Come on, be sensitive. Some people spent their whole weekend making that movie.
Rose's story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee, which has spent months investigating earlier complaints about the Karl study that is says were raised by an NOAA whistleblower. But Science Insider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail.
Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research. The center is one the nation’s major repositories for vetted earth observing data collected by satellites, ships, buoys, aircraft, and land-based instruments.
In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.
Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.
At a House science committee hearing yesterday, Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS (publisher of Science and ScienceInsider) stood by the 2015 paper. "This is not the making of a big scandal—this is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency," Holt said in response to a question from Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the panel’s chairman, and a longtime critic of NOAA’s role in the Karl paper. This past weekend, Smith issued a statement hailing Bates for talking about “NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”
Some climate scientists are concerned that the hubbub is obscuring the more important message: that the NOAA research has generally proved accurate. “I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods.
Researchers say the Karl paper’s findings are also in line with findings from the Met Office, the U.K. government’s climate agency, which preceded Karl’s work, and findings in a recent paper by scientists at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, an alliance of 34 states based in Reading, U.K. And although other researchers have reported evidence that the rise in global temperature has slowed recently, they have not challenged the ethics of Karl’s team, or the quality of the data they used.
Read on. It's worth it. The short of it: Bates was demoted by Karl several years back. Bates accepts both AGW, and the conclusions of Karl's paper, but decided to post a nitpicking complaint that he had used the ISTI land data in addition to the base NOAA data (the former of which isn't as high quality), without specifically commenting about the data source quality difference:
The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.
But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there’s no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. “There's nothing. That doesn’t exist,” he says
The article also goes into the split within NOAA over how strongly to focus on new data and approaches that capture effects which old data and approaches might have missed, vs. old ones which are less accurate but more validated. The land data people tend to fall into the former category while the satellite people tend to fall in the later category. Karl was a land guy and Bates was a satellite guy.
It's interesting to read Bates' blog post with "Karl" replaced by "The guy who demoted me":
The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of the Guy Who Demoted Me et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Guy Who Demoted Me study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”).
... In the following sections, I provide the details of how the guy who demoted me failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what the guy who demoted me has provided.
The profit (a minority of their profit, it should be added) is coming from saving taxpayers money. What the heck is your problem with that?
If they were making some amount of launches cheaper - sure - but that's not the case.
Yes, it is the case; they cost vastly less than ULA.
What I *do* have a problem with is him parlaying this success into a full blown cult of personality
I'm sorry, I must have missed the speech where Musk announced that he is the savior of humanity and its new lord and master.
I'm sorry it gets under your skin that people appreciate the man and what he's doing, but that's hardly something he's been actively "parlaying this success into".
Most of SpaceX's launches are for private companies. And their real profit plan is satellite internet; these random couple dozen launches per year for the government and private companies is nothing compared to the value of being able to provide cheap high speed internet access everywhere on Earth without having to lay wires. But that requires thousands of satellites to be launched.
Interestingly enough, this also appears to be Blue Origin's profit plan, via their work with OneWeb.
What's the problem with SpaceX getting government launch contracts? No, seriously. They're charging less than ULA and thus saving the government a ton of money. What's your huge problem with saving money and having the money that is spent go to a company that's focused on great things rather than some conglomerate of huge military-industrial giants?
I've never understood this animosity.
You DO realize that Steam games are easier to crack than any other DRM, yes? That there are websites that have cracks for damned near every game Steam has ever hosted, including cracks for Steam itself so it will just be locked into offline mode forever? That the majority of cracks out there for triple a titles are based on the Steam version because the Steam version is the easiest to crack...you do know this, right? And that Steam has a built in backup tool so you wouldn't even need Steam to reinstall your games at any time?
Worrying about Steam going away is like worrying about CD checks, its technology that has been broken for ages, everyone knows this, but it stops casual copies and helps cut down on cheaters (you can even tell which games have used Steam to crack down on cheaters as you'll see screams of "FORCED UPDATES ZOMFG!" because cheaters had broken the MP on the old version) but keep you from playing your games? Only if you cannot use Google.
I am not now and never have been a citizen of the USA, so chalk me up to non-purposely ignorant.
Reading TFA more closely, this proposed law would only apply to federally funded highways: "the dig once bill requires states to evaluate the need for broadband conduit any time they complete a highway construction project that gets federal funding."
And local bodies are in on this too: "Dig once doesn't have to be just for state and federal projects, as cities such as Boston and San Francisco already require it locally."
And normal Joe's call it "bullshit that pisses ya off and sends you straight to TPB" ala the classic oatmeal strip.
AAMOF the ONLY DRM I've seen that doesn't piss people off and actually gets shit right? Steam. It has offline mode so you can still play your games if your connection goes tits up, and the platform actually does things FOR the consumer instead of simply being a tool for big corps to use against the user. It keeps all your games updated, gives creators of games an easy way to support modders and an easy way for players to use mods with Steam workshop, gives you chat,hassle free matchmaking, its convenient as hell which is what the media companies never seem to grasp, people want CONVENIENCE.
But instead the big corps will shit all over it in their endless greed and fuck it up, they always do. Hell we have a perfect example with MSFT and PlaysForSure. They had a great ecosystem with tons of shops you could buy and rent from, devices at every price point from sub $10 to over $400 that worked with it, both major and minor players supporting it....then MSFT got fucking greedy and killed it for their shitty iPod clone and in less than 2 years completely wiped out every inch they had gained in the market and had nothing to show for it besides a warehouse full of shit brown Zunes.
So don't worry fellow geeks, they will shit all over this thing as they always do. they will have the content split among a dozen different places, half of which won't play nice with the other half and ALL charging too much, it won't work worth a piss with any mobile that is older than 5 minutes ago, and it'll go the way of SecuROM and RMA files because if its one thing we've seen is true of big media? Its owned by a bunch of old farts that have ZERO clue what the consumers want.
While I'm not terribly familiar with the responsibilities of levels of US government, this seems like something appropriate to being dealt with at the local body or possibly state level. Why is the federal government involved?
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.