|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 8:13*pm, yourmommycalled wrote:
snip This last point is also addressed in NOAA's response to Tony "I'm a fool" Watts self-published mistake ridden tome. Curiously NOAA showed that all of Watt's claims that bad surface obs biased the US temperature trends were bogus and that there is no indication from Watt's own data *that poor station exposure created a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.- Hide quoted text - What Watts and his volunteers have in fact shown http://www.surfacestations.org/ is that the US data has serious data quality issues due to system-wide station siting problems. Over two thirds of the sites in the USHCN network are seriously flawed. Station quality ratings (obtained from NOAA/NCDC) indicate that these stations are subject to biases that will introduce errors of over 2° C. Class 4 (CRN4) (error = 2C) - Artificial heating sources 10 meters. Class 5 (CRN5) (error = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/ above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface." These measurement sites are in direct violation of NOAAs specifications for siting that are intended to protect data quality. They may be useful for indicating short-term trends locally, but they violate standards intended to allow cross-comparison between distant sites, and lack of control of long-term site changes defeats any effort to identify meaningful trends. Bottom line: the data is ****. It is a collection of inkblots into which one can project whatever one wishes to visualize. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
" wrote:
I suggest that the scientific process is reasonably well thought out and managed. Much more important than whether an individual scientist provides another scientist with some data is whether or not the legislative decision making process is open and transparent. snip It is the political process that is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately the scientific information, data, analysis, conclusions, plays a secondary role to the agendas of lobbyist and special interest groups. Absolutely. I am arguing that if the raw data upon which scientists and politicians base their analyses and decisions isn't made available to the public, then legislation based on scientific evidence rests on a weak foundation. As you point out, the politics involved--regardless of the availability of source data--is far more opaque. I don't expect politicians to change. I would, however, expect scientists--who are, hopefully, more rational than politicians--to see the value to the legislative process and the governed of freely available source data. -- Dave |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 15, 5:25*pm, tadchem wrote:
On the contrary, the reluctance to share raw data is something I would expect from frauds, cranks, and scam artists. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA The temperature fluctuations between January and July ,representing orbital points,are not understood at all,the variation in inclination to solar radiation and the old 'tilt' towards and away from the Sun is pretty much useless for describing the reason behind the fluctuations.A simple planetary comparison with Uranus announces to anyone with a decent level of intelligence that scientists have been missing out on an additional orbital component to explain the seasons and temperature fluctuations which are many magnitudes greater than the current temperature spike let alone what is causing the recent temperature fluctuations over and above the seasonal fluctuations. How 'science works' indeed,more like how a bunch of mediocre individuals trying to make work for themselves with a strange alliance between guys who think astronomy is a magnifgication exercise at night and mathematicians who have gone bananas with speculative computer modelling. How a bunch of mediocre freaks managed to get humanity obsessed with pollution by turn carbon dioxide into a global temperature dial will eventually be seen as a cautionary lesson for a race who couldn't even get basic planetary facts straight |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 15, 11:43*am, tadchem wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:13*pm, yourmommycalled wrote: snip This last point is also addressed in NOAA's response to Tony "I'm a fool" Watts self-published mistake ridden tome. Curiously NOAA showed that all of Watt's claims that bad surface obs biased the US temperature trends were bogus and that there is no indication from Watt's own data *that poor station exposure created a bias in the U.S.. temperature trends.- Hide quoted text - What Watts and his volunteers have in fact shownhttp://www.surfacestations.org/ is that the US data has serious data quality issues due to system-wide station siting problems. Over two thirds of the sites in the USHCN network are seriously flawed. Station quality ratings (obtained from NOAA/NCDC) indicate that these stations are subject to biases that will introduce errors of over 2° C. Class 4 (CRN4) (error = 2C) - Artificial heating sources 10 meters. Class 5 (CRN5) (error = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/ above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface." These measurement sites are in direct violation of NOAAs specifications for siting that are intended to protect data quality. They may be useful for indicating short-term trends locally, but they violate standards intended to allow cross-comparison between distant sites, and lack of control of long-term site changes defeats any effort to identify meaningful trends. Bottom line: the data is ****. It is a collection of inkblots into which one can project whatever one wishes to visualize. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA No Idiot watts hasn't proved anything like he claims he has at all. NOAA used ALL of the data Watts collected. Then using WATTS OWN CRITERIA FOR GOOD STATIONS WHICH WERE MORE STRINGENT THAN WMO/USHCN STANDARDS, NOAA compared the temperature trends from the stations that Watts declared good against all other stations. Hey guess what there wasn't any difference. Watts and his clueless moron have no idea what the standards are, have no clue what a QC or QA process is and have been caught repeatedly using a telephoto lens to compress distances so as to make it appear that a site is badly setup when in point of fact it meets all standards. When a YouTube video was posted documenting, using Watts own statements and data, just how far wrong Watts was, Watts issued a DCMA takedown. When forced to prove there was a DCMA violation, he mumbled something it wasn't him or it was a mistake or or or.... translated to something easy to understand Watts is a fool |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 15, 11:25*am, tadchem wrote:
On Aug 14, 12:48*pm, " wrote: On Aug 14, 8:29*am, yourmommycalled wrote: On Aug 14, 8:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote: Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate Change neé Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/ ***** Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004: "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years 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." ***** "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works. * -- Dave The Register is not known for accuracy in reporting and has a very anti-global warming stance. None of the statements made in the article are accurate. The whole article is full of ****. The only accurate part is that Jones is indeed a scientist at CRU. Calling him an activist is a blatant attempt to discredit him. Jones does know how science works and is/has been willing to freely provide data and analysis tools. Why would you need a FoIA (A US law) request to get access to data from a British institution? Answer you don't. Particularly since you can go to the CRU website and download the raw data, the software CRU used to process the data, the processed data and just about anything else you could conceivably want. Why go through a non-existent process to get the data when you simply go to website and get it. The same thing applies to GISS data and software, climate models from any of the modeling groups and any other data source, modeling and analysis effort EXCEPT, and this is a very important exception, FROM THE DENIER COMMUNITY. The process used by scientists is very transparent, the process used by the deniers is not. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
Chris L Peterson wrote:
It is important to remember that public policy is generally not based on primary research (and probably shouldn't be, unless we get a reasonable number of scientifically literate legislators). Yeah, in a perfect world... It is based on summaries and compilations of primary research prepared by experts and recognized by those legislators as qualified advisors. This isn't just the case for science, either. Matters of education policy, economic policy, social policy... you name it... are all based (if we're lucky) on secondary studies. Policy is based on raw data through a chain of analysis by what we hope are qualified people. 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? I'm sure the few of the governed and even fewer of their representatives in the legislature would actually do so. I'm also sure that when it comes to science-based legislation, raw data should be made available to anyone who wished to question the findings. Actually, the idea of legislators basing their policy on raw scientific data is pretty scary! Indeed. The data needs interpretation. So, what if my interpretation doesn't agree with your interpretation? A public debate ensues, which is how a representative government is supposed to work, agreements made behind the closed doors to smoke-filled rooms notwithstanding. Absent access to source data, how can I possibly interpret for myself what it means? And without forming my own interpretation, how can I usefully participate in the public debate? -- Dave |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
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". 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). 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. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... 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. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 15, 10:45*am, "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. Those millions don't starve to death because the funds used to build CERN were "diverted" from feeding them. They starve to death because they have more children than they can feed using their "traditional" farming methods, and the warlords who chivvy them to "ethnically cleanse" their neighbors out of existence so they can have Leibensraum steal charity food shipments off the docks to buy guns with. Hubble's current total cost is a paltry few billion. It didn't bankrupt anyone. You are such a Socialist tool. Mark L. Fergerson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 11th 07 05:37 PM |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | July 11th 07 04:48 PM |
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers | nightbat | Misc | 4 | November 11th 06 02:34 AM |
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order | nightbat | Misc | 8 | September 8th 06 09:50 AM |
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 16th 04 09:22 PM |