Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[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.

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

This isn't a "conservative-liberal" issue, it's a scientific fraud issue.

 

[mamooth]

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.

The USA is not the world.

Do you need that to be explained in smaller words? If so, you're out of luck, since I can't see how to dumb down such a simple concept any further.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Math is not a model. When you add 2 to 3, there is no other possible answer to 5. Models, on the other hand, are simulations. They have many possible solutions. The more variables, the more solutions, and climate models have thousands of variables.

 

[Abraham3]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

 

[westwall]

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.

The USA is not the world.

Do you need that to be explained in smaller words? If so, you're out of luck, since I can't see how to dumb down such a simple concept any further.

Never said it was. However ALL weather stations are paid for by the tax monies paid by the PEOPLE of the world, thus THEY OWN it. There is no legitimate reason to deny the PUBLIC anything from academia, the ridiculous claim that Phil Jones made regarding his "proprietary data" is just that ridiculous. Furthermore the US TAXPAYERS paid him a great deal for his work, thus WE OWN THAT TOO!

Look up corporate law sometime.

 

[westwall]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

Mathematics is NOT a "model". It is, in fact, the purest form of language there is, unadulterated by semantics, or regional dialect. It is the one language that can be used universe wide. Mathematical models abound wherein math is used to predict the outcome of experiments to be run in the physical world. But to claim that math itself is a model is simply funny.

 

[bripat9643]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

Math is not a model. Math is math. The number 5 does not "model" anything. It's a word denoting an actual thing. The result of math is "varied" only in bogus math. 2 + 3 = 5 according to the definition of 2 and 3 and 5. Sure, you can change the definitions, but then you're talking about something else.

 

[mamooth]

However ALL weather stations are paid for by the tax monies paid by the PEOPLE of the world, thus THEY OWN it.

While that's a fine utopian fantasy, the real world legal system disagrees with you.

There is no legitimate reason to deny the PUBLIC anything from academia, the ridiculous claim that Phil Jones made regarding his "proprietary data" is just that ridiculous.

While that's a fine utopian fantasy, the real world legal system disagrees with you.

Furthermore the US TAXPAYERS paid him a great deal for his work, thus WE OWN THAT TOO!

While that's a ... you get the picture.

 

[Abraham3]

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?

The question is meaningless. The fact is that the owners of some but not all climate data restrict its release. It is also a fact that many climate institutions are besieged with FOIA requests both from well meaning researchers and from people intent solely on harassment. Hopefully, you took that into account when you made your request.

You have been making suggestions that sound very much as if you are accusing these institutions of behaving in a conspiratorial manner. From my PoV, that does make you a conspiracy theorist. Before you accuse me of being unfair, consider what William of Occam would make of the situation.

 

[Abraham3]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

Mathematics is NOT a "model". It is, in fact, the purest form of language there is, unadulterated by semantics, or regional dialect. It is the one language that can be used universe wide. Mathematical models abound wherein math is used to predict the outcome of experiments to be run in the physical world. But to claim that math itself is a model is simply funny.

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

 

[westwall]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

Mathematics is NOT a "model". It is, in fact, the purest form of language there is, unadulterated by semantics, or regional dialect. It is the one language that can be used universe wide. Mathematical models abound wherein math is used to predict the outcome of experiments to be run in the physical world. But to claim that math itself is a model is simply funny.

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

well, off the top of my head I can think of 6 different mathematical terms applied to 3 and two different philosophical ones. Plus there's the religious aspect and the sporting affiliation also comes to mind.

So, mr. know it all, which one are you shooting for?

 

[PMZ]

Mathematics is NOT a "model". It is, in fact, the purest form of language there is, unadulterated by semantics, or regional dialect. It is the one language that can be used universe wide. Mathematical models abound wherein math is used to predict the outcome of experiments to be run in the physical world. But to claim that math itself is a model is simply funny.

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

well, off the top of my head I can think of 6 different mathematical terms applied to 3 and two different philosophical ones. Plus there's the religious aspect and the sporting affiliation also comes to mind.

So, mr. know it all, which one are you shooting for?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

 

[westwall]

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

well, off the top of my head I can think of 6 different mathematical terms applied to 3 and two different philosophical ones. Plus there's the religious aspect and the sporting affiliation also comes to mind.

So, mr. know it all, which one are you shooting for?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

Pooor sad pathetic little drone. That the best you can come up with? Do you do the third grade playground too?

 

[Abraham3]

well, off the top of my head I can think of 6 different mathematical terms applied to 3 and two different philosophical ones. Plus there's the religious aspect and the sporting affiliation also comes to mind.

So, mr. know it all, which one are you shooting for?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

Pooor sad pathetic little drone. That the best you can come up with? Do you do the third grade playground too?

I still haven't seen a definition. And I'm not looking for a "mathematical term" to apply. I was looking for the definition of 3 and I was doing so to try to get you two to think about the fundamentally inherent abstraction of mathematics

 

[PMZ]

well, off the top of my head I can think of 6 different mathematical terms applied to 3 and two different philosophical ones. Plus there's the religious aspect and the sporting affiliation also comes to mind.

So, mr. know it all, which one are you shooting for?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

Pooor sad pathetic little drone. That the best you can come up with? Do you do the third grade playground too?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

 

[skookerasbil]

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

Pooor sad pathetic little drone. That the best you can come up with? Do you do the third grade playground too?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

Politics - Definition of Politics by Webster Dictionary

 

[bripat9643]

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

well, off the top of my head I can think of 6 different mathematical terms applied to 3 and two different philosophical ones. Plus there's the religious aspect and the sporting affiliation also comes to mind.

So, mr. know it all, which one are you shooting for?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

So he's wrong about math because he disputes the cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

 

[bripat9643]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

Mathematics is NOT a "model". It is, in fact, the purest form of language there is, unadulterated by semantics, or regional dialect. It is the one language that can be used universe wide. Mathematical models abound wherein math is used to predict the outcome of experiments to be run in the physical world. But to claim that math itself is a model is simply funny.

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

It's the number that results from adding 1 to 2. Or you could define it as 1 + 1 + 1. It's not an abstraction any more than the word "chair" is an abstraction. The bottom line is that all words are abstractions. When you point out that some concept is an "abstraction." you've said exactly nothing.

 

[flacaltenn]

What's your point Aster? Do you think you're better at model writing than all the people doing it? Do you think you know something they do not? Do you think there is nothing they know that you do not? Do you think they are secretly lying to us all and that you are the only one that can detect it?

What IS your point?

ps: 2+3 = 11 in base 4. Math is a model in that it maps the abstract onto arbitrary symbols and defined operations. The symbols used may be varied and, per the rules of the model, the output will vary in response.

Mathematics is NOT a "model". It is, in fact, the purest form of language there is, unadulterated by semantics, or regional dialect. It is the one language that can be used universe wide. Mathematical models abound wherein math is used to predict the outcome of experiments to be run in the physical world. But to claim that math itself is a model is simply funny.

Asterism can answer her own questions and a great deal better than can you. Same to you Paddy.

ps: if you want something to chew on, what's the definition of 3?

Definition of 3?? That's how many times you have to ask a warmer to answer an question before you get an attempted response.

OR -- it's the number of times you had to take the DMV test before you got an acceptable score. Take your pick...

 

[PMZ]

well, off the top of my head I can think of 6 different mathematical terms applied to 3 and two different philosophical ones. Plus there's the religious aspect and the sporting affiliation also comes to mind.

So, mr. know it all, which one are you shooting for?

Says the guy committed to denying science for politics.

So he's wrong about math because he disputes the cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

He disputes the science of AGW, much of which is revealed through math models, like all modern science.