Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”-- Professor Phil Jones, 02/02/05Shyeah. That's how credible, reputable scientists typically react to perfectly legal, straightforward FOIA requests for the data behind their respective claims, all right.
Take out the papers and the trashOr you don't get no spendin' cashIf you don't scrub that data storeYou ain't scoring grants no moreHackety hack (can't get it back)Just finish cleanin' up your roomLet's see that dust fly with that broomGet all that garbage out of sightOr it leaks out Friday nightHackety hack (can't get it back)Don't you give me no dirty looksYour data's tricked we know it's cookedJust tell your hoodlum friends onlineYou ain't got time to hide declineHackety hack (can't get it back)Hackety hack, hackety hackHackety hack, hackety hackHackety hack, hackety hackHackety hack, hackety hackwv: wingra = One of Madison's five lakes. It's the one on the left.
Trying to distract us from the really objectionable word in the subject sentence-- "hide"-- by focusing on the word "trick" is itself a trick. In the first sense.VW: What sort of subfules do they take us for?
The thing that always cracks me up is how people disregard skepticism about certain topics, and demand it so self-righteously in others.
Spot on, Jim.Now can we get on with the trials, and hangings, please? Let's do Al "Nobel Peace Prize" Gore first:I wanna see that fat fuck swing.Don't fuck with me.
The Pentagon Papers of Piltdown Warming?
This looks like a good explanation for Mike's "Nature Trick:"(from one of the hated climate skeptics)http://www.climateaudit.org/P.S. The NYT and Washington Post coverage of this is nearly identical - not in the least critical, and no excerpts are provided. Here's the WP's take: "prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics. "And that's all they did, apparently.Gotta love the Pravda on the Potomac.
Silly rabbit, tricks are for baby goats.
Nothing to see here, the only criminals and bad scientists are the deniers.Yet another case of the left engaging in that which they falsely accuse their critics of doing.Liars AND hypocrits. Trey
Even allowing for the jargony use of "trick" (which is correctly described, btw), the emails describe conspiracy to commit scientific fraud.
It's funny they cite "publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals" as evidence against collusion, as if those magazines weren't using their conspirators as editors.They should hang, like the Cuban spies.
re kent's 6:40AMIt appears that Jones found a way to do just what he said, under the guise of having insufficient data storage available.http://tinyurl.com/ybz45j6Peopole who think this guy is a dispassionate scientist questing after truth are themselves deluded. Here's the money quote:Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Back to step 1(a)? are we? That's OK, I'll be back!
Keep in mind (somebody has to say it), trick is also what the hooker does to the John.WV "multe" More than one mule.
"Man-Made Global Warming": the Lysenkoism of the 21st century.
While it is sad these scientists were lying, you must consider their feeling and aspirations and not be too hard on them.After all, science isn't about data. Science is about emotions and hyperbole and scare tactics for a good cause!
Oh, that's a good point, Montana Urban Legend. I see now. You've explained everything so clearly, I'm sorry I ever doubted the theory of anthropogenic global warming.Oh, my bad...no comments here at all in defense of this warm, steaming pile of shit.That's odd.
So nice to see the uneducated scientific zombies out in full force.
It's the educated zombies you gotta worry about.
So nice to see the uneducated scientific zombies out in full force.Comment #1, above. Discuss.Go ahead. "Educate" us, by all means.
hdhouse - The AGW crowd has always depended on the scientifically illiterate to sell their snake oil. Anyone with half-a-brain and a quarter-education knew that the data and the conclusions they drew from it NEVER made sense. This is just proof that even the "true believers" don't really believe it either: they're just taking the rubes for a ride.Are you telling me that you're still willing to hop on board for another trip around the park even after you've seen proof that they're lying to you?
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."Sounds like a neat trick to me. (Was Althouse ever described as a "cute trick" when that slang was current?) But how fraudulent can a trick be when it's seemingly described in Nature? Isn't that like playing cards with your hand face up?Further, is the raw data the real data? If you notice the murder was committed at 8:30 pm by the kitchen clock, wouldn't it help to know that the clock was still set to daylight savings time?
What edutcher said.I am curious just how uneducated those of us who post here who do not believe in AGW are. If you do not believe in AGW, state your degree(s.)Fess up, no lying.I have a doctorate and a M.A. Different schools. Oh, and a B.A. too of course.Trey
hdhouse --A cheerily appropriate little ditty for you, while you're making ready to... ummmmmmm... "educate" us further.... and, oh, yes: B.A., Vanderbilt University. ;)
Trick could certainly be an innocent term. But "hide" is not.And a trick to hide an incriminating piece of data (that is largely fabricated anyway) is not in any sense innocent.I'm pretty sure that these emails are "truthy." Because we know that the left doesn't care if something is a fact or not, only if it is truthy, so they really shouldn't object even if these emails turn out to be fake.But even if the emails are confirmed to be true, I think the ACORN scandal pretty much shows that facts won't matter. Religions require belief. Evidence of the existence of a god is not required for, some say would detract from, the necessity to believe without evidence.Global warming religion requires belief in the depravity of mankind and a need to destroy civilization and return to the days of no refrigeration, no anti-biotics, no internal combustion engine, no large population. The fact that they can't prove AGW exists is irrelevent. They will advocate for fewer humans being alive -- at all costs and despite the evidence.
BS Emory University major in Biology, and JD Emory University School of Law. IMO the attempt to rip off US Citizens by using false data manipulation is more than a Crime of Intentional Theft by Fraud. In the case of the EU and their UN accessories it is an act of War. The fifth column bringing home the war to us is Soros, his bought Spesker Pelossi, and the Con Man Extraordinaire Obama.
Trey, you have doctorate? In what - Peeping-Tom Studies? From where - Central-Southwestern Online U?
TMink said... What edutcher said. I am curious just how uneducated those of us who post here who do not believe in AGW are. If you do not believe in AGW, state your degree(s.) Fess up, no lying. I have a doctorate and a M.A. Different schools. Oh, and a B.A. too of course.BA PoliSciBS ComputerSciNo grad degrees
Ok let's everyone publish their entire resume--education, military service, employment, prison time. Someone else go first.
fls said...Further, is the raw data the real data? If you notice the murder was committed at 8:30 pm by the kitchen clock, wouldn't it help to know that the clock was still set to daylight savings time?The raw data is the only real data. It might not be the real temperatures, and might require some tricks to be performed on it to get it to equal the real temperatures. But you certainly should be willing to release the raw data, and your methodology and reasons for any tricks performed.Say you were on a jury for a murder trial. A police officer testifies that "based on the kitchen clock, after appropriate adjustments, the time of the murder was 7:30". On cross examination, he refuses to tell you what time the kitchen clock actually said, what adjustments were made, or why. Would you trust him?I have a BS in applied math. I believe in AWG, but don't trust the models enough to treat it as a crisis. We should continue studying the issue. At the same time, we should be taking sensible steps in the right direction. This includes building more nuclear power plants and upgrading our electrical grid.
I pretty much agree with Ignorance is Bliss - and would add some good steps would include protecting coasts and wetlands, and depending less on foreign oil. But keep drilling that good Gulf crude, please. Any scientists who won't release their data for others to attempt to falsify are making a very poor case for their own findings.
hdhouse - why couldn't you simply ask of commenters here 'What in your educational or professional experience gives you the tools to assess either the science or the means and methods utilized?' Incidentally, I believe that the last part of Beth's comment demonstrates that common sense and a little logic are all that's needed to call the AGW industry on some of their more egregious actions.BTW, 5 year BA/BS Engineering Mechanics, Brown, 35+ years in FEA and CFD development/support and (mostly) use, lots of getting schooled in how less complex systems don't behave as projected or simulated
But how fraudulent can a trick be when it's seemingly described in Nature? The trick wan't described in Nature-- only the results. That's why so many of the e-mails were about stonewalling the skeptical pests who were trying to get them to show their work. A fuller description of the "trick" may be found here.
This is not "fraud" per se.This is "enhanced data reporting."
OK, so quillbilly dropped out of middle school. That is tragic.Next?Trey
I can totally accept that usage of 'trick'.The sentence then becomes that he applied some other scientist's shortcut to "hide" an inconvenient trend.Maybe there is a quirky scientist definition for hide, too?
Heh, Trey is embarrassed. But at least the other baristas are impressed when he says stuff like, "scientific consensus."
To be fair to the likes of hd and quilbilly, I'll point out that out of the large numbers of possible college degrees available, I only have a few. So I must be, relatively speaking, uneducated.
Why, I wonder, do people set up these anonymous accounts in an attempt to discredit long-standing commenters, with extensive compelling histories of intelligence?I mean, really: Trey's been around for years, is a regular commenter at a lot of different places, shows a consistent character in terms of occupation and education (so if he's a sockpuppet, at least he's a damn good one), but we're supposed to take the investigative power of one "quilbilly" over that.Fail.
To be fair to the likes of hd... he scuttled back underneath the refrigerator, the very nano-second the lights snapped on and he was told to back up his drivel.And hasn't been seen since. ;)
The trick as described at climate audit is simple. In the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards In other words, the data didn't match what he wanted so he found a way to make it.I believe we are warming - we've been coming out the the little ice age for several hundred years but I don't believe it is man made CO2 caused so I am a skeptic. Sun spots are a better correlation to temperature than CO2. BS, Math, MIT, 40 years in computer SW performing mathematical models.
The thing about the sun guys? They predicted the cooling. While the AGW guys shuffled their feet while prediction after prediction proved wrong.My money is on the sun guys.
Blake, thanks for noticing pal.I have this weird approach to the internet. I am completely honest. What is amazing, entertaining, and at times perplexing is the weirdos that react to it. There is a person who has posted on Dr. Helen's blog and another couple I visit who tries to look up my license on the state database for psychologists. It is there, but that poster has trouble with Trey being my nickname, not my legal name. Weird. Why do people get so worked up over internet posters who disagree with them?Expressing my opinion is satisfying. Posing for people I do not know would be silly. I am sure you concur.And honestly, my doctorate is in Psychology. It is not like it is in Physics or I am a MD like Pogo. Having a doctorate means you can do school work and took the time to do it. I got mine because I wanted to learn a bit more and could make more money after I got it. Turns out I leaned a lot more and earned a little more, but C'est La Vie.But thanks for noticing, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.Trey
Trey being my nickname, not my legal name.Aha! So you admit that you LIED about your name! You're just as bad as Joe the Plumber!
"Anyone with half-a-brain and a quarter-education knew that the data and the conclusions they drew from it NEVER made sense."Present and accounted for.
It should be pointed out that the climate "science" community relies as much on zombieness as its detractors. Lacking the ability to run a real experiment (some of us scientists still believe Karl Popper provided an appropriate definition of science), one becomes completely dependent on "consensus" and rhetorical flourish -- in short, the elements of zombism -- to find "truth". The climate "scientists" may be right, but it seems to me they're acting more like zombies than scientists, so I'm not too inclined to listen to them. (And since we're bragging about educational credentials, I'm 2 months away from finishing my PhD in statistical models of language processing, and starting a postdoc in the CS school at Carnegie Mellon University. It must come from eating all those brains.)
Chris-I hope you enjoy CMU as much as I did ( 20 years ago as an undergrad ). Pittsburgh is a great city.
Expressing my opinion is satisfying. Posing for people I do not know would be silly. I am sure you concur.And yet. It seems to be the norm for some.But thanks for noticing, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.Hey! You, too!wv:foxin -- a seductive poison
Hey, it also looks like Algore did a bad job at photoshopping one of the major photos in his book - adding a bunch of hurricanes (while wiping out Cuba and part of Florida), while removing most of the ice from the Arctic and Greenland. The job was apparently done so badly that it shows one hurricane rotating the wrong way (it was moved from the Southern Hemisphere, where they rotate the other way), and another on the equator where they don't work. But then, what do you expect from someone whose scientific training apparently consisted of getting a C- and a D+ in his two bone-head science courses in college. Why does it sometimes look like AGW is an elaborate con?
But then, what do you expect from someone whose scientific training apparently consisted of getting a C- and a D+ in his two bone-head science courses in college.Well, we are talking about the yipyop with the publicly stated belief that the temperature of the planet Earth's mantle is "several million degrees," after all. ;)
At one level, the "trick" is probably legitimate. The real problem there is that they apparently didn't fully disclose what they had done, nor did they produce their underlying data. Maybe there really is, or at least was AGW. And maybe their research provided it. But it looks more and more like there were a lot of shenanigans going on to force data to provide the correct results. As someone suggested today, almost dry labbing the results. One of the more interesting tricks that I saw today was discussed over at Volokh.com, and elsewhere, where it appears that you can get a hockey stick graph with random numbers if you only keep, and then average, series that meet some correlation conditions. In other words, it appears that one technique utilized either intentionally or inadvertently results in the desired results, almost regardless of the real underlying data. (What was apparently done is to use this technique to either include or not include data on, in particular, tree rings, under the assumption that the excluded samples were not temperature sensitive, or something like that). The problem, really, is that a lot of stuff has been hidden from us, and the normal/official solution to that sort of problem, peer review, has been apparently seriously compromised.
"Aha! So you admit that you LIED about your name! You're just as bad as Joe the Plumber!"DAMN! You meddling kids! Hoisted by my own petard!Trey -wv=drink, which I am, a Magic Hat black lager, highly recommended
Post a Comment