Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Dec 2016 21:53 UTC
In the News

Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

There's a war going on. A war waged by religious extremists (of at least two major world religions), the extreme right, and fossil fuel-funded politicians, against the very foundations of our secular, post-Enlightenment, post-scientific revolution society. You think I'm exaggerating? I wish. Extreme right websites are asking their readers to pick up arms against scientists. That's where we are.

Religious extremists, the extreme right, and fossil fuel-funded politicians know all too well that science, secularism, and a clear, non-negotiable separation between church and state are grave threats to their continued existence. We - as a species - have come a long way these past few hundred years, but it feels like today, with the all-out attack on science by these deplorable parts of our society, we are regressing backwards into the dark ages.

Science is the only foundation of progress. Any who seek to erode this foundation are the enemy of the Enlightenment - mankind's greatest invention. Pick your side carefully.

Thread beginning with comment 638382
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Really ???????
by cade on Tue 13th Dec 2016 23:35 UTC
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

"deplorable parts of our society"
Were you a Hillary supporter ?
If so, you were fine supporting the modern version of Kissinger, i.e. the "indirect" mass murderer of Libyan people, etc. while Trump did not have "blood" on his hands; Trump's "dirty" thoughts, for some "unknown" reason, seemed to be more important.

"All-out attack on science" ....
A bit over the top. I'd rephrase it,
"All-out attack on boy's club peer review process".

It is the "establishment" related entities behind the CLIMATE-GATE scandal (2009) who sought to erode our "foundation of progress". As someone who has a bachelor and PhD degrees in an applied science discipline, the unambiguous fraud perpetrated by the CLIMATE-GATE scientists was unacceptable to me; I do not value accepting grant money in order to keep my mouth shut while I am aware of a crime against intelligence, I do not value the POP (publish-or-perish) system as it emphasizes quantity over quality, etc. Unless someone has been involved in the basic/applied research environment, they are not aware of the deleterious machinations that may manifest in that environment.

Also, "fossil fuel-funded politicians" do not prescribe to a particular political ideology (i.e. left of right), they do not need to. The fossil-fuel industry (be it good or bad) have no need of political ideology, they find friends everywhere. This all stems from the fact that "alternative/more-green/etc." energy infrastructure cannot (or in some instances will not be allowed to) compete with existing energy infrastructure. I remember Obama, the "dreamer", thought prior/during his first term that he would increase the US's ~2% dependence on alternative energy to ~10%. Big "pipe" dream that disappeared quickly.

e.g.
It has been obvious for many years, many documentaries,
that compact water-based (hydrolysis/?) engines can propel vehicles to useful speeds but the "establishment" politicians would never want large scale introductions of similar technologies since alternative energy empowers the citizen and provides a way to avoid fuel related taxes (harder for government to audit a citizen's "free" energy usage); amongst other positive things.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Really ???????
by kwan_e on Tue 13th Dec 2016 23:46 in reply to "Really ???????"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

CLIMATE-GATE scandal (2009) who sought to erode our "foundation of progress". As someone who has a bachelor and PhD degrees in an applied science discipline, the unambiguous fraud perpetrated by the CLIMATE-GATE scientists was unacceptable to me;


The CLIMATE-GATE (is it an acronym now?) thing turned up nothing. Yes, it was a scandal. Only because people made it into a scandal. The existence of a scandal doesn't mean the claims of a scandal are factual.

But then, people voted in a president based on magical thinking (if I believe this about something, it must be true), so I'm not surprised.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Really ???????
by cade on Fri 16th Dec 2016 03:34 in reply to "RE: Really ???????"
cade Member since:
2009-02-28

Did you peruse the climate-gate emails ?

Back then I did, for the minimal reason that I hold bachelor/PhD degrees in an applied science discipline (as well as having ~25 years of software engineering experience) and was interested in the quality of the climate research (science and computer modelling) inferred by the emails.

To my surprise, and what I remember, the emails made evident:
- the non-reporting of "null" results; i.e. instances
in which the AGW theory was not relevant in explaining climate-related results
- source code "hacks" to make source code execute according to a predefined agenda; e.g. avoiding or brushing over certain mysteries/inadequacies implied by the "data", hard coding a predetermined result, manufacturing data to output a predetermined result, applying "VERY ARTIFICIAL" corrections to the data,
bypassing data integrity issues using source code hacks designed to instill a "fake confidence" in the compromised data present in the database
- selective use of data.

At least in the computer modelling arena, I expected higher quality source code implementations. Even if the "raw data" had issues, this should have been addressed over the decades even if it meant slowing down a little and standardising aspects of data measuring/retrieval. But no, full steam ahead ... we have opposition to our "ideas" and need to quickly convince people of the "threat"; like back then when some of these people were peddling the "ice age" theory a few decades ago. Because, like many, they were not patient and got sloppy leading to production of "compromised work".


Of course the "system" ("journalists", compromised academics/etc. who prioritize too much on grant funding, etc.) would preach a story in which the quality of the work was fine, no need to nit-pick, etc. and believing there was no "fraud" (at least, to me, the fraud related in getting too close to a theory, liking the theory too much, and later losing one's objectivity such that multiple theories are never really investigated).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Really ???????
by nicholasj on Wed 14th Dec 2016 11:54 in reply to "Really ???????"
nicholasj Member since:
2008-12-10

You forgot to mention N Machines and Free Energy. Why not throw in a dash of moon landing hoax at the same time?

Conspiracies collapse at a rate proportional to the size of the conspiracy. The greater the number of people involved, the faster a leak occurs, the faster it all deflates.

Anthropocentric climate change is real. Critically think about what would be involved in getting tens of thousands of climate experts to agree to misreport their scientific findings. How would that even work? What are the motivations for them to do so? And if your reply is 'grant money', you don't think the vastly better-funded fossil fuel emitters would be deliriously happy to fund any halfway credible climate scientist who broke away from the consensus?

Tossing in "Gaia" doesn't help either. It might be worth you trying meet some top tier climate scientists. They're not hippy-dippy tree huggers who weave their own pubic hair. They are serious-minded people, who care about facts. Objective truth. Not bias. Not media spin. They take the measurements and interpret the data. In many cases, they would absolutely _love_ to be wrong about climate change. It would be much easier.

Climate change is real. Look at the polar ice cap photos over even the last 15 years. Couldn't be more clear. 15 out of the last 16 years have been the hottest on record. The only question left is how we deal with it, and how quickly we react.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Really ???????
by nicholasj on Wed 14th Dec 2016 12:30 in reply to "RE: Really ???????"
nicholasj Member since:
2008-12-10

Sorry, meant anthropogenic not anthrocentric.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Really ???????
by grable on Wed 14th Dec 2016 21:34 in reply to "RE: Really ???????"
grable Member since:
2006-11-24

You mean like how they leaked the existence of the Manhattan project?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Really ???????
by Phloptical on Wed 14th Dec 2016 13:20 in reply to "Really ???????"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

And I'll choose to believe those trained in climate science vs. someone who claims to possess advanced degrees in materials science, and who ignores the simple and obvious weighting of "who profits" from the released data and "facts". Bottom line, from climate change scientists, I see a lot of data. From supposed anti-climate change people (fossil fuel backed "scientists") all I hear from them is "Nuh, uh."

And the question has never been about whether climate change was real (of course now that trump is in office, that narrative will probably change). The debate was about climate change being accelerated by man.

Reply Parent Score: 5