5 ms·

It seems like climate scientists are more occupied with manipulating the data to suit them rather than reporting the facts. Sample from some climate emails: "

It seems like climate scientists are more occupied with manipulating the data to suit them rather than reporting the facts. Sample from some climate emails: "Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870477970457455...

lutorm 17y ago
Simple selection bias. It "seems" that way because there's no story to write about people just doing their work.
- lutorm 17y ago
  And I'm being downmodded why? Maybe selection bias also isn't happening??
- ajross 17y ago
  Exactly. Scandal leads. So we've got a war between "We're all going to drown!" and "AGW is a liberal conspiracy!". The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero. Actually, that demographic is huge. Folks would love cheaper energy. What they're being offered is more expensive energy and carbon mitigation.
    - ajross 17y ago
      Hah. I wish. We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through our governments. Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free. Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on highways. Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs, etc... All of these ideas get fought tooth and nail by people who claim to be in the "center" of the debate. It's all a sad joke.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free. Really? The folks who design cars disagree, so clearly you could make a lot of money by showing them how, or by producing your own cars and putting those bozos out of biz. What? You can't do it yourself? How about you invest your money in folks who you think can? If you're right.... > Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on highways. And yet, the folks who actually do transit don't manage to provide said options. Morons. > Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs And we do it. We also do steel recycling. > We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through our governments. You don't need govt's permission or a mandate to be more efficient.

lutorm 17y ago

Simple selection bias. It "seems" that way because there's no story to write about people just doing their work.

lutorm 17y ago
And I'm being downmodded why? Maybe selection bias also isn't happening??
ajross 17y ago
Exactly. Scandal leads. So we've got a war between "We're all going to drown!" and "AGW is a liberal conspiracy!". The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero.
- anamax 17y ago
  > The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero. Actually, that demographic is huge. Folks would love cheaper energy. What they're being offered is more expensive energy and carbon mitigation.
  - ajross 17y ago
    Hah. I wish. We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through our governments. Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free. Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on highways. Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs, etc... All of these ideas get fought tooth and nail by people who claim to be in the "center" of the debate. It's all a sad joke.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free. Really? The folks who design cars disagree, so clearly you could make a lot of money by showing them how, or by producing your own cars and putting those bozos out of biz. What? You can't do it yourself? How about you invest your money in folks who you think can? If you're right.... > Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on highways. And yet, the folks who actually do transit don't manage to provide said options. Morons. > Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs And we do it. We also do steel recycling. > We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through our governments. You don't need govt's permission or a mandate to be more efficient.