"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 28 Nov 2009 14:02 On 28 Nov 2009 16:50:34 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: >I always get a kick out of comments like this. Like the >scientists don't have just as much at stake on their side >of the fence. When was the last time you saw someone >(primarily the government) pony up funding to some scientist >who said, "There's nothng here worth further investigation." >Scientists get grant money by convincing people with money >(primarily the government) to send it in their direction. >All of them earn 6-figure salaries 3-6 times what I earn >for which they seldom, if ever, return anything of real value. >Kinda like the billions they are fixing to waste trying to >go back to the moon. But the way to really achieve greatness in science is to show the old guard to be wrong. And there is money available for enough ambitious scientists to do so, even if the other money is easier to come by. (Money does corrupt though - businesses pay good money to get the results they want in court). -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Bill Gunshannon on 28 Nov 2009 16:17 In article <8qs2h59q4poqucl0of578bk2qbglvuop98(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> writes: > On 28 Nov 2009 16:50:34 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) > wrote: > >>I always get a kick out of comments like this. Like the >>scientists don't have just as much at stake on their side >>of the fence. When was the last time you saw someone >>(primarily the government) pony up funding to some scientist >>who said, "There's nothng here worth further investigation." >>Scientists get grant money by convincing people with money >>(primarily the government) to send it in their direction. >>All of them earn 6-figure salaries 3-6 times what I earn >>for which they seldom, if ever, return anything of real value. >>Kinda like the billions they are fixing to waste trying to >>go back to the moon. > > But the way to really achieve greatness in science is to show the old > guard to be wrong. > > And there is money available for enough ambitious scientists to do so, > even if the other money is easier to come by. > > (Money does corrupt though - businesses pay good money to get the > results they want in court). Maybe so, but no one pays like the government. An unending trough just there for anyone willing to sell their integrity for. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: HeyBub on 28 Nov 2009 17:17 Richard wrote: >> >> *I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station >> and opened another some distance away. > > At a different altitude. > > >> I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not conversant with adiabatic >> adjustments (although I do know what they are). > > If you did _actually_ understand this then you would know why the > adjustment was done instead of cluelessly calling it 'fraud'. > > If you were to have an airtight and 100% insulated bag and you filled > it with air at sea level and sealed it then took that bag up a hill > the temperature of the air would drop even though there was no loss of > heat. > > Boyle described that a couple of hundred years ago, do they teach you > nothing in schools. Oh wait you are from a 'red state', wrong book. > > But you are searching for results that agree with your agenda and so > do not want to understand, only to claim support. Blah-blah-blah. I understand Boyle's law, etc. I used to TEACH chemistry, for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were measuring temperature at a completely different location. They didn't just put the thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the whole shebang to another county. The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude. > > >> But I AM familiar with some methods of >> distorting data. > > Which is exactly what the clueless sceptic and yourself has done > through ignorance. You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data. > > Only because you are too clueless to work it out for yourself and the > results they provide don't agree with your agenda. > I don't have an agenda. I'm ready to be convinced as to anthropogenic global warming. But when the data presented is demonstrably false, when the tools used to present the data are demonstrably broken and inaccurate, and when the experts interpreting the data are demonstrably rogues, I have to remain unconvinced. My beef is not with the results, it's with the process.
From: Richard on 29 Nov 2009 00:31 On Nov 29, 11:17 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Richard wrote: > > >> *I* don't understand? What's to understand? They closed one station > >> and opened another some distance away. > > > At a different altitude. > > >> I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not conversant with adiabatic > >> adjustments (although I do know what they are). > > > If you did _actually_ understand this then you would know why the > > adjustment was done instead of cluelessly calling it 'fraud'. > > > If you were to have an airtight and 100% insulated bag and you filled > > it with air at sea level and sealed it then took that bag up a hill > > the temperature of the air would drop even though there was no loss of > > heat. > > > Boyle described that a couple of hundred years ago, do they teach you > > nothing in schools. Oh wait you are from a 'red state', wrong book. > > > But you are searching for results that agree with your agenda and so > > do not want to understand, only to claim support. > > Blah-blah-blah. I understand Boyle's law, etc. Obviously not. > I used to TEACH chemistry, Probably 'classical' chemistry based on the 4 elements of fire, earth, air and water. Or was it alchemy ? > for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were measuring > temperature at a completely different location. They didn't just put the > thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the whole shebang to another > county. No they did not, not in the case quoted for NIWA. Just making up stuff does not help your position. We do not have 'county's here. They moved it from sea level up the hill that was about 150 metres above sea level. I have been there and rode the cable car up the hill. > The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and > Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude. > It was no more that a few hundred metres in distance, but was a change of altitude of 150 metres. Thorndon and Kelburn are adjacent suburbs and the cable car is 0.5 kilometre and has one end in each. The move was basically from one end of the cable car to the other. The airport is back at sea level or so and is 4.5 kilometers away. > >> But I AM familiar with some methods of > >> distorting data. > > > Which is exactly what the clueless sceptic and yourself has done > > through ignorance. > > You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data. The clueless skeptics distorted the data by conjoining raw data from two different altitudes _without_ making the relevant corrections to allow these to be equivalent readings. You have continued those clueless sceptics frauds by claiming that they are right even though you have admitted that you do not understand. > > Only because you are too clueless to work it out for yourself and the > > results they provide don't agree with your agenda. > > I don't have an agenda. I'm ready to be convinced as to anthropogenic global > warming. But when the data presented is demonstrably false, The sceptics claims are demonstrably false, as is your uninformed claim of fraud. > when the tools > used to present the data are demonstrably broken and inaccurate, and when > the experts interpreting the data are demonstrably rogues, I have to remain > unconvinced. > > My beef is not with the results, it's with the process. It is only your and the clueless sceptics claim that they are "rouge" and that the data is broken. In the case of NIWA they have good processes.
From: HeyBub on 29 Nov 2009 08:37
Richard wrote: > >> for cryin' out loud! What you don't understand is that they were >> measuring temperature at a completely different location. They >> didn't just put the thermometer on a 3000-foot pole, they moved the >> whole shebang to another county. > > No they did not, not in the case quoted for NIWA. Just making up stuff > does not help your position. We do not have 'county's here. They moved > it from sea level up the hill that was about 150 metres above sea > level. I have been there and rode the cable car up the hill. I apologize for mischaracterizing your area as having counties. I am glad, however, that you agree they moved the measuring station. > > >> The difference between the temperature readings in San Francisco and >> Denver is considerably more than an adjustment for altitude. >> > > It was no more that a few hundred metres in distance, but was a change > of altitude of 150 metres. > > Thorndon and Kelburn are adjacent suburbs and the cable car is 0.5 > kilometre and has one end in each. The move was basically from one end > of the cable car to the other. The airport is back at sea level or so > and is 4.5 kilometers away. I'm glad you agree they moved the station. I think you're claiming that the abandonment of one station and the creation of another by some distance is insignificant, once adjusted for altitude. The point remains, the two locations are not the same and no amount of fiddling with the data will make them the same. And the distance between Thorndon and Kelburn is more like 2 km, not 500 meters. >> >> You're confused. *I* haven't distorted any data. > > The clueless skeptics distorted the data by conjoining raw data from > two different altitudes _without_ making the relevant corrections to > allow these to be equivalent readings. You have continued those > clueless sceptics frauds by claiming that they are right even though > you have admitted that you do not understand. It is the authorities who claim the data came from the "same station." If the people responsible call it the "same station," then why not attach the readings. It's either the same station or it's not. > > The sceptics claims are demonstrably false, as is your uninformed > claim of fraud. > > > In the case of NIWA they have good processes. Consider: * The IPCC data (home of the infamous Michael Mann "Hocky Stick" fraud) is now considered problematic. [Penn State has opened an investigation regarding the "questions" and "concerns" of Michael Mann and everybody he ever knew raised by the release of the CRU archives.] * The entire corpus of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) is now considered by many as suspect. * NIWA has been caught fudging the data. The "peer reviewed" papers from these institutions must now be reevaluated and, until evaluated by independent researches, taken off the scale. As a second degree, papers that used as reference any data or papers from IPCC or East Anglia's CRU must also be viewed as suspect. Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the conclusions of IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with a "consensus of the scientific community" consisting of one WWI pensioner living in what was once East Prussia whose arthritic knee is acting up. |