What makes an authority? Someone who's claims have been shown to be correct. Can you say unequivocally if that authority does not share their data or methods to reach their conclusions? Science is supposed to be skeptical by nature; witness the fact we're STILL testing Einstein's theories to see if he was, in fact, correct. If we still skeptically test such an authority on the theory of relativity and physics, then why not those climate "scientists" (quotes on purpose, because of their refusal to adhere to the Scientific method) who do not share their data, their methods, or both?
This is, in fact, new research. And it should be a factor in reconsidering previously-reached conclusions. Are those conclusions still correct in light of new facts? A scientist would say "I'm not sure" and re-evaluate - scientists are supposed to be skeptical by nature. Someone with an agenda to push, however, will simply ignore the new data and say "the science is settled" and then hurl insults at the source of new data - basically behaving the exact opposite of how a scientist would actually behave.
In my field, acoustics, it's required. Same with high voltage research, and ultrasound research (I have been involved in both, in the private and public financed research sectors).
.
If you're not a skeptic of your own work, you're not a scientist. Science by its very nature is skeptical.
So you don't find it disturbing that ballots found weeks after the election, with no thorough chain of custody, were still included in the count? It's just as easy, perhaps easier, to cheat with paper ballots as it is electronically... But this is/. and the shiny techno-geek approach to voting is always the more suspect method.
Ok, you've destroyed tree ring proxies, now you need to move on to ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites.
The fact you want to characterize this as a "destroy" type issue shows you're not a scientist, and do not understand what the Scientific method is. It's quite simple - show ALL your data, show ALL your work, and then you can claim your result is correct. Failing to do either is, in the Scientific method, a de-facto refutation of your claims.
Science is really simple if you are honest, forthright, and follow the method. Doing what the CRU did - hiding data, hiding methods, claiming original data was "lost" - simply destroys their own credibility. The onus is upon the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their position true. That does not happen when you refuse to release ALL your data.
Yet, until this time, that could not be shown since the CRU data wasn't available... It's really simple, this isn't about the presence or absence of AGW - it's about good science. And it is NEVER good science to hold back your data. NEVER. That goes directly against the whole Scientific method.
How could the data be confirmed when - as this story indicates - not all of it was available? Guess what - if I provide you a pre-selected set of data, and tell you the model I used to fit that data, you'll get the same results as I did! That, of course, says nothing about how I pre-selected the data, or even what the original raw data was.
Tree ring widths are more affected by sheep than temperature. Much of the early concern regarding climate change was from the Mann (and later, Briffa and Jones) "hockey stick", which used a single bristlecone pine tree as the basis for temperature reconstructions.
.
Did that data set consider migratory patterns, or herding of local sheep/cows/yaks/whathaveyou? That alone could skew the results heavily one way or another. This is why you want to release ALL your data, because other scientists might find other causalities or variables in your data/models that you didn't originally anticipate.
Rather than demand acceptance of a theory, it's best to provide the data, welcome the skeptics, and use ALL the data to show what you did, why you did it, and what conclusions you reached. Hiding data, or hiding your modeling/screening methods simply breaks the fundamental approach of the Scientific method. You're left with something that might be interesting, but by definition - it's not scientific.
It's called the Scientific method. It's founded on the principles of skepticism and independent confirmation. Without access to the full and complete set of data used originally, then you cannot provide that independent confirmation. 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 usually don't reply to AC, but what the heck. All of the published methods were reproducible with established datasets, and the "massaging" process was also reproducible.
Thank you for confirming what the AC said. IF you use their pre-selected data set, then you will get their results. Surprise - that's what happens. Of course, as the AC contends, the data set was NOT the full set of data but a subset pre-selected. How was it pre-selected, what was the criteria? Was the selection valid?
If I take a sampling of the people I meet today, here in Shanghai, and exclude any of those who don't really meet my qualifications - let's say at least 1.8m tall and blonde - then after my extensive set of data is collected I will be able to justifiably conclude that only tall, blonde people live in Shanghai. Here - have my pre-selected and qualified data and see for yourself!
Yes and no. The data that was already released was the "reanalysis" data which is the culmination of many, many, many observations from all around the world.
Or, as in the case of the Briffa and Jones, from a single tree. Yes, hundreds of samples were taken, but all but one were excluded before reaching the conclusions that solidified the IPCC's position. A single tree.
I guess if you look at that same data set many, many, many times it could in some way qualify as "many, many, many observations"...
A name for people who see no reason to question the experts but question them anyway? I can think of several names for people like that. "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" is one of the more polite ones.
We used to call those people innovators and researchers and scientists.
Why should it take an FOIA to see the data in the first place? Publish your results, and publish ALL the data you collected and used, as well as the methods, in reaching your conclusions. Seems it would have stopped any of those FOIA requests before they even started.
The Droid 2 Global has dual CDMA and GSM radios, and it's extra thickness isn't a hindrance. Many HTC and Samsung phones have curved/bumped rears for components. If you want to put them in there, they can go - it just means you're willing to sacrifice some form for function. That's all.
Sorry, they were still finding unopened ballots in April 2005. It wasn't just '3 days' of ballot finding. Ballots "found" as late as December 17 - 6 weeks after the election - and still included in the final tally. And it was quite interesting that all of the found ballots were from King County, and - like you said - broke a lot heavier for Gregoire than the county in general.
.
You don't need e-Voting to steal elections - just "find" new ballots as needed. And when in doubt (remember the infamous write-in for Chris Rossi that was counted as a vote for Christine Gregoire over Dino Rossi?) just decide it the way you want...
The one rumor that made more sense than others was that the next iPhone would be both CDMA and GSM. It's a tricky bit of engineering but it would allow Apple to make only one kind of phone with variations on capacity.
Really not all that tricky. I still use a 2 year old HTC Touch Pro2 precisely because it is dual mode (CDMA and GSM). I'm Verizon in the US, and GSM in Asia (with local SIM cards).
I have an Android phone....
2. Too much fragmentation and no end of that in sight. Every manufacturer has a different version of the OS that's been vendorized. Sorry, not interested in that - I'll handle personalization myself.
Not with an iPhone, you won't. You'll get the user experience that Apple tells you you'll get, and nothing else.
It's hard to not gain a huge market share when you take the "buckshot" approach to your product line and release a new Android-powered device every single day.
Do you want quality, or do you want quantity? A single shotgun can put a dozen holes in a target in one shot, but an accomplished marksman with a rifle has the accuracy and precision that a doofus with a scattergun lacks.
And having all those PC makers and chip makers and board makers and HDD makers and display makers just ruins the quality of the computer market. So much better if all we had was IBM making all our PC decisions for us, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
What makes an authority? Someone who's claims have been shown to be correct. Can you say unequivocally if that authority does not share their data or methods to reach their conclusions? Science is supposed to be skeptical by nature; witness the fact we're STILL testing Einstein's theories to see if he was, in fact, correct. If we still skeptically test such an authority on the theory of relativity and physics, then why not those climate "scientists" (quotes on purpose, because of their refusal to adhere to the Scientific method) who do not share their data, their methods, or both?
Much like you just did.
If you're not a skeptic of your own work, you're not a scientist. Science by its very nature is skeptical.
So you don't find it disturbing that ballots found weeks after the election, with no thorough chain of custody, were still included in the count? It's just as easy, perhaps easier, to cheat with paper ballots as it is electronically... But this is /. and the shiny techno-geek approach to voting is always the more suspect method.
Ok, you've destroyed tree ring proxies, now you need to move on to ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites.
The fact you want to characterize this as a "destroy" type issue shows you're not a scientist, and do not understand what the Scientific method is. It's quite simple - show ALL your data, show ALL your work, and then you can claim your result is correct. Failing to do either is, in the Scientific method, a de-facto refutation of your claims.
Science is really simple if you are honest, forthright, and follow the method. Doing what the CRU did - hiding data, hiding methods, claiming original data was "lost" - simply destroys their own credibility. The onus is upon the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their position true. That does not happen when you refuse to release ALL your data.
Yet, until this time, that could not be shown since the CRU data wasn't available... It's really simple, this isn't about the presence or absence of AGW - it's about good science. And it is NEVER good science to hold back your data. NEVER. That goes directly against the whole Scientific method.
How could the data be confirmed when - as this story indicates - not all of it was available? Guess what - if I provide you a pre-selected set of data, and tell you the model I used to fit that data, you'll get the same results as I did! That, of course, says nothing about how I pre-selected the data, or even what the original raw data was.
So, you speak for all other scientists, even when we're just now getting the actual, raw data?
Did that data set consider migratory patterns, or herding of local sheep/cows/yaks/whathaveyou? That alone could skew the results heavily one way or another. This is why you want to release ALL your data, because other scientists might find other causalities or variables in your data/models that you didn't originally anticipate.
Rather than demand acceptance of a theory, it's best to provide the data, welcome the skeptics, and use ALL the data to show what you did, why you did it, and what conclusions you reached. Hiding data, or hiding your modeling/screening methods simply breaks the fundamental approach of the Scientific method. You're left with something that might be interesting, but by definition - it's not scientific.
Or is it better to just attack and hurl names at those who do what the Scientific method calls for - skeptical, independent confirmation?
Energy from sun is not in the infrared so CO2 has no effect.
Seriously? Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49% of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths I'd damn well call 49% a slight bit more than "no effect"...
I don't get the skepticism on slashdot.
It's called the Scientific method. It's founded on the principles of skepticism and independent confirmation. Without access to the full and complete set of data used originally, then you cannot provide that independent confirmation. 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.
The data was always widely available to any climatologist who wanted it.
Then what was just released, if it was always widely available? Pet rocks?
I usually don't reply to AC, but what the heck. All of the published methods were reproducible with established datasets, and the "massaging" process was also reproducible.
Thank you for confirming what the AC said. IF you use their pre-selected data set, then you will get their results. Surprise - that's what happens. Of course, as the AC contends, the data set was NOT the full set of data but a subset pre-selected. How was it pre-selected, what was the criteria? Was the selection valid?
If I take a sampling of the people I meet today, here in Shanghai, and exclude any of those who don't really meet my qualifications - let's say at least 1.8m tall and blonde - then after my extensive set of data is collected I will be able to justifiably conclude that only tall, blonde people live in Shanghai. Here - have my pre-selected and qualified data and see for yourself!
Yes and no. The data that was already released was the "reanalysis" data which is the culmination of many, many, many observations from all around the world.
Or, as in the case of the Briffa and Jones, from a single tree. Yes, hundreds of samples were taken, but all but one were excluded before reaching the conclusions that solidified the IPCC's position. A single tree.
I guess if you look at that same data set many, many, many times it could in some way qualify as "many, many, many observations"...
A name for people who see no reason to question the experts but question them anyway? I can think of several names for people like that. "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" is one of the more polite ones.
We used to call those people innovators and researchers and scientists.
To a layman? Sure. To another scientist or, when dealing with modeling, a mathematician? We're seeing otherwise...
Why should it take an FOIA to see the data in the first place? Publish your results, and publish ALL the data you collected and used, as well as the methods, in reaching your conclusions. Seems it would have stopped any of those FOIA requests before they even started.
The Droid 2 Global has dual CDMA and GSM radios, and it's extra thickness isn't a hindrance. Many HTC and Samsung phones have curved/bumped rears for components. If you want to put them in there, they can go - it just means you're willing to sacrifice some form for function. That's all.
THIS IS SLASHDOT!
So... Form over function?
You don't need e-Voting to steal elections - just "find" new ballots as needed. And when in doubt (remember the infamous write-in for Chris Rossi that was counted as a vote for Christine Gregoire over Dino Rossi?) just decide it the way you want...
The one rumor that made more sense than others was that the next iPhone would be both CDMA and GSM. It's a tricky bit of engineering but it would allow Apple to make only one kind of phone with variations on capacity.
Really not all that tricky. I still use a 2 year old HTC Touch Pro2 precisely because it is dual mode (CDMA and GSM). I'm Verizon in the US, and GSM in Asia (with local SIM cards).
I have an Android phone....
2. Too much fragmentation and no end of that in sight. Every manufacturer has a different version of the OS that's been vendorized. Sorry, not interested in that - I'll handle personalization myself.
Not with an iPhone, you won't. You'll get the user experience that Apple tells you you'll get, and nothing else.
It's hard to not gain a huge market share when you take the "buckshot" approach to your product line and release a new Android-powered device every single day.
Do you want quality, or do you want quantity? A single shotgun can put a dozen holes in a target in one shot, but an accomplished marksman with a rifle has the accuracy and precision that a doofus with a scattergun lacks.
And having all those PC makers and chip makers and board makers and HDD makers and display makers just ruins the quality of the computer market. So much better if all we had was IBM making all our PC decisions for us, eh?