"Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization" is fundamentally hard to test.
It shouldn't be too hard, right? Especially now that companies are releasing diversity numbers. Get some diversity numbers for companies, figure out a way to measure their success, and slice the data different ways to see if you can find any correlation. Control for confounding factors. There are certainly difficulties, but this is basic data-science stuff, it's not fundamentally hard.
ok, look at this graph again. It's temperature for some random city, it doesn't matter, probably in the month of March or something. Can you see what the blue lines represent? Can you see that the red line is the thickness of the entire global temperature anomaly?
If they can get the bulk 'anonymized' data, there's a high chance they'll be able to identify the individuals. Anonymized data is such a joke that it rarely hides the identity. For example, if you have cell phone GPS data, the name of the owner and the phone number can be hidden, but if it starts and ends at the same place every day, then you can figure out who it is.
In browsing habits, you might look for people who surf to the congressional mail server web page. You might search URL query strings for embedded names. There's a lot of potential there, and the anonymized data might even include their address, which happens sometimes when the vendor doesn't actually care about hiding identity.
Improving historical data would have been a better use of resources than this sad current paper. But maybe Mann isn't capable of more difficult research. That's too bad for him.
Fighting for territory is seen in many animal species though. It's not a "human only" trait. Homosapien 'victory' could be just as easily explained by better survivability (due to our ability to survive on the poorer diet that existed after the end of the ice age) expanding and pushing out some, while assimilating and mating with others.
ok, let's leave the past in the past then. Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?
If you look at reconstructions, you'll see there's still a huge uncertainty, and the good reconstructions will at least attempt to calculate the error bars. Shaun Marcott (author of a study you may recognize) says, "We cannot say whether this [modern temperature] change is unique across the entire Holocene because of the resolution (i.e., the sampling of temperature per unit time) of the entire dataset is about 120 years"
And if the 1998 paper, then why? Have I defended that paper in this thread? Beyond foregrounding the fact that the work which has superseded it has "more or less" confirmed the original findings? I merely noted that calling Dr Mann "really really bad at statistics" was "perhaps" to overstate matters.
Why? Mainly because it most clearly demonstrates the issue.
And maybe you are right about his statistical skill, but saying he is really really bad at statistics is actually being generous to him. If he knew what he was doing, then he was actively trying to deceive people, which is far worse.
The speculation is that in the tree rings that diverged (not all did) it had to do with pollution.
Mann is not a tree ring specialist. He used tree ring data from scientists who are. He followed the recommendation from the scientists who produced the data he used to not use the divergent data.
Don't be an ass mate........Which is not to say I accept that statement (from memory, and I'm not minded to go to the effort and check, the problem was with a particular sub-sample of tree-ring data)
It's hard to not be an ass towards someone who is willfully ignorant. I'm willing to forgive a lot of things.
The only saving grace you can grant Mann here is that he didn't hide what he did in his paper. His error bars should have taken into account the fact that tree rings don't match thermometers, but well, apparently he missed the topic of error bars in his statistics class or something. Oh well.
Indeed, no one is denying that CO2 warms the earth (ok, probably someone does), the question is how much. It seems unlikely to be the trigger for the ice ages because it's a trailing indicator.
The easiest way to do it is set up your own VPN on AWS. OpenSwan comes highly recommended, but it's not hard to do tunneling through SSH, either. It'll cost ~$5 a month if you leave it up all the time.
To answer your question, you absolutely should not trust a VPN provider.
CO2 is a trailing indicator, in other words CO2 starts rising after temperature rises. In fact, (excluding the last hundred years), every time CO2 levels were above 300ppm in the last 400,000 years we were in an ice age.
The last time we spoke you were quoting an article that claimed that climate model predictions did not correlate to actual temperature (and therefore the results of CO2 induced warming could be worse than the models predict). Now you say that Richard Lindzen has a model that's accurate.
What are you talking about, where did you get that? I didn't say anything about Richard Lindzen having a model, learn to read, no wonder science gives you so much trouble, your reading comprehension sucks. Holy fuck I swear you didn't understand a word I said.
I suspect that their other goal was to proactively bring the venue into their district. If Acushnet wants to argue patents, it will now be hard for them to get it tried in East Texas.
The conclusion remains the same when more appropriate statistical methods are used.
No, any proper application of statistics would have recognized the divergence in the tree record reconstruction, and not tried to cover it. Any high-quality scientist would have tried to investigate the divergence instead of publishing it.
There was bad science done here one way or another, although it wasn't outright fraud as some people claim.
Slashdot Mirror
"Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization" is fundamentally hard to test.
It shouldn't be too hard, right? Especially now that companies are releasing diversity numbers. Get some diversity numbers for companies, figure out a way to measure their success, and slice the data different ways to see if you can find any correlation. Control for confounding factors. There are certainly difficulties, but this is basic data-science stuff, it's not fundamentally hard.
citation
That is truly, and undeniably, without a doubt, a citation.
ok, look at this graph again. It's temperature for some random city, it doesn't matter, probably in the month of March or something. Can you see what the blue lines represent? Can you see that the red line is the thickness of the entire global temperature anomaly?
To be sure, they should repeat the experiment using a control group that plays Bioshock.
If they can get the bulk 'anonymized' data, there's a high chance they'll be able to identify the individuals. Anonymized data is such a joke that it rarely hides the identity. For example, if you have cell phone GPS data, the name of the owner and the phone number can be hidden, but if it starts and ends at the same place every day, then you can figure out who it is.
In browsing habits, you might look for people who surf to the congressional mail server web page. You might search URL query strings for embedded names. There's a lot of potential there, and the anonymized data might even include their address, which happens sometimes when the vendor doesn't actually care about hiding identity.
Improving historical data would have been a better use of resources than this sad current paper. But maybe Mann isn't capable of more difficult research. That's too bad for him.
If warming caused CO2 and CO2 caused warming the way eggs cause chickens and chickens cause eggs, then the world would be unbearably warm right now.
Fighting for territory is seen in many animal species though. It's not a "human only" trait. Homosapien 'victory' could be just as easily explained by better survivability (due to our ability to survive on the poorer diet that existed after the end of the ice age) expanding and pushing out some, while assimilating and mating with others.
There is also strong evidence that Neanderthals and Humans were on friendly terms. Another factor that might be worth considering: in the historical period, even when armies do fight and conquer each other, it's surprisingly rare to see complete slaughter of the losing side.
ok, let's leave the past in the past then. Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?
I'm not sure how much effort scientists are willing to put into finding out at this point.
Seriously? I hope you die in a fire then. Scientists are always trying to get better data. See Feynman's point about the Millikan electron charge error.
If you look at reconstructions, you'll see there's still a huge uncertainty, and the good reconstructions will at least attempt to calculate the error bars. Shaun Marcott (author of a study you may recognize) says, "We cannot say whether this [modern temperature] change is unique across the entire Holocene because of the resolution (i.e., the sampling of temperature per unit time) of the entire dataset is about 120 years"
And if the 1998 paper, then why? Have I defended that paper in this thread? Beyond foregrounding the fact that the work which has superseded it has "more or less" confirmed the original findings? I merely noted that calling Dr Mann "really really bad at statistics" was "perhaps" to overstate matters.
Why? Mainly because it most clearly demonstrates the issue.
And maybe you are right about his statistical skill, but saying he is really really bad at statistics is actually being generous to him. If he knew what he was doing, then he was actively trying to deceive people, which is far worse.
The speculation is that in the tree rings that diverged (not all did) it had to do with pollution. Mann is not a tree ring specialist. He used tree ring data from scientists who are. He followed the recommendation from the scientists who produced the data he used to not use the divergent data.
I think that's an explanation I read on real-climate somewhere once. There are actually a number of hypotheses, but it's not really clear.
But once the planet started warming up feedback from increased water vapor and CO2 make it warmer than it would get from Milankovitch cycles alone.
That is true.
Don't be an ass mate........Which is not to say I accept that statement (from memory, and I'm not minded to go to the effort and check, the problem was with a particular sub-sample of tree-ring data)
It's hard to not be an ass towards someone who is willfully ignorant. I'm willing to forgive a lot of things.
The only saving grace you can grant Mann here is that he didn't hide what he did in his paper. His error bars should have taken into account the fact that tree rings don't match thermometers, but well, apparently he missed the topic of error bars in his statistics class or something. Oh well.
God help you.
Indeed, no one is denying that CO2 warms the earth (ok, probably someone does), the question is how much. It seems unlikely to be the trigger for the ice ages because it's a trailing indicator.
Learn to read mate, my comment included the last hundred years but you missed it. Your reading comprehension sucks, and so do you.
The easiest way to do it is set up your own VPN on AWS. OpenSwan comes highly recommended, but it's not hard to do tunneling through SSH, either. It'll cost ~$5 a month if you leave it up all the time.
To answer your question, you absolutely should not trust a VPN provider.
Fuck tolerance, those people just need to be driven off the goddamn internet. It's too good for them to ruin.
September arrived long ago, mate. It's too late for that. Best you can do now is ad blocking. And maybe hosts.
Isn't it a good thing to make ISPs common carriers?
CO2 is a trailing indicator, in other words CO2 starts rising after temperature rises. In fact, (excluding the last hundred years), every time CO2 levels were above 300ppm in the last 400,000 years we were in an ice age.
The last time we spoke you were quoting an article that claimed that climate model predictions did not correlate to actual temperature (and therefore the results of CO2 induced warming could be worse than the models predict). Now you say that Richard Lindzen has a model that's accurate.
What are you talking about, where did you get that? I didn't say anything about Richard Lindzen having a model, learn to read, no wonder science gives you so much trouble, your reading comprehension sucks. Holy fuck I swear you didn't understand a word I said.
The price I pay for never having to shovel snow.
I suspect that their other goal was to proactively bring the venue into their district. If Acushnet wants to argue patents, it will now be hard for them to get it tried in East Texas.
Good call.
The conclusion remains the same when more appropriate statistical methods are used.
No, any proper application of statistics would have recognized the divergence in the tree record reconstruction, and not tried to cover it. Any high-quality scientist would have tried to investigate the divergence instead of publishing it.
There was bad science done here one way or another, although it wasn't outright fraud as some people claim.