4 ms·

Yes. Try going to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and clicking on the images. The firs

by philipn 17y ago

Yes. Try going to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and clicking on the images. The first two images have a large amount of detail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_R...) Global warming is real.

ewjordan 17y ago
I think the parent was really hoping for a link to the source data, along with a rigorous explanation of how it was acquired. Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained. That's not to say that they might not be correct, but it would be nice to see a link to the graph, the raw data, and a detailed explanation of every step in the chain between measurement and graph.
- lucumo 17y ago
  > Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained. A publication generally has a page limit. Authors generally have a lot to say, so they leave everything out that would be "common knowledge" amongst experts in their field. After all, that's the target audience they're writing for. If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data, I have no doubt it will be explained or given. The problem is, the debate has been heavily politicised. Scientists aren't politicians. If somebody with pre-conceived notions comes along, they will do what any non-media-conscious person would do: tell them to get lost. Nobody wants to be the target of a show-trial. Unfortunately, because of the heavy politicisation, a strong "us against them" feeling has evolved, which makes people regard honest criticism as suspect. It's not right. However, since these are humans, it is understandable. The best thing we—people interested in an honest scientific debate—can do is to back out of the political discussion and let scientists handle it. Let sceptical scientists do their job. Let the debate be held in scientific journals, not in newspapers and blogs.
  - 4chan4ever 17y ago
    It's extremely difficult for a global warming skeptic to get published in scientific journals because the decision-makers are beholden in one way or another to the global warming movement. This is why we've yet to see a fair and honest debate of this issue. What we have today is 90% politics 10% science.
    - lucumo 17y ago
      Who are these "decision makers"? As far as my experience goes, papers just get submitted and then go into the peer-review process. If a paper comes down to the level of discourse we're seeing in these blogs, it won't get published, but if it contains some valid science, I see no reason why it wouldn't get published. If you have proof otherwise, please share it. > What we have today is 90% politics 10% science. Yes. This is both unfortunate and as it should be. It's unfortunate for the scientific debate. The level of discourse has dropped dramatically because of the politicisation. On the other hand, scientists have been researching this for many years. The scientific debate has been ongoing for at least that long. Their conclusions do have a strong effect on policy. Political decisions have to be made about how to handle the issue.[1] Such policy-making has already started years ago and lead to the Kyoto Accord in 1997. So we're more in the political phase than we are in the scientific phase. 90% politics is probably as it should be right now. [1] You can read this as "how to handle the issue if at there is an issue" if you want. It doesn't change what I'm saying.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data, I have no doubt it will be explained or given. Apparently you should have had some doubt. As the hacked emails reveal, the people at CRU conspired to prevent people from accessing their data in spite of a legal obligation (under Britain's Freedom of Information Act) to provide it.
  - bwd2 17y ago
    A publication generally has a page limit I'm sorry, but this statement doesn't make any sense in the digital era. I can download closing prices for nearly every traded US stock over its entire existence in spreadsheet format from Yahoo for free. I downloaded binaries for an entire operating system to run the computer that I'm typing this reply on for free. "Page limit" is not a reasonable excuse for a scientist whose work is funded by the public. I have no doubt that a researcher who was willing to make data available in a digital format that is compatible with commonly used tools such as R would be able to find an outlet willing to host this data for public consumption. In fact, I would almost see this step as a requirement in today's technological environment. How many extra pages would be needed to cite a URL from which further details could be retrieved? If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data This statement makes even less sense than the last one. The scientific soundness of data or method is unrelated to the intention of the analyzer. Publishing full details of the analysis can only strengthen confidence in the conclusion that has been reached. Only someone with reservations about the conclusion would seek to obscure the steps in the process by which it was reached.
Sapient 17y ago
Then why is their resistance from the scientists. Right now, only data can speak louder than the talking heads.
- jstevens85 17y ago
  I imagine it's because a lot of climate scientists have had to put up with skeptics misinterpreting their data and then slandering them in blogs. My understanding is that scientists are more than willing to exchange data with other qualified scientists who have the training to be able to correctly interpret data, but not to conspiracy blogging hitmen.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    What makes Steve McIntyre unqualified? The fact that he debunked some of Mann's work?

by philipn 17y ago

ewjordan 17y ago

I think the parent was really hoping for a link to the source data, along with a rigorous explanation of how it was acquired. Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained. That's not to say that they might not be correct, but it would be nice to see a link to the graph, the raw data, and a detailed explanation of every step in the chain between measurement and graph.

lucumo 17y ago
> Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained. A publication generally has a page limit. Authors generally have a lot to say, so they leave everything out that would be "common knowledge" amongst experts in their field. After all, that's the target audience they're writing for. If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data, I have no doubt it will be explained or given. The problem is, the debate has been heavily politicised. Scientists aren't politicians. If somebody with pre-conceived notions comes along, they will do what any non-media-conscious person would do: tell them to get lost. Nobody wants to be the target of a show-trial. Unfortunately, because of the heavy politicisation, a strong "us against them" feeling has evolved, which makes people regard honest criticism as suspect. It's not right. However, since these are humans, it is understandable. The best thing we—people interested in an honest scientific debate—can do is to back out of the political discussion and let scientists handle it. Let sceptical scientists do their job. Let the debate be held in scientific journals, not in newspapers and blogs.
- 4chan4ever 17y ago
  It's extremely difficult for a global warming skeptic to get published in scientific journals because the decision-makers are beholden in one way or another to the global warming movement. This is why we've yet to see a fair and honest debate of this issue. What we have today is 90% politics 10% science.
  - lucumo 17y ago
    Who are these "decision makers"? As far as my experience goes, papers just get submitted and then go into the peer-review process. If a paper comes down to the level of discourse we're seeing in these blogs, it won't get published, but if it contains some valid science, I see no reason why it wouldn't get published. If you have proof otherwise, please share it. > What we have today is 90% politics 10% science. Yes. This is both unfortunate and as it should be. It's unfortunate for the scientific debate. The level of discourse has dropped dramatically because of the politicisation. On the other hand, scientists have been researching this for many years. The scientific debate has been ongoing for at least that long. Their conclusions do have a strong effect on policy. Political decisions have to be made about how to handle the issue.[1] Such policy-making has already started years ago and lead to the Kyoto Accord in 1997. So we're more in the political phase than we are in the scientific phase. 90% politics is probably as it should be right now. [1] You can read this as "how to handle the issue if at there is an issue" if you want. It doesn't change what I'm saying.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data, I have no doubt it will be explained or given. Apparently you should have had some doubt. As the hacked emails reveal, the people at CRU conspired to prevent people from accessing their data in spite of a legal obligation (under Britain's Freedom of Information Act) to provide it.
- bwd2 17y ago
  A publication generally has a page limit I'm sorry, but this statement doesn't make any sense in the digital era. I can download closing prices for nearly every traded US stock over its entire existence in spreadsheet format from Yahoo for free. I downloaded binaries for an entire operating system to run the computer that I'm typing this reply on for free. "Page limit" is not a reasonable excuse for a scientist whose work is funded by the public. I have no doubt that a researcher who was willing to make data available in a digital format that is compatible with commonly used tools such as R would be able to find an outlet willing to host this data for public consumption. In fact, I would almost see this step as a requirement in today's technological environment. How many extra pages would be needed to cite a URL from which further details could be retrieved? If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data This statement makes even less sense than the last one. The scientific soundness of data or method is unrelated to the intention of the analyzer. Publishing full details of the analysis can only strengthen confidence in the conclusion that has been reached. Only someone with reservations about the conclusion would seek to obscure the steps in the process by which it was reached.

Sapient 17y ago

Then why is their resistance from the scientists. Right now, only data can speak louder than the talking heads.

jstevens85 17y ago
I imagine it's because a lot of climate scientists have had to put up with skeptics misinterpreting their data and then slandering them in blogs. My understanding is that scientists are more than willing to exchange data with other qualified scientists who have the training to be able to correctly interpret data, but not to conspiracy blogging hitmen.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  What makes Steve McIntyre unqualified? The fact that he debunked some of Mann's work?