I travel for a living. I like having all my tools on-hand (about 300 GB of tools - compilers, FEA engines, CAD packages, schematic capture/board layout), all the datasheets I may need (typically 60-80 GB of data), my last few years of e-mails (another 30 GB), and a few thousand of my CDs ripped for entertainment purposes. Because the Internet connection in my place outside Chaiyaphum, Thailand is a 45 minute drive away...
Ohm's Law and the like are only settled because they're testable and verifiable; we're still testing Einstein's theories to see if they're correct. How do you propose we test AGW?
We have been on this path for over a decade, worrying about the Earth being destroyed by human activity just because some scientists were trying to get laid by models!?!
God Dammit!
You're just pissed that the scientists figured out how to get models before we dumb programmers did...
That's not true at all. Nearly every field in the physical and natural sciences now depends heavily on modeling. Now, it is true that some of those models are easier to calibrate with data than others... And climate science is indeed one of the hardest ones to test because there are so many feedbacks that you can't really test some of the parameters independent of the others. But that doesn't make it "wrong" or "biased", just hard.
Actually, climate 'science' is one of the few where you CANNOT test. You cannot set up controlled experiments or run the problem again. There is no way to test; hence, it should not be considered a hard science like biology, or physics, or chemistry.
Climate science really is taking past observations, making guesses about what could happen, then sitting around and seeing if it does in fact happen - without being able to control what is happening, or what variables are input to the system.
It's great if you were right, and it's valuable to provide an informed critique of the scientific consensus, but until you publish your calculations, have them peer-reviewed and open to critique from the scientific community, you're just a guy on a message board - a message board with lots of guys who think they are smarter than everyone else, so you shouldn't be surprised if you have a hard time getting through.
Unfortunately, as we've been finding out over the last few years, much of the climate science was the same - no published data, no publication of calculations or methodology, just some peer-review limited to those who also espoused the same conclusions. In short, not much more rigorous than tmosley - but given much more credence because of their newly-minted self-appointed title of climatologist.
Small size, loud, accurate bass.
Pick two.
You cannot have all three.
Oh, you can have all 3 - I design such systems for a living (yes, I am an acoustics engineer, and earn my living designing transducers of all kinds). It just costs a lot. But I've done small, 170mm woofers that mount in 10 liter boxes and will reach beyond 110 dB and plumb down to 25 Hz with less than 3% THD. Yes, it takes a lot of power and it's not cheap, but it can be done.
Modern aggressively resonant ported designs attempt to have all three, but fail as they end up with 'one note bass'. That is why most modern speaker designs sound pretty terrible.
That's not a factor of the presence of a port; that's a factor that the designer didn't have a clue how to USE the port. Check out the Event Electronics Opal monitor - it's renown for deep, massive, accurate, TIGHT levels of real bass, and it is, in fact, ported. Of course, it has a great woofer and port system - designed by yours truly. Having 700W of power on tap for the woofer helps a lot, too...
So, to summarize: we can ignore good science and the scientific method in this case because you don't believe the skeptics have a real reason to be skeptical. Is that correct?
And shouting down skeptics is, in fact, the opposite of the scientific method. Rather than shouting them down, they should be welcomed and addressed with all sincerity and substance as possible. For if your theory is correct - your proof in the face of skepticism will show it, unequivocally.
I agree, up to a point. Skeptics should be welcomed and engaged, as anyone trying to figure out the truth behind a complex subject should.
But how many 'skeptics' in climate change debates are actually skeptics as opposed to concern trolls and deniers who refuse to look at any evidence you present? What do you do when it becomes clear the person you're debating with has no interest in a reasoned debate and simply wants to try and discredit you as much as possible?
Provide them ALL your data, your methods, and how and why you reached your conclusion and let the scientific community work it out. Hiding data, claiming data is "lost", obfuscating algorithms and data, adding fudge factors with no reason - those are not the signs of a scientist who trusts his own work. Release what you have, it may take time for the naysayers to go away - but the truth will win out in the end. That's how the Scientific method works.
In my case, certification of his current license, and his knowledge of required building codes. All of which was easily confirmed with a single call, to verify his business license and standing. Plus the fact that he was working for me - if he found problems, then the roofers would need to fix them and I'd have to pay him to re-inspect my roof - he was working for me, not the roofers.
Did they share every last bit of data and code? No.
Check out the Yamal issue with Briffa et al - 2000. A single tree, massive dropping of data, subsequent merging of other sources, and stonewalling of delivery of data for a decade. And when that single tree is actually merged with the original data set, the rise simply goes away. Basically cherry picking down to the level of a single tree to get the desired result - there is no other way to explain it. Then refusing to release the data for nearly a decade after publication, and only doing so when the Royal Society told him he had to publish the data used for his paper.
Sorry, the Scientific method calls for openness and welcomes scrutiny. Hiding data, refusing to release it, and even when releasing it releasing it in nearly incomprehensible formats is simply not scientific. No surprise, then that the conclusions originally reached simply cannot be sustained when independent eyes look at the same data.
This isn't about pro-or-con AGW - this is about the integrity of science itself, and when people try to defend the actions of those who pull such data-hiding and obfuscation stunts, they hurt the scientific community as a whole.
Except there seems to be an issue: a single tree - YAD061 provides ALL the resulting warming trend. Remove that tree from the dataset and it shows no trend. It is the presence of a single tree that causes the entire model to show warming. Curious, indeed!
The strength of your argument is simply overwhelming. I am shamed into the corner by the erudite words proffered, and the unassailable logic in your post. I will, post-haste, immediately and without equivocation go and learn of this wonderful Scientific Method you have so generously provided to me, and I will study deep its arcane and enveloping knowledge!
Here you go, a pretty good summary. A single tree used - YAD061. If the original data had been published with the paper, and the original processes actually documented, then none of this would have been an issue. It's only when scientists abandon science and do not provide the data, methods, or adhere to the Scientific method that things break down.
I'd be interested to know where his data for the graph came from... Also interesting to note he uses the geological data for temperature and CO2 levels that confirms CO2 levels lag temperature changes, not lead. The Earth first warms, then CO2 increases; the Earth cools, and CO2 decreases.
Well over 90% of the CRU data was available. Just not in a convenient form for people that don't know how to gather it.
So if I release not all my data (just a large majority of it), and do it in a form that is not usable, then I've provided full disclosure? I assume you'll sign a contract that has 10% of the paragraphs missing and is in a code format that changes from section to section?
Again, the fact that data was knowingly withheld, and needed to have an FOIA issued to get at it, is the root problem. It is INHERENTLY not Scientific. At all. You cannot pick and choose which steps of the Scientific method you want to adhere to, and still call it science. Doesn't work that way.
It might be interesting work, and curious results, but it is NOT science. And trying to claim otherwise, and paper over the issue in the first place is about as unscientific - and purely political - as one can get. Pro or con AGW, we should ALL be upset with the CRU for their actions and their sullying of science and the Scientific method.
Oh, and as far as the roof goes - I did not trust the framers, carpenters, and roofers to do a good job - I had my own independent expert (an inspector) confirm that the data provided, and the method used, was in fact satisfactory. In fact, that's the law - you must have that independent certification and confirmation when having a new roof built. The roof-building industry itself is inherently skeptical, by statute.
Slashdot Mirror
Desktop Linux: 1% and holding!
Margin of error of measurement: ±1%
Why would he consider installing Windows ME?
Microsoft Bob just shed a tear because you forgot about him...:(
Great - let me know when HTML5 becomes a standard, and Apple allows royalty-free use of the patents they're trying to get included in HTML5...
XP still has about 30% marketshare while Linux is still around 2%. So yes, marketshare still IS an issue...
I travel for a living. I like having all my tools on-hand (about 300 GB of tools - compilers, FEA engines, CAD packages, schematic capture/board layout), all the datasheets I may need (typically 60-80 GB of data), my last few years of e-mails (another 30 GB), and a few thousand of my CDs ripped for entertainment purposes. Because the Internet connection in my place outside Chaiyaphum, Thailand is a 45 minute drive away...
It was in the cab, yes. You driving the Punto? ;)
Ohm's Law and the like are only settled because they're testable and verifiable; we're still testing Einstein's theories to see if they're correct. How do you propose we test AGW?
We have been on this path for over a decade, worrying about the Earth being destroyed by human activity just because some scientists were trying to get laid by models!?!
God Dammit!
You're just pissed that the scientists figured out how to get models before we dumb programmers did...
That's not true at all. Nearly every field in the physical and natural sciences now depends heavily on modeling. Now, it is true that some of those models are easier to calibrate with data than others... And climate science is indeed one of the hardest ones to test because there are so many feedbacks that you can't really test some of the parameters independent of the others. But that doesn't make it "wrong" or "biased", just hard.
Actually, climate 'science' is one of the few where you CANNOT test. You cannot set up controlled experiments or run the problem again. There is no way to test; hence, it should not be considered a hard science like biology, or physics, or chemistry.
Climate science really is taking past observations, making guesses about what could happen, then sitting around and seeing if it does in fact happen - without being able to control what is happening, or what variables are input to the system.
Well, aside from the multiple airbags, and no-damage bumpers, and black box recorders...
I will take my 1968 Freightliner cabover and challenge your 2010 Fiat Punto, at a 200 kph collision (100 kph from each). We'll see who walks away...
It's great if you were right, and it's valuable to provide an informed critique of the scientific consensus, but until you publish your calculations, have them peer-reviewed and open to critique from the scientific community, you're just a guy on a message board - a message board with lots of guys who think they are smarter than everyone else, so you shouldn't be surprised if you have a hard time getting through.
Unfortunately, as we've been finding out over the last few years, much of the climate science was the same - no published data, no publication of calculations or methodology, just some peer-review limited to those who also espoused the same conclusions. In short, not much more rigorous than tmosley - but given much more credence because of their newly-minted self-appointed title of climatologist.
Small size, loud, accurate bass. Pick two. You cannot have all three.
Oh, you can have all 3 - I design such systems for a living (yes, I am an acoustics engineer, and earn my living designing transducers of all kinds). It just costs a lot. But I've done small, 170mm woofers that mount in 10 liter boxes and will reach beyond 110 dB and plumb down to 25 Hz with less than 3% THD. Yes, it takes a lot of power and it's not cheap, but it can be done.
Modern aggressively resonant ported designs attempt to have all three, but fail as they end up with 'one note bass'. That is why most modern speaker designs sound pretty terrible.
That's not a factor of the presence of a port; that's a factor that the designer didn't have a clue how to USE the port. Check out the Event Electronics Opal monitor - it's renown for deep, massive, accurate, TIGHT levels of real bass, and it is, in fact, ported. Of course, it has a great woofer and port system - designed by yours truly. Having 700W of power on tap for the woofer helps a lot, too...
So, to summarize: we can ignore good science and the scientific method in this case because you don't believe the skeptics have a real reason to be skeptical. Is that correct?
I agree, up to a point. Skeptics should be welcomed and engaged, as anyone trying to figure out the truth behind a complex subject should.
But how many 'skeptics' in climate change debates are actually skeptics as opposed to concern trolls and deniers who refuse to look at any evidence you present? What do you do when it becomes clear the person you're debating with has no interest in a reasoned debate and simply wants to try and discredit you as much as possible?
Provide them ALL your data, your methods, and how and why you reached your conclusion and let the scientific community work it out. Hiding data, claiming data is "lost", obfuscating algorithms and data, adding fudge factors with no reason - those are not the signs of a scientist who trusts his own work. Release what you have, it may take time for the naysayers to go away - but the truth will win out in the end. That's how the Scientific method works.
In my case, certification of his current license, and his knowledge of required building codes. All of which was easily confirmed with a single call, to verify his business license and standing. Plus the fact that he was working for me - if he found problems, then the roofers would need to fix them and I'd have to pay him to re-inspect my roof - he was working for me, not the roofers.
Did they share every last bit of data and code? No.
Check out the Yamal issue with Briffa et al - 2000. A single tree, massive dropping of data, subsequent merging of other sources, and stonewalling of delivery of data for a decade. And when that single tree is actually merged with the original data set, the rise simply goes away. Basically cherry picking down to the level of a single tree to get the desired result - there is no other way to explain it. Then refusing to release the data for nearly a decade after publication, and only doing so when the Royal Society told him he had to publish the data used for his paper.
Sorry, the Scientific method calls for openness and welcomes scrutiny. Hiding data, refusing to release it, and even when releasing it releasing it in nearly incomprehensible formats is simply not scientific. No surprise, then that the conclusions originally reached simply cannot be sustained when independent eyes look at the same data.
This isn't about pro-or-con AGW - this is about the integrity of science itself, and when people try to defend the actions of those who pull such data-hiding and obfuscation stunts, they hurt the scientific community as a whole.
Except there seems to be an issue: a single tree - YAD061 provides ALL the resulting warming trend. Remove that tree from the dataset and it shows no trend. It is the presence of a single tree that causes the entire model to show warming. Curious, indeed!
The strength of your argument is simply overwhelming. I am shamed into the corner by the erudite words proffered, and the unassailable logic in your post. I will, post-haste, immediately and without equivocation go and learn of this wonderful Scientific Method you have so generously provided to me, and I will study deep its arcane and enveloping knowledge!
Here you go, a pretty good summary. A single tree used - YAD061. If the original data had been published with the paper, and the original processes actually documented, then none of this would have been an issue. It's only when scientists abandon science and do not provide the data, methods, or adhere to the Scientific method that things break down.
Citation given. Note that McIntyre shows his work, and Briffa - in his responses - does not deny McIntyre's methods or conclusions.
I'd be interested to know where his data for the graph came from... Also interesting to note he uses the geological data for temperature and CO2 levels that confirms CO2 levels lag temperature changes, not lead. The Earth first warms, then CO2 increases; the Earth cools, and CO2 decreases.
Perhaps you can educate me? Or is simply making a claim what passes for rational discussion and science with the /. crowd now?
Well over 90% of the CRU data was available. Just not in a convenient form for people that don't know how to gather it.
So if I release not all my data (just a large majority of it), and do it in a form that is not usable, then I've provided full disclosure? I assume you'll sign a contract that has 10% of the paragraphs missing and is in a code format that changes from section to section?
Again, the fact that data was knowingly withheld, and needed to have an FOIA issued to get at it, is the root problem. It is INHERENTLY not Scientific. At all. You cannot pick and choose which steps of the Scientific method you want to adhere to, and still call it science. Doesn't work that way.
It might be interesting work, and curious results, but it is NOT science. And trying to claim otherwise, and paper over the issue in the first place is about as unscientific - and purely political - as one can get. Pro or con AGW, we should ALL be upset with the CRU for their actions and their sullying of science and the Scientific method.
Oh, and as far as the roof goes - I did not trust the framers, carpenters, and roofers to do a good job - I had my own independent expert (an inspector) confirm that the data provided, and the method used, was in fact satisfactory. In fact, that's the law - you must have that independent certification and confirmation when having a new roof built. The roof-building industry itself is inherently skeptical, by statute.