Apart from the fact that Tory+DUP have 326 seats now which three seats still to declare.
Even if DUP refuses to support Tory, they'd never support Lab either so Labs best chance would be to win a no confidence vote and trigger yet another election (but that might not do what they want if their support is pro-europe and they see it as yet more delaying with no sight of anything other than a hard brexit looming)
Oh, I agree that May expected a better majority. But that doesn't mean that she was going to be able to govern her own party. She called this election because she couldn't manage the party and hoped that with a few more Tory MPs she might have enough support of her own party to utter more tautologies: "brexit means brexit", "enough is enough".
When the election was called I expected her to get a bigger majority and it to be six months of failed negotiations and backstabbing from her backbenchers before she went.
May standing down at 10am. Boris being unopposed, and there's a microscopic chance that he may come up trumps and be able to negotiate a reasonable deal before the final whistle.
Conservatives plus DUP will have a working majority for most things. DUP will want some kickbacks.
But I think DUP is soft brexit (or no brexit) so for the single most important issue facing the UK the prime minister won't be able to play the "no deal" card (hence my other post about the Tories trying to play out the clock to get a hard brexit)
I still don't get why people are still in a huff with the lib dems though.
Because they betrayed their core support. They promised an end to tuition fees and then ditched it to get 15 minutes of fame.
They'd have done the same on their demand for a second Europe referendum if they'd held 30 or so now labour seats (and claim that they at least could influence the brexit negotiations)
It's all a May (the PM) plot to trigger a hard brexit.
Trigger article 50. Wait a bit.
Call an election - May says cannot negotiate until after the election.
TM waits for a bit and only when it's obvious she cannot govern the Tory party, let alone the country (or possibly at 10am BST today)...
Call another tory leadership context - cannot negotiate until after the new prime minister is selected
Boris fails to negotiate for a couple of months. Then calls an election for a couple of months hence - says cannot negotiate until after the election.
Hey presto, the two years for negotiation has disappeared and we fall back onto WTO rules - which is what May wanted all along.
Genius - but evil.
The only real question is whether the Conservatives will be able to blame Labour for "forcing" Boris to call an election.
The only real risk I can see to TM's plan is that Boris might, against all expectations, turn out to be a unifying influence on the Tory party and actually be able to negotiate with Europe. (I don't think there's anyone other than Boris who has a chance of being able to do both and I think Boris is a clown!)
But you're assuming that women are picking those things because they want to be made to feel good.
But if they already perceive the environment as hostile, anti woman, sexist, misogynistic, etc, then what they might be looking for is evidence that it won't be tolerated rather than an environment that makes them feel good.
I can't see there's any way to distinguish which, if any, interpretation is correct based on the data in the survey.
women want to "feel good" while working on a project
Or that women don't want to be made to feel bad. They're asking for the sorts of things that might put a brake on anti-social behaviour.
Although the error bars are large, one thing that caught my eye is that if you've got a niche project then you might do well by trying to attract women (and making sure they don't quit) as it appears that men are more likely to want the status that goes with working on a popular project.
At the time I wrote the above there were 35 posts. Based on the numbers in the survey, one of them would have been from a woman. But 10% of them were openly derogatory to women, another 10% of the "it's your own fault"
It it any wonder if that lone woman decides to give up and go somewhere else.
Re: how 25 versus 15 percent is six times more lik This math is brought to you by a female developer ftom facebook who doesn't understand why her code is oftenough rejected.
So the summary has the wrong numbers in it. But, what the hell, blame a female developer who, apparently can't code.
Meant in jest (maybe) Fucking bitches!
Yup. Sure to make this into a welcoming site.
As if it's a bad thing
and twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances (6 vs 3 percent).
FFS just get over it. Men are expected to initiate relationships. It's called life. It's not a problem. If you don't like it you might as well kill yourself now.
Tough titties girls. It's our right to treat you how we want to and you've just got to suck up and accept it.
Unsolicited sexual advance is the reason I am aliv Women don't like to do software. They are not really good at software and they always require special treatment. They dont handle conflict well too. They make sallaries go down.
Yup. Really going to make women and their efforts feel appreciated.
That's more than 10% of the posts at the time of writing and there are several more along the lines of "tough shit" or "it's your fault for being a woman".
They do, however, have the authority to request the foreign country to extradite him or her and the foreign country must then decide whether that extradition can proceed.
The foreign country will refuse the request either because it's politically expedient to refuse or, alternatively, it's not possible for them to extradite for the particular reason due to their laws. On the whole, countries are sensible and do not request extradition unless there's a reasonable chance the extradition will be approved. Hence Saudi Arabia doesn't bombard the US with ridiculous extradition requests for Saudi citizens drinking alcohol in public in the US. (Or US citizens for that matter)
Were Assange to be arrested by the British Police on leaving the embassy, the UK would, for example, refuse to extradite him unless they get a guarantee from the US that he will not face the death penalty. That is irrespective of any crime he might have committed or whether that is an extraditable offence.
(In this particular case there would also be an extradition request from Sweden. I have no idea how the UK would prioritise them but I would expect that they would not extradite to Sweden unless they also guaranteed to require that the US guarantees no death penalty on a subsequent extradition.
Interestingly, if Assange could not be extradited to the US legally from the UK then the UK would (probably) refuse to extradite him to Sweden unless they guaranteed that he wouldn't be extradited to the US.
But as I suspect it's easier to extradite from the UK to the US than from Sweden to the US, I would expect that the US would try to get priority over an extradition from the UK.
It's certainly vigilante. But given the societal harm being caused by shoddy IOT devices, bricking them is quite arguably noble. Also, this could be good for the affected users too.
Would you feel the same if it was a expert gang who were gaining entry into peoples homes and smashing their insecure IOT devices and then leaving (doing no other damage at all)
While I can understand the frustration that might have lead to this sort of attack, it, unfortunately, will probably not achieve the desired ends. End users will be told that the damage is due to a malicious act and not covered under warranty, they should claim on their insurance (which, almost certainly has an excess higher than the replacement cost). In fact, this could turn into an incentive for manufacturers to provide insecure devices (just sufficiently secure that it takes six months to a year for an exploit to emerge so they can get plenty of sales and discontinue the model before they all start dying). Then users can replace with a "New Improved" model.
It's possible, of course, that in time lawmakers will get sufficiently upset that they'll force the liability back onto the manufacturer, at which point something might improve, but given that such an act is going to face extensive opposition and corporate lobbying, it's not going to be quick arriving.
but where exactly are you going to find these "security professionals" to carry out detailed audits on entire firmware systems every time someone released a new product?
I'm not the OP you're responding to but I would assume the idea was that the chipset manufacturers have to pay for it.
It would make sense for a law to say something like - unless your customers can[1] do the work themselves (i.e. have access to the source code, chipset documentation and build tools) then the company is responsible for doing the work.
[1] where can includes paying someone else to do the work for them.
That way, new releases the company could keep in-house, paying for the auditors, but once it had reached EoL and the company didn't want that liability any more then they could release the information and say "it's up to the customer now"
There's something dodgy with pricing going on though.
AAISP offer an ADSL only copper pair for 10GBP/month. The only difference between this and a full telephone service is that there's no dial tone and no telephone number. It's still exactly the same wires as when you go to BT and have the full telephone service. I'm pretty sure they're actually reselling a BT offering.
I think AAISP might put a recorded message on the line - because BT engineers were apt to just take any silent pair instead of following the correct procedure to take an unused pair - AAISP customers would suddenly find their ADSL had stopped working and investigation would discover that part of the route back to the exchange had been disconnected and the wires reused for someone else (probably due to a fault on that other persons line)
IIRC BT charges 19GBP/month for line rental. So they're claiming that it's an additional 9GBP/month to provide the dial tone. (with call charges on top of that) Ofcom appear to be saying that that's excessive and they need to reduce their line rental by 5GBP/month.
Pumping >0C water onto the remaining ice will accelerate the melting
No, not in winter.
The problem in winter is that ice (and snow on top of it) is a good insulator that, once the ice reaches around 1-2m thick causes it to continue to thicken very slowly.
It's one of the reasons why the sea ice minimum is falling faster than the maximum - the arctic winter is cold enough to (almost) completely refreeze every year but that resultant ice isn't thick enough to survive a summer season. That's why there's so much interest in tracking the multi-year ice. That's the thick stuff.
Unfortunately, measuring volume is much harder to do so ice extent and ice area tend to take centre stage even if they're not the best metric for the state of the ice in the arctic.
Pumping water to the top of the ice would allow the ice to thicken much more than it currently can in a single winter.
Also Animal Farm. I think the people are going to be very disappointed to discover that the elites have been replaced with the elites which, of course, will all be the fault of the elites.
My test: people who admit to using profanity are 100% truthful. People who say they don't are 50/50 truthful.
I show that even if people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful, the claim "I don't use profanity" is a better indicator of being a liar than "I use profanity" even though the only people who lie are those who use profanity.
Your test: people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful - but that's an axiom in my (made up) data because I exclude class 4. only 50% of the ones who do use profanity are truthful - I assign equal numbers to the three extant classes.
People who use profanity and admit it. People who don't use profanity and admit it. People who use profanity but don't admit it. People who don't use profanity but claim to.
If we make the assumption that there's nobody in the last class and the other three classes are all equal sized then people who admit to using profanity will all be honest while only half of the people who claim to not use profanity will be honest.
In fact, I cannot see any way that the people who admit to using profanity can possibly appear less honest than the people who do on this test.
Stick a 3.5mm plug into the headphone jack. solved.
I'm not convinced - on my galaxy note at any rate - that this is guaranteed to work.
I've noticed that when I push the plug in, it detects the plug being inserted and then switches the sound from the internal speakers. I'm not convinced that, unlike old fashioned radios, inserting the plug physically disconnects the internal speakers.
But I could be wrong - it's something I've noticed in passing rather than something I've been looking out for.
CO2 from biological matter doesn't directly matter. (Land use changes that destroy biological matter and don't replace it are a different matter)
If it's plant based then all that CO2 that is released will have been recently extracted from the air to be incorporated into the plants tissues.
If it's animal based then any and all CO2 that is released will, ultimately, have come from the C in plants which, in turn, will have come from CO2 in the air.
it's really, really, easy to tell the difference between CO2 that has its source as the carbon cycle and "fossil" CO2 that has been sequestered for significant lengths of time. "Biological" CO2 will have been recently part of the atmosphere. Because C14 has a moderate half life (6Kyear), it will have needed to be sequestrated for tens to hundreds of millenia before all the (detectable) C14 will have decayed.
Almost all C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere (by thermal neutron capture by N14). Therefore, if the material you are burning, composting, digesting, gives off CO2 that contains C14 then the carbon that it contains (recently) came from the atmosphere.
Why? How could it possibly make sense to "warm" the buoy data rather than "cool" the intake data? We know that the intake data was artificially warmed, that isn't even a question.
Because they're measuring a trend, not absolute temperatures.
it would make no difference if they used kelvin or celsius. The offset isn't important.
I would assume that they are cooling the intake data (I'm pretty sure I saw that when the original v4 data was created but I could be misremembering as there are also adjustments to satellite data as sensors degrade with time) but it makes zero difference when estimating the trend.
You do realize we're talking about a correction in the trend of.06C/decade over recent decades?
The error bars on the measurements are huge compared to this.
If you plot a graph from 1998 up to 2015 using the best estimate and no error bars without this change, then people will tend, when eyeballing, to say that there's no trend. (the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero - but it's also statistically indistinguishable from the trend in the prior decades)
I haven't seen an equivalent graph that includes this correction but I'm assuming that people will no longer eyeball "no trend" (although the trend using just these years will still be statistically indistinguishable from zero)
Include more data, at either end, and they no longer come to the conclusion of no trend regardless of whether you include this correction.
Whether this additional.06C/decade is real or imaginary has absolutely zero impact on the science of climate change.
It will make a small difference in where we can expect to be in 50 years time in a BAU scenario but as no climate scientist was saying we can afford BAU for another 5 decades even with the unadjusted data then that's a moot point.
(2) Aren't they talking about data taken on ships by physically reading thermometers to an accuracy less than the claimed effect? As I was taught: If you don't know your error, you haven't made a measurement. In this case the error could be even greater than the effect itself!
No.
Over time the proportion of data contributed by taking measurements on ships has decreased.
NOAA said "hey guys, this has introduced a systematic error into the data and we need to adjust for it"
Other scientists were skeptical.
This group decided to test it. So they took several independent data sets that each used just one measurement so that each dataset is internally consistent.
They then discovered that all the data sets matched the NOAA adjusted combined data better than the previous unadjusted data.
What their work indicates is that the slow migration from ship thermometer to buoy, satellite etc has hidden an extra 0.06C/decade of warming - and that the warming rate over the last several decades is much closer to the rate over the previous decades than was thought.
(It should be pointed out that some statisticians don't accept that there was any statistically significant change in the warming rate over the last several decades even when using the pre NOAA (3b) data. My statistical knowledge isn't sufficient to be able to independently do the changepoint analysis necessary to confirm or refute this)
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely no chance.
Apart from the fact that Tory+DUP have 326 seats now which three seats still to declare.
Even if DUP refuses to support Tory, they'd never support Lab either so Labs best chance would be to win a no confidence vote and trigger yet another election (but that might not do what they want if their support is pro-europe and they see it as yet more delaying with no sight of anything other than a hard brexit looming)
Oh, I agree that May expected a better majority. But that doesn't mean that she was going to be able to govern her own party. She called this election because she couldn't manage the party and hoped that with a few more Tory MPs she might have enough support of her own party to utter more tautologies: "brexit means brexit", "enough is enough".
When the election was called I expected her to get a bigger majority and it to be six months of failed negotiations and backstabbing from her backbenchers before she went.
May standing down at 10am. Boris being unopposed, and there's a microscopic chance that he may come up trumps and be able to negotiate a reasonable deal before the final whistle.
Conservatives plus DUP will have a working majority for most things. DUP will want some kickbacks.
But I think DUP is soft brexit (or no brexit) so for the single most important issue facing the UK the prime minister won't be able to play the "no deal" card (hence my other post about the Tories trying to play out the clock to get a hard brexit)
Because they betrayed their core support. They promised an end to tuition fees and then ditched it to get 15 minutes of fame.
They'd have done the same on their demand for a second Europe referendum if they'd held 30 or so now labour seats (and claim that they at least could influence the brexit negotiations)
It's all a May (the PM) plot to trigger a hard brexit.
Trigger article 50. Wait a bit.
Call an election - May says cannot negotiate until after the election.
TM waits for a bit and only when it's obvious she cannot govern the Tory party, let alone the country (or possibly at 10am BST today)...
Call another tory leadership context - cannot negotiate until after the new prime minister is selected
Boris fails to negotiate for a couple of months. Then calls an election for a couple of months hence - says cannot negotiate until after the election.
Hey presto, the two years for negotiation has disappeared and we fall back onto WTO rules - which is what May wanted all along.
Genius - but evil.
The only real question is whether the Conservatives will be able to blame Labour for "forcing" Boris to call an election.
The only real risk I can see to TM's plan is that Boris might, against all expectations, turn out to be a unifying influence on the Tory party and actually be able to negotiate with Europe. (I don't think there's anyone other than Boris who has a chance of being able to do both and I think Boris is a clown!)
But you're assuming that women are picking those things because they want to be made to feel good.
But if they already perceive the environment as hostile, anti woman, sexist, misogynistic, etc, then what they might be looking for is evidence that it won't be tolerated rather than an environment that makes them feel good.
I can't see there's any way to distinguish which, if any, interpretation is correct based on the data in the survey.
Or that women don't want to be made to feel bad. They're asking for the sorts of things that might put a brake on anti-social behaviour.
Although the error bars are large, one thing that caught my eye is that if you've got a niche project then you might do well by trying to attract women (and making sure they don't quit) as it appears that men are more likely to want the status that goes with working on a popular project.
But that's my point.
At the time I wrote the above there were 35 posts. Based on the numbers in the survey, one of them would have been from a woman. But 10% of them were openly derogatory to women, another 10% of the "it's your own fault"
It it any wonder if that lone woman decides to give up and go somewhere else.
Lets just see:
So the summary has the wrong numbers in it. But, what the hell, blame a female developer who, apparently can't code.
Yup. Sure to make this into a welcoming site.
Tough titties girls. It's our right to treat you how we want to and you've just got to suck up and accept it.
Yup. Really going to make women and their efforts feel appreciated.
That's more than 10% of the posts at the time of writing and there are several more along the lines of "tough shit" or "it's your fault for being a woman".
They have no authority.
They do, however, have the authority to request the foreign country to extradite him or her and the foreign country must then decide whether that extradition can proceed.
The foreign country will refuse the request either because it's politically expedient to refuse or, alternatively, it's not possible for them to extradite for the particular reason due to their laws. On the whole, countries are sensible and do not request extradition unless there's a reasonable chance the extradition will be approved. Hence Saudi Arabia doesn't bombard the US with ridiculous extradition requests for Saudi citizens drinking alcohol in public in the US. (Or US citizens for that matter)
Were Assange to be arrested by the British Police on leaving the embassy, the UK would, for example, refuse to extradite him unless they get a guarantee from the US that he will not face the death penalty. That is irrespective of any crime he might have committed or whether that is an extraditable offence.
(In this particular case there would also be an extradition request from Sweden. I have no idea how the UK would prioritise them but I would expect that they would not extradite to Sweden unless they also guaranteed to require that the US guarantees no death penalty on a subsequent extradition.
Interestingly, if Assange could not be extradited to the US legally from the UK then the UK would (probably) refuse to extradite him to Sweden unless they guaranteed that he wouldn't be extradited to the US.
But as I suspect it's easier to extradite from the UK to the US than from Sweden to the US, I would expect that the US would try to get priority over an extradition from the UK.
It's certainly vigilante. But given the societal harm being caused by shoddy IOT devices, bricking them is quite arguably noble. Also, this could be good for the affected users too.
Would you feel the same if it was a expert gang who were gaining entry into peoples homes and smashing their insecure IOT devices and then leaving (doing no other damage at all)
While I can understand the frustration that might have lead to this sort of attack, it, unfortunately, will probably not achieve the desired ends. End users will be told that the damage is due to a malicious act and not covered under warranty, they should claim on their insurance (which, almost certainly has an excess higher than the replacement cost). In fact, this could turn into an incentive for manufacturers to provide insecure devices (just sufficiently secure that it takes six months to a year for an exploit to emerge so they can get plenty of sales and discontinue the model before they all start dying). Then users can replace with a "New Improved" model.
It's possible, of course, that in time lawmakers will get sufficiently upset that they'll force the liability back onto the manufacturer, at which point something might improve, but given that such an act is going to face extensive opposition and corporate lobbying, it's not going to be quick arriving.
but where exactly are you going to find these "security professionals" to carry out detailed audits on entire firmware systems every time someone released a new product?
I'm not the OP you're responding to but I would assume the idea was that the chipset manufacturers have to pay for it.
It would make sense for a law to say something like - unless your customers can[1] do the work themselves (i.e. have access to the source code, chipset documentation and build tools) then the company is responsible for doing the work.
[1] where can includes paying someone else to do the work for them.
That way, new releases the company could keep in-house, paying for the auditors, but once it had reached EoL and the company didn't want that liability any more then they could release the information and say "it's up to the customer now"
The otolaryngologist cleared their voice and spoke
We are Borg.
There's something dodgy with pricing going on though.
AAISP offer an ADSL only copper pair for 10GBP/month. The only difference between this and a full telephone service is that there's no dial tone and no telephone number. It's still exactly the same wires as when you go to BT and have the full telephone service. I'm pretty sure they're actually reselling a BT offering.
I think AAISP might put a recorded message on the line - because BT engineers were apt to just take any silent pair instead of following the correct procedure to take an unused pair - AAISP customers would suddenly find their ADSL had stopped working and investigation would discover that part of the route back to the exchange had been disconnected and the wires reused for someone else (probably due to a fault on that other persons line)
IIRC BT charges 19GBP/month for line rental. So they're claiming that it's an additional 9GBP/month to provide the dial tone. (with call charges on top of that) Ofcom appear to be saying that that's excessive and they need to reduce their line rental by 5GBP/month.
No, not in winter.
The problem in winter is that ice (and snow on top of it) is a good insulator that, once the ice reaches around 1-2m thick causes it to continue to thicken very slowly.
It's one of the reasons why the sea ice minimum is falling faster than the maximum - the arctic winter is cold enough to (almost) completely refreeze every year but that resultant ice isn't thick enough to survive a summer season. That's why there's so much interest in tracking the multi-year ice. That's the thick stuff.
Unfortunately, measuring volume is much harder to do so ice extent and ice area tend to take centre stage even if they're not the best metric for the state of the ice in the arctic.
Pumping water to the top of the ice would allow the ice to thicken much more than it currently can in a single winter.
Also Animal Farm. I think the people are going to be very disappointed to discover that the elites have been replaced with the elites which, of course, will all be the fault of the elites.
Technicality, but VAT is 20% of the original price.
So 1GBP is 83p ex VAT
Different test. Yours is a tautology.
My test: people who admit to using profanity are 100% truthful. People who say they don't are 50/50 truthful.
I show that even if people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful, the claim "I don't use profanity" is a better indicator of being a liar than "I use profanity" even though the only people who lie are those who use profanity.
Your test: people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful - but that's an axiom in my (made up) data because I exclude class 4. only 50% of the ones who do use profanity are truthful - I assign equal numbers to the three extant classes.
I'm not even sure the study is that good.
It seems there are four groups:
People who use profanity and admit it.
People who don't use profanity and admit it.
People who use profanity but don't admit it.
People who don't use profanity but claim to.
If we make the assumption that there's nobody in the last class and the other three classes are all equal sized then people who admit to using profanity will all be honest while only half of the people who claim to not use profanity will be honest.
In fact, I cannot see any way that the people who admit to using profanity can possibly appear less honest than the people who do on this test.
Stick a 3.5mm plug into the headphone jack. solved.
I'm not convinced - on my galaxy note at any rate - that this is guaranteed to work.
I've noticed that when I push the plug in, it detects the plug being inserted and then switches the sound from the internal speakers. I'm not convinced that, unlike old fashioned radios, inserting the plug physically disconnects the internal speakers.
But I could be wrong - it's something I've noticed in passing rather than something I've been looking out for.
I despair.
CO2 from biological matter doesn't directly matter. (Land use changes that destroy biological matter and don't replace it are a different matter)
If it's plant based then all that CO2 that is released will have been recently extracted from the air to be incorporated into the plants tissues.
If it's animal based then any and all CO2 that is released will, ultimately, have come from the C in plants which, in turn, will have come from CO2 in the air.
it's really, really, easy to tell the difference between CO2 that has its source as the carbon cycle and "fossil" CO2 that has been sequestered for significant lengths of time. "Biological" CO2 will have been recently part of the atmosphere. Because C14 has a moderate half life (6Kyear), it will have needed to be sequestrated for tens to hundreds of millenia before all the (detectable) C14 will have decayed.
Almost all C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere (by thermal neutron capture by N14). Therefore, if the material you are burning, composting, digesting, gives off CO2 that contains C14 then the carbon that it contains (recently) came from the atmosphere.
Why? How could it possibly make sense to "warm" the buoy data rather than "cool" the intake data? We know that the intake data was artificially warmed, that isn't even a question.
Because they're measuring a trend, not absolute temperatures.
it would make no difference if they used kelvin or celsius. The offset isn't important.
I would assume that they are cooling the intake data (I'm pretty sure I saw that when the original v4 data was created but I could be misremembering as there are also adjustments to satellite data as sensors degrade with time) but it makes zero difference when estimating the trend.
(the very inaccurate ones)
You do realize we're talking about a correction in the trend of .06C/decade over recent decades?
The error bars on the measurements are huge compared to this.
If you plot a graph from 1998 up to 2015 using the best estimate and no error bars without this change, then people will tend, when eyeballing, to say that there's no trend. (the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero - but it's also statistically indistinguishable from the trend in the prior decades)
I haven't seen an equivalent graph that includes this correction but I'm assuming that people will no longer eyeball "no trend" (although the trend using just these years will still be statistically indistinguishable from zero)
Include more data, at either end, and they no longer come to the conclusion of no trend regardless of whether you include this correction.
Whether this additional .06C/decade is real or imaginary has absolutely zero impact on the science of climate change.
It will make a small difference in where we can expect to be in 50 years time in a BAU scenario but as no climate scientist was saying we can afford BAU for another 5 decades even with the unadjusted data then that's a moot point.
Indeed. This latest paper was from people who were skeptical about the NOAA corrections.
But when they did their own independent analysis they were forced to admit that the NOAA data actually looked better than the previous data.
Ermmmmm. I'm pretty sure these guys aren't being labeled deniers.
No.
Over time the proportion of data contributed by taking measurements on ships has decreased.
NOAA said "hey guys, this has introduced a systematic error into the data and we need to adjust for it"
Other scientists were skeptical.
This group decided to test it. So they took several independent data sets that each used just one measurement so that each dataset is internally consistent.
They then discovered that all the data sets matched the NOAA adjusted combined data better than the previous unadjusted data.
What their work indicates is that the slow migration from ship thermometer to buoy, satellite etc has hidden an extra 0.06C/decade of warming - and that the warming rate over the last several decades is much closer to the rate over the previous decades than was thought.
(It should be pointed out that some statisticians don't accept that there was any statistically significant change in the warming rate over the last several decades even when using the pre NOAA (3b) data. My statistical knowledge isn't sufficient to be able to independently do the changepoint analysis necessary to confirm or refute this)