Tampering, fudging or normalising data is never justified, and if undertaken by the AGW cabal completely invalidates their conclusion. Everytime this approach is tried it leads to wrong or unsupportable conclusions.
Anything else is just plain mathematically wrong. Then when you try to fit the data to a trend goodness of fit or significance tells you how well your theory fits all the raw data. Wen you do that, even with the small amount of data that is publically available, you see a small linear temperature fall for the last 10 years, no Hockeystick or exponential temperature rise. This is exactly why there is so much PR and Hype and the Climategate CRU emails show that Jones and Mann are very well aware of this.
This is why all the raw data needs to be released by MET, CRU, NASA & NOAA and be subjected to adversarial analysis without fudging.
Mathematically the AGW gang is in much deeper trouble, since Chaos Theory was formulated in the mid 1990s it has become clear that computer mathematical models relying on extrapolating differential manifolds eg Navier-Stokes and Heat equation are very unstable with respect to initial conditions. Put in laymans terms, even if we could agree on the weather conditions not, and as we see we cant, then there is no chance to extrapolate 1, 10.. 50 years and this has been known for all the time of the construction of the AGW thesis.
This is why accurate weather forcasting uses satilites and radar not computer prediction, for which the MET office were proponents
You are proposing that it is OK to Cherry Pick the data, if you know what you want to prove, or are an expert.
No it isnt; how do you know the __normalization__ makes sense, and if it justifies rejection of raw data, that is exactly why you have to keep all the rew data and see how statistically significant you results are.
Blatant data tampering and dubious data fitting is the main reason why I have recently concluded that AGW is, at the very least not-proven and likely deliberately fradulant. The "we cant release the raw data argument" is laughable in an issue of this importance.
But, most importantly, the CRU e-mails and, more importantly code, raised grave doubts about the ethics of the CRU-MET-IPCC cabal, and this Russian data just re-inforces that, tnere is no point trying to get this genie back in the bottle, the AGW faction have to produce all the raw data and subject their analysis to hostile analysis.
As has been pointed out the US are not in without the consent of Congress, Labour will be out in the UK and Russis and China show no sign of being convinced, I say again, without a lot more convincing proof this scam is dead.
The US legislative machine has got completely out of hand. These critters should find something useful, and cost SAVING to do.
The other thing urgently requiring reform are the obscene Parkinsonesque bills which are far too complicated and vastly over long, probably to hide the pork packed in them >1000 TARP ~2000 HealthCare and 72 this. AND bills written for no GOOD reason as amendments (a diff), rather than the proposed new law.
The US needs urgently to reduce public spending and regulate all of its finance industry so the phrase "off balance sheet" is synonymous with "jail time"
Outages, mistakes, no Certificate, late bad code full of bugs, Bribing legislators and Standards Organizations, Continuing Anti-Trust violations are all in the days work for the crooks from Redmond.
With modern phones, GPS and Avionics you can just use a free floating BT headset, so you no longer need an expensive OEM car setup, audio-mute is nice, but hardly essential. The Avionics stuff also has good cabine ambiant noise cancellation, on both channels, so ground dosn't get motor noise
This is utter nonsense, Climate data, unlike say Quantum string theory, does not require more than school mathematics and some (scientific) and other common sense.
The data, and lack of it, and the unreliability of proxies eg tree rings and ice cores is clear. The effects of poor experimental methods on modern data and the fact that, even then, recent data does not, in a statistically significant sense, support a warming hypothesis is obvious. If you plot, say, the last 10 years data it fits a slowly DECLINING line, not a Hockey Stick.
The mathematical models used by Climatologists have never been demonstrated to work, and almost always demonstrably fail, exactly as Chaos theory predicts, ie instability of the solutions of differential manifolds with respect to small variations of initial conditions.
UK climate scientists have been at this for fifty years, especially at the Met Office and have NEVER got it to work.
You need no PhD to conclude that AGW is populist un-scientific Bullshit, and is no more than a media scare story eg Flu Pandemic. It is also a symptom of the group-think here to label opponents as "deniers".
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
You are right, and an arrogant idiot, Kernel devlopers are rare, but exist, and think non-sequentially, but to do some things you have to understand scheduling, preemption, and lock hold times ie latency.
Yes it is hard, but you can understand and be trained how to do it. THe NPR source is stupid biased shit, and just what you expect from the US media.
The UK Police Class 1 training is superb and the SS (aka MI5) comabt driving courses are better and unrivaled. The guys who can do that every day have all my respect, they are superb at what they do.
Inspite of that, no car can hold a big motor-bike, and match a rider who knows the terain well. It is also almost impossible to shoot, accurately, from-to a moving car - target. Again bikes are better than cars, and can set up reverse ambushes. To deal with that you need Apache, FLIR and Hellfire.
In 1971, the Essex, UK Police ran a public 16 lesson (1 hour theory + 1 hour practice) Advanced Police-style, Driving course.
At first, as a young academic, with 10 year's driving experience, it seemed pedestrian, until you had to drive at at least 40 MPH in a special police car with absolutely bald tyres, for an hour, on a skid pan, eg oil+soap+water, much slicker than ice. You learned abou front, rear and 4 wheel skids, how to get in, easy, out, and use them. Handbreak turns... sound fun but it is very hard work.
At the end, two, including me, got a prize, the Police Class 1 test, the two winners drove one-way Chelmsford-2-Leeds ( M) in an un-marked Jaguar Police car with concealed lights and siren, that you were NOT allowed to use. To pass you had to average 80 MPH which meant that you had to constantly overtake traffic with 20+ MPH overtake speed. UK speed limit is 70 MPH.
If the Instructors had to use the lights and siren you failed, average <80, you failed. I passed with 80.1 MPH and was washed out for a week. At the time I could fly, and thus talk with ATC and watch the instruments, out the front window, and behind. A constant scan. , Texting while driving a car is insane! Voice is OK, only on Hands Free, and if you can master a clear sense of priorities, first drive safely, then talk. If I answer the phone in the car, an dont know the caller, I say "I am driving so, if traffic gets busy bear with me". For me the Baregg an Guberist tunnels, in rush hour, are the only places where I really have a problem. A stau in Guberist means the in-tunnel cell gets overloaded anyway.
The US content Industry does it again, after Banksters, these Executives are the most greedy, egregious and un-feeling.
The only solution, to modify COPYRIGHT time limits back to sensible values eg 25 years or 10 years after author's death, whichever is shorter.
The only innovation in consumer creative enterprise is now happening in spite of, rather than because of these monopolistic idiots, eg Harry Potter, written by an unmarried mum in a cafe in Edinburough.
As usual, the major obstacle, is to get the US legislature under control, or for the Supreme Court to become strict Constitutional activists.
Unfortunately the media, which should alert the public is now also fully corrupted, vide Climategate... "No problem, it is all a storm in a teacup, keep watching the Polar Bears while we destroy the modern economy".
The only way to survive, without interstellar space travel, is the boxes (soap,...), and Fusion power.
An, excellent proposal, long overdue, and the whines of Academics, Librarians and Learned Journal publishers, which will all be anti must be stoutly resisted, and can easily be solved by the Presidential Task Force.
This will be kind to trees, Library Space, shelving and reading and good for students, adademics and the general public.
Peer Review must ensure that Data and Methods are published or Publically available, which would stop repeats of Climategate in their tracks.
Employed, tenured Full Professors in the age 40 to 60 should be required to Peer Review min->max or % of papers to retain tenure.
Formats should be inclusive, certainly TeX, SGML (used in house at Elsevier), PDF, HTML and ODF. Proprietary formats like Flash,.doc and OOXML must be prohibited.
1. Mathematics is NOT a science, it is applied logic, and related strongly to philosphy, eg the so called Axiom of Choice, "Given a non empty set, it is possible to pick a representitive member" is known to be (a) nesessary axiom for a large part of accepted Modern Mathematics, but is known to be independant, and there is another, less useful, Mathematics where it is false.
2. The basis of Scientific Method is well known, and used to be taught in schools, so I know that I basically understood it before 10 years old: (a) it isn't true cos you want it to be, (b) you need to observe, to the best of your ability, WHAT IS, (c) theories are only useful if (1) they predict the observed results, (2) their predictions do not include results that are observed but the theory predicts differently, (3) calculation is possible, (4) the theory is as simple as possible (see Einstein) and elegant. Put succintly: Hypothesis, Predict, Confirm, Use.
[There are good books, References in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics), and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)} and it is really very simple common sense stuff.
Consequences:
1. You can't keep your data, or methods to yourself, unless you want to be laughed at.
2. The purpose of publication is so OTHERS can reproduce your work, and 'peer-review' isnt a blessing, it is to make sure that your paper is honest, clear, and permits reproduction, and contains enough theory and data to confirm/deny.
3. peer-review has nothing to do with confirmation or support or correctness.
4. Support comes fom independant peers who reproduce your results within experimental error or devise new tests which your theory passes.
Application:
1. Fudging your results is NOT acceptable. (see Climategate IDL code, fudging the tree ring, thermometer data).
2. peer-review rigging is dishonest, but widely used in the academic word to secure promotion. See Publication and Citation in academic advancement
this means that the habit of 'peer-review rigging' was well established before Climategate. See e-mails
3. There is NO empirical evidence, that has been independantly verified. Prof "Phil" Jones saying "I wont release my data to my oponents" simply says he is a politician, NOT a Scientist, and there is a difference.
4. There has been a temprature decline for 11 straight years. CRUs data does not allow for the Medieval Warm period, well supported by historical and agricultural evidence even though not everone had a thermometer or recorded temperature;
5. At the slightes dissent the IPCC and Gore are on CNN telling the world that the data was stolen, and dosn't matter anyway, BS.
6. Phil Jones has 'stepped-aside' as director CRU and both CRU,UEA are investigation
7. The UK Met Office will, soon, have to release the extrordinarly bad observed data to satisfy FOI requests for raw data, said to be deleted (from all round the world?), at which point the whole gig is up.
NO ONE, except Greens and the hopelessly compromised can Believe in this any more, all the follow through is POLS and MEDIA eg CNN in Europe, who are the new deniers.
Finally, I would point out that these Climate Chimps, and their models, mostly with the UK MET, used to get all weather forcasts wrong, famously failed to predict the 1987 Hurricane in SE England "Rescue workers faced an unprecedented number of call-outs as winds hit 94 mph (151 km/h) in the capital and over 110 mph (177 km/h) in the Channel Islands." which cause a Margret Thatcher investigation, and indirectly, the formation of the UEA CRU to house the 'ejected'.
As I have already said, (moderated TROLL over a day or so) this SCAM is out/over and US/EU tax payers will refuse to pay. This Climate Ponzi sceme dosnt have a snowball's chance in hell of traction , and once someone in the US starts subpoena Dr. Mann's work and NASA' nonsense there will be NO VOTES.
There is increasingly a meme that pretty code in a strongly typed language id OK, everything else is CRAP.
Well no, neatly written code, in whatever, is good, as are good code and clear comments where they are needed, ie NOT,
i = i++;//increment i
Some of the worst code I have seen written is in C++, Java and C#. OO over the top, full of OO jargon, code that wanders around a thousand method calls without solving the problem, and TOO MUCH CODE, zillions of complex libraries and dependancies.
Clarity, order and simplicity are the secret of writing good code, not language, tools or methodologies, and then it can be written in anything from Lisp to C#.
With people like you you don't need a huge Global Conspiracy, you only need a small, dedicated cabal of liers and frauds. If, instead of supporting the party line, you read the e-mails, looked at the code and data, which the CRU was still refusing to release at the beginning of November. At the twists and turns from Professor Jones, his pathological lying and rigging the UN ICCC report, excluding by any means other opinions you see that he is a crook, and the CRU a dangerous Cabal.
But my point, sheeple, is that the CON is out, and in public, no more will the Cabal be able to lie spin and fudge in secret and the whole theory will become un-glued, and at that point the US congress and the EU parliament will stop this runaway train in its tracks.
Writing as an ex UK academic, who saw all this stuff comming 20 years ago it really is very simple, we need Honesty in Peer Review, Promotion and the Award of Grants. In Mathematics, more Hard Science, much more Soft Science, much, much more Social Science and most in Medicine and Health Care we desparately need honest in-corruptable players. The problem is we have almost NONE.
In two generations we have done this to ourselves, destroyed the Enlightenment and Objectivism; repaced it with FOX and CNN and Murdoch's... crap. This is the real disaster, far far more important than AGW or any other single issue.
Most honest men have learned to keep their head down, or be professionally and personally destroyed. Shirly Williams set the agenda for politiziation in place. The seed has grown, and now threatens both Tertiary Education but also all Research in Universities and SRCs. In retrospect this was entirely deliberate and a generation of top University Administrators, VCs and Registrars baught it hook, line and sinker. How sad!
Levels; at the Scientific level the CRU clowns have been CAUGHT in illegality, denying valid FOI requests, for which their University, UEA, will have to answer in both British and European Courts. Read the e-mails, they are disgusting and Prof. "Phil" Jones has already been forced to step down. You can probably leave it to their colleagues who they traduced, slandered and humiliated to ensure that this does not die and I suspect that many who did not get a UK University Post will now use the Courts to crucify these clowns.
At least they have hidden/fabricated/falsified data and used it for fraudulent ends. Jones will be forced out, probably to a UN sinacure and the CRU will clean house.
At the Political level the AGW agenda is DEAD. The US, China and India will investigate. Since Global temperatures are FALLING there is no urgency, and there is no chance of re-vitalising this scam.
Absolutely right, BUT it is worse, since the early 60's the SRCs SERC ESRC... have ruled funding in science in British Universities, and as I said then, politicised it. Thus ALL UK Universities now have Barons like those at Imperial College, London in the 1940-60 time frame; this is not an accident it is the DELIBERATE politiziation of SCIENCE, SOCIAL SCIENCE and ECONOMICS
A much more interseting question is why, when these idiots have been allowed to drive a coach and horses though the scientific method, and are still being protected by the media, after a long period of unprecedented funding, no DISRUPTIVE technologies eg Fusion have progressed.
And while I despair of some of the libertarian wackjobs in the US it is VERY clear that there is something very, very wrong with education in both the US and Europe.
But the parent is exactly right, The Genie is OUT the BOTTLE, and cannot be forced back in so AGW is over and the Carbon taxes will NEVER get enacted.
As an ex-UK academic, this is conclusive evidence of collusion and corruption in the AGW camp, as well as the complete corruption of, at least, the UK peer review process. Especially as it has to do with politicized decisions.
The whole tone of the editorial "... stolen" "... difficult" instantly gives the game away, and shows that the xSRC(s) in the UK need to be immediately abolished so that some honest scientists and social scientists can take back their game from endlessly corrupt politicians.
The likely release was by whistle-blower, not hacking and, in any case, is publicly funded research and this reaction from Nature, New Scientist and the BBC is disgusting. These used to be respected journals and are now as corrupted as ISO.
The US has rightly pointed at corruption at the UN, but this brings subverting world institutions for gain to a new level.
They are however right about one thing, no matter how they spin, this game is over, since both in the EU and US, remember Mann is at Penn State, the raw data will now be subpoenaed, and the CON is OVER!, whether the subpoena issues from the Hill or a US FOI request.
These crooks need to go to jail like the Ponzi artists.
Slashdot Mirror
Tampering, fudging or normalising data is never justified, and if undertaken by the AGW cabal completely invalidates their conclusion. Everytime this approach is tried it leads to wrong or unsupportable conclusions.
.. 50 years
Anything else is just plain mathematically wrong. Then when you try to fit the data to a trend goodness of fit or significance tells you how well your theory fits all the raw data. Wen you do that, even with the small amount of data that is publically available, you see a small linear temperature fall for the last 10 years, no Hockeystick or exponential temperature rise. This is exactly why there is so much PR and Hype and the Climategate CRU emails show that Jones and Mann are very well aware of this.
This is why all the raw data needs to be released by MET, CRU, NASA & NOAA and be subjected to adversarial analysis without fudging.
Mathematically the AGW gang is in much deeper trouble, since Chaos Theory was formulated in the mid 1990s it has become clear that computer mathematical models relying on extrapolating differential manifolds eg Navier-Stokes and Heat equation are very unstable with respect to initial conditions. Put in laymans terms, even if we could agree on the weather conditions not, and as we see we cant, then there is no chance to extrapolate 1, 10
and this has been known for all the time of the construction of the AGW thesis.
This is why accurate weather forcasting uses satilites and radar not computer prediction, for which the MET office were proponents
You are proposing that it is OK to Cherry Pick the data, if you know what you want to prove, or are an expert.
No it isnt; how do you know the __normalization__ makes sense, and if it justifies rejection of raw data, that is exactly why you have to keep all the rew data and see how statistically significant you results are.
Blatant data tampering and dubious data fitting is the main reason why I have recently concluded that AGW is, at the very least not-proven and likely deliberately fradulant. The "we cant release the raw data argument" is laughable in an issue of this importance.
But, most importantly, the CRU e-mails and, more importantly code, raised grave doubts about the ethics of the CRU-MET-IPCC cabal, and this Russian data just re-inforces that, tnere is no point trying to get this genie back in the bottle, the AGW faction have to produce all the raw data and subject their analysis to hostile analysis.
As has been pointed out the US are not in without the consent of Congress, Labour will be out in the UK and Russis and China show no sign of being convinced, I say again, without a lot more convincing proof this scam is dead.
The US legislative machine has got completely out of hand. These critters should find something useful, and cost SAVING to do.
The other thing urgently requiring reform are the obscene Parkinsonesque bills which are far too complicated and vastly over long, probably to hide the pork packed in them >1000 TARP ~2000 HealthCare and 72 this. AND bills written for no GOOD reason as amendments (a diff), rather than the proposed new law.
The US needs urgently to reduce public spending and regulate all of its finance industry so the phrase "off balance sheet" is synonymous with "jail time"
Even for themselves!
Outages, mistakes, no Certificate, late bad code full of bugs, Bribing legislators and Standards Organizations, Continuing Anti-Trust violations are all in the days work for the crooks from Redmond.
With modern phones, GPS and Avionics you can just use a free floating BT headset, so you no longer need an expensive OEM car setup, audio-mute is nice, but hardly essential. The Avionics stuff also has good cabine ambiant noise cancellation, on both channels, so ground dosn't get motor noise
This is utter nonsense, Climate data, unlike say Quantum string theory, does not require more than school mathematics and some (scientific) and other common sense.
The data, and lack of it, and the unreliability of proxies eg tree rings and ice cores is clear. The effects of poor experimental methods on modern data and the fact that, even then, recent data does not, in a statistically significant sense, support a warming hypothesis is obvious. If you plot, say, the last 10 years data it fits a slowly DECLINING line, not a Hockey Stick.
The mathematical models used by Climatologists have never been demonstrated to work, and almost always demonstrably fail, exactly as Chaos theory predicts, ie instability of the solutions of differential manifolds with respect to small variations of initial conditions.
UK climate scientists have been at this for fifty years, especially at the Met Office and have NEVER got it to work.
You need no PhD to conclude that AGW is populist un-scientific Bullshit, and is no more than a media scare story eg Flu Pandemic. It is also a symptom of the group-think here to label opponents as "deniers".
These are the same sort of studies that "know the result they want" before they do anything, Citeable data, methods and detailed analysis please.
Climategate
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
You are right, and an arrogant idiot, Kernel devlopers are rare, but exist, and think non-sequentially, but to do some things you have to understand scheduling, preemption, and lock hold times ie latency.
Yes it is hard, but you can understand and be trained how to do it. THe NPR source is stupid biased shit, and just what you expect from the US media.
The UK Police Class 1 training is superb and the SS (aka MI5) comabt driving courses are better and unrivaled. The guys who can do that every day have all my respect, they are superb at what they do.
Inspite of that, no car can hold a big motor-bike, and match a rider who knows the terain well. It is also almost impossible to shoot, accurately, from-to a moving car - target. Again bikes are better than cars, and can set up reverse ambushes. To deal with that you need Apache, FLIR and Hellfire.
In 1971, the Essex, UK Police ran a public 16 lesson (1 hour theory + 1 hour practice) Advanced Police-style, Driving course.
... sound fun but it is very hard work.
At first, as a young academic, with 10 year's driving experience, it seemed pedestrian, until you had to drive at at least 40 MPH in a special police car with absolutely bald tyres, for an hour, on a skid pan, eg oil+soap+water, much slicker than ice. You learned abou front, rear and 4 wheel skids, how to get in, easy, out, and use them. Handbreak turns
At the end, two, including me, got a prize, the Police Class 1 test, the two winners drove one-way Chelmsford-2-Leeds ( M) in an un-marked Jaguar Police car with concealed lights and siren, that you were NOT allowed to use. To pass you had to average 80 MPH which meant that you had to constantly overtake traffic with 20+ MPH overtake speed. UK speed limit is 70 MPH.
If the Instructors had to use the lights and siren you failed, average <80, you failed. I passed with 80.1 MPH and was washed out for a week. At the time I could fly, and thus talk with ATC and watch the instruments, out the front window, and behind. A constant scan.
,
Texting while driving a car is insane! Voice is OK, only on Hands Free, and if you can master a clear sense of priorities, first drive safely, then talk. If I answer the phone in the car, an dont know the caller, I say "I am driving so, if traffic gets busy bear with me". For me the Baregg an Guberist tunnels, in rush hour, are the only places where I really have a problem. A stau in Guberist means the in-tunnel cell gets overloaded anyway.
Genau,
sehr richtig, Diese Arschloche muessen verrotten, selber geblindt, in der Hoelle.
[ When will Slashdot support iso_8859-1 ???, or fix the Slashcode repository so we can? ]
I should not have to spell it like Zu-e-rich !
The US content Industry does it again, after Banksters, these Executives are the most greedy, egregious and un-feeling.
... "No problem, it is all a storm in a teacup, keep watching the Polar Bears while we destroy the modern economy".
...), and Fusion power.
The only solution, to modify COPYRIGHT time limits back to sensible values eg 25 years or 10 years after author's death, whichever is shorter.
The only innovation in consumer creative enterprise is now happening in spite of, rather than because of these monopolistic idiots, eg Harry Potter, written by an unmarried mum in a cafe in Edinburough.
As usual, the major obstacle, is to get the US legislature under control, or for the Supreme Court to become strict Constitutional activists.
Unfortunately the media, which should alert the public is now also fully corrupted, vide Climategate
The only way to survive, without interstellar space travel, is the boxes (soap,
An, excellent proposal, long overdue, and the whines of Academics, Librarians and Learned Journal publishers, which will all be anti must be stoutly resisted, and can easily be solved by the Presidential Task Force.
.doc and OOXML must be prohibited.
This will be kind to trees, Library Space, shelving and reading and good for students, adademics and the general public.
Peer Review must ensure that Data and Methods are published or Publically available, which would stop repeats of Climategate in their tracks.
Employed, tenured Full Professors in the age 40 to 60 should be required to Peer Review min->max or % of papers to retain tenure.
Formats should be inclusive, certainly TeX, SGML (used in house at Elsevier), PDF, HTML and ODF. Proprietary formats like Flash,
Google can (will) do the indexing as can M$.
So are these exploitive Congresscritters, anything for 5 minutes TV time!
1. Mathematics is NOT a science, it is applied logic, and related strongly to philosphy, eg the so called Axiom of Choice, "Given a non empty set, it is possible to pick a representitive member" is known to be (a) nesessary axiom for a large part of accepted Modern Mathematics, but is known to be independant, and there is another, less useful, Mathematics where it is false.
2. The basis of Scientific Method is well known, and used to be taught in schools, so I know that I basically understood it before 10 years old: (a) it isn't true cos you want it to be, (b) you need to observe, to the best of your ability, WHAT IS, (c) theories are only useful if (1) they predict the observed results, (2) their predictions do not include results that are observed but the theory predicts differently, (3) calculation is possible, (4) the theory is as simple as possible (see Einstein) and elegant. Put succintly: Hypothesis, Predict, Confirm, Use.
[There are good books, References in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics), and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)} and it is really very simple common sense stuff.
Consequences:
1. You can't keep your data, or methods to yourself, unless you want to be laughed at.
2. The purpose of publication is so OTHERS can reproduce your work, and 'peer-review' isnt a blessing, it is to make sure that your paper is honest, clear, and permits reproduction, and contains enough theory and data to confirm/deny.
3. peer-review has nothing to do with confirmation or support or correctness.
4. Support comes fom independant peers who reproduce your results within experimental error or devise new tests which your theory passes.
Application:
1. Fudging your results is NOT acceptable. (see Climategate IDL code, fudging the tree ring, thermometer data).
2. peer-review rigging is dishonest, but widely used in the academic word to secure promotion. See Publication and Citation in academic advancement
this means that the habit of 'peer-review rigging' was well established before Climategate. See e-mails
3. There is NO empirical evidence, that has been independantly verified. Prof "Phil" Jones saying "I wont release my data to my oponents" simply says he is a politician, NOT a Scientist, and there is a difference.
4. There has been a temprature decline for 11 straight years. CRUs data does not allow for the Medieval Warm period, well supported by historical and agricultural evidence even though not everone had a thermometer or recorded temperature;
5. At the slightes dissent the IPCC and Gore are on CNN telling the world that the data was stolen, and dosn't matter anyway, BS.
6. Phil Jones has 'stepped-aside' as director CRU and both CRU,UEA are investigation
7. The UK Met Office will, soon, have to release the extrordinarly bad observed data to satisfy FOI requests for raw data, said to be deleted (from all round the world?), at which point the whole gig is up.
NO ONE, except Greens and the hopelessly compromised can Believe in this any more, all the follow through is POLS and MEDIA eg CNN in Europe, who are the new deniers.
Finally, I would point out that these Climate Chimps, and their models, mostly with the UK MET, used to get all weather forcasts wrong, famously failed to predict the 1987 Hurricane in SE England "Rescue workers faced an unprecedented number of call-outs as winds hit 94 mph (151 km/h) in the capital and over 110 mph (177 km/h) in the Channel Islands." which cause a Margret Thatcher investigation, and indirectly, the formation of the UEA CRU to house the 'ejected'.
As I have already said, (moderated TROLL over a day or so) this SCAM is out/over and US/EU tax payers will refuse to pay. This Climate Ponzi sceme dosnt have a snowball's chance in hell of traction , and once someone in the US starts subpoena Dr. Mann's work and NASA' nonsense there will be NO VOTES.
Or hold your breath either
/. is getting so old.
Facile discussion of languages on
There is increasingly a meme that pretty code in a strongly typed language id OK, everything else is CRAP.
//increment i
Well no, neatly written code, in whatever, is good, as are good code and clear comments where they are needed, ie NOT,
i = i++;
Some of the worst code I have seen written is in C++, Java and C#. OO over the top, full of OO jargon, code that wanders around a thousand method calls without solving the problem, and TOO MUCH CODE, zillions of complex libraries and dependancies.
Clarity, order and simplicity are the secret of writing good code, not language, tools or methodologies, and then it can be written in anything from Lisp to C#.
Just needs to be easier to manage, Radio button:
O Customize (Personalise) Searches: Yes/No
With people like you you don't need a huge Global Conspiracy, you only need a small, dedicated cabal of liers and frauds. If, instead of supporting the party line, you read the e-mails, looked at the code and data, which the CRU was still refusing to release at the beginning of November. At the twists and turns from Professor Jones, his pathological lying and rigging the UN ICCC report, excluding by any means other opinions you see that he is a crook, and the CRU a dangerous Cabal.
But my point, sheeple, is that the CON is out, and in public, no more will the Cabal be able to lie spin and fudge in secret and the whole theory will become un-glued, and at that point the US congress and the EU parliament will stop this runaway train in its tracks.
Writing as an ex UK academic, who saw all this stuff comming 20 years ago it really is very simple, we need Honesty in Peer Review, Promotion and the Award of Grants. In Mathematics, more Hard Science, much more Soft Science, much, much more Social Science and most in Medicine and Health Care we desparately need honest in-corruptable players. The problem is we have almost NONE.
... crap. This is the real disaster, far far more important than AGW or any other single issue.
In two generations we have done this to ourselves, destroyed the Enlightenment and Objectivism; repaced it with FOX and CNN and Murdoch's
Most honest men have learned to keep their head down, or be professionally and personally destroyed. Shirly Williams set the agenda for politiziation in place. The seed has grown, and now threatens both Tertiary Education but also all Research in Universities and SRCs. In retrospect this was entirely deliberate and a generation of top University Administrators, VCs and Registrars baught it hook, line and sinker. How sad!
NO, you are absolutely wrong on both the
- Scientific
- Political
Levels; at the Scientific level the CRU clowns have been CAUGHT in illegality, denying valid FOI requests, for which their University, UEA, will have to answer in both British and European Courts. Read the e-mails, they are disgusting and Prof. "Phil" Jones has already been forced to step down. You can probably leave it to their colleagues who they traduced, slandered and humiliated to ensure that this does not die and I suspect that many who did not get a UK University Post will now use the Courts to crucify these clowns.
At least they have hidden/fabricated/falsified data and used it for fraudulent ends. Jones will be forced out, probably to a UN sinacure and the CRU will clean house.
At the Political level the AGW agenda is DEAD. The US, China and India will investigate. Since Global temperatures are FALLING there is no urgency, and there is no chance of re-vitalising this scam.
The people in this shoud go the way of Maedoff
Then Windoze + IE dosnt get to hide crap everwhere
Absolutely right, BUT it is worse, since the early 60's the SRCs SERC ESRC ... have ruled funding in science in British Universities, and as I said then, politicised it. Thus ALL UK Universities now have Barons like those at Imperial College, London in the 1940-60 time frame; this is not an accident it is the DELIBERATE politiziation of SCIENCE, SOCIAL SCIENCE and ECONOMICS
A much more interseting question is why, when these idiots have been allowed to drive a coach and horses though the scientific method, and are still being protected by the media, after a long period of unprecedented funding, no DISRUPTIVE technologies eg Fusion have progressed.
And while I despair of some of the libertarian wackjobs in the US it is VERY clear that there is something very, very wrong with education in both the US and Europe.
But the parent is exactly right, The Genie is OUT the BOTTLE, and cannot be forced back in so AGW is over and the Carbon taxes will NEVER get enacted.
As an ex-UK academic, this is conclusive evidence of collusion and corruption in the AGW camp, as well as the complete corruption of, at least, the UK peer review process. Especially as it has to do with politicized decisions.
... stolen" " ... difficult" instantly gives the game away, and shows that the xSRC(s) in the UK need to be immediately abolished so that some honest scientists and social scientists can take back their game from endlessly corrupt politicians.
The whole tone of the editorial "
The likely release was by whistle-blower, not hacking and, in any case, is publicly funded research and this reaction from Nature, New Scientist and the BBC is disgusting. These used to be respected journals and are now as corrupted as ISO.
The US has rightly pointed at corruption at the UN, but this brings subverting world institutions for gain to a new level.
They are however right about one thing, no matter how they spin, this game is over, since both in the EU and US, remember Mann is at Penn State, the raw data will now be subpoenaed, and the CON is OVER!, whether the subpoena issues from the Hill or a US FOI request.
These crooks need to go to jail like the Ponzi artists.