The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..14..17..20..23..24~25~26 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-08-02 00:50, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 12:50, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland


As the guys on Mythbusters say, This ones Busted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20......her-data

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-r......ord.html

After investigating the claims made by SurfaceStations.org it was discovered that the bias (yes there was one) was for cooler temperature readings, not warmer

But thanks for playing


So you admit the data is wrong, and still call this good science? Are you making a joke? Don't you see that bad data for ANY REASON is bad data and bad methodology? If the other side of any arguement you make said something this crazy you would have at least a 5 paragraph responce littered with passive aggressive insults and belittiling comments.

This is the "science" John claims is sound? I guess by that you guys mean something you tend to agree with and will further your political views.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I like it how you guys consider those opinions who agree with you as "peer reviewed". The whole science of global climate nonsense is in question. Don't worry as I said the people have a short term memory problem. You guys with your friends in the media will have it back on top in no time.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Danny, I have used the phrase "peer reviewed" in its technical sense and in no other. And it has nothing to do with whether I agree with the article.

Do you have any meaningful contribution to the discussion, or are you simply going to continue with baseless accusations?

If you can find a single instance of my using the term "peer reviewed" in any sense other than the technical sense of all academic publishing, provide evidence.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-02 09:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Danny, I have used the phrase "peer reviewed" in its technical sense and in no other. And it has nothing to do with whether I agree with the article.

Do you have any meaningful contribution to the discussion, or are you simply going to continue with baseless accusations?

If you can find a single instance of my using the term "peer reviewed" in any sense other than the technical sense of all academic publishing, provide evidence and I'll retract.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
John, the idea that the articles are reviewed by those who agree with the premise in the first place, puts the whole concept of "peer reviewed" in question. You will never admit this though. Oh and it is not a baseless accusation sorry. It is an accusation made by many of those who have credentials who disagree with the concept of man made global climate change. You know, those you choose not to read.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
While passing the peer review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks,

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

Are these criticisms of the peer review system valid?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Of course they are, Tommy. Peer review means that you have met a minimum standard of evidence and analysis; it by no means guarantees truth.

The great thing about peer review is that it invites review. If you fail to meet the standard, you have to rewrite. If you get published, then your critics have to go through the same process to get their critiques aired.

In every living discipline there are ongoing debates, discussions, acceptances and rejections of current ideas. Peer review is likely the very best way to have this happen.

Contrast peer review with blogs (or the magic Café). There is no standard for evidence, and there is no responsibility to produce honest data or competent analysis. I could post something true about, say, climate here, but how much credibility should it have? Very little I would think. If I go through the rigours of peer-reviewed publication, it doesn't make me right; but it does put the ideas in a forum where informed debate and retesting of the data and analysis can be properly carried out.

The point of peer review isn't that it is perfect; the point is that it is responsible. Rather like a court of law.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Oh not even CLOSE John.

Are you telling me that global climate change has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty?

Are you telling me that each side is following strict rules of ethics with no agenda?

Are you saying there are not those who push the idea of climate chamge for their own benifit?

Indeed no John it is nothing like law. It should be, but hasn't been for quite some time.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
Quote:
On 2010-08-02 13:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
Oh not even CLOSE John.

Are you telling me that global climate change has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty?

Are you telling me that each side is following strict rules of ethics with no agenda?

Are you saying there are not those who push the idea of climate chamge for their own benifit?

Indeed no John it is nothing like law. It should be, but hasn't been for quite some time.


I don't agree with this at all. But giving the benefit of the doubt, what you are suggesting in its place is bedlam, with scientists with specific agendas posting directly to the public without peer review in order to influence public opinion.

At least in peer review, articles that are published are subject to review and challenge in the same journal. Everyone gets to watch the unfolding debate. If someone is proved to be wrong, his reputation will suffer for it.

That is why so many denier scientists hesitate to publish in peer reviewed articles.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5022 Posts

Profile of landmark
Glad to see we have a new candidate to vote for who will represent the views of the scamming class.

And in other news, Pop Hayden opened up his new campaign today.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

A word on peer review.

When you look at the peers who reviewed the work of the CRU, you see that peer review in this field, as in many scientific fields, is decidedly incestuous. The leading experts in the field review each other's papers; mentors review their students' papers; students review their mentors' papers; collaborators review each other's papers.

That's true in many fields, and it doesn't really matter all that much, unless you are a scientist whose data goes against the views of those who dominate the field, since most scientific fields are not asking the world's taxpayers to ante up trillions of dollars.

When you look at the history of the CRU climate model you find:

1) The data sets were created retrospectively.
2) The original data sets were massaged and changed and altered many times, and to make it worse, no records were kept of the changes that were made. There is no audit trail of the changes, and the original "original" data have in some cases disappeared.
3) The formulae used to derive the model from the data were adjusted with ad hoc corrections many times, and again, the records of those changes are at best incomplete. No systematic record was made, making it impossible for an outsider to check the results.
4) The authors are on record, in their own communications with each other, that they manipulated that data in order to make the findings come out the way they wanted them to come out.
5) The authors are on record, in their own communications with other, that they conspired to prevent alternative or dissenting interpretations and criticisms out of the scientific literature.

I work in a scientific field that is regulated by the Federal government. A scientist in my field who did the sorts of things that were done by the CRU would have his results rejected, be barred from ever again working in the field, and might very well spend time in the hoosegow.

If you want to see what a genuinely thorough audit of scientific conduct looks like, go to the FDA site and check out the records of disbarment proceedings against fraud-committing medical investigators who have been caught, convicted, and sentenced. The microscopic level of detail that an FDA investigation produces is the antithesis of the superficial blue-ribbon survey that the CRU scandal has received to date.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-02 13:42, Woland wrote:
John,

A word on peer review.

When you look at the peers who reviewed the work of the CRU, you see that peer review in this field, as in many scientific fields, is decidedly incestuous. The leading experts in the field review each other's papers; mentors review their students' papers; students review their mentors' papers; collaborators review each other's papers.

That's true in many fields, and it doesn't really matter all that much, unless you are a scientist whose data goes against the views of those who dominate the field, since most scientific fields are not asking the world's taxpayers to ante up trillions of dollars.


Woland have you ever been involved in the peer review process? I have and frankly, you don't have a clue.

Quote:
When you look at the history of the CRU climate model you find:

1) The data sets were created retrospectively.


Would you prefer they created data before they gathered it? What in the world are you talking about?

Quote:
2) The original data sets were massaged and changed and altered many times, and to make it worse, no records were kept of the changes that were made. There is no audit trail of the changes, and the original "original" data have in some cases disappeared.


This is an interesting assertion. Do you have any evidence of this? The fact is that their published papers are very explicit about how the data is handled. Have you read ANY of their published peer-reviewed papers? Do you have the mathematical competence to assess their data handling?

Quote:
3) The formulae used to derive the model from the data were adjusted with ad hoc corrections many times, and again, the records of those changes are at best incomplete. No systematic record was made, making it impossible for an outsider to check the results.


Where is your evidence of this? Tell me which formulae in which papers so I can look it up. All you are doing (still) is making accusations without bothering to provide a scrap of evidence.

Quote:
4) The authors are on record, in their own communications with each other, that they manipulated that data in order to make the findings come out the way they wanted them to come out.


More BS. This has been thoroughly discussed. But again, if you provide evidence we can talk about it. You are simply accusing without substance AGAIN.

Quote:
5) The authors are on record, in their own communications with other, that they conspired to prevent alternative or dissenting interpretations and criticisms out of the scientific literature.


This is more web gossip. The emails do not indicate this. Of course the independent inquiries (Have you read the Muir Russell report yet?) clear them of wrongdoing. My guess is that you will claim that the report is corrupt in some way.

Quote:
I work in a scientific field that is regulated by the Federal government. A scientist in my field who did the sorts of things that were done by the CRU would have his results rejected, be barred from ever again working in the field, and might very well spend time in the hoosegow.


If you are any kind of scientist you will have better regard for evidence and argumentation. The guys at the CRU (who, by the way are only a tiny fragment of the scientists working on the questions of climate change) were accused. They were cleared by an inquiry. What sort of dictatorship do you work for where the accused are stripped of their rights without fair hearings?

Quote:
If you want to see what a genuinely thorough audit of scientific conduct looks like, go to the FDA site and check out the records of disbarment proceedings against fraud-committing medical investigators who have been caught, convicted, and sentenced. The microscopic level of detail that an FDA investigation produces is the antithesis of the superficial blue-ribbon survey that the CRU scandal has received to date.

Woland


If you want relevant information read the Muir Russell report.

but honestly, Woland, you have shown no regard for evidence or analysis. You have done nothing but throw accusations. As soon as the accusations are challenged, you simply throw more dirt. Unless you provide something of substance, this is my last response to you.

good day

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

Thank you for your comments. You have chosen to disparage me and simply contradict me rather than address the points that I made. I will review the Muir Russell report and comment here within a few days.

Woland
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Beware fanatics Woland mi amigo
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Yeah, we scientific fanatics insist on evidence and coherent argumentation. We're such jerks.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
Notes should be made contemporaneously.

This is defined as an accurate record, made at the time, or as soon after the event as practicable. It is a record of relevant evidence which is seen, heard or done, by the maker of the note.

Any cop will tell you that John.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
And your point is, Tommy?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
Quote:

When you look at the history of the CRU climate model you find:

1) The data sets were created retrospectively.



Quote:
Would you prefer they created data before they gathered it? What in the world are you talking about?



If you made notes of an happening days after the event. what you would be doing is creating retrospective data. Such notes would not be as reliable as notes contemporaneously. You would not be allowed in a law court to use such notes as evidence. Cops carry note books to write the evidence in while its still fresh in their mind, contemporaneously, as the good scientist would do.


The nature of the work the climate science is problematic and tricky because they have to or are using old data which may or may not be as reliable and comparing with the reliable or more reliable contemporaneous data. It seems to me that Woody is merely suggesting if they only used the contemporaneous data it may give a truer or more picture of temperatures etc.

But as I never went to school I am not sure if that is what he does mean.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-08-02 14:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Yeah, we scientific fanatics insist on evidence and coherent argumentation. We're such jerks.

John


High horse is such a tough fall John.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Beware fanatics who pick and choose.

I officially give up on global warming. It is just a cottage industry.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..14..17..20..23..24~25~26 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL