So staggeringly complex that people like Jones (who is mathematically at least, and definitely ethically imho challenged) don't think that it's worth their while working with those who could help them do better computer modeling as well as statistical analysis.
That and I do wonder, seeing as Climate Science is only about 30 years old that they are being more than a little bit arrogant that they "get it" and have fully developed understandings. After all, most science has taken a lot longer than that to get anywhere near to a decent level of understanding.
It wasn't all that long ago when dear old Bil Gates et al were claiming in front of the DoJ that giving anyone (their competitors) access to Windows code would be a threat to national security. Fast forward to now and it appears that either the truth changed a whole lot or for some reason national security interests are served by giving China and Russia and who knows, maybe even the French access to Windows source.
The new Windows, our most secure OS ever!! Well...
a) PC's are now a mature technology, and there's little new/innovative going on with them. At best a slow evolution and a marketplace for developers that is saturated. b) Growth areas in software development are happening where Microsoft is not a presence worth a second look. People go where the jobs are, and Microsoft isn't where that is. c) Their recent attempts at reinventing themselves have been major crash and burns. No one likes jumping on the back of a crashing and burning vehicle.
Anyhow, one day they will wake up and realize they've painted themselves into a corner and have no clue how to get out. Who knew they were going to be a chunky niche player.
There's an awful lot of absolute rubbish being passed off as science, by scientists. Having seen the bollocks that some people with more phD's than they deserve have come up with, it's hardly surprising people at large are noticing and calling foul.
That and all too much of what passes for science seems to be being done to make a fast megabuck or few, rather than being done for reasons like, "I wonder what would happen if..." or "I think this wee thingy works like this..." People quite rightly don't trust corporations, especially when their quarterly results or the chance to corner a market are concerned, so why would anyone trust corporate sponsored "science?"
Sure there is good science being done, but there's way too much dross out there, and people do notice.
Your whole "it's too hard for outsiders to understand" thesis is bollocks. The end point of science is to make stuff understandable. If it can't then it isn't science.
It's the behaviour of Jones, the IPCC clique et al playing fast and loose with ethics, data, and presenting unsupported assertions (such as the Himalayas all melted away) etc. Remember for a moment that none of the emails, or the revelations about IPCC reports have have been found to be fabrications.
Also note that there have been numerous statisticians of note who reckon their processes are rubbish. Not to mention the Russian and other climate scientists who reckon the AGW idea is that of a bunch of numpties who don't know what they're doing.
That's the problem, particularly the ethically challenged behaviour of Jones and his immediate clique.
If you found this such a good thing, then what made you step away from teaching?
Could you have coped with your Watts experience year after year? Do you think you'd have coped, got better, or got worse, or just plain burnt out?
Which of course makes a nonsense of the likes of CRU resisting any and all attempts for anyone to get hold of anything they have (data, code, etc). So, who does one ask?
Oddly enough you fail to realize that the "basic science" is inherently tied to the successes and failures of the people who do the work. The greater their screw ups the greater concern there should be about what they profess to be good science.
That and it's not just one person (Jones) who's been proved to be out in left field, it's a large number. Adding to that, there's an awful lot of what they were professing as "good science" that has been debunked. So, to hear people spouting on about how that all doesn't matter and that "the science is settled" is just vomitous.
If the same thing happened to Microsoft, for example they could have said, "We offer you cash to provide proof that Microsoft has done [insert random suspicious act here], but please try to do it legally."
Well, I wonder how fast Microsoft's lawyers would have been loosed on whoever made that offer.
Which of course waves away the observation that more than a few million computers got zoinked with Confiker and its variants.
Ah well, I guess if it's only a couple of million then it must be over-rated.
That and you're hardly likely to get a person, be they kid or adult, to respond that they were atrocious at writing, or for that matter atrocious at anything. At best you'd get a neutral response, or something like, "Well, I'm not Shakespeare, but I get by."
Also, I wonder if the people running the study had considered that way too many colleges have to run remedial English classes to incoming students who's first language is English. Well, some of those are American;) But they don't count. It's the English that can't speak, read and write English at all well that's a bit more of a concern. Suffice to say, if University students are horrible at English, then it's somewhat safe to say that the general population is worse than those heading into degree studies.
Dude, you're really in denial of what happened as revealed by the emails and code.
It is a little more than hard to "take out of context" requests to delete email and data to avoid complying with a FOI request. And then there's the "No way will I hand over 25 years of my work" response to another FOI act request. Then there's the pushing to get a journal editor dismissed because he isn't on side with them.
Acting like that it would be a comparatively easy task to "settle the science" that the Earth is actually flat, and remove the possibility of dissent. Bad behaviour like Jones, the CRU and their "associates" is what holds back science. Seriously, if they "grew a pair" and were prepared to accept review and critique of their work by people who they didn't like then they'd be better scientists, rather than the tossers that they are being revealed as.
What science?
So far from the leaked stuff we have deleted data, that apparently can't be resurrected, massively fudged code, on up to the withholding of data requested under the FOI act as well as massive amounts of unethical and vindictive behaviour towards anyone who would hold an opposing, or even differing view.
Science is supposed to be open, not this closed "trust us" we're cleverer than you and/or the "deniers" BS.
This global warming that is far worse than thought back in 1999, is it actual data, or is it from models?
I ask, because the conclusions being drawn by all and sundry seem to be basing what the models say as fact, as opposed to a showing of unadjusted, unadulterated data.
Apart from that, even if the AGW lobby is right, there is still the issue of the atrocious and unethical behaviour of the folk at East Anglia to be answered for. Being right doesn't give you the right to do your science badly, and to behave unethically.
No, as they (Exxon et al) are in to get a grip load of money to fund their energy providing tools for the future. After all, they are in a far better position to know when the oil and gas are going to run out than the rest of us. So, if they support AGW then they stand to gain big time by getting support to solve the "AGW problem."
In case it had escaped you, they're in it for the pride. They will not be proved wrong, no matter what. For them the science has long since become irrelevant.
Even if they are right, it doesn't excuse them their unethical and illegal (in terms of not responding to FOI act requests) behaviour.
Hopefully they will lose their positions so people can do the real science and do it in an unsullied manner.
As it's common knowledge that there was and is a lot of annoyance and extra work involved in going to the last office, so either you'd have to be very critical of Microsoft for laying that extra cost on their customers or you'd have to give IBM a pass on what you assume is a 2 week cost.
If they had blown up a nuclear reactor, or stolen a nuclear submarine.
But no, they had to show their power in vandalizing an AM tower. What next? FM!
That and they probably tootled off to microwave a late night snack after their efforts.
I still don't get why Dell, HP and whoever else aren't suing Microsoft for lost income. You know, kind of like the charges against Boeing for the repeated delays of their "dreamliner" for those who ordered them but still haven't got them.
Americans are loose with the English language. They seem to want to get rid of the letter "u" too you know, unless it appears in situations where they can obnoxiously abuse it.
What disturbs me most is that there are quite a few people in the US that do this "loose" thing that have degrees in English!
But hey, the US is the land of "more better funner" so what can you expect.
Slashdot Mirror
So staggeringly complex that people like Jones (who is mathematically at least, and definitely ethically imho challenged) don't think that it's worth their while working with those who could help them do better computer modeling as well as statistical analysis.
That and I do wonder, seeing as Climate Science is only about 30 years old that they are being more than a little bit arrogant that they "get it" and have fully developed understandings. After all, most science has taken a lot longer than that to get anywhere near to a decent level of understanding.
It wasn't all that long ago when dear old Bil Gates et al were claiming in front of the DoJ that giving anyone (their competitors) access to Windows code would be a threat to national security. Fast forward to now and it appears that either the truth changed a whole lot or for some reason national security interests are served by giving China and Russia and who knows, maybe even the French access to Windows source.
The new Windows, our most secure OS ever!! Well...
They are missing the point that:
a) PC's are now a mature technology, and there's little new/innovative going on with them. At best a slow evolution and a marketplace for developers that is saturated.
b) Growth areas in software development are happening where Microsoft is not a presence worth a second look. People go where the jobs are, and Microsoft isn't where that is.
c) Their recent attempts at reinventing themselves have been major crash and burns. No one likes jumping on the back of a crashing and burning vehicle.
Anyhow, one day they will wake up and realize they've painted themselves into a corner and have no clue how to get out. Who knew they were going to be a chunky niche player.
There's an awful lot of absolute rubbish being passed off as science, by scientists. Having seen the bollocks that some people with more phD's than they deserve have come up with, it's hardly surprising people at large are noticing and calling foul.
That and all too much of what passes for science seems to be being done to make a fast megabuck or few, rather than being done for reasons like, "I wonder what would happen if..." or "I think this wee thingy works like this..." People quite rightly don't trust corporations, especially when their quarterly results or the chance to corner a market are concerned, so why would anyone trust corporate sponsored "science?"
Sure there is good science being done, but there's way too much dross out there, and people do notice.
To do some serious lobbying, so this "clearly incorrect and patently unfair" court decision can be done away with.
That or there will be chairs flying towards Quebec.
Your whole "it's too hard for outsiders to understand" thesis is bollocks. The end point of science is to make stuff understandable. If it can't then it isn't science.
It's the behaviour of Jones, the IPCC clique et al playing fast and loose with ethics, data, and presenting unsupported assertions (such as the Himalayas all melted away) etc. Remember for a moment that none of the emails, or the revelations about IPCC reports have have been found to be fabrications.
Also note that there have been numerous statisticians of note who reckon their processes are rubbish. Not to mention the Russian and other climate scientists who reckon the AGW idea is that of a bunch of numpties who don't know what they're doing.
That's the problem, particularly the ethically challenged behaviour of Jones and his immediate clique.
If you found this such a good thing, then what made you step away from teaching? Could you have coped with your Watts experience year after year? Do you think you'd have coped, got better, or got worse, or just plain burnt out?
But recorded weather (oddly enough) makes up the data points in terms of climate.
Which of course makes a nonsense of the likes of CRU resisting any and all attempts for anyone to get hold of anything they have (data, code, etc). So, who does one ask?
Oddly enough you fail to realize that the "basic science" is inherently tied to the successes and failures of the people who do the work. The greater their screw ups the greater concern there should be about what they profess to be good science. That and it's not just one person (Jones) who's been proved to be out in left field, it's a large number. Adding to that, there's an awful lot of what they were professing as "good science" that has been debunked. So, to hear people spouting on about how that all doesn't matter and that "the science is settled" is just vomitous.
If the same thing happened to Microsoft, for example they could have said, "We offer you cash to provide proof that Microsoft has done [insert random suspicious act here], but please try to do it legally." Well, I wonder how fast Microsoft's lawyers would have been loosed on whoever made that offer.
Which of course waves away the observation that more than a few million computers got zoinked with Confiker and its variants. Ah well, I guess if it's only a couple of million then it must be over-rated.
If he lost that, he'd clearly be in the running for the peace prize. Even if he did nothing for it.
Either global warming, or one of the CRU unit paying the price in a flashy manner for their apparent misdeeds. Who knew...
That and you're hardly likely to get a person, be they kid or adult, to respond that they were atrocious at writing, or for that matter atrocious at anything. At best you'd get a neutral response, or something like, "Well, I'm not Shakespeare, but I get by." Also, I wonder if the people running the study had considered that way too many colleges have to run remedial English classes to incoming students who's first language is English. Well, some of those are American ;) But they don't count. It's the English that can't speak, read and write English at all well that's a bit more of a concern. Suffice to say, if University students are horrible at English, then it's somewhat safe to say that the general population is worse than those heading into degree studies.
Dude, you're really in denial of what happened as revealed by the emails and code. It is a little more than hard to "take out of context" requests to delete email and data to avoid complying with a FOI request. And then there's the "No way will I hand over 25 years of my work" response to another FOI act request. Then there's the pushing to get a journal editor dismissed because he isn't on side with them. Acting like that it would be a comparatively easy task to "settle the science" that the Earth is actually flat, and remove the possibility of dissent. Bad behaviour like Jones, the CRU and their "associates" is what holds back science. Seriously, if they "grew a pair" and were prepared to accept review and critique of their work by people who they didn't like then they'd be better scientists, rather than the tossers that they are being revealed as.
What science? So far from the leaked stuff we have deleted data, that apparently can't be resurrected, massively fudged code, on up to the withholding of data requested under the FOI act as well as massive amounts of unethical and vindictive behaviour towards anyone who would hold an opposing, or even differing view. Science is supposed to be open, not this closed "trust us" we're cleverer than you and/or the "deniers" BS.
This global warming that is far worse than thought back in 1999, is it actual data, or is it from models? I ask, because the conclusions being drawn by all and sundry seem to be basing what the models say as fact, as opposed to a showing of unadjusted, unadulterated data. Apart from that, even if the AGW lobby is right, there is still the issue of the atrocious and unethical behaviour of the folk at East Anglia to be answered for. Being right doesn't give you the right to do your science badly, and to behave unethically.
No, as they (Exxon et al) are in to get a grip load of money to fund their energy providing tools for the future. After all, they are in a far better position to know when the oil and gas are going to run out than the rest of us. So, if they support AGW then they stand to gain big time by getting support to solve the "AGW problem."
In case it had escaped you, they're in it for the pride. They will not be proved wrong, no matter what. For them the science has long since become irrelevant. Even if they are right, it doesn't excuse them their unethical and illegal (in terms of not responding to FOI act requests) behaviour. Hopefully they will lose their positions so people can do the real science and do it in an unsullied manner.
As it's common knowledge that there was and is a lot of annoyance and extra work involved in going to the last office, so either you'd have to be very critical of Microsoft for laying that extra cost on their customers or you'd have to give IBM a pass on what you assume is a 2 week cost.
If they had blown up a nuclear reactor, or stolen a nuclear submarine. But no, they had to show their power in vandalizing an AM tower. What next? FM! That and they probably tootled off to microwave a late night snack after their efforts.
I still don't get why Dell, HP and whoever else aren't suing Microsoft for lost income. You know, kind of like the charges against Boeing for the repeated delays of their "dreamliner" for those who ordered them but still haven't got them.
Try... http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/176685.asp
Americans are loose with the English language. They seem to want to get rid of the letter "u" too you know, unless it appears in situations where they can obnoxiously abuse it. What disturbs me most is that there are quite a few people in the US that do this "loose" thing that have degrees in English! But hey, the US is the land of "more better funner" so what can you expect.