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 12-10-2009, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,315 posts, read 36,303,977 times
Reputation: 7100

Advertisements

Quote:
Either way we need to be better caretakers, we owe to our children.
No one is arguing that. You don't get there by trillions of dollars in wealth distribution, crippling of our economy (even further) and ceding control to a world body.......for a "gas" that is natural, plentiful, beneficial and something humans exhale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2009, 12:05 PM
 
433 posts, read 175,653 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
I just love that she is given the opportunity, basically wherever AND whenever she wants it, to speak her mind and challenge the man-child;

Think about the things he is doing? He must really, truly hate America as he tries to remake her in his own radical, petty image.

washingtonpost.com



Love it.





Great article.
Sarah palin.......its like listening to a monkey talk about what polar bears eat. She is just one human who should never ever have any authority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
18,844 posts, read 13,608,987 times
Reputation: 10335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
They keep saying that and people don't believe it.

Until they release ALL the data and the JUSTIFICATION for and statistical methods of massaging the data, they have no credibility at all.

Don't you want them to do that so independent scientists can reproduce their work, something that has NOT been done to this date?

You do realize that reproducibility is a foundation of any theory, right?
If you will note from one of the links I posted earlier today, the CRU could not release ALL of the data - they did not have permission to do so.

From the link to realclimate.org:

"CRU data accessibility. From the date of the first FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly clear that the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small % of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldn’t be passed on to third parties.Those restrictions are in place because of the originating organisations (the various National Met. Services) around the world and are not CRU’s to break."

Now, of course it can be argued that CRU used that stipulation to their advantage, knowing that the data could not be released. It remains to be seen if CRU will be released from that obligation though I suspect that they may well be under the current circumstances.

The same link provides a hyperlink to the data that are in the public domain.

Look, data are 'corrected' in all sorts of ways, every day. Controlling for a representative population and then weighting the data to represent that population in no way detracts from, nor does it negate, the 'truths' that the data tell us. This is just as much a 'trick' as what is alluded to in these emails.
Yes, the tone and tenor of some of these emails is disturbing, however, they were meant for private consumption only and the fact remains that the real crime, one that everyone is conveniently forgetting, is the method of their release in the first place.
But I guess, the deniers are so desperate to prove their points that they will condone illegal behavior to have even the slimmest of chances to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 12:21 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,354,685 times
Reputation: 2600
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Fair argument. I agree that what I am reading, and what everyone else is reading for that matter, is political and that is, for both sides, the biggest deterrent to having a rational discussion about what is the true impact of the allegedly 'cooked' results.
An examination of the code appears to find no intentional deception and actually seems to prove a 'normal' correcting factor as noted by some of the commenters:


Quote mining code : Deltoid

I would also refer those interested in further discussion here:
RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context
The first part of the argument is that the code comments out the manipulation and attempts to claim that this is standard and they knew of such and were simply using a "what if" as a means to see where things might go considering such.

He even plots the code with the commented versions and shows that the MXD adjustment does not show up.

I will agree that commented code is not evidence of misconduct and supports the claim of such, however, this type of "testing" is common throughout many areas of the code and it also exists in uncommented fashion.

an example is in: harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro

Here is a detailed analysis of this file:

The Smoking Code, part 2 « Watts Up With That?

Quote:
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot them
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densall,title='Age-banded MXD from all sites',$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
zeroline=tslow,yrange=[-7,3]
oplot,x,tslow,thick=3
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
Now I understand that the code alone even uncommented is not "evidence" such, but if raw data shows such, than it is.

Also, the raw data will show the discrepancies of such as it concerns research records, but the data itself does not change the methodolgy of the arrays manipulation. It will remain the same which is the problem here.

So, the position of your article assumes the intent to be honest and puts the support for such a position in validity of the statements made by those accused. Essentially asking us to "trust" that they did no wrong.

The problem is, this sort of manipulation is not new. These errors in calculations and poor methodology are documented outside of this incident, the difference is that since the code and methods could not be obtained back then (the reason for the entire FOI scandal) and only speculation as to "why" the results of their work was coming out like it was could be made. This code shows how they were coming to their results and why the same results were not being seen in outside replication.

This is one issue though, Mann has lots of issues with his work as McIntyre has shown and published. This sort of manipulation is not all of a sudden new, it has been suspect for quite a while in many areas of the research.

Lastly, keep in mind who Real Climate is. If you have read the emails, that site is implicated and it was specifically created to downplay and suppress any opposing view to AGW (not really a scientific approach do you think?)

Since you are reading RC, I suggest also cross referencing the like issues with Gavin and RC at Climate Audit to get a full picture of the issue.

Here are some comments concerning Gavin's claims:

New!! Data from the Decline « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
-------------------------------------------------------
edit: I wanted you to pay close attention to this part concerning MXD from the above link. It pretty much deals with the initial assumptions of your first link, that it was just for testing.

Quote:
Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true. The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt - broken link) and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001, though pre-calibration values were archived in a different NCDC file here (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/nhemtemp_data.txt - broken link). While the decline was shown in Briffa et al 1998 and Briffa 2000, it was not shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.) For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. A retrieval script follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Also some information on the "trick" which people confuse as to what it really is:

The Trick « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

and issues with the UEA still applying it:

Still Hiding the Decline « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]


There is a long history of issues with RC and if you have the time, you can read back through the Archives concerning them. RC has a tendency to act a bit political in their methods of information and after reading the e-mails, you can see why.

Last edited by Nomander; 12-10-2009 at 12:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 04:51 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,354,685 times
Reputation: 2600
Nobody wants to respond to the above post concerning the code? Any comments? Ideas? Anything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,315 posts, read 36,303,977 times
Reputation: 7100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer222 View Post
Sarah palin.......its like listening to a monkey talk about what polar bears eat. She is just one human who should never ever have any authority.
And of course, you are not even remotely capable of refuting her points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,315 posts, read 36,303,977 times
Reputation: 7100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Nobody wants to respond to the above post concerning the code? Any comments? Ideas? Anything?
I don't think they are sufficiently knowledgeable to do it. Or this;

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That?

Let's see if they can put 2 and 2 together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 05:43 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,354,685 times
Reputation: 2600
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
If you will note from one of the links I posted earlier today, the CRU could not release ALL of the data - they did not have permission to do so.

From the link to realclimate.org:

"CRU data accessibility. From the date of the first FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly clear that the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small % of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldn’t be passed on to third parties.Those restrictions are in place because of the originating organisations (the various National Met. Services) around the world and are not CRU’s to break."

Now, of course it can be argued that CRU used that stipulation to their advantage, knowing that the data could not be released. It remains to be seen if CRU will be released from that obligation though I suspect that they may well be under the current circumstances.

The same link provides a hyperlink to the data that are in the public domain.

Look, data are 'corrected' in all sorts of ways, every day. Controlling for a representative population and then weighting the data to represent that population in no way detracts from, nor does it negate, the 'truths' that the data tell us. This is just as much a 'trick' as what is alluded to in these emails.
Yes, the tone and tenor of some of these emails is disturbing, however, they were meant for private consumption only and the fact remains that the real crime, one that everyone is conveniently forgetting, is the method of their release in the first place.
But I guess, the deniers are so desperate to prove their points that they will condone illegal behavior to have even the slimmest of chances to do so.
They are backed in a corner here. This isn't the issue, they are going to give every excuse they can before they begin turning and offering each other up as the culprit.

If you wish, I can outline the entire FOI process, who had the authority and the exact steps taken by all involved to avoid having to release the data. I will if you like, but first respond to the previous post you gave concerning the code.

Like the code, it isn't simply the files obtained, it is the correlation with the public records concerning the issues. We aren't denying, we are simply pointing to what is right there. It only looks like you claim if you ignore all the evidence out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 05:56 PM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,398,000 times
Reputation: 2606
Thumbs down Denial = dumb

Global warming deniers must have flunked 9th grade physical science.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 05:59 PM
 
433 posts, read 175,653 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
And of course, you are not even remotely capable of refuting her points.

I dont believe that sarah palin has shown herself to be a worthy enough representative of our country to deserve refuting. She want to make money off books. She quit her public service job, she is full of lies. But i guess you can't see that from your back yard.
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.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top