Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Who shall watch those selfsame watchers? (Score 1) 53

So now we have a level of people who spend all their time watching other people working (or faking it), but the obvious new job opportunity is to get a job watching the guys who are watching the other guys.

It's the ultimate in job security, because they'll always need to hire someone at the next level up!

Unbounded recursion? Resources exhausted? Whatever do you mean?

Comment Ever heard of the Hastert Rule? (Score 1) 258

Whoever moderated your comment as "insightful" obviously did it based on agreeing with you, not on the basis of your fake evidence. In contrast to those "insightful" moderators, you got me to follow your link and it does NOT support your claims.

Actually, the so-called Republicans have institutionalized party discipline that would make Lenin blush. His Bolsheviks were supposed to have been the experts, but now they look like amateurs.

Not that I can really defend the Democratic Party. Insofar as I have supported them, it has always been a kind of allergic reaction to the gawdawful candidates the GOP has run, especially at the top of the ticket.

In my youth, I actually did research on the top races and almost always concluded the Democratic candidate was better (or at least less bad), while on the down-ticket races I tended to vote for whoever seemed less represented, such as women or candidates with minority-sounding names. When I got older, I discovered that the down-ticket races were more important than I had realized, but by that time the down-ticket winners had gerrymandered my vote to meaninglessness. They almost managed to disenfranchise me completely last time, though it didn't make any difference (of course).

The demographics actually prove the GOP is no more, notwithstanding their successful conversion therapy of the old Dixiecrat racists into Reagan Republicans. So they've adopted a new strategy: If you can't beat 'em, break the game.

Evidently time to brush up on my Russian.

Comment Re: Premium processing has been canceled this year (Score 1) 258

Hmm... Humor-rich target, but this is the first funny-moderated comment I've found. (I scan from the back...) Unfortunately, it should be "insightful", even though you didn't explicitly mention group 4 is much larger than group 2. It is possible that your company has more employees in group 2 than group 4, but the joke depends on it being the other way... It's the old false positive joke for medical diagnosis.

Oh well. Moot for me, since I never get a mod point to give. Then again, I'd probably prefer not participating in the travesty unless there were some signs the moderation system itself was being improved...

Comment This is not a sign of demand for suburban life (Score 3, Interesting) 199

This is a sign of a shortage of higher density living in the urban core. There are multiple reasons for that, the power of the NIMBY lobby being one of them. But for the demographic of young single professionals at the early stages of their careers, vibrant and compact walkable neighborhoods are so much in demand that rents are being driven sky high and lower income people are being displaced to the suburbs where they are either saddled with longer commutes of forced to find jobs on the periphery.

Suburbs are great for when you get a little older and want to raise a family, but in the meantime the city is where it's at.

Comment Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score 3, Insightful) 195

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst