News Flash : Global Warming Scientists employ bad science pr

Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:55 pm   

On Sep 5, 5:07 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

I didn't say the code was poorly written, I said they cheated. They
changed the calculations to make the output support their hypothesis.

Code that says
fudge_factor = manual_constant * years_elapsed
print "predicted temp ="; modeled_temp + fudge_factor

isn't inept, it's dishonest.

For example they added in manual fudge-factors with comments to the
effect that "I had to do this, otherwise our data and model don't
produce the warming we want."

We discussed all this already.

They also dumped their raw data. Maybe you'd support performing
multiple mystery manual selections and transformations on various data
sets, not keeping track of which datasets had been modified how, by
how much, or transformed how many times, then discarding the original
and intermediate data sets to use the resulting output as if it were
raw data.

Well, support it you must, because that's what they did.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:48 am   

On Sep 5, 10:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

contains the comment "In an editorial, Myles Allen wrote that contrary
to its treatment by some commentators the code was entirely
pedagogical and was not used for any research or analysis associated
with the scientific publications showing the existence of global
warming.[39] "

Reference [39]is to " Myles Allen (11 December 2009). "Science
forgotten in climate emails fuss | Comment is free". London: The
Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones.
Retrieved 2010-01-05."

Myles Allan will certainly know more about the subject than you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Allen

In other words, bad code written by graduate students learning to
master that aspect of their work.


You have pontificated about what you'd like the hacked data to mean.
You seem to think that reiterating your ideologically based
certainties constitutes some kind of discussion, when in fact it is
merely spreading crude propaganda.


The raw data doesn't appear to have formed any part of the 160 MB of
data hacked from the University of East Anglia server (which isn't a
great deal of data - I routinely swap ten times as much between my
desk-top machine and my lap-top whenever I go to Australia and come
back). It seems unlikely that the "raw data" would have been stored
where graduate students could have dumped it, and correspondingly
likely that the "raw data" that the graduate students were dumping was
merely a copy of properly archived material that the graduate students
had been given to play with.


As a pedagogic excercise carried out on throw-away copies of the raw
data. Back in the late 1960's I was pretty paranoid about preserving
the raw data that I'd generated. I can still tell you where the
original paper tapes and the punched cards that I generated from them
ought to be. The magnetic tape that carried the same data belonged to
the Chemistry Department, and I don't know what they did with it after
I'd got my Ph.D. I can't imagine that the climate researchers are any
less paranoid, and the fact that you can think that they'd "throw
away" the original data is pretty clear evidence that you don't have a
clue about academic scholarship in action.


That's what it suits you to think they did. In reality, you are
looking at a sandpit, and trying to persuade us that the mud pies you
have found are representative of the serious scientific output of the
department involved.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:00 am   

On Sep 5, 2:31 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Since the IPCC was put together to report on the published literature
and publish their conclusions in a form that was accessible to the
public, it's difficult to see how you can describe their jobs anything
other than reviewing the literature.

The IAC's report is a review of the IPCC's performance as reviewers.

The NY Post's item on the IAC report isn't a review but an opinion
piece, fairly obviously written by someone who doesn't know enough to
have an informed opinion, but with an obvious denialist political bias
- one that you mayy not recognise as a bias, as you happen to share
it.


They do. If you knew anything about the science involved - as opposed
to knowing what you like to think about the science involved - you'd
be aware of how utterly moronic this statement happens to be.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen