[OT] How science is not done

"yourmommycalled" wrote in message
...
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!
=================================================
He knows more than you ever will and asked for data, putting
a question mark at the end of his sentence. You reply with
a rant, an accusation and you can't punctuate.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

On Aug 16, 4:39*am, yourmommycalled wrote:
Dave Typinski wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

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

Wait a minute you miserable creep,you bunch of numbskulls think I am a
madman because I explain the history behind rotation of the Earth at a
rate of 4 minutes/1 degree and rotation through 360 degrees in 24
hours exactly with all the consequences of that rotation.Put
yourselves alongside Min with your 'sidereal time' idea that the
apparent rotation of the constellations around Polaris determine
rotation through 360 degrees,a dumb conclusion that has a definite
beginning with Flamsteed which means you lot haven't a clue regarding
basic planetary facts of shape,dimensions and dynamics.

Dave Typinski wrote:
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).

The gridded CRU data is available online together with various
background references to the primary literature.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

The original station data belongs to the various nations, met stations
and observers that made them. Anyone wanting all the raw data would have
to go back to the primary sources to get it.

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?

Look carefully at their scientific credentials, employment history and
political affiliation. You can be reasonably sure that the prostitutes
and lobbyists against AGW who have previously worked for big tobacco are
in it only for the money. They are using exactly the same disinformation
techniques to frustrate the scientific case for AGW as they used to keep
the suckers smoking cigarettes and dying of cancer.

There are a few *genuine* scientific AGW sceptics and I would count
Lindzen amongst them, but the vast majority are politically motivated
kill the planet for immediate profit fossil fuel company hacks.

I think it is time that the worlds scientific societies took their
gloves off and exposed some of these shills for the fraudsters that they
are. There is a deliberate disinformation campaign to keep the public
from understanding what is admittedly a medium to long term threat.

Politicians are simply not up to the job. Anything that happens more
than five years into the future and they are not interested.

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.

The raw data will swamp you.

We have more than enough evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising
significantly due to human influence and that as a consequence sea
levels will rise too. Sea levels rising, glaciers and polar ice melting
are pretty good proxy measures for global warming.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:22:52 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

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?

Speaking for myself, my high level of confidence in my opinion is based
on two things. First, I'm trained as a scientist and I _have_ read many
primary research papers, and for the most part I understand them, even
though I'm not a climate scientist. Second, I do have faith in the
consensus value of science, and in this case there are almost no climate
scientists (and an even smaller percentage of climate scientists engaged
in active research) who doubt that AGW is both real and of significant
magnitude. The weight of that many experts combined with my own reading
of the evidence forms the basis of my opinion.
_________________________________________________

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

On Aug 15, 11:22*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:

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?

Well, I haven't gone to Africa, and unearthed any hominid fossils with
my bare hands.

But I am very sure that evolution took place, because scientists who
deal with the life sciences are nearly unanimous in its support, while
its opponents have an obvious extraneous motivation for their view.

The situation with regards to global warming is just about as clear-
cut. The oil industry has funded some research that says otherwise,
and there are a few mavericks out there - just as there were
university professors who thought that telepathy and UFOs were worthy
of research. And that's about it.

The physics behind global warming isn't rocket science. Carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere are higher than they used to be. It doesn't
block the sunlight that warms us, but it does block the long-wave
radiation that the ground at any location sends into space at night at
that location. What comes in stays the same. What goes out is
decreased. Result: the equilibrium temperature of the Earth goes up.

Detailed climate models will tell us how much carbon dioxide from
industrial activity goes into the atmosphere - after all, the increase
that has taken place so far since the Industrial Revolution hasn't
caused any catastrophe - and how much goes into the ocean.

So news items that:

- the ocean is becoming more acidic, threatening the survival of
corals, including the Great Barrier Reef,

- large parts of the ocean are no longer accepting carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere,

- peat bogs in Siberia, and now ocean floor deposits, are, due to
higher temperature, beginning to release methane, a very potent
greenhouse gas into the atmosphere

and not simply the fact that we had a warm summer last year, or that
the carbon dioxide level is still increasing, are what make me think
that there is definitely cause for concern.

In the past, environmentalists have often overstated some of their
concerns. There were those who harbored sentiments such as "deep
ecology" which involved a way of thinking with which most people would
see no reason to have any sympathy.

The hole in the ozone layer, and the flourocarbon ban that resulted,
was the first indication that things finally did change, and that it
wasn't a question of crying "Wolf!" any more - industrialization had
spread so much that humanity really is capable of affecting the Earth
on a global scale.

When proof is unmistakable even to the man on the street - so that
large sacrifices, like outlawing cars and using bicycles to get around
- are politically feasible, though, it will be already too late to do
anything about the problem before very bad things happen. If there's
so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the Earth doesn't
radiate out by night what it gets in by day (averaged over each
individual place, I know it isn't night and day everywhere at once) it
will get warmer gradually. So there's a lag time built in to this.

So I think we should switch as much energy use as we can to other
sources. Switching to nuclear power, compared to depending on wind and
tide, is feasible politically - only a noisy minority would really
object, while avoiding nuclear would have real impacts that ordinary
people would object to. We don't have to wait until it's too late -
unless it's already too late.

Given that there are indications that it is very late indeed, which I
cited above in point form, worrying about the less-than-credible
opponents of anthropogenic global warming is a waste of precious time
that deserves to be dismissed out of hand.

John Savard

On Aug 16, 5:35*am, gabydewilde wrote:

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

I watched the original V miniseries. The lizard people were out to get
the scientists.

John Savard

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:22:52 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

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?

Speaking for myself, my high level of confidence in my opinion is based
on two things. First, I'm trained as a scientist and I _have_ read many
primary research papers, and for the most part I understand them, even
though I'm not a climate scientist. Second, I do have faith in the
consensus value of science, and in this case there are almost no climate
scientists (and an even smaller percentage of climate scientists engaged
in active research) who doubt that AGW is both real and of significant
magnitude. The weight of that many experts combined with my own reading
of the evidence forms the basis of my opinion.
_________________________________________________

Tom Davidson is a scientist, you are trained ape.
No discovery has ever been made by consensus of opinion and Nature is not
a democracy anyway.
Given that global warming is real (and cyclic), claiming it is anthropogenic
is the utmost stupidity.
Your opinion is worthless, if you were trained as a scientist then you went
to the same school as the Inquisition.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Aug 15, 11:22 pm, Dave Typinski wrote:

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?

Well, I haven't gone to Africa, and unearthed any hominid fossils with
my bare hands.

But I am very sure that evolution took place, because scientists who
deal with the life sciences are nearly unanimous in its support, while
its opponents have an obvious extraneous motivation for their view.

The situation with regards to global warming is just about as clear-
cut. The oil industry has funded some research that says otherwise,
and there are a few mavericks out there - just as there were
university professors who thought that telepathy and UFOs were worthy
of research. And that's about it.

==============================================
Well, I haven't gone to Antarctica, and unearthed any ice cores with
my bare hands, and you've totally ignored the data, just as there were
bigots who thought that ice cores weren't worthy of research and found
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble caused the last cyclic global warming
130,000 years ago.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/
I'm very sure Fred and Barney a fictional characters.

And that's about it.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:02:45 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

Tom Davidson is a scientist, you are trained ape.

Good for him. That doesn't change the fact that for every active climate
researcher that has serious reservations about AGW, there are 40-50 who
don't.

No discovery has ever been made by consensus of opinion and Nature is not
a democracy anyway.

But discovery is _accepted_ by consensus of opinion.

Given that global warming is real (and cyclic), claiming it is anthropogenic
is the utmost stupidity.

This is one of the typical arguments that is used by those arguing
against AGW on ideological grounds, not scientific. The argument shows
nothing except that its proponent doesn't understand science, doesn't
understand climatology, and is unqualified to even participate in
discussions about it.
_________________________________________________

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

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:02:45 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

Tom Davidson is a scientist, you are trained ape.

Good for him. That doesn't change the fact that for every active climate
researcher that has serious reservations about AGW, there are 40-50 who
don't.

No discovery has ever been made by consensus of opinion and Nature is not
a democracy anyway.

But discovery is _accepted_ by consensus of opinion.

Given that global warming is real (and cyclic), claiming it is
anthropogenic
is the utmost stupidity.

This is one of the typical arguments that is used by those arguing
against AGW on ideological grounds, not scientific.

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, creating more cloud. That's called
negative feedback and keeps the temperature constant.
Animal life on this planet has no control. Global warming is cyclic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...insolation.jpg



The argument shows
nothing except that its proponent doesn't understand science, doesn't
understand climatology, and is unqualified to even participate in
discussions about it.

This is one of the typical arguments that is used by those arguing
for AGW on ideological grounds, not scientific. The bigot who
doesn't understand science has already stated he is not a climate
scientist but believes what he's told by consensus.

Your opinion is worthless, if you were trained as a scientist then you went
to the same school as the Inquisition.