Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[PMZ]

Because queries for data are met with derision about not being qualified to interpret it - like above.

Because FOIA requests for data are resisted.

If you are Jones or Mann or Trenberth or any of a dozen "names" in climate science, you are undoubtedly flooded with official and unofficial requests for data. These people have other things to do with their lives and that they should grow short tempered with people who are intentionally harassing them and have no possible real use for the data.

What request of YOURS to a climate researcher was met with derision? Responses on this forum don't count.

Your point is irrelevant. The PEOPLE of the US have PAID them for the research, therefore the PEOPLE of the US OWN it. It should be posted for the world to see because that is the correct thing to do and the scientific method DEMANDS IT!

It is.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

 

[PMZ]

Wow, you're not too swift are you.... We are talking about the ocean temperatures idiot. Do try and keep up...

Why is it so hard for conservatives to Google:
''Global+ocean+temperature+database''

I have googled it, numskull, and I didn't find it. I guess that means it doesn't exist.

How come when I Google it I find it?

Perhaps because Google returns what previous search results have indicated your preferences are.

Based on that it probably only gives you denialist sites.

 

[asterism]

Why do you say that it is not encouraged in climatology?

Because queries for data are met with derision about not being qualified to interpret it - like above.

Because FOIA requests for data are resisted.

If you are Jones or Mann or Trenberth or any of a dozen "names" in climate science, you are undoubtedly flooded with official and unofficial requests for data. These people have other things to do with their lives and that they should grow short tempered with people who are intentionally harassing them and have no possible real use for the data.

So why not just publish all the data? No need for requests, just make it all public. These are public positions funded with tax money.

What request of YOURS to a climate researcher was met with derision? Responses on this forum don't count.

None. I'm a nobody so my requests are just ignored. The Met Office sent me an email about 10 years ago stating that the Decision Sciences Institute was not a recognized (by them) scientific body and therefore publication of a study of their data would not provide sufficient value to the field. I don't count that as derision, just laziness.

That incident is actually what piqued my interest in data management in Climatology. I wanted to publish a study demonstrating the effectiveness of SQL databases and open source web platforms in analysis of climate data. It seemed pretty simple, recreate the processes done in FORTRAN but using LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP) and show that the results were comparable. LAMP and other open source tools were in their infancy of enterprise adoption and I thought it would be fruitful to demonstrate the prowess of the platform using scientific studies.

I used banking records instead (previous processes were written in COBOL) and the work was published and I moved on. However, I always wondered why they seemed so provincial. I thought it was just because they were British. Little did I know.

 

[Abraham3]

Because queries for data are met with derision about not being qualified to interpret it - like above.

Because FOIA requests for data are resisted.

If you are Jones or Mann or Trenberth or any of a dozen "names" in climate science, you are undoubtedly flooded with official and unofficial requests for data. These people have other things to do with their lives and that they should grow short tempered with people who are intentionally harassing them and have no possible real use for the data.

So why not just publish all the data? No need for requests, just make it all public. These are public positions funded with tax money.

What request of YOURS to a climate researcher was met with derision? Responses on this forum don't count.

None. I'm a nobody so my requests are just ignored. The Met Office sent me an email about 10 years ago stating that the Decision Sciences Institute was not a recognized (by them) scientific body and therefore publication of a study of their data would not provide sufficient value to the field. I don't count that as derision, just laziness.

That incident is actually what piqued my interest in data management in Climatology. I wanted to publish a study demonstrating the effectiveness of SQL databases and open source web platforms in analysis of climate data. It seemed pretty simple, recreate the processes done in FORTRAN but using LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP) and show that the results were comparable. LAMP and other open source tools were in their infancy of enterprise adoption and I thought it would be fruitful to demonstrate the prowess of the platform using scientific studies.

I used banking records instead (previous processes were written in COBOL) and the work was published and I moved on. However, I always wondered why they seemed so provincial. I thought it was just because they were British. Little did I know.

A major part of the problem (at least with the CRU - I don't know about the Met Office) is that they own very little of the data they use. The actual owners, for whatever reason, restrict them from distributing it further without their permission and, apparently, they rarely give their permission.

 

[asterism]

If you are Jones or Mann or Trenberth or any of a dozen "names" in climate science, you are undoubtedly flooded with official and unofficial requests for data. These people have other things to do with their lives and that they should grow short tempered with people who are intentionally harassing them and have no possible real use for the data.

So why not just publish all the data? No need for requests, just make it all public. These are public positions funded with tax money.

What request of YOURS to a climate researcher was met with derision? Responses on this forum don't count.

None. I'm a nobody so my requests are just ignored. The Met Office sent me an email about 10 years ago stating that the Decision Sciences Institute was not a recognized (by them) scientific body and therefore publication of a study of their data would not provide sufficient value to the field. I don't count that as derision, just laziness.

That incident is actually what piqued my interest in data management in Climatology. I wanted to publish a study demonstrating the effectiveness of SQL databases and open source web platforms in analysis of climate data. It seemed pretty simple, recreate the processes done in FORTRAN but using LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP) and show that the results were comparable. LAMP and other open source tools were in their infancy of enterprise adoption and I thought it would be fruitful to demonstrate the prowess of the platform using scientific studies.

I used banking records instead (previous processes were written in COBOL) and the work was published and I moved on. However, I always wondered why they seemed so provincial. I thought it was just because they were British. Little did I know.

A major part of the problem (at least with the CRU - I don't know about the Met Office) is that they own very little of the data they use. The actual owners, for whatever reason, restrict them from distributing it further without their permission and, apparently, they rarely give their permission.

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

 

[skookerasbil]

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."

- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 

[skookerasbil]

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."

- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

[skookerasbil]

“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”

- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[PMZ]

So why not just publish all the data? No need for requests, just make it all public. These are public positions funded with tax money.



None. I'm a nobody so my requests are just ignored. The Met Office sent me an email about 10 years ago stating that the Decision Sciences Institute was not a recognized (by them) scientific body and therefore publication of a study of their data would not provide sufficient value to the field. I don't count that as derision, just laziness.

That incident is actually what piqued my interest in data management in Climatology. I wanted to publish a study demonstrating the effectiveness of SQL databases and open source web platforms in analysis of climate data. It seemed pretty simple, recreate the processes done in FORTRAN but using LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP) and show that the results were comparable. LAMP and other open source tools were in their infancy of enterprise adoption and I thought it would be fruitful to demonstrate the prowess of the platform using scientific studies.

I used banking records instead (previous processes were written in COBOL) and the work was published and I moved on. However, I always wondered why they seemed so provincial. I thought it was just because they were British. Little did I know.

A major part of the problem (at least with the CRU - I don't know about the Met Office) is that they own very little of the data they use. The actual owners, for whatever reason, restrict them from distributing it further without their permission and, apparently, they rarely give their permission.

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Tell you what. I'm sick of posting links to the data. Go find it yourself instead of constantly whining.

 

[mamooth]

What the poor sputtering denialists have been reduced to:

 

[mamooth]

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Because they don't own the propriety weather station data. If you're actually denying that proprietary data exists, then yes, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist.

Since anyone can reproduce the same results with freely available non-proprietary data, that particular conspiracy theory doesn't seem to have a rational point. But it does have an irrational point. They don't care about some supposed lack of data. They care about having an excuse to fabricate a conspiracy about how those awful scientists are hiding data.

 

[PMZ]

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Because they don't own the propriety weather station data. If you're actually denying that proprietary data exists, then yes, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist.

Since anyone can reproduce the same results with freely available non-proprietary data, that particular conspiracy theory doesn't seem to have a rational point. But it does have an irrational point. They don't care about some supposed lack of data. They care about having an excuse to fabricate a conspiracy about how those awful scientists are hiding data.

If conservatives applied the same rule to IPCC data that they apply to their own, they wouldn't even be considering it.

 

[asterism]

A major part of the problem (at least with the CRU - I don't know about the Met Office) is that they own very little of the data they use. The actual owners, for whatever reason, restrict them from distributing it further without their permission and, apparently, they rarely give their permission.

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Tell you what. I'm sick of posting links to the data. Go find it yourself instead of constantly whining.

How are you sick of doing something you haven't done?

You posted links to massaged data. I get that you don't understand the significance, but that's your bias and ignorance.


Have you ever written a computer model? I bet not and that's why you don't understand the difference between raw data and summarized data.

 

[asterism]

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Because they don't own the propriety weather station data. If you're actually denying that proprietary data exists, then yes, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist.

Since anyone can reproduce the same results with freely available non-proprietary data, that particular conspiracy theory doesn't seem to have a rational point. But it does have an irrational point. They don't care about some supposed lack of data. They care about having an excuse to fabricate a conspiracy about how those awful scientists are hiding data.

So says the guy that thought I was wrong when I said the models were inaccurate and biased in favor of warming.

 

[PMZ]

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Tell you what. I'm sick of posting links to the data. Go find it yourself instead of constantly whining.

How are you sick of doing something you haven't done?

You posted links to massaged data. I get that you don't understand the significance, but that's your bias and ignorance.


Have you ever written a computer model? I bet not and that's why you don't understand the difference between raw data and summarized data.

What I posted clearly identified the sources of the data that Trenberth used in his calculations.

Unless data comes from a single source it has to be massaged in order to compensate for the differences between sources.

I have built many computer models.
Here's a model that even most conservatives can understand.

2+3=5

All math is modeling. Running math on a computer is merely a tool to speed the calculations.

You are typical of the denialists who know nothing but want to claim knowing more than the world's leading climate scientists.

You may fall for crap like that but not me.

 

[PMZ]

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Because they don't own the propriety weather station data. If you're actually denying that proprietary data exists, then yes, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist.

Since anyone can reproduce the same results with freely available non-proprietary data, that particular conspiracy theory doesn't seem to have a rational point. But it does have an irrational point. They don't care about some supposed lack of data. They care about having an excuse to fabricate a conspiracy about how those awful scientists are hiding data.

So says the guy that thought I was wrong when I said the models were inaccurate and biased in favor of warming.

You besting the IPCC's climate science. I'll bet, as Dunning-Kruger demonstrated, you have no idea what a ridiculous claim that is.

 

[flacaltenn]

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Because they don't own the propriety weather station data. If you're actually denying that proprietary data exists, then yes, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist.

Since anyone can reproduce the same results with freely available non-proprietary data, that particular conspiracy theory doesn't seem to have a rational point. But it does have an irrational point. They don't care about some supposed lack of data. They care about having an excuse to fabricate a conspiracy about how those awful scientists are hiding data.

So lemme get this straight. You can get public tallies of the number of toilets in every home in america ---- but you can't the daily high and low temp from Finland because that's proprietary..

What does the World Meteorological Society have to say about that?

 

[westwall]

If you are Jones or Mann or Trenberth or any of a dozen "names" in climate science, you are undoubtedly flooded with official and unofficial requests for data. These people have other things to do with their lives and that they should grow short tempered with people who are intentionally harassing them and have no possible real use for the data.

What request of YOURS to a climate researcher was met with derision? Responses on this forum don't count.

Your point is irrelevant. The PEOPLE of the US have PAID them for the research, therefore the PEOPLE of the US OWN it. It should be posted for the world to see because that is the correct thing to do and the scientific method DEMANDS IT!

It is.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

No, that's not the raw data, nor the algorithms. Try again dummy.

 

[westwall]

You should look into that before you call me a "conspiracy theorist" again. Why is it that a public scientific institution can't release data for an academic study but a bank will?

Because they don't own the propriety weather station data. If you're actually denying that proprietary data exists, then yes, you are definitely a conspiracy theorist.

Since anyone can reproduce the same results with freely available non-proprietary data, that particular conspiracy theory doesn't seem to have a rational point. But it does have an irrational point. They don't care about some supposed lack of data. They care about having an excuse to fabricate a conspiracy about how those awful scientists are hiding data.

There's no such thing as "proprietary weather station data" silly person. That data is owned by the PEOPLE of the USA WHO HAVE PAID FOR IT. Do try and keep up.