SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-need-a-full-copy-of-production-for-testing dept.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.
It was never subjected to NOAA's rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact' of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
More details can be found in his own words here:
They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 06 2017, @11:51PM
Gridless power is not the problem. It's the ultimate upside. When all power is off the grid, and it can be with renewable sources and house batteries, we can get rid of one of our most intransigent monopolies, thereby eliminating the need for hefty government regulation of that monopoly. It represents a true return to the free market in a way that isn't feasible with centralized power production.
As for getting there, the nonpartisan politics involved are working their way through local municipalities right now. This is one of the only causes for hope in American politics. Everyone wants their free power and doesn't much care for the government/power companies standing in the way.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:54PM
The problem with gridless is it only scales well to suburban residential. No more industrial plants, no more skyscrapers, no more urban cities, no more office buildings. You could drop the grid from the burbs, which might help slightly with infrastructure costs, but you're still going to have the same expensive lines running from coal plants to skyscrapers and now the min/max ratio of power use is even higher which will make times tough on the remaining grid.
Also gridless hardware is kinda like libertarianism, in that if a community is exclusively IQ > 100 or IQ > 110 or so it'll work, otherwise it'll collapse under the destruction of the folks under those criteria. Which is pretty much everywhere except maybe some university towns, SV maybe.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:15PM
Industry will solve their own problems. They had electricity before anyone else, after all, and plenty of factories already have dedicated power resources. Green companies are already leading the way due to a combination of customer demand and lack of availability on the standard grid.
As for stupid people, well we'll just have to make it simple enough for everyone. We will eventually reach a point where renewable power is so cost effective that new buildings will have it built in, and may never even be connected to the grid in the first place. Tesla's solar shingles are a step in this direction. All of this is still a positive. I may be capable of dicking with my personal electrical system, but there are better uses of my time. If an idiot can keep it running then that frees my brain for other things. And if somebody else blows up their panels, well they're not on my grid so I don't have to care.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?