It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. Have the authors of Steig 2009 made their methods and data available to the public?
Nature, like most professional journals in the Sciences, has clear policies requiring supporting data to be available to the public. See section 4 below for details. How well have Steigand his co-authors complied with these?
(1) Email from co-author Eric Steig to Steve McIntyre on January 23 (source):
“I have always intended to provide all the material on line; I wasn’t allowed to do this before the paper was published. I would have done it already but have been busy answering emails. I should have these up on line next week.”
(2) From Josefino Comiso (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), in reply to request for data by McIntyre on January 23 (source):
“Thanks for your request for AVHRR [satellite] surface temperature IR data. I am actually planning to have the entire data set archived in the near future and as soon as I get the associated document that describes the data and discusses the errors and caveats completed. The data are indeed on a gridded monthly basis. I will let you know how to access them in the web as soon as they are archived and ready to be downloaded. Best Wishes”
*** The first two replies said that the data would soon be available. But then the story changes from “will be made available” to “the data was available.”
The primary complaint of skeptics has been about the availability of data and methods used to produce the results on which advocates urge major public policy changes. Without this replication is impossible for scientists or interested “outsiders” to the establishment.
The response has been a gruding release of data, often partialand poorly documented. The battle has been surprisingly difficult because most journals’ require documentation and release of this information at publication. Even more striking, much (most?) of this research is publicly funded — and hence keeping it secret usually violates regulations of the funding agencies.
Originally posted by Long Lance
An opportunity to judge for yourself the adequacy of today’s climate science
Originally posted by Irish M1ck
You'd have been better off NOT posting a link to that "source". Wordpress?
Originally posted by Long Lance
guess who got two Nobel Prizes ? Linus Pauling. Guess why his name is mostly restricted to conspiracy boards? he advocated a high volume approach to micro- and other nutrients, which was enough, it seems, Nobel Prizes be damned.
The science shows that the earth's climate is indeed changing; the planet's glaciers and ice caps are indeed melting. The theory is that global warming is linked to, perhaps triggers, ice ages.
Whatever the cause, humanity clearly must deal with and plan for major climactic change.
The difficulty I see on this Board is that many people seem unable to separate the fact of opportunistic 'development' strategies from the fact that there is a problem. Many contradict themselves saying, "The earth is not warming, the whole solar system is, not just the earth. It's just a conspiracy to get grant money."
The real question is not, "Is there really a problem?" but rather, "What should be done about this problem to better serve mankind and life on earth?"
Many media articles and weblogs suggested there is good news on the sea level issue, with future sea level rise expected to be a lot less compared to the previous IPCC report (the Third Assessment Report, TAR). Some articles reported that IPCC had reduced its sea level projection from 88 cm to 59 cm (35 inches to 23 inches) , some even said it was reduced from 88 cm to 43 cm (17 inches), and there were several other versions as well (see "Broad Irony"). These statements are not correct and the new range up to 59 cm is not the full story. Here I will try to clarify what IPCC actually said and how these numbers were derived. (But if you want to skip the details, you can go straight to the critique or the bottom line).
Originally posted by soficrow
Actually - Pauling was censored because in 1950 he described the misfolding of the actin protein (it's A and B conformations). Pauling's censorship, along with a totally inappropriate and misleading focus on the double helix and genetics, set our understanding of modern disease back by more than half a century.
Originally posted by ahnggk
I know about the average sea levels rising, it's no conspiracy, I've interviewed many people who lived near the sea about this.
Originally posted by xstealth
I just left the ocean, I was there for a better part of a year. I lived less than 100 yards away from it. The only time it rises is during high tide or storm surges. I assure you, it is not up anymore then it is supposed to be.
Even the marshes and lagoons are exactly where they are supposed to be.