they go beyond their area of science and push specific solutions. That is the duties of engineers, economists and politicians. Nothing in a climate science degree qualifies anyone to pick a solution out of the dozens of options available. Then they let an idiot like the Goracle be their spokesperson and he is so clueless he things the inside of the earth is millions of degrees.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1, Insightful)

smallfries (601545) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469468)

I find it amusing that while railing against the bias and closed minds of the establishment you refer to them as "warmers". Irony knows no bounds.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (0, Troll)

Mspangler (770054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469456)

"Peer review is useful but should never be an argument ender."

Just over a century ago, the peers said "There are only two questions left to answer in physics, the nature of the photoelectric effect, and results of the Michelson-Morely experiment." They were really right about that one.

Peer review turned into a religious ordination. Science faded into the background, as people who were convinced they were right, (and might actually be) decided they had a calling to save the world, and that the ends therefore justified the means.

key takeaways; Science and religion do not mix, and religions do not require a God.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (2, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469074)

He links to the original Russian story. He's just reporting what the Russian experts say.

On what basis do you accept that this site is the work of Russian "experts?"

I think you need to excercise a modicum of scepticism. Their description, insofar as the Google translation is correct, of orthodox scientists, (whether they are correct or not), as "proposed supporters of climate alarmism" ought to ring the warning bells, no?

because global warming is an economic matter (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468970)

Ultimately global warming and any solutions we employ or not will be decided on their economic merits. The science will only give us estimates of the relative costs and benefits of relevant courses of action. We still have to decide what to do past that point.

Re:because global warming is an economic matter (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469028)

We still have to decide what to do past that point.

Well, if you listen to the American political system we've got two options:

1) Drill baby drill!
2) Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

Why Are We Linking to James Delingpole? (4, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469008)

Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph ...

Yes as soon as I saw the TFA, my first reaction was, "isn't there any more reliable source from this other than James Delingpole?"

So if is there any reputable source that is publishing a story about this, could a link please be posted in the original submission.

Re:Why Are We Linking to James Delingpole? (4, Informative)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469042)

So if is there any reputable source that is publishing a story about this, could a link please be posted in the original submission.

If you'd bothered to read past the byline, you'd see he links to the Russian translation [en.rian.ru] as well as the original published PDF [www.iea.ru] (in Russian).

Re:Why Are We Linking to James Delingpole? (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469136)

If you'd bothered to read past the byline

I would have loved to, but the window closed the moment I saw the guy's name. :) So thanks for the link.

In Medvedev's Russia (2, Funny)

Latent Heat (558884) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469012)

hidden motives of thinly disguised advocacy group . . . question you!

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1, Interesting)

sackvillian (1476885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469030)

Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.

The same is true of the climategate "scandal", but that hasn't stopped of it from being taken as proof of either a new world order or academia's corruption by at least 25% of comment'ers on climate related stories on mainstream news sites.

This claim is like Bill O'Riley's commentary; its effectiveness doesn't lie in any sort of rationality or evidence, but merely in it being uttered confidently (usually loudly) and it being something people want to believe. Nothing short of total refutation can get rid of garbage like this.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469298)

The same is true of the climategate "scandal"

Are you saying Climategate is not a scandal?!!

Russian crackers (possibly with Kremlin approval) are hired by some US disinformation organization to brake into the computer system of a British university? Sure sounds like a scandal to me.

WHO PAID?

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469036)

I was going to write something like this, but fortunately I noticed that the story was in the Telegraph. I no longer see the need.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469048)

These Russian experts in particular have a history of opposing international climate treaties (based on flawed expert analysis, as determined by other experts in the linked paper below):

http://www.edf.org/documents/3978_Review_InstEcAn_09082004B.pdf

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469150)

Oh to be able to give you mod points.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469342)

It's nothing new, either. Remember that Russia is one of the major oil-exporting countries, and significantly dependent on oil exports for its budget. Furthermore, it's a major provider of gas, too, particularly to Europe. If, under the guise of combating climate change, Europe moves to greener power generating and heating tech - solar, wind, or better yet, nuclear - that will leave Russia out in the cold, with no well-paying customers for its only valuable exports.

On the other hand, Russia actually stands to benefit a lot from rapid climate change, if current models are to be believed. For one, it has a legitimate claim to a huge chunk of resources under the polar cap, should the latter melt - that even leaving the disputed areas aside. Furthermore, Siberia would be one of the regions for which climate change would indeed be a regional warming - it is already heating up [wikipedia.org] much faster than any other part of the globe, and if it keeps doing so, it will become much more prospective for human settlement and agriculture, and in short-term perspective provide for easier access to the vast natural resources of the region.

At the same time, there are relatively few important coastal cities that would be threatened by ocean level rise - vast majority of the population is living deep inland [whrc.org] .

So Russia would have much less trouble coping with the effects. The icing on the cake is that U.S. (because of its heavily populated coastal cities) and quite a few European countries would be in a very tough position, and those are perceived as historical global opponents, especially the U.S.

So, yeah. There are a lot of political reasons for Russia to downplay effects of climate change, specifically so that other countries reduce their efforts to combat it.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (0, Offtopic)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469386)

As if the Environmental Defense Fund doesn't have it's own bias...

Anyway, maybe it's a lingering Cold War mentality, but even for me, an AGW-skeptic, it just seems too convenient that the Russians drop this bomb during the Copenhagen Conference. Very suspicious!

[Seriously-OT]
BTW, why is it that left-wing protests seem to turn violent so often, but (in the US, at least) right-wing protests don't, even when some demonstrators bring guns?
[/Seriously-OT]

Plenty of funds going around on both sides (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469050)

I think it hilarious that you discredit the Russian statements purely on the basis of financial interest, when there are billions of dollars riding on cap & trade and the whole green industry behind it.

Both sides are well funded, so let's please get over this phobia of money being involved and consider the science instead.

And the science we have seen, is terribly compromised across the board. There simply is no way to produce any rational decisions based on the data and hand, which is hardly surprising given that no-one was allowed to peer review. That was never science, and we now see the result of what happens when not-science meets the light of visibility.

Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469122)

I think it hilarious that you discredit the Russian statements purely on the basis of financial interest,

How about I was pointing out the fact that they are experts in economics, not climatology or any related field?

when there are billions of dollars riding on cap & trade

That's funny. From everything I've heard about cap and trade, it's going to stagnate our economy (read: bad for everybody). Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field ... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?

And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors! They are the vast majority of the 'green industry.' And they're cooking scientific findings why? So they can be the leaders in the coming green tech when they're already leading companies in what they do now? Does not compute.

Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469324)

How about I was pointing out the fact that they are experts in economics, not climatology or any related field?

And you were assuming they did not consult said experts why exactly?

Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field ... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?

A) Copenhagen shows that lots of money is flowing into this.
B) The part of the economy producing green tech doesn't slow down, it accelerates. Who cares what the net effect is as long as your sector is booming? Plenty of people liked to talk about kickbacks from Iraq. Well what about kickbacks to international concerns from small countries that get an economic windfall from cap & trade?

And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors!

Yes, I always thought it was odd when people were thinking the oil companies were the ones trying to stop cap&trade when they have so much to gain from it - thanks for exposing that myth. But the energy and fuel sectors are very much an industry, so you don't really seem to have a point here.

And they're cooking scientific findings why?

They aren't, the "scientists" are, for a variety of reasons which boil down to the age old canards of money or religion.

Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469368)

Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field ... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?

From academia: Tenure, speaking engagements, grants, articles, books, presidential advisory positions, paid contributor to MSNBC.... the list goes on.
From the media: Magazine/Newspaper subscriptions/Nelson ratings (bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads.) Government contracts (See GE, which owns MSNBC), You primary products becoming mandated and/or pushed by government regulation (See GE and their CFL bulb business), Interviews with top political leaders (how many times has President Obama been on Fox News? How many times on MSNBC?), Scoops/Tips/Leads to your journalists... the list goes on.

And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors! They are the vast majority of the 'green industry.

Great! So the problem is fixing itself. Why do we need government intervention again? Won't government just screw it up for these guys?

Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469330)

Please name the dozen or so multi-billion dollar companies dealing solely with cap&trade which are going toe-to-toe with the oil and coal companies?

There may be billions riding on it, but it doesn't mean that there are billions in the industry right this instant.

Re:Plenty of funds going around on both sides (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469422)

You know, at times I think people miss the point. Even if we ignore global warming, it is _still_ a good idea to go to cleaner sources of energy like Nuclear Base load/Wind/Solar. I for one, do not like to see many train loads of coal get hauled on the tracks behind my house, because I know I breath whats left, one way, or another. In fact, while I have no idea if industrial pollution is a principle cause of my allergies, I do know they are less at my mother's house, and not here where I am near a city with chemical plants. (I've found that an electrostatic filter that fits the furnace helps quite a bit, provided you run it continually...)

I, for one, can't see what the big deal is with cap and trade. It is a good idea, yet the coal companies and such spend so much money to try not to have to pay for the cost of _their_ pollution. No the slimy creeps would rather society pay the costs for their profits in the form of all the health related problems that will be caused from it. Their solutions are not to make serious efforts to stop the pollution, but quite often to put up a bit of money in research costs and such, to show how much they "care" and then to spend ten times that much bragging about how much they "care" and how green they are. After all its more profitable to pretend to care, than to really spend the effort on the hard problems...

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469100)

Sure, wouldn't it be great if there were a peer reviewed article somewhere that also looked at the Siberian data to see if it was accurate? Apparently someone tried, but was blocked by the people at East Anglia, as you can see from this quote: [eastangliaemails.com]

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil

Now, I'm not saying global warming is a hoax, but at this point, if anyone comes up arguing from an appeal to authority instead of an appeal to evidence, they are braindead. The climate authorities have lost a lot of respect through all this. And that goes for the guys in Russia, too. Let them show us the evidence if they want us to believe.

Don't tell me "climatologists say we should act now to prevent global warming!" show me the estimated radiative forcing changes and how exactly that's going to cause sea levels to rise. Show me the effect CO2 is having on the global temperature, and most importantly, tell my WHY you think that is happening. And if you can't explain it, then I'm not believing you. Because I can explain special relativity in terms simple enough that anyone can understand, and climate science is no more complex than that.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469388)

No, you're not Steven Hawking. You're some random guy posting on slashdot. You might as well claim to be Tiger Woods, we'd be more likely to believe that.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (3, Informative)

Boronx (228853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469412)

"Apparently someone tried, but was blocked by the people at East Anglia, as you can see from this quote: [eastangliaemails.com] "

So there were two articles submitted for publication. They were peer reviewed. Someone in East Anglia, as part of the peer review, recommended rejection. Where is the issue here? If you've some evidence that the articles did not deserve rejection, then you forgot to post it. If, in fact, the other peer reviewers recommended against rejection, then it seem likely that one or both of them got published.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469450)

okay, if you're so smart, why is 40% of the north polar ice cap missing?

did al gore steal it all and turn it into ice cubes for celebrity martini parties?

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

PeterP (149736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469474)

Interestingly, you omit the sentence directly preceding the one you quoted:

Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year.

It appears to me that they know the Siberian data is junk and they are trying to discourage people from using it. The entire email up to that point is a discussion of why Siberian data is poor, and how trends reflected in other disparate areas of the globe are not always evident there.

Also, I'm not entirely convinced that your standard of evidence (a simple statement that collapses the works of thousands of scientists using huge data sets and millions of hours of computer time, into an elevator pitch) is entirely reasonable. I think its fairly well established that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and we have increased its concentration to a level unprecedented in human history. Is there is an above average chance that there is a tipping point in the global climate system that can be reached and will end up setting a new stable point with a vastly different climate than we currently enjoy? The literature would seem to point to this conclusion.

I'm sure you could start from first principles and do all of the math by yourself, starting from the raw climate records. It would be a massive undertaking, but since you seem ready to dismiss the opinions of the majority of climate researchers because you yourself don't understand what they are doing, this seems like a fair compromise. Should only take 15 or 20 years, lemme know how that works out for you.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

haelduksf (812679) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469112)

I agree with you that the source is biased, but that doesn't invalidate the data. As C.S. Lewis once said, "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong". (I'm not an AGW denier btw)

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469174)

I agree with you that the source is biased, but that doesn't invalidate the data. As C.S. Lewis once said, "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong". (I'm not an AGW denier btw)

Ah yes, the famous Atheist turned Christian. Let's keep quoting him, shall we?

There have been men before who got so interested in proving the existence of God that they came to care nothing for God himself as if the good Lord had nothing to do but to exist. There have been some who were so preoccupied with spreading Christianity that they never gave a thought to Christ. ~ C.S. Lewis [wikiquote.org]

Now the million dollar question: was he talking about science in your quote or faith?

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469118)

I'm not saying either side is right however I think scientists could do better by working with analysts more often.

A scientist isn't trained in knowing how much data is to be considered for something to be chance or correlation. Throughout recent history we've had multiple scientists fooled by claims such as physic ability, homoeopathy, etc only to be debunked once it was mentioned that the tests done were achievable by pure chance.

It's all fun and games until one scientist without any understanding statistics claims child jabs give kids alzheimer's then lots of kids die of diseases they wouldn't have gotten in the first place.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (2, Interesting)

finarfinjge (612748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469134)

Here is an hypothesis: In the early 1980's, people who had made claims about the massive impacts of SO2 on the earth (anybody remember acid rain) realized that SO2 had made another impact. Not only did it cause acid rain, but it cooled the earth. Then came Pinatubo. OMG! What have we done!

Now it was time to come up with a scape goat for the impending impact on climate that was certain to occur with a world wide reduction in SO2. How about CO2? Hard to prove, impossible to eliminate, and 'everyone knows that CO2 is a green house gas'. Tin foil hat time? Maybe. Of course, the fact that CO2's impact on radiant heat loss is, and always has been, maximized, may have something to do with all of this. And really. deltaF=5.35lnC/Cnought? Isn't that just a little too idiotically simple?

Cheers

JE

Yeah we can really trust the Russians (3, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469170)

Hey, I mean they have an open society where anyone can say what's on their mind right? I mean Glasnost and all, eh?

Or maybe they have a shitload of oil and gas reserves that they'd really rather not have devalued by anyone actually deciding burning more fossil fuels would be suicidally stupid. Oh, was that the sound of one of Vlad's enforcers putting a bullet in the back of someone's head?

Get real people. Now the deniers are the Russians and the Saudis. Laughable what kind of crimes people will do for a buck.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469182)

What 'we' are you talking about?

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469236)

"Especially dangerous such measures, if adopted, are for the medium and low levels of economic development, effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world."

Despite the fact that Kyoto makes provisions for that and 3rd world countries are allowed to increase pollution levels till they are in line with those of 1st world countries (which will be in decline), then we all decline together with CO2 allocation being done o the basis of population alone.

Re:Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organizatio (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469480)

This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening.

No, this is about how "scientific tools" behave when they are used in the service of power instead of knowledge. We cannot be x% "sure" of anything. That's semantic balderdash, not science. Sure is sure. It is 100% and it has no doubters. In the lab, if one is "sure," there's no point to the experiment or model. What's happening here is that for political action to happen, politicians are demanding surety, and science can't give it. We can't even properly falsify many of the claims being made, on either side of the argument. There is too much agenda in the way.

At this point, and I don't understand why it didn't happen sooner given the carbon projects in the works, the lid needs to be blown off of this thing and everyone needs all the data and methodology to be public, so it can be replicated. No other method will be fruitful. We need a mountain of evidence proving that these models are sound, and an end to ad hominem attacks on analysis. That's the way it should work.

Scientists may sometimes be good politicians, but the politics, ideally, should end after the grant application, it has no place in the practice of science.

Some good scientists names are going to be ruined because they failed to be skilled politicians, and that's a shame.

--
Toro

First Post (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468902)

First first post!!

the evidence is irrefutable! (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468912)

ahh, famous last words.

Re:the evidence is irrefutable! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469360)

To be fair, "oh, there's no clear evidence for this, never mind" are also famous last words.

rational analysis .. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468922)

investigations on http://climateaudit.org/ [climateaudit.org] and http://wattsupwiththat.com/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

Re:rational analysis .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469108)

This is a smoke sceen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30468964)

The Russians started the first hacking event to create confusion, and are now trying to extend the damage. They are too cowardly to own up to their responsibility for their contribution to climate change.

Re:This is a smoke sceen (1)

SockPuppet_9_5 (645235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468982)

All one has to do is to retrieve EVERY SINGLE TEMPERATURE RECORD AVAILABLE and then figure out which ones were selected.

There's little prejudice in that, is there?

What's being alleged is a selection based on a criteria that can't be easily explained away.

Re:This is a smoke sceen (0, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469062)

Kind of sucks for AGW proponents when "sabotage" is revealing what you said and the data you use!

Of course... (2, Informative)

Z1NG (953122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30468996)

Of course they don't believe in global warming, it's freezing there.

FRIOST PSTOP (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469066)

something that you = 1440 NetBSD lube. This can lead of an admittedlY of business and

Global Warming Debate is a deliberate red herring (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469076)

It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not.

The root question is, does it make sense to pump pollution into a thin atmosphere? No, of course not, it is wrong to keep doing so. Therefore, we need to take steps to stop.

There are monied interests deliberately prolonging this useless debate about "Global warming - real, or not?" Think about why they do that.

Pollution is wrong. Let's come together in some comopolitan city - hmmm, maybe Copenhagen? - and agree to end pollution.

It doesn't matter if global warming happens today or 10,000 years from now. What matters is ending air pollution.

Re:Global Warming Debate is a deliberate red herri (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469216)

I am one slashdotter that can't wait for us to drop oil and coal in favour of electricity and batteries regardless of whether Energy dense portable power. How else are we going to get workable lasers on friggin' sharks? As well as all of the other cool things that we are all hanging out for - robot exoskeletons for example

Re:Global Warming Debate is a deliberate red herri (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469346)

Cars were a solution to a pollution problem. Go replace every car on the road with a horse or donkey, then watch the death that follows from all that shit piling up everywhere attracting flies and spreading disease.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NO POLLUTION. Unless you've figured out how to stop poop from exiting your butt, there will always be pollution. The skies above our major cities are far cleaner than they were 20 years ago, yet you still emorage.

I supposed you want to eliminate every single benefit that oil and coal have brought us, from roads to plastic too eh? How many medical devices and procedures would become impossible without them?

I hate the ignorant, narcissistic, ungrateful generation you represent. Your ancestors made life unbelievably comfortable for you and all you can do is cry like a damn baby about it.

The False Choice (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469350)

Something must be done! Cap & Trade is something, Therefore it must be done! [pajamasmedia.com]

You can reduce pollution without upending the entire western economy. Indeed, one of the false choices presented is that if you are not for Cap & Trade, you must be *for* pollution!

Besides, if pollution were really a problem the people meeting would act like it instead of renting thousands of limos and taking private jets to converge to talk about it while using a ton of energy to heat large conference centers...

Re:Global Warming Debate is a deliberate red herri (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469384)

I think few would disagree that less pollution is a desirable goal. However, has anyone presented real data that strongly suggests that the current proposed solutions (cap and trade) will achieve that goal? You may be surprised to find that well informed people think it will not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-oaXAQY8A&feature=related [youtube.com]

Re:Global Warming Debate is a deliberate red herri (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469420)

It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not.

The root question is, does it make sense to pump pollution into a thin atmosphere? No, of course not, it is wrong to keep doing so. Therefore, we need to take steps to stop.

There are monied interests deliberately prolonging this useless debate about "Global warming - real, or not?" Think about why they do that.

Pollution is wrong. Let's come together in some comopolitan city - hmmm, maybe Copenhagen? - and agree to end pollution.

It doesn't matter if global warming happens today or 10,000 years from now. What matters is ending air pollution.

I agree. Pollution is bad. So let's concentrate on pollution to limit it and stop this silly war on CO2!

More smear campaign (4, Informative)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469078)

It's not "The Russians" making these claims. It's a privately funded free-market "think tank" that is based in Russia.

They posted a PDF on their web site, issued a press release, and a British paper reported it without doing any source-checking.

For example, the article highlights a quote from an anonymous poster to a blog thread about the press release describing the web-posted report. How's that for "cherry-picking" your sources?

Re:More smear campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469128)

FYI, the quoted article was not from a newspaper; it was from The Telegraph :)

Why is there even a debate? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469086)

There is data about the amount of CO2 and methane released by humans. There's no serious debate about those numbers. The arctic is melting as are the vast majority of glaciers and even the antarctic is showing signs of melt. The signs are obvious to the naked eye so there shouldn't be a debate about these facts. Even Sarah Palin has admitted there's a warming trend. Where the two sides diverge is the cause. Is there any significant evidence of natural changes worldwide? Volcanic activity, solar radiation, etc? No one has yet to point to any. In fact the sun light has decreased, traceable to the 1960s, by solar dimming from pollution and extra cloud cover. Volcanic activity is within normal ranges for the last 100,000 years. Oddly enough CO2 levels are at a million year high and they are projected to hit 60 million year highs by 2100. Now is the stance of the non human source crowd that human produced CO2 is inherently different than naturally occuring CO2 and can't affect weather? We produce billions of tons of CO2 a year, where does it go and why can't it affect global temperatures? This same argument that humans can't affect their environment has been made and disproved for hundreds of years. We can't cut down all the trees, well we're doing a good job of it. We can't deplete fish in the ocean, same with whales, those were disproven long ago but it was the belief 200 years ago. We can't pollute the oceans because they are too big. There are toxic levels of mercury in fish and there's a plastic mass bigger than Texas in the Pacific Ocean. All these arguments have been made over the years by groups wishing to exploit resources without restriction. Notice the loudest voices are the ones closely tied to big business? The goal is to delay legislation as long as they can to maximize profits.

Use a little common sense. Release thousands of tons of fertilizer into the water and you get a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from algae caused by pollution. Release billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, not debated. CO2 levels affect global temperatures, not debated. Human produced CO2 affects global temperatures, debated???? There appears to be a gap in the logic. The increase in CO2 mirrors the industrial revolution. No one has found another source for the extra CO2 or another source for global warming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math but it takes sticking your head in the sand to ignore the facts.

Re:Why is there even a debate? (2, Insightful)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469292)

Because of graphs like this: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png [uaf.edu] that contradict your very first statement about the arctic ice. When you look at it, you see that there is more ice now than the previous 2 years, and that a " Oh God, we are all gonna die!!!!" argument is neither scientific, nor valid. It is stated numerous times that correlation does not equal causation. This is true. It does not help the climate change argument when releases like this are happening all the time, and the scientists involved don't like to share data. It shows they have something to hide. Until they go open with what they have, and fully submit it for not just review, but also debate, then why believe it?

Re:Why is there even a debate? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469466)

Even as somebody who knows nothing about climate stuff, I can look at that graph and see that the variance throughout the year is huge compared to the yearly averages. From that alone it is obvious that the trend over 2 years is meaningless. Show me a graph of the past 200 years please.

Re:Why is there even a debate? (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469308)

There's no serious debate about those numbers.

And that's the problem right there.

There's serious debate about the theory of relativity, the standard model, and hell, the evolution of species, but there's no serious debate about anthropological global warming? Doesn't sound like science to me.

Re:Why is there even a debate? (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469376)

Because the CO2 isn't sufficient to cause a major impact alone. The disaster scenarios that motivate the extreme measures proposed rely on complex feedback effects that aren't well understood and whose implementation in climate models is very ad hoc.

Re:Why is there even a debate? (1)

blamanj (253811) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469406)

Not only is the CO2 data available, it's easy enough to compute with only high school algebra. Burning one gallon of gasoline generates 19.4lb of CO2. In the US, we went from almost zero gasoline burned in 1920 to around 160,000,000,000 gallons in 2000 [infoplease.com] and the usage graph is conveniently linear. Thus we can compute the area inside the triangle to find that we have pumped 1.24 x 10^14 lb of CO2 into the air in the last eighty years. 62 billion tons from the US alone.

Unfortunately the global consumption of fossil fuels has grown to the point that the world is now emitting around 30 billion tons per year [wikipedia.org] . There's absolutely no question that we humans are changing the atmospheric makeup of the earth.

This is good news! (3, Funny)

Jay L (74152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469102)

Finally, an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists:

"You know who ELSE doesn't believe in global warming? Russia."

Re:This is good news! (1)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469224)

Mod parent up.

Well duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469124)

In Soviet Russia planet warms you!

obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469138)

In Soviet Russia, climate manipulate YOU!

Just more right wing nonsense (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469166)

Its pretty clear that the "Institute of Economic Analysis" is a right wing whackjob source. It was founded by this guy [exxonsecrets.org] . His wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]

Who also authored stuff like:

"Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements."

and

"A Liberal Agenda for the New Century: A Global Perspective"

and has been in a ton of questionable institutes.

So believing anything from a group like this would probably not be wise to say the least.

Hanson, you're next (0, Flamebait)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469206)

Going to be lots of fun pawing through NASA's dirty climate laundry.

We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive.

Comply with FOIA [americanthinker.com]

Re:Hanson, you're next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469392)

great link. It says NASA is a bunch of idiots but then wonders why they can't comb through tons of data to get only the relevant data to the request. Yes, you must make a reasonable effort to exclude nonrelevant or privileged information (it's in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if you're wondering where it comes from). So which is it? Is NASA completely full of "flunkies?" Or is it just a lot of data that they don't have the manpower to sort through? You do realize that discovery requests for normal litigation will sometimes require hiring outside personnel to do nothing but sort data for 8 hours a day. Do you expect NASA to put a team of PhDs on that squad or should they just pool together money to hire a 3rd party? I'm sure the government would give them $500,000 to hire people just to deal with FOIA requests.

Who cares though, right? NASA's full of idiots. What have they ever done? Nothing, me, I'm a blogger and anonymous internet tough guy. I rulez.

Fucking dumasses. A FOIA request doesn't mean you stop all other work just for it. You only have to make a reasonable effort.

Yeah, AND... (1)

cboscari (220346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469232)

the CRU is taking blowtorches to all the glacial ice in Greenland and the polar caps to make their case, too!

In Soviet Russia.... (1)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469234)

Go on, extrapolate the rest.

Re:In Soviet Russia.... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469366)

In Soviet Russia, the climate changes you.

(and yes, it does indeed)

bias or not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469300)

I would like to know why only 25% were included

Look at bottom of page.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30469310)

http://www.surfacestations.org/

If you pick which stations you want to use you can prove either point.

Evolution of an Argument (0, Troll)

rlp (11898) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469362)

Interesting how the argument in favor of AGW has evolved.

First we had "They science is settled. The scientific community agrees about man-made global warming (cause we won't let contrary views get published). Besides anyone who denies it is a stupid poopy-head!".

Then when the climate-gate memos came out we had "No smoking gun. It's all taken out of context. Nothing to see here, move along".

Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed, we have "Even IF the data is fake, we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet".

Bernie Madoff was an amateur.

This will be exaggerated (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469442)

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

There is the key word: often. That does not mean that all, or even the majority, of the stations shows this. Is the percentage of stations not getting much warmer the same as the percentage in the officially used data? They just leave that point dangling in the hope that we will infer that it is not the same.

Already people have taken this to say more that it does. Some blogs have already claimed that ALL of the stations used did not show warming. For example, here is a blatent bit of misquoting from a randomly googled blog [investors.com] :

The data from the unused stations reportedly did not show any substantial warming trends.

Oh dear. It is just a slight change, but it completely changes the meaning. And where is that skepticism that is supposed to be at work here? Why assume that the economic think tank is correct?

I will wait to find what the selection criteria was before taking this to be any proof of a global conspiracy.

We can certainly.... (1)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30469454)

trust the Russians.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?