[OT] How science is not done

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:23:12 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

As the governed, do we not have the right to question the findings of
those qualified people by performing our own analyses starting from
the raw data used in their chain of reasoning?

The right? I'd say no... or at least, I'd echo your "in a perfect
world".

Okay, fair enough.

I would be very uncomfortable with policy based substantially on data
that was, for example, classified. But that's not the case here. I
haven't seen anything to suggest that the CRU data isn't available to
many qualified researchers (and I trust them more than I trust my own
analysis).

Which researchers do you trust: the ones who say anthropogenic global
warming is a problem we need to address, the ones who claim it isn't,
or the ones who claim we still don't know for sure? Without analyzing
the raw data yourself, how do you know who's out to lunch and who
isn't?

And the CRU data is far from the only raw data being used. So
on the whole (in this case) the analytical process is pretty
transparent. If there's a small amount of raw data that isn't _publicly_
available, I think it's a small concern.

The process may be transparent to other climatologists, but it's not
completely transparent to the intelligent and capable members of the
laity--or doesn't seem to be. If I end up finding most of the raw
data online, I'll recant.
--
Dave

On Aug 15, 7:45*pm, "Michael Toms Shidt" wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in messagenews:nosb85lk0c75vd5tdre1o5l35bfc107u0k@4ax .com...

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:17:55 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
wrote:

We need our scientists to develop new solar technology, cold fusion,
better building materials. We are at a time where we need practical
things, I don't know about the future but at the moment we clearly can
not afford bull**** devices like that.

I'm happy the world doesn't work the way you'd like it to, with science
focused only on the practical. From things like CERN come the great
answers, that are at the core of all that is ultimately practical.

How good is CERN, for example, if for every one answer, which might take 20
years to find and cost billions, one million die of starvation? *What
exactly has been learned from Hubble, for example, that benefits mankind in
a practical way? *Yet, we spent millions on it for a few pretty pictures.
Then we wonder why we're on the verge of bankruptcy.

It seems pretty obvious we need to get our act together on this
planet. For this to happen we need to work together. For that to
happen we need simply to care.

From Hubble we learn that we are those insignificantly small critters
crawling around on that insignificantly small blog of mud spinning
around that insignificantly small star in that insignificantly small
solar system. How small the milky way is we don't know but it does
seem to be a grain of sand in a desert.

This was made obvious to everyone from all ages. Even the Pope argued
that God could have created other planets with life on them.

yes, in some way it was a waste of money but from another perspective
it made the obvious more obvious. Which was something we needed. We
are "only this" rather than "all that", the universe doesn't revolve
around us (like Androcles pointed out)

There are those who want to make the best of things, there are those
who want to ruin everything for everyone.

If the first group is going to spend their lives watching the supper
ball, buying bigger tits and drinking beer the later wont have to make
much effort to screw everyone over.

Say you need 1000 bucks, you go to he bank, the bank creates 1000
bucks out of thin air, you pay back 1100 bucks and you have nothing
again. You needed 1000 bucks and as a result the bank now has 1100
bucks. For free! Free money! If that doesn't show you how screwed the
good people are nothing ever will.

Government is essentially a group of thugs pointing guns at our few
honest politicians. The only reason the US is on the verge of
bankruptcy are the people who want this to be front page news. The
gangsters in office laugh at the idea. That money wasn't borrowed, it
was stolen mainly from the Chinese. Even if looked at as debt the
nukes back it all the way. The Wild west never ended.

Then there is science, another group of gangsters who really want
nothing other than to fill their own pockets. It would be all the same
if this group of thugs was not the last hope for mankind to continue
to pay the global cartels.

They have people like Chris completely brainwashed. look:

Chris wrote:
From things like CERN come the great answers, that are at the core of
all that is ultimately practical.

Gaby wrote:
And what is that? Proof, please, and the verifiable data where we can
see it is "ultimately practical"

Chris wrote:
*nothing*

Gaby wrote:
And the amount of death this is going to inflict is not something you
care about? It actually makes you happy to kill all those billions of
people? This is what you are saying.

Chis wrote:
You're nuts.

There you have it, it are gangsters who can not back their own lies.
This is why the top poster is right, publicly funded data should be
public. We want to see scientists come up with just as convincing a
Terrorist story to justify their crimes as Warsington. Me being crazy
sure doesn't begin to answer the question nor does it cover the load.

When you see a scientist claim jet fuel melts steel, cold fusion is
fake, the LHC is worth the money or that solar is not worth research
funds what he really is saying is that he enjoys killing billions of
people and that children shouldn't have any kind of future.

Ask them why and they will respond: "You're nuts"

This is where they put their research data in the public domain by
accident. It are gangsters after all, with a few Zionist exceptions
aside gangsters are not the brightest people.

It is hard to tell the difference between subjects of brainwashing and
the actual gangsters but eventually I will have the later eaten by
their own minions. Because I can and I will. I always win, there is no
way out and they can not escape.

No need for lynch mobs, we can just laugh them off the stage.

Look, real world saving science.

http://blog.go-here.nl/7717

Imagine the geopolitical implications of this. It is evidently not
that we can not save our world, it is that there are people who really
don't want to see it happen.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:45:52 -0400, "Michael Toms Shidt"
wrote:

How good is CERN, for example, if for every one answer, which might take 20
years to find and cost billions, one million die of starvation? What
exactly has been learned from Hubble, for example, that benefits mankind in
a practical way? Yet, we spent millions on it for a few pretty pictures.
Then we wonder why we're on the verge of bankruptcy.

If you seriously believe that the money for the LHC or for the HST would
have gone to feeding starving people, you have a very distorted view of
reality.

It isn't either/or. IMO, if we don't explore the unknown, there's no
reason to feed anybody; we would be denying the essence of what it means
to be human. Without our long investment in studying nature- without any
guarantee of "practical" results- even intelligent people would still
believe in gods and demons, and vastly more people would be dying of
starvation and disease.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:23:12 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

As the governed, do we not have the right to question the findings of
those qualified people by performing our own analyses starting from
the raw data used in their chain of reasoning?

The right? I'd say no... or at least, I'd echo your "in a perfect
world".

Okay, fair enough.

I would be very uncomfortable with policy based substantially on data
that was, for example, classified. But that's not the case here. I
haven't seen anything to suggest that the CRU data isn't available to
many qualified researchers (and I trust them more than I trust my own
analysis).

Which researchers do you trust: the ones who say anthropogenic global
warming is a problem we need to address, the ones who claim it isn't,
or the ones who claim we still don't know for sure? Without analyzing
the raw data yourself, how do you know who's out to lunch and who
isn't?

And the CRU data is far from the only raw data being used. So
on the whole (in this case) the analytical process is pretty
transparent. If there's a small amount of raw data that isn't _publicly_
available, I think it's a small concern.

The process may be transparent to other climatologists, but it's not
completely transparent to the intelligent and capable members of the
laity--or doesn't seem to be. If I end up finding most of the raw
data online, I'll recant.
--
Dave

Global warming:
Insolation, precession, Earth's great white spot.
When the great white spot (Antarctica) is in summer at perihelion,
conditions are different to when it is in summer at aphelion thousands
of years later (or earlier) as the Earth precesses. Water vapour (cloud)
is the predominant "greenhouse" gas, it reflects solar energy to cool
the planet and then rains and vanishes. Sunlight breaks through
and evaporates the ocean. Animal life on this planet has no control.
Global warming is cyclic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...insolation.jpg

What exactly has been learned from Hubble, for example, that benefits
mankind in a practical way?

About as useful as Shakespeare, Rembrandt, the Olympics or the Apollo
program, ie none at all.

We should all concentrate on growing more food instead.

Dave Typinski wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:22:28 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?

No, I don't think so. I have loads of raw meteor data, but I release it
selectively. I probably wouldn't give it to a UFO researcher, for
instance. It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Jones not to provide the raw
data to anybody who asks.

I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x �C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

The real question is whether a reasonable
number of bona fide climate researchers have access to the data, and the
article doesn't make that clear one way or the other.

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave

Dave Typinski wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:22:28 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?

No, I don't think so. I have loads of raw meteor data, but I release it
selectively. I probably wouldn't give it to a UFO researcher, for
instance. It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Jones not to provide the raw
data to anybody who asks.

I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x �C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

The real question is whether a reasonable
number of bona fide climate researchers have access to the data, and the
article doesn't make that clear one way or the other.

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave

what don't you get? The data is freely available to any who wants to
take the time to download it. In reality this has nothing to do with
science or availability of data, rather a sadsack looking to get
another 15 minutes of fame so he can get few more bucks. What's even
sorrier are those who actually think that there is vast conspiracy to
fake basic science. These people are right up there with gerald, brad,
nancy and danny

yourmommycalled wrote:

Dave Typinski wrote:

I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?

what don't you get?

Heh... lots of things! With respect to the immediate topic, I don't
get how /so many/ people on both sides of the climate change debate
can feel so sure of their opinions. The scientists who've actually
done the research, sure... but folks who've never read the relevant
papers, let alone seen the source data?

The data is freely available to any who wants to take the time to download it.

So you keep claiming. As I've mentioned, the CRU site doesn't have
much in the way of real source data. Dunno about the GHCN yet; their
site's still down.
--
Dave

On Aug 16, 5:39 am, yourmommycalled wrote:
What's even
sorrier are those who actually think that there is vast conspiracy to
fake basic science. These people are right up there with gerald, brad,
nancy and danny

Classified technology is rather well-documented to exist.

Nonsense science to justify political agendas is also elaborately
documented.

Like adding fluoride to drinking water to break down peoples nervous
system. Injecting people with mercury or filling their teeth with it.
Magic bullets, jet fuel melting steel, pancake effects,
neoconversation of petroleum gospel. etc etc

Oh, there is so much of it. The *Global Scientific Conspiracy* is
definitely real.

Want more examples?

No one ever died from smoking a joint, we can make ethanol from hemp,
we can make paper from hemp. In stead we have dangerous oil tankers
and we are cutting down all our forests. It is seriously laughable
science.[1]

I'm not sure what you are referring to with "basic science" exactly.

Is this basic enough?[2]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...88648518#1m35s

Do we need wobbly excuses like global warming to use this? Global
warming is a propaganda term used to create a system with carbon
credits. It is a lie either way. If it exists isn't really an issue
really.

Why would any scientifically useful data be private?

In the UK they are putting cameras in peoples homes. Warrantless
wiretapping is the rule rather than the exception in the US.

You really need to come up with a good excuse why companies and
publicly funded research efforts should be allowed to have privacy.

We have the great global government conspiracy, the global media
conspiracy, the conspiracy of the normals, the patent office
conspiracy and we have the scientific conspiracy.

If you don't agree you are probably one of those lizard people :-)

I can explain how they work if you want.

Just ask,




[1] - http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wil...rf1mzjtxzk5/25
same: http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/25

[2] - http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wil...f1mzjtxzk5/19#
same: http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/19

On Aug 15, 12:33*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
yourmommycalled wrote:

Which is why you can just download the data for free from the CRU
website, right?

Where do you see links to /raw/ data on the CRU web site?

I see a bunch of temperature anomaly datasets. *That's not raw data,
it's data that's already been massaged.

I see /one/ data set of raw temps covering the period of 1961 to 1990,
and that's all.

Where's the raw data for which they calculated the temperature anomaly
datasets?
--
Dave

You really don't understand anything at all about science do you! Did
you even think a little before you posted? Do you really think that
CRU has it's own weather stations sited all around the world? Oh
right, I'm sorry you actually think that global warming is vast
conspiracy and that scientists are hiding all the "real" data. CRU
like NASA GISS and the Hadley Center get the raw data from the
meteorological offices of every country in the world. You want the raw
daily data for Australia, then you contact the Bureau of Meteorology
(BOM) in Melbourne, you want data from Cape Verde you go to the
National Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics (Instituto Nacional
de Meteorologia e Geophísica), you want Russian data you go to
Russian Federal Service For Hydrometeorology and Environmental
Monitoring (ROSHYDROMET) just like NASA-GISS, CRU and the Hadley
Center scientists do. By the way you might better have some cash on
hand since many countries India, , Malaysia and host of others will
only provide data AFTER you send them a sizable check. In the case of
India, in order to get the data you sign a release that specifically
states:

2. The data are meant exclusively for our own use and shall not be
passed or
transmitted on to any other party or agency (Indian or foreign)/media
(magnetic
or Electronic) either in part or in full. If so needed, prior
approval in writing will be
taken from India Meteorological Department for the same :

3. The data shall not be used for commercial purpose or to earn
consultancy fees,
honoraria etc.

Welcome to real world of science.

McIntyre wasn't asking for the raw data, he was asking for the
anomalies, McIntyre cold have just downloaded them just like everybody
else, instead he flooded the office with "official" demands peppered
with statements like you made earlier. McIntyre in his own words said
he wasn't interested in the data. According the McIntyre there was no
"smoking gun", he just wanted another 15 minutes of fame.