Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/21/2009 11:06:42 PM PST by dila813
These people act in concert to diminish, reject, and otherwise denigrate findings with which they do not agree — and they are able to do so because of their “establishment” positions. This is the preservation of “group think” at its most serious level…. The group represented by the bulk of these emails does indeed have a message to defend. Those of us who see problems with that message are aware of how the data are manufactured and interpreted to support that message — and worse, how these establishment scientists act as gatekeepers for the “consensus” reports to suppress alternative findings.
(Excerpt) Read more at features.csmonitor.com ...
“Global Warming” SCAM - A Further Look
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1651-Global-Warming-SCAM-A-Further-Look.html
Lorianne,
That is one incredible article. The author brilliantly analyzes not only the probable validity of the emails themselves, but goes further to expose the complete and utter lack of application of the Scientific Method by the so-called climate researchers.
From the article:
“Please note - in my “past life” I ran an ISP, and am a qualified expert in these matters. I write spam filtering software commercially and have since 1995, being the author of the first ISP-centered spam interdiction package. As such when it comes to issues like Internet mail transport I can easily speak to what is supposed to be present - and what is not.
Further, I want to note that my interest in this has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying claim - “Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?” Rather, my interest in this is whether or not the alleged scientific process has been followed - or subverted.
[snip]
Science is the process by which we take a question and:
*
Form a hypothesis.
*
Design an experiment to test that hypothesis.
*
Perform the experiment and collect the data thus generated.
*
Analyze the resulting data.
*
Form a conclusion from the data thus collected.
That’s “The Scientific Method.”
To the extent that method is corrupted on purpose one does not have science. To the extent that it is corrupted out of necessity (e.g. missing data that one requires, and thus one “guesses”) this is accepted provided one discloses one’s guess and how it was derived - that is, provided there is no material concealment.
In the “Big Science World” the check and balance on concealment - and outright fraud - is peer review and post-publication duplication. To be able to duplicate the results claimed, however, the algorithms, code, methods and data sets must be made publicly available so that anyone who desires to do so can validate the claimed experimental results.
[snip]
In short, I see nothing in that data set that implies that the messages have been tampered with, but there is also no reasonable way to prove their provenance as the necessary information to do so (routing and message-id information) is missing. A well-place FOI request should resolve that problem, if anyone is particularly interested in doing so.
The data sets included in the archive are also interesting. Again, a reasonably-detailed look through them shows nothing implying that they have been tampered with, and they include data and computer code (source program code) from a wide variety of time periods. It appears authentic.
Comments within, however, disclose an extraordinary amount of extrapolation and “curve fitting” - that is, fitting results to data, not the other way around as it should be that appears to have been going on in the process of so-called “analysis.” Worse, there are plenty of comments that make clear that the researchers are literally making things up as they go along - much of the data sets are claimed to be incomplete, inaccurate in terms of their time frames .vs. what is claimed in the headers and titles, and containing junk values.
There is some real trouble here, in that if you’re not sure what you’ve got (that is, you’re not sure what the data is!) or worse, you’re knowingly missing pieces that you need to perform an analysis, what are you “analyzing”?
Worse, there are comments in the files that make clear that there are observations that are outside of what has been published - and worse, some of those observations are ten times outside the alleged “resolution” of claimed results. Uh, that’s a major problem, and goes back to what I have repeatedly said about so-called “climate science” for a very long time...
[snip]
When one performs complex mathematical functions on input data uncertainties must also be carried through the mathematical functions. Without that we know nothing about the quality of the result - it is entirely possible, given data with enough noise in it, to produce what looks like a perfectly valid answer but have it be absolute trash and of no value at all.
The only way to know if that is possible is for all measurements to be reported with their uncertainties attached, and for all uncertainties to be carried through all computational processes.
It is quite clear, from the data sets I have looked at, that this is simply not being done. Instead computations are being “fudged” to fit data to expected previously claimed results and/or data sets simply discarded or modified that do not fit with either previously-published numbers or desired outcomes.”
bttt
fyi
So the DHS will still put people on a list who oppose the Global Warming doctrine in spite of the fact that this Global Warming Hoax has be exposed to be a lie ???
You got it, in fact these guys were even joking about reporting us to the FBI.
Of course they will. They have every intention of passing any law that will limmit the freedom and liberty of the average person. That is the natural course of the world.
The United States of America and the idea of individual liberty is not the normal state. Most people in government hate the idea that the great unwashed would question their wisdom, and hold them responsible.
They were trying to get it though an International Treaty, but Obama chickened out at least for now.
He wants to get his Healthcare first. Once that is in the bag, he will circle back.
Date check:
CRU Refuses FOI RequestConclusion: Inside job - from someone with a conscience at UEA CRU (University East Anglia Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones institution, and whose name appears on a LOT of the e-mails)
2009 November 21
by stevemcintyreGiven the tumultuous events of the past few days, the receipt of yet another refusal to provide station data pursuant to an FOI request may seem a little uneventful. But the chronology of this most recent refusal is, to say the least, interesting.
In late July 2009, I appealed CRU’s decision not to provide then current station data, sending a follow-up letter on Sept 2, 2009, pointing out the inconsistency between their claims to be protecting confidentiality agreements dating back to the 1980s and their delivery of station data to the US Department of Energy in the early 1990s and posting on their website of station data versions in 1996 and 2003.
On Nov 18, 2009, I received the letter attached below from Jonathan Colam-French, Director of Information Services of UEA, turning down my appeal. The letter is dated Nov. 13, 2009. In the letter refusing the appeal, Colam-French says that he consulted a file on the matter.
Now consider the following chronology.
On Nov 17, 2009 at 9.57 pm occurred the first public notice of the 63 MB CRU file entitled “FOIA.zip” came at Jeff Id’s blog by a poster called “FOIA”, who stated:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.The file contained emails up to and including Nov 12, 2009 (the most recent is 1258053464.txt) the day prior to the date on the letter refusing the appeal.We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
The Lord uses the good ones, And the bad ones use the Lord!
He is my hero, who ever he is.
Honesty is its own reward.
What a POS article in the long failed Christion Science Monitor. This weak kneed writer sounds like he is making excuses for these Climate Criminals with his whiney tone, ‘For researchers directly involved in the email exchanges, such emails really present a picture of the lengths scientists go to ensure the HIGH QUALITY??? of the science.’
Many, but not all research programs are producing junk science results. In the meantime, the taxpayer has to support it and the goobermint passes rules and regulations to enforce BS upon the populace.
The focus is to produce something as a means to keep a job whether it is fact or not. The H1N1 scam is just one of them....I do not deny it is a variant of the flu strain, however, to me, it doesn't seem much different than the past flu strains that have gone around the globe.
Can't wait for the left-handed baboon strain of flu to surface next year.
Please take time to respond to all articles that attempt to excuse the Climate Criminals like this CS Monitor, my reply:
“Time to wake up! Smell the coffee! This author’s as well as the CSM’s credibility is disappearing quickly and will be lost if you don’t start accurately reporting these events! The emails were released by a whistleblower and they are authentic. The problem for the Climate Alarmist is obvious, The Climate Alarmist are exposed for all and it is FRAUD and has completely corrupted the science. This Climate Change scam will be know as the biggest heist of public funding in history”.
Exactly!
In fact, the FAR LEFT, Christian Science Monitor article falls all over itself to defend the entire AGW hoax and attempts to "pretend" that not ONE of these documents, provides any credible evidence that there is collusion or shenanigans ongoing within the GOREBUL WARMING, community:
Nothing in the package appears to overturn the general idea — arrived at via many lines of evidence — that the CO2 humans have been pumping into the atmosphere is warming the planet, nor does anything bolster the notion some put forward of a hoax on the part of climate scientists.
Say WHAT???
Admittedly, I have not taken the time to review every single document released, the ones I have read, CLEARLY indicate that all's not Kosher or forthcoming within the so called, "Consensus" Scientific Community.
In fact, just the opposite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.