Slashdot Mirror

I should add that the Strauss-Kahn red meat is getting old. First off, most of the descriptions of the case are way off, partially inspired by the prosecutors switching from overplaying the case against him to overplaying the case for him. To be clear:

1) If an accusation is made, and the accused is convicted, the legal system has been determined that the person is guilty.
2) If an accusation is made, the accused is not charged, and the accuser is convicted of making a false accusation, then the legal system has determined that it was a false charge.
3) If an accusation is made, the accused is not charged, but neither is the accuser, then the legal system has made no finding in any direction due to insufficient evidence to match the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in either direction.

This should be obvious, but for some reason, many people are always fixated on interpreting #3 (by far the most common scenario) as #2.

As for Kahn? Since then he's been caught up in one sex related charge after another - and has admitted to parts of them. He's currently out on bail awaiting trial for running a prostitution ring; the trial begins a couple days from now.

All the models have failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade because growth has continued unabated.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Well I am surprised we don't have someone complaining and saying we should just by POTUS a bicycle yet.

Specifically.....

thanks for sharing.. nice post http://pelangsingbadanalamimom...

Surveillance does not make people less free. Does an audience at a theater make an actor less free?

What? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the role of police/security forces is comparable to a theater audience? Because I'm pretty sure that the audience pays actors for the privilege of watching them, whereas I am paying the police. I talk about my boss, my wife or my mother very differently when they're standing next to me, so I claim that an observer absolutely does restrict my freedom.

If repressive things happen with the gathered data then that would be a problem but not the surveillance itself.

OK, so when it's a private citizen, we should watch them closely, all the time, in order to identify when they might be thinking about committing a crime, but when it's the police, we should have no restrictions or preventative measures unless someone can document that the police have committed a crime. The crime rate for police is similar to civilians: they're human beings, not gods. They should be held to standards at least as high as you're proposing for civilians, and probably higher, given the special powers we invest in them.

> Like KDE's user-unfriendliness.

KDE is not unfriendly. It does the basics and comes with a bland configuration out-of-box. Actually, it gives us expert users a lot of trouble to undo "easy" defaults like click-to-focus -- because most people come from Windows.

> Seriously, teach the average joe how to configure KDE to emulate Windows 10. I fucking dare you.

I actually do that -- more or less -- I just had to turn some things off for my kid, because he's too young and got confused with things I configured for me (like "window shade" with the mousewheel).

Regarding the other things, multiple desktops are not exclusive to KDE, regardless of my suggestion, Gnome does it, too.

Not to mention more general Linux traits like easier updates.

And lastly, the average Joe would use KDE and think it is Windows! I'd do a movie about it, but someone already did with 7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

About W8, there's this:

http://www.itworld.com/article...

Windows 10 is just getting some square widgets with a tiling wm, I guess. Or something like that...

https://kver.wordpress.com/201...

Well, blackomegax, you can dare me whenever you want, since I'm no developer. Let's just wait for W10 and KDE5 and see how they fare...

I think Nasa's Gavin Schmidt is better positioned to understand what Tamino has done than you are

I'm sure he is, but he is not describing Tamino's analysis. He is describing his own. That is plain as day for anyone who has read Tamino's analysis. Please do so!

It's too bad Tamino does not say explicitly what his graph represents.

You are daft. He says exactly what it represents. It is not difficult. Read it.

You are linking to a different site showing a different thing you dolt! I'm not talking about the realClimate analysis! Lord! I only linked the exact site that I'm referring to about a dozen times! Once more - here it is: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

You can read right? Please do and stop wasting my time.

Ah. I see your confusion. You don't really understand what Tamino did. He did not compare 1970-2000 with 1970-2015. No wonder you are confused. He compared 1970-2000 with 2000-2015. Just as you have shown in your first link above. So no, that's not a gotcha. That's exactly what he is doing. Now he has also shown what you would predict for 2000-2015 if the 1970-2000 trend had continued. Guess what he found? Recent warming is exactly in line with what we would expect if the 1970-2000 trend had continued to present day. This is really not that tricky. Please take a moment to read the link before you make your next post. What a waste of time! You are arguing from ignorance and for no good reason!

#in a way your comment is backwards, considering Pascal came first - why did you choose a different toolchain of Java Python or C++ when you already had a Pascal one?

As for productivity, the amount of typing is overrated, considering a) thinking is (or should be) the activity that takes up most of your programming effort, b) IDEs do most of it for you, and c) nothing in Pascal comes close to the verbosity of Java or C#. So what if you have to type Begin instead of { when your method names are 40 characters long :)

so yes, you're right - but not when applying it to Pascal. Besides, I can think of one area where Pascal is a good thing - education. It was designed to teach programming after all.

Looking at the recent trend won't help us know what the recent trend is like?? Seriously?

How can you still be asking this? The trend was anywhere from 0 to 0.216C/decade. So the trend is either no warming at all or warming past all expectations... but which is it really? Turns out it is exactly consistent with what we would have expected if the warming of 1970-2000 had continued past 2000 to present day.

I thought you'd wrapped your head around statistical significance, but we can take a step back if you need to. So the trend since 2000 is possibly as high as 0.216C/decade. The trend from 1970-2000 is possibly as low as 0.106C/decade. So just looking at the trend won't help us know whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated. To know that we would have to look at whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated.. And yes, this could be done on any data set. (duh).

https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

You still don't get it, but I think you're making progress. He is not measuring since 1970. He is predicting what values we should have seen after 2000 if the trend from 1970-2000 had continued past 2000. Guess what? We saw exactly the temperatures that we would have expected AFTER 2000 if the rate of warming had continued unabated:: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

As I've said before, that approach breaks down rather quickly. What if the highest probability was 10% and the next highest was 8%? That would mean there's a 90% chance it's NOT the hottest year, but by NASA's logic they can still make the opposite assertion.

Of course, this whole discussion assumes the data is good. I don't know what to make of this quite yet, but an adding an extra 2degC to raw temperature data does seem rather high.

https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...

And considering the sparse thermometer coverage, how can they claim to be accurate to within hundredths of a degree?

Finally!. So you cannot say that there has been no warming. At most you can say "I don't know given the limited data set that I've selected". Luckily we have a greater data set and don't need to limit ourselves. If you wanted to know whether the record fast warming from the 70's to 2000 had continued, you could do this and find that IT HAS: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Grade school stuff, no?

Apparently not. By the same token we cannot rule out warming of less than 0.046C/decade and therefor we cannot claim that warming was any less than twice the IPCC projections. What are you some kind of alarmist? Clearly there is evidence that warming was less, even just considering the period in question.

therefore it has continued warming for those 15 years

Q: What temperatures would you have predicted for the last 15 years if warming continued just as fast as the fastest period of warming prior?

A: Exactly what we have seen!

Can we change the Slashdot-icon for Google into the panopticon?

https://magemistress.files.wor...

And this article linked from yours shows just how disingenuous that approach is. Brilliant.

You need to understand what statistically significant means. It doesn't mean no warming. It doesn't mean warming has slowed. If you fail to find statistical significance then you have failed to reject a hypothesis - you have not proven a hypothesis. If you wanted to show that the recent warming was significantly different from the previous trend then you would need to find that with statistical significance. Look at the three graphs here for an illustration: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Does the recent trend fall outside of the error bars projected from the warming up to 2000 or is it bang on what you would have projected based on the warming up to 2000?

I always post to the wrong duplicate article! ~sarcasm

From my other post:

According to line 'A' on this graph, the atmospheric absorption at 95-100 GHz is fairly low, but this graph shows that rainfade is an absolute killer. Light rain contributes 1 dB/km, which amounts to losing 20.6% of your signal per km. After 10km, you're under 1% of your original signal.

Somewhere between medium and heavy rain you cross the 10 dB/km line - you lose 90% of your signal per km. That ventures into 'unusable' territory very quickly.

I always post to the wrong duplicate article! ~sarcasm

From my other post:

According to line 'A' on this graph, the atmospheric absorption at 95-100 GHz is fairly low, but this graph shows that rainfade is an absolute killer. Light rain contributes 1 dB/km, which amounts to losing 20.6% of your signal per km. After 10km, you're under 1% of your original signal.

Somewhere between medium and heavy rain you cross the 10 dB/km line - you lose 90% of your signal per km. That ventures into 'unusable' territory very quickly.

SimCity BuildIt Cheats, Tips & Hack for SimCash & Simonleons SimCity, an identity that almost everybody worldwide knows about, fanatics of the significant video game have been on the extra edge of their seats in anticipations of the latest launch of the SimCity family. In opening days of games unveil owners have circulated it just in constrained locations including Canada, America, New Zealand and online players have already been enjoying and they extremely appreciated it a lot. https://simcitybuildithackstoo...

You're not getting it. Since 2000 we have seen exactly the warming we would have expected if the warming from 1970-2000 had continued at the same pace: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

She oscillates between fighting back and playing the victim. All you really need to know about her is that she's a compulsive liar: https://thezoepost.files.wordp...

2 C being a bare minimum

Here is a quote from the TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario"

So it looks like we are right in line with expectations. If you are concerned about accuracy (as you imply above) then you should quote a source or double check your statements before you post.

Look again! The trend since 2000 is exactly in line with the trend from 1970-2000! No change!

So funny. First you say the data shows no global warming. Then you are shown the data, and the data shows a clear continuation of the trend with no pause whatsoever. Suddenly, when it is clear that the data no longer confirms your preconceptions, you turn against the data and say that it is not trustworthy. Then you go on to talk about how preconceptions can result in biases - but you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever! Classic :)

The data from the last decade fits the rising trend perfectly.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Here's the data with the trend line drawn in. There's no slowing, just noise.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Has the global warming hiatus ended?

Was there ever a global warming hiatus ? No. The rising trend has not been broken. You've simply been duped by some random noise. As someone who likes to insist on error bars, you should appreciate that.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Whether 2014 is the warmest in the instrument record or not is beside the point. The continued warming is unequivocal. The only reason that a "hiatus" can be claimed by some is because 1998 was such an extreme outlier year.

Tamino over at Open Mind did a graph of the linear temperature trend since 1970 against the year to year variability. 2014 is right on the linear temperature trend line which shows temperatures are increasing without evidence of the increases slowing down. It's just year to year variability that gives you an excuse to think it isn't.

Another way to look at it is to take 10 year slices rather than year to year. That's more of a climate centric view than a year to year weather centric view. Here is a bar graph of warming anomalies in decadal slices since the start of the instrument record. Below is a text table of the results for those who don't want to click the link:

GISTemp Decadal Global Surface Temperature
(Anomaly from 1950-1981 mean)

Decade_______Anomaly
1884-1893_____-0.26
1894-1903_____-0.25
1904-1913_____-0.40
1914-1923_____-0.28
1924-1933_____-0.17
1934-1943_____+0.00
1944-1953_____-0.03
1954-1963_____-0.02
1964-1973_____-0.02
1974-1983_____+0.10
1984-1993_____+0.24
1994-2003_____+0.46
2004-2014_____+0.59

It's easy to take a short period and make arguments about it but when you look at it in a way that filters out the short term noise like year to year variability the picture becomes much clearer.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just pointing out SJW has a specific meaning, at least as to how I've come to understand it, it's a specific type of hypocrite.

As to the harassment a lot of it can be found here

https://johntaylorgatto.wordpr...
"Solve this problem and school will heal itself: children know that schooling is not fair, not honest, not driven by integrity. They know they are devalued in classes and grades, that the institution is indifferent to them as individuals. The rhetoric of caring contradicts what school procedure and content say, that many children have no tolerable future and most have a sharply proscribed one. The problem is structural. School has been built to serve a society of associations: corporations, institutions, and agencies. Kids know this instinctively. How should they feel about it? How should we?
As soon as you break free of the orbit of received wisdom you have little trouble figuring out why, in the nature of things, government schools and those private schools which imitate the government model have to make most children dumb, allowing only a few to escape the trap. The problem stems from the structure of our economy and social organization. When you start with such pyramid-shaped givens and then ask yourself what kind of schooling they would require to maintain themselves, any mystery dissipates--these things are inhuman conspiracies all right, but not conspiracies of people against people, although circumstances make them appear so. School is a conflict pitting the needs of social machinery against the needs of the human spirit. It is a war of mechanism against flesh and blood, self-maintaining social mechanisms that only require human architects to get launched.
I'll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinated industrial/commercial system has only limited use for hundreds of millions of self-reliant, resourceful readers and critical thinkers. In an egalitarian, entrepreneurially based economy of confederated families like the one the Amish have or the Mondragon folk in the Basque region of Spain, any number of self-reliant people can be accommodated usefully, but not in a concentrated command-type economy like our own. Where on earth would they fit? In a great fanfare of moral fervor some years back, the Ford Motor Company opened the world's most productive auto engine plant in Chihuahua, Mexico. It insisted on hiring employees with 50 percent more school training than the Mexican norm of six years, but as time passed Ford removed its requirements and began to hire school dropouts, training them quite well in four to twelve weeks. The hype that education is essential to robot-like work was quietly abandoned. Our economy has no adequate outlet of expression for its artists, dancers, poets, painters, farmers, filmmakers, wildcat business people, handcraft workers, whiskey makers, intellectuals, or a thousand other useful human enterprises--no outlet except corporate work or fringe slots on the periphery of things. Unless you do "creative" work the company way, you run afoul of a host of laws and regulations put on the books to control the dangerous products of imagination which can never be safely tolerated by a centralized command system.
Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your own children or your principles against the assault of blind social machinery, you have to stop conspiring against yourself by attempting to negotiate with a set of abstract principles and rules which, by its nature, cannot respond. Under all its disguises, that is what institutional schooling is, an abstraction which has escaped its handlers. Nobody can reform it. First you have to realize that human values are the stuff of madness to a system; in systems-logic the schools we have are already the schools the system needs; the only way they could be much improved is to have kids eat, sleep, live, and die there.
Schools got the way they were at the start of the twentieth century as part of a vast, intensely engineered social revolution in which all major institutions were ov

Too late, there have already been supporters of GamerGate who have lost their jobs, had threats e-mailed to their employers and been swatted at home. Too bad the media won't report it. https://jennofhardwire.wordpre...

None of it has ever made sense to me, so I have spent time researching the history to try to understand why we were able to do it then, and why it has been so hard since Apollo to make progress.
[snip]
The U.S. has always had two space programs, the first being the one that the politicians wanted, and the one that was sold to the American people.

posting AC because I modded up some good comments by others.

Here is a newly published about Sting.

I would be leery about listening to Judith Curry. She is often wrong: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

I'd be leery of a series of greeny globalwarmy newsy 'Hottest Year' claims that are weighted heavily on surface thermometer readings and beat the previous record by "a tiny, effectively unmeasurable 0.02C" that is (conveniently, suspiciously) not divulged in the press release, an amount which is within the margin for error... lest people suspect that they are being emotionally manipulated in a very unscientific way. When you responsibly consider statistical error, 2014 is a tie year.

For a more reasoned compilation of sources on temperature data related to this announcement, check the sources cited on this evil page of devil-spawn skepticism at Climate Depot.

These announcements are good for only two things:
1. scaring people for political purposes
2. playing THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! drinking game

We have a winner. Let's all have a drink.

Gee, I wonder why you didn't just type "resume female name acceptance" into Google. That'll get you a whole slew of citations.

Why didn't you do that utterly trivial task, instead of shooting, er, downmodding the messenger?

It couldn't possibly be because you can't handle the truth? Naaahhh....

Here, silly little AC, since you'd rather go LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU than type four measly words into Google, have some citations.

http://blogs.scientificamerica...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/bu...

These are far from the only ones out there. If only you could be bothered to look.

And just for a bonus, here's a citation (from those same four simple words you can't be bothered typing into Google) that shows racism biasing hiring in the same pervasive, insidious ways sexism does.
https://selfuni.wordpress.com/...

There's a few reasons. But the biggest ones involve not having to use new land - not out some sort of idealist reasons, but pure economic practicality. First off, you need right-of-way. This is expensive. Also really ticks off land owners if you have to use eminent domain. These things almost always get tangled up in the courts. For in-town legs it'd be even harder. Secondly, all new projects have to go through a series of impact reviews. If you're building over a highway median, you're in an area that's already passed review - you still have to defend your incremental changes, but you don't have to pass as much of a barrier.

Also, most people overestimate the cost of the columns, comparing them to the cost of rail bridges. Just ignoring that by their very nature rail bridges are generally only built over difficult areas, and are going to be extremely price, It's important to note that one of the key cost-saving measures designed into Hyperloop vs. rail is often overlooked: weight. Hyperloop vehicles are more than an order of magnitude lighter than a passenger train, and only spend a brief period over any given segment; consequently the required structural strength is dramatically lower than for a rail bridge. I did some quick calculations, including tube mass, and found that and Hyperloop loadings should be similar to that of Disney's monorail. So think columns like this, not this.

While I do have criticisms for Hyperloop, I found that a lot of the criticisms levied against it on the net were seriously misguided, using ridiculous cost comparisons (another one is comparing the cost of Hyperloop tunnel boring to that of boring tunnels over an order of magnitude larger). I dug up "comparable" projects for each step of the project, and I really have to say, Hyperloop's numbers don't actually look to be that unrealistic. The keys of right-of-way reuse and low point loadings offer serious cost savings.

That said, I think Musk's positioning of the concept was stupid. By putting it in competition to an already-controversial high speed rail project, he both invited the rage of rail fans (who are used to feeling as if they're under attack), as well as inviting the expectation that it can do everything rail can (including, for example, making many stops along the way). It really is, as it was billed, an intermediary alternative between high speed rail and air travel - in speed, in throughput, in ability to make stops, etc. Consequently he should have proposed the first major project of it to be LA to Vegas. Then he wouldn't have encountered opposition from high speed rail fans, and the route doesn't have much population along the way to service. Plus, he could probably get tons of private backing for such a project, as Vegas is always desperate to better connect itself with customers in California.

I also think that for the current proposal, Musk should have positioned the LA station further into town. He's thinking "airport", and of course you can have local train / bus service to the station wherever it is, but airports are only on the outskirts because they *have* to be, mass transit is really ideally located more in-town. And there's no reason that he can't continue into town - the roads get a bit curvy but there's some nice straight rail lines that they could go over straight into the heart of town, and that'd probably be even easier to get approval for than for over road.

No, you can't do that but you can choose not to save its output and launch rsyslog to stick to the old way of logging so its not really an issue (unless you want to see it that way because you don't subscribe to systemd). https://fitzcarraldoblog.wordp...

You might want to read this post from a few years ago when the GNOME and GTK 3.x were replacing thir 2.x branches. Of particular interest is the quotes of Allan Day (GNOME dev and RedHat employee):

Facilitating the unrestricted use of extensions and themes by end users seems contrary to the central tenets of the GNOME 3 design. We’ve fought long and hard to give GNOME 3 a consistent visual appearance, to make it synonymous with a single user experience and to ensure that that experience is of a consistently high quality. A general purpose extensions and themes distribution system seems to threaten much of that.

[...]

I’m particularly surprised by the inclusion of themes. It seems bizarre that we specifically designed the GNOME 3 control center not to include theme installation/selection and then to reintroduce that very same functionality via extensions.

[...]

One particular issue is the ability for users to modify the top bar via extensions. This part of the UI is vital for giving GNOME 3 a distinctive visual appearance. If we do have extensions, I would very much like to see the top bar made out of bounds for extension writers, therefore. We have to have at least *something* that remains consistent.

[...]

The point is that it decreases our brand presence. That particular user might understand what it is that they are running, but the person who sees them using their machine or even sees their screenshots on the web will not. The question we have to ask ourselves is: how do we make sure that people recognise a GNOME install when they see one?

So not only is this about enforcing a monoculture, the reason to enforce a monoculture is because the desktop isn't about getting work done. No, the desktop - according to GNOME - is for branding/advertizing.

*sigh*

While we're on the subject, I recommend everybody read this post by the same author. It's speculative, but it does explain a lot of what has been happening to linux over the last few years... and how it may fit into the large picture.

You might want to read this post from a few years ago when the GNOME and GTK 3.x were replacing thir 2.x branches. Of particular interest is the quotes of Allan Day (GNOME dev and RedHat employee):

Facilitating the unrestricted use of extensions and themes by end users seems contrary to the central tenets of the GNOME 3 design. We’ve fought long and hard to give GNOME 3 a consistent visual appearance, to make it synonymous with a single user experience and to ensure that that experience is of a consistently high quality. A general purpose extensions and themes distribution system seems to threaten much of that.

[...]

I’m particularly surprised by the inclusion of themes. It seems bizarre that we specifically designed the GNOME 3 control center not to include theme installation/selection and then to reintroduce that very same functionality via extensions.

[...]

One particular issue is the ability for users to modify the top bar via extensions. This part of the UI is vital for giving GNOME 3 a distinctive visual appearance. If we do have extensions, I would very much like to see the top bar made out of bounds for extension writers, therefore. We have to have at least *something* that remains consistent.

[...]

The point is that it decreases our brand presence. That particular user might understand what it is that they are running, but the person who sees them using their machine or even sees their screenshots on the web will not. The question we have to ask ourselves is: how do we make sure that people recognise a GNOME install when they see one?

So not only is this about enforcing a monoculture, the reason to enforce a monoculture is because the desktop isn't about getting work done. No, the desktop - according to GNOME - is for branding/advertizing.

*sigh*

While we're on the subject, I recommend everybody read this post by the same author. It's speculative, but it does explain a lot of what has been happening to linux over the last few years... and how it may fit into the large picture.

Men wear something almost just like a burka without the hood.
  Instead they get a fancy headband with it's own cloak.

In fact what we really do need is more scientists expressing their political opinions and backing them up with hard facts and of course working to dismantle the lies put out by professional politicians.

Of course they often don't back up their opinions with facts. In fact, many of the "facts" they offer up are often myths themselves.

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2...
http://thefederalist.com/2014/...

Take a quick read to learn about some of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's penchant for mythology, then let's talk about whether or not he's expressing his political opinions and backing them up with hard facts.

That is the question.

Whether 'tis nobler in the framework to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous edge cases,
Or to take up code against a sea of requirements, and by opposing end them?

Personally, I prefer the basic PHP (and JSP) model of just writing out a web page with your backend language. I guess that makes me old-school?

As others have said, Islam is criticised more than any other religion (even Scientology!). Islam is insulted more than any other religion. When Gerald Scarfe, the artist behind the award-winning artwork to Pink Floyd's The Wall, drew a cartoon depicting Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall on the bodies of Palestinians, he was shouted down for anti-semitism, and there was a huge cry for apologies. Don't go trying to claim Muslims are getting better treatment than others.

There's a blogger on Canadian constitutional matters that actually has a good description of the Tories; he calls them "lazy revolutionaries". The Tories seem full of all this desire to reform various aspects of the Canadian government, but seem too lazy to actually do the legwork. That's how they end up in fiascos like the copyright notice incident.

While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.

I'll whittle it down to one paper, though the others are relevant as well.

http://climateaudit.files.word...

ABSTRACT
The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann
et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width
series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring
network. We show that in each case MBH98 methodology differed from what was
stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century index values.
In the case of the North American PC1, MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so
that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was
“conventional”. The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of
bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable
temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived
data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and
misrepresented the start date of the series. The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al.
denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have
any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann
et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of
robustness and statistical skill. Finally, we comment on several policy issues
arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of
data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the
limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific
studies are used for public policy.

Regarding Fox News:

• http://watchingthedeniers.word...
• http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...
• http://mediamatters.org/resear...
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
• http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2014/...