tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2868321102056499484..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Getting it rightEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87985723448092743482011-12-21T20:43:08.487-05:002011-12-21T20:43:08.487-05:00Oh yes, Steve Mosher is a rent seeker, using FOI f...Oh yes, Steve Mosher is a rent seeker, using FOI force others to give him their work.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44516644801968138162011-12-20T19:15:08.753-05:002011-12-20T19:15:08.753-05:00So allow Eli to summarize. Steve Mosher believes ...So allow Eli to summarize. Steve Mosher believes that all software and data associated with climate records should be directly available to the public and otherwise is a scandal. Of course the investment of the authors into their research is "unimportant" Is that it?EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66101675850655849522011-12-20T18:36:07.786-05:002011-12-20T18:36:07.786-05:00Is Observa Jay Cadbury's dad?
from that rambl...<i>Is Observa Jay Cadbury's dad?</i><br /><br />from that rambling-diversion-tastic escapade, i'm fairly sure he's grampa simpson.<br /><br />either that or he's a few months away from his septum collapsing.lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68448168823216912912011-12-20T14:52:29.325-05:002011-12-20T14:52:29.325-05:00Observa, my friend, please go over to science hist...Observa, my friend, please go over to science historian Spencer Weart's <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm" rel="nofollow">website</a> or read his shorter <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-expanded-Histories-Technology-Medicine/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224852798&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">book</a>. I did. It's excellent. The history of climate science is a fascinating story. <br /><br />If you are honest and of good will, I'm sure you will check out the website/book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58784877642111393382011-12-20T14:00:11.052-05:002011-12-20T14:00:11.052-05:00Is Observa Jay Cadbury's dad?Is Observa Jay Cadbury's dad?J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79371116999215863522011-12-20T13:27:00.394-05:002011-12-20T13:27:00.394-05:00Bratisla:
"This is a genuine question, I am ...Bratisla:<br /><br />"This is a genuine question, I am not a climate expert : what makes the CRU data so invaluable it went so far as criminal investigation and pushing a scientist on the verge of suicide ? Particular sitings ?"<br /><br />NASA GISTemp used GHCN data only, i.e. publicly available data only. About 5% of the data crunched by CRU was considered proprietary by various governments.<br /><br />This gave them something they could attack CRU over - "you're hiding data! climate science is a fraud!".<br /><br /><br />Clear?<br /><br /> <br />I am deeply cynical regarding the motives of these people because, as I stated earlier, I used to read CA quite often while this crap was going on.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48383922184345209252011-12-20T13:19:28.398-05:002011-12-20T13:19:28.398-05:00"Yes, they accidentally left some of the data..."Yes, they accidentally left some of the data on a server, Mr. Steven McIntyre was poking around and took it without asking, ands also full knowing that the data were not his to take. AKA stealing. Thanks for being so honest Moshpit (/sarc)."<br /><br />Indeed, in the US this can, depending on circumstances, be actionable, under the same legal reasoning that says that my leaving my front door open doesn't give you the right to enter and leave carrying my television ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38297250020930904522011-12-20T12:35:12.149-05:002011-12-20T12:35:12.149-05:00The lies/distortions from Moshpit just keep coming...The lies/distortions from Moshpit just keep coming. For example,<br /><br />"next the nonsense that McIntyre had access to the data? wrong. CRU posted a 2003 version of the data by accident."<br /><br />Yes, they accidentally left some of the data on a server, Mr. Steven McIntyre was poking around and took it without asking, ands also full knowing that the data were not his to take. AKA stealing. Thanks for being so honest Moshpit (/sarc).<br /><br />Next you'll be trying to tell us that your pal Steve McIntyre didn't have certain tree-ring data for years, all the while accusing scientists of refusing to share it with him and slandering and defaming them. <br /><br />As for contributing to the science, or rather failure to do so; McIntyre has still to make a fully independent paleo reconstruction of N. Hemisphere temps. Rather, he has chosen to aid the serial plagiarist known as Wegman and nit pick at a paper published way back in 1998 and engage in daily chumming for the rabid deniers and "skeptics", defaming climate scientists and bullying them, and floating all kinds of conspiracy theories.<br /><br />Really Mr. Mosher, you are only fooling yourself. Someone is going to write a nice book about you and your pals like Mr. Steven McIntyre and it will not reflect favourably on you. Heck it may even end up with one of you in prison..that would be a good ending ;)<br /><br />Now to be fair you have recently collaborated on some work on the (well-studied) UHI, and surprise surprise the impact on the temperature trends is pretty much meaningless. Well, that finding is nothing new.<br /><br />Really, save us the tone and concern trolling, and insincere claims about "the purpose was not to create an "independent" assessment"". Thanks but scientists do not need YOUR unsolicited help-- you really do need to get that ego and D-K under control Moshpit.<br /><br />And if you want to know why people are so pissed off with you, look in the mirror and reflect on all the vile/inane/duplicitous/insincere things who have written in the past. Are you capable of doing that?<br /><br />Your duplicitous and insincere behaviour is unfortunate, because you could have made a positive contribution, instead that is all undermined by your ideology and ego and some of the company you keep.<br /><br />Like Curry, you have nasty hobbies Moshpit-- harassing climate scientists, being a merchant of doubt and enabling people who have nasty vendettas against climate scientists. <br /><br />No nonsense bunny<br /><br />PS: When are you going to orchestrate your next vexatious FOI campaign? Who will you harass next? Who will be the next victim of your slander? Please do tell.. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84233892842343674822011-12-20T11:04:10.634-05:002011-12-20T11:04:10.634-05:00Newsweek, among others was reporting the chilling ...<i><br />Newsweek, among others was reporting the chilling news from your trusted folk at NOOA-<br />http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm <br /></i><br /><br />Global-warming skeptics are not only unable to get published in scientific journals, but apparently they can't even find the university libraries where those journals are archived! <br /><br />Could someone here kindly take "observa" by the hand and lead him to the great big building full of books (aka the "library") on a college campus near him? You may not have time though, because you will also have to lead him by the nose to the journal stacks, look up all the articles, and read them to him. And even then, he still won't get it.<br /><br /><br />--caerbannog the anonybunnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59868228722320584762011-12-20T10:40:39.708-05:002011-12-20T10:40:39.708-05:00"New kid on the block theory?" Are you f..."New kid on the block theory?" Are you f*&!ing kidding me?"[caerbannog the anonybunny]<br /><br />Not in the slightest if you really know your modern history. Joseph Fourier (mathematician/scientist employed by Napoleon), John Tyndall (contemporary of Charles Darwin), or Svante Arrhenius were merely lost jigsaw pieces as early ago as 1975 when Newsweek, among others was reporting the chilling news from your trusted folk at NOOA-<br />http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm You know- "A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." Not that Michael 'hockey stick' Mann would have been worried much, being in Grade 4 or 5 Primary School at the time,aged 10. Nor would he have known much about the Club of Rome publishing Limits to Growth in 1972 or Mankind at the Turning Point in 1974. If he was old enough to drive he'd have been worried about enough gas for the car after the 1973 oil shock, rather than what was coming out of the tailpipe of the gas guzzler. While the new grownups were weaving hessian bag clothes and throwing clay pots for the brave new future, the Paul Ehrlichs of the day were not exactly predicting the obesity epidemic of today. We smoked on buses trains and offices (strictly the brand the doctors smoked you understand)Can you believe those crazies at Australia post actually voted for a smoke free workplace in 1983? About the time James Hardie decided it would be a good idea for us not to build houses out of fibro asbestos. perhaps they wouldn't exactly ward off the coming Ice Age because Australian govts everywhere didn't see fit to ban the sale of asbestos brake pads until Dec 2002. Something about not being good for the kiddies when you pulled up to drop them off at kindy or school.<br /><br />Ah yes 1983 when we were still pumping Fortran punch cards into the DEC10 monster modelling whole economies and wondering how to backcast stagflation. Then they rolled out the Prime minicomputers for us to scratch our heads with. Nice telly screens but not much worth watching. Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius? Were they one of the warmup group for the Stones? Facebook, Twitter and Youtube the same? In Aug 1981 the first mobile phone call via Telecom on 14kg handset costing $5000 ($17000 in todays dough). Where were you and all the nukes, we're all gunna starve, Y2k, warmist doomsayers then sonny boy?<br /><br />Let me help you get your me and now hubris into some perspective. Try here for the latest buzzwords on 'climate disruption' or 'extreme weather' now you've all tired somewhat of 'global warming' and 'climate change'-<br />http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf<br />Don't miss Dr Isaac Cline, Director of the Weather Station at galveston in 1900 and his description of 15 foot of water driven not by tsunami, but simply wind and tide. They were a bit more matter of fact and stoic about the trails and tribulations of 'Gaia' back then, unlike the me and now hysterics of today. Oh and use your hanky and blow your nose sonny.<br /><br />observaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72387249399274017932011-12-20T10:12:51.018-05:002011-12-20T10:12:51.018-05:00> The ICO ruled that the public interest in the...> The ICO ruled that the public interest in the station data being made available outweighed the possible damage which might be done to CRU's relationships with NMS's. But it recognised that CRU's concerns in that respect were legitimate, did not dispute the existence of non-disclosure agreements and also recognised that CRU was attempting to obtain permission from the various NMS's to release the data.<br /><br />Indeed, we should not conflate the fact that a judgement rules in favor of "We" that "You" were not justified in any way to act like "You" did.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Neven,<br /><br />Here's an explanation of "shrug":<br /><br />> Maybe the most appropriate way to recognize Jones’ contribution to climate studies and to send a firm message to the climate community – that the issues are far too important to indulge such conduct – would be to disband CRU, acknowledging the loss of the CRUTEM franchise and dispersing whatever staff are left.<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/362025478willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28146186848358400062011-12-20T09:03:24.328-05:002011-12-20T09:03:24.328-05:00Ah! That's easy, IMVHO.
They wanted to prove ...Ah! That's easy, IMVHO.<br /><br />They wanted to prove that Arctic temperature rise wasn't as bad as is portrayed in other data sets (which are all part of some all-encompassing scientific fraud) and that, consequently, the ongoing Arctic sea-ice loss (which doesn't actually exist anyway) is just part of some fairy-inspired regional multi-decadal oscillation. And seeing as the CRU dataset was at odds with other datasets regarding the Arctic region, this would prove that the CRU datasets were obviously a fraud, too.<br /><br /><i>Cymraeg llygoden</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27722152085245825492011-12-20T08:23:22.839-05:002011-12-20T08:23:22.839-05:00"So why not shrug, dismiss CRU as "bad d..."So why not shrug, dismiss CRU as "bad data handler" and work on another dataset, especially since published CRU results match the others ?"<br /><br />Good question! Mosher?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55881306957212681502011-12-20T06:33:43.638-05:002011-12-20T06:33:43.638-05:00@andrew adams : sorry for the lack of answer, I ha...@andrew adams : sorry for the lack of answer, I have lots on the plates these days - after all, I'm paid to do science :]<br />I am not sure that FOI rules should change from government to lesser entities. After all, governments (at least those not anti-science) discuss often with research institutes about budgets, counseling on scientific matters, etc. I would personnaly prefer that everyone comply to the same rules for the sake of simplicity - after all, between the contracts with private companies, the defense matters, the right to privacy, there is a lot of work already - a look at my mailbox is quite convincing for that matter, and I'm a low-level scientist without even a grant project to manage (for the moment ...) <br />For FOI refusals, I do not know. Here the basic rule of thumb is "project paid on public research funds, result report public ; project paid by private companies, result report private ; project asked by authorities, they fix the rules ". For the reports, we charge the people asking them, and this charge depends on the work that had to be done - you can ask us a very tricky job, we would say "ok, it will cost you (a lot)". If we transpose to FOI rules, I guess this is the logic behind UVA charge : no problem to fulfill FOI requests since it is required by law and it allows them to employ some lawyers, but these lawyers have to be paid for the work they did. <br />For the simple requests, research institutes offer already internet downloads. That should limit the costs for plain curious people looking for datas only. Of course, McIntyre (or another one ?) was idiot enough to swamp public data servers with robots and to complain about "censorship" thereafter, which tells a lot about his mindset ... <br /><br />Another point was that raised during my absence puzzles me. Mosher ranted about Jones. Okay. But CRU is not the only climate data provider on Earth. So why not shrug, dismiss CRU as "bad data handler" and work on another dataset, especially since published CRU results match the others ? <br />In seismology, we are used to discard stations on global network notorious for their bad siting/horrible SNR ; there are several networks dedicated to nuclear explosion surveys that are not easy to access, and we simply ignore them to get datas from other networks. Sure we wish we could have all datas, but we have already our plates full. <br />This is a genuine question, I am not a climate expert : what makes the CRU data so invaluable it went so far as criminal investigation and pushing a scientist on the verge of suicide ? Particular sitings ? <br /><br />BratislaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53510729950449689152011-12-20T03:11:11.493-05:002011-12-20T03:11:11.493-05:00The actual ruling can be found here
http://www.ic...The actual ruling can be found here<br /><br />http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashxandrew adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10921963905169164982011-12-20T03:08:29.634-05:002011-12-20T03:08:29.634-05:00The ICO ruled that the public interest in the stat...The ICO ruled that the public interest in the station data being made available outweighed the possible damage which might be done to CRU's relationships with NMS's. But it recognised that CRU's concerns in that respect were legitimate, did not dispute the existence of non-disclosure agreements and also recognised that CRU was attempting to obtain permission from the various NMS's to release the data.andrew adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46883295067819318202011-12-20T00:02:09.649-05:002011-12-20T00:02:09.649-05:00> The inquiries are pretty clear on CRUs fault ...> The inquiries are pretty clear on CRUs fault in this matter. The ICO was clear. [W]e were right. [Y]ou were wrong.<br /><br />The inquiries concluded that CRU was wrong.<br /><br />They concluded that "We" were right on the only matter that pertains to CRU's being wrong.<br /><br />"We" have not been found right on anything more than that, so far.<br /><br />The inquiries or the ICO have not concluded that "You" was wrong.<br /><br />"You" does not refer CRU.<br /><br />That "We" were right does not imply that "You" were wrong, if the disagreement between "We" and "You" is not about what has been adjudicated in favor of "We".<br /><br />And speaking of "We":<br /><br />http://biggovernment.com/smosher/2010/09/23/let-us-euthanize-obamacare-before-it-euthanizes-us/willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68597525568249141132011-12-19T18:42:18.825-05:002011-12-19T18:42:18.825-05:00Mosher:
"1. To see if there work is reproduc...Mosher:<br /><br />"1. To see if there work is reproduceable<br />2. To eliminate issues that come up in replication because<br />of mistakes in data archiving and data transmission."<br /><br />If this was really your aim, why are you trolling the internet and shouting that CRU won't give you the data? Your actions speak much louder than your words here.<br /> <br />If your aim was so simple you also wouldn't profit by writing books misrepresenting the very same scientists you are trying to get the data from. <br /><br />You're not an impartial person here. You have an agenda and your 'simple' goals are simply a mask to hide your agenda. <br /><br />Same as your insincere 'Luke Warming' rubbish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77891517759074420552011-12-19T16:03:05.459-05:002011-12-19T16:03:05.459-05:00Moshpit: the problem with being a serial liar wit...Moshpit: the problem with being a serial liar with dubious ethics is that very few people are likely to believe you, no matter how often you huff and puff and and insist:<br /><br />"we were right. you were wrong"<br /><br />And regarding motive, I'm with Martin. I read CA fairly often back when the FOIA attack was going on. Revisionism from a serial liar isn't likely to convince anyone.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60664745807615219462011-12-19T15:57:57.232-05:002011-12-19T15:57:57.232-05:00> Why do I want the CRU data? Simple
Yes, very...> Why do I want the CRU data? Simple<br /><br />Yes, very simple: harrassment. <br /><br />At some point it becomes easier to do both replication and reproduction with your own code, and data you can easily get from the internet (in another context I have done just that)... but no, Moshpit and the gang insisted on raising the whole bank account in cash ;-)<br /><br />> At some point Martin I will have a go at the code you posted, in due course<br /><br />You're welcome. Seriously.<br /><br />BTW Moshpit, did you have that talk with Geoff Sherrington already? 'In due course'?Martin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45979036895424446662011-12-19T14:13:40.177-05:002011-12-19T14:13:40.177-05:00First lets start with the nonsense that "skep...First lets start with the nonsense that "skeptics" did nothing with the data.<br /><br />http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/cru-data-in-rghcnv3/#comments<br /><br />next the nonsense that McIntyre had access to the data? wrong. CRU posted a 2003 version of the data by accident. A couple points<br /><br />1. No NWS complained about their data being posted<br />2. there was no loss of access to the data as the result of CRUs carelessness<br />3. that was NOT the data he requested. he requested the version given to Webster<br /><br />Jones did say that the countries forbade release to non academics.<br />That was a untrue. Read the inquiries and read the actual agreements.<br /><br />The inquiries are pretty clear on CRUs fault in this matter. The ICO was clear.<br /><br />we were right. you were wrong.<br /><br />Next Martin.<br /><br />Martin does not understand the simplest matter of QA.<br /><br />Why do I want the CRU data? Simple<br /><br />1. To see if there work is reproduceable<br />2. To eliminate issues that come up in replication because<br /> of mistakes in data archiving and data transmission.<br /><br />Here is a nice little video. <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1-nkqwmjI<br /><br />you also need to understand the difference between reproducability<br />and replication. Victoria I believe touches on it briefly and some of the issues in here last slide. basically reproduceability is not meant to substitute for independent replication. That is not its purpose.<br /><br />They are different martin. they both are important. I try to do both,<br />but I am far more interested in reproduceability. That is, making tools that others can use.<br /><br />For example, you will find tamino's code in my packages and you will find Nick stokes code in my packages. My process with Nick is simple.<br />He sends me his code. we share data. I run his data through his code on my machine to see if there are any machine dependencies. I determine that I have working code and that our answers match.<br /><br />I can now modify his code ( same with Tamino and RomanM) and I have a reference to check back to. I can make it faster, more robust, documented, and turn it into a tool for other to use.<br /><br />Then I can do something that I find interesting. I can answer questions that the original code writer didnt ask. I will use GISSTEMP as an example. By having access to Gisstemp code and data one can for example:<br /> 1. use the same code with different data<br /> 2. change their UHI routines<br /> 3. change their UHI proxies<br /><br />one can ask all thr sorts of questions that interest me. And the beautiful thing is that you are using a method that is "accepted"<br />There is no need to re invent the wheel. For me the approaches of Gisstemp and CRU made sense, Im basically interested in creating tools, creating them quickly, getting them into many peoples hands and being able to say with confidence that the code is the same as that used by experts. This is vastly different than independent replication, and I've never pretended that it was replication.<br />Having done both, I know the difference. You dont, apparently<br /><br />Once I have a reproduceable method the job of replication is much<br />easier. Its also easy to see where things break down and why.<br />So there is LESS bugging of scientists. I have not had to bug Tamino once since he posted his code. It was clean. It was clear. It ran and now other people are putting it to use, doing better studies with a better approach. Same with Nick's code. <br /><br />At some point Martin I will have a go at the code you posted, in due course, and try to turn that into something helpful that others can use and build on. <br /><br />moshpitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86154714489935216282011-12-19T12:48:48.655-05:002011-12-19T12:48:48.655-05:00caerbannog ... hey, man, tell us how you feel! :) ...caerbannog ... hey, man, tell us how you feel! :) Great (and deserved) rant. You have a future on the internets!<br /><br />Seriously:<br /><br />"And "lack of openness"? Just where the f&@! have you been? Data and documentation sufficient for competent independent analysts to verify the global-average temperature results produced by NASA/NOAA/CRU have been available on-line for *years*."<br />For years you've even been able to order DVDs with scans of the ORIGINAL HANDWRITTEN OBSERVATIONS from stations 'round the world, if skeptics don't trust the digitization process and want to go to the REAL raw data ...<br /><br />And that's just data ... GISS Model E source has been online for years, along with documentation and pointers to supporting papers in the literature (this doesn't stop deniers from claiming that "models don't model convection" despite the existence of a clearly named convection module in Model E, etc etc ad nauseum). The GISSTemp algorithm was documented ages ago, and when that wasn't "open enough", the code itself released (not that anyone competent actually *needed* the code given the documentation).<br /><br />etc etc blah blah blah. Observa's either not observant or not telling the truth ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38897618272084889592011-12-19T07:22:00.578-05:002011-12-19T07:22:00.578-05:00I often wonder about the constant wails that clima...I often wonder about the constant wails that climate science is too new, untested, not yet mature. <br /><br />What do these people think of plate tectonics? <br /><br />Or Einstein's work?<br /><br />MinniesMystifiedMumAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60808838019082097782011-12-19T04:16:37.648-05:002011-12-19T04:16:37.648-05:00For Observa.
Wiki: History of climate change scie...For Observa.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science" rel="nofollow">Wiki: History of climate change science</a><br />"The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified..."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm" rel="nofollow">The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart</a>J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46466357399561185182011-12-19T04:11:32.240-05:002011-12-19T04:11:32.240-05:00observa: talk is cheap. With caerbannog, I challen...observa: talk is cheap. With caerbannog, I challenge you to show us what you're made of.Martin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.com