Search
TEN SECOND BUZZ
- The FTC has banned (nearly all) non-compete agreementsApril 23, 202418 Comments
- More Campus Palestine Protests, More Arrests, More Viral VideoApril 23, 202417 Comments
- Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024April 22, 202440 Comments
- Open Mic for the week of 4/15/2024April 15, 2024232 Comments
- OJ Simpson: Football Great, Murder Suspect, and Convicted Felon, Dead at 76April 11, 2024115 Comments
Features
Hot Posts
A Message From Devcat
We have been experiencing some system resource issues. We believe the problem may be resolved, but if it is not please bear with us.
Recent Comments
- Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassThat's the wrong conflict. After WW2 Russia insisted that Poland and Germany change their borders. M…
- Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassWhat we need is a West Jerusalem and an East Jerusalem.
- Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassEvery conflict should never be allowed to end much less be forgotten. The Jew/Arab conflict is the m…
- Jaybird in reply to InMD on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassHere's the "about us" page. (Check out the picture!) As someone with Native American ancestry, I fin…
- InMD in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassHeh, what is this? Passages from A Very Berkeley Thanksgiving?
- Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassMaybe you guys could offer to open meetings with a Stolen Land Acknowledgement? Here's a handy guide…
- John Puccio on The Month in Theaters March 2024Field of Dreams is adapted from the novel Shoeless Joe. In the book, Ray kidnaps JD Salinger and bri…
- Dark Matter in reply to Kazzy on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassDefine "right to return". If it means "right to return to a Palestinian state somewhere in that area…
- Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassTo be clear... your objection to the "right of return" is that it would lead to too many Palestinian…
- Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass"There are protestors on and off campuses across the United States who are either letting their ange…
Comics
-
April 24, 2024
-
April 23, 2024
-
Friend Husband At The Ballpark
April 22, 2024
-
Good Morning! Are You An Amateur?
April 21, 2024
More Comments
- LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Michael Cain in reply to North on The Shifting Politics of Abortion
- LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- North in reply to Michael Cain on The Shifting Politics of Abortion
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
there’s a huge legion of scientists who are not Al Gore, are not politicans, and are not media whores — who are genuinely concerned about the data they’re collecting that continually solidify the fact that we’re warming the planet at an unnatural rate. Mocking Gore is fine but it doesn’t change the facts.Report
Changing the facts requires a little more co-ordination.Report
I have been pretty agnostic about climate change for a long time. I know, that’s a cop out. But I could never get a handle on the actual science, and the messengers all seemed to have an agenda. So I guess I would come down against any radical changes to the economy, etc. Ron Bailey almost had me convinced, and I guess I was leaning in his direction.
So while I guess that makes me kind of a denialist, if that’s the word, this stuff all makes me even more skeptical. In the comments, Brian points out that tons of scientists still worry about global warming. OK. But my understanding is that this concern is based on a pretty small set of data, the veracity of which appears to be in question. Worse, that data doesn’t really say anything. It’s the computer modeling used to manipulate the data that seems even more tainted now.
And from what I can tell, a very, very small subset of scientists was engaged in collecting the data and formulating these models. And then peer-reviewed each other to prominence. And peer-reviewed others into oblivion.
The thousands of scientists who we see worrying now are REACTING to this data and modeling, which up until now was seen as so sancrosanct, people who doubted it were considered so lowly as to be compared to holocaust deniers.
But honestly, I don’t ask this as someone with a huge ax to grind in this debate–but doesn’t this current debacle call that data and that modeling into question? And if it does, doesn’t this cast doubt on the consensus that emerged as the fruit of that data and modeling?
Perhaps not. But if this turns out to be really bad… that wholce consensus thing doesn’t amount to a pile of rubbish. None of it.
For now… buy stock in Consul.Report
There’s really a very large set of data, though the significance of the CRU hack is more that it was the dataset/modelset used by the IPCC, rather than because its dataset was vital to the overall field of climate science. Real Climate’s done a pretty good job of listing datasets and models, there’s a lot of them. One of the things that happens generally in science (social or natural) is that people generally try to build their own datasets, either because it’s more convenient for their own thesis (very common) or because their models require certain types of data conversion from raw observations to account for observed variable problems.Report
Well, here we have yet another dispute that seems to be “resolvable” with regard to the facts. I honestly don’t know the answer, but here is what Ron Bailey wrote yesterday regarding the data:
“It is reassuring to think that even if the CRU data are shown to be distorted (either wittingly or unwittingly) other independent sources of data are at hand. But that belief may not be entirely accurate. Besides the CRU temperature data, there are two other leading sources used by the IPCC, one created by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the other by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
While it is true that the scientific groups are independent, as University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. (father of Pielke Jr.) observes, the temperature data sets are not all that independent. Pielke cites the 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program report, which noted, “Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence.” The report further observed, “While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results.” In 2007, Pielke and his colleagues reported, “The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95 percent of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003). That the analyses produce similar trends should therefore come as no surprise.” ”
Granted, Bailey writes for reason. And he used to call warming an “ecom-myth.” But he has changed his tune in recent years.
So either there is a wide variety of data that has been collected and used, which means that if this data is tainted, we still have recourse to others.
Or not.
I wonder if it’s possible to get an answer even to this kind of question. seems pretty provable, either way.Report