Most of them Do know, they just choose to ignore it. If one thing has been explained ad nauseum at Anandtech, it is the Scientific meaning of the word "theory". Yet the same people keep misusing it.
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
when they don't have a fucking clue about the fucking meaning of the fucking word, theory. :roll:Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Think about it. Our Government is getting ready to debate legislation, based upon a fucking theory.
Think about this. Idiots are pissing and moaning about our government debating legislation based upon a fucking theory.
It takes exactly one inconsistancy or disproof to discredit a theory. Got one?the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries
- 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
.
.
Didn't think so.
Its amazing how many people do not understand what scientific theory means.
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I've said this before and I'll say it again... when science becomes political you can be certain that good science and the truth go out the window.
That is the present state that the overarching body of climate research is in right now.
So that being said I do not agree with present conclusions about global warming... but at the same time I entirely support 'greenifying' everything we can. Sadly we really are not doing much of jack shit right now to help our planet.
Originally posted by: bfdd
Doc Savage Fan, lets not forget that there are people who want to check the numbers that can't even get the raw data they used to "prove" global warming. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10578
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Some would say that Hansen is ideologically driven. He has the checkered past of a left-wing true believer...you should read what his ex-boss says about him....IIRC, Thoren is his name.Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Only a psychotic could think anthro warming is real. The studies/models/stats used to keep the hysteria going turn out to be wrong/flawed/manipulated all the time. Al Gore refuses to even debate people - that NASA nutter Hansen gets busted all the time. NASA/Hansen has to issue correction about Hansen's claim 1998 was warmest year on record. Now they claim 1934 was warmest
NASA Backtracks On 1998 Warmest Year Claim
NASA Corrects 120 Years Worth of Bad Data, Notes NCPA Expert
DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.
"Hansen's conclusions that the majority of the 10 hottest years occurred since 1990 are false," Burnett said. "While Hansen's original declaration made headlines, NASA's correction has been ignored."
http://environment.ncpa.org/ne...998-warmest-year-claim
There is also this fine thread about some other data schemes
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
Strange. NASA's own website is still saying that the ten warmest years on record all occurred within the 12-year period from 1997-2008. From the very latest "Global Temperature Trends" from NASA:
NASA doesn't agree with Burnett - I wonder who we should believe?
Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.
I'll let you read the rest yourself.
Of course, true believers don't believe science. They believe agenda-driven, right-wing ideologues. Because, obviously, ideologues are objective.
This may also give you a little insight into his character. The October, 2008 surface station temperature from Russia was corrupted. Hansen simply copied and pasted Russia?s temperatures from September into October and then reported that October, 2008 was the hottest October on record. There are many other examples of his 'scientific integrity'...when I get some time I post them. But somehow...I wonder if you really care.
The data is everything...it needs to be accurately and honestly reconstructed in the light of day. This all smells so bad it isn't funny.Originally posted by: bfdd
Doc Savage Fan, lets not forget that there are people who want to check the numbers that can't even get the raw data they used to "prove" global warming. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10578
Don't give me "well that's Cato bs blah blah blah they are bought and sold" read the stupid article.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The data is everything...it needs to be accurately and honestly reconstructed in the light of day. This all smells so bad it isn't funny.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The data is everything...it needs to be accurately and honestly reconstructed in the light of day. This all smells so bad it isn't funny.
that's my biggest problem with them. apparently they toss a bunch of numbers into a black box and then come out with a result. when asked for the raw data or to explain what they're doing with the numbers there is a bunch of hand waving. you have to file FoIA requests to get at any of it. that's not science.
Starting this month, the data will be held, investigated, and potential problems reported to and resolved with the data provider before making them public. However, as we noted in the "Data Quality Control" section of our 1999 paper: We would welcome feedback from users on any specific data in this record.
Originally posted by: shira
I see this at the very top of the GISS website:
Starting this month, the data will be held, investigated, and potential problems reported to and resolved with the data provider before making them public. However, as we noted in the "Data Quality Control" section of our 1999 paper: We would welcome feedback from users on any specific data in this record.
And the raw station data for anywhere on the planet is available from here:
GISS station data page
So anyone who says this is a secretive process based on hand-waving is just BSing.
Well...perhaps there wasn't nefarious intent...maybe it was just plain incompetence. Bottomline, Hansen is responsible for the integrity of the data. He made bold claims based on faulty data. Most responsible scientists check and double check their facts before going public with 'sensational' announcements. I assume that you've done enough research to find out exactly who found the mistake. Perhaps that will help you think outside your little box for a few seconds.Originally posted by: shira
Of course I care. But I've checked the web on this September/October data issue you mentioned, and nowhere is there credible evidence that this was a willful act, or that Hansen's played any role in it.
The official explanation given by GISS is that the Russian data was (naturally) obtained from another body, and NASA doesn't have the resources to quality-control all of the data it receives. And note the mistake was identified and corrected within a few weeks.
I'm sure you can find people who read all sorts of nefarious intent into this event, but it's fair to ask: Why do YOU accept such explanations when there's a completely reasonable alternate explanation offered by the source?
This is getting ridiculous...the evidence keeps mounting and mounting that something's wrong in Denmark....very wrong.Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: shira
I see this at the very top of the GISS website:
Starting this month, the data will be held, investigated, and potential problems reported to and resolved with the data provider before making them public. However, as we noted in the "Data Quality Control" section of our 1999 paper: We would welcome feedback from users on any specific data in this record.
And the raw station data for anywhere on the planet is available from here:
GISS station data page
So anyone who says this is a secretive process based on hand-waving is just BSing.
hand waving documented
no, not GISS specifically (though IIRC steve mcintyre has had a very difficult time getting documentation out of GISS)
when they don't have a fucking clue about the fucking meaning of the fucking word, theory. :roll:Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Think about it. Our Government is getting ready to debate legislation, based upon a fucking theory.
Think about this. Idiots are pissing and moaning about our government debating legislation based upon a fucking theory.
It takes exactly one inconsistancy or disproof to discredit a theory. Got one?the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries
- 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Well...perhaps there wasn't nefarious intent...maybe it was just plain incompetence. Bottomline, Hansen is responsible for the integrity of the data. He made bold claims based on faulty data. Most responsible scientists check and double check their facts before going public with 'sensational' announcements. I assume that you've done enough research to find out exactly who found the mistake. Perhaps that will help you think outside your little box for a few seconds.Originally posted by: shira
Of course I care. But I've checked the web on this September/October data issue you mentioned, and nowhere is there credible evidence that this was a willful act, or that Hansen's played any role in it.
The official explanation given by GISS is that the Russian data was (naturally) obtained from another body, and NASA doesn't have the resources to quality-control all of the data it receives. And note the mistake was identified and corrected within a few weeks.
I'm sure you can find people who read all sorts of nefarious intent into this event, but it's fair to ask: Why do YOU accept such explanations when there's a completely reasonable alternate explanation offered by the source?
Look...Hansen's integrity is highly suspect...I gave you a clue...see what his boss said about him. Here's another....he's manipulated data and has refused to release his methodology. Google that. Perhaps you do care...I hope so.
Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate.
The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.
A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'.
In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland?s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,? included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"
In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list.
The Heartland Institute received $561,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. This included $119,000 in 2005, its largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects
Originally posted by: boomerang
On a related note, polls show Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
You can conclude whatever you want from that poll. I say that with the utmost sincerity.Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: boomerang
On a related note, polls show Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
And what are we to conclude from this? I can tell you MY conclusion: that clueless non-scientists believe propaganda spewed by anti-climate-change ideologues.
Originally posted by: bfdd
I'm not saying things aren't changing, I just have a hard time believing that anyone can point a finger at US(we humans) as the cause and that things are DRASTICALLY changing with how little actual data we have over the life of the planet.
Originally posted by: Robor
Question: If the earth isn't warming why are glaciers around the world shrinking?
Yeah...clueless non-scientists like Jasper Kirkby....one of most preeminent particle physicists in the world. Wake up. Wake the fuck up.Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: boomerang
On a related note, polls show Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
And what are we to conclude from this? I can tell you MY conclusion: that clueless non-scientists believe propaganda spewed by anti-climate-change ideologues.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Think about it. Our Government is getting ready to debate legislation, based upon a fucking theory.
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Think about it. Our Government is getting ready to debate legislation, based upon a fucking theory.
All aboard the "I failed science" train.
I must say that it looks like your trying. I don't care how you spin it...Hansen is responsible for the integrity of the data and he blew it. He used false data to make a false conclusion and immediately made his 'sensational' announcement to the media. Doesn't that send up a yellow flag for you? Hell...the scientists who discovered Ardi waited 17 years to check and double check their data before announcing their findings and their conclusion that apes evolved from man. Hansen isn't driven by scientific integrity...he has an agenda that's much more important to him than getting his facts straight. Now...someone figured out the mistake....now who was that? Hmmmm.Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Well...perhaps there wasn't nefarious intent...maybe it was just plain incompetence. Bottomline, Hansen is responsible for the integrity of the data. He made bold claims based on faulty data. Most responsible scientists check and double check their facts before going public with 'sensational' announcements. I assume that you've done enough research to find out exactly who found the mistake. Perhaps that will help you think outside your little box for a few seconds.Originally posted by: shira
Of course I care. But I've checked the web on this September/October data issue you mentioned, and nowhere is there credible evidence that this was a willful act, or that Hansen's played any role in it.
The official explanation given by GISS is that the Russian data was (naturally) obtained from another body, and NASA doesn't have the resources to quality-control all of the data it receives. And note the mistake was identified and corrected within a few weeks.
I'm sure you can find people who read all sorts of nefarious intent into this event, but it's fair to ask: Why do YOU accept such explanations when there's a completely reasonable alternate explanation offered by the source?
Look...Hansen's integrity is highly suspect...I gave you a clue...see what his boss said about him. Here's another....he's manipulated data and has refused to release his methodology. Google that. Perhaps you do care...I hope so.
NASA receives weather data from literally tens of thousands of weather stations across the planet (take a look at the station data site I posted). I'm sure NASA has standard processes that they enforce on the data sources to improve the reliability of the data, but ultimately the accuracy of the data can come only from the sources - the stations that report the data.
And how would NASA "double-check" the data? Have the stations send the data twice and make sure the results are the same? Or compare earlier data with new data and look for duplication? That might work some of the time, but there are various ways that data corruption can occur (for example, a half-degree bias that increases all of the reading from an area) that probably can't be identified by the recipient. Hopefully, the stations doing the reporting double-check their data before they send it, and re-check when they see the data listed on the NASA site.
I think NASA's current approach of making the data available for review until the new report is generated, and inviting comments, is about as open and reasonable a process as one can expect.
Finally, I've googled on
James Hansen data
and visited the various sites returned. I see many references to the September/October 2008 issue, which I've already addressed. And I see allegations that Hansen cooks his data that trace back to the Heartland Institute
Wiki
which is about as ideologically-driven an organization as one could imagine. According to Wiki, Heartland claims:
Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate.
The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.
A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'.
Furthermore:
In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland?s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,? included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"
In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list.
and
The Heartland Institute received $561,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. This included $119,000 in 2005, its largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects
I'm sorry, I can't take allegations made by such an EXTREMIST ideologically-driven - and apparently dishonest - organization seriously.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I must say that it looks like your trying. I don't care how you spin it...Hansen is responsible for the integrity of the data and he blew it. He used false data to make a false conclusion and immediately made his 'sensational' announcement to the media. Doesn't that send up a yellow flag for you? Hell...the scientists who discovered Ardi waited 17 years to check and double check their data before announcing their findings and their conclusion that apes evolved from man. Hansen isn't driven by scientific integrity...he has an agenda that's much more important to him than getting his facts straight. Now...someone figured out the mistake....now who was that? Hmmmm.
In regard to Heartland's list...old talking point. You know...455 scientists did not ask for their names to be removed. Since that time, many more scientists have come forward expressing doubts/reservations....some very well regarded scientists.
And lastly...you bring up the BIG OIL money....$561k over 7 years...damn that's not much in today's world....but "I'm sure you can find people who read all sorts of nefarious intent into this event." You know if you can't argue the facts, attack the source and their imagined motives. Your talking points are tired and stale. Let's keep the discussion focused on facts instead of regurgitated innuendo. Deal?