Temperature Data Wants To Be Free 489
An anonymous reader writes "The UK's Met Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia have been refusing access to the data used for their global climate averages and scientific studies. A copy of the data has leaked, and attempts continue to accomplish the release of the data by whoever maintains it. Excuses have included confidentiality agreements which cannot be verified because no records were kept, mention of the source has been removed from the Met Office web site, and IPCC records were destroyed."
100% worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
... refusing access to the data used for their global climate averages and scientific studies.
I realize governments are really in to wasting money and all, but this is ridiculous. The UK government has spent who knows how much money on a completely worthless study. Studies mean nothing without data.
Confidentiality and openness aside, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of data sources which are perfectly reasonable to use. NOAA's data being probably the best and most comprehensive.
Yes, the UK is turning into a strange parody of itself with its attempts to close the government to the public on the one hand and monitor citizens very closely on the other. But it's not the only game in town. Despite my own country's recent 8 year slump towards the same type of fascist state as Britain, the US scientific community is still one of the best and most open in the world.
So come and get your data from us, ya'll.
Tinfoil hat time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obviously a conspiracy!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:100% worthless (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does this give this scary conspiracy nut feeling?? :-)
Just the URL-s of the sources (one even broken) screams tin-foil hat and blackened windows
Re:Confidentiality and openness aside, so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the UK is turning into a strange parody of itself with its attempts to close the government to the public on the one hand and monitor citizens very closely on the other. But it's not the only game in town. Despite my own country's recent 8 year slump towards the same type of fascist state as Britain, the US scientific community is still one of the best and most open in the world.
The UK's decline is recent, too. We used to watch the news and laugh at the social conservatism, outrageous media hyperbole and occasional fascist policy of the US. Now we're worse, much worse, and it invades every part of our lives.
Hell, the BBC now cut shows that air, uncut, on HBO. What they did to 'Rome' was a crime. The idea that US tv would one day be more free to explore the dark side of life than the UK never even occurred to me.
Since this attitude of fear so closely follows the desperate, terrified, nannying of the Labour government I am begging and praying that things turn around again when they're out on their ear.
Re:100% worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's not science if you hide your data and methods and only release them to people you like. This isn't about misrepresentation or whatever dirt you want to throw - this is about access and transparency. Anything less is not science. It's as simple as that.
A key ingredient of the scientific method is exposing your methods to the cold hard light of day and making sure they withstand scrutiny. If you only show it to people you like, that is hardly serious scrutiny. It needs to stand up to scrutiny from people you don't like.
Re:Open Source Science is the path through the dar (Score:5, Insightful)
When you "BELIEVE" science you're just another religion.
In fact, open source science is the BEST and ONLY WAY to avoid science from becoming the new religion as it has, for example, in the climate debates.
The scientific method is the tool for vetting the works of science and if the work of science is closed and secret and kept close to the scientists chests by refusals to share their data, methods, source codes, procedures, etc... then their work can't be verified and might as well be works of fiction just like those of any religious cleric or priest or nutter.
If you can't take others vetting your scientific work then maybe you don't belong in science?
Open Source Science raises the bar and will in the long run improve the quality of the science that is done. Some progress is being made, much more needs to be done.
You wonder why there's doubt on global warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, we're supposed to spend literally trillions of dollars to fix global warming, yet we can't see the raw data the hysteria is based on?
WTF!?!?!
Along the same lines, when is the source code used for the climate models going to be published and thoroughly reviewed?
If AGW is in fact true, it can withstand the scrutiny.
CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
The important question which I've never seen the math for is how much CO2 is output by random natural events during a certain time period versus how much we output currently.
We are taking a few hundred million years worth of biomass and burning it up in a about a hundred and fifty. Perhaps this has no effect on the environment, but I think it's prudent to make sure that we don't send the climate into a self-feedback loop that destroys our way of life. It's not as if riding around in traffic or having an iPod is worth giving up food and water.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:3, Insightful)
"Denialists"
What a great word. What a lovely set of implications it has. Are the climate change "denialists" related to Holocaust deniers by any chance?
Seems to me, if climate change science were based on solid and irrefutable scientific evidence, then there would be no need to use verbal trickery to influence opinion. If you're so sure of yourself, then why the propaganda?
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to agree (Score:5, Insightful)
It is always a real red flag when data is withheld. The core of science is that "ideas are tested by experiment." Ok well that means that, for science to work, others have to be able to check your work. You have an idea and say "Here's my idea and here's my support." Ok well your support needs to include ALL your data, your methods and so on. Why? So that others can check your work. Only then, after they've repeated and independently verified your results, can we start to feel confident your idea might be correct. To me, hiding data says one of three things is going on:
1) You are dealing with something commercial, that is being held secret so you can market it. Ok well that shouldn't be the case here.
2) The data in fact does NOT support your conclusion, however you don't want to admit you are wrong and thus are trying to suppress it. Perhaps you are worried you'll lose grants.
3) You suck at the science. You think that science is a process where you, the scientist make a claim and the rest of the world just has to listen to you.
4) You are a charlatan, a con man, and you are trying to convince people of something that isn't real, you are trying to sell them snake oil as it were.
I just can't see any legit reason in a pure scientific study why all the data wouldn't be made available for all to see. That it isn't really sets off warning bells in my head. I've read papers like this in the behavioral sciences and always what I see happening is that their experiment was basically a bust, it falsified their hypothesis, or simply produced inconsistent results. However they don't want to admit it, so they find a way to tweak the numbers and then refuse to release full methodology and results.
So this worries me. If climate change is truly a threat to humans, then it should be in the interests of everyone that all the data is made available, unedited, unhindered, so that the theories can be checked and rechecked. Science should be allowed to proceed with as little barriers as possible so that it can proceed as rapidly as possible because the matter is of such importance.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:5, Insightful)
What you describe as real is climate change on a short timescale - such fluctuations aren't extraordinary and the claims of "climate change" are for the most part suggesting a mostly permanent change in climate, brought about by man-made influence.
Even the changes you describe are hard to judge and have varied greatly just year to year - here in Ireland this year everything (plants/animals) was more a stereotypical Spring/Summer - albeit extra plant growth, insects and birds because the sun/rain in Spring were in just the right order for optimal conditions (one particular week of heavy rain, one particular week of strong sunshine, and a lot of other "nice" conditions besides).
I'm a skeptic in the true sense - I'm skeptical about the climate change hysteria, but not convinced either that there is no merit in the "man-made permanent climate change" argument, and certainly I think it's a good idea to cut back on pollution (although the exclusive focus on carbon/CO2 may need more justification). I don't think we have enough to go on either way and some policies seem very knee jerk and may be counter productive. Plus most policies that are happening as opposed to mere proposals are often due to other interests (ways to make money from it, keep certain section of voters happy, skew competition, raise tax, etc.)
Here in Ireland there is as much talk as anywhere else about carbon taxes etc. yet there is still next to no enforcement of building standards for example to ensure new houses are properly insulated, pathetic planning that nevermind about transport emissions - makes equal (or even poor) delivery of services across the country very expensive. Too sparse population in rural areas for all kinds of services never mind private car use problems - too unplanned and fast-increasing population in the capital for services needed for such an amount of people - traffic problems and not enough money for public transport due to cost of supporting rural area. Our poor planning also means developers are allowed to put up crummy buildings that last as little as 10 years before being redeveloped - regardless of climate change or CO2 or anything else it's obvious that such things are grossly wasteful.
All in all, I'd like to see common-sense policies while we continue to research the "big picture" rather than random ideologically-driven hypotheses being put into action where politically convenient.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:4, Insightful)
No, basically nothing in your post is "true" in any scientific version of that word :) We do not have excellent data (gas diffusion in ice cores is a bitch!) and current models lack incredible amounts of algorithmic data which is instead made up as we see politically fit at the moment :) (for example, the influence of clouds)
We do not have an unusual trend of global warming at all. On the contrary, there might not be a trend to speak of when removing measurement uncertainties. (http://surfacestations.org should scare anyone who believes the tempereature data we're soon basing our whole economy on)
The best fit for the temperature changes over the last century is not with CO2 levels but with ocean cycles btw.
On gas diffusion: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2008/00000054/00000187/art00012 [ingentaconnect.com]
On ocean cycles: http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/14/timescale-of-the-pdo-nao-and-amo/ [atmoz.org]
Why are you not interested in doing actual science? We simply don't have data to support Hansen's and Gore's wild accusations.
You really don't help your case (Score:4, Insightful)
Denalists? So basically when you don't like someone's opinion, you make up a new, derogatory term to try and marginalize them? That isn't science, that is marketing. In particular, it is the kind of marketing con men do. When people question their products/methods, they shout down the critics, they deride them, they call them names. They basically try to make it look like you must be retarded if you don't agree with them.
You are also pulling another con man trick: The appeal to authority. That a site is run by "climate scientists" or is not, doesn't matter. Science isn't about who has the authority in a certain area, it is a process for finding out about the world. So trying to say "Well this site is run by climate scientists, this one isn't," doesn't strengthen your argument. That is along the same likes of "4 out of 5 dentists agree!" Ok well so what? Maybe 4 out of 5 dentists are mediocre, and the excellent 20% realize that it doesn't matter?
There is also the matter of what is a climate scientist? This isn't a degree listed at most universities, and didn't exist at all until recently. If you look at the people who run realclimate you find their PhDs are Applied Mathematics, Geology, Oceanography, and such. None of them have a degree in "climate science." So what a climate scientist is, is simply someone who studies the climate. Ok, fair enough, however that does mean it isn't an exclusive club that only certain people can be members of. For that matter, Watts is a meteorologist, which is also on the topic of climate studies.
None of that means a given person is right or wrong, but it is incorrect to appeal to authority and try and claim that "Oh realclimate is run by climate scientists so they are the only place you can trust." No, that's not the case. Science doesn't work like that.
When you pull shit like this, it really doesn't help your case. If you disagree with the theory someone is putting forth, or their criticisms of a theory, deal with that. Don't play salesman/con man tricks. To me, it makes it look as though you've something to hide.
Re:100% worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that where confidential data is involved science should not be done? Well that's going to kill much medical research for a start. If an epidemiologist finds a cause of disease, are you going to discount it as valid science because you aren't allowed access to the patient records the data was collated from?
The scientific method only requires that results be confirmed by other scientists. They could be given access to the data without requiring the data to be released to the public domain. Ideally though they would confirm the data using a different data set. And indeed this is exactly what Climate Scientists do. There are multiple data sets.
Welcome to the world of REAL science, where work is done with classified or confidential data every day.
Re:100% worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the BADC data sets are restricted to non-commercial use only, so you need to flash your 'Academic Investigator' magic card at them to get it. These guys keep good metadata and license agreements and all that stuff. There's even some datasets from CRU, unrestricted (registration required).
Where does that leave the hobbyist researchers then?
Today most household computers are potent enough to be able to sift through amounts of data that we only could dream about a few years ago.
Don't forget that the collection of the raw data has been done through the money of the tax payers. It is of course possible to have a reasonable fee for obtaining a copy in some cases, but it may as well be put on the web these days.
In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll quote Feynman, since he put it really well:
-----
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
-----
Remember: In science, we don't prove things true, we show them to be not false. Same thing? Not hardly. For a complete discussion on the topic, read the Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. However what it comes down to is you do not do a test, and then prove a theory true. That can't be done. What you do is come up with a way to falsify your theory, that is to say you come up with a test that says "If things don't come out this way, we know this theory is wrong." You run the test, things come out that way. You have failed to falsify the theory, and we are now more certain it is true. The more than is done, the more certain we are a theory is correct. Each time we attempt to falsify the theory and fail, we are more sure it must be the truth.
If we do then falsify it, the theory has to be redone. That doesn't mean you toss the whole thing out, it may just mean some refinement is needed. For example you have a theory that predicts when X happens Y will results. In 400 tests, this is the case, however 3 new tests show it isn't. What you discover is that in all those tests, A was also present. You the refine your theory: Y will result from X, except in cases where A is present. Your theory is now a little more narrow in application, and fits with the evidence. Perhaps later you find out what A does, and incorporate that in to a more general theory.
The point of all this is that real science is all about trying to prove your theory wrong. You do everything you can to prove it wrong, then have other people do what they can to prove it wrong. When all of you fail at doing that, when the theory has been refined such that it fits all the evidence and you can't figure out how else to test it, then it is most likely the truth. THAT is what scientific rigor is about. It isn't about coming up with a theory, ignoring data you don't like, showing it to a few people who agree with you, and saying "Ok, we proved this true and nobody else can look at it."
Re:Tinfoil hat time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try, but not good enough. CA is not a conspiracy nut website. It is a website run by a mathematician to show the follies of various "climate science" statistical analysis. It turns out, if you pay attention, that much of what passes for "science" in climate circles is nothing more than unmitigated rubbish. The latest, Steig et al, used PCA and deliberately chose the number of components that maximised the result they wanted, when no rational reason (other than this) would lead them to choose such a number. This is just one example. There are lies, damned lies and climate scientists.
Re:Concealment of decisive evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The "bunch of scientists" you should be paying attention to aren't the half-dozen public figures engaging the quacks, but the ten thousand quietly publishing the research which led to the concensus in the first place. The handful of public scientists who can't whip out smoking-gun data like characters in a Roland Emmerich movie aren't the people who hold the actual science.
Re:100% worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
And it would not have been found had the data not been available.
Re:Confidentiality and openness aside, so what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Despite my own country's recent 8 year slump towards the same type of fascist state as Britain
Wow, cheap shot.
By "facist" are you refering to this? (to quote Wikipedia):
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").
Why...that sounds a whole lot more like "Cap and Trade" then anything Bush ever did.
How hard is it to see that the threat of Global Warming, be it real or not, is being used as an excuse by governments worldwide to grab more power and money and restrict more and more civil rights.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:2, Insightful)
The "economic stabilization" nuts have turned to "climate stabilization" nuts.
Apparently there's already too much respected literature completely thrashing the first, so the latter seems a more suitable excuse for the obtaining of political power. :-)
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:2, Insightful)
On ocean cycles: You realize that global temperature controls ocean cycles, right? So you're agreeing with me?
Or so you assume. That is a case where you may be confusing cause and effect:
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [drroyspencer.com]
Re:100% worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the mods considered it to be so of course. Given your choice of language you are clearly a GW conspiracy theorist yourself which is why you disagree with their reasoning.
Such are the kind of claims Steve McIntyre has made. But he's not a scientist and his errors are in turn pointed out on Real Climate. However McIntyre doesn't withdraw his errors. He just repeats them.
Re:100% worthless (Score:1, Insightful)
By which you mean, I don't really understand any of this stuff about principal components analysis and eigenvalues, but I really like those guys at Realclimate. These questions are essentially mathematical and McIntyre *does* have a degree in mathematics. Why not study it yourself? Or would that require that rare combination of objectivity and effort. Why bother when you can just throw insults.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:3, Insightful)
So you don't believe that the HadSST2 data set is reliable? It is, after all, primarily the work of one Dr. Phil Jones. That he could make sense of 150 years worth of very diverse raw measurement data seems to me utterly implausible.
I'm no HadSST2 expert, but googling for it and checking the first result (http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/hadsst2/), I find a paper about HadSST2, published in Journal of Climate, and written by 8 different researchers. The paper also lists six pages of references of other peoples' work that they've used in theirs. Phil Jones is not an author of that paper, and I checked Jones's list of publications (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/jones_pd.htm) which doesn't mention HadSST2. I'm left wondering where you got your information from. (To add, the HadSST2 paper does refer to papers authored or co-authored by P.D.Jones as well as dozens of other people.)
"Just use the end result, the HadSST2 data set." In other words, trust me?
You have that same problem with the raw data as well. You'll just have to trust the people and devices taking the original measurements. Or time-travel 150 years back yourself to make the measurements. There you go. You need to trust someone, because you're not omnipotent yourself. In the end, all the scientific papers are out there for you to read, if you want to check other peoples' work before trusting it. Please do so if you want. Jones's list of publications could be a fine starting point.
Re:You really don't help your case (Score:5, Insightful)
You are also pulling another con man trick: The appeal to authority. That a site is run by "climate scientists" or is not, doesn't matter. Science isn't about who has the authority in a certain area, it is a process for finding out about the world.
Whilst that is technically true, in practice it's bollocks.
Let's say you find a lump in your groin. Your doctor checks it and says that the evidence is that it's a malignant tumour. You ask for a second opinion, and another doctor tells you the same. On the other hand, you find a website that says that oncologists are making up diagnoses of cancer because otherwise they'd be out of a job, and it cites a few fringe researchers to back this up. Who do you believe?
In a specialised scientific field, you have to either defer to the experts or become an expert yourself.
That is along the same likes of "4 out of 5 dentists agree!"
You're seriously comparing a marketing slogan to a huge body of scientific research? I wish the scientific method was taught in schools.
There is also the matter of what is a climate scientist? This isn't a degree listed at most universities, and didn't exist at all until recently. If you look at the people who run realclimate you find their PhDs are Applied Mathematics, Geology, Oceanography, and such. None of them have a degree in "climate science."
Good. I don't believe in over-specialised degrees. Having people from different specialties is extremely helpful for a field. I'm glad that people with a maths background are checking the models and statistics and people who know about oceans are checking the ocean data, and so on.
So what a climate scientist is, is simply someone who studies the climate.
I'd say a climate scientist is a scientist who studies the climate, using the scientific method.
None of that means a given person is right or wrong, but it is incorrect to appeal to authority and try and claim that "Oh realclimate is run by climate scientists so they are the only place you can trust." No, that's not the case. Science doesn't work like that.
It's a bloody good heuristic though. It's theoretically possible that the people promoting coffee enemas are right about maximising your chances of beating cancer, but I'll believe the experts thanks.
Re:100% worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CO2 (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean "currently" like in this morning? Or since 2000? How about since the 1950s? Maybe you mean "currently" in the sense of millenia. Or millions of years?
Re:CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look here:
http://scotese.com/climate.htm [scotese.com]
As you can see, our current climate is unusual. Global temperature was similar during the Precambrian (before any animals), at the end Ordovician and the end Carboniferous. As you can see, the global temperature stayed where in these cold zones for a relatively small time.
So yeah, the trees will be fine if we ramped global temperature 15C, but the point is that it wouldn't be great for human civilization.
Re:100% worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
the data and it's sources are confidential because the data is flawed, the sources are poorly placed, the organizations behind it have tax money to receive and a vested interest in ensuring the data provides wallet-lining cash. This goes from the researchers in the field placing the sensors to the politicians driving the studies from the back seat.
Not so much (Score:3, Insightful)
More than 90% of those "ten thousand" scientists who publicly support global warming did nothing at all to prove or disprove the theory - they're researchers in related (and often unrelated) fields who took government money, wrote a paper, tacked "and was caused by Global Warming" onto whatever they were working on before, and got published. Tens of billions of dollars in government money over the last couple of decades have made sure that many scientists have a distinct financial advantage if they support global warming.
When that doesn't work, there's even private money available, like the several hundred thousand dollars in "awards" given to James Hansen of NASA for coming up with the "right" numbers that seem to support AGW - for example, temperatures which (over the last decade) disagree with pretty much all of the other temperature observations reported by other organizations. Apparently, NASA took their raw data, "corrected" it, and then released it to the world in heavily edited form. Another win for "private" science.
The actual, no-kidding, original "research" (simulations that are still pretty well obscured and/or disproven) leading to the theory of anthropogenic global warming was done by a very small number of scientists. Some of them were working in fields that gave them no practical expertise in the science involved, and much of the initial (and still obscured) results were created in simulations that have since been shown to be completely false, such as the "Hockey Stick" that STILL shows up in many "serious" AGW papers. A big problem is that much of the statistical work was done by people with a very weak background in actual statistics (or just enough of a background to know how to cherry-pick numbers and formulas to get the results they wanted).
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:2, Insightful)
Got me there. Mr Gore of the 20 bedroom mansion, SUV entourages and private jetting about the country was obviously not using the "Global Warming" issue to prop up his political aspirations. (sarcasm) I'm sure it was really all about the planet (/sarcasm).
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_al_gores_mansion.html [factcheck.org]
So far what they have received is scorn, ridicule and extreme criticism.
On this we can agree. As I mentioned in my post, there is far too much geopolitical fog around this issue which is preventing us from having this debate. I would love to know what the real truth is, but I find myself being put off by the shrill proclamations (which I've heard many times before ... heck in the 70s it was global cooling) and the calls to extreme action to "prevent" climate change. What if we completely destroy our economy, go back to living in caves and subsisting on berries we find lying about, only to have "global warming" happen anyhow?. We will be ill-equipped to deal with it at that point. IMHO, we should admit that climate change happens, some of it may be due to human activity, and some (most?) of it is natural (see earth's history). With that realization out of the way, I think we should be spending the bulk of our effort and resources figuring out how to deal with a warmer climate, and less trying (vainly?) to stop it. But instead there are many who view this as an opportunity to shift the balance of power on the planet; it's a chance to take the developed countries "down a peg", or to slow them down so the others can catch up.
Re:The issue is the license: Copyright and contrac (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:100% worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
"Where does that leave the hobbyist researchers then?"
You have to get out of the basement, go outside and talk to people. Same as all the professional researchers. If you show up at the appropriate guy's office at the nearest university, tell him you want to collaborate and do some research, for free, he'll likely be happy to get you your data in exchange for some input and his name on the paper.
Same with scientific journals. Free access equal to the level of any academic is as far away as the nearest university library. A little slower access is probably closer - the nearest local library.
Re:In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you talking about General Electric?
Seriously, many companies and myself personally have a financial incentive to not be destroyed economically for a theory which as of yet cannot predict future temperature patterns.
Not wanting to be ruined is not nefarious.
Re:The issue is the license: Copyright and contrac (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no need to be condescending, Ron.
Do you understand that copyright law covers data sets, and that you can't just issue a Freedom of Information Act requesting that the government violate copyright law?
Here's a common situation: a pharmaceutical corporation sponsors graduate research on some drug, and as part of this they provide data sets from their own experiments and other research that they have sponsored, bought, or licensed. Now I discover that a government researcher has used this data and I disagree with their conclusions, so I put in a Freedom of Information Act request for the original data set. Do you really believe that at this point the government should just relicense the data set as public domain and hand it over to me? It would fundamentally alter the concept of copyright. Now, getting rid of copyright might not necessarily be a bad thing, but it is something that needs to be decided by society in a larger context, not in the context of one single FOI request for one data set.
Copyright is a complex issue, only a few hours ago Slashdot was discussing the Copyright Status of Thermodynamic Properties [slashdot.org]
Re:100% worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not supposed to trust science. That's sort of the whole point.
It's called "skepticism" and it's a required trait if you claim to be practicing science at all.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying the theory is carefully constructed so as to be non-disprovable, except by data that only the theory's proponents have... and will not release.
How convenient.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting that you seem to believe the "science has been settled". It's not true though. We still do not know the influence the sun can have on earth's climate besides TSI - which is what your link refers to. As soon as you mix in the clouds all bets are currently off - we lack both the data and the algorithms at the moment.
There's interesting correlation between the ocean cycles and the climate cycles, on the order of decades, however. Let's see how that plays out.
Re:The issue is the license: Copyright and contrac (Score:4, Insightful)
I discover that a government researcher has used this data and I disagree with their conclusions, so I put in a Freedom of Information Act request for the original data set. Do you really believe that at this point the government should just relicense the data set as public domain and hand it over to me?
Yes.
Re:In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a real poisonous element working at the edges of the scientific community these days.
And there always has been. The remarkable thing is that science is robust against this element, over time.
Right back at the very beginning we had people like Newton, who was a shrewd political operator who pilloried his opponents played and fast and loose with their data.
This kind of thing has always gone on. Scientists are no better than businesspeople or politicians when it comes to lying and cheating.
The essence of science is not honesty or the virtue of individual scientists: it is open empiricism. That is, to be a scientist, to be counted as part of the scientific community, you must at the end of the day respect the data, and you must be open about what the data are, where they came from, and what you've done with them.
So people like Steve MacIntyre are not a danger to sciece.
People like you are.
Re:This sort of thing would make anyone suspicious (Score:4, Insightful)
No, basically nothing in your post is "true" in any scientific version of that word :) We do not have excellent data (gas diffusion in ice cores is a bitch!) and current models lack incredible amounts of algorithmic data which is instead made up as we see politically fit at the moment :) (for example, the influence of clouds). We do not have an unusual trend of global warming at all. On the contrary, there might not be a trend to speak of when removing measurement uncertainties. (http://surfacestations.org should scare anyone who believes the tempereature data we're soon basing our whole economy on)
And in a nutshell, that uncertainty is the argument for taking drastic action to curb carbon emissions.
Basically, if we could predict with certainty that our emissions would lead to no, or a tolerable increase in temperatures, then I would be on your side in this argument. We could take sensible, economically appropriate action to protect ourselves (relocating populations if necessary, building seawalls). Beyond that it would be business as usual. The problem is that we can't make any such statement. We know that we're increasing our atmospheric CO2 by a pretty significant amount, and we know that there are physical mechanisms that should lead to warming (we've also ruled out most possible compensatory mechanisms, like the ocean being an unlimited CO2 sink). From there we have a series of well-studied models that show a possibility of mild warming, and a non-zero chance of catastrophic warming. Despite your calming assertions, we can't even come close to ruling out the extreme possibilities.
Worse, it's highly unlikely that we'll be able to rule out the catastrophic cases any time soon. They're well supported by our best understanding, and nobody's brought anything forth to make them less likely. In fact, scientists have begun to lean more towards them as modeling has become more sophisticated and accurate.
That's why I laugh whenever someone uses the lack of scientific certainty as an argument against doing something about emissions. It's a great argument --- if you're trying to build a case for an aggressive plan to reduce emissions. The only viable argument against taking action is to show conclusively that we can be certain about the effects of our carbon emissions, and that they're entirely manageable. And to be able to defend that result against all challengers. Not some handwaving about how imperfect our information is.
Re:In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
But one side has a much greater financial incentive.
I know, it must be the guys who already control power production, who are raking in the dough at a pretty nice rate.
No, wait. Perhaps it's the guys researching "green" tech, who stand to multiply their investment by an arbitrarily large number by making green energy the rule.
I'm confused. Are you sure it's just one side?
Re:100% worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
What in the heck are you talking about?
Your dad sounds like an idiot, not a skeptic. He doesn't have to trust science to know that planes can fly, because you can see the damn things flying. All you have to trust is your own eyes.
Also, science does not require peer-review. That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Why? Because you don't define "peer".
What science absolutely requires is disclosure. If you say "I have does a study and discovered X", then you damn well have to back it up. Your data must be available for me to see and trust your claims. The process of your thinking must be shown. The results are not the product, they are simply the end-result. The *process* is the product that you're trying to sell to me, because if I don't understand how you achieved what you claim, then I have no reason to believe you at all.
If you don't release your data and process and everything else, then you're not a scientist. You're just a crank.
Re:In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount spent by Environmental groups on this issue dwarfs that spent by fossil fuel lobbyists.
[Citation needed [sourcewatch.org]]
Re:In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
General Electric don't have to be ruined. There is plenty of money to be made out of green energy.
They should take a lesson from what happened to the American automobile industry. They have failed spectacularly because they have ignored the oil crisis and green issues and have kept on designing large gas guzzlers.
Foresight is what is needed. Seeing where the markets of the future are. Not lobbying against science in the hope of carrying on business exactly the same way as for the last century.
Re:You really don't help your case (Score:3, Insightful)
You're seriously comparing a marketing slogan to a huge body of scientific research? I wish the scientific method was taught in schools.
"Denialist" is the marketing slogan of a huge body of scientific research?
Re:In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. If you could come up with a proposal for research with a good chance of finding against global warming, then you could write your own check for all your dreams of avarice. There are millions spent on lobbying for big business in Washington. Something that could make the global warming issue go away would be worth a good chunk of those budgets to the fossil fuel and automobile industries amongst others.
Re:In fact you should scrutinize it yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
They have failed spectacularly because they have ignored the oil crisis and green issues and have kept on designing large gas guzzlers.
This is definitely NOT true. Gas prices in 2008 and the recent recession only amplified enormous problems that already existed.
Many of the "gas-guzzling" cars are the best-selling American vehicles. Most American auto-maker failures have historically been small cars, which the government forced them to build (CAFE standards).
Moreover, American auto-makers cannot significantly restructure and become more lean and effective, because their rights were taken away with the Wagner act, which prevents firing of union employees and forces them into costly, non-agile business arrangements with those unions.
Re:Follow the money; Stop enabling the conspirator (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'd love to see ALL corporate lobbying and donations to political figures banned outright, if just for the fact that corporations don't vote. Why should their interests be represented over ours?
{Yes, I KNOW it's not likely, but it's a pleasant thought, no?}
Re:100% worthless (Score:1, Insightful)
GISS source code is available here [nasa.gov]. The data and results are also available if you poke around.