Err, that may be their point, but they are wrong. Don't believe me - do the test.
It is obvious that their little trick worked. "Hey, they released the source code - no need to check what they say the results are." You guys are so predictable.
So describing the algorithm isn't enough, nor that there are a number of tools available for exactly this technique? No, because like most OpenSource advocates, you couldn't code your way out of a paperbag.
OTOH since M&M opened their software, anyone can check their claims and see the mistakes Mann et al point out. Which is just one more of their mistakes. I see a pattern evolving - we have another hockey-stick!
* You can get your iTMS music onto any playback device you want - it just may take a little work/recoding.
* AFAIK you can sell your whole iTMS account including all music. If you think you want to resell music you want to purchase, create a new account or better yet get a gift certificate.
If you cared more about the facts than your imaginary theories, you'ld realized that Mann et al did not make any predictions, and that the evil hockey-stick is the data from the 20th century.
Finally, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention 555-LIST, an ongoing project to compile all the 555 numbers used in TV and movies. So whether you're trying to dial Agent Scully at Quantico (555-2804) or Ned Flanders in Springfield (555-8904), you'll find the numbers of all your favorite fictional characters.
Both (quite recent) examples don't follow the new rule. So even if they stuck with them for consistency, the rule can't be older than 15 years.
So who do you get when you call 555-2804 in Quantico (or anywhere else for that matter;-?
Thanks for admiting that there is man-made global warming.
nother flaw with Kyoto is that, as far as I can tell, it doesn't consider nuclear a "clean" power source for purposes of controlling global warming.
The Kyoto protocol doesn't give a shit how many nuclear plants you build. If you want to produce more CO2 in addition, your plants are not going to help much with global warming.
So that, basically, the only plausible theory for some of the missiles to have occurred would have been if there were missiles such that could maybe get through a 1- or 2-inch opening, make an immediate left, go 90 degrees through a seam, and then maybe take another 90-degree right, and then maybe reverse itself and come back over. But those were some of the considerations.
So when they write realclimate.org in the text, you have to go find the link in the right hand column, 14 links from the top. Gee, I think cut'n'paste is the easier way, thank you very much.
Our former sticky notes "Overview", "Due Diligence" and "Bring the Proxies up to date" have been disappeared (by the Wordpress software) from the top of the page.
"have been disappeared" - whowza. It can only get better.
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/natu re/MANNETAL98/ (Great, no FTP URLs)
Here's the data from Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (The Hockeystick Gang). Of which the anti-Hockeystick Gang had to ignore quite some to get their result.
Yeah, but what if you find out that they wrote 2 + 2 + 1 = 5, and that those who proved them wrong left out that unimportant + 1 part in their proof, and now claim that that MBH wrote 2 + 2 = 5 all the time?
As discussed above, MM incorrectly truncated the PC basis set at only 2 PC series based on a failure to apply standard selection rules to determine the number of PC series that should be retained in the analysis. Five, rather than two PC series, are indicated by application of standard selection rules if using the MM, rather than MBH98, centering convention to represent the North American ITRDB data.
If these five series are retained as predictors, essentially the same temperature reconstruction as MBH98 is recovered (Figure 2).
...
We further show that the entire issue raised by MM regarding the centering convention used in PCA is spurious by demonstrating that similar results are produced whether or not proxy networks are represented using PCA at all
So let's assume for argument's sake that Mann, Bradley and Hughes made some terrible mistake in their statistical analysis, so we need to discard their results altogether. This wouldn't change our picture of the last millennium (or anything else) very much:
independent groups, with different analysis methods, have arrived at similar results for the last millennium. The details differ (mostly within the uncertainty bounds given by Mann et al, so the difference is not significant), but all published reconstructions share the same basic features: they show relatively warm medieval times, a cooling by a few tenths of a degree Celsius after that, and a rapid warming since the 19th Century. Even without Mann et al, we'd still be stuck with a "hockey stick" type of curve - quite boring.
Here, however, we choose to focus on some curious additional related assertions made by MM holding that (1) use of non-centered PCA (as by MBH98) is somehow not statistically valid, and (2) that "Hockey Stick" patterns arise naturally from application of non-centered PCA to purely random "red noise". Both claims, which are of course false, were made in a comment on MBH98 by MM that was rejected by Nature ,
and subsequently parroted by astronomer Richard Muller in a non peer-reviewed setting--see e.g. this nice discussion by science journalist David Appell of Muller's uncritical repetition of these false claims. These claims were discredited in the response provided by Mann and coworkers to the Nature editor and reviewers, which presumably formed the primary basis for the rejection of the MM comment.
...
Lets turn, now, to MM's claim that the "Hockey Stick" arises simply from the application of non-centered PCA to red noise. Given a large enough "fishing expedition" analysis, it is of course possible to find "Hockey-Stick like" PC series out of red noise. But this is a meaningless exercise. Given a large enough number of analyses, one can of course produce a series that is arbitrarily close to just about any chosen reference series via application of PCA to random red noise. The more meaningful statistical question, however is this one: Given the "null hypothesis" of red noise with the same statistical attributes (i.e., variance and lag-one autocorrelation coefficients) as the actual North American ITRDB series, and applying the MBH98 (non-centered) PCA convention, how likely is one to produce the "Hockey Stick" pattern from chance alone.
So your argument is that if you remove just enough of carefully selected data, you can come to the "real" results. While if you use too much data, the wrong results must come out.
Slashdot Mirror
And they want to close their cell phone production.
It is obvious that their little trick worked. "Hey, they released the source code - no need to check what they say the results are." You guys are so predictable.
So describing the algorithm isn't enough, nor that there are a number of tools available for exactly this technique? No, because like most OpenSource advocates, you couldn't code your way out of a paperbag.
If your local theater was the only cinema in the country, sure.
But if you had a power cord that wouldn't rip under it's own weight, you'ld already have the tether.
Maybe his point is that Dubya is soft on spammers.
Taco posts the same URL.
I guess we all hope they get it right for a change. Nope.
OTOH since M&M opened their software, anyone can check their claims and see the mistakes Mann et al point out. Which is just one more of their mistakes. I see a pattern evolving - we have another hockey-stick!
* You can get your iTMS music onto any playback device you want - it just may take a little work/recoding.
* AFAIK you can sell your whole iTMS account including all music. If you think you want to resell music you want to purchase, create a new account or better yet get a gift certificate.
Of course, you can always check this site for all extra-solar planets found, and method they were found with.
If you cared more about the facts than your imaginary theories, you'ld realized that Mann et al did not make any predictions, and that the evil hockey-stick is the data from the 20th century.
Errm, that's what I was saying.
So who do you get when you call 555-2804 in Quantico (or anywhere else for that matter ;-?
nother flaw with Kyoto is that, as far as I can tell, it doesn't consider nuclear a "clean" power source for purposes of controlling global warming.
The Kyoto protocol doesn't give a shit how many nuclear plants you build. If you want to produce more CO2 in addition, your plants are not going to help much with global warming.
Hey, if the Magic Bullet could do it...
So when they write realclimate.org in the text, you have to go find the link in the right hand column, 14 links from the top. Gee, I think cut'n'paste is the easier way, thank you very much.
"have been disappeared" - whowza. It can only get better.
Here's the data from Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (The Hockeystick Gang). Of which the anti-Hockeystick Gang had to ignore quite some to get their result.
Yeah, but what if you find out that they wrote 2 + 2 + 1 = 5, and that those who proved them wrong left out that unimportant + 1 part in their proof, and now claim that that MBH wrote 2 + 2 = 5 all the time?
So your argument is that if you remove just enough of carefully selected data, you can come to the "real" results. While if you use too much data, the wrong results must come out.
In other words, Macs are just as vulnerable as PCs running Windows or Linux or a nose-hair-trimmer.
Hrrm, the only young ones programming for Windows seem to be the virus/worm authors ;-)