Not fraud, just basic human nature to (often unconciously) interpret data in a way that will give us the results that we want.
And how do you know what result the ice core analysis want to obtain? I would imagine that most climatologists would desparately like to find that climate change is not occuring.
We like to think that scientists are immune to this, but do you really think that no scientist gambles at casinos?
I've never heard of any that do, beyond the occasional drunken experiment.
Method 1: counting layers. Sure, getting an exact result for an ice core 100,000+ years old might be hard, but not that hard. A yearly cycle is a learly cycle, count the number and you count the years. Its not as if the year ever changes in length.
Method 2: Match a marker in the ice (such as a layer of volcanic ash) with the corresponding marker in an ice core that has already been dated. Sure, any error in the original dating will appear as an uncertainty in the new ice core too. Your point is?
Method 3: Without more concrete data, I can't comment much on what you say. But as a scientist myself I can say that if the method is really as unreliable as you claim, then it simply wouldn't be used. In fact, your comment sounds suspicously like the typical creationist argument "radiocarbon dating sometimes gives incorrect answers due to contaminated samples; therefore all radiocarbon dating is wrong; therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old."
Method 4: given rainfall (err, snowfall;) data, self-consistently determine the age of the ice core from the rate of accumulation of ice. Your refutation of the method is...?
You say: About the only thing you can conclusively say is that an ice section below another ice section is probably the older one. And an ice section a lot lower is probably a lot older.
In geology, it is usually true that lower layers of earth are older than upper layers. Factors that can alter this are earthquakes, folding, volcanoes etc etc. In almost all cases its pretty obvious by looking around the area that something has caused the inversion. This occurs is on timescales of millions to hundreds of millions of years.
The time scales relevant for ice cores are much shorter than this, so such geological formations in ice should be rather rare. But even so, wouldn't this be obvious from an examination of the area?
Finally, error analysis is a rather basic part of any scientific method. What makes you think that ice core climatologists wouldn't do error analysis?
Well, I didn't make that comment. But anyway it is correct.
one (This map was created based on U.S. Department of Energy data).
two quick summary of this link (sorry about formatting):
THE TOP 20 CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTERS Country Total emissions (1000 tons of C) Per capita emissions Total emission (rank) Growth (in %, 1990-96) United States 1446777 5.37 (1) (9.9) Peoples Rep. of China 917997 0.76 (18) 40.0 Russia Federation 431090 2.91 (6) -19.2 (since 1992) Japan 318686 2.54 (9) 9.1 ...
three. Is that enough? This stuff is available from many many sources, try google.
Please, do at least some minimal amount of research before you embarrass yourself.
You are right. Most global warming is not caused directly by humans (such as pumping CO2 into the air in factories), but rather is caused by secondary processes such as byproducts of farming or reductions in the number of trees. And it is vitally important to distinguish between these classes of phenomena for the purposes of... of.... ummm, why exactly?
FFS, get off the high horse. You're basically accusing the scientists responsible for this data of fraud here. Do you have any evidence at all to back up your statements?
'officially' being the operative word here. I'm pretty sure there have been some accidents at the US weapons labs where people have accidentally inhaled plutonium oxides & died.
Alpha particles are quite heavy and are strongly interacting, which means that they have very short range. ie. with external exposure, most of the alphas are stopped by the skin & outer layers. But anyway, I agree with the general comment that the danger of plutonium toxicity is overstated. See here for a better source than the Wiki.
It may be unintuitive, but you are wrong. Try it, its no more than a line of perl:-) The expectation value of the number of heads is 50% (as it must be - it is symmetric), but the expectation value for the deviation from 50% diverges.
A series of bernoulli events with probability of success 0.5 will FREQUENTLY be on either the positive or negative side of "even".
You made that up, didn't you?
It isn't true, the time between zero-crossing events becomes extremely large as you add more samples. Once the random walk has become (by random chance) sufficiently far from zero, the probabability of another zero crossing is very tiny indeed.
Sort-of. Its also true that the people concerned seriously underestimated how hard it would be, and the scale involved, to get fusion working.
eg, there have been many projects in the past that intended to provide sustainable fusion but didn't - for technical reasons. Can't blame politicians for that.
...
Hangs In a hang scenario, the browser becomes unresponsive, forcing the user to kill the process from Task Manager and restart it. This can be easily achieved without exploiting any bugs, e.g. by scripting an infinite loop on a web page.
But then, pure maths seems to be doing OK with women, at least at undergraduate/early graduate levels. So its not maths per se that's the problem. Is it simply inertia? Maybe astronomy 'simply' achieved a critical mass of women, so new female students don't feel like they're joining a club of crotchety old men?
Well, it certainly hasn't always been "copyright", it would have been either "copy right" or "copy-right".
I was thinking that one of the early laws (around the time of the Statute of Anne) referred to "copywrite" or maybe "copy-write". But I was probably mistaken, the reference I was thinking of refers to "copy-right".
Ok, there have been a few people that were caught. But I think there is a tremendous amount of dishonesty that will never be caught - or if it is, its simply not important enough for the new york times.
Usually, if you are actually right, a law firm will take on your case for a minimal fee, in the (reasonable) expectation that they will get their costs paid at the end.
Hehe. I showed "duck and cover" to a colleague who grew up in East Germany. I was curious as to whether the 'other side' had a similar interest in teaching their children to be paranoid misfits.
Not really. There has already been at least one death caused by a car driver not paying attention to the road, because his (windows based) nav system blue-screened.
Slashdot Mirror
And how do you know what result the ice core analysis want to obtain? I would imagine that most climatologists would desparately like to find that climate change is not occuring.
We like to think that scientists are immune to this, but do you really think that no scientist gambles at casinos?
I've never heard of any that do, beyond the occasional drunken experiment.
Method 2: Match a marker in the ice (such as a layer of volcanic ash) with the corresponding marker in an ice core that has already been dated. Sure, any error in the original dating will appear as an uncertainty in the new ice core too. Your point is?
Method 3: Without more concrete data, I can't comment much on what you say. But as a scientist myself I can say that if the method is really as unreliable as you claim, then it simply wouldn't be used. In fact, your comment sounds suspicously like the typical creationist argument "radiocarbon dating sometimes gives incorrect answers due to contaminated samples; therefore all radiocarbon dating is wrong; therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old."
Method 4: given rainfall (err, snowfall;) data, self-consistently determine the age of the ice core from the rate of accumulation of ice. Your refutation of the method is...?
You say: About the only thing you can conclusively say is that an ice section below another ice section is probably the older one. And an ice section a lot lower is probably a lot older.
In geology, it is usually true that lower layers of earth are older than upper layers. Factors that can alter this are earthquakes, folding, volcanoes etc etc. In almost all cases its pretty obvious by looking around the area that something has caused the inversion. This occurs is on timescales of millions to hundreds of millions of years.
The time scales relevant for ice cores are much shorter than this, so such geological formations in ice should be rather rare. But even so, wouldn't this be obvious from an examination of the area?
Finally, error analysis is a rather basic part of any scientific method. What makes you think that ice core climatologists wouldn't do error analysis?
I requested that you show some data.
You show no data but ask for someone to "bck up your comments that were are the #1 CO2 Producer.".
I give some data showing that the USA is the #1 producer of CO2.
I have answered your question. It is you, not me, who was arguing that the USA is a carbon sink. If you want anyone to believe you, provide some data!
one (This map was created based on U.S. Department of Energy data).
two quick summary of this link (sorry about formatting):
three. Is that enough? This stuff is available from many many sources, try google.
Please, do at least some minimal amount of research before you embarrass yourself.
Can you back up that comment, that the USA is a net carbon sink ?
You are right. Most global warming is not caused directly by humans (such as pumping CO2 into the air in factories), but rather is caused by secondary processes such as byproducts of farming or reductions in the number of trees. And it is vitally important to distinguish between these classes of phenomena for the purposes of... of.... ummm, why exactly?
FFS, get off the high horse. You're basically accusing the scientists responsible for this data of fraud here. Do you have any evidence at all to back up your statements?
Alpha particles are quite heavy and are strongly interacting, which means that they have very short range. ie. with external exposure, most of the alphas are stopped by the skin & outer layers. But anyway, I agree with the general comment that the danger of plutonium toxicity is overstated. See here for a better source than the Wiki.
You need to remember this is Microsoft. It will take until at least version 3.
I hate to say it, but that sounds spot on.
It may be unintuitive, but you are wrong. Try it, its no more than a line of perl :-) The expectation value of the number of heads is 50% (as it must be - it is symmetric), but the expectation value for the deviation from 50% diverges.
You made that up, didn't you?
It isn't true, the time between zero-crossing events becomes extremely large as you add more samples. Once the random walk has become (by random chance) sufficiently far from zero, the probabability of another zero crossing is very tiny indeed.
Ok, they DO have a legitimate page at princeton, but it doesn't say what the article claims it does.
eg, there have been many projects in the past that intended to provide sustainable fusion but didn't - for technical reasons. Can't blame politicians for that.
Hangs
In a hang scenario, the browser becomes unresponsive, forcing the user to kill the process from Task Manager and restart it. This can be easily achieved without exploiting any bugs, e.g. by scripting an infinite loop on a web page.
WTF?
But then, pure maths seems to be doing OK with women, at least at undergraduate/early graduate levels. So its not maths per se that's the problem. Is it simply inertia? Maybe astronomy 'simply' achieved a critical mass of women, so new female students don't feel like they're joining a club of crotchety old men?
I was thinking that one of the early laws (around the time of the Statute of Anne) referred to "copywrite" or maybe "copy-write". But I was probably mistaken, the reference I was thinking of refers to "copy-right".
Actually, I think that was the original spelling. Can't find a reference for it though.
I think he meant, there are stranger things in the sea but the chances of anyone other than a handful of scientist/explorers ever seeing any is zero.
Ok, there have been a few people that were caught. But I think there is a tremendous amount of dishonesty that will never be caught - or if it is, its simply not important enough for the new york times.
The problem is that I know there are people waiting in the next room who would be proud that they see five.
Usually, if you are actually right, a law firm will take on your case for a minimal fee, in the (reasonable) expectation that they will get their costs paid at the end.
The answer is no.
Not really. There has already been at least one death caused by a car driver not paying attention to the road, because his (windows based) nav system blue-screened.
Since when?