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: Nick on 7 Jun 2010 22:58 E-mails raise legitimate questions Ben Foster Albemarle County Published: June 6, 2010 Updated: June 7, 2010 The author of Assault on freedom sends chills (The Daily Progress, May 26) apparently believes that academia-sponsored scientific research is pure and untainted and should never be doubted or questioned by mere mortals. Unfortunately, experience has proved otherwise. The writer expressed outrage at Ken Cuccinellis request for access to professor Michael Manns climate change research, notes, etc. However, pirated e-mail from the Climate Research Unit raised questions over whether Mann had colluded with researchers at the CRU, at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate data. How pure and untainted was the research at the University of East Anglia? The investigation that was launched to answer that question appears to have been focused on the wrong targets. There is a misconception that research scientists, like Michael Mann, actually do the research that produces those highly publicized climate predictions, when in reality the bulk of that work is done by powerful computer models that do the number crunching. It is illuminating, therefore, to look at what is called the Source Code for those models, which, when compiled, produces the Object Code for the computers. In the Source Code programmers commonly place Comments, which are not compiled into Object Code but are simply added to explain how the Source Code was derived. It is always informative to read those Comments. The following Comments from the CRU Source Code, for instance, were made available to the world through a Freedom of Information Act inquiry. Here are some examples, according to the Weblog wattsupwiththat.com: * plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures. * Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline * Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING so the correlations arent so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station ames/ locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no supposed, I can make it up. So I have :-) * Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!! If anyone is interested in sifting through more of these very revealing Comments, they can be found at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/.
From: Cwatters on 8 Jun 2010 04:59 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 :-)
From: Desertphile on 8 Jun 2010 08:54 On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Nick <prochemica(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > The writer expressed outrage at Ken Cuccinelli�s request for access to > professor Michael Mann�s climate change research, notes, etc. However, Mann's, at al., data has been freely available to anyone and everyone who has asked for it. It is even available for download on the'net, and always has been. > pirated e-mail from the Climate Research Unit raised questions over > whether Mann had colluded with researchers at the CRU, at the > University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate > data. Yeah; they didn't. Oops! You forgot to mention that wee little fact. -- 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 09:01 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! -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Androcles on 8 Jun 2010 09:11
"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. Fraudulent hysterical alarmist bigots crack me up! |