Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-26-2009, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Isn't reproducibility one of the key factors in good, honest, ethical scientific method?
It is for every science but GW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2009, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,874,903 times
Reputation: 7118
How have these shysters gotten away all these years with keeping the data secret? If you can't reproduce what they have asserted, it would be false. Where has the scientific community been on this issue, to let this cabal get away with this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2009, 03:22 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,673,490 times
Reputation: 13891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
LiveLeak.com - CNN covers Climategate

It is not a "complete" waste of time. In issues where the facts are less convincining and in question, or if the issue is subjective, I agree, debate continued response might seem.. pointless.

Keep in mind though, a persons own words can solidify their position. That is, the more they speak, the more they commit themselves to the issue. By calling these people out, continuing to let them voice their stupidity, it solidifies their position. That is, there is no way they can back out. They committed and any attempt to wave off and slide into the accepted view becomes impossible. the only way we are ever to truly reduce such attempts of arrogance and ignorance in the future is to be merciless. They must be shown for the joke they are.
To me, the most troubling aspect of this whole farce is not that so many "believe" - it is that so many want to "believe". The result of global warming madness will be nothing more or less than robbing them massively of their freedom and their money - severely negatively impacting their quality of life - and yet millions upon millions want to believe. Mind-boggling - utterly impossible to understand - and yet here we are. That is what we're up against.

It is clear that their thought process - and I use the term "thought" loosely - bears no resemblance to yours or mine. They are not influenced or swayed by facts and statistics. They have adopted a political ideology that shuns all common sense and reason and it is so deeply entrenched that it is now essentially faith based. That is what we're dealing with and it is damage that has been 30+ years in the making.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2009, 04:18 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
I am interested to see them explain away this rebuttal by McIntyre.

McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick « Watts Up With That?

Oh, where is our residential expert programmer? Notice we have the code, the code output and correlation to archived data and results?

By all means Captain Programmer, lets here it! up up and away!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2009, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,874,903 times
Reputation: 7118
Seems like Mann, Jones, et al were warned NOT to "hide the decline".

Climate Audit – mirror site

One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline. The reviewer stated very clearly:

Quote:
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)


Just wow.

Here's what you get when you don't "hide the decline";

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif (broken link)

The part in red is the "decline" they "hid".

Here's the graph when they "hide the decline";



A wee bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?

Last edited by sanrene; 11-26-2009 at 06:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2009, 09:15 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,292,271 times
Reputation: 2337
Love this image of Algor at Rense.

Jeff Rense Program
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 01:22 AM
 
1,179 posts, read 973,793 times
Reputation: 390
I know you right wingers are predominantly stupid, but hey, this question is worth a try: why isn't this story all over the US press? Cherry picking emails from some obscure college, that's a real scandal ya got there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 01:24 AM
 
1,179 posts, read 973,793 times
Reputation: 390
Hacked climate emails called a smear campaign | Reuters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 03:55 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,401,256 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feel The Love View Post
I know you right wingers are predominantly stupid, but hey, this question is worth a try: why isn't this story all over the US press? Cherry picking emails from some obscure college, that's a real scandal ya got there.
Quote:
The Climatic Research Unit is widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models.
About the Climatic Research Unit

Who's more "predominately" stupid? Continue with your tirade...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2009, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,012 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Perhaps this is why they are so reluctant to release the raw data - they no longer have it. If they don't have it, should ANY credibility be bestowed to the work that they have already done? After all we have read of their behavior and unethical practices, I say no.

Isn't reproducibility one of the key factors in good, honest, ethical scientific method?
Once again you prove your confusion between data and software. They do not gather raw data, they receive it from different sources and run it through the software. Your friend confirmed the data originated from 40 Australian weather observation stations. You keep flip flopping between accusing them of tweaking the data and tweaking the software. Which is it? Did they tweak the data, or the software? Make up your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top