Skip to main content
Image
By
Anonymous said...

There is an email circulating to APS members asking the APS to reconsider its statement on climate change in light of the "Climategate" release of internal correspondence of members of IPCC. The lab is in a central position because of its long standing program to compare in an objective way the various models of climate. I wonder whether the lab is just reacting or seriously looking into whether any of its work might have been influenced by possible "filtering the data". See this link:

Open Letter on Global Warming

December 4, 2009 2:57 PM

Comments

Anonymous said…
The position should be one of skepicism, not denial. A big hole just got ripped in the credibility of the research. Science demands that questionable or unverified data must be rejected. That does not make the conclusion wrong, just unproven.

I'll bet the lab does nothing though. Too much money is at stake.
12/06/2009 9:28 AM
Anonymous said…
well put 9:28
12/08/2009 6:35 AM
Anonymous said…
I really don't care how this turns out because it's almost out of my control.

Perhaps the 8000-year cycle of warming and cooling dominates, perhaps people's contributions dominate the current reheating trend.

Like many patriotic modern citizens, I keep eating See's candies so I can sequester the carbon dioxide that I otherwise would release.

Either way, humankind will cope.
12/12/2009 1:39 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

By scooby
From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
96 comments
Read more