And to inform everyone who hates my views and thinks I'm one of those hated right-wingers:
I don't hate your views based on their political flavor. I hate them because of their gross stupidity. You're trying to give credit to Bush for the boom of a bubble while withholding the blame for the inevitable collapse.
It wasn't just Bush, of course, since the policy of lax oversight of the financial derivatives market started under Clinton with a "let the good times roll" attitude. If you really aren't partisan and are interested in "facts" besides "less taxes good", then you should find this interesting: The Warning.
Really? You're going to make this a Bush bad, Obama good story? Quite ridiculous coming on the heels of the IRS Tea Party scandal and the DoJ's massive dragnet search of the press in their leak investigation.
Not to say that Burke was innocent, but you conveniently left out that Williams was holding a knife at the time of the confrontation.
I hate it when these assholes always leave out essential details to make their case look worse than it is. (I'm quoting from the Anon, but replying to the original asshole).
Your arrest and trial for rape would be public record anyways. What's this big deal about the cop interview video? And the answer to any questions about rape or any other crime from a cop is, "I have been advised to never talk to the police without a lawyer, and invoke my right to remain silent."
As long as the person being monitored has physical access to the equipment, it will not be reliable.
Such a convenient dropout would be room for reasonable doubt, especially if there was a pattern of this kind of malfunction. Also combine that with "two-way" surveillance, where the citizens routinely video tape and upload, and there would be much less routine bullshit.
You got me curious, and I thought the Wikipedia article would have the answer, but instead I'm copying this from the talk page on microlensing by somebody who claims to have worked as an astronomer:
I've tried to fix the fuzzyness of the definition of microlensing with a new one: Microlensing is the subset of gravitational lensing whose variations in time can be measured. Typically, this means that the lens mass must be small enough that it will cross its own Einstein ring radius in less than the time it takes for a graduate student to finish a PhD thesis. The EROS collaboration is analysing our own and MACHOs data for evidence of very long time scale events of order 100s or 1000s of years (see sec. 5.6 of [1]). Although these may not be confirmed as microlensing events (rather than some other very long time-scale variability), the non-detection of these events would allow a limit on dark matter by 100-1000 Mo MACHOs. Any event where the lens mass is so big and far away that it takes millions of years to cross its einstein ring radius, and thus changes too slowly in time to be studied in the time domain, is a "macrolens".
I also disagree with the four definitions by MDAstronomer. It is not true that any lensing event with unresolved images is microlensing. A galaxy can lens a quasar, but have the images be too close to be resolved. This is not microlensing. Likewise,lensing by a compact object does not describe microlensing. "Any" gravitational lens must be physically smaller or about the same size as its own einstein radius to cause any measurable lensing effect. That is why we do not see any lensing effects from the Moon. It is so close that its Einstein radius is tiny. However, if the moon were a few kiloparsecs away, its einstein radius would be larger than its physical radius and it could be a perfectly ordinary microlens. The supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way is a compact object, but it cannot be a microlens... its einstein radius is too big for any changes in lensing to be monitored in time. It could in principle be a macrolens if there were a quasar right behind it. The microlensing at the edges of gravitationally lensed quasars is called microlensing because it causes time-varying effects in the apparent flux of the images. This has been significant because it interferes with attempts to use these gravitational lenses to measure the Hubble Constant.
The time-varying nature of a microlens is the key to all of its observations. And the need to take over large blocks of telescope time to do microlensing has revolutionized time-domain astronomy in general, in part through a bureaucratic reorganization of Telescope Allocation Committees and the advent of dedicated telescopes. There have been great resulting changes not only in microlensing but in searches for supernovae, asteroids, variable stars.
None of the various types of microlensing observations (photometric brightenning, astrometric shift, interferometric visibility reduction due to image splitting, shifts in color, spectrum, or variability amplitude) are strong enough to determine a microlensing event from a single observation. All of them require detecting some change in time, if only because there are plenty of natural causes that can mimic any one of the shifts for a single measurement. For example, how could one seperate a star which was split into two images from an ordinary binary star without time-domain information?
I disagree with Mike's splitting of lensing into strong, weak and microlensing. A lens is strong if it is within one Einstein radius of the line of sight to the source, and weak otherwise. Nearly all photometric microlenses are strong lenses, but astrometric lensing is much more sensitive to weak lensing than photometric lensing. Ed
Google does more than any other company, probably any company in history, to fight against that. By law, they are required to honor National Security Letters asking them to give up information. Their policy is to refuse to provide the information, even though the law (since 1978) says they have to hand over the information. Google claims the law is unconstitutional and therefore void. In Doe versus Ashcroft, the judge agreed. (Courts have gone both ways.)
"American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (filed April 9, 2004 in the United States) is a lawsuit filed on behalf of a formerly unknown Internet Service Provider (ISP) owner by the American Civil Liberties Union against the U.S. federal government. In 2010, it was revealed that John Doe was in fact Nicholas Merrill of Calyx Internet Access."
So that was a small ISP owner doing the right thing, not Google. What do you think Google was doing in the meantime, if not complying with those requests? 2013 is very late in the game for Google to be filing lawsuits.
They are the only company I know of which publicizes how many supeonas and national security letters they get.
Again, they started doing this very late in the game. Google gave up information to NSLs and didn't talk about it, just like everybody else. You're a fool if you think otherwise.
I'm pretty sure it was for the money. Do you have a single example of its use "as a club to control others" that just wasn't about getting license fees?
If one adjusts one's perspective to think of quantum mechanics more as the consequences of using a 2-norm and looking then at the structure imposed on vectors by unitary transformations, things make a lot more sense.
This is the "shut up and calculate" approach to quantum mechanics.
It seems you've stumbled upon something that shouldn't been allowed . . . yet no one in the field has a problem with that. Now what is your background again? Oh, you're not a climate scientists but somehow you know more than any of them.
Oh, what's that? You responded with an ad hominem attack and argument by authority instead of addressing the argument? This from somebody who references a site by a professional cartoonist and "web programmer"?
You haven't addressed why Mann's plot was being shown when Jones was talking about what he did with his plot. It doesn't take a climate scientist to figure it out. Maybe if you got off your ass and did some research outside of "Skeptical Science" you could understand the subterfuge employed by "Skeptical Science".
So you would leave data that you KNOW isn't accurate in your results? What kind of scientist are you?
I don't arbitrarily chop off data that doesn't "fit" my hockey stick and then claim the last 1,000 years doesn't match my hockey stick high, either. I also don't splice in real temps to three separate proxy graphs, giving the illusion of certainty when there is none. And there are professional scientists who have come out against this bullshit, though anybody with a basic science education can see the inherent problem.
Of course, if you're so entrenched in your position, you won't see it because you won't even look or think critically.
The reason has been explained if you cared to look.
You mean you read some blurbs on "Skeptical Science" or from Mann or Jones giving press interviews. How about instead you cite the science that says it is ok to chop off data without a valid explanation for what is causing the "divergence problem".
The data has been released. Please find something wrong with it. You can't can you?
Funny, I just told you what was wrong with it (Jones' graph in particular is what we're talking about, in case you still haven't figured that out), and even told you a report admonished Jones for his graph, but this is what you come back with?
No further comments on deleting email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Do you admit that was a very wrong thing to do, both ethically and legally?
No further comments about showing your data and work, friend or "enemy"? Do you agree that's what a good scientist should do?
No citation about "incomplete work"? Do you admit you have none? Do you acknowledge what Jones said, "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years."?
Do you acknowledge that this is a farce: "the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could"? Do you acknowledge one report directly contradicts this statement?
Do you acknowledge that Phil Jones isn't the "scapegoat" you made him out to be, and that his own actions put him in the spotlight?
Do you acknowledge your original statement, "What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain." is completely inadequate, and completely glosses over serious ethical lapses?
What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one.
No, that's a definition of some kind of democracy. What the Libertarian Party wants is listed right in the title of it's homepage: "Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government".
You can't seriously argue that when you can't even legally smoke pot Libertarians have what they are "really" asking for.
For a single video or altogether? I'm looking at the user page of one right now that has ~150 million views total, across all videos. That's not Nintendo only, but it shows "Let's Play" videos can generate a lot of views.
Anybody who looked seriously at content of the emails saw the conversations were taken out of context.
I've looked at the context before, and while not nearly as bad as the reinterpreted "oh my God global warming is a hoax", what was done was rotten science, and the deeper I dug the more rot I saw.
Basically, tree-ring data was removed because it showed a decline. [skepticalscience.com]
It was more than that. Real temps were also spliced in to three separate proxy graphs. What's really amusing about the "Skeptical Science" article is this little bit:
"There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead."
Yes, Mann's plot, which they then so "helpfully" show, is clearly labeled. However, that's not the plot Jones created when he applied the "trick", and it is not clearly labeled, and the instrumental record has been spliced in. Why the subterfuge in "Skeptical Science"?
Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
There was never a definitive reason given for this "divergence problem", so by chopping out data that doesn't match recent warming but leaving it in for earlier reconstructions, you are cherry-picking and applying confirmation bias, and its the kind of thing that will lead to graphs that show recent warming as being unprecedented for the last 1000 years.
Freedom of information act does mean that anyone and everyone can harass you because you are a climate scientist.
I'm sorry, but how does this answer the question about an explicit request to delete email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Oh, it doesn't, you're just parroting the usual lame excuses without even thinking about it.
You're talking about work paid for with public money, done for a process that is supposed to guide world leaders, and you think it's ok to delete the email because you are being "harassed" by skeptics that want transparency? If this came out from a corporate exec or despised politician, would you be here making these lame excuses?
If your colleague at work wants to see your work, you'd likely show it to him. If he is your enemy at work, would you let them?
Instead of making flimsy analogies, let's talk about reality. If I'm a scientist and unwilling to defend my work publicly and transparently, then I'm a bad scientist. You don't divide science between friends and enemies. Release the data, show your work, and defend it (and even more importantly, admit mistakes!).
Especially if they are asking for your incomplete work so that they can show your boss how incompetent you are.
I've never seen the claim of "incomplete" work. Do you have a citation?
the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could
"Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to any
What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain.
Please. Anybody that's looked seriously at the "hide the decline" issue and doesn't see scientific misconduct for political reasons is completely biased. I actually used to be a "warmist", not a "denier", until Climategate. Not that I was really a "warmist", as I knew trying to model the temperature of the Earth at best was always going to be somewhat uncertain, but I at least gave the scientists the benefit of the doubt.
And if "hide the decline" isn't enough for you, then there was the explicit email requesting others to erase email to avoid freedom of information acts. That's a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Where was the prosecution?
Or how about, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Or how about this, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Do you know what the common thread is among all that? Phil Jones. That they couldn't at least fire that clown shows just how much they circled the wagons.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
That's called a whitewash, as tends to happen in political fields.
At their level, you don't win grants and Nobel prizes by proving something everyone else has proven.
When it comes to climate science, you get grants for predicting disasters or otherwise confirming global warming. The field is completely political. You only need look at Climategate for confirmation.
I would actually love a tablet with a stylus option with the condition that the stylus be used for drawing ONLY. Not navigation
My exerience with a recent Nook made me wish I had a stylus for something as simple as closing tabs on a web browser. The amount of failure involved using my fingers on that device was just completely frustrating. I really don't understand why people hate the stylus so much. I really liked using the stylus on the Nintendo DS, for example.
When Microsoft makes more revenue from Android licenses (for patents I'm not convinced they've ever disclosed) than they do on their own OS, nobody is going to allow patents to stop being so widespread.
I doubt Microsoft makes more from Android then Windows. Since the agreements have all been confidential, you don't know, either. As for the patents, they've been listed before. Yes, they're pretty shitty, but that's par for the course and doesn't mean they'll lose in court.
People bought houses they couldn't afford because the people who were supposed to be "experts" told them they actually could afford the payments.
They also bought them because they were greedy, when even a little bit of common sense would tell them that they couldn't afford the house.
I doubt anyone thought, "I know we can't make these payments for more than a few months, but lets throw all that money down the toilet anyway."
They paid what they were willing to pay a month. If the money became too much (perhaps due to an adjustable rate mortgage), they just bailed. And as housing prices skyrocketed, people who were prudent decided to wait to buy a house, while people who decided they wanted a McMansion, too, jumped in. Greed, greed, greed, all around.
I only blame them for being gullible.
Personal responsibility has to count for something. You can't just give people a free pass to act like a greedy moron and then foot the bill.
I don't think Larry is suggesting that everyone should have access to your medical records, only that you shouldn't worry too much about sharing them with Google.
Which is completely self-serving and asinine, par for the course when it comes to bone-headed statements by Google execs and privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
And to inform everyone who hates my views and thinks I'm one of those hated right-wingers:
I don't hate your views based on their political flavor. I hate them because of their gross stupidity. You're trying to give credit to Bush for the boom of a bubble while withholding the blame for the inevitable collapse.
It wasn't just Bush, of course, since the policy of lax oversight of the financial derivatives market started under Clinton with a "let the good times roll" attitude. If you really aren't partisan and are interested in "facts" besides "less taxes good", then you should find this interesting: The Warning.
I'm also surprised that we found out about it.
I'm not. The only surprising thing is how long it took to happen. This has been going on for years. It only takes one employee to leak it.
Really? You're going to make this a Bush bad, Obama good story? Quite ridiculous coming on the heels of the IRS Tea Party scandal and the DoJ's massive dragnet search of the press in their leak investigation.
Verizon is probably only upset about this because they normally SELL this data
Citation please?
[1] Truthiness
Not to say that Burke was innocent, but you conveniently left out that Williams was holding a knife at the time of the confrontation.
I hate it when these assholes always leave out essential details to make their case look worse than it is. (I'm quoting from the Anon, but replying to the original asshole).
Your arrest and trial for rape would be public record anyways. What's this big deal about the cop interview video? And the answer to any questions about rape or any other crime from a cop is, "I have been advised to never talk to the police without a lawyer, and invoke my right to remain silent."
As long as the person being monitored has physical access to the equipment, it will not be reliable.
Such a convenient dropout would be room for reasonable doubt, especially if there was a pattern of this kind of malfunction. Also combine that with "two-way" surveillance, where the citizens routinely video tape and upload, and there would be much less routine bullshit.
"Why is it called "microlensing" anyway?"
You got me curious, and I thought the Wikipedia article would have the answer, but instead I'm copying this from the talk page on microlensing by somebody who claims to have worked as an astronomer:
I've tried to fix the fuzzyness of the definition of microlensing with a new one: Microlensing is the subset of gravitational lensing whose variations in time can be measured. Typically, this means that the lens mass must be small enough that it will cross its own Einstein ring radius in less than the time it takes for a graduate student to finish a PhD thesis. The EROS collaboration is analysing our own and MACHOs data for evidence of very long time scale events of order 100s or 1000s of years (see sec. 5.6 of [1]). Although these may not be confirmed as microlensing events (rather than some other very long time-scale variability), the non-detection of these events would allow a limit on dark matter by 100-1000 Mo MACHOs. Any event where the lens mass is so big and far away that it takes millions of years to cross its einstein ring radius, and thus changes too slowly in time to be studied in the time domain, is a "macrolens".
I also disagree with the four definitions by MDAstronomer. It is not true that any lensing event with unresolved images is microlensing. A galaxy can lens a quasar, but have the images be too close to be resolved. This is not microlensing. Likewise,lensing by a compact object does not describe microlensing. "Any" gravitational lens must be physically smaller or about the same size as its own einstein radius to cause any measurable lensing effect. That is why we do not see any lensing effects from the Moon. It is so close that its Einstein radius is tiny. However, if the moon were a few kiloparsecs away, its einstein radius would be larger than its physical radius and it could be a perfectly ordinary microlens. The supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way is a compact object, but it cannot be a microlens... its einstein radius is too big for any changes in lensing to be monitored in time. It could in principle be a macrolens if there were a quasar right behind it. The microlensing at the edges of gravitationally lensed quasars is called microlensing because it causes time-varying effects in the apparent flux of the images. This has been significant because it interferes with attempts to use these gravitational lenses to measure the Hubble Constant.
The time-varying nature of a microlens is the key to all of its observations. And the need to take over large blocks of telescope time to do microlensing has revolutionized time-domain astronomy in general, in part through a bureaucratic reorganization of Telescope Allocation Committees and the advent of dedicated telescopes. There have been great resulting changes not only in microlensing but in searches for supernovae, asteroids, variable stars.
None of the various types of microlensing observations (photometric brightenning, astrometric shift, interferometric visibility reduction due to image splitting, shifts in color, spectrum, or variability amplitude) are strong enough to determine a microlensing event from a single observation. All of them require detecting some change in time, if only because there are plenty of natural causes that can mimic any one of the shifts for a single measurement. For example, how could one seperate a star which was split into two images from an ordinary binary star without time-domain information?
I disagree with Mike's splitting of lensing into strong, weak and microlensing. A lens is strong if it is within one Einstein radius of the line of sight to the source, and weak otherwise. Nearly all photometric microlenses are strong lenses, but astrometric lensing is much more sensitive to weak lensing than photometric lensing. Ed
Google does more than any other company, probably any company in history, to fight against that.
By law, they are required to honor National Security Letters asking them to give up information. Their policy is to refuse to provide the
information, even though the law (since 1978) says they have to hand over the information. Google claims the law is unconstitutional and
therefore void. In Doe versus Ashcroft, the judge agreed. (Courts have gone both ways.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._Ashcroft
"American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (filed April 9, 2004 in the United States) is a lawsuit filed on behalf of a formerly unknown Internet Service Provider (ISP) owner by the American Civil Liberties Union against the U.S. federal government. In 2010, it was revealed that John Doe was in fact Nicholas Merrill of Calyx Internet Access."
So that was a small ISP owner doing the right thing, not Google. What do you think Google was doing in the meantime, if not complying with those requests? 2013 is very late in the game for Google to be filing lawsuits.
They are the only company I know of which publicizes how many supeonas and national security letters they get.
Again, they started doing this very late in the game. Google gave up information to NSLs and didn't talk about it, just like everybody else. You're a fool if you think otherwise.
I'm pretty sure it was for the money. Do you have a single example of its use "as a club to control others" that just wasn't about getting license fees?
If one adjusts one's perspective to think of quantum mechanics more as the consequences of using a 2-norm and looking then at the structure imposed on vectors by unitary transformations, things make a lot more sense.
This is the "shut up and calculate" approach to quantum mechanics.
OR if the kickstart investers get a return on their money
Yeah, I never understood the Kickstarter model of taking all the financial risk while giving all the reward away.
Nice, that would actually be kind of fun.
Yeah, it was a pretty good movie.
That sounds like a design flaw with the interface rather than an indication of the need for a stylus to do basic navigation.
Could be, or maybe my fingers don't work as well for precision pointing than others. Whatever it is, I really like the stylus for precision.
It seems you've stumbled upon something that shouldn't been allowed . . . yet no one in the field has a problem with that. Now what is your background again? Oh, you're not a climate scientists but somehow you know more than any of them.
Oh, what's that? You responded with an ad hominem attack and argument by authority instead of addressing the argument? This from somebody who references a site by a professional cartoonist and "web programmer"?
You haven't addressed why Mann's plot was being shown when Jones was talking about what he did with his plot. It doesn't take a climate scientist to figure it out. Maybe if you got off your ass and did some research outside of "Skeptical Science" you could understand the subterfuge employed by "Skeptical Science".
So you would leave data that you KNOW isn't accurate in your results? What kind of scientist are you?
I don't arbitrarily chop off data that doesn't "fit" my hockey stick and then claim the last 1,000 years doesn't match my hockey stick high, either. I also don't splice in real temps to three separate proxy graphs, giving the illusion of certainty when there is none. And there are professional scientists who have come out against this bullshit, though anybody with a basic science education can see the inherent problem.
Of course, if you're so entrenched in your position, you won't see it because you won't even look or think critically.
The reason has been explained if you cared to look.
You mean you read some blurbs on "Skeptical Science" or from Mann or Jones giving press interviews. How about instead you cite the science that says it is ok to chop off data without a valid explanation for what is causing the "divergence problem".
The data has been released. Please find something wrong with it. You can't can you?
Funny, I just told you what was wrong with it (Jones' graph in particular is what we're talking about, in case you still haven't figured that out), and even told you a report admonished Jones for his graph, but this is what you come back with?
No further comments on deleting email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Do you admit that was a very wrong thing to do, both ethically and legally?
No further comments about showing your data and work, friend or "enemy"? Do you agree that's what a good scientist should do?
No citation about "incomplete work"? Do you admit you have none? Do you acknowledge what Jones said, "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years."?
Do you acknowledge that this is a farce: "the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could"? Do you acknowledge one report directly contradicts this statement?
Do you acknowledge that Phil Jones isn't the "scapegoat" you made him out to be, and that his own actions put him in the spotlight?
Do you acknowledge your original statement, "What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain." is completely inadequate, and completely glosses over serious ethical lapses?
I do. All of you pulling out your smartphone to check the time look pretty stupid.
Maybe you look stupid for wearing a watch. Or maybe it's just personal taste and isn't worth the insults?
What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one.
No, that's a definition of some kind of democracy. What the Libertarian Party wants is listed right in the title of it's homepage: "Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government".
You can't seriously argue that when you can't even legally smoke pot Libertarians have what they are "really" asking for.
There were a few LPers with 1.5 million ~ views.
For a single video or altogether? I'm looking at the user page of one right now that has ~150 million views total, across all videos. That's not Nintendo only, but it shows "Let's Play" videos can generate a lot of views.
Anybody who looked seriously at content of the emails saw the conversations were taken out of context.
I've looked at the context before, and while not nearly as bad as the reinterpreted "oh my God global warming is a hoax", what was done was rotten science, and the deeper I dug the more rot I saw.
Basically, tree-ring data was removed because it showed a decline. [skepticalscience.com]
It was more than that. Real temps were also spliced in to three separate proxy graphs. What's really amusing about the "Skeptical Science" article is this little bit:
"There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead."
Yes, Mann's plot, which they then so "helpfully" show, is clearly labeled. However, that's not the plot Jones created when he applied the "trick", and it is not clearly labeled, and the instrumental record has been spliced in. Why the subterfuge in "Skeptical Science"?
"Skeptical Science" is about legit as "Ministry of Truth", as the site is anything but skeptical and goes out of its way to put the most positive spin on AGW climate science. This makes for some interesting reading: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
There was never a definitive reason given for this "divergence problem", so by chopping out data that doesn't match recent warming but leaving it in for earlier reconstructions, you are cherry-picking and applying confirmation bias, and its the kind of thing that will lead to graphs that show recent warming as being unprecedented for the last 1000 years.
Freedom of information act does mean that anyone and everyone can harass you because you are a climate scientist.
I'm sorry, but how does this answer the question about an explicit request to delete email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Oh, it doesn't, you're just parroting the usual lame excuses without even thinking about it.
You're talking about work paid for with public money, done for a process that is supposed to guide world leaders, and you think it's ok to delete the email because you are being "harassed" by skeptics that want transparency? If this came out from a corporate exec or despised politician, would you be here making these lame excuses?
If your colleague at work wants to see your work, you'd likely show it to him. If he is your enemy at work, would you let them?
Instead of making flimsy analogies, let's talk about reality. If I'm a scientist and unwilling to defend my work publicly and transparently, then I'm a bad scientist. You don't divide science between friends and enemies. Release the data, show your work, and defend it (and even more importantly, admit mistakes!).
Especially if they are asking for your incomplete work so that they can show your boss how incompetent you are.
I've never seen the claim of "incomplete" work. Do you have a citation?
the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could
"Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to any
What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain.
Please. Anybody that's looked seriously at the "hide the decline" issue and doesn't see scientific misconduct for political reasons is completely biased. I actually used to be a "warmist", not a "denier", until Climategate. Not that I was really a "warmist", as I knew trying to model the temperature of the Earth at best was always going to be somewhat uncertain, but I at least gave the scientists the benefit of the doubt.
And if "hide the decline" isn't enough for you, then there was the explicit email requesting others to erase email to avoid freedom of information acts. That's a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Where was the prosecution?
Or how about, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Or how about this, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Do you know what the common thread is among all that? Phil Jones. That they couldn't at least fire that clown shows just how much they circled the wagons.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
That's called a whitewash, as tends to happen in political fields.
At their level, you don't win grants and Nobel prizes by proving something everyone else has proven.
When it comes to climate science, you get grants for predicting disasters or otherwise confirming global warming. The field is completely political. You only need look at Climategate for confirmation.
I would actually love a tablet with a stylus option with the condition that the stylus be used for drawing ONLY. Not navigation
My exerience with a recent Nook made me wish I had a stylus for something as simple as closing tabs on a web browser. The amount of failure involved using my fingers on that device was just completely frustrating. I really don't understand why people hate the stylus so much. I really liked using the stylus on the Nintendo DS, for example.
When Microsoft makes more revenue from Android licenses (for patents I'm not convinced they've ever disclosed) than they do on their own OS, nobody is going to allow patents to stop being so widespread.
I doubt Microsoft makes more from Android then Windows. Since the agreements have all been confidential, you don't know, either. As for the patents, they've been listed before. Yes, they're pretty shitty, but that's par for the course and doesn't mean they'll lose in court.
People bought houses they couldn't afford because the people who were supposed to be "experts" told them they actually could afford the payments.
They also bought them because they were greedy, when even a little bit of common sense would tell them that they couldn't afford the house.
I doubt anyone thought, "I know we can't make these payments for more than a few months, but lets throw all that money down the toilet anyway."
They paid what they were willing to pay a month. If the money became too much (perhaps due to an adjustable rate mortgage), they just bailed. And as housing prices skyrocketed, people who were prudent decided to wait to buy a house, while people who decided they wanted a McMansion, too, jumped in. Greed, greed, greed, all around.
I only blame them for being gullible.
Personal responsibility has to count for something. You can't just give people a free pass to act like a greedy moron and then foot the bill.
I don't think Larry is suggesting that everyone should have access to your medical records, only that you shouldn't worry too much about sharing them with Google.
Which is completely self-serving and asinine, par for the course when it comes to bone-headed statements by Google execs and privacy.