10 ms·

Can I be the first to claim that the people running the mirror are changing the data for their own nefarious purposes? Not that I believe this or anything, but

Can I be the first to claim that the people running the mirror are changing the data for their own nefarious purposes? Not that I believe this or anything, but come on - you know that accusation is going to go around. It might make sense to use a remote server to timestamp files as they're uploaded, or something like that.

caseysoftware 10y ago
Before publishing, they could do a checksum, insert it into the blockchain and then voila. Easy to validate if the data has changed.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  I am not sure checksums and block chains are gonna convince those people.
nirav72 10y ago
When there is a broad consensus across the scientific community about climate change, does it even matter at this point if the data has been changed? The U.S isn't the only country that collects this data. So even if changed, it doesn't matter.
- ted_dunning 10y ago
  Actually it really does matter. The US collects far more of this data than anybody else and archives far more of it. Losing that collection or archive would be a disaster for science and a loss for all of humanity. Destroying that data would be reminiscent of ISIS destroying relics in Palmyra except that destroying that data jeopardizes our future.
  - gns24 10y ago
    Personally I don't see that it's that important. We know already that CO2 and other gases cause climate change and we understand the mechanism. I think that most of us would probably also agree that the earth is a sufficiently complex system that predicting accurately what effects we will see when is impossible. We expect to see more droughts, bigger storms and rising sea levels - but we can't really predict very accurately how big those things will be when. By the time we have accurate models it will be too late. We know that we need to act now. Understanding climate change is not the most important research out there; what's important is developing technologies and industries to reduce our emissions. That research would be what I fear losing.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      But "we need to act now" can lead to a lot of ineffective policies and practices that won't lead to the most impacting outcomes long term. I think reciprocal clean working environments as part of trade negotiations could go farther than a lot of the attempts so far. I also feel that no participating country should be exempt, beyond a reasonable grace period (2-3 years). It's also worth considering the impact of some movements... as an example, there's significant impact in creating/shipping and replacing batteries on a large scale. It may not make as much sense compared to more efficient engines, and even additional looks at other engine techniques. I find pollution relatively abhorrent on its' own though... recently driving through west Louisianan/east Texas and my initial thoughts as to the painful to breath air there was how can this be allowed to persist. I have mixed feelings all around, I just don't want to spend a lot of taxpayer money on ill-advised and lesser impacting processes. We do too much of that already.
- lkbm 10y ago
  > When there is a broad consensus across the scientific community about climate change, does it even matter at this point if the data has been changed? There's more to climate science than the yes/no of whether climate change is a thing. We don't just need to know it's happening--we want to know details of how to model it, what different inputs have what affects, what the feedback loops are and how strong they are, how they and other effects interact... > The U.S isn't the only country that collects this data. So even if changed, it doesn't matter. Many countries collect data, but presumably the sets of data collected differ, and more data is better. Losing a large subset of our climate data would hurt advances in climate modeling.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > When there is a broad consensus across the scientific community about climate change, does it even matter at this point if the data has been changed? It does if the data that was changed is the data that was used to support the consensus. More generally, all data collected by research that is funded by taxpayers should be collected, cryptographically signed and verified, and archived where any taxpayer can see it. I have never understood why that is not already standard operating procedure.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Usually around IP incentives as part of the grant, in order to further entice applicants. This is taken further by pressure from educational institutions and their researchers to file for patents against said research. I'm not saying it's right, and agree with you. But often there's a lot of entropy with the status quo, and to the seated incumbents in a space.
    - tukelully 10y ago
      Does this carry over to federal agencies as well? I know the state of access to journals and papers published by universities is a shitshow but don't know how it is at the government level.
      - tracker1 10y ago
        A lot of government research is completed by universities and private companies under grant programs.
- gus_massa 10y ago
  Consensus without data is indistinguishable from religion.
- battlebot 10y ago
  There was once "broad consensus" that the world was flat. I am not at all comfortable when there is so much consensus. There needs to be debate, disagreement, and healthy skepticism at all times.
  - pirocks 10y ago
    I would argue that there has never really been a "broad consensus" that the world was flat, since before the greeks. Most of the notable greek philosophers believed that the earth was a ball/sphere.
dawnerd 10y ago
On the actual mirrors site you can see some have been signed and verified: https://climate.daknob.net/ https://climate.daknob.net/ Ultimately still comes down to trust. Still better to have a backup of data that MIGHT be poisoned vs not having it at all. If we have multiple copies from the original source we should be able to determine if somethings been messed with.
esaym 10y ago
I would say the same thing. Do you think you will really convince a climate denier with this data that you copied off of the Internet that, was copied from a gov server, on to another server and then torrented and copied to another server and then downloaded onto you PC... doubt it.
- tracker1 10y ago
  It's worth noting that not everyone who rebuffs some of the proposed actions is a climate denier. There's still some question as to the extent of human involvement. That said, smog is enough for me to be in favor of working towards renewable, less polluting energy sources. In my lifetime I've gone from having allergy-like flare ups once every few years, to now 2-3 times a year, mostly seems to follow the pollution levels not just the pollen count. By the same token, not every "green" program is a great thing... and even in treaties, exempting the worst actors (China, India) because they are often considered third world doesn't do a lot to help the global issues. Improved working requirements as a requisite for international trade deals would go a long way towards "cleaning up." I bring this up, as I tend to see a lot of people who question the approach, intensity, and cost getting lumped in with climate deniers.
  - tukelully 10y ago
    In your first sentence which actions are you referring to?
    - simonbarker87 10y ago
      Not OP but the general complaint is that we shouldn't switch from a cheap energy source (coal) to expensive renewables which are relatively untested at scale if the human impact of climate change is minimal or already past the point of no return. I don't personally believe this but this is a not unreasonable argument I have heard.
      - czep 10y ago
        Contribution to climate change shouldn't be the only criteria for evaluation of an energy source. Shouldn't we also keep in mind pollution? Coal burns, it releases fine particulates into the air that cause cancer in people's lungs. Pollution sucks. We should stop talking about climate change and go back to the 70s when people were talking about pollution.
laurent123456 10y ago
I think that's why they suggest to use Webrecorder, to "create verifiable web archive files".
- anc84 10y ago
  Run webrecorder yourself, MITM yourself, tamper however you like. Verifiability depends on a trusted authority first.
ocschwar 10y ago
No. The right wing troll community beat you to it months ago.

caseysoftware 10y ago

Before publishing, they could do a checksum, insert it into the blockchain and then voila. Easy to validate if the data has changed.

ajmurmann 10y ago
I am not sure checksums and block chains are gonna convince those people.

nirav72 10y ago

When there is a broad consensus across the scientific community about climate change, does it even matter at this point if the data has been changed? The U.S isn't the only country that collects this data. So even if changed, it doesn't matter.

ted_dunning 10y ago
Actually it really does matter. The US collects far more of this data than anybody else and archives far more of it. Losing that collection or archive would be a disaster for science and a loss for all of humanity. Destroying that data would be reminiscent of ISIS destroying relics in Palmyra except that destroying that data jeopardizes our future.
- gns24 10y ago
  Personally I don't see that it's that important. We know already that CO2 and other gases cause climate change and we understand the mechanism. I think that most of us would probably also agree that the earth is a sufficiently complex system that predicting accurately what effects we will see when is impossible. We expect to see more droughts, bigger storms and rising sea levels - but we can't really predict very accurately how big those things will be when. By the time we have accurate models it will be too late. We know that we need to act now. Understanding climate change is not the most important research out there; what's important is developing technologies and industries to reduce our emissions. That research would be what I fear losing.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    But "we need to act now" can lead to a lot of ineffective policies and practices that won't lead to the most impacting outcomes long term. I think reciprocal clean working environments as part of trade negotiations could go farther than a lot of the attempts so far. I also feel that no participating country should be exempt, beyond a reasonable grace period (2-3 years). It's also worth considering the impact of some movements... as an example, there's significant impact in creating/shipping and replacing batteries on a large scale. It may not make as much sense compared to more efficient engines, and even additional looks at other engine techniques. I find pollution relatively abhorrent on its' own though... recently driving through west Louisianan/east Texas and my initial thoughts as to the painful to breath air there was how can this be allowed to persist. I have mixed feelings all around, I just don't want to spend a lot of taxpayer money on ill-advised and lesser impacting processes. We do too much of that already.
lkbm 10y ago
> When there is a broad consensus across the scientific community about climate change, does it even matter at this point if the data has been changed? There's more to climate science than the yes/no of whether climate change is a thing. We don't just need to know it's happening--we want to know details of how to model it, what different inputs have what affects, what the feedback loops are and how strong they are, how they and other effects interact... > The U.S isn't the only country that collects this data. So even if changed, it doesn't matter. Many countries collect data, but presumably the sets of data collected differ, and more data is better. Losing a large subset of our climate data would hurt advances in climate modeling.
pdonis 10y ago
> When there is a broad consensus across the scientific community about climate change, does it even matter at this point if the data has been changed? It does if the data that was changed is the data that was used to support the consensus. More generally, all data collected by research that is funded by taxpayers should be collected, cryptographically signed and verified, and archived where any taxpayer can see it. I have never understood why that is not already standard operating procedure.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Usually around IP incentives as part of the grant, in order to further entice applicants. This is taken further by pressure from educational institutions and their researchers to file for patents against said research. I'm not saying it's right, and agree with you. But often there's a lot of entropy with the status quo, and to the seated incumbents in a space.
  - tukelully 10y ago
    Does this carry over to federal agencies as well? I know the state of access to journals and papers published by universities is a shitshow but don't know how it is at the government level.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      A lot of government research is completed by universities and private companies under grant programs.
gus_massa 10y ago
Consensus without data is indistinguishable from religion.
battlebot 10y ago
There was once "broad consensus" that the world was flat. I am not at all comfortable when there is so much consensus. There needs to be debate, disagreement, and healthy skepticism at all times.
- pirocks 10y ago
  I would argue that there has never really been a "broad consensus" that the world was flat, since before the greeks. Most of the notable greek philosophers believed that the earth was a ball/sphere.

dawnerd 10y ago

On the actual mirrors site you can see some have been signed and verified: https://climate.daknob.net/ https://climate.daknob.net/ Ultimately still comes down to trust. Still better to have a backup of data that MIGHT be poisoned vs not having it at all. If we have multiple copies from the original source we should be able to determine if somethings been messed with.

esaym 10y ago

I would say the same thing. Do you think you will really convince a climate denier with this data that you copied off of the Internet that, was copied from a gov server, on to another server and then torrented and copied to another server and then downloaded onto you PC... doubt it.

tracker1 10y ago
It's worth noting that not everyone who rebuffs some of the proposed actions is a climate denier. There's still some question as to the extent of human involvement. That said, smog is enough for me to be in favor of working towards renewable, less polluting energy sources. In my lifetime I've gone from having allergy-like flare ups once every few years, to now 2-3 times a year, mostly seems to follow the pollution levels not just the pollen count. By the same token, not every "green" program is a great thing... and even in treaties, exempting the worst actors (China, India) because they are often considered third world doesn't do a lot to help the global issues. Improved working requirements as a requisite for international trade deals would go a long way towards "cleaning up." I bring this up, as I tend to see a lot of people who question the approach, intensity, and cost getting lumped in with climate deniers.
- tukelully 10y ago
  In your first sentence which actions are you referring to?
  - simonbarker87 10y ago
    Not OP but the general complaint is that we shouldn't switch from a cheap energy source (coal) to expensive renewables which are relatively untested at scale if the human impact of climate change is minimal or already past the point of no return. I don't personally believe this but this is a not unreasonable argument I have heard.
    - czep 10y ago
      Contribution to climate change shouldn't be the only criteria for evaluation of an energy source. Shouldn't we also keep in mind pollution? Coal burns, it releases fine particulates into the air that cause cancer in people's lungs. Pollution sucks. We should stop talking about climate change and go back to the 70s when people were talking about pollution.

laurent123456 10y ago

I think that's why they suggest to use Webrecorder, to "create verifiable web archive files".

anc84 10y ago
Run webrecorder yourself, MITM yourself, tamper however you like. Verifiability depends on a trusted authority first.

ocschwar 10y ago

No. The right wing troll community beat you to it months ago.