More Global Warming Data Stuff
Another sacred cow manipulating data.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 5th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Yep: For Those Who Think “It Can’t Be a Scam” http://diaryofamaditmanager.blogspot.com/2010/03/for-those-who-think-it-cant-be-scam.html
March 5th, 2010 at 11:41 am
This is truly sad. I wonder when, if ever, science and scientists will ever be able to command any respect again? IMHO, MOST of them do not deserve it, but they’re going to be painted with the same brush as these scam artists.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Who can you trust? Too many liars out there trying to push this scam.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
[fixed]
Mad Man’s link has an extra “)”.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Well, _that_ didn’t work so well. I’ll try again ;-).
http://diaryofamaditmanager.blogspot.com/2010/03/for-those-who-think-it-cant-be-scam.html
March 5th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Steve McIntyre has been pointing this out for several years. And has been subject to government funded ad hominem’s from NASA’s pet PR attack dog, Gavin Schmidt.
March 5th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
With the CRU emails, the appearance of impropriety was shown to simply much ado about nothing once the snippets and cherry picked sentences were shown in CONTEXT. Once again, we don’t see any context being given.
Whattya wanna bet this’ll be the same thing? Ie, when we see the emails in their entirety and not just the sentences McIntyre wants you to see, we’ll be just where we were before?
What a broken record. Of bullshit.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Remember that Institute of Physics piece where they said “gee, if it really was as bad as suggested, it’s really bad and we need more visibility?” in re: Climate-not-really-a-gate?
Turns out the IOP won’t even say who wrote it.
So much for openness.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
“With the CRU emails, the appearance of impropriety was shown to simply much ado about nothing once the snippets and cherry picked sentences were shown in CONTEXT”
Right. You keep on believing that. “Nothing to see in Climategate, people. Move along.”
March 5th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Sorry bud, but when it’s these guys vs. a bunch of bloggers who aren’t scientists…
It ain’t hard to see who you should believe.
Now, if you’re irrational and have a political axe to grind, I can see why you might choose the latter.
It just amuses me that people on the skeptical side refuse to admit their own biases.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Scientific theories have to be repeatable to even approach credibility. In order to be repeatable the data and methods have to be available to others.
This is called transparency.
This should not be confused with the “depends on what ‘is’ is” version of transparency is use by the current administration.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
SebastianTheBrokenRecord, a statement by a bunch of guys tainted by previous lying or association with previous liars doesn’t equal scientific consensus, let alone scientific truth. There are enough liars trying to backpedal, cover tracks, launch smoke screens, etc., that the rest of us should be wary of “fool me twice”, not wary of man-made global warming.
If you think that anyone who calls himself a scientist is ipso facto telling the truth, then you don’t understand science. I have spent years doing research and hold a PhD in engineering, so I dare say I do understand science, having done some of it.
Everyone else, OK, sorry I fed the troll.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:50 am
C’mon guys. Back off. At least until rope is outlawed. I know we couldn’t really be held at fault, but there is really no reason we should keep pressing the truth here, knowing that Sebastion the Broken Record will commit suicide before surrendering his fantasy about his superiority to all us reasonable men(deniers).
Guys, I know some will think this next is an ad hominem attack, or something equally squalid, but the truth is Sebastian PGP is seriously mentally ill. I think we should not push him toward reality anymore. He isn’t strong enough to withstand it. He isn’t causing any real harm, just ignore him and leave him to his harmless fantasies. A year ago those fantasies weren’t harmless and we could not afford to ignore the cadre of the deranged, but truth and reality have finally overtaken the scam and these people are no longer dangerous to society. Leave him be. I ask it in the name of mercy.
March 6th, 2010 at 11:55 am
This is the world we live in. Paying more attention to scientists instead of dishonest bloggers who’ve been repeatedly shown to be fabricating their case re: controlling for station variables is now “mental illness”.
If so, I don’t wanna be “well”.
If you can substantiate that statement, I’ll eat your hat.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
And FTR:
If you’re dumb enough to think that’s what I was saying, you’re too stupid to be trusted with a computer…and we shouldn’t put too much stock in your alleged PhD.
(In case it wasn’t obvious enough for you, the point is that you don’t have to accept anything they say on an ipso facto basis, that’s kinda the point–science is self correcting in a way politics isn’t. If they’re saying anything that’s not correct, you’re welcome to point out what they’ve got wrong. As per usual when this subject comes up…not much substance when you’re called to substantiate your position, just some out of context emails that don’t even say what you think they do).
March 6th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Except when they say the science is settled, the debate is over – apparently I do ‘have’ to accept it ipso facto.
See above, re: transparency, transparency, transparency. Don’t share the data, hide the decline, refuse access.
As my old math teacher said – you have to show your work.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Ahem,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdSzbOeYw2fRy2g-N8afCNxbsu6wD9EAEB480
Well? What do you say for your scam now PGP?
That is what you support? A world government we pay for?
March 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
I’m getting tired of pointing this out, but here we go again: it ain’t scientists saying that. Science tells us things with degrees of certainty, not with light switch style distinctions like “settled” and “unsettled”.
This is why you should quit conflating what buffoon politicians say with what actual scientists say wrt: to the science itself.
WRT to transparency…the work has out there for you to review and the data is available to anyone with an Internet connection. Hide the decline doesn’t mean what you think it means.
That’s not what I support, so I don’t see the point of Number9’s question. That the political and public policy responses to AGW being potentially ugly doesn’t have anything to do with whether the science is sound.
But it is telling how readily you admit your political bias, and it explains your head in the sand position–the AGW problem has implications that make your worldview untenable.
March 8th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Oh, and the IOP memo we discussed earlier? Uh yeah…not good. It’s funny to hear people assailing the credibility of science when they themselves are so lacking in credibility. Whether it’s the McIntyres, Watts, and Horners who’ve been repeatedly exposed for their hackery, or egg on the face nonsense like the supposed IOP position statement that isn’t…
Tidy up yer own house a bit.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
So when you say:
And the link you point to has a headline that says: “Top Scientists Affirm Consensus on Global Warming”
So,I shouldn’t be thinking that you are trying to say – ‘look, these guys have a lot of letters following their names and they say they all agree and those other guys without the letters don’t agree and so you should believe because all the big shots do’?
Now I don’t know about other people, but to me that just seems like a long worded version of you saying “the science is settled”.
But maybe I should take your advice when you say I shouldn’t listen to buffoons when they tell me the science is settled.
It is? The raw data? The formulas? Why then, in the very link you give, do those big shot guys with all the letters say:
NO! NO! NO! Raw data is useful. Formulas and equations are useful. Massaged data and results that are for the public and the press are not useful. Show your work!
Now that is a useful step – but since they have just started to make standards for sharing data, I really doubt that data has been or is even now available for me to “to review and the data is available to anyone with an Internet connection”