×

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!

Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Climategate

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the arguments-that-cannot-be-won dept.

Earth 961

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, was one of the central figures involved in the 'Climategate' controversy, which saw many private email conversations between researchers posted publicly. Now, an investigation (PDF) by the National Science Foundation has found "no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence." Phil Plait points out that other investigations have found similarly that claims of Mann's misconduct took his statements out of context. 'A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that's not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn't a big deal, or else they would've been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

961 comments

AGW (3, Informative)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208220)

1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.

    -->here is the wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect [wikipedia.org]

    -->and here are the youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY [youtube.com]

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo [youtube.com]

2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...

1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW

Re:AGW (3, Informative)

kenboldt (1071456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208300)

You've got science backwards. AGW is the hypothesis, natural variation is the null hypothesis.

Re:AGW (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208340)

1: CO2 doesn't absorb as much IR as generally accepted theory states.
2: Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.

There. That was easy. I think understand why people like to post these statements. It's so easy, you get to feel so smug, you don't need to read actual research papers or do real research..... Man, being ignorant is kinda cool. Maybe I can even make money off of it... although that field is awfully crowded right now.

Re:AGW (2)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208462)

" Man, being ignorant is kinda cool. Maybe I can even make money off of it... although that field is awfully crowded right now." I suspect there may be some additional openings next year if you can hold out.

Re:AGW (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208528)

Ice-core samples have also suggested that historically high CO2 levels have a correlation historically with global temperature going down, not up. So it may not be fair to say that CO2 is clearly the primary culprit in global warming.

And frankly, atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated. It isn't easily simplified. We don't fully understand it.

I'm not advocating we pollute freely, but it is irresponsible to spread bad science and say we know that driving a SUV caused Hurricane Katrina.

More on topic, scientists depend on federal funding. The emails are pretty damning that misconduct occured (not necessarily that global warming is a lie as some would suggest). This decision that misconduct didn't occur is a biased response by those seeking more funding. It is said that science has to be so political.

Re:AGW (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208602)

Because CO2 is part of a positive feedback loop for global temperatures. Once CO2 goes up, temperatures keep going up, regardless of why they went up in the first place. Another way to start the loop is to increase CO2 concentrations.

Capiche?

Re:AGW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208740)

"Are you trying to say 'capisce'? Don't do that. It hurts my ears when you say it."

Re:AGW (5, Informative)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208568)

CO2 released by human activity far outpaces volcanic CO2 release. [usgs.gov] Looking for a citation for a claim helps people avoid saying things that are easily proven to be incorrect.

From the USGS article:
"....not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "

Re:AGW (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208724)

Not only that, it's extremely easy to differentiate between inorganically sourced CO2 (volcanic) and organic. Organic CO2 will tend to have a bias against C-13, whereas volcanic will not.

Re:AGW (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208570)

"Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year."
in the off chance you weren't kidding:
Volcanoes 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
Human 69 Billion tonnes per year.

Fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times larger than maximum volcanic CO2 fluxes.

Re:AGW (4, Informative)

Swarley (1795754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208710)

1. Considering CO2's IR absorbance is extremely easy to test and the information is vital to the accuracy of medical equipment used all over the world, I'm guessing that you read this somewhere and never fact checked it. Provide some primary sources.

2. Humans produce 100 times as much CO2 per year as volcanic eruptions do. Volcanic eruptions have been shown over and over to usually result in net cooling of the climate from sulfer dioxide emissions.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php [usgs.gov]

It's ironic because I consider ignorance to include reading shit off a blog and not looking for primary sources or fact checking, which coincidentally seems to be exactly what you did.

Re:AGW (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208376)

1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.

    -->here is the wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect [wikipedia.org]

    -->and here are the youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY [youtube.com]

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo [youtube.com]

2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...

1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW

3: Water vapor has a much higher effect than CO2. blaming Humans for Global Warming is like blaming the guy who dumps his glass of water in to a pool during a hurricane for overflowing the pool.

1 + 2 - 3 = 0 = We don't actually know yet.

Re:AGW (1)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208654)

There is many times water vapor in the atmosphere then CO2. In total the effect of water vapor is higher, but it is much lower by mass. Another factor is that water vapor doesn't remain in to atmosphere very long, while CO2 we emit will remain in there atmosphere for decades if not much longer.

Volcanoes explode less often then one a year, plus they emit other things that cool the Earth. Now that we have cleaned up our coal plants and cars of non-CO2 pollutants we aren't cooling the Earth anymore.

Re:AGW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208484)

More Greenhouses = More Plants
Plants eat CO2
Plants Feed People
Plants Good
People Bad

What a conundrum!

Re:AGW (1)

thynk (653762) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208560)

By a LOT you mean about 3% of all CO2 found in the atmosphere? Which is like ~0.003675% of all the atmosphere?

Humans emit approximately 29 Gigatons of CO2... (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208612)

yes nature emits nearly 750 gigatons.

So I don't understand your definition of 'a lot'

That humans emit CO2 through their activities is not the question, it is how much of an effect it has. So simplistic answers and youtube videos are nothing to base a decision on.

Re:AGW (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208614)

Now run those experiments, comparing CO2 levels of 300 ppm and 400 ppm, instead of 400 ppm and 1,000,000 ppm, and tell us how much of a difference you measure/see.

If there's one thing we know... (1)

Dinghy (2233934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208244)

...it's that factual findings can still be ignored in the climate argument. This won't change anything.

A little late (5, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208258)

The "scientists are tricking us" motif is already well cemented in the minds of the GW deniers. Coming out with vindications this far from the initial story is like farting in the wind.

Re:A little late (3, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208282)

If we assume cognative dissonance then it's safe to say that this will just be taken as additional proof that the establishment is self-serving/incompetent/oppressive.

Re:A little late (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208332)

Pretty much. The damage has been done. I suspect AGW won't be accepted again by the general public until the more overt effects begin being felt.

Re:A little late (3, Insightful)

kenboldt (1071456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208338)

use of the term "deniers" is already well cemented in the minds of the warmers. Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.

Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.

Re:A little late (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208466)

Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.

OMG, don't do that! Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2! Fart into a bag and bury the bag deep in the earth! Fart sequestration!

Re:A little late (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208732)

No, but at some point the evidence is clear enough and compelling enough to take action on.The accuracy of the assumption that dumping huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is harmful is much better supported than the notion that we can dump whatever we like without consequence.

Had we taken heed 30 years ago and done something about it, the cost would have been substantially lower and ultimately if we were wrong it would be dirt cheap to go back to our old ways.

That being said, deniers need to come up with some actual credible science if they wish to engage in this debate.

Re:A little late (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208814)

This is nothing more than a clever restatement of epistemological nihilism. Basically restated it says, "Because we cannot produce a perfect theory, we can have no theory whose predictions we can have a high degree of certainty about,"

It's a moronic position when you consider that the same basic fact that no theory is complete applies to all theories, including theories like Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics, both of which despite obvious missing pieces and flaws are among the most successful theories ever developed.

A theory does not need to be complete to have explanatory power. Maybe you should stop trying to defend oil company shills and inventing bullshit claims about how science works, and, you know, actually learn how science fucking works.

Re:A little late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208344)

The "scientists are tricking us" motif is already well cemented in the minds of the GW deniers.

And posses of insane clowns.

Fucking climate change, how does it work?

Re:A little late (2)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208680)

Yeah, really, the best thing we can do at this point is sell them all of the oceanfront property.

The data is were! (0)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208260)

the data were not faked... really?

Re:The data is were! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208292)

"Data" is a plural word. "Datum" is the singular form.

Re:The data is were! (3, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208296)

Really. When you take one datum and put it together with another datum, you get data. Plural. You get this little detail of Latin grammar drilled into your forehead in first-year biology, and if you screw it up, it is graded more harshly than any other grammatical error.

Re:The data is were! (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208482)

That makes you an expert on biology and perhaps on the usage in a technical context, but overall usage varies widely and I'm pretty sure is tending towards recognizing it as a mass noun. Nitpicking isn't going to buck the trend. (Of course it's fair to point out that "data are..." is a form still widely considered to be correct.)

Re:The data is were! (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208632)

That's sad, as 'data' is quite happy (in so far as nouns have emotions) to be singular depending on context/use case:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data [merriam-webster.com]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data [reference.com]

And despite what reference.com says about the plural form being predominant in scientific/academic writing, I see it written as singular quite often.

E.g.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anature.com+ [google.com]"data+was"
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asciencemag.org+ [google.com]"data+was"

That's not to say that GP is right in calling wtf on the plural form, of course.

Re:The data is were! (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208778)

You get this little detail of Latin grammar drilled into your forehead in first-year biology,

And if we were speaking Latin, that would be relevant.

Re:The data is were! (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208616)

I'm not sure anyone rational ever believed the data was truly faked.

However emails document the need for, and the strategy to intentionally misrepresent the data. The fact that the National Science Foundation (which needs to fight for funding) is claiming there is no proof of misconduct doesn't in and of itself prove anything. It does heavily suggest bias.

Shouldn't we all advocate here for unbiased scientific research?

this dead horse AGAIN! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208268)

Everyone believes in this religion, so why keep espousing the doctrine? Even if we were causing global warming, we have no institutions on Earth that can handle such a problem. So in either case it is a dead issue, no legislation allowed!

Re:this dead horse AGAIN! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208446)

Ah yes, the nihilist's view "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die..."

Anything so long as you don't have to change your behavior.

That is until peak oil hits and all of a sudden the price of a barrel of oil shoots into the stratosphere. By then, AGW will be undeniable and irreversible, and just as importantly, rejigging industrialized and industrializing economies away from the use of fossil fuels as a major energy source will become catastrophically expensive, costs for materials fabrication, industrial processes and agricultural production will fly the roof.

It just amazes me all those who deny AGW are also the ones who seem to ignore the fact that once we burn up all the economically obtainable complex long-chain hydrocarbons, we're in a shitload of trouble. Yes, we can use methane, coal and related fossil fuels to some extent to replace oil, but altering these relatively simple hydrocarbons into something approaching what we can do with oil (and all the constituents of oil, let us not forget, it is not a homogeneous substance) will be so extremely energy intensive that we're going to see everything from pharmaceuticals to California tomatoes leap in price.

So you see, even if you just reject AGW as "religion", there is another way that will fuck us over just as bad, and if AGW is true, by about the time oil starts to become obscenely expensive, we should be getting full-on effects from climate change, so a lovely double kick in the balls.

What will it take to reduce CO2? (1)

Marble68 (746305) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208274)

How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (2, Interesting)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208354)

Or alternatively: What will it cost not to reduce CO2?

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208564)

The planet's got a fever and we need to get the average temperature back down to normal. Somebody please tell me what normal is so that we can plan accordingly.

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208790)

Obviously, if the planet's got a fever, it needs more cowbell. "Normal" is "sufficient cowbell". Case closed. Get to work!

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208608)

our lives. Really, there is a point where it isn't habitable by humans; how about we plan to avoid that, mkay'?

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208386)

What will it cost if we don't?

-Rick

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208822)

The initial article was (somewhat indirectly) about that. We need both of those numbers if we are going to make a decision - reasoning from just one of them is moronic.

"I'll sell you something for $10"
"What is it?"
"Who cares? It's only $10!"

Or, alternatively,
"This is worth $10 - want to buy it?"
"How much does it cost?"
"Who cares, it's worth $10!"

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208442)

well.. we can trap it, but how do we store it?

We can planet more trees, but that would not only mean immediately stopping the rain forest clearing, but also a regrowth plan.

We could plant blackberry bushes and bambo in the non farming areas in the mid west. Can cattle graze on bambo and/or blackberry?

But, right now? there isn't really much we can do about the CO2 that's in the atmosphere. we can move to reduce further emission.

If we could find a cheap and easy way to bind CO2 to another elements and then store it as bricks, that would be ideal.

I suppose we could make a forest, dig a deep hole, and in 100 years cut down the forest, push the tree into the big hole and bury them.

We are really, really screwed.

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208488)

What will it cost not do it? How much do you suppose it will cost to try to replace oil-based energy production once we've passed peak oil and suddenly reserves and production start to plummet.

Think of it this way. Replacing the 20 year old roof on your house is expensive, but not nearly as expensive as replacing the 30 year old roof that's now leaking and destroying the underlying structure and all your worldly goods.

Break It Down Now (3, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208522)

How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?

This is a fool's errand. Let's make this learning process more granular. Break it down into separate steps:

  1. Confirm global warming is occuring.
  2. Confirm that global warming is man-made.
  3. Decide how best to counter this effect.

Given that climate scientists are constantly attacked by political witch hunts [slashdot.org] (and, no, there have been no formal charges of fraud against scientists claiming global warming is fake). The heart of the problem here is that the first two steps should be almost completely scientific endeavors free and devoid of any politics. Yes, the studies cost money but there's money to be had both ways (I would even say that there's more money to be had if your findings absolve polluters of any guilt).

Once everyone is at step two, we can proceed with the clusterfuck that is world politics. I recognize the core problem is that some politicians cobble it together and go back to step two or -- god forbid it -- step one and then attack those. Instead of recognizing that we've already made ground, we go back and people mire everything up with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And then the witch hunts begin and we're not making any progress ... meanwhile the polluters are counting their money and protecting that profit margin by lobbying and funding "think tanks" and spreading lies.

Can we all just scientifically get to step two and then we'll go from there? The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientists because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?

Re:What will it take to reduce CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208524)

Simple, everyone who believes in human caused global warming, don't exhale!

There, problem solved.

They're all in on the conspiracy (0, Flamebait)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208286)

They all drink from the same teat of government money, and therefore are all in cahoots. No one working in universities or research groups has any credibility. The only people who are not biased are the ones who only have a web site, and have otherwise nothing to do with climate science.

Did I get that right? I figured I'd save a lot of people some time by posting their argument now. Sometimes I wonder why these stories are still posted. Nothing short of a personal disaster is going to change these people's minds. And then, I expect the equivalent of the placard that told the federal government to keep its hands off of Medicare.

Re:They're all in on the conspiracy (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208356)

They all drink from the same teat of government money, and therefore are all in cahoots. No one working in universities or research groups has any credibility. The only people who are not biased are the ones who only have a web site, and have otherwise nothing to do with climate science.

Well, you left out the people being funded by big oil and the Koch brothers. Why would they lie ?

Re:They're all in on the conspiracy (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208746)

A personal disaster doesn't prove anything, nor will it change minds.

Al Gore argued (incorrectly) that we can directly attribute Hurricane Katrina to global warming. And every year since 2005, we've had global warming advocates claim that we're going to have record storms that year as proof.

There is a brilliant article on "suicide fantasy" and how some seem to cheer on our own disaster, because it makes them feel better. It vindicates arguments and assuages the guilt of being a despicable White American.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/22/the-suicide-fantasy/ [hotair.com]

I do believe that global warming occurs, though I don't think we fully understand our impact on the globe. It seems we have two camps.

One thinks this is all a lie and a conspiracy because reducing pollution costs money, and they'd rather not do that. The other side is convinced that SUVs are definitively destroying the planet, but ultimately that is good because it punishes the evil bastards who drive them.

The side I never see is the one clamoring for unbiased, reasonable research. Alarmism generates more funding, so we go with that. We've turned science into partisan politics, which is the same as saying both sides have killed actual science.

The Brick Wall (1, Informative)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208314)

More facts won't sway those who willfully ignore facts. T-bags like Rick Perry and his followers will never be swayed by evidence, only Faux news propaganda.

Re:The Brick Wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208744)

and adhominem attacks work so much better?

Notice who you attacked. GW has LONG stopped being about actual science. More about changing people for 'the better'. When it became that it became political. Also both groups are full of it. To think otherwise from the presented series of events means you want a particular outcome.

Doesnt matter.. (2)

drjones78 (961270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208316)

By the time any of this hits the "skeptic" crowd, if at all, it will be sanitized and spun like all the other inquiries.

In other words, it will never be seen as evidence that Michael Mann isnt the perpetrator of the most sinister hoax/conspiracy in history to destroy conservatism and the US economy, it will be seen as evidence that the NSF is obviously corrupt - and any other issues they henceforth weigh in on will be seen as tainted.

One can't help but have a little terrifying respect for just how well the FUD machine can work.

Re:Doesnt matter.. (0)

kenboldt (1071456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208408)

That's a nice strawman you've got there. Did it take you long to decorate?

Re:Doesnt matter.. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208702)

What strawman? Since we have seen this happen before, ti's a pretty logical to think it will ahppen again.

I see it all the time. Someone has an idea* you show them proof theya re wrong, and suddenly it's a big cover up.
Look at the vaccines 'controversy'. You can prove without a doubt they don't cause autism, but then it all 'a hidden agenda by big pharma'.

*that they mislabel as a 'theory'

Re:Doesnt matter.. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208776)

This is itself spin. I love how quickly people are jumping to defend spin while at the same time blasting the other side for partaking in spin.

Both sides are guilty.

This was a media manufactured (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208318)

issue from the beginning. It was never a big deal to be who work in scientific fields.

It's what happens when a 'news' channel is a arm of a specific ideological group.

Move along. Nothing to see here. (0)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208334)

Ever notice that when an investigation is concluded that if it fits your biases you never question the process?

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208448)

Ever notice that when an investigation is concluded that if it fits your biases you never question the process?

Ever notice that when you've already decided global warming is a lie, you'd rather conclude that a worldwide grand conspiracy exists than re-examine your world view?

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208684)

Ever notice that you can just substitute names of various gods into climate-change arguments (on all sides) and the thrust remains exactly the same?

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208736)

I suspect all religions; especially the ones that say they aren't one. The way you tell the difference between religion and science? One invites scrutiny and the other punishes it. Which side are you on? Spirited debate or orthodoxy?

I'm guessing orthodoxy since your immediate response was an attack instead of a invitation to debate.

Do you deny it?

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

kenboldt (1071456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208760)

Ever notice that only the loonies out there think there is an actual conspiracy, and yet the warmers of the world still use that strawman without fail?

Conspiracy no.
Creating your own job security by warping any and all conclusions, regardless of any observational data, to state that "more research is required...", "it may cause positive feedbacks...", "might...", "could...", "perhaps...", you get the idea. Taglines like "this does not rule out the possibility of AGW" are the source of the shithole that climate "science" is falling into. Once warmers adjust their hypothesis to fit observational evidence, as the scientific method demands, the quotation marks can come off from around the word "science".

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208810)

The OP never said global warming was a lie. But thank you for inserting bias and proving their point.

When a scientist emails people and says you should intentionally misrepresent and hide data to further the goal of alarmism for funding, that is misconduct. Defending such behavior because one has to be in political camps is abhorrent and anathema to actual science.

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208606)

Ever notice that when several independent investigations into a matter reach the same conclusion that the conclusions are strengthened?

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208700)

Ever notice that when an investigation is concluded that if it doesn't fit your biases you always question the biases of everyone who agrees with it?

Re:Move along. Nothing to see here. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208720)

Not me, and not a lot of people. However the scientific process vets those biases out over time.

All I can say... (0)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208394)

"Manhunter" was way better than "Red Dragon". However, "Miami Vice" should have been set in the '80s like the series. "Collateral" was way cool and "Heat" is awesome.

Re:All I can say... (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208830)

How can anyone hate on Red Dragon (the only good movie Ratner ever directed)? The cast of Red Dragon is amazing. And Cox can't touch Hopkin's performance of Lechter.

Still not sounding quite "settled" (1)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208396)

there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology

Very true, but that doesn't really square with the claim that "the science is settled," does it? Many of the anti-AGW arguments are about methodology, yet the pro-AGW types often seem quick to dismiss (if not slander) anyone who questions their methodology.

Re:Still not sounding quite "settled" (0)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208788)

True that. "Hide the decline" are not the words of someone concerned about finding the objective truth, but rather of someone determined to get to the answer he already believes in. That is, he is a polemicist.

Re:Still not sounding quite "settled" (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208816)

The science is much more than the historical proxy temperature reconstruction that Mann is working on. Even excluding all of Mann's work, the science is still settled.

Oblig XKCD (1, Informative)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208400)

http://xkcd.com/808/ [xkcd.com]

Are insurance companies selling flood insurance on coastal homes? If they are, are they making a killing on them? ^_^

Re:Oblig XKCD (3, Interesting)

GreyLurk (35139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208626)

Insurance don't make a killing selling insurance polices that they know they're likely to pay out on. A more accurate measure would be whether costal flood insurance costs have been rising faster than other insurance premiums (Earthquake insurance might be a good reference point).

That at least would be proof that Insurance companies are including AGW models into their actuarial tables.

Conclusions shmonclusions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208402)

"The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn't a big deal, or else they would've been specific."

OR they're trying to COVER UP the failings by being OVERLY NONSPECIFIC [insert misspelled exclamation marks here]. C'mon man, what's with apologising for THE MAN, man.

On a somewhat less tin-foil-hatted note, vague language in rapports purported to clear up things is not helpful.

Infinite Recursion? (3, Interesting)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208430)

To over-simplify it: the evidence that the data was faked was itself faked.

So what's to stop the other side from coming back by saying that the analysis of the faked evidence of the faked data was in fact faked?

Fake this noise.

The real problem is openness (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208476)

Whichever side of the debate one is on, one problem remains: science must be open. The very definition of science is to produce results that can be independently verified. Michael Mann and too many other climate scientists do not release their data, do not provide information on how they process their data, and do not release the algorithms and computer code running their simulations. If your data isn't available, *of course* people are going to suspect you of fraud.

If you do not make your data and algorithms available, your results cannot be verified. This isn't science.Maybe it's corporate product development, maybe its marketing, maybe it's politics - but it isn't science.

When I was in research (too long ago), it was pretty standard to get requests for data used in a paper. In fact, this was always a motivator, because it meant the paper had made enough of an impression on someone that they *wanted* to test the results for themselves. We always sent the data out immediately - on a floppy, by email, whatever was appropriate at the time. Nowadays, the Internet makes it easy. Every researcher ought to have a website containing all of the data for all of their publications.

Without taking sides in the global warming debate, I am still critical of Mann. He may be innocent of deliberate fraud, but he is still guilty of hiding the data and algorithms behind his claimed results.

this is getting old (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208480)

as long as money and politics is in the mix the truth will always be thrown under the bus to further someone's political agenda or pad someone's pocketbook. so i am going to not believe either side of the issue...

So that's what he's been doing (1)

jgeiger (1356045) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208506)

since Miami Vice...

Re:So that's what he's been doing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208682)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thought that this story was going to be related to MV.

In other news, my left hand is pretty ok... (1)

Paladin114 (2438004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208670)

with what my right hand is up to.

For the National Science Foundation to deny the validity of Michael Mann's conclusions would expose themselves as having been only too happy to use his alarmist theories for their own betterment. There's not a whole lot of flash in the realm of "it's not humanity's fault" and "This doesn't require massive socioeconomic overhaul" scientific inquiry.

Not Surprising (5, Informative)

Layzej (1976930) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208672)

After the most recent exoneration, Fox was holding out on this NSF report as the last word on the issue: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/ [foxnews.com] They felt that the NSF was the "only independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively"

Their findings are not surprising. Mann's research has been replicated using different methods time and time again. Here are just a few examples:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.abstract

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html

Bring it on! (1)

Reservoir Penguin (611789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208686)

Here in Russia we have millions of sq. kilometers of land locked by permafrost. Structures are built on special platforms, resource extraction is difficult and much of the North has to by supplied by ice-breakers. I see much benefit to my country.

Re:Bring it on! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37208716)

Your country would be better of banning vodka and trying to get some net population growth, so that Eastern Siberia doesn't turn into a defacto province of China.

If he was truly vindicated... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208728)

Wouldn't the first time have been enough?

please divorce yourself from your politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208738)

too many comments here contain charged phrases and negative pet words for their political opposites. try to keep it about science.

the pro anthropogenic global warming position wants to believe that everyone that isn't convinced the sole reason for the climate changing is money grubbing evil corporations, are tea party member hicks, salivating over the idea of having a religious zealot of their own beliefs in the office of president.

the anti anthropogenic global warming cabal will have it believed that anyone that believes there is a human contribution to the climate changing, are smelly hippies, one arm wrapped around a tree, the other hugging a rabbit.

there is no legitimate question of "is the climate changing?" of course it is. it always has been and always will. it is not static. the elements that contribute to that change are many, and complex, but they *do* include the activities of human industry. to what degree is the only question, and what is to be done about it that will not destroy the global economy, which can and will also leave thousands starving and without medical aid.

politics. remove them from the equation.

Rising Coastal Waters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37208806)

Oh I guess that costs around the world have been flooded since about 10,000 years ago. (unless you are a dipshit 6,00 year old earther).

Since then the rising waters have obviously decimated the human populations and helped to kill off many species of animals.

Where was all the outrage back then when the earth had a fever and melted the SUBSTANTIAL ice cap that existed over a good protion of the northern hemi-sphere. The CO2 levels during this melting FOLLOWED the temprateure rise, and didn't preceede them.

What would happen if we doubled or even tripled the CO2 levels inthe atmosphere? Well the levels of CO2 was far higher during the age of the dinosaurs and life didn't come to an abrupt end then, only an asteroid was capable of killing off the dinosaurs.

Of course the problem is not the CO2, it is the other pollutants like Sulfur Dioxides and Nitrogen compunds that actually KILL PLANTS. Of course who produces most of these compunds via industry these days? Well China of course. Of course the Western countries have an obscession with self-flagelation and excusing other offenders.

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...