|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Jul 27, 2011 20:17:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 28, 2011 9:56:19 GMT
It's a good one.
Definition of the scientific process: Hypothesise that the surface station network is contaminated. Do detailed review and classification of surface station network. Compare trends of different quality stations after accounting for different geographical coverage. Report the results.
Definition of throwing mud: Declare that most surface stations are beyond useless, that the people who run the network are clueless dunderheads, that the people who analyse the data know it is fraudulent and don't care, that the boss of the people who analyse the data is an evil terrorist. Conduct a PR campaign to advertise the worst stations. Do detailed review and classification of surface station network. Compare trends of different quality stations after accounting for different geographical coverage. Having found that there is no difference in trend delay results as much as possible to extend PR campaign while condemning those who use the data to counter the PR campaign as "not following scientific protocols". Meanwhile find a scrap of interesting data in the results and declare that was all that you were interested in anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 28, 2011 14:07:28 GMT
It's a good one. Definition of the scientific process: Hypothesise that the surface station network is contaminated. Do detailed review and classification of surface station network. Compare trends of different quality stations after accounting for different geographical coverage. Report the results. Definition of throwing mud: Declare that most surface stations are beyond useless, that the people who run the network are clueless dunderheads, that the people who analyse the data know it is fraudulent and don't care, that the boss of the people who analyse the data is an evil terrorist. Conduct a PR campaign to advertise the worst stations. Do detailed review and classification of surface station network. Compare trends of different quality stations after accounting for different geographical coverage. Having found that there is no difference in trend delay results as much as possible to extend PR campaign while condemning those who use the data to counter the PR campaign as "not following scientific protocols". Meanwhile find a scrap of interesting data in the results and declare that was all that you were interested in anyway. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is PR to consider. - Phil Jones Considering Nature published the hockey stick fraud (among others), refused to publish dissenting views, then continued to publish more of the same garbage, pretty much shoots down their Bart Simpson defense. You are a drone steve, and the fact there is no evidence to support your oft repeated claims speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 28, 2011 14:42:22 GMT
It's a good one. Definition of the scientific process: Hypothesise that the surface station network is contaminated. Do detailed review and classification of surface station network. Compare trends of different quality stations after accounting for different geographical coverage. Report the results. Definition of throwing mud: Declare that most surface stations are beyond useless, that the people who run the network are clueless dunderheads, that the people who analyse the data know it is fraudulent and don't care, that the boss of the people who analyse the data is an evil terrorist. Conduct a PR campaign to advertise the worst stations. Do detailed review and classification of surface station network. Compare trends of different quality stations after accounting for different geographical coverage. Having found that there is no difference in trend delay results as much as possible to extend PR campaign while condemning those who use the data to counter the PR campaign as "not following scientific protocols". Meanwhile find a scrap of interesting data in the results and declare that was all that you were interested in anyway. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is PR to consider. - Phil Jones Considering Nature published the hockey stick fraud (among others), refused to publish dissenting views, then continued to publish more of the same garbage, pretty much shoots down their Bart Simpson defense.
You are a drone steve, and the fact there is no evidence to support your oft repeated claims speaks volumes. I'd like to know what government agency he works for. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 28, 2011 15:32:24 GMT
Good example of mud throwing, magellan.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 28, 2011 15:58:48 GMT
Definition of throwing mud: Declare that most surface stations are beyond useless, that the people who run the network are clueless dunderheads, that the people who analyse the data know it is fraudulent and don't care, that the boss of the people who analyse the data is an evil terrorist.
Add to the above! Suggest somebody did that without producing any evidence.
For example, since it was found that essentially nobody was actually "running the network" I think the dunderhead was the government itself and Anthony proved it. (assuming anybody but Steve actually used that term)
Conduct a PR campaign to advertise the worst stations.
This is known as lobbying Steve. Trying to get the government to do what one believes they should do. I think all sides of this debate avail themselves of this tactic. Hmmmmmm. . . . . mudslinging? LOL!
That kind of makes the IPCC a bunch of mudslingers doesn't it?
Do detailed review and classification of surface station network. Compare trends of different quality stations after accounting for different geographical coverage. Having found that there is no difference in trend delay results as much as possible to extend PR campaign while condemning those who use the data to counter the PR campaign as "not following scientific protocols". Meanwhile find a scrap of interesting data in the results and declare that was all that you were interested in anyway.
I think this is called taking the bull by the horns Steve.
More should do this. The accusations of delay is pure speculation.
Born more out of your obvious bias as you won't hear this kind of crap speculation from an independent person.
Further, I would expect the publication of a volunteer effort that did not start with a grant and a budget for oversight and for moving a project to a peer reviewed conclusion is going to take longer than one that does have grants covering a complete workplan in advance.
Its pure serendipity that despite the absence of internal controls over the surface station network the temperatures still arrived at a representative trend.
The findings they did get are relevant and important to understanding the climate system and did demonstrate the lack of internal control that was suspected, is unnecessary, and is irresponsible considering the reliance being placed upon it.
I can think of nothing to take away from Anthony and his volunteers efforts your sour grapes not withstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 28, 2011 16:12:22 GMT
Good example of mud throwing, magellan. It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.
LMAOROTFAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation(AP) JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 28, 2011 16:35:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 28, 2011 16:36:56 GMT
Good example of mud throwing, magellan. It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.
LMAOROTFAPNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation(AP) JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
LOL! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 28, 2011 17:14:05 GMT
icefisher,
I think a lot of speculation has been going on though, hasn't it. Evidence for delay though would be that Menne quite quickly generated the key result with a sample of the data, Muller quickly generated the key result with a sample of the data. Meanwhile Watts is girl thingyfooting around with *potential* differences in diurnal trends. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
An allegation that the cause of the suspension of a scientist was whether or not he saw some dead polar bears is hardly Touche. If I was going to make stuff up I'd pick a bigger number than 4. I suspect it's a witch hunt by the oil industry.
They could have got there quicker by using my method 1. They did not demonstrate a lack of internal control whatever that is supposed to mean.
strawman.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 28, 2011 21:15:09 GMT
I think a lot of speculation has been going on though, hasn't it. Evidence for delay though would be that Menne quite quickly generated the key result with a sample of the data, Muller quickly generated the key result with a sample of the data. Meanwhile Watts is girl thingyfooting around with *potential* differences in diurnal trends. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Thats merely a sour grapes product with no substance. How fast somebody released a partial report is no indicator of how long it takes to release a full report. First you have no evidence of how long it took volunteers to get around to compiling the final results. The early release of a partial report may have in fact taken some volunteer interest out of it. Second, there is the matter of Watts needing to coordinate with his volunteer co-authors. These people are not paid like Menne but need to do this in "spare time".
Bottom line is you are making accusations with zero evidence. You are nothing but a guy that jumps to conclusions. Like how you verify the correctness of your calculations for CO2 caused surface warming. . . .heck it matches the warming seen over a short period of history and thats good enough for you.
Sloppy sloppy sloppy sloppy sloppy sloppy sloppy sloppy sloppy!
An allegation that the cause of the suspension of a scientist was whether or not he saw some dead polar bears is hardly Touche. If I was going to make stuff up I'd pick a bigger number than 4. I suspect it's a witch hunt by the oil industry.
The Touche was not for the polar bear scientists. CPA get sued on these issues. Nobody likes to get sued but his response should entail whatever due diligence he applied and then it will be determined under the mysterious standards of academic conduct. There CPAs have a big advantage as their standards are not mysterious.
The Touche was for all the whining about WUWT findings in view of Nature's claim and all the NOAA findings on the matter.
it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data
They could have got there quicker by using my method 1. They did not demonstrate a lack of internal control whatever that is supposed to mean.
Then why did you not do it? FYI, quality control is a subset of internal control. Internal control goes beyond having say quality control standards and includes ensuring the standards are followed. Not having adequate internal control all but assured Watts would do a better job than NOAA on the project.
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Jul 29, 2011 17:20:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 29, 2011 19:39:59 GMT
That link is hilarious. There is absolutely NO indication of scientific misconduct. I especially like when the third party comes in and asks when they're going to get into the allegations and the doofuses trying to lynch a scientist said "we did". Looks like you fell for it! |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Jul 29, 2011 20:22:01 GMT
That link is hilarious. There is absolutely NO indication of scientific misconduct. I especially like when the third party comes in and asks when they're going to get into the allegations and the doofuses trying to lynch a scientist said "we did". Looks like you fell for it! It may not be a felony or misdemeanor but basing any conclusion about a population of 20K to 25K bears on the presence of 3 dead animals also isn't science, it is politcal BS as in the USSR in the 30 and 40's. |
|
fred
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by fred on Jul 29, 2011 23:07:33 GMT
That link is hilarious. There is absolutely NO indication of scientific misconduct. I especially like when the third party comes in and asks when they're going to get into the allegations and the doofuses trying to lynch a scientist said "we did". Looks like you fell for it! Richard, I used to do drug research and wonder if you would have taken something that had been tested using similar methodology. ''I think the compound was active, um ah, could have reduced the swelling, ah um, I think its temperature was reduced um ah etc, etc.'' I've never seen such poor work thats supposed to have been peer reviewed. If this is the best they've got, God help us all. |
|
