Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 239
  1. #21
    IncGamers Member vdzele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,482

    Re: Global WarmingGate




    I like the CNBC host. Very good trained.




    World Government for your own good.



    Dr Tim Ball



    Last edited by vdzele; 25-11-2009 at 08:04.

  2. #22
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,219

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    A lot of people with no clue draw a lot of conclusions from sources which they don't seem to understand. It just seems to be about beating the drum loudly enough to make it look like a conspiracy of evil pro-global warming scientists. As long as people don't understand the background, a lot of them will believe the most convenient explanation or what's said by the loudest faction.

    Regarding the "adjusted data" in KillerAim's link, it's pretty normal to adjust data (surprise!) for a long term analysis if their measurement has not been consistent over the time. You might even call it hiding the discrepancies. For example, if you measured body temperature with a quicksilver thermometer in your butt in the past and then compare it with newer data from an infrared thermometer, you will have to introduce a "butt/infrared corellation coefficient" to bring the data in line, else you would compare apples with oranges.

    The problem is that most people don't understand what scientists are really doing, so the issue can easily be abused to produce conspiracy theories about evil scientists. In order to understand what they do, you have to be a scientist yourself which might make you a supporter of that conspiracy. That sounds like a witch trial.

    With the invention of the quicksilver thermometer (17th or 18th century), temperature is measured regularly, at least in Europe. Data from before that might be concluded from tree rings, from air enclosed in clacial ice or whatever you can draw conclusions from. You will have to make adjustments to corellate data. It's similar to calibrating the instruments. I don't know why tree rings aren't used for data after 1960. Maybe they have to settle for some time before you can compare them with older tree rings or draw conclusions at all with a satisfying accuracy. Does anybody know more about that?

    I'm not 100% convinced about global warming and I'm guessing a bit about this, but other people are guessing as well. The difference is that a few of them aren't just asking questions as a consequence, but make statements despite their lack of knowledge, as if they already know the truth. Perhaps you have no other chance than that, but then you shouldn't simply pay attention to the loudest faction or to the opinion which suits your personal goals or your official point of view the most.



    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  3. #23
    IncGamers Member TheOgreMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,195

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    Really, the only thing that's crystal clear to me from this "leak" thus far, is that the team in question was very antagonistic towards people who wanted their data. It may be understandable, given how much flak they probably got from the other side of the debate, but it's unfortunate all the same.
    Virtually all scientists are antagonistic towards people who want their data before it is ready to be published. Part of it is the public not totally understanding the meanings, but a large part is that they don't want other scientists to take their work and use it as their own. Whoever publishes first gets the credit.

    Hell, the doctor I work for hides everything from people outside the lab until it is published, and only 10-15 labs in the world are capable of possibly reproducing the results (limited by expensive technology).




  4. #24

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerAim View Post
    SaroDarksbane:

    But that's the fact that the initial article emphasized. Until around the 1960's and later, the collection of temperature from recording devices was haphazard at best. Recordings were initially taken just once a day, then when there were multiple readings, they were not taken at consistent times. As soon as there were more accurate readings, the correlation between the size of tree rings and temperature became suspect. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that any temperature estimate that is based on the size of tree rings should be rejected? And isn't almost the entire historical evidence for global warming based exactly on such data?
    So what is the "pretty damning" part? Is it the fact that they used the words "trick" and "hide" (as claimed in the link), or the fact that they used the tree ring data at all (which was common knowledge, and thus not news to anybody)? You can argue all you want about whether or not the data they used is valid, but I fail to see how these emails provide anything new and "damning" to latch on to. The "smoking gun" seems to be more like a "moving target" at this point.

    Besides which (and I could be wrong here), the tree ring data does not appear to represent a significant portion of the collected/used data.

    I'm just not seeing the controversy here.



    ------------------------------------------
    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  5. #25
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    I would assume that temperature readings for years past are sporadic and come from many different sources, each with different measurements and/or methodologies, and they are trying to fit these disparate series of data into a single chart or model, which would, of course, have quite a few limitations such as the one this comment attempts to explain.
    Perhaps you've misunderstood the nature of the "trick" - there <are> apparently additional data points, and they have deliberately omitted them because they undercut their predetermined conclusion. Is that "science"? Or fraud?
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    It may be understandable, given how much flak they probably got from the other side of the debate, but it's unfortunate all the same.
    How is it understandable to hide your data from others via criminal fraud, if you are on the up & up?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOgreMan View Post
    Virtually all scientists are antagonistic towards people who want their data before it is ready to be published.
    Where is this assumed for these scientists, considering their data is one of the four base sets used by the IPCC? And if I hadn't mentioned it before, another of the base sets referenced has already been destroyed... 'oopsie'.
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    I'm just not seeing the controversy here.
    Yah, well... :rolleyes:




  6. #26
    Banned Johnny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Down Louisiana close to New Orleans
    Posts
    9,113

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    they have deliberately omitted them because they undercut their predetermined conclusion. Is that "science"? Or fraud?
    Actually that's religion.




  7. #27

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Perhaps you've misunderstood the nature of the "trick" - there <are> apparently additional data points, and they have deliberately omitted them because they undercut their predetermined conclusion. Is that "science"? Or fraud?
    The "divergence" in the tree ring data has been under discussion for (I gather) over 10 years now. This is hardly some new development that the CRU is trying to bury, nor is it shocking news that the pre-1960 data was included in the charts.

    As KillerAim did, you may, of course, argue that data previous to 1960 can also not be considered accurate. I don't know enough about this "divergence" or expert opinion on the matter to say. I don't however, see any indication of fraud here, beyond allegations from people with their own "predetermined conclusion".
    How is it understandable to hide your data from others via criminal fraud, if you are on the up & up?
    (I like how you phrase that question. Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife? )

    With respect to their data, however . . . As I understand it, they have published everything that can data-wise. There is apparently also some paid-access data that was donated to them on the condition that they not share it with third parties that prevents them from distributing that with the rest. Their reluctance to share (especially when they did so eventually) is not proof of fraud.

    The only part so far that I find questionable is the deletion of emails. That seems more than a bit sketchy, and I'd like to see more analysis of that, rather than the other non-issues that people are up in arms about.

    Yah, well... :rolleyes:
    As expected. My view of the reality would be completely blown if you didn't respond with such a reaction. Now all we need is Glurin in here to complain loudly about all the scientific evidence against GW that is being quashed by the "libruls", and then spectacularly fail to reference or cite any. Perhaps he can also include some of his fabulous "I don't need to point out flaws. They point themselves out" arguments that are so helpful to the debate.

    Then, and only then, will all the expected players fall into place.



    ------------------------------------------
    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  8. #28
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    Actually that's religion.
    Religion presupposes bias, and claims to use pretty much the opposite of the scientific method.
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    The "divergence" in the tree ring data has been under discussion for (I gather) over 10 years now. This is hardly some new development that the CRU is trying to bury, nor is it shocking news that the pre-1960 data was included in the charts.
    Then why would you excuse cherry-picking of said data, in that they <exclude> the other data points (supposedly for the sake of accuracy) even in the computer models?
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    I don't however, see any indication of fraud here, beyond allegations from people with their own "predetermined conclusion".
    (Yah, well... :rolleyes squared. WTF do you call illegal attempts to avoid FOIA requests (aka subpoenas) about their published claims?
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    As I understand it, they have published everything that can data-wise.
    Bull-feckin-shiite. They refused to publish the base data, and destroyed at least parts of it. Now THAT's science!
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    There is apparently also some paid-access data that was donated to them on the condition that they not share it with third parties that prevents them from distributing that with the rest. Their reluctance to share (especially when they did so eventually) is not proof of fraud.
    If this was even remotely true, then they committed breach of contract by destroying the donated data. DATA, not e-mails.
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    Now all we need is Glurin in here to complain loudly about all the scientific evidence against GW that is being quashed by the "libruls", and then spectacularly fail to reference or cite any.
    Of course, the fact that this is patent proof of such efforts obviously escaped you. Because you're right, and anyone who says otherwise is a scheming ebildoer who shouldn't be allowed a forum to air such claims ("you" being used for illustrative purposes).




  9. #29
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: Global WarmingGate


  10. #30

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Then why would you excuse cherry-picking of said data, in that they <exclude> the other data points (supposedly for the sake of accuracy) even in the computer models?
    I'm really not seeing the problem here. Like I said before, you'd be perfectly reasonable to make the argument (like KillerAim did) that the pre-1960 is also not valid and thus should not be included, but if they know the post-1960 data isn't, why would they include it?
    WTF do you call illegal attempts to avoid FOIA requests (aka subpoenas) about their published claims?
    Can you cite the illegal attempts?
    Bull-feckin-shiite. They refused to publish the base data, and destroyed at least parts of it. Now THAT's science!
    If you are talking about your previous link, they have responded. Also, your timeline seems to be off. The (allegedly ~5%) data in question was deleted (due to problems like urban warming trends) before the report was released. This is not a case of:
    Good Scientist: "Can I see the data?"
    Evil Scientist: "NO!" *SMASH SMASH*
    If this was even remotely true, then they committed breach of contract by destroying the donated data. DATA, not e-mails.
    First, I was under the impression that they simply scrubbed the proprietary data from what they finally released, rather then destroy it. Do you know differently? Second, why do you see that as breach of contract?
    Of course, the fact that this is patent proof of such efforts obviously escaped you.
    It hasn't "escaped me" so much as "failed to materialize" from my vantage point. To people who believe their views are being suppressed, I'm sure they will read into it what they want to. This is no different than any other subject, really.

    I denounce neither GW advocates nor skeptics simply for their opinion. I don't believe that GW criticism should be suppressed or that GW theory critics should be shunned, treated as criminals, or any other such ridiculous notion. I would be extremely happy if GW ended up becoming something to laugh about in a few years like the Y2K hysteria.

    So far, however, I have seen a distinct lack of scientific argument used to refute the GW advocates' claims. Most of it seems to be accusations of corruption\bribery\malice, unsubstantiated rumors, and now the lowest of all forms of criticism, the out of context soundbite (or in this case, textbite).

    I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs about the subject, and I ascribe to you no ulterior motives. From my standpoint, however, the side I have to pick (for the moment) is quite clear.



    ------------------------------------------
    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •