Climate Researchers resort to "Guerrilla Archiving" to Safeguard Key Data from Trump

a reply to: marg6043

Yet your tax dollars are going to oil companies in the form of subsidies, which also helps fund groups like the Heartland Institue who come up with propaganda that undermines the valid science in anthropgenic climate change.

originally posted by: ketsuko
So basically they're afraid the gravy train is going to end?

What a wonderful time to be a Scientist; maybe now scientists will get funding for research when it doesn’t have anything to do with climate change.

a reply to: jrod

check out subsidies to renewable resources BEFORE you start grumping about subsidies to oil. And exactly how are you heating your home this winter.

Tired of control Freaks

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Oh the melodrama, as if Trump gonna go running in there with torches and have a good old fashioned climate data burning.

We just dumped a right-wing arse Prime Minister who was busy muzzling scientists and shutting down research that didn't back up his oil company cronies. Tons of data was simply shredded...not everything is on the internet, eh?
Remember, Idiocracy was not supposed to be a documentary.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

please provide proof of your assertion that data was 'shredded".

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

please provide proof of your assertion that data was 'shredded".

Tired of Control Freaks

What's Driving Chaotic Dismantling of Canada's Science Libraries?
That do it?

Truth right there!

What better vehicle for the UN/globalist cabal to effect wealth transfer than hobbling US energy production /consumption and insidious taxing for it.



I'm still waiting for predicted ice age that was based on VALID science back in the 70's - a prediction that believers excuse as based on inadequate modeling and data. Hmmmm..........sounds familiar but so very intellectually convenient for the believers.

I'm in agreement with others here, load raw uninterpreted/unedited data to publicly accessible servers, after all according to so called consensus it's a settled matter right? Or if not what're they hiding.

Right now seems more hiding than disclosing.

Till that happens I'll choose denial please.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Did you read the part where the data was digitized and hard copies were offered to whoever wanted it?

The only proof you are offering is the complaints of librarians who lost their jobs when the libraries were consolidated from 7 to 2. How about if you get some proof from somebody who was not losing their job?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: FamCore

Didn't three or four of the Solomon Islands disappear this year, or maybe in a process of from last year into this year....but fairly recently.......that is the picture of what's happening, it's not easy to deny......I think the Maldives will soon have trouble. Or more trouble, that is.

a reply to: MissPlissit

yes some little sand bar islands disappeared.

But":

The PTB never, ever tell the whole story:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are
growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward. The implication is that many islands—especially less developed ones with few permanent structures—may cope with rising seas well into the next century. But for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier. That's largely because their many structures—seawalls, roads, and water and electricity systems—are locked in place. Their analysis, which now extends to more than 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, indicates that about 80 percent of the islands have remained stable or increased in size (roughly 40 percent in each category). Only 20 percent have shown the net reduction that's widely assumed to be a typical island's fate when sea level rises. Some islands grew by as much as 14 acres (5.6 hectares) in a single decade, and Tuvalu's main atoll, Funafuti—33 islands distributed around the rim of a large lagoon—has gained 75 acres (32 hectares) of land during the past 115 years. Two-thirds of the reef islands in the study migrated lagoon-ward as their ocean-side coastlines eroded and sediment built up on the side facing the lagoon. One of Funafuti's islands shifted more than 350 feet (106 meters) over 40 years.

its kind of like the Green Peace scam where they published an obituary for the Great Barrier Reef to promote a fund raiser. It turns out that they posted photos from another reef and in actually only 20 % of one area of the northern part of the reef actually died. The rest of the reef is doing just fine!

Its cherry picking of the facts to present a false impression.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I live in the tropics....power my sailboat(my home) with solar and a battery bank.

I see you are being your usual self and flooding this thread with disinformation.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So many lies have been told that I don't think that anyone trusts "environmentalists" anymore and certainly not the radical activists.

BTW - either publish the raw data or stop calling it "Science". By now, the data adjusted efforts of climate scientists should have been examined and replicated.

No study - no matter how high the correlation - can be confirmed without someone else replicating the studies.

Never mind peer review - its replication that confirms a study.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: jrod

I asked how you heat your house. I don't care about your sailboat! Do you cook on an electrical stove. What car do you drive.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: jrod

Do you air condition your house. What powers the air conditioner?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Did you read the part where the data was digitized and hard copies were offered to whoever wanted it?

Did you read the parts where it said "They argue that DFO statistics show that only one out of 20 books in the department's 600,000 plus collection have been digitized." and "The scientist suggested "that interested individuals should drop-in and loot [the] library before the bonfires begin.""

The only proof you are offering is the complaints of librarians who lost their jobs when the libraries were consolidated from 7 to 2.

No, the majority of the complaints are from the scientists whose research is dependent upon the materialthat is being trashed.

How about if you get some proof from somebody who was not losing their job?

See above, then read below.

Vanishing Canada: Why we’re all losers in Ottawa’s war on data

I think you're offering a valuable service on this thread as you are being more than a tad economical with the truth. I now appreciate exactly what Fake News is all about, and how it is being practiced. There is no longer any shame in promulgating untruths.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

When it comes to the long census vs the short census, I agree with you. That decision was short sited.

as for the rest, - I simply don't. We cannot keep every piece of paper ever created.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So I see Jrod - you have not reply as you exit your recreational sailboat to back in the comfort of your air conditioned home and fire up the BBQ to cook up some steaks for supper

But up here in Canada we have people cut off from hydro because they can no longer pay the hydro and feed their kids. We start paying carbon taxes on fuel in January. We have useless windmills all over Ontario that generate 80 cents KW energy that we can't afford and premier apoligising for her "mistakes" that will take over 2 generations to pay.

you supposedly truly believe that the earth is being destroyed and you continue to live your comfortable lifestyle while my lifestyle degrades and to pay your country subsidies to boot.

I figure I get to talk all I want at this stage.

Tired of Control Freaks

The real travesty in the climate change ordeal is we have a way to tackle our emissions, but the general public, especially the environmentalists, oppose it at every turn. Nuclear power is essentially the only way to do it in a practical manner without robbing us of our modern lifestyle. But no, it's not perfect enough. Nuclear waste is a booygeman. What's so sad is coal power has hurt us far more than nuclear and nuclear gets the hate. Fukushima is blown out of proportion and we're right back to same intersection where we have to make a choice between scarcity and a runaway greenhouse effect. It's like an engine and the gears are locked up. It's going nowhere.

And the republicans support nuclear power. That's a pivotal reason to go for it because you won't get their support for junk like Solyndra. Don't expect to see anything said about this because democrats are invested in the environmentalist movement. Like Hillary, they're stuck in the mud.

Read it:
climate.nasa.gov - Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Because locking data up is the way to progress science.

If they really wanted it to be safe they would distribute it far and wide.

But then if they did that, people would be able dissect the 'data' and see what a sham it is.

Anyone can see that the reason they are fearful is that the data would be lost due to funding cuts.

Gotta put some nefarious spin on those you disagree with, huh?

That's why you distribute it far and wide to multiple sources and outlets. Duh! The more copies of it that exist in more places, the less likely you would be to have it lost.

This would seem to be common sense, and in fact, the basic reason scientific data exists is so that it can be freely shared ... not locked away so that no one can ever see it.

These so-called scientists are acting an awful lot like the Catholic priests did with the Bible during the Middle ages. Making themselves the gatekeepers and sole distributors of the data or its interpretations so that the people must accept they are the sole arbiters of truth as no one can see the actual source material themselves.

"This is what the Bible says ..."
"Can we see that to verify for ourselves?"
"No, but trust me."
"I on't think Jesus ever preached about the holiness of bare feet."

"This is what our data says ..."
"Can we just see that to verify for ourselves?"
"No, but trust me."
"I don't think your data ever indicated that Global Warming would lead to earthquakes in Japan."

originally posted by: jonnywhite
The real travesty in the climate change ordeal is we have a way to tackle our emissions, but the general public, especially the environmentalists, oppose it at every turn. Nuclear power is essentially the only way to do it in a practical manner without robbing us of our modern lifestyle. But no we can't have that. Nuclear waste is a booygeman. What's so sad is coal power has hurt us far more than nuclear and everybody gives it a pass. Fukushima is blown out of proportion and we're right back to same intersection where we have to make a choice between scarcity and a runaway greenhouse effect.

Right now, we need a policy that looks at an all of thee above approach.

There absolutely is a place for solar power, but it is not practical to expect it to take on the heavy lifting of generating all our electricyt needs.

As far as nuclear power, the taboo needs to be lifeted to make way for thorium reactors which are much safer than the current designs.

And yes, we will need to continue with fossil fuels for some things as they remain the most efficient means of producing energy for th time being, but we should encourage compamnies to explore for new sources of energy at the same time.

Sooner or later, a way will be found. Actually, I think space exploration will help us in this quest.