Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Care to explain why the code I provided (which was stepped through line by line for the reader) is invalid, "out of context" as you initially claimed? Or do you only respond to posts where there is no data or there exists a means for a clean fallacious response?
Dude, the guy who wrote the code analysis you snipped PLAINLY STATED himself that the code is out of context, but you simply ignore that, even after it was already pointed out to you in Post-42. WTF.
While there are some interesting points raised here, it is important to note a couple of caveats. First, the adjustment shown above is applied to the tree ring proxy data (proxy for temperature) not the actual instrumental temperature data. Second, we don’t know the use context of this code. It may be a test procedure of some sort, it may be something that was tried and then discarded, or it may be part of final production output. We simply don’t know.
He doesn't know what the code was for, you don't know what the code was for, and there is nothing whatsoever that is innately suggestive of evil intent in the code itself. All of that has to be provided by biased observers such as yourself. You are chatting with your neighbor is his driveway when you notice that a tire iron is lying on the floor of his garage. You know that tire irons are sometimes used as murder weapons. You therefore suspect that your neighbor is a murderer. PFFFFFFFFFFFFFT!!!
I guess you are still behind the times - the MET office will be looking into over 160 years of data, the CRU will be looking into their data. I guess you don't realize the CRU has been at the forefront on the push for AGW. They have led the way - many of their colleagues rely on the data and reports produced from this unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Light bulb moment..the CRU were giving out their modified data to others to use. But you should have known that already since you are so on top of things right ?
You guys need to make up your mind. Either the CRU is refusing to release its source data in response to FOIA requests, oir they are actually passing it around all over the place and thereby somehow corrupting the work of others.
Pick one....
Last edited by saganista; 12-05-2009 at 08:00 PM..
You must realize that all the stuff you wring your hands about has happened on this world over and over again.
You must realize that what is troublesome about trends in various disparate data series is that so many of them suggest anomalous events that are diverging from what would be expected in terms of natural variation. You cannot explain these away by claiming that there is natural variation.
You guys need to make up your mind. Either the CRU is refusing to release its source data in response to FOIA requests, oir they are actually passing it all over the place and thereby somehow corrupting the work of others.
Pick one....
They have released their data sets all over the world, yes, but not ALL of the data, like the RAW data, without the massaging that took place to get the desired result.
And now they tell us they no longer have the raw data, just the "value added" data...which then cannot be reproduced (which is the foundation of scientific theory).
You must realize that what is troublesome about trends in various disparate data series is that so many of them suggest anomalous events that are diverging from what would be expected in terms of natural variation. You cannot explain these away by claiming that there is natural variation.
You realize there are plenty of counter points to the research you speak of.
Yes, argument from the outliers can be practiced with repsect to this issue by those who have so often relied upon that devious device in so many other areas. We have 9,500 points suggesting one thing, and 500 alleged counterpoints suggesting something else. But it can take quite a while for a dishonest internet storyteller to run out of garbage when there's a stock of 500 bits of it to start out with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
And if you read those emails, you would understand the unethical way in which this cabal corrupted the peer review process, i.e., keeping dissenting views out of journals for publishing.
Oh, cry me a river. This is E!-Entertainment garbage. Scientists are people. They are just as jealous, envious, protective, prideful, or what have you as anyone else. They root for their own theories to take hold while working to undermine the theories of others. They say nasty things about each other, they spread malicious rumors, sometimes they carry personal grudges around for years. The beauty of it is that in science, none of that matters. Only what holds up matters. If mean old Scientist-A somehow blocks upstart Scientist-B from getting his article published in this prestigious journal or that, Scientist-B turns to some relative vanity journal and the article is out there anyway. If it's strong, it will draw attention and work its way into the spotlight. Trace the literature on second-hand smoke. See how much of that began in really obscure vanity journals. Now look what has happened. Smoking is banned in nearly every building that has public access. These anti-AGW ideas can't ultimately be suppressed from consideration except of course by their own inherent weakness and inability to hold up under scrutiny.
They are just as jealous, envious, protective, prideful, or what have you as anyone else. They root for their own theories to take hold while working to undermine the theories of others.
Except that their theories have been determined to be "settled", thereby progressing the agenda of trillions in dollars of wealth redistribution and control of those "gases" by the UN/One World order. You seem to dismiss the very foundations of what good, ethical science is all about.
One of those is reproducibility. If no one can reproduce their results, the theory is false.
The emails prove a concerted campaign of lying, deleting and an unwillingness to release their data for just that purpose. Now we know why. They apparently don't have the original, raw data OR the "fudge factors" they have applied will be exposed.
But no, we are supposed to sit back and watch while they implement massive taxes to combat a hoax.
Let them prove it first, maybe then people will believe.
They have released their data sets all over the world, yes, but not ALL of the data, like the RAW data, without the massaging that took place to get the desired result. And now they tell us they no longer have the raw data, just the "value added" data...which then cannot be reproduced (which is the foundation of scientific theory). Should we just trust them?
Should we just discard them? I suppose so, since that would be very convenient for your otherwise miserably failed purposes. I don't know what sort of experience a database person might have had over the years, but I've been doing similar data analyses and reconstructions in other areas for quite a while, and it is not uncommon at all in my experience to do interpolations of lumpy data sets for either testing or production purposes. Could I go back and isolate every original series at this point? Some yes, some no. You want to see all manner of malicious and deceptive conspiratorial intent in what isn't really out of the ordinary at all. Crude emotion and political considerations are what motivate you in that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
