Hackers & Global Warming

Remove all ads!

Yes, and the other side of polluting, greedy, self-serving, scientific know-nothings, who oppose the notion of climate change have only added to the credibility of those who believe climate change is real. And some people still listen to those guys!

 

Oh, yes. I'm sure all those coal and oil companies have the best interest of the average person at heart in their climate-change agendas.

 

What's a green company? If it's a US coporation, it's in the right corporate welfare state, regardless of what it is selling.

 

BTA - That was really my point to NOG. On both sides of the issue there are vested interests.

But of course.

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2141-Time-for-Citizens-to-Convene.html

 

Just because....

 

Well, Gore certainly is. I'm not so certain about the rest.

I'll agree completely that they're all human, but scientists waving that badge around with "proof" are held to a higher standard for a reason. Climatology has thrown that standard out altogether, unfortunately.

And that's what we should be arguing about. Well, if anyone disagrees.

 

I'm highly sceptical of the people looking at the emails and seeing a great conspiracy and fraud. A lot of the articles I've read are saying that the emails are being misinterpreted to say things that they don't say in order to support the climate change sceptic's point of view, and having a look at some of the places linked in this thread ... yeah, they're biased.

I offer this as a counterpoint, but I can't be sure that is isn't just biased in the opposite direction: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

So, can someone link to anything that you can say with surety is an unbiased analysis of what the emails actually say, or quote from the emails where they say something unambiguously dodgy? Because I'm not buying that there's been massive fraud from the shrill screamings I've heard,

(Throwing away the raw data is pretty dodgy, though)

 

You had to go there. He certainly is not, NOG. You may not know this, but Al Gore has been interested in the environment and has made it one of his central concerns for 30 years. He has a lot of credibility on the line with climate change, that is true, and has been out in front of the issue, which gives him a high-profile regarding climate change. So he does have a vested interest in it. You may think this all about "Al getting rich," or whatever, but Al Gore has been strong on more than just global warming when it comes to the environment. So it makes sense that he would care about industry pumping tons of crap into the air we breath and filth being dumped all over our planet. In 1992 he published _Earth in the Balance_.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QD...3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=al gore&f=false

 

I don't even want to think about who the producers of microwave popcorn employ to provide them with biacetyl.

And yes, this is related to global warming, because in order to make those employees sweat, they would probably engage in vigorous exercise, which cranks up body heat, which in turn contributes to global warming.

 

My company maintains largish databases. They're occasionally messy, just because some people loose track simply because of the sheer quantity of data and due to the number of versions and revisions. That is a common problem, but it still doesn't result in errors in production.

Well, our databases are trivial compared to the massive data climate scientists gather worldwide. In a highly decentralised system of research institutes and universities, you know, at times with students and research assistants handling the data.

What I warn of is to misread entropy as nefarious intent. The e-mails invite just that.

 

He also has a carbon footprint the size of some small towns. And he "pays it off" with carbon credits to his own company.

BTA:
I've never actually looked at Climate Audit before, but that link you have makes exactly my point. Now, as someone who's done programing, I understand the desire not to release your own code, but at the very least you should be able to detail the methods the code employed. If they're standard methods, you should just be able to name them, possibly with modifications and descriptors, and someone versed in the field should be familiar with it and be able to write their own code to do the same. If you're applying new mentods, then you should have published papers wholely dedicated to those new methods, and still be able to cite a name and some qualifiers and someone should know what you mean. Anything less and this isn't science any more, it's religion.

Ragusa:
I've also dealt with messy and poorly-organized government databases (probably nothing as large as yours or theirs) that were subject to FOIA requests. If the information is there, you're required to put it together, at least in the US.

Furthermore, as a scientist, it's basic procedure to document your sources of data, along with the original data and everything you did to it. Again, this is basic scientific procedure.

In short, I'd like you all to imagine an oncologist announcing he had discovered a miracle cure for cancer, and publishing a paper detailing startling results. The only problem is, he never tells anyone what drugs he used, what dosages, when, on which patients, and only provides a "summary" of the statistical results (i.e. x% of patients experienced this, y% that, etc.) even under scrutiny. How far do you think his "miracle cure" claim would fly? What do you think would happen to his scientific carreer?

 

You don't know what you are talking about. Before you start lecturing us about what scientists "need to do," I suggest you take your own advice and start listing some sources and documentation to support some of your own statements.

 

... which reminds of an article I read about Cameron Diaz. It seems she's very concerned about her entire family's carbon footprint and bought everyone a hybred (Prius, I think). Of course, she still required a private jet to be shuttled to movie locations....

 

While NOG and I frequently disagree, he is completely right here. There's no excuse for not retaining source data, because that stuff never gets published in scientific journals, so the only place people can obtain the source data is from the actual researcher.

Furthermore, I don't know anyone who views scientific journals as casual reading material. The only people who read them are others involved in the field, many of whom are working on some subject related to what you're working on.

Any scientific journal worth its salt is going to peer review all articles before they publish them. If you perform 800 trials of something, you don't need to publish the exact results of every trial. It's been peer reviewed, they will trust you did the calculations correctly. It's sufficient to say you did 800 trials with a minimum value of a, a maximum value of b, with a mean value of x and standard deviation of +/- y.

 

I don't think it needs a lot of measurement to know that Gore flies around the country -- and the world -- telling people that they should reduce emissions. Now I'm sure his intentions are good, but the fact is by jet-setting he produces a heckuva lot more CO2 than I ever will. Ergo, I am not super inspired to walk to work everyday when faced with his example. If he wants to reduce carbon emissions, he should start with himself.

I am more likely to walk to work if I am given a reason that will benefit me or if I am convinced that it will do some good. If you cannot convince me, then all the "denier -- unholy apostate!" accusations that are levied at me get met with extreme resistance and suspicion.