so i don't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas. the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research, it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first place
Chinese want to dominate even research and development and this does require a society which allows for even subversive ideas to be shared, discussed and improved upon. The current system doesn't allow it.
But as the Chinese are travelling around the world far more than at any other time in history, they will definitely pause to think about what they have been missing in China - the freedom of speech, the free flow of information and ideas - everything that is needed to foster a climate where research and development can flourish.
And all of this will get the well-travelled or well-educated Chinese to view China's oppressive political machinery and the curbs on free speech as signs of backwardness - and if you know the Chinese, that is what they hate the most - being seen as backward. The Chinese are making rapid progress in every field - and for them it is embarrassing to be considered backward.. they want to be seen as free thinking, intellectual, progressive.
As more and more Chinese feel this sense of embarrassment, the hegemony of the Communist party will come into question.. the walls of oppression will start to fall. It is inevitable.
I wouldn't be surprised if China became a democracy within the next 15 years.
What? you think only westerners have the courage to stand up for their convictions? Or is it that you think non-westerners cannot possibly think for themselves? I guess you haven't heard of these people before:
Mahatma Gandhi Aung San Suu Kyi Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng Chinese dissident Hu Jia Nelson Mandela.. do I need to go on?
If this policeman dies mysteriously in prison, then I hope that someone -- anyone -- assassinates dictator Vladimir Putin.
Nice! calling for the head of state of one of the largest countries to be assassinated!!
The Tata Nano is coming to the US. At around USD 5000/-, it is far better value than the e-bike. Tata is also planning a hybrid and an all electric, if I am not mistaken.
If you are ok with the dangers of driving a bike around town, you may be fine with driving a Nano which has passed European crash tests.
$20,000/- a year amounts to about Rs.10,00,000/year. That is NOT what a typical programmer will earn in India unless they have more than 5 years of experience. The Rs.200,000 to Rs.300,000 a closer to the truth. I am guessing that your friends in India are all pretty well off?
OTOH, we can finally get over this hangup about nudity being something naughty. We have Christianity to thank for making sins out of things as commonplace as nudity and sex.
Because we all know that before Christianity came along, the entire human race used to go around butt naked.. never mind the fact that even Otzi the iceman had clothes on.
Speaking as an Indian, I have to admit, that on average, the indians are quite intolerant to criticism. But this round of censorship has got nothing to do with the average Indian. The average Indian has much worse things to say about the political class than what was censored on Orkut.
This censorship is not because the Indian citizenry demands it - it is simply the governments attempt at preventing damaging information about the politicians from leaking out. This is just an act by one politicians to protect another. All this talk about Lord Rama etc is just a ruse to drum up support by pandering to emotions.
What about music? would it be ok for a website to allow music in MP3 format to be downloaded with a specific EULA stating that it must be used only with a specific brand of MP3 player? What if Apple set a specific restriction that ALL of their music from iTunes must only be played on Apple hardware?
Well, does Garmin doesn't sell its GPS software in retail packs. Neither does Microsoft / TiVo / Nintendo / Cisco etc sell their software separately. If they did, I don't see how they can legally prevent someone who purchased their software from using it on a different hardware. In most of these examples you have quoted, the software won't run on anything else other than the hardware it was specifically designed to run on - which is why it doesn't get used on other platforms.
It does not matter in the slightest if they published their findings in thousands of papers.. what we are interested in is the data and the code they used to arrive at that result so that we can verify these findings for ourselves. That is how science is supposed to work.
Climate scientists aren't going to get their free pass from this peer review just because they are concerned that those peers doing their review haven't already drunk their koolaid before starting on the review.
Peer-review has no meaning if you don't provide the data for doing this review.
If a scientists makes a claim and isn't willing to substantiate that claim with data and methodology, he/she should rightfully expect to spend a lot of time answering questions.
Or are we expected to take them at their word for it without any scrutiny? Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann and the entire bunch of CRU scientists could have avoided a lot of problems by just providing their data and methods to others. They could have just put it up on a website for download and simply pointed people to that site.
Instead what they did was to put bits and pieces of data in inscrutable formats on different websites with very little to no explanation. Also, they have refused data requests even from prominent magazines such as Science and Nature.. That strikes me as deeply suspicious - or are you claiming that Science and Nature were also making unneeded "idiotic" demands when they asked for the data?
Robert Socolow the President of the APS and a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming has received millions in funding from British Petroleum. Please read up on what the "scientists" think about this (since you are convinced that not a single scientist could possibly disagree with AGW).
Also, since you are convinced that this is some sort of American right wing conspiracy, may I point you to this Open Letter sent by German Scientists to the German President Angela Merkel way before the Climategate controversy:
- won't prove anything either way. Interpreting data takes work and lots of background knowledge. If whatever you did took less than at least a few hours - your analysis is worthless.
Bullshit. If the temperature at a location tends to increase, it will be readily apparent in a chart which maps temperature against dates.
Please note that the climatologists aren't the only group of people using charts and statistics. Many of us utilise statistics for our work quite extensively.
A simple chart which maps two sets of data points is absolutely trivial to map.
Example: consider two data sets like this {(3.0, 200909120012:00), (5.0, 200909120013:00), (4.6, 200909120014:00)} etc where the first element in each tuple refers to the temperature and the second one refers to the datetime.
Can you please explain why this should be difficult to display in a chart? Also, can you please explain why I would need a PhD to do this.
If interpreting a chart is so difficult, how is that Al Gore (a non-PhD mortal) was able to interpret the chart? and how is that other non-PhD mortals could understand Al Gore's chart?
For one thing, if you are given a data set with temperatures for various dates for various locations around the globe, you don't need a PhD to plot a simple chart showing temperatures along one axis and dates along another axis. A chart like that can be used to determine if the trend if towards higher temperatures or not.
A second chart which maps CO2 levels for those same dates can be used to arrive at a simple correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Again, I don't see why someone with even rudimentary understanding of statistics can't do this.
And oh, if we are only going to be believing PhDs, allow me to point out that Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics while IPCC head Pachauri's PhD is in mechanical engineering.
Also, may I point out the simple fact that many of the skeptics have PhDs in climatology and atmospheric sciences (Dr.Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy).
And if the author is going to be making a big deal about peer-review process (completely ignoring the fact that the peer review process being used was completely flawed because of lack of data to do this peer review), may I point out this article from BBC which points out that IPCC got the dates wrong for the melting of Himalayan Glaciers by 300 years?! and it took their "peer-review" process only 2 years to figure this out.
Climategate is also interesting from the standpoint that those who are the loudest advocates of AGW - Gavin Schmidt, Pachauri, Gore etc.. have no training in climatology. Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics, Pachauri is a railyway engineer (don't know how he became the head of the IPCC), about Gore - need I say anything?
At the same time, scientists with climate research expertise and PhDs in climatology are asked to shut up if their views don't match that of the AGW crowd. Example: Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen..
Also, IPCC has made huge blunders - for example, BBC has just published an article that the IPCC got the dates wrong for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 300 years!! IPCC's non-existent peer review process didn't catch the error for 2 years.. and now the latest note that IPCC has been referencing papers which haven't even been peer reviewed!!
To all those who claim that there can't possibly be any sort of a conspiracy, consider that the Copenhagen summit came up with no agreements primarily because of yet another leaked document which indicated that the rich nations were secretly conspiring and writing up a draft on a policy document on carbon emission limits which went completely against the poorer nations and without following any due process. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text/
The "relevant" experience issue being raked up is overblown.
Look at it this way. Whether the earth is getting warmer or not is fairly simple to measure. All you have got to do is to get reliable data from sensors spread across the world regularly for a long time and determine if the trend is going upwards or downwards.
You don't have to be a scientist to read measurements off a sensor. I mean, do you need to be an MD to read a thermometer correctly?
I've seen it, it shows nothing of the sort. It shows people having considerable difficulty in combining data sets in a consistent and reliable way. This is always a tricky problem.
If you have seen it, then you haven't looked at it long enough or you haven't read enough of the material. The emails clearly reveal the following:
- Deliberate attempts to delete email and data even those pending FOI requests - Deliberate attempts to scuttle peer review
>>>How do you know any of what you say is true if can't see or trust the raw data?
This is a false argument. How can you ever be sure about the integrity of anything unless you are the one doing it? How can you trust the raw data if you are not collecting it? How can you trust the analysis if you are not the one analyzing it? How can you trust the satellite data if you didn't build the satellite?
So you would rather that we just take the scientists at their word that their findings are 100% accurate? Is that what you are suggesting?
And are you saying that this is the way science ought to function?
There are well known methods of determining if the sensors are completely off. We have temperature data from satellites as well as from ground stations. Also, there are ways of determining if the data returned by the sensors is wrong - that can happen if the sensor malfunctions.
Please don't pass off your "belief" as science and don't expect the rest of the world to have "faith" in your beloved scientists. The "Mad dog" behaviour that you are pointing out isn't coming from the sceptics right now but rather from your friends at CRU.
Xyrus, name a few "independent" scientists who have done this peer review. Also, do let me know if they had access to the data to do this review, because from what I can make out, UAE does not give out data to independent scientists who may disagree with them.
Also, for the idiots who modded my post as a troll - what about my post makes it a troll? because you disagree with it?
Thanks for the name calling. I guess people like you out there are getting a little concerned now that your schemes are coming out to the open.
Question for you:
1) To use your capitalization PEER REVIEW doesn't mean squat if the PEERS don't have the data that you did your research on.. Or by PEER REVIEW does it mean reviews by those who agree with you on anything and won't need any RAW DATA to arrive at their findings? Are you saying that these PEERS were actually given the DATA? How is that possible? Wasn't the DATA protected by the frigging IP laws that you keep spouting about?
2) Why is that the IP laws suddenly didn't apply when the Royal Society of Biological Sciences forced Briffa to release the data after he published an article in their journal? This data was analyzed to obtain quite a different result from what Briffa published.. Also this data clearly indicated that Briffa had used data from very few cores and there was indication that the data had been massaged to arrive at a pre-determined result.
3) Why should I give a rats ass about your IP rights and take your word for it when you publish a "finding"? Give me the data and the methodology that you used to arrive at the finding.. but don't give me this BS that I am supposed to accept their findings because they *said so*.
Would you be ok with the Election Office claiming that the election data cannot be released but this Candidate A did actually win the election?
4) This is publicly funded research. If that doesn't imply that the data should be available, what does?
5)
1. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that all of CRU's data was stored on a single storage medium and that ALL scientists who ever worked on the data, worked on this single storage - that too on the only master storage of data without ever taking any copies of this data?
*No, and only a complete asshat would interpret the emails that way.*
Access to raw data, you say? Well, Phil Jones, Mann, Briffa have all refused requests for data to be released - even from Journals with data retention policies.
The only time Briffa was forced to release the data was when he published an article in the Royal Society of Biological Sciences refused to allow Briffa to stall them on the data request. This data was analysed to get quite a different result from Briffa's findings.
So yes, a lot of the so-called climate research out there relies on the same set of proxy data which has now been discredited.
This is not experimental science. Experimental science involves performing an *experiment* with varying initial parameters, measuring the results and then arriving at a correlation.
In this specific case, we are talking about measuring tree rings in Yamal - this is purely an *observational* science as the scientist isn't actually performing any experiment but just documenting observed trends.
When you are observing trends, it is disingenuous, to include readings from a completely different set of subjects in a study which does not reference them so that the results tie into a specified hypothesis.
This is deliberate mangling of data to serve an agenda. Let us not grace this by calling it a science - and especially not an experimental science
Nice attack there. Would you feel better if I told you that I don't use Fahrenheit, am not from the US, have no ties with any oil companies and still find CRU's claims to be suspect?
I suppose all the emails from Phil Jones explicitly requiring emails to be deleted in response to a FOIA request for the same information constitutes perfectly legal behaviour?
I suppose it is also alright that Phil Jones and his ilk write about their attempts to discredit and fire the editor of a peer-reviewed journal for posting articles they didn't agree with.. while at the same time these very same people discredit any articles critical of their findings because these articles have purportedly not been published in peer-reviewed journals?
Face it - the emails are very, very damaging. At best it indicates that these scientists at CRU are paranoid crazies worried that their precious data would land up in the hands of competing scientists.. at worst they are charlatans who have wantonly manipulated science for their own ends and have deliberately and maliciously censored / discredited all criticisms even valid ones.
But let us stop pretending that this sort of behaviour is even remotely acceptable.
CRU has also claimed to have lost data. Would you be ok with an Election Office claiming that they have lost all the votes, but yes, we should take their word for it - Candidate A did actually win?
Thank you very much, but we may be better off believing witch doctors and mediums than these 'scientists.'
Slashdot Mirror
so i don't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas. the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research, it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first place
Chinese want to dominate even research and development and this does require a society which allows for even subversive ideas to be shared, discussed and improved upon. The current system doesn't allow it.
But as the Chinese are travelling around the world far more than at any other time in history, they will definitely pause to think about what they have been missing in China - the freedom of speech, the free flow of information and ideas - everything that is needed to foster a climate where research and development can flourish.
And all of this will get the well-travelled or well-educated Chinese to view China's oppressive political machinery and the curbs on free speech as signs of backwardness - and if you know the Chinese, that is what they hate the most - being seen as backward. The Chinese are making rapid progress in every field - and for them it is embarrassing to be considered backward.. they want to be seen as free thinking, intellectual, progressive.
As more and more Chinese feel this sense of embarrassment, the hegemony of the Communist party will come into question.. the walls of oppression will start to fall. It is inevitable.
I wouldn't be surprised if China became a democracy within the next 15 years.
You make two huge mistakes in one short post:
who think and act like Westerners
What? you think only westerners have the courage to stand up for their convictions? Or is it that you think non-westerners cannot possibly think for themselves? I guess you haven't heard of these people before:
Mahatma Gandhi .. do I need to go on?
Aung San Suu Kyi
Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng
Chinese dissident Hu Jia
Nelson Mandela
If this policeman dies mysteriously in prison, then I hope that someone -- anyone -- assassinates dictator Vladimir Putin.
Nice! calling for the head of state of one of the largest countries to be assassinated!!
The Tata Nano is coming to the US. At around USD 5000/-, it is far better value than the e-bike. Tata is also planning a hybrid and an all electric, if I am not mistaken.
If you are ok with the dangers of driving a bike around town, you may be fine with driving a Nano which has passed European crash tests.
$20,000/- a year amounts to about Rs.10,00,000/year. That is NOT what a typical programmer will earn in India unless they have more than 5 years of experience. The Rs.200,000 to Rs.300,000 a closer to the truth. I am guessing that your friends in India are all pretty well off?
OTOH, we can finally get over this hangup about nudity being something naughty. We have Christianity to thank for making sins out of things as commonplace as nudity and sex.
Because we all know that before Christianity came along, the entire human race used to go around butt naked.. never mind the fact that even Otzi the iceman had clothes on.
You make a good point.
Speaking as an Indian, I have to admit, that on average, the indians are quite intolerant to criticism. But this round of censorship has got nothing to do with the average Indian. The average Indian has much worse things to say about the political class than what was censored on Orkut.
This censorship is not because the Indian citizenry demands it - it is simply the governments attempt at preventing damaging information about the politicians from leaking out. This is just an act by one politicians to protect another. All this talk about Lord Rama etc is just a ruse to drum up support by pandering to emotions.
What about music? would it be ok for a website to allow music in MP3 format to be downloaded with a specific EULA stating that it must be used only with a specific brand of MP3 player? What if Apple set a specific restriction that ALL of their music from iTunes must only be played on Apple hardware?
Well, does Garmin doesn't sell its GPS software in retail packs. Neither does Microsoft / TiVo / Nintendo / Cisco etc sell their software separately. If they did, I don't see how they can legally prevent someone who purchased their software from using it on a different hardware. In most of these examples you have quoted, the software won't run on anything else other than the hardware it was specifically designed to run on - which is why it doesn't get used on other platforms.
It does not matter in the slightest if they published their findings in thousands of papers.. what we are interested in is the data and the code they used to arrive at that result so that we can verify these findings for ourselves. That is how science is supposed to work.
Climate scientists aren't going to get their free pass from this peer review just because they are concerned that those peers doing their review haven't already drunk their koolaid before starting on the review.
Peer-review has no meaning if you don't provide the data for doing this review.
If a scientists makes a claim and isn't willing to substantiate that claim with data and methodology, he/she should rightfully expect to spend a lot of time answering questions.
Or are we expected to take them at their word for it without any scrutiny? Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann and the entire bunch of CRU scientists could have avoided a lot of problems by just providing their data and methods to others. They could have just put it up on a website for download and simply pointed people to that site.
Instead what they did was to put bits and pieces of data in inscrutable formats on different websites with very little to no explanation. Also, they have refused data requests even from prominent magazines such as Science and Nature.. That strikes me as deeply suspicious - or are you claiming that Science and Nature were also making unneeded "idiotic" demands when they asked for the data?
Oh ok, so the skeptics are all in it for the money while the climate "scientists" are in it only for the love of humanity.
The Climategate emails reveal that Phil Jones and his bunch of crooks have been actively seeking funding from the same "Fossil Fuel" companies:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
Robert Socolow the President of the APS and a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming has received millions in funding from British Petroleum. Please read up on what the "scientists" think about this (since you are convinced that not a single scientist could possibly disagree with AGW).
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
Also, since you are convinced that this is some sort of American right wing conspiracy, may I point you to this Open Letter sent by German Scientists to the German President Angela Merkel way before the Climategate controversy:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/klimawandel-offener-brief-an-kanzlerin-merkel-temperaturmessungen-ab-1701-widerlegen-anthropogen-verursachte-temperaturschwankungen/
If you want the English translation:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
Japanese Climatologists and their disagreement over AGW:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-scientists-cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656
- won't prove anything either way. Interpreting data takes work and lots of background knowledge. If whatever you did took less than at least a few hours - your analysis is worthless.
Bullshit. If the temperature at a location tends to increase, it will be readily apparent in a chart which maps temperature against dates.
Please note that the climatologists aren't the only group of people using charts and statistics. Many of us utilise statistics for our work quite extensively.
A simple chart which maps two sets of data points is absolutely trivial to map.
Example: consider two data sets like this
{(3.0, 200909120012:00), (5.0, 200909120013:00), (4.6, 200909120014:00)} etc where the first element in each tuple refers to the temperature and the second one refers to the datetime.
Can you please explain why this should be difficult to display in a chart? Also, can you please explain why I would need a PhD to do this.
If interpreting a chart is so difficult, how is that Al Gore (a non-PhD mortal) was able to interpret the chart? and how is that other non-PhD mortals could understand Al Gore's chart?
For one thing, if you are given a data set with temperatures for various dates for various locations around the globe, you don't need a PhD to plot a simple chart showing temperatures along one axis and dates along another axis. A chart like that can be used to determine if the trend if towards higher temperatures or not.
A second chart which maps CO2 levels for those same dates can be used to arrive at a simple correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Again, I don't see why someone with even rudimentary understanding of statistics can't do this.
And oh, if we are only going to be believing PhDs, allow me to point out that Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics while IPCC head Pachauri's PhD is in mechanical engineering.
Also, may I point out the simple fact that many of the skeptics have PhDs in climatology and atmospheric sciences (Dr.Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy).
And if the author is going to be making a big deal about peer-review process (completely ignoring the fact that the peer review process being used was completely flawed because of lack of data to do this peer review), may I point out this article from BBC which points out that IPCC got the dates wrong for the melting of Himalayan Glaciers by 300 years?! and it took their "peer-review" process only 2 years to figure this out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
Also, IPCC now acknowledges that many of the papers they referenced for their reports didn't go through peer review at all.
Climategate is also interesting from the standpoint that those who are the loudest advocates of AGW - Gavin Schmidt, Pachauri, Gore etc.. have no training in climatology. Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics, Pachauri is a railyway engineer (don't know how he became the head of the IPCC), about Gore - need I say anything?
At the same time, scientists with climate research expertise and PhDs in climatology are asked to shut up if their views don't match that of the AGW crowd. Example: Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen ..
Also, IPCC has made huge blunders - for example, BBC has just published an article that the IPCC got the dates wrong for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 300 years!! IPCC's non-existent peer review process didn't catch the error for 2 years.. and now the latest note that IPCC has been referencing papers which haven't even been peer reviewed!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
To all those who claim that there can't possibly be any sort of a conspiracy, consider that the Copenhagen summit came up with no agreements primarily because of yet another leaked document which indicated that the rich nations were secretly conspiring and writing up a draft on a policy document on carbon emission limits which went completely against the poorer nations and without following any due process.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text/
The "relevant" experience issue being raked up is overblown.
Look at it this way. Whether the earth is getting warmer or not is fairly simple to measure. All you have got to do is to get reliable data from sensors spread across the world regularly for a long time and determine if the trend is going upwards or downwards.
You don't have to be a scientist to read measurements off a sensor. I mean, do you need to be an MD to read a thermometer correctly?
I've seen it, it shows nothing of the sort. It shows people having considerable difficulty in combining data sets in a consistent and reliable way. This is always a tricky problem.
If you have seen it, then you haven't looked at it long enough or you haven't read enough of the material. The emails clearly reveal the following:
- Deliberate attempts to delete email and data even those pending FOI requests
- Deliberate attempts to scuttle peer review
Also, try explaining this:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/
>>>How do you know any of what you say is true if can't see or trust the raw data?
This is a false argument. How can you ever be sure about the integrity of anything unless you are the one doing it? How can you trust the raw data if you are not collecting it? How can you trust the analysis if you are not the one analyzing it? How can you trust the satellite data if you didn't build the satellite?
So you would rather that we just take the scientists at their word that their findings are 100% accurate? Is that what you are suggesting?
And are you saying that this is the way science ought to function?
There are well known methods of determining if the sensors are completely off. We have temperature data from satellites as well as from ground stations. Also, there are ways of determining if the data returned by the sensors is wrong - that can happen if the sensor malfunctions.
Go here for the data. Please read up the documentation on how specific rows are flagged as possibly incorrect data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
Please don't pass off your "belief" as science and don't expect the rest of the world to have "faith" in your beloved scientists. The "Mad dog" behaviour that you are pointing out isn't coming from the sceptics right now but rather from your friends at CRU.
Also, while you are at it - please read up on this as well to determine how the so-called scientists at CRU were dealing with FOI requests.
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/
Xyrus, name a few "independent" scientists who have done this peer review. Also, do let me know if they had access to the data to do this review, because from what I can make out, UAE does not give out data to independent scientists who may disagree with them.
Also, for the idiots who modded my post as a troll - what about my post makes it a troll? because you disagree with it?
Nice try. Get an education and come back.
Thanks for the name calling. I guess people like you out there are getting a little concerned now that your schemes are coming out to the open.
Question for you:
1) To use your capitalization PEER REVIEW doesn't mean squat if the PEERS don't have the data that you did your research on.. Or by PEER REVIEW does it mean reviews by those who agree with you on anything and won't need any RAW DATA to arrive at their findings? Are you saying that these PEERS were actually given the DATA? How is that possible? Wasn't the DATA protected by the frigging IP laws that you keep spouting about?
2) Why is that the IP laws suddenly didn't apply when the Royal Society of Biological Sciences forced Briffa to release the data after he published an article in their journal? This data was analyzed to obtain quite a different result from what Briffa published.. Also this data clearly indicated that Briffa had used data from very few cores and there was indication that the data had been massaged to arrive at a pre-determined result.
3) Why should I give a rats ass about your IP rights and take your word for it when you publish a "finding"? Give me the data and the methodology that you used to arrive at the finding.. but don't give me this BS that I am supposed to accept their findings because they *said so*.
Would you be ok with the Election Office claiming that the election data cannot be released but this Candidate A did actually win the election?
4) This is publicly funded research. If that doesn't imply that the data should be available, what does?
5)
1. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that all of CRU's data was stored on a single storage medium and that ALL scientists who ever worked on the data, worked on this single storage - that too on the only master storage of data without ever taking any copies of this data?
*No, and only a complete asshat would interpret the emails that way.*
http://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/10095/
Phil Jones specifically claimed to have LOST ALL DATA. Perhaps you are the illiterate one here.
See a full rebuttal to your comments without resorting to name calling and abuse. Perhaps there is something you can learn here.
Access to raw data, you say? Well, Phil Jones, Mann, Briffa have all refused requests for data to be released - even from Journals with data retention policies.
The only time Briffa was forced to release the data was when he published an article in the Royal Society of Biological Sciences refused to allow Briffa to stall them on the data request. This data was analysed to get quite a different result from Briffa's findings.
So yes, a lot of the so-called climate research out there relies on the same set of proxy data which has now been discredited.
This is not experimental science. Experimental science involves performing an *experiment* with varying initial parameters, measuring the results and then arriving at a correlation.
In this specific case, we are talking about measuring tree rings in Yamal - this is purely an *observational* science as the scientist isn't actually performing any experiment but just documenting observed trends.
When you are observing trends, it is disingenuous, to include readings from a completely different set of subjects in a study which does not reference them so that the results tie into a specified hypothesis.
This is deliberate mangling of data to serve an agenda. Let us not grace this by calling it a science - and especially not an experimental science
Nice attack there. Would you feel better if I told you that I don't use Fahrenheit, am not from the US, have no ties with any oil companies and still find CRU's claims to be suspect?
How does disagreeing with other scientists and deliberate deleting of emails to cover tracks add up?
Search for "Delete" here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru
I suppose all the emails from Phil Jones explicitly requiring emails to be deleted in response to a FOIA request for the same information constitutes perfectly legal behaviour?
I suppose it is also alright that Phil Jones and his ilk write about their attempts to discredit and fire the editor of a peer-reviewed journal for posting articles they didn't agree with.. while at the same time these very same people discredit any articles critical of their findings because these articles have purportedly not been published in peer-reviewed journals?
Face it - the emails are very, very damaging. At best it indicates that these scientists at CRU are paranoid crazies worried that their precious data would land up in the hands of competing scientists.. at worst they are charlatans who have wantonly manipulated science for their own ends and have deliberately and maliciously censored / discredited all criticisms even valid ones.
But let us stop pretending that this sort of behaviour is even remotely acceptable.
CRU has also claimed to have lost data. Would you be ok with an Election Office claiming that they have lost all the votes, but yes, we should take their word for it - Candidate A did actually win?
Thank you very much, but we may be better off believing witch doctors and mediums than these 'scientists.'