New Bill: "The Public Access to Historical Records Act"

[BethesdaWX]

This is a fantastic step forward! With cancun talks stalling, US congress is working to hammer out a Bill giving the public access to all the private, Raw Data run by NASA/NOAA, etc, Including Satellites/GRACE, GISS,....etc. At the same time, computer codes, model codes, and Initialization, and everything else would have to be released to the public, Inspected, and reviewed by NON GOVERMENT FUNDED/WORKING scientiusts..... menaing, NOT from the IPCC, NOAA< NASA< NSIDC....etc......

http://wattsupwithth...act/#more-29086

Thoughts?

[skierinvermont]

This is a fantastic step forward! With cancun talks stalling, US congress is working to hammer out a Bill giving the public access to all the private, Raw Data run by NASA/NOAA, etc, Including Satellites/GRACE, GISS,....etc. At the same time, computer codes, model codes, and Initialization, and everything else would have to be released to the public, Inspected, and reviewed by NON GOVERMENT FUNDED/WORKING scientiusts..... menaing, NOT from the IPCC, NOAA< NASA< NSIDC....etc......

http://wattsupwithth...act/#more-29086

Thoughts?

Lol.. half the scientists on this board work for NOAA. Stupid law simply meant to harass scientists. Doubt it passes with democrats controlling the senate who will see this for what it is. Most of the stuff you are referring to is already publicly available.

[BethesdaWX]

Lol.. half the scientists on this board work for NOAA. Stupid law simply meant to harass scientists. Doubt it passes with democrats controlling the senate who will see this for what it is. Most of the stuff you are referring to is already publicly available.

Since our country is now Mixed Republicans & Dems, and since the Republicans have doubts in AGW.....what is wrong with clearing the air & proving them wrong with the data behind it???

Why would the democrats be AGAINST it?

Why is it "meant" to harass scientists again? Back-up?.........Giving other scientists voicedn opinions is harassment??? yeah

The Dems loose seats in the Senate next election anyway. This is the problem with mixed Dems & republicans... no way our climate talks get anywhere, and this would enhance "evidence" of Human -Anhanced warming. (lol)

[skierinvermont]

Since our country is now Mixed Republicans & Dems, and since the Republicans have doubts in AGW.....what is wrong with clearing the air & proving them wrong with the data behind it???

Why would the democrats be AGAINST it?

Why is it "meant" to harass scientists again? Back-up?.........Giving other scientists voicedn opinions is harassment??? yeah

The Dems loose seats in the Senate next election anyway. This is the problem with mixed Dems & republicans... no way our climate talks get anywhere, and this would enhance "evidence" of Human -Anhanced warming. (lol)

Why is it stupid and harassment? Because the data is already available and has already been reviewed.

There are basically no "other scientists" who disagree. The idea that there is some trove of data somewhere that when released some mysterious scientists that were previously blocked from the data will emerge and declare the data disproves AGW is laughable. There is no significant data that scientists are blocked from and there are no credible scientists that disagree with AGW besides a few hacks look Soon/D'Aleo while there are thousands that endorse AGW.

[BethesdaWX]

Why is it stupid and harassment? Because the data is already available and has already been reviewed.

The Raw data that goes into the GISS, for example, is not available. GISS has refused FOI requests to get it too.

“This bill would open NASA’s temperature records to public scrutiny and establish an objective set of data to ensure that influential climate research is protected from political agendas.”

Do you have a problem with that?

Its not "harassement" when giving a more objective approach allows scientists with different viewpoints to chime & and gain power.

The Data Has been reviewed by GOVT agensies & via peer review....either way.. not harassement.

[BethesdaWX]

Why is it stupid and harassment? Because the data is already available and has already been reviewed.

There are basically no "other scientists" who disagree. The idea that there is some trove of data somewhere that when released some mysterious scientists that were previously blocked from the data will emerge and declare the data disproves AGW is laughable. There is no significant data that scientists are blocked from and there are no credible scientists that disagree with AGW besides a few hacks look Soon/D'Aleo while there are thousands that endorse AGW.

Wrong. Polls of scientists outside of Gov't reveal no consensus whatsoever. In fact, "natural causes" recieved more votes than not.

And.... why do you care if you "know for a fact" that there is no data locked away? Why has NASA refused FOI requests?

[skierinvermont]

Wrong. Polls of scientists outside of Gov't reveal no consensus whatsoever. In fact, "natural causes" recieved more votes than not.

And.... why do you care if you "know for a fact" that there is no data locked away? Why has NASA refused FOI requests?

Not climate scientists.. and not people that have ever published in a climate journal. I don't give a damn what 93 year old nuclear physicists think.

[BethesdaWX]

Not climate scientists.. and not people that have every published in a climate journal.

Who gives a sh*t if they;re climate scientists or not? Meteorologists understand the climate and how it works just as well just as well as climate scientists do.....except METS knowledge is much more complex than Climate scientists, and many mets have Education in Climate Aswell.

Not to mention 99% of climate scientist jobs are with NOAA/NASA....... you don't think maybe that has an effect?

And... climate Journal? :lol: :lol:

[aslkahuna]

Lol.. half the scientists on this board work for NOAA. Stupid law simply meant to harass scientists. Doubt it passes with democrats controlling the senate who will see this for what it is. Most of the stuff you are referring to is already publicly available.

You realize of course that the Democrats also control the House until January.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

You realize of course that the Democrats also control the House until January.

Steve

No one has posted their feelings on the bill yet...are you guys upset about it? (I would be If I were you)

[skierinvermont]

No one has posted their feelings on the bill yet...are you guys upset about it? (I would be If I were you)

I couldn't care less.

[BethesdaWX]

I couldn't care less.

Well, thats all you had to say in the first place.

[Clifford]

Good Idea.

Much of the data already exists at one level or another, although some of the websites only provide the information for "research institutions".

The problem is that the US Government may provide their datafiles.

But, then much of the actual work is being done by other institutions.

For example the University of Alabama or University of Colorado, both of which likely have both State funds and US Government Grants are consolidating the raw data in to things like monthly averages.

This seems very narrow too. Just Temperatures?

Sea Ice?

Sea Levels?

Earthquakes, Hurricanes?

GRACE data?

To adequately provide the information at a level that the average college graduate (any field) could access it would be quite expensive.

And, the data should be organized in a "fractal search algorithm" so that it is easy to go from an executive summary down to the barest, rawest of levels.

[Vandy]

Who gives a sh*t if they;re climate scientists or not? Meteorologists understand the climate and how it works just as well just as well as climate scientists do.....except METS knowledge is much more complex than Climate scientists, and many mets have Education in Climate Aswell.

You couldn't be further from the truth here. When I studied meteorology at Penn State, we received very little climate instruction unless we elected to do so. There is a large gap in knowledge between the two fields... something one would only understand if they worked in either field. Many meteorologists could not tell you what the Younger Dryas is, and many climate scientists could not tell you how a cyclone evolves. It's kind of a shame really, but it's the way it is with the specialization that is encouraged in the field.

It's obvious that you hold some disdain for climate scientists, but to state that meteorologists somehow have a better understanding of the atmosphere is generalized rubbish.

[WeatherRusty]

Climate science is interdisciplinary, so there are climate scientists that are meteorologists, geologists, oceanographers, physicists, chemists, ecologists, etc. and they can be in all sorts of different academic departments. However, while climate scientists can be physicists, or chemists, or geologists, etc., most physicists, chemists, geologists are not climate scientists. They study other things.

Someone working in climatology may dig in the mud at the bottom of a lake or sea and study it in the lab, study tree rings, ice cores, analyze satellite data, study the Sun, other stars and planets. They may design computer code, investigate historical paintings and writings for clues to past climates.

The generic term climatologist doesn't specify exactly what that climatologist is expert in. He or she participates in research involving any number of fields which contribute to the collective knowledge base we define as climatology. This intricate web of interdisciplinary study is pulled together by a body of scientists coming from all those fields. We call it the IPCC.

[Vandy]

That's a good point. I was just talking about atmospheric scientists who look at climate scales. Obviously a geologist shouldn't know as much about the atmosphere as a meteorologist, but the ones making claims about the atmosphere tend to be climate scale atmospheric scientists.

[Mencken_Fan]

Since our country is now Mixed Republicans & Dems, and since the Republicans have doubts in AGW.....what is wrong with clearing the air & proving them wrong with the data behind it???

Why would the democrats be AGAINST it?

Why is it "meant" to harass scientists again? Back-up?.........Giving other scientists voicedn opinions is harassment??? yeah

The Dems loose seats in the Senate next election anyway. This is the problem with mixed Dems & republicans... no way our climate talks get anywhere, and this would enhance "evidence" of Human -Anhanced warming. (lol)

If the Republicans are right about AGW it certainly won't be based on any science; it will be pure luck! Republicans and science....is that an oxymoron or what?

And before anyone gets anal, of course I'm not referring to all Republicans; I'm only referring to the core of the party - the religious right.

AGW in the Bronze Age tabloids? Nope. Doesn't exist. Evolution? Nope. It's a left-wing conspiracy. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Nope. Can't be. And so on.

If AGW turns out to be completely false; suggesting that Republicans knew it all along is to give credit where credit is not due. And therein lies a disaster...

Can you imagine the holy-roller celebrations following the announcement that AGW was completely wrong? Every pulpit from here to Timbuktu will be rewarding the sheep by telling them how brilliant they were, while excoriating the secular world for its "ignorance."

Just think of the fallout....for our future students, teachers, and nation as a whole. Evolution and physics thrown into the abyss of the Heartland; students calling their science teachers "idiots"' secular students living in the Bible Belt being ridiculed...we could not deliver a greater reward to religious fundamentalism. Hopefully, I'm exaggerating; but being I actually live in the Bible Belt....well, you have to live here to appreciate the level of widespread irrationality.

If AGW is completely wrong, we're going to pay a price for it.

[Clifford]

If AGW is completely wrong, we're going to pay a price for it.

What if it is 10% right?

[LocoAko]

Who gives a sh*t if they;re climate scientists or not? Meteorologists understand the climate and how it works just as well just as well as climate scientists do.....except METS knowledge is much more complex than Climate scientists, and many mets have Education in Climate Aswell.

Not to mention 99% of climate scientist jobs are with NOAA/NASA....... you don't think maybe that has an effect?

And... climate Journal? :lol: :lol:

You're very wrong here. There are climate science electives I can take but they are not required at the undergraduate level and it is sad to say that a sizable portion of my undergraduate meteorology class does not know much about climate. Climate scientists are to be trusted much more when dealing with climate science than meteorologists.

[WeatherRusty]

What if it is 10% right?

By my reckoning it has already exceeded being 10% right. Closer to 25% actually if we attribute 0.7C of the 0.8C so far (of the total expected 3C from a doubling of CO2) realized to greenhouse warming and deforestation. Better than 90% correct if we understand the origin of the TOA imbalance as due to an increasing greenhouse effect and the expected lag in full temperature response because of the oceans thermal inertia.

[LakeEffectKing]

If the Republicans are right about AGW it certainly won't be based on any science; it will be pure luck! Republicans and science....is that an oxymoron or what?

And before anyone gets anal, of course I'm not referring to all Republicans; I'm only referring to the core of the party - the religious right.

AGW in the Bronze Age tabloids? Nope. Doesn't exist. Evolution? Nope. It's a left-wing conspiracy. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Nope. Can't be. And so on.

If AGW turns out to be completely false; suggesting that Republicans knew it all along is to give credit where credit is not due. And therein lies a disaster...

Can you imagine the holy-roller celebrations following the announcement that AGW was completely wrong? Every pulpit from here to Timbuktu will be rewarding the sheep by telling them how brilliant they were, while excoriating the secular world for its "ignorance."

Just think of the fallout....for our future students, teachers, and nation as a whole. Evolution and physics thrown into the abyss of the Heartland; students calling their science teachers "idiots"' secular students living in the Bible Belt being ridiculed...we could not deliver a greater reward to religious fundamentalism. Hopefully, I'm exaggerating; but being I actually live in the Bible Belt....well, you have to live here to appreciate the level of widespread irrationality.

If AGW is completely wrong, we're going to pay a price for it.

And what "luck" would that be??? There are plenty of scientists that are Repubs (or if there aren't, then maybe AGW is more political than I first thought) Your statement sounds politically based. The same could be said that if AGW turns out to be true, suggesting the Dems knew....it'd be "luck".....

[WeatherRusty]

And what "luck" would that be??? There are plenty of scientists that are Repubs (or if there aren't, then maybe AGW is more political than I first thought) Your statement sounds politically based. The same could be said that if AGW turns out to be true, suggesting the Dems knew....it'd be "luck".....

The difference, as demonstrated by poll after poll, is that those that describe themselves as Dems tend to acknowledge the environmental sciences whereas those claiming to be Repubs. tend not to acknowledge the same. On AGW ~70% Dems agree with science while only ~40% of Repubs do. There is a clear divide along political lines as there is with evolution versus creationism for instance.

[LakeEffectKing]

The difference, as demonstrated by poll after poll, is that those that describe themselves as Dems tend to acknowledge the environmental sciences whereas those claiming to be Repubs. tend not to acknowledge the same. On AGW ~70% Dems agree with science while only ~40% of Repubs do. There is a clear divide along political lines as there is with evolution versus creationism for instance.

I don't get this constant tie in with religion. It sounds like a sterotyping that helps validate/justify characterize a difference of opinion. I know lots of Repubs that are agnostic/atheist and know many Dems who are very active church go'ers and everything inbetween.

Of course there is a divide....it became that way when it was politicized, as has happened with many "scientific" topics (stem cell research for one) as well as other topics that start out non-ideological, which then become politicized, which drives many people TOWARD "their" group think.....It's extremely common in our globalized society to seek (affirm) a burgeoning belief.

With that knowledge, one can maintain some objectiveness, understanding that one is who they ARE because of external stimulus as they live. Others will have paths that are different.....both can be characterized as "correct" based on their own personal perspective. We are ALL suseptible to manipulation as we acquire belief systems.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't get this constant tie in with religion. It sounds like a sterotyping that helps validate/justify characterize a difference of opinion. I know lots of Repubs that are agnostic/atheist and know many Dems who are very active church go'ers and everything inbetween.

Of course there is a divide....it became that way when it was politicized, as has happened with many "scientific" topics (stem cell research for one) as well as other topics that start out non-ideological, which then become politicized, which drives many people TOWARD "their" group think.....It's extremely common in our globalized society to seek (affirm) a burgeoning belief.

With that knowledge, one can maintain some objectiveness, understanding that one is who they ARE because of external stimulus as they live. Others will have paths that are different.....both can be characterized as "correct" based on their own personal perspective. We are ALL suseptible to manipulation as we acquire belief systems.

I agree with the 3rd paragraph 100%.

It is difficult to make generalized statements without sounding prejudiced or stereotypical at times. Of course none of the characterizations I have made are black and white or absolute in practice. For instance, I stated that ~40% of Republicans generally agree with the concept of AGW as described by climate scientists. I am sure there are many, many conservatives who believe in biological evolution. I think it is fair to say, however, that the core of the Republican party embraces the religious right and their strict compliance with religious faith, and many embrace creationism over secular science and biological evolution. They are even pushing the courts to mandate creation "science" be part of the science curriculum in public schools so as to provide a "balanced view".

Some of these folks hold their religious doctrine above all else and are far more likely to oppose stem cell research and abortion than the general public at large. Adherence to conservative values attract these people to the Republican party and as a party they tend to be less scientifically orientated than Democrats as a result. The Tea Party movement is taking this to an extreme. These people do oppose stem cell research for religious reasons. According to them the fertilized egg has a soul.

[BethesdaWX]

Hey now, politicians and science don't mix in general, no matter if they're republican or democrat. I'm a complete independant FYI.

I feel that, since my tax money is going into these programs, I wanna see everything thats going on in there. If Obama goes up for re-election, he will probably lose out. I'd place my bets on this bill passing.

And I'd make it so that everything that goes on behind closed doors in NASA/NOAA/IPCC, etc, is 100% fully available. The codes to every model, the numbers to re-create the works, every piece of data in climate science that exists in our realm should be made public.