Does the name Ahmed Ressam ring any bells? He was caught crossing into the US from Canada with a trunkful of explosives — intended for Los Angeles' airport...
Considering that CO2 levels will continue to rise for 1000 years afterwards -- we really will have missed a chance to build a sustainable economy.
So, when a skeptic gave you the criteria, that would persuade him — as you requested — you rejected the criteria, because you can not meet it. I don't blame you for being unable to meet it, but don't pretend, you have "solid science" behind you — because you don't.
By analogy, you won't save the building from fire
And then you go right back to predictions of the sky falling by next Tuesday... I see...
You attacked my "skill", etc. That's an attack on the person, rather than on what they are saying. That's "ad-hominem".
My comment regarding Che Guevara T-shirts simply does not apply to some small percentage of environmentalists, who aren't anti-Capitalism. The rest of them wouldn't consider my accusation to be "an insult" for they don't see anything wrong with Che.
I'm not shouting
Your changing the subject to "Bullshit" was shouting...
average AGW denier
There: "denier"... Right... I was not, actually, "denying" anything. Just pointing out, that no sufficient proof for an urgent need to abolish SUVs, beef-steaks, and lightbulbs has been presented. That's all. There may be significant AGW, or there may not be. But the anti-Capitalists find it beneficial to believe, that there is, because they can bludgeon capitalism with it.
You may not be one of them, but it is certainly a big draw — this thread started with pointing out the obvious, that most of the proponents are "liberals"...
The Uniformed Judge makes false claims to support his point, or doesn't understand the empirical support for the theory.
Right there your distinction requires to discern: which claims are "false", and whether the opponent understands "the empirical support for the theory". Making these decisions objectively is impossible — a proponent of the theory will always (attempt to) dismiss critics as both making "false" claims and not understanding "the empirical support".
(You misspelled "uninformed" — twice... May you never find yourself in front of a uniformed judge.)
Not only is your factometer hopelessly crushed by the weight of your ideology, but also our logic and rhetorical skills suck.
My little post has caused you to explode and turn to shouting (I even had to change the subject-line for you). That an opponent is reduced to an ad-hominem attack is — by itself — a confirmation, that my "skills" and logic are just fine.
Thank you very much for the encouragement. Stay calm next time.
What I see instead is a large number of credulous people who believe whatever certain pundits tell them is the best way to screw with liberals.
Exactly the point! For some reason, scratching almost any "environmental activist" one can find a worn-out Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Why is it? Are the liberals noticeably more green-conscientious? No, they aren't...
It must be, then, that a substantial body of the Illiberal crowd sees "global warming" as a pre-text for destroying (or, at least, shackling) Capitalism. Indeed, regardless of whether the Global Warming (renamed recently to a less odious "Climate Change") is a) a threat and b) a man-made phenomenon, it is useful just because it can be used to hurt Capitalism...
This is well-illustrated by the modern version of Pascal's Wager. To restate Pascal's conclusion: even though the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming cannot be determined through reason, a Progressive should wager as though AGW exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
Yes, there is fairly clear evidence that a large set of documents were stolen.
"Stolen"? The top-level directory of the archive is named FOIA/. Looks to me, the data was prepared in response to a FOIA request... Maybe, the CRU's management then tried to block the release (the revealed e-mails to discuss resisting such requests) and the collector decided to "leak" it in order to preempt the conspiracy...
And then, of course, the use of the term "stealing" regarding something intangible like data is rather hypocritical for Slashdot, is not it? CRU were deprived of no more property, than the entertainment companies are, when their wares are copied. This forum routinely frowns on **AA's attempts to label their nemeses as "thieves"...
If this comment does catch your eye, could you, please, respond to this one as well? Thanks.
The fact remains that In the end the code was never used and the graph labeled VERY ARTIFICIAL was never published.
Yes, you and others have made this claim because in the leaked IDL-program osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro the "correction" is not used. However, it is used in the script found in harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro (the filename suggests it being simply the next version of the script, although the timestamp on the d-version is more recent).
Now, you claim, the published results were never augmented, but I'd like to know, why you are so sure... Simply rerunning the program to reproduce the Nature's chart is not possible, because the CRU's data is not available. Do you know something, the rest of us don't, or are you simply defending "your side" instead of being scientifically neutral?
I asked Mr. Squid this question, but it remains unanswered...
Seriously, totally dismiss everything the CRU there has ever published. All the evidence *still* points to warming.
What evidence? Computer models — those are a dime a dozen. Historical records? CRU discarded the originals of those, keeping only the results of their own calibration. Do I trust that calibration? No, I don't.
Do I trust other government-sponsored scientists to be substantially different from CRU? No, I am very skeptical.
Why *wouldn't* there be warming? What would stop it?
The climates gradually change back and forth all the time — I accept that. What I reject is that the humanity is to blame for that. The anthropogenic component of the climate-change seems very overblown to me — overblown to people, who consider Capitalism to be the root of all evil and want to end it.
Elsewhere in this thread I give examples of earlier drastic changes in climate and geography — none of which is attributable to humans these days, but was, no doubt, blamed on humanity's sins by the chieftains and priests of the past. Today's chieftains get Nobel prises for their fear-mongering and some of today's priests call themselves "scientists" — but they still demand large sacrifices from the folk, remain just as arrogant (even you, yourself no more than an acolyte, have called me "stupid", "idiot" and "illiterate" here), and dismiss skeptics as enemies (the revealed e-mails talk about punching opponents, for example).
That's not science...
See, your problem is you don't even know what the theory is, but you're ready to jump in and dismiss it.
I know enough about the theory, and, as with most aspects of science, that's not of immediate interest to my own profession, I'd be comfortable trusting the experts. Presented with solid evidence, that my trust was abused, however, I'm going to discard their conclusions. And so should you.
This thread was started with the "trial" analogy. You wouldn't convict a person, if the prosecutor's evidence was as tainted, as this case against civilization is. Could the prosecution still be right despite all this? Yes... But they'll have to present a whole new set of irrefutable evidence — and better replace the top prosecutors too — before I believe them.
The burden of proof is on the "prosecution", and it is now much heavier than before.
Oh good. So you see how stupid it is to dismiss a theory because you don't like one particular model.
Considering that the failed model was among the most authoritative on the matter and its authors — the most influential proponents of the theory, it is not unreasonable to dismiss the entire theory now.
As in this being the warmest decade on record.
If it were "the warmest decade on record", the CRU fools wouldn't be as frustrated among themselves. The sole source of this statement is the UN report, for which the disgraced CRU were the main source of information. Considering their now-known attempts to manipulate the data and the process, I'm not going to trust them one bit.
See, if you bothered actually finding out about the science yourself, you wouldn't have to depend on the mass media to know things.
Maybe, if your science was as solid as you'd like to pretend, you wouldn't need to rely on mass media to spread your ideology.
We know, the emperor is naked. Cover him up and get back to research...
The answer is: because that's what Verizon and Comcast wanted.
Oh, yes, of course, every company wants to have as little competition as possible — that's perfectly fine and I don't blame them. Why were their wishes granted — is the right question to ask. Many businesses lobby the government, but don't achieve this status, so it is not just the lobbying... The answer is obvious from some of the responses in this very thread.
Somehow, this meme about "natural" monopolies continue to survive. People still think, that it is better to have such mono- or duopolies, than to lay the "duplicate" cables and rip-up the pavements one more time. It is as if the AT&T debacle never happened.
Granted, duopoly is much better than an outright monopoly, but it is still very bad, because — without occasional newcomers — the incumbents will find peace between each other (even if without explicit illegal collusion). That the government is, in effect, enforcing the insurmountable barrier to entry and tries to compensate by asking "really stern questions" is beyond idiotic...
This leads to all citizens must be forced to carry identification at all times. Biometrics is a short-circuit around forcing people to carry ID papers 24/7.
The problem with people being forced to carry papers with them is not in that it gives the government a way to identify them, but in the sheer inconvenience of that requirement. It also allows for the government abuse — currently people on-bail are asked (by the Judiciary) to surrender their passports to make their fleeing abroad harder, for example. If papers were needed 24/7, it would've become possible (even for the Executive) to impose much harsher restrictions.
Neither of these problems exist with biometrics — you carry your face and retina with you at all times, and they can not be easily taken away from you (or not renewed as the Executive likes to do with various licenses).
At present, I can walk out of the house without my wallet, and nobody can identify me without my permission. Not so with biometrics.
In a really large city, maybe. Even there, your local cop(s) know you quite well: they recognize your face, even if they don't know your name. And if they ever saw you getting into a car, they can learn quite a bit more... In smaller communities — and especially in Israel, where community-culture is quite different from America's — you are known very well already: not only your name, but what you spent on your house, and what breed your cat is.
I, for one, fail to see how this is anything but evil.
We may argue, whether this will work or not, but why is it "evil"? Is it the fear, the impersonators will now be ripping faces off people to pretend to be them?
You'd actually dismiss the whole concept of the earth orbiting the sun?
Oh, I see, what you mean. The Global Warming is right, it is just the CRU "scientists" are partisan fools. Whatever — the "concept" of Earth orbiting Sun is supported by enough evidence. The concept of Global Warming (in the face of actual Cooling rebranded as "Climate Change") is not. The burden of proof remains on you...
No they weren't.
Yes, they were. The threat of global cooling was — according to your own link (BTW, couldn't you find something more reputable than "RealClimate", which the disgraced CRU "scientist" exposed as "their own"?) — published by the same mass-media (such as Newsweek), that pushes the global warming now. The link I gave you talks about Smithsonian curators — quite respectable institution, is not it?
But, interestingly, even your link confirms a cooling trend between 40ies and 70ies... Khmm...
the general theory is quite simple to understand if you're reasonably literate. You're supposed to be able to understand it yourself. Perhaps that's asking a bit much in some cases.
Yes, yes, the emperor is very well dressed, and only the illiterate could possibly not see it. Is that the best you can do?
in most departments the procedure is to simply black it out on a hard copy and then photocopy the hard copy or scan it if it is to go online.
Now, that is a bloody travesty! It turns a neat, easy to read (scalable fonts!) document with nicely searchable contents into a bitmap... It ought to be possible to properly black-out information, that does not want to be free, without turning the rest of the text into a picture.
Departments doing it as you describe are wasting my money — I want a refund!
That's the theory, but in practice it sucks. I have a DSL from Speakeasy (over Covad) and they simply can not sell me faster access — because of the poor quality of the copper lines. Or so Verizon tells them... You could say, we should strip Verizon of ability to offer their own DSL service, but that's draconian and will not help anyway.
For another example, in my new house I wanted to install high-efficiency tankless boiler. They are good, because they are powerful enough to heat the water just-in-time, when I need it, rather than accumulate it in a (slowly cooling) tank. But they do require a lot of gas during those minutes, during which I take a shower. Guess what? The local gas utility could not provide the gas pressure (need at least 7 inches of the water column for those)... They are a monopoly, so my only recourse is the State's "Public Utilities Commission", who will, of course, take months to investigate, so I got a giant tank instead (I hate to run out of hot water).
In other words, there is no substitute for competition. What you are talking about is, at most, a work-around...
It's a waste of expensive cables and they may have to dig up roads unnecessarily.
It is a waste, but the cables are a one-time expense and, are minuscule compared to the ongoing costs of human-hours (frustrated consumers', the company employees', and the regulating bureaucrats').
Instead, the monopoly that owns the cable should be divested of its content arm, so that anybody can send me their content through the cable to my house.
That's a violation of that company's (or, rather, its owners') freedom. And they'll fool you anyway... Both on purpose (to sell you "premium" connectivity, for example) and unwittingly — without their own interest in your service, what is their incentive in the quality of your picture? Don't know about you, but I don't want anybody to serve me out of fear of the government — people try to weasel out of such arrangements. Out of benevolence is best, but that's rare and unsustainable. For profit is perfectly fine and is how Capitalism works, so let it...
That's what the government ought to be working on: ensure competition. Everything else is not only useless — for even the slowest-moving corporation will outrun and outsmart a government bureaucrat — but dangerous, because trying (and failing) to outsmart a corporation, the bureaucrats will trample over freedoms and liberties.
The entire idea of giving entire regions over to one or two companies — in exchange for "stricter" regulation — was a disaster. It is as if somebody wanted Capitalism to fail, so they crippled it with government-assured mono- or, at best, duopoly. Why am I stuck choosing between Verizon and Comcast?
That ought to be stopped. Allow anyone to run their cables to any home, if they want to. Then you can stop mandating this and that and let the competition sort it out. Which consumer would rather be calling FCC (Monday through Friday, 9-4 EDT) to complain and wait for the bureaucracy deal with company's skilled lawyers, instead of simply calling the competitor to switch?
Of course, this would diminish the Government's power, so FCC will never voluntarily release this control and will keep finding reasons and examples of its own usefulness...
It is easy enough to tell by looking at the Nature paper. Hint, the plot in the paper does not have this correction applied.
Actually, the above statement implies, you've reproduced their results successfully yourself. Have you? Where did you get the data and how did you run the IDL-interpreter (or the GDL-clone of it)? I don't think, you'd be able to, because the data used for this chart(s), apparently, comes from/cru/u2/f055/data/obs/grid/surface/lat_jones_18511998.mon.nc, which is not included in the leaked archive...
The thread you pointed to is inconclusive on the matter, but you are sure, there is nothing to look at here, and we should move along. What did you do to confirm that?
It is not a matter of trust. It is a matter of learning to read IDL code (which is not that hard) and comparing the plotting commands to the published plot.
It is easy enough to read, but you missed the bigger point. If this kind of data-massaging was ever contemplated, we can't trust the rest of their practices. You trust their code, which you can read — but have you seen, what data they feed to that code? Hint, they say, they used "calibration" because data collected over the years was collected differently.
How did they calibrate it? What kind of coefficients were they picking for the calibration? Are you sure, they didn't stop searching for "better" values, until the results showed, what they set out to find from the get-go? They no longer have the original data — only the "calibrated" results — is not that "convenient"?
Being on a jury, would you be comfortable convicting a man based on this sort of evidence?
For crying out loud, in 1975 we were threatened with Global Cooling! Just as convincingly...
If you had a computer model of the solar system, and it failed to predict the earth's orbit accurately, would you try and fix your model? Or would you discard Heliocentric theory?
Depending on how "accurately"... For example, if, the model was off by some percentage, I would've asked for possible explanations and minor corrections. On the other hand, if the model predicted Moon falling onto Earth in October 2008, I would've not only discarded the entire theory, but tarred-and-feathered the pompous assholes, who wasted billions of dollars predicting the doom.
The same kind of people were already warnings us about global cooling from their ivory towers — in twenty years they did a complete flip-flop, and we are supposed to believe them without doubts?
In the particular example, nay class of examples I've given, that would mean dumbing the code down, so that the weakest programmer in the company can understand it. That could mean severe pessimization overall: "Why don't you leave those bzeros alone, so that it is obvious, the memory is cleared?"
Code reviews are essential.
I agree with you on this one. But it will not solve the problem of "clever" being relative...
Slashdot Mirror
Does the name Ahmed Ressam ring any bells? He was caught crossing into the US from Canada with a trunkful of explosives — intended for Los Angeles' airport...
So, when a skeptic gave you the criteria, that would persuade him — as you requested — you rejected the criteria, because you can not meet it. I don't blame you for being unable to meet it, but don't pretend, you have "solid science" behind you — because you don't.
And then you go right back to predictions of the sky falling by next Tuesday... I see...
You attacked my "skill", etc. That's an attack on the person, rather than on what they are saying. That's "ad-hominem".
My comment regarding Che Guevara T-shirts simply does not apply to some small percentage of environmentalists, who aren't anti-Capitalism. The rest of them wouldn't consider my accusation to be "an insult" for they don't see anything wrong with Che.
Your changing the subject to "Bullshit" was shouting...
There: "denier"... Right... I was not, actually, "denying" anything. Just pointing out, that no sufficient proof for an urgent need to abolish SUVs, beef-steaks, and lightbulbs has been presented. That's all. There may be significant AGW, or there may not be. But the anti-Capitalists find it beneficial to believe, that there is, because they can bludgeon capitalism with it.
You may not be one of them, but it is certainly a big draw — this thread started with pointing out the obvious, that most of the proponents are "liberals"...
Right there your distinction requires to discern: which claims are "false", and whether the opponent understands "the empirical support for the theory". Making these decisions objectively is impossible — a proponent of the theory will always (attempt to) dismiss critics as both making "false" claims and not understanding "the empirical support".
(You misspelled "uninformed" — twice... May you never find yourself in front of a uniformed judge.)
My little post has caused you to explode and turn to shouting (I even had to change the subject-line for you). That an opponent is reduced to an ad-hominem attack is — by itself — a confirmation, that my "skills" and logic are just fine.
Thank you very much for the encouragement. Stay calm next time.
Exactly the point! For some reason, scratching almost any "environmental activist" one can find a worn-out Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Why is it? Are the liberals noticeably more green-conscientious? No, they aren't...
It must be, then, that a substantial body of the Illiberal crowd sees "global warming" as a pre-text for destroying (or, at least, shackling) Capitalism. Indeed, regardless of whether the Global Warming (renamed recently to a less odious "Climate Change") is a) a threat and b) a man-made phenomenon, it is useful just because it can be used to hurt Capitalism...
This is well-illustrated by the modern version of Pascal's Wager. To restate Pascal's conclusion: even though the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming cannot be determined through reason, a Progressive should wager as though AGW exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
Only in the eye of a beholder... No objective difference exists...
"Stolen"? The top-level directory of the archive is named FOIA/. Looks to me, the data was prepared in response to a FOIA request... Maybe, the CRU's management then tried to block the release (the revealed e-mails to discuss resisting such requests) and the collector decided to "leak" it in order to preempt the conspiracy...
And then, of course, the use of the term "stealing" regarding something intangible like data is rather hypocritical for Slashdot, is not it? CRU were deprived of no more property, than the entertainment companies are, when their wares are copied. This forum routinely frowns on **AA's attempts to label their nemeses as "thieves"...
If this comment does catch your eye, could you, please, respond to this one as well? Thanks.
Yes, you and others have made this claim because in the leaked IDL-program osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro the "correction" is not used. However, it is used in the script found in harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro (the filename suggests it being simply the next version of the script, although the timestamp on the d-version is more recent).
Now, you claim, the published results were never augmented, but I'd like to know, why you are so sure... Simply rerunning the program to reproduce the Nature's chart is not possible, because the CRU's data is not available. Do you know something, the rest of us don't, or are you simply defending "your side" instead of being scientifically neutral?
I asked Mr. Squid this question, but it remains unanswered...
What evidence? Computer models — those are a dime a dozen. Historical records? CRU discarded the originals of those, keeping only the results of their own calibration. Do I trust that calibration? No, I don't.
Do I trust other government-sponsored scientists to be substantially different from CRU? No, I am very skeptical.
The climates gradually change back and forth all the time — I accept that. What I reject is that the humanity is to blame for that. The anthropogenic component of the climate-change seems very overblown to me — overblown to people, who consider Capitalism to be the root of all evil and want to end it.
Elsewhere in this thread I give examples of earlier drastic changes in climate and geography — none of which is attributable to humans these days, but was, no doubt, blamed on humanity's sins by the chieftains and priests of the past. Today's chieftains get Nobel prises for their fear-mongering and some of today's priests call themselves "scientists" — but they still demand large sacrifices from the folk, remain just as arrogant (even you, yourself no more than an acolyte, have called me "stupid", "idiot" and "illiterate" here), and dismiss skeptics as enemies (the revealed e-mails talk about punching opponents, for example).
That's not science...
I know enough about the theory, and, as with most aspects of science, that's not of immediate interest to my own profession, I'd be comfortable trusting the experts. Presented with solid evidence, that my trust was abused, however, I'm going to discard their conclusions. And so should you.
This thread was started with the "trial" analogy. You wouldn't convict a person, if the prosecutor's evidence was as tainted, as this case against civilization is. Could the prosecution still be right despite all this? Yes... But they'll have to present a whole new set of irrefutable evidence — and better replace the top prosecutors too — before I believe them.
The burden of proof is on the "prosecution", and it is now much heavier than before.
Considering that the failed model was among the most authoritative on the matter and its authors — the most influential proponents of the theory, it is not unreasonable to dismiss the entire theory now.
If it were "the warmest decade on record", the CRU fools wouldn't be as frustrated among themselves. The sole source of this statement is the UN report, for which the disgraced CRU were the main source of information. Considering their now-known attempts to manipulate the data and the process, I'm not going to trust them one bit.
Maybe, if your science was as solid as you'd like to pretend, you wouldn't need to rely on mass media to spread your ideology.
We know, the emperor is naked. Cover him up and get back to research...
Oh, yes, of course, every company wants to have as little competition as possible — that's perfectly fine and I don't blame them. Why were their wishes granted — is the right question to ask. Many businesses lobby the government, but don't achieve this status, so it is not just the lobbying... The answer is obvious from some of the responses in this very thread.
Somehow, this meme about "natural" monopolies continue to survive. People still think, that it is better to have such mono- or duopolies, than to lay the "duplicate" cables and rip-up the pavements one more time. It is as if the AT&T debacle never happened.
Granted, duopoly is much better than an outright monopoly, but it is still very bad, because — without occasional newcomers — the incumbents will find peace between each other (even if without explicit illegal collusion). That the government is, in effect, enforcing the insurmountable barrier to entry and tries to compensate by asking "really stern questions" is beyond idiotic...
The problem with people being forced to carry papers with them is not in that it gives the government a way to identify them, but in the sheer inconvenience of that requirement. It also allows for the government abuse — currently people on-bail are asked (by the Judiciary) to surrender their passports to make their fleeing abroad harder, for example. If papers were needed 24/7, it would've become possible (even for the Executive) to impose much harsher restrictions.
Neither of these problems exist with biometrics — you carry your face and retina with you at all times, and they can not be easily taken away from you (or not renewed as the Executive likes to do with various licenses).
In a really large city, maybe. Even there, your local cop(s) know you quite well: they recognize your face, even if they don't know your name. And if they ever saw you getting into a car, they can learn quite a bit more... In smaller communities — and especially in Israel, where community-culture is quite different from America's — you are known very well already: not only your name, but what you spent on your house, and what breed your cat is.
Your riddle defeated me. I give up trying to decipher your meaning. Please, state your opinion openly. Thanks.
We may argue, whether this will work or not, but why is it "evil"? Is it the fear, the impersonators will now be ripping faces off people to pretend to be them?
Oh, I see, what you mean. The Global Warming is right, it is just the CRU "scientists" are partisan fools. Whatever — the "concept" of Earth orbiting Sun is supported by enough evidence. The concept of Global Warming (in the face of actual Cooling rebranded as "Climate Change") is not. The burden of proof remains on you...
Yes, they were. The threat of global cooling was — according to your own link (BTW, couldn't you find something more reputable than "RealClimate", which the disgraced CRU "scientist" exposed as "their own"?) — published by the same mass-media (such as Newsweek), that pushes the global warming now. The link I gave you talks about Smithsonian curators — quite respectable institution, is not it?
But, interestingly, even your link confirms a cooling trend between 40ies and 70ies... Khmm...
Yes, yes, the emperor is very well dressed, and only the illiterate could possibly not see it. Is that the best you can do?
Now, that is a bloody travesty! It turns a neat, easy to read (scalable fonts!) document with nicely searchable contents into a bitmap... It ought to be possible to properly black-out information, that does not want to be free, without turning the rest of the text into a picture.
Departments doing it as you describe are wasting my money — I want a refund!
That's the theory, but in practice it sucks. I have a DSL from Speakeasy (over Covad) and they simply can not sell me faster access — because of the poor quality of the copper lines. Or so Verizon tells them... You could say, we should strip Verizon of ability to offer their own DSL service, but that's draconian and will not help anyway.
For another example, in my new house I wanted to install high-efficiency tankless boiler. They are good, because they are powerful enough to heat the water just-in-time, when I need it, rather than accumulate it in a (slowly cooling) tank. But they do require a lot of gas during those minutes, during which I take a shower. Guess what? The local gas utility could not provide the gas pressure (need at least 7 inches of the water column for those)... They are a monopoly, so my only recourse is the State's "Public Utilities Commission", who will, of course, take months to investigate, so I got a giant tank instead (I hate to run out of hot water).
In other words, there is no substitute for competition. What you are talking about is, at most, a work-around...
It is a waste, but the cables are a one-time expense and, are minuscule compared to the ongoing costs of human-hours (frustrated consumers', the company employees', and the regulating bureaucrats').
That's a violation of that company's (or, rather, its owners') freedom. And they'll fool you anyway... Both on purpose (to sell you "premium" connectivity, for example) and unwittingly — without their own interest in your service, what is their incentive in the quality of your picture? Don't know about you, but I don't want anybody to serve me out of fear of the government — people try to weasel out of such arrangements. Out of benevolence is best, but that's rare and unsustainable. For profit is perfectly fine and is how Capitalism works, so let it...
That's what the government ought to be working on: ensure competition. Everything else is not only useless — for even the slowest-moving corporation will outrun and outsmart a government bureaucrat — but dangerous, because trying (and failing) to outsmart a corporation, the bureaucrats will trample over freedoms and liberties.
The entire idea of giving entire regions over to one or two companies — in exchange for "stricter" regulation — was a disaster. It is as if somebody wanted Capitalism to fail, so they crippled it with government-assured mono- or, at best, duopoly. Why am I stuck choosing between Verizon and Comcast?
That ought to be stopped. Allow anyone to run their cables to any home, if they want to. Then you can stop mandating this and that and let the competition sort it out. Which consumer would rather be calling FCC (Monday through Friday, 9-4 EDT) to complain and wait for the bureaucracy deal with company's skilled lawyers, instead of simply calling the competitor to switch?
Of course, this would diminish the Government's power, so FCC will never voluntarily release this control and will keep finding reasons and examples of its own usefulness...
Actually, the above statement implies, you've reproduced their results successfully yourself. Have you? Where did you get the data and how did you run the IDL-interpreter (or the GDL-clone of it)? I don't think, you'd be able to, because the data used for this chart(s), apparently, comes from /cru/u2/f055/data/obs/grid/surface/lat_jones_18511998.mon.nc, which is not included in the leaked archive...
The thread you pointed to is inconclusive on the matter, but you are sure, there is nothing to look at here, and we should move along. What did you do to confirm that?
It is easy enough to read, but you missed the bigger point. If this kind of data-massaging was ever contemplated, we can't trust the rest of their practices. You trust their code, which you can read — but have you seen, what data they feed to that code? Hint, they say, they used "calibration" because data collected over the years was collected differently.
How did they calibrate it? What kind of coefficients were they picking for the calibration? Are you sure, they didn't stop searching for "better" values, until the results showed, what they set out to find from the get-go? They no longer have the original data — only the "calibrated" results — is not that "convenient"?
Being on a jury, would you be comfortable convicting a man based on this sort of evidence?
For crying out loud, in 1975 we were threatened with Global Cooling! Just as convincingly...
This kind of talk gets you a flat lip and a bloody nose very quickly, boy. It is not Ok in real life, and it is not Ok online...
Depending on how "accurately"... For example, if, the model was off by some percentage, I would've asked for possible explanations and minor corrections. On the other hand, if the model predicted Moon falling onto Earth in October 2008, I would've not only discarded the entire theory, but tarred-and-feathered the pompous assholes, who wasted billions of dollars predicting the doom.
The same kind of people were already warnings us about global cooling from their ivory towers — in twenty years they did a complete flip-flop, and we are supposed to believe them without doubts?
In the particular example, nay class of examples I've given, that would mean dumbing the code down, so that the weakest programmer in the company can understand it. That could mean severe pessimization overall: "Why don't you leave those bzeros alone, so that it is obvious, the memory is cleared?"
I agree with you on this one. But it will not solve the problem of "clever" being relative...