Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Climate change data dumped

  1. #11
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Raw data for every research paper ever published is not kept for all time. OMB places the mandatory data retention period for federal grant recipients at just three years.
    Nobody says it was illegal, just stupid. There is now no way to validate the integrity of their findings.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    They were scientists and their options were all bulky. Magnetic tape was state of the art storage back then.
    Magnetic tape really wasn't that bulky. In the 80's, a single reel of tape held as much data as 250-300 floppy disks. A single tape would have held hundreds or thousands of data files.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,072

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    [QUOTE=American;1058394464] Therefore, it is probably best to do a complete new analysis of freshly compiled data, and do it under a supervised protocol that allows transparency to both proponents and skeptics of AGW. [QUOTE]

    Good luck with all that.

  4. #14
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    I have to admit I'm really very saddened by what has been transpiring within the scientific community concerning the attempts by some to; change data, corrupt data, squash data that doesn't adher to a certain bias, punish scientific journals, punish other scientists, and now this. Science has always worked best when it wasn't tainted by politics. Pity.

  5. #15
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    Imagine, had all this happened, pre-invasion, with respect to Iraq and her WMDs.

  6. #16
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    11-30-09 @ 04:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    446

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    It's unfortunate that we have stupid scientists doing research. However, just because there are SOME scientists that are in the wrong it doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist.

    Of course, by that logic, we could argue that just because Catholic priests don't adhere to their principles when they touch little children or just because Mormons change their respective version of the Bible- there is no God.

  7. #17
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke[MaxX] View Post
    It's unfortunate that we have stupid scientists doing research. However, just because there are SOME scientists that are in the wrong it doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist.
    and without data......we cannot ascertain this.

    Of course, by that logic, we could argue that just because Catholic priests don't adhere to their principles when they touch little children or just because Mormons change their respective version of the Bible- there is no God.
    Nice dig at religion. I have to ask....why? We're talking about scientists and politics here.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,072

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke[MaxX] View Post

    Of course, by that logic, we could argue that just because Catholic priests don't adhere to their principles when they touch little children or just because Mormons change their respective version of the Bible- there is no God.
    Interesting comparison, because Global Warming is very much like religion, is it not? You have to believe in it totally by faith, because there isn't a single stitch of non-political science to support it.

  9. #19
    Advisor rebelbuc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    08-21-17 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    574

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    It's not at all surprising. We dump our records after 5 years (that's how far back taxes go) at my company. Anything that old would surely be gone as well.

    No, it doesn't really surprise me that they no longer have the raw data, nor do I think it's weird.
    Companies hold on to financial data per the law and get rid of the excess - we do the same thing with many financial records. However, do you equate scientific data with financial records that appease the IRS? S-C-I-E-N-T-I-F-I-C data... do you get it? This isn't your 1999 tax returns - this is the raw data that was collected for scientific study... I don't think you get it!
    Obama lied... Ambassador Stevens died!

  10. #20
    Hard As A Rock
    Strucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-19-17 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,074

    Re: Climate change data dumped

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Interesting comparison, because Global Warming is very much like religion, is it not? You have to believe in it totally by faith, because there isn't a single stitch of non-political science to support it.
    This was a speech by the late great michael crichton-



    Commonwealth Club
    San Francisco, CA Sept 15, 2003

    ---

    I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

    Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

    There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

    Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

    And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

    Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

    There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

    ---

    But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?

    Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population.

    ---

    Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

    With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

    So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

    I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

    I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

    Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

    I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

    There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

    First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

    The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

    How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

    ----

    Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.
    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •