|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2011 15:13:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 15:59:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 13:10:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 13:15:14 GMT 1
Louise why do you so readily fall back into low-level peripheral "personality" squabbles and ad hominems to the neglect of discussions about the data and REAL matters of concern like the perversions of IPCC hegemony, funding and peer/pal review? Your "contributions" always bear the stamp of having been picked up from some smugblog crib sheet tittle tattle and swallowed indiscriminately. Who funds the CarbonBrief, by the way? (sorry, can't resist throwing your tactics back at you.) Try this for a little balance Smear job by “The Carbon Brief”wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/smear-job-by-the-carbon-brief/The Carbon Brief appears to have been set up for the specific purpose of countering sceptical stories relating to ‘climate change’ by going to AGW consensus scientific sources for an instant rebuttal. It is a project of the Energy and Strategy Centre, funded and supported by the European Climate Foundation (ECF). ECF describes itself as “the largest philanthropic organisation in Europe focused on influencing government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. -The Carbon Brief
“…. To meet that challenge, six funding partners joined forces in 2007 to create a new multi-million euro philanthropic entity called the European Climate Foundation.” – About Us – ECF
On the The Carbon Brief website they say they are just getting started.------------- tee hee "Philanthropy Rules, OK?" |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 13:32:27 GMT 1
Good general advice re scepticism in a "fascinating post on the blog of Chris Blattman (Associate Prof. of Political Science and Economics at Yale), in which Blattman very approvingly cites some excerpts from the post of someone else. Here are the excerpts: Never put too much weight on a single study. If nothing else, the issue of publication bias makes this an important guideline…
Strive to understand the details of a study before counting it as evidence. Many “headline claims” in studies rely on heavy doses of assumption and extrapolation…
If a study’s assumptions, extrapolations and calculations are too complex to be easily understood, this is a strike against the study. Complexity leaves more room for errors and judgment calls, and means it’s less likely that meaningful critiques have had the chance to emerge…
If a study does not disclose the full details of its data and calculations, this is another strike against it – and this phenomenon is more common than one might think…
Context is key. We often see charities or their supporters citing a single study as “proof” of a strong statement (about, for example, the effectiveness of a program)."Holden", the author of the post from which the above was excerpted, begins his post as follows:
"We often use academic research to inform our work, but we try to do so with great caution, rather than simply taking reported results at face value. We believe that if you trust academic research just because it is peer-reviewed, published, and/or reputable, this is a mistake. Thanks to Bishop Hill for the link. It says it all. Keep an open mind and keep your wits about you, in other words! bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/14/darrell-ince-on-the-tranny.html |
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 13:40:37 GMT 1
Louise why do you so readily fall back into low-level peripheral "personality" squabbles and ad hominems to the neglect of discussions about the data and REAL matters of concern like the perversions of IPCC hegemony, funding and peer/pal review? Your "contributions" always bear the stamp of having been picked up from some smugblog crib sheet tittle tattle and swallowed indiscriminately. ad homs? What, you mean like this? Your alarmism is rooted in your emotions not in reality, Louise. I have to come back again to my previous point about your being younger than me and with slightly less experience of normal weather variability. I bet you are one of those who a few years ago "swallowed" the Met Office's claims that winter snow was a thing of the past. What an embarrassment! But of course, now we're supposed to believe its yet another a signal of global warming! How circumstances DO alter cases with you alarmists! Teehee. You must remember, Louise, that the British Isles are subject to very variable weather conditions being offshore Islands which get a mixture of continental (if you know what that means - "O" level geograohy helps) and maritime climate. So SETI climate prediction isn't making a "political point", Louise. You're so naive. Alarmist clones like Louise are the foot soldiers of this unrepentant scare-mongering, not me. Turn your critical eye elsewhere for a change. You are indiscriminate and uncritical. You are a joke and a time waster and that's just the last couple of weeks where you've mellowed quite a bit (compared to the early days of my supposed 'proxy server' posting). But the point that I made and that you chose to ignore was not an ad hom - it was showing that there are several mainstream climate scientists whose work is being misrepresented as supposedly supporting the skeptical view when it is in fact the opposite. Those scientists have asked that this be corrected and they have been ignored - how is that an ad hom (unlike yours upon me as shown above)? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 13:41:27 GMT 1
Barry Woods on Climate Etc spotted this Presumably the same Professor Ince who submitted evidence to the Sci/Tech committe at the Houses of Parliament ref climategate/CRU www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3402.htmI am Professor of Computing at the Open University and the author of 18 books and over a hundred papers on software topics. My submission to the committee is an expanded version of an article that I wrote for the Guardian and was published on 5th February 2010. 4. One of the spin-offs from the emails that were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is the light that was shone on the role of program code in climate research. There is a particularly revealing set of emails that were produced by a programmer at UEA known as Harry ReadMe. The emails indicate someone struggling with undocumented, baroque code and missing data which forms part of one of the three major climate databases used by researchers throughout the world 5. A number of climate scientists have refused to publish their computer programs; what I want to suggest is that this is both unscientific behaviour and, equally importantly ignores a major problem: that scientific software has got a poor reputation for error. 6. There is enough evidence for us to regard a lot of scientific software with worry. For example Professor Les Hatton, an international expert in software testing resident in the Universities of Kent and Kingston, carried out an extensive analysis of several million lines of scientific code. He showed that the software had an unacceptably high level of detectable inconsistencies. For example, interface inconsistencies between software modules occurred at the rate of one in every 7 interfaces on average in the programming language Fortran, and one in every 37 interfaces in the language C. This is hugely worrying when you realise that just one error-just one-will often invalidate a computer program. What he also discovered, even more worryingly, is that the accuracy of results declined from 6 significant figures to 1 significant figure during the running of programs. 7. Hatton and other researchers’ work indicates that scientific software is often of poor quality. What is staggering about the research that has been done is that it examines scientific software that is commercial: produced by software engineers who have to undergo a regime of thorough testing, quality assurance and a change control discipline known as configuration management. Scientific software developed in our universities and research institutes is often produced by scientists with no training in software engineering and with no quality mechanisms in place and so, no doubt, the occurrence of errors will be even higher. The Climate Research unit Harry ReadMe files are a graphic indication of such working conditions 8. Computer code is also at the heart of a scientific issue. One of the key features of science is deniability: if you erect a theory and if anyone produces evidence that it is wrong then it falls. This is how science works: by openness, by publishing minute details of an experiment, some mathematical equations or a simulation; by doing this you embrace deniability. This does not seem to have happened in climate research. Researchers have refused to release their computer programs-even though they are still in existence and not subject to commercial agreements. For example, Professor Mann’s initial refusal to give up the codes that were used to construct the hockey stick model that demonstrated that human-made global warming is a unique artefact of the last few decades (He has now released all his code). —————————- |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 13:42:37 GMT 1
As well as being duffers in the statistics department the IPCC hacks lack computing skills, too.
But Louise et al find it sooo easy to overlook these lacunae in what she uncritically describes as "science".
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 13:56:40 GMT 1
Your "contributions" always bear the stamp of having been picked up from some smugblog crib sheet tittle tattle and swallowed indiscriminately. Unlike yours which eminate from WUWT, Bishophill, Chiefio, etc Of course, none of these sites have posts attacking individuals or organisations of whom they disapprove? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 14:15:11 GMT 1
They certainly expose and criticise the purported "research" for which unrealistic claims are made, Louise, not the individuals by claiming to attach a particular funding source to them. If a finding is correct it is correct whoever pays the researcher. If it is wrong it is wrong. That it can withstand criticism and be replicated is the test of a good piece of research.
As Steve Mosher says
... I take a hard hard line on this. If you dont freely release your data and freely release your code in all cases then I am not rationally bound to even consider your claims. you haven’t produced science, you’ve just advertised it. the real science, is not the paper describing the data, its not the words describing the algorithm. the real science is the data AS YOU USED IT and the code AS YOU RAN IT. To check your science in the most efficient way, we need the data as used and the code as ran.”
and whilst we have disagreed about many things, I’m in total agreement on this. This medical scandal is an almost exact parallel with pre and post climategate behaviour by all the parties (institutions/journals, etc)
------------
Your darling, Michael Mann, Louise, took eight years to accede to Steve McIntyre's requests for dats and code, didn't he? Not a very good example from this scion of the IPCC Establishment, was it? The IPCC Establishment, in receipt of such huge flow of geld to fund their warmist ideology, have to be whiter than white. They are not. Don't be surprised sane folk don't take their pronouncements at face value. If Scafetta doesn't play the game, more fool him. He puts himself in the same category as Michael Mann.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 14:24:37 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 14:28:33 GMT 1
I repeat from reply #9 above
If Scafetta doesn't play the game, more fool him. He puts himself in the same category as Michael Mann.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 14:29:59 GMT 1
But the point that I made and that you chose to ignore was not an ad hom - it was showing that there are several mainstream climate scientists whose work is being misrepresented as supposedly supporting the skeptical view when it is in fact the opposite. Those scientists have asked that this be corrected and they have been ignored Is this the standard method of debate in those skeptical of AGW? It does seem to be a technique practised by Marchesarosa and RSmith on this board, both of whom attribute to me opinions and views I do not hold and continue to do so despite my corrections of their misrepresentations. |
|
