Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Doing Science in Court

146 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • HORansome,

    A lot of the problems in the West can, James. Not all, but a lot.

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 408 posts Report Reply

  • HORansome,

    And, and let me stress the "and!" here, that just because some politicians might well be using Anthropogenic Climate Change to promote their causes, this doesn't mean that Anthropogenic Climate Change isn't happening. Anthropogenic Climate Change is a thesis in the Sciences, not politics.

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 408 posts Report Reply

  • ChrisW,

    Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

    An interesting selection for a context-free quote! At first sight pretty well equivalent to such an official saying "A global nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back our assertion that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program." Quite reasonable really.

    But then I looked again - and "to back the greenhouse effect " gives it away. He was really saying, in his unguarded moment, "A global nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty must be implemented even if there are a dozen bloggers out there who claim there is no scientific evidence that the atom is divisible."

    Gisborne • Since Apr 2009 • 833 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    Also interesting that in his orgiinal post, James is quite happy to use the word 'opinion', but the word 'fact' appears...not at all.

    And that he expects scientists to have the patience of Mother Theresa when dealing with endless and diversionary FoI requests, but it appears he can't hold his temper between one post and the very next when challenged.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2396 posts Report Reply

  • James Bremner,

    ChrisW, oh please. All the quotes are just reasonable comments taken out of context? Sure. However you slice it, there are some complete nutters on the AGW bandwagon and this does AGW a lot of harm.

    Rich, I didn't get grumpy anywhere in my posts above. Not sure where you see that I did.

    Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary proof, whether you are Mother Teresa or not. And extraordinary proof includes amongst other things complying with laws regarding FOI requests and not attempting to corrupt the peer review process to exclude dissenting opinion, as the EA CRU e-mails so clearly illustrated.

    I suspect the following clips from the now famous coder Harry provides ample evidence for why the CRU didn't want to comply with the FOI law.

    “Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)”

    “Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline”

    “Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too”

    And Harry’s classic piece de resistance:

    "OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity; it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

    Can anyone say with a straight face that the databases and Harry’s work and comments shouldn’t be examined with considerable rigor? As far as I am aware, none of the four enquiries into “Climategate” paid any attention to Harry Read Me.txt. Why not? A comment such as “..hopeless state of our databases” from the person who is one of the most familiar with those databases is a pretty serious matter. I don’t understand how otherwise serious and intelligent people can dismiss such questions as a recitation of “talking points”. How can you claim a scientific conclusion based upon data that is crap?

    Maybe there are perfectly reasonable and justifiable explanations for Harry’s problems, but I have not seen it or heard of them, and the CRU data set is one of the key datasets upon which the whole AGW edifice has been built. The CRU output is apparently similar to the output of the other datasets, so are they all similarly screwed up? And we should just hurry along, as there is nothing to see here? The AGWers want to make massive and incredibly costly changes to the world’s economy based on this apparent shit? And the skeptics are the ones who are crazy? I think not.

    The only way forward is to institute complete openess and transparancy of all data and information to any person and organization that wants to look at any AGW paper or organization. This will take years, but it is the only way for the AGW theory to recover the credibility it will require to get through the political process.

    NOLA • Since Nov 2006 • 341 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    James. Just go and put a big plastic bag over your head, fill it with Nitrogen and seal it. Unless, of course, you can find incontrovertible evidence that Nitrogen is toxic, in which case don't do it.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4783 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    Just go and put a big plastic bag over your head

    Steve, you know normal people don't do that sort of crap, right? :)

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2396 posts Report Reply

  • James Bremner,

    Steve, how do you explain away Harry Read Me.txt?

    Is it forged or phony or BS or is Harry incompetent or a nutter? I haven't seen any explanation from the AGW side that discusses Harry's musings.

    How could anyone contemplate taking the East Anglia CRU seriously again until the data has been reviewed by outside experts to assess the validity of Harry's comments? No Nitrogen is required in this process.

    NOLA • Since Nov 2006 • 341 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    No Nitrogen is required in this process.

    Nitrous Oxide?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6163 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    The AGWers want to make massive and incredibly costly changes to the world’s economy based on this apparent shit? And the skeptics are the ones who are crazy?

    Prove it! Prove that the changes will be costly and expensive. Until you can supply incontrovertible proof of the economic damage then your argument is simply you don't want to change what you are doing.

    BTW I'm deadly serious. There is a huge amount of bullshit being spouted by folks like you about about the economic harm supposedly caused by carbon taxes etc. And the economic models are much much worse than any climate models. Everything I've seen thus far has strongly indicated that while some industries will suffer the economic health of the planet will be unaffected, certainly over the time scale of decades which is the only relevant timescale. In other words, people making money from burning carbon won't make that money but other people will make money.

    Meanwhile the planet is getting warmer and anyone with any real substantial knowledge in the field agrees with that conclusion. And if you continue your crusade to allow industries to burn carbon the planet will continue to get warmer.

    The consequences of that are not some piddly little economic disaster. The consequence is death on a scale you can't even imagine properly. But don't let that concern you, go on and support those industries who burn carbon go on and attack dedicated honest scientists. Just stop pretending to yourself that you are doing any of this for the good of the planet and the people on it.

    Sorry folks not much sleep last night and this non-science shit pisses me off.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3320 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Sorry folks not much sleep last night and this non-science shit pisses me off.

    Nitrous Oxide?

    (it's the comment that keeps on giving...)

    Since Nov 2006 • 6163 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Prove it! Prove that the changes will be costly and expensive.

    Darnit . You beat me to it.
    This is an assumtion that the denialanalysts adhere to apparently. According to anecdotes, apparent atmospheric anomalies appear to attenuate accumulative aspects of anthropathetic adversity annat. And that's expensive. Innit?.

    Steve, how do you explain away Harry Read Me.txt?

    Well, I don't have to, same as I don't have to explain away anything you say. But you manage do it your self...

    Maybe there are perfectly reasonable and justifiable explanations for Harry’s problems, but I have not seen it or heard of them, and the CRU data set is one of the key datasets upon which the whole AGW edifice has been built. The CRU output is apparently similar to the output of the other datasets, so are they all similarly screwed up?

    I would suggest that if the output of other Datasets agrees with the output of the CRU set, then they are in agreement and therefore statistically significant.
    Just because you have not seen nor heard it does not make it not so.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4783 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    Prove it! Prove that the changes will be costly and expensive. Until you can supply incontrovertible proof of the economic damage then your argument is simply you don't want to change what you are doing.

    What was that quote from James? Ah yes.

    Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary proof

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2396 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    not attempting to corrupt the peer review process to exclude dissenting opinion

    James, peer-reviewed is just that. Review by people who are qualified and know thier shit. Not some bloke with a tin-foil hat and an axe to grind.

    Do you see how a geologist might get a little...terse...when put in the position of having to argue with a flat-earther?

    Rather than, say getting on with the work that he gets an enormous grant to do, and will do anything to protect, including falsifying the data <sarc>

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2396 posts Report Reply

  • recordari,

    Speaking of science and stuff, I don't remember it being this much fun.

    Check out photo 8 with Cornell's super computer for the 'Game Design' students. And number 13. Lightening by design.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    send in the bail/bale ifs...
    Peter Calder wrote to me off-site
    (after I riffed on the words bale and bail)
    to assure me his spelling was deliberate...
    ...my apologies.
    This has opened my eyes to the furore,
    on this vital matter in learned circles...
    ...and as it's good to share, here are some
    links that will ease you into the debate...
    on the trail of bailing out...

    World wide words - bail out...

    re bale/bail...

    Phew! English eh...
    a bundle of fun!
    ...who'd want to learn it?

    Frankly, I'd assume that's why French
    is the language of diplomacy...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4843 posts Report Reply

  • recordari,

    Frankly, I'd assume that's why French
    is the language of diplomacy...

    The language, maybe, but actions speak louder... and all that.

    Wherever I Roma
    I take my diploma
    for diplomats with a predilection
    for 'non-ethnic' eviction

    Yeah, right!

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    true, Sarkozy is is a gypster from way back

    do we all agree? - the eyes have it!

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4843 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Aye eye I

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    I would've added
    "Aye I eye ai"(shock gasp joy/horror dependent on orientation etc.) but so much depends upon pronunciation. Eh?

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    I would've added
    "Aye I eye ai"(shock gasp joy/horror dependent on orientation etc.) but so much depends upon pronunciation. Eh?

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.