E-mails raise legitimate questions
in [Physics]
|
Prev: THE JIC SECTS - WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW with recent episodes at hand related to the unending religious wars between the JIC sects & their different infantile beliefs
Next: Quantum Field Theory's Howler
From: J. Clarke on 8 Jun 2010 10:10 On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" > <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > >> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the "sum-of-squares >> parameter" going negative here.. >> >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ >> >> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital evidence >> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) > > The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it > never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, > and the scientists did nothing wrong. > > As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU > scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in > dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the > loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional > temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature > readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data > after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about > scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That > just cracks me up! Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? It's a lot easier to park a mirror next to a thermometer than it is to trick a whole forest into growing differently.
From: oriel36 on 8 Jun 2010 11:17 On Jun 8, 3:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" > > <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > >> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the "sum-of-squares > >> parameter" going negative here.. > > >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-co.... > > >> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital evidence > >> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) > > > The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it > > never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, > > and the scientists did nothing wrong. > > > As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU > > scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in > > dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the > > loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional > > temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature > > readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data > > after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about > > scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That > > just cracks me up! > > Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? It's a lot easier to > park a mirror next to a thermometer than it is to trick a whole forest > into growing differently. One of the most remarkable writings,and it ends up as being just one big long complaint,is by John Harrison,the original one man version of NASA who created what was really the first delicate piece of mechanical engineering.His opposition would have been those whom many here trace their conceptual ancestry to ,men who originally opposed the clock solution to the longitude problem and did their level best to wreck the H4 masterpiece,placing it is a window in direct sunlight while keeping a thermometer in another cooler part of the room,that is described in this most painful work on page 100 - "... the heat should have an equal influence on all sides of it; and it is obvious that the Thermometer ought to have been kept in the same Bos with it; but as this was not done, I apprehend the effects of heat mentioned above do not merit much attention; and therefore shall only observe that the Watch was placed in a Box with a Glass in the lid and another in one side, in the seat of a window level with the lowest pane of the window, and exposed to the South-East, whilst the Thermometer, which was to ascertain the degree of heat the Watch was exposed to, was placed in a shady part of the room: now it is obvious that while the Air surrounding the Thermometer might be very temperate, there might, if the Sun shone upon it, be a heat in the Box, superior to what was ever felt in the open air in any part of the world; and perhaps greater than any human being could subsist in, and consequently improper, or at least unnecessary for this experiment." John Harrison http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q&f=false It is ironic that even as Harrison explains in rough outlines how clocks mesh with daily rotation and planetary geometry based on the 4 minutes for each degree of rotation on page 90-91,many here will positively throw a tantrum that the Earth does not turn once in 24 hours but employ 'sidereal time' reasoning,an approach favored by Harrison's opposition as this is the framework for Newton's agenda and ultimately all the talk of absolute/relative time and space ect. If I were an empiricist,and I am not,I would be looking at what scientists were doing 10 and 20 years before Flamsteed created that crude assumption between circumpolar motion/daily rotation which give Isaac Newton the opportunity to dismantle approaches which used terrestrial effects to nail down astronomical causes or visa versa,something akin to what is seen in the letter of Wallis to Boyle long before the Flamsteed/Newton debacle (make sure you check the date at the top of the page) - http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA219&dq=aequation+dayes#v=onepage&q&f=false If there are people willing to literally 'cook' data then you need only take Harrison's painful testimony but equally if you wish to see others like Wallis and Boyle working on things that later became attributed to Newton then the correspondence should be enough to show that the analogies empiricists use can be both appropriate as long as its limitations are known. However interesting it must seem,a looming stalemate where every cold winter is seen as proof positive of natural global cooling or some other interpretation,every warm summer an indication that men can control global temperatures or any other combination of correlations between temperature and carbon dioxide can be avoided by taking a wider view of the matter,at least for those who cringe at the idea that such a stalemate will be a permanent feature like those who argue for and against 'relativity' without actually going anywhere,and as far as I can tell,are perfectly happy with that condition.
From: Desertphile on 8 Jun 2010 11:36 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:11:43 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > "Desertphile" <desertphile(a)invalid-address.net> wrote in message > news:8dfs0693fu0hrgp9oo4r1h4o14j57l1jcu(a)4ax.com... > | On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" > | <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > | > | > I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the > "sum-of-squares > | > parameter" going negative here.. > | > > | > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ > | > > | > Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital > evidence > | > of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) > | > | The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it > | never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, > | and the scientists did nothing wrong. > | > | As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU > | scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in > | dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the > | loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional > | temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature > | readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data > | after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about > | scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That > | just cracks me up! > | > I don't deny GW. I do deny AGW. Therefore we can agree on the same data, but > not on the same cause. So, you deny the only known mechanism for global warming. LOL! > Fraudulent hysterical alarmist bigots crack me up! You crack you up? -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Desertphile on 8 Jun 2010 11:37 On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:10:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" > > <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > > >> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the "sum-of-squares > >> parameter" going negative here.. > >> > >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ > >> > >> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital evidence > >> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) > > > > The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it > > never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, > > and the scientists did nothing wrong. > > > > As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU > > scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in > > dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the > > loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional > > temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature > > readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data > > after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about > > scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That > > just cracks me up! > Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? Huh? "Rig?" You are not making any sense. Temperature readings are more accurate than proxy data for historical temperatures. Surely that is obvious. > It's a lot easier to > park a mirror next to a thermometer than it is to trick a whole forest > into growing differently. > -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: J. Clarke on 8 Jun 2010 15:23
On 6/8/2010 11:37 AM, Desertphile wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:10:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On 6/8/2010 9:01 AM, Desertphile wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:59:40 +0100, "Cwatters" >>> <colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I love the way the deniers pick up on the comment about the "sum-of-squares >>>> parameter" going negative here.. >>>> >>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ >>>> >>>> Obviously any mention of fixing something going negative is vital evidence >>>> of fraud. Even if it's a sum-of-squares :-) >>> >>> The fraud is the assertion that there was a "climategate:" it >>> never happened. There was no fraud, "climategate" never existed, >>> and the scientists did nothing wrong. >>> >>> As has been pointed out to the alarmist nutcases who deny AGW, CRU >>> scientists routinely used and use _Nature_ magazine's technique in >>> dendroclimatology to "hide the decline." The "decline" being the >>> loss of correlation between tree ring proxy data and regional >>> temperature. The CRU scientists use and used actual temperature >>> readings via thermometors instead of the proxy data for the data >>> after 1960. The hysterical alarmist nutcases are complaining about >>> scientists using more accurate data, calling it a "fraud!" That >>> just cracks me up! > >> Is it "more accurate" or is it just easier to rig? > > Huh? "Rig?" You are not making any sense. Only because you don't understand how experiments can be tinkered with to give a desired result. > Temperature readings are more accurate than proxy data for > historical temperatures. Surely that is obvious. Only seems obvious. The thermometer accurately reports the temperature of the thermometer. If the thermometer temperature diverges from temperature measurements determined by other means then one doesn't reject the other measurements, one finds out what has changed with the thermometer. >> It's a lot easier to >> park a mirror next to a thermometer than it is to trick a whole forest >> into growing differently. >> > > |