Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

Unknown Lamer posted about three weeks ago | from the stop-trolling dept.

The Courts 497

ideonexus (1257332) writes In January of 2014, the American Traditions Institute (ATI) sought climate scientist Micheal Mann's emails from his time at the University of Virginia, a request that was denied in the courts. Now the Virginia Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that ATI must pay damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully.

cancel ×

497 comments

Just an observation . . . (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414251)

But it seems that the only way to get emails and not get sued is to, How shall we say, Hack in.

Re:Just an observation . . . (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about three weeks ago | (#47414333)

Although that can get you prison time.

Re:Just an observation . . . (5, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | about three weeks ago | (#47414379)

Not if you're the Russian intelligence services, the prime suspect behind the hack. Anyone want to bet that this was part of the same initiative that brought us the more recent scandals of Russian state funding for European anti-fracking groups and American lobbying against LNG export approval?

Whatever it takes to keep your main market open, dependent, and buying your main exports in vast quantities, I suppose.

Re:Just an observation . . . (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about three weeks ago | (#47415423)

You don't think like a lawyer. The way to get emails is discovery.

"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414267)

Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha. Yeah, good luck with that. As long as that pesky cabal of climatologists is out to get those poor little fellas in the coal and petrol industries, Climategate will continue rising from the grave.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (5, Funny)

Rei (128717) | about three weeks ago | (#47414395)

"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies." -- Scott Westerfeld

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (5, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | about three weeks ago | (#47414599)

"Why this isn't climate change at all! It's *removes mask from monster* Michael Mann and 97% of the world's scientists!"

"We would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling billionaires!"

(Oops. Should have added a spoiler alert.)

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about three weeks ago | (#47414675)

OK, that was funny. But the 97% number is nonsense, just for the record. Skepticism about AGW catastrophism is rampant among the world's scientists at large (physicists, biologists, etc.), and many climate scientists have been cautiously coming out of the closet and poking sticks at the shaky foundations as well.

I'm a little bit surprised that Slashdot doesn't have more AGW catastrophism skeptics, to be honest. Ordinary people hear "supercomputer driven model simulation" and they think "oooh, it must be really accurate and able to predict the future". Anybody who understands statistics and the banal realities of computation knows the good old GIGO principle. Not to mention the reality that nobody has ever successfully predicted long term climate changes, so throwing a supercomputer at an impossible problem doesn't magically add credibility. *sigh* (goes back to reading Professor Judith Curry's blog)

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414803)

and many climate scientists have been cautiously coming out of the closet and poking sticks at the shaky foundations as well

And many of them are finding out the hard way that challenging religious dogma often gets you burned at the stake.

Posting AC because even mild skepticism of AGW will get you burned as a heretic on /. too.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about three weeks ago | (#47415091)

Moderated -1. Way to make the point.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (-1, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about three weeks ago | (#47415339)

Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of ..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.

Of course, if this were funded by KOCH, you'd bet the funding would be an issue.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (4, Informative)

rgbscan (321794) | about three weeks ago | (#47414873)

The 97% number is not nonsense, as you claim, it comes from this widely cited peer-reviewed study. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

After reviewing over 11,000 scientific papers on climate change, of the papers that took a position on climate change (either for or against), 97% concluded it was indeed happening and induced by man.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (-1, Troll)

sideslash (1865434) | about three weeks ago | (#47415001)

No, sorry, the paper was nonsense [wattsupwiththat.com] . The link is to a skeptical blog that copies an open letter sent by a scientist who wanted to check their work. What Professor Tol was able to check revealed serious problems, but most of the source data was stubbornly held onto by Professor Cook, who didn't want anybody to refute his work. :p

Besides, if you read carefully above, you will see that the OP claimed that 97% of scientists believe in AGW catastrophism, which is obvious nonsense as well (there's a difference between 97% of scientists and 97% of published climate scientists that happened to be evaluated by Cook's highly arbitrary and secretive study).

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (5, Informative)

rgbscan (321794) | about three weeks ago | (#47415191)

Have you actually read the paper and the rebuttal in the blog you posted? The scientific paper specifically says says they removed the papers that did not take a position on AGW. Then the blog post comes along and says OMG! They threw out some papers and sensationalizes the very thing the scientific paper was up front about. How can the research paper count something in the for or against column (the very point of it's study) if no position is taken? It's a stupid sensationalist strawman.

Scientific Paper: We removed from our study the papers that took no position for or against AGW. Here are the results of the papers with a position. This paper is not about how severe the conditions are, just tabulating the percentage of papers that conclude climate change is man made, and those that are not. That is the purpose of this research. Here is our data, linked to for your review. You can even download the PDF's and spreadsheets and review it in the linked data section.

Your lame blog rebuttal: A sensationalized OMG! The scientific paper EXCLUDED papers that didn't take a position. How can their data possibly be credible now???? And even worse, they won't even say if its dangerous or not!!! This paper is a crock! Your lame blog then cites a letter from a scientist who asked for the data (even though it is all linked to and available on the IOP website) and the stufy authors didn't get back to them. The blog then cites this as daming proof that the study must be a joke. Because no one hand fed this guy data he could have downloaded off the site.

You see why people can't take you seriously? Get yourself some peer reviewed data and we'll talk.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0, Troll)

sideslash (1865434) | about three weeks ago | (#47415337)

Cook's paper doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Even if its methods were above reproach (which they're not, it's massively arbitrary and subject to confirmation bias), the result is still un-useful nonsense. And since pretty much everybody believes that humans impact the environment and thus impact climate change on some level, ITS SLOPPY METHODOLOGY WOULD INCLUDE SKEPTICS OF AGW CATASTROPHISM IN ITS 97%!!!!

Sorry, but yelling that made me feel a little better. And besides, you yelled. Toodle-oo!

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (4, Informative)

roccomaglio (520780) | about three weeks ago | (#47415025)

The statistic is not 97% of Scientists then is it. It is 97% of papers or 97% of scientist that published on global warming. That is not what the statistic claims to be.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully."... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415329)

and I bet You haven't read it!
anyway.. there are more papers with the whacky 97% consensus figure...

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about three weeks ago | (#47415187)

OK, that was funny. But the 97% number is nonsense, just for the record. Skepticism about AGW catastrophism is rampant among the world's scientists at large (physicists, biologists, etc.), and many climate scientists have been cautiously coming out of the closet and poking sticks at the shaky foundations as well.

[Citation Needed]
This is the original press release [uic.edu] about the 97%. By the way, the correct citation is "In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. "

Basically the survey found that the experts in the field have 97% consensus. For overall numbers of scientists:

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

Ordinary people hear "supercomputer driven model simulation" and they think "oooh, it must be really accurate and able to predict the future".

No I think computer models are really the only thing we have as we don't have a spare planet to experiment upon and god-like powers. But with all models, I don't assume that they are all 100% accurate. But I think they can be constructed to be close enough to determine a reasonable outcome.

Anybody who understands statistics and the banal realities of computation knows the good old GIGO principle. Not to mention the reality that nobody has ever successfully predicted long term climate changes, so throwing a supercomputer at an impossible problem doesn't magically add credibility. *sigh*

No one has ever said that these models are 100% for all future predictions. Like most of science, theories (and models) that best fit observable data are used. And like most of science these are tested. I don't know if this is some sort of delusion or lack of understanding of how science works. Just because a scientist proposes something or releases a paper, it is not automatically accepted without challenge. Data is challenged. Conclusions are challenged.

All science is challenged. Consensus is reached after enough data and evidence is presented that favors the conclusions. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity wasn't accepted because Einstein proposed it. It took a solar eclipse before many physicists began to accept that it might be the best theory. Now by today's standards, the results of solar eclipse experiment would not have been enough.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about three weeks ago | (#47415319)

Who needs "supercomputer driven model simulation?"

Go to the five-and-dime and buy a freaking thermometer and measure for yourself. Share your results and let's see what conclusions we come to.

People have been crowd-sourcing that crap for nigh on to a thousand years. [wikipedia.org]

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (2)

Bongo (13261) | about three weeks ago | (#47415453)

I think it was Sam Harris who said that something strange happens when an issue becomes a moral issue. Reason and questioning are no longer allowed. Another weird thing is that people are easily affected to become irrational, when it is being done by the oil lobby, but environmentalists are immune to anything which might corrupt their judgement in a groupthink way. Enviros deconstruct other's hidden motives and agendas, but they themselves are immune. Weird no? To just happen to be in the right? (Real post-modern deconstruction as someone put it, is when you can deconstruct your own cultural groupthink biases before you try to deconstruct someone else's. Most people just use it as a way to attack others, whilst never questioning their own views.)

Personally I am all for a truly global world free of inequality, of the unfairness of being born accidentally in a poor area, and think a global system that integrates development and environment and clean technology with high education and intelligence and happiness and creativity and purposeful existence for all is where humanity and the planet needs to keep striving for. All too often though the mass movements around this sort of thing fall back to old methods, like groupthink and moralistic judgements, forsaking critical discernment. Then when they don't get good results, they blame the big bad oil lobby.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

operagost (62405) | about three weeks ago | (#47414721)

If it's 97% of the world's scientists, that's just a fallacious appeal to authority as only some scientists are climate experts. Example of a false authority: Bill Nye.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about three weeks ago | (#47414877)

Actually, I think it was 97% of the reports that someone wanted to categorize however they wished to.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414955)

What a solid argument. Because you don't think Bill Nye is a scientist, climate change isn't real. Solid argument.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1, Interesting)

SpockLogic (1256972) | about three weeks ago | (#47414501)

The lobbyists for the coal and oil industries will spin this as a 'win'.

"See, I told you the Kenyan, Muslim, socialist, green, anti-American is trying to bankrupt the righteous, god fearing, flag waving, truck driving, ordinary American trying to protect his traditional way of life. Don't believe those liberal, elitist, heathen scientists. Donate here and vote this way. Thank you. "

This post should be read with the sarc filter on.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47414551)

No, really. You can see the actual spin in this very thread. They are starting to form a basic premise of "freedom of speech" being killed by these pesky "libel" laws(and judges who are now also in on the conspiracy).

The oil companies/heartland institute don't have to create spin anymore, because they've had the most important success possible: making denialism an important part of the identity of a lot of people.

There is not a soul who was babbling about this "scandal" when it "broke" who will take this ruling as cause for reconsideration. And that's the big success.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about three weeks ago | (#47414625)

The oil companies/heartland institute don't have to create spin anymore, because they've had the most important success possible: making denialism an important part of the identity of a lot of people.

In other words, the spin has become self-sustaining. It would be ironic if we could harass this self-sustaining spin to generate enough energy to stop using fossil fuels and reverse climate change.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47414811)

A fun thing about reversing climate change, pointed out by a climatologist in an article I recently read.

If we cut new human emissions to zero, and found a way to stop the methane emissions from thawing permafrost and other positive feedback loops, historical evidence indicates that it might take a century or so for the planet's natural CO2 regulation methods to actually return to postindustrial levels.

I mean, that'd be fine, because our situation today isn't broadly disastrous like another 4-5 degrees C would be. But there's good reason to be concerned about the actual target stabilization temperatures of the plans we're not even implementing yet.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (4, Interesting)

afeeney (719690) | about three weeks ago | (#47414799)

The oil companies/heartland institute don't have to create spin anymore, because they've had the most important success possible: making denialism an important part of the identity of a lot of people.

In some ways, it's very cult-like in the way that it forms identity. Denialism gives you victim/threatened status (those evildoers are attacking our beliefs, we need to be warriors), enough victories to think of oneself as a winner but maintain the communal aspects of thinking oneself under threat, charismatic leaders, the companionship of shared beliefs, a sense of superiority to those who disbelieve, and, in the most cult-like aspect, the assurance of being above mere facts, of living in a world where your personal beliefs trump mere objective facts.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about three weeks ago | (#47414863)

Don't forget a sense of purpose. You are fighting this extremely large group of powerful individuals who are conspiring to make the public believe a lie. (Be it AGW, the moon landing, vaccinations preventing disease, alternative medicine, Obama not being a secret Muslim lizard robot intent on world domination, etc.) Only you and your small band know the truth and must fight against overwhelming odds to battle the lie. I'm sure many conspiracy theorists feel like they are living in a movie and cast themselves as the dashing hero determined to save the day.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415147)

The problems with evidence for AGW, vaccines, and a number of other medical practices appear to be due to incompetence rather than fraud. I am sure there are some people who know what is going on, but the vast majority of experts are just committing affirming the consequent errors (eg not thinking very hard about what may be confounding the evidence).

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47414885)

Maybe. Cults are a little different, and I'm wary of people who use the term too freely.

There's a lot of social manipulation built into the structure of cults. You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".

Identity politics aren't new and unique to climate change denialism, and treating that as the most identifiable aspect of cults misses the real damage actual cults do to people.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415113)

You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".

Sounds a lot like the AGW crowd.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (-1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47415365)

"Someone disagrees with me, to the absurd bullshitmobile"

Demonstrating your ignorance about how cults operate, in order to draw a false parallel, just continues to reflect how unstuck in reality your positions are.

And let's be clear here, people disagree with you because your beliefs are straight up antithetical to observable reality. This is a relatively simple case of you being wrong. You could choose to be not completely wrong, but, for reasons completely beyond me, being scientifically wrong is important to you.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about three weeks ago | (#47415391)

Oh, also, do consider this ruling cause to reconsider your positions?

Since you're the first denier to reply in this thread, it's an important test case for my hypothesis.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1)

afeeney (719690) | about three weeks ago | (#47415243)

You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".

In the political sphere, at least, I'd say that does happen. Political compromise gets a lot of scorn poured on it, there are certain political figures/organizations who get venerated and call most of the shots, and while there's very little side-switching in national and state politics, so not quite the equivalence to becoming an ex-member, those who do stray from doctrine get targeted, most definitely.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414935)

Or maybe its because the evidence isn't very convincing? Why can I simply multiply the temperature of the earth at 1 atm pressure by 1.176 to get the temp on venus at the same pressure? Why does this relationship extend for the entire tropospheric pressure range? Clearly the system equilibriates or CO2 does nothing. The current theories are either flat out wrong or missing an important negative feedback.

Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about three weeks ago | (#47414555)

Actually, the spin is more likely to be something about if you got nothing tp hide, why did you refuse to release yhe communication and something about the courts sending a message to people who ask questions that this subject is off limits or you will pay.

That is not how conspiracy theories work. (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about three weeks ago | (#47414275)

Evidence against them only makes them stronger.

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414311)

This is not a conspiracy theory group ... this is a corporate funded anti-issue group so yes this should work against them.

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about three weeks ago | (#47414419)

This is not a conspiracy theory group ... this is a corporate funded anti-issue group so yes this should work against them.

Their funding is irrelevant. People will believe it anyway. Look at how slashdot reacts to any story with the word "Nuclear" in it... it's irrelevant it the entire story is an alarmist ad/click trap, people want to believe it so bad they throw common sense out the window.
The guy should have just opened up his email voluntarily. He could then remove anything personal, which I'm guessing is his primary concern.

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (4, Insightful)

BergZ (1680594) | about three weeks ago | (#47414931)

Nope. Mann's work, just like every other scientist on the planet, should be judged on the basis of what he has published.
We all know why ATI wanted access to Mann's emails: So that they could cherry-pick some juicy out of context quote to smear Mann with.

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414337)

Exactly, I believe if you look into the matter, you'll find that both John Robert's and Antonin Scalia own a bunch of beach front property in the Arctic.

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about three weeks ago | (#47414785)

N'o. I' do'ubt they' 'do.'

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (0)

Jason Levine (196982) | about three weeks ago | (#47414695)

Exactly. Look at how often the moon landing has been proven to have happened and how often President Obama's birth certificate was shown to be real. Yet, there are still people out there who think the moon landing took place on a sound stage on Earth (obvious clue: Not enough lens flare for it to have really been from space! What, J.J. Abrams doesn't make accurate space scenes?) and/or that the birth certificate was forged (thus proving that Obama is a secret Muslim who will abolish Congress, form an Empire, crush his enemies with the lightning that he can summon from his fingertips, and turn Joe Biden into a "more machine than man" dark side cyborg. (Oh, now Lucas isn't an authoritative source either?!!!)

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about three weeks ago | (#47414891)

Evidence against them? What evidence against them?

(Conspiracy groups either ignore evidence against them or claim it is part of the conspiracy.)

Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415043)

Exactly. How exactly is a court ruling denying access of information to critics going to shut the critics up? If anything, it will make their case stronger.

Can I be the first to say... (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about three weeks ago | (#47414321)

HA HA!

Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414361)

This is copy-pasted from an earlier comment, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You need to get a fucking clue. Anon because no one deserves modpoints for copypasta.

The foundation of AGW is based on the physical properties of CO2, specifically its absorption spectrum. This is measurable both under laboratory conditions and via satellite. Theoretically you could measure it yourself. Sunlight shines on Earth, and Earth re-radiates this same energy at a lower wavelength. This is described by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You can trivially calculate that, based on the incident solar irradiation and Earth's albedo, the planet should be about -18 degrees C. The effect of the atmosphere is to slow radiation leaving the Earth (the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation). Outgoing radiation is absorbed and re-emitted often before it reaches space -- the mean free path varies with the exact partial pressure, but is generally in the low tens of meters.

The lower atmosphere is already pretty much opaque to outgoing radiation; increased CO2 does not block more radiation than would otherwise be blocked. There was a point where it was theorized that no warming could occur because of this. However, it was determined that the effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 was to extend the CO2-rich region further into space. That this increases the heat energy on the planet's surface should be obvious. The direct effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely easy to calculate, again using Stefan-Boltzmann, and it comes out to 3.7 W/m^2, which is usually considered to be equivalent to 1 degree C.

Unless you can find a new way to radiate energy to space, or unless everything we know about radiation is wrong, then the Earth must experience at least that degree of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Anything further than that is a matter for study and scientific debate, and of course the effects in different places. However, given that we have all this H2O lying around the place, it's expected that will contribute more to the warming trend, hence the IPCCs estimates of 2-4 degrees.

It *isn't* that well understood (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414457)

Current CO2 concentration is 380 ppm or so. On a geologic scale, that's EXTREMELY low - CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so probably averaged about 1500 to 2000 ppm, with peaks up to 5000 or even 7000 ppm:

CO2 over the past 600 million years. [thinkaboutit.eu]

Your post paints an overly simplistic view.

Re:It *isn't* that well understood (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about three weeks ago | (#47414859)

Let me know what the CO2 levels are during the species Homo span.

What's that? A record high?

Yeah, everyone knows the earth will go on spinning. It's us we're worrying about, you fucking moron.

Re:It *isn't* that well understood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415221)

Before man evolved there were carbon based life forms that required oxygen and water and the same temperature ranges than man requires. There is nothing different or special about us, especially if you are trying to link the CO2 levels somehow to our evolution.

Essentially, saying that CO2 is at record levels since Man has been around is a big So Fucking What.

The fact is that all these so-called scientist have no fucking clue how things work because they haven't been able to forecast or hindcast shit. You can't explain what the pause is about, you can't explain why CO2 levels were higher in the past, you can't explain shit. All you got is another scientific fad like Phrenology or blood letting. Ten years from now, when the temps still haven't risen maybe you fucks will reconsider. But until then you are in full Asshattery mode.

Re:Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414465)

so...why have temperaturse not risen during last 15-17 years while C)2 went up?
did the Stefan-Boltzmann Law not work when CO2 much higher in the past, and temperatures were lower than today?
might be that is is more complicted than this one law?

Re:Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (-1, Flamebait)

coinreturn (617535) | about three weeks ago | (#47414613)

so...why have temperaturse not risen during last 15-17 years while C)2 went up?

Holy shit that canard has been busted more times than I can count.

Re:Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415125)

I do not mind if you can not count.
AFAICS data used are real & from reliable sources.
I do understand it does not fit in your picture.
So 'deny' it?
Good solution.

Re:Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about three weeks ago | (#47415303)

Its not yhe data that thry claim is wrong with the lack of warming claim.

What they say busts the claim is that the oceans all the sudden are more of a sink then in years past. Actually, they do not claim anything is magically different other than the understanding of ow much of a sink the oceans are. Of course i find that problematic because the temps 30 years ago would have had the same intrraction. But evidently in the slow warming periods, it is important to make that claim as it clearly busts other claims.

Re:Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415151)

But you won't say how/why because you don't know/understand and because it really hasn't...missing heat...somewhere, not sure, can't prove it..but it MUST BE SO!

Re:Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415237)

Booyah, check and mate AGW doom-sayers. Fortunately for realists such as you and me, the world isn't mostly covered in a substance that excels in absorbing energy.

Re:Inb4 the denialist argument of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415207)

Compare the temperatures on Venus and Earth at the same pressure. What relationship would you expect to find given your understanding? Would it surprise you if it was in the ratio predicted for two blackbodies at the same distances from the sun?

$250 (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about three weeks ago | (#47414375)

Less than a flea bite.

Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (5, Interesting)

ideonexus (1257332) | about three weeks ago | (#47414391)

It seems to me that the Climate Skeptics are making the same mistake the anti-eugenics movement made in 1925 with the Scopes Monkey Trial [wikipedia.org] , which fought the teaching of evolution in schools. Most people don't know this, but the anti-evolution activists were horrified by the textbook's use of Evolution to justify Eugenics [ideonexus.com] , but instead of attacking the public policy proposals of the Eugenics Movement, they attacked the science of Evolution, and history remembers them as buffoons for combating the scientific consensus.

Today, Climate Skeptics are fighting the scientific consensus instead of debating the policies being proposed from that consensus. I myself am an adaptationist, I don't care if we do anything about Global Warming for another 20-30 years and at that point I have faith that civilization will start to engineer its way out of the problem... however, I find myself on the side of the environmentalists with their oftentimes draconian public-policy initiatives because I believe in scientific literacy, and the anti-science positions of today's Climate Skeptics threaten to undo the scientific progress on which our civilization depends for its survival.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (5, Insightful)

scotts13 (1371443) | about three weeks ago | (#47414445)

...I don't care if we do anything about Global Warming for another 20-30 years and at that point I have faith that civilization will start to engineer its way out of the problem...

"We'll invent something to fix this when the time comes" is not a sound policy, or a policy at all. It's wishful thinking. What if we don't?

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1, Interesting)

ideonexus (1257332) | about three weeks ago | (#47414489)

That's a fair argument, and that's also why I used the word "faith" to describe my opinion. I would love to continue having a constructive dialog on this... but unfortunately, we can't move the conversation on Climate Change to a discussion of what, if anything, we should do about it until we get the public to accept the scientific consensus on it. This is how the Skeptics are winning, by preventing the dialog from moving forward.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about three weeks ago | (#47414725)

Why not both work to prevent (or if we can't prevent, at least reduce) Climate Change as well as work to adapt to it? Cover both our bases. I can understand if you take issue with specific means of preventing Climate Change because you think method X is better than method Y, but saying we won't take any preventative measures at all and instead just deal with it when it comes is short-sighted. If you own a home, should you allow the foundation to crumble, refuse to patch it, and just decide to deal with it when the house finally begins collapsing?

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about three weeks ago | (#47414929)

I think that's what most people are trying to do.

But the climate deniers are very squeaky wheels. Just like most things, their bullshit gets trumpeted as fact by some, thus holding up the discussions.

Re: Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414493)

"what if we don't" can be used to justify any stupid, self-serving, and expensive spending or destructive spending policy policy one likes. Not a valid argument for anything, climate or otherwise.

Re: Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about three weeks ago | (#47414511)

It's a very valid argument. You have two choices: action and inaction. You weigh the costs of both and make a choice based on which position will leave you better off!

Re: Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414611)

Would you flow your doctor's advice if she recommended amputation for a headache?

Re: Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414621)

The problem is that inaction has no bad consequences in this case.
I don't care if the sea levels rise by several meters over the next 100 years.
It will happen so slowly that I'll have enough time to move somewhere else.
Similarly, if global warming causes people to die off that will reduce pollution and the whole system will self regulate anyway.

Re: Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414743)

Flooding Manhattan island and other overpopulated regions along the coasts would flush out a lot of detris, and quite possibly improve the environment. Unfortunately, a sizeble number of the people there would survive to infest other now nice areas, i.e. the Midwest.

Re: Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

thaylin (555395) | about three weeks ago | (#47414773)

Governments dont just think about what YOU will do, they have to think about what the entire populace will do.

Re: Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about three weeks ago | (#47414647)

Its not a binary answer as you suggest. Action can happen while even operating on inaction and there are litterally endless possabilities on action.

So is not caring and dealing with problems as they happen an action or inaction?

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about three weeks ago | (#47414789)

We will. That has happened repeatedly in the past. It is no more logical for us to worry about humanity in 100 years than it would have been for people in 1900 to worry about us today.

Think of how much has been invented -- yet they would have been concerned about horse poop buildup and poop dust all over everything. 'Let's limit use of horses!" slowing the economy and leaving us with, say, 1980 level tech, "helping" absolutely no one.

So, to people 100 years from now. What did we do? Keep a powerful economy so you can have flying cars and autodocs, or weaken and hobble is so you don't?

We are the people in 1900 looking to hobble ourselves to "help" those way off in the future...of 2014.

Thanks for the "help".

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415449)

The old it will weaken the economy argument against doing something to fix climate change. It's more accurately put, it will weaken the profits of the old energy companies and so they are shouting at you to not do anything! The estimated impact on GDP estimated for moving to a green economy is significantly lower than the fluctuation we've seen over the last few years. We survived the banking crisis, can survive the changes required to avert the worst of climate change - and those who make the move first will see a lot of economic benefits down the line.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414905)

Especially when the time already came and went.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414463)

The "consensus" that denied Wegener? The "consensus" that mocked Semmelweiss ?

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414527)

What is anti-science about the volumes of thick reports released by the NIPCC? It covers thousands of scientific studies showing that the computer models are inaccurate, that the IPCC cherry picks data to produce their reports, more CO2 is good for vegetation and agriculture, etc. I don't care that the Libertarian leaning Heartland Institute produced it, I think that is a good thing and cann't ignore the NIPCC reports.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about three weeks ago | (#47414607)

I'm sorry, but your assessment of their position is wrong.
They hate liberals, and feel that liberals lie to them. So they are assuming they are lieing in regards to climate change.
Unfortunately They're right, the left is so wound up about the topic they are spewing lies and misinformation regularly.
Al Gore made that awful movie. It was probably the single biggest determent to the issue of climate change that's ever happened. It hyper polarized the issue, put the biggest leftest in the country at the head of it almost immediately and pretty much guaranteed that nothing would be done for well over a decade.

All of this makes it very easy for conservatives to lie to them as well. Oh look, Al Gore lied about X... The entire climate change thing is therefor a lie. It's a logical fallacy but it makes intuitive sense. We need to figure out a way to turn this on its head and turn it into something conservatives can get behind as some sort of anti-liberal thing. I'm not sure how to do that yet but I think hard about it every day.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

bunratty (545641) | about three weeks ago | (#47414937)

the left is so wound up about the topic they are spewing lies and misinformation regularly

Could you give some examples of misinformation that is regularly spewed?

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

sycodon (149926) | about three weeks ago | (#47415417)

Counted the number of hurricanes lately?

How about tornadoes?

Is New York Underwater yet?

Britain will never see snow again.

Etc.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (3, Insightful)

BergZ (1680594) | about three weeks ago | (#47415115)

Creationists blame Christopher Hitchens for "polarizing the Evolution debate"... and I do not accept their argument.
The Creationists are wrong about that because:
(1) Hitchens (like Gore) is not a scientist. You can not draw any conclusions about the validity of a scientific theory on the basis of the statements of non-scientists.
(2) It doesn't matter how Hitchens said what he said. We are all responsible for deciding what we believe. Responsible people ignore the polarization and examine the arguments logically. Idiots blame their dismissal of science on "the other guy" for not being nice.

If I wouldn't accept the "that guy polarized the debate" argument from Creationists; why would I accept it from you?

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (3, Insightful)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about three weeks ago | (#47414851)

Ain't going to happen, sadly. As the temperate zone moves closer to the world's poles, and the regions we're currently growing cereal crops on become progressively more arid, there is simply less area of land (square miles or kilometres or however you want to measure it) on which crops can be grown - and that's ignoring the costs of clearing and draining that land, and all the effects of ecocide.

At the same time as this is happening, of course, all our critical infrastructure will become unusable unless we make huge new investments in flood walls. For example, I work for a major international bank, which, obviously, has its critical data infrastructure replicated in seven cities across the globe. Only one problem: in six of those seven cities, our data centres are within ten metres of current sea level. Most major financial centres are old port cities, and all old port cities are on the coast. So over the next fifty years we have to either all relocate our trading infrastructure, or else abandon it. What I expect will happen is that we'll delay and dawdle until it's too late, and then our whole civilisation will collapse under the combined pressures of hunger, refugees, and rising water levels.

We're already past the point where there's any hope of the planet being able to support even half its current population in 100 years time. The real policy question is how we now radically reduce the population without war, pestilence, famine and death.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415291)

We're already past the point where there's any hope of the planet being able to support even half its current population in 100 years time.

More of this tripe. [wikipedia.org]

If we wanted to shift the primary crops and increase food prices slightly, we could produce as much food as now, but without actually using any farmland. Hydroponics and related studies are advanced enough that the biggest hurdle is actually building the greenhouses (greenboats?) in the first place. The biggest argument against building non-soil farming facilities is that they are completely unnecessary at the moment. Even the most malnourished sections of Africa could be fed by cheap soil-based farming technologies if the effort was put in by both the locals and foreign aid (most of the current foreign aid is "throw food at them" which is also impairing the local incentive to learn effective farming skills, compounded by the "I hate my citizens" mindset of enough of the governments in the area).

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415049)

So about 10 years until Panchea is ready to be built.

Citation needed please (3, Interesting)

aepervius (535155) | about three weeks ago | (#47415179)

"the same mistake the anti-eugenics movement made in 1925 with the Scopes Monkey Trial [wikipedia.org], which fought the teaching of evolution in schools"

All the history of the Butler act I ever read mention they simply feared teaching of evolution would weaken faith, and that they refused our descendance from great apes, as it would shows us as descending from lower beings like animals. At no point the proponent of Butler's act mentioned eugenism, that sound like a modern rewriting of the history. In fact the prominent web sites which promote this thesis are : answeringenesis and creation.com. Fancy that.

Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (1)

stiggle (649614) | about three weeks ago | (#47415251)

Just because everyone thinks it is right doesn't mean that its correct.
Scientific consensus once said that the world was flat, that the sun orbited the earth. It was once the consensus that an atom was like a plum pudding (JJ Thompsons model).

Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414473)

Nah, there are plenty of fools out there.

Some of them the same fools who pushed the whole OMG we're destroying the OZONE!!!!!

If UVA and Mann have nothing to hide (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414483)

Why not just release the emails and shut this group up? It seems like they are going to great lengths to hide something.

Re:If UVA and Mann have nothing to hide (3, Funny)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | about three weeks ago | (#47414523)

Like you then, Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Anonymous coward?

What have you got to hide then?
do you like to wear women's clothing and chop down trees? (Monty Python link deliberate)

From the
Can we see those incriminating emails that might be about something totally irrelevant but we need to see them anyway...
Department.

Re: If UVA and Mann have nothing to hide (1)

Alex Cane (3296683) | about three weeks ago | (#47414663)

"Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence." - Lance Armstrong.

Re:If UVA and Mann have nothing to hide (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about three weeks ago | (#47414689)

The FOIA doesn't apply to AC's on Slashdot. Just in case you were unaware.

Re:If UVA and Mann have nothing to hide (1)

ed.han (444783) | about three weeks ago | (#47414693)

so the wrong point: if you have nothing to hide why not just give everyone access to your account?

ed

Re:If UVA and Mann have nothing to hide (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about three weeks ago | (#47414805)

Beyond the "you shouldn't be forced to reveal private matters or be assumed guilty?" Then how about because nothing shuts up groups like this. Say he releases his e-mails and there is nothing incriminating in there. They will find one passage which, if taken out of context, will "prove" their point. Then they'll tout this out-of-content statement all over the place. Sure, some people will see the truth, but many more will believe the lie instead.

To put it another way, I suspect you of committing illegal acts. Send me all of your e-mail correspondence for the last 10 years. I'll pour through that and see if anything looks wrong. If you typed "I hope we don't get caught" in the context of throwing someone a surprise birthday party and sneaking the gifts past them, I'll take that line and use it to show how you're really a shady criminal conspiring to avoid capture for your crimes. I await you sending me all of your e-mails so I can use them against you in any way I see fit.

Re:If UVA and Mann have nothing to hide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47415445)

I think that's being rather hysterical and paranoid about it. But that's no surprise.

Careful what you wish for (4, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about three weeks ago | (#47414497)

As far as I can tell, this lawsuit determined that the Freedom of Information Act can't be used to get access to some official email correspondence paid for by public funds. Even if you are really gung-ho on AGW, that's not a result to automatically crow about.

Michael Mann is not my favorite scientist, as he has a pattern of cargo cultist behavior that has annoyed his peers (provoking words like "vomit" and "crock of s**t"). The lawsuit to watch is the one where Mann is suing the National Review (a conservative magazine) and Mark Steyn, a conservative satirist and commentator. Whether or not his overall beliefs about AGW are justified, Professor Mann does have skeletons in his closet, and if the court does its job properly, he will be smacked down hard.

Re:Careful what you wish for (1)

knobsturner_me (1210594) | about three weeks ago | (#47415053)

Please, Please take a look at Michael Mann's Twitter stream if you think for a moment that he is a victim in any of this.

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMa... [twitter.com]

$250 damages for ATI

Re:Careful what you wish for (5, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about three weeks ago | (#47415185)

I like how you condemned him without evidence of those "skeletons". If the court does its job properly they will weigh the evidence and not just smack him down because you want them to.

No Emails? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414505)

Did Michael Mann's PC crash, and lose them too?

Secrecy = win for alarmists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414659)

Summary of article: A scientist puts out a report supporting AGW theories that will likely be used to create public policy. A skeptic group (who funds them is irrelevant) wants to see the data used to create the report and are forced to use legal measures to cut through the secrecy. They are denied access to the data and fined $250. Slashdot editor says "Thus ends Climategate." ? WTF, huge win for the alarmist consensus, yes. Read the volumous NIPCC reports to see the work of thousands of scientists around the world that do not support AGW theories.

Leftists love SLAPP suits! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47414673)

When it agrees with their political agenda, they are a wonderful thing.

Reciprocal discovery will make the emails public (1, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | about three weeks ago | (#47414923)

In Mann vs Steyn the NR will be able to troll through all of Mann's emails and data.

Mann is in favor of his proceeding with discovery against Steyn - "The fact that Mr. Steyn has not appealed the denial of the motions to dismiss counsels further against a discovery stay. Mr. Steyn, like Dr. Mann, has made clear his desire to have this Court resolve this lawsuit and to move forward with discovery immediately. As such, there is no reason for this Court to delay discovery further."

On the other hand, Mann is totally opposed to Steyn's proceeding with discovery against him - "While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann's claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn's counterclaims."

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...