41–50 of 166 posts
Another useful tactic is to archive news and commentary (left and right) about current political events, both for accountability and perhaps, to prevent the rewriting of history in the era of "alternative facts".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you only create redundancy when you are sure it's necessary, you're too late.
Of course and I think having those mirrors is a good thing, stuff disappears from the internet all the time. But that is not the question I am asking. We could have started mirroring climate data and all kinds of other data last year or five years ago, there is always a risk of losing data. But this has obviously been triggered by the Trump presidency and is focused on climate data which implies that people are now m…
I would like to know whether or not this elevated level of concern is justified.
Thank you for the efforts. I do think it's important.
Another useful tactic is to archive news and commentary (left and right) about current political events, both for accountability and perhaps, to prevent the rewriting of history in the era of "alternative facts".
BBC does this, and it's freaking annoying.
Here is the closest article I could find: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/politicizing-climate-change-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When there is a broad consensus across the scientific community about climate change, does it even matter at this point if the data has been changed? The U.S isn't the only country that collects this data. So even if changed, it doesn't matter.
Actually it really does matter. The US collects far more of this data than anybody else and archives far more of it. Losing that collection or archive would be a disaster for science and a loss for all of humanity. Destroying that data would be reminiscent of ISIS destroying relics in Palmyra except that destroying that data jeopardizes our future.
We know already that CO2 and other gases cause climate change and we understand the mechanism. I think that most of us would probably also agree that the earth is a sufficiently complex system that predicting accurately what effects we will see when is impossible. We expect to see more droughts, bigger storms and rising sea levels - but we can't really predict very accurately how big those things will be when. By the time we have accurate models it will be too late.
We know that we need to act now. Understanding climate change is not the most important research out there; what's important is developing technologies and industries to reduce our emissions. That research would be what I fear losing.
Having backups is obviously always a good idea but that aside, how likely is it, that mirroring this data is actually necessary? There are obviously at least some people believing that it is necessary but then there are always people convinced that the most silly things are necessary. I am really unable to tell whether this is more of an overreaction or an urgent necessity, especially as someone not living in the US.…
If you only create redundancy when you are sure it's necessary, you're too late.
I heard that Trump has given NOAA 100 days to justify their existence, or face heavy cuts. Does anyone know the details? Here is the closest article I could find: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/politicizing-climate-change-...