Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[MORAY37]

 so......should a scientist be a member of group "A", and 2 or 3 members of said group are lying, massaging/changing numbers, etc, and said scientist knows of this, then he also is guilty. unless he either outs them, or upon finding out, leaves the group.

 it really is quite simple. if you're as young as you say you are(i'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt there), you may not understand this yet.
 if you're in your teens, you should though.

Sir, there are about 2.6 million scientists in the United States alone.  

The extrapolation you put upon this example is completely counterfeit.  Basically, what you are saying is, if three people lied and were residents of Chicago, that the entire resident population of Chicago are liars.

I will be the first to say, there are great and not-so-great scientists, just as there are great and not-so-great auto mechanics ( I think that's what you do, correct me if wrong).  If one of them lied to me, and charged me for work that was unneeded,  does that not mean that your business is full of liars, via your extrapolation?

[MORAY37]

Only when you have already decided what you want the stats to read.

It is obvious you didn't take a statistical analysis course in any part of your schooling, with that simple statement.

Both the extreme highs and lows are removed, cleaning up the data and allowing trends to be uncovered.

[CAP1]

Sir, there are about 2.6 million scientists in the United States alone.  

The extrapolation you put upon this example is completely counterfeit.  Basically, what you are saying is, if three people lied and were residents of Chicago, that the entire resident population of Chicago are liars.

I will be the first to say, there are great and not-so-great scientists, just as there are great and not-so-great auto mechanics ( I think that's what you do, correct me if wrong).  If one of them lied to me, does that not mean that your business is full of liars, via your extrapolation?

2.6 million climate scientists? 2.6 million scientists that say yes to man made global warming?

[MORAY37]

2.6 million climate scientists? 2.6 million scientists that say yes to man made global warming?

Just scientists.  Dissecting it further provides you with no distinction.

[Penguin]

As Moray pointed out, you can't use the guilty by association rule (without a fair trial with a jury of the suspects peers blah blah blah), since it:

A.) Is a courtroom rule

B.) Since it is, it violates the rule of innocent until proven guilty (Biggest courtroom rule of all!)
 
And again, how are my arguments personal?  I'm not insulting you in the least.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Just scientists.  Dissecting it further provides you with no distinction.

yea, it does. it separates those that work with data, and those that work with "convenient" data.

i believe i said that those that are massaging/removing/modifying data to make things look like they need/want them to look and those that see/know this is happening are the problem.
 i don't believe i said anything that could be interpreted as saying all scientists are doing this....or bad.

[CAP1]

The guilty by association rule just doesn't work for science.  And again, how are my arguments personal?  

-Penguin

you've come out three times calling me a liar.

that kinda makes it personal.

and an fyi. people callin me a liar to my face.....well.....they do it once. only once.

 i don't lie........and don't expect to be lied to....and don't like being accused of it either.  

just sayin.............


 oo....and there is one member on these forums that has met me face to face.....good guy.......cool as all hell......i think he could/would vouch for my personality. and for my disorders too. 

[batch]

WRONG.  There are 682 NCDC stations in Missouri.  Please cite where you got your information.

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov

thats odd because only 1221 were reported used by GISS for the entire continental US in 2006 that number was 1850 in 1968 .......... and 136 were used in 2009........... 3 of which were from MO

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/


Youll notice that by the year 2000 the number of stations was slightly over 1000 for the entire continent....... yet the % of coverage doesnt decrease very much at all......... this is because they use the temperature from each station to represent a 1200Km radius........

the same thing has been done in every state...... there are IIRC 4 stations now used in CA...... all 4 of them are on the coast where it is warmest 365 days a year......... not a single inland  or northern station is used in CA............ so the temperature in San Francisco is used to represent the temperatures in Susanville as well..... which happens to be nestled in the High Sierras (where NO temperature stations are used)

[CAP1]

As Moray pointed out, you can't use the guilty by association rule (without a fair trial with a jury of the suspects peers blah blah blah), since it:

A.) Is a courtroom rule

B.) Since it is, it violates the rule of innocent until proven guilty (Biggest courtroom rule of all!)
 
And again, how are my arguments personal?  I'm not insulting you in the least.

-Penguin

Reg: Sep 2008

Posts: 251
Online Online

View Profile Personal Message (Online)
   
   
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #1212 on: Today at 04:00:31 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: MORAY37 on Today at 03:48:17 PM
I stole a candy bar when I was 5.  devil
 

Oooh, someone is getting a timeout  dancing banana

Quote from: CAP1 on Today at 03:31:59 PM
no...the second part is true.

if you hang around with liars, then it will be assumed by most, that you are a liar yourself. or it will be assumed that you condone the particular group lying, which also means that you more than likely do.

btw, i'm not arguing.

Blue= flat out lying

Next, that isn't what you said.  What you said was that they were guilty by association.  Guilty (Apart from my mom's ideas, anyway) means that you actually did something wrong.  You have shifted your position.  If you are saying that this is your brand new and in response to query argument, you are correct.  I certainly would hope that you aren't doing this again.

-Penguin   



the above is the third time you've accused me of lying. and yes, it is insulting.

[MORAY37]

yea, it does. it separates those that work with data, and those that work with "convenient" data.

i believe i said that those that are massaging/removing/modifying data to make things look like they need/want them to look and those that see/know this is happening are the problem.
 i don't believe i said anything that could be interpreted as saying all scientists are doing this....or bad.

No it doesn't.  Every scientist (or almost every scientist) uses statistical regression, Bayesian inference and estimation, multifactor analysis of variance, ANOVA....etc etc etc.

Massaging data and removing outliers is part of this.

 MODIFYING data is not. That isn't professional and should be punished.

You are, with your exact words, lumping everyone into one pile.  

[Penguin]

Oops, sorry there, cap.

Why didn't you say so?

Sorry about the sudden edit on that other post.

-Penguin

[Widewing]

Sir, there are about 2.6 million scientists in the United States alone.  

I don't buy that at all... 8.25% of the population are scientists? Ahhh.... No.


My regards,

Widewing

[Motherland]

CAP1,
While I regularly judge people by those they associate with, that's a pretty wide swath of people & a large movement to judge by the actions of a few.

That would be like saying that, since Ted Haggard turned out to buy methamphetamine and sex from a male prostitute, all people who are openly against gay marriage are only doing so to cover up and justify their own insecurities.

Or, that all Aces High players believe that flying at 37,000' is a good way of saving fuel

[Anaxogoras]

I don't buy that at all... 8.25% of the population are scientists? Ahhh.... No.


My regards,

Widewing

I think you're off by a decimal place.

2,600,000/308,562,007 * 100 = 00.8%

Granted, 2.6 million sounds like a lot, but sometimes terms like 'scientist' cast a very wide net.

[CAP1]

No it doesn't.  Every scientist (or almost every scientist) uses statistical regression, Bayesian inference and estimation, multifactor analysis of variance, ANOVA....etc etc etc.

Massaging data and removing outliers is part of this.

 MODIFYING data is not. That isn't professional and should be punished.

You are, with your exact words, lumping everyone into one pile.  

maybe this is where we misunderstand each other.

 to me, modifying the data, is indeed massaging it, and vice versa.

 maybe i also don't quite understand, but going by what you say about removing parts of the data, would be the same as me ignoring part of the oscilliscope pattern on a mass airflow meter, or an 02 sensor, or a bmap sensor.
 it doesn't make sense. there is no way to know who is removing what and for what reason.

 if a conclusion is to be made(in my mind) then all of the data needs to be used. anything else doesn't compute(pun intended)