Think for yourselves


 As if that wasn’t concerning enough, Fox out does itself with another greater than 100% scientific poll result:

fox lies

  1. #1 by Ira on December 9, 2009 - 11:14 am

    The well-done video rightly blasts Rush and other ill-informed blowhards and explains some of the Climate gate emails. I posted a link to the video for my friends along with detailed comments here.

    I’d appreciate your views, as a computer/software expert, on the computer programs used to process CRU climate data, particularly the revealing programers notes.

  2. #2 by avi on December 10, 2009 - 10:57 pm

    The comments seem consistent with the explanation in the video that the “decline” they’re talking about is in the tree ring artifacts, not global temperatures themselves.

    There is no decline in global temperatures and anyone, including that site, that mixes up the two ideas should not be taken seriously.

    I can’t see the code, nor do I want to wade through it, but in the comments it looks like they’re trying to create software models that fit collected data to improve the models.

    Throwing out noisy or inconsistent data is a normal part of the process. Models are by their nature simplifications of reality and noisy data can trip them up. Tuning two models to fit together can easily require selecting narrow windows of compatibility.

    Look, if the goal was to deceive the public, then why write the software at all? Just tell us what to think without any actual evidence, as the deniers consistently do.

  3. #3 by Ira on December 12, 2009 - 8:18 pm

    Yes, it is good science to merge data from different sources and discard or adjust bad data points. But only if the process is clearly disclosed and justified. In the case of IPCC 2001, an early draft showed the divergent tree ring data but the final version simply adjusted and truncated it with no explanation, see IPCC fig 2.21and related Climategate emails.

    They email about “pressure to present a nice tidy story“, namely that it is now warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. They did not set out to deceive the public, but were concerned that admitting what they called “discrepancies” (evidence of a warmer, pre-industrial earth), would be a “field day” for the skeptics. The data conflicted with their strongly held beliefs so they discounted it and covered it up. They shortcut the scientific process in favor of their Climate Stasis faith.

    Reasonable sceptics, including the sites I’ve linked in my earlier comment, agree the 20th century has seen strong warming, partly due to unprecedented human burning of sequestered carbon. However, there is historical and proxy data that proves there were warmer periods 1000 years ago, evidence human CO2 is not the dominant cause of recent warming. We are entitled to consider that evidence before we spend trilions and wreck the world’s economy.

  4. #4 by bathroom suites on May 5, 2010 - 11:39 pm

    This is very good insight, I will watch the whole video later.

(will not be published)