Public Safety Announcment follows this new material…
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. - TimesOnline.Co.UK
In spite of these grave actions, those who wish to believe in AGW claim that this changes nothing, in effect trying to use the same thought processes that lead people to believe the philosophical myth that you cannot prove a negative. Actually you can if you agree to base your arguments in reality:
The preponderance of data seems to show that we are not currently warming up.
The scientists that committed the “boo-boo” have said:
We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data. – CRU Website
In other words – we can’t prove our outrageous claims but you can trust us, what we’re showing you is legitimate and even better than the original data. “Quality controlled and homogenized”? To the layman, this means that the data was extensively massaged to lean wherever the hell the scientists wanted it to lean. Their models have to have a great number of assumptions built in and to not release the data means that they do not want the scrutiny, which also means that their conclusions are highly suspect. No scientist ever destroys data. That would be like saying that a mechanic puts pebbles in the cylinders as he is putting on the head gasket and getting ready to button the engine up – it just isn’t done.
Seems to me that the larger problem is how many people who have predicated their research on Climate Change in the echo-chamber lined with the CRU-doctored data and James Hansen’s (NASA) own credibility issues.
This is a technique I need to use with the IRS. Really, my records were lost but my spreadsheet here shows that I only owed $0.79 and am entitled to almost all of my withholdings. Honest. Why would I lie to you?
****Public Safety Announcement****
Ok, I poo-poo’ed the H1N1 flu. Yes, I think I got it back in July. Yes I survived. Yes, I felt like dying.
Most people survive just fine.
If you happen to be like a friend of mine, you get sick, you get sicker, you get can’t-breathe-hacking-up-blood hospital sick, you then decide to get ICU sick, the CDC steps in and authorizes a five-day course of Paramavir in convenient almost-at-death’s-door IV form. Then you decide to live but strangely the plan seems to be recovering in a period of weeks and months, not days.
Granted, he had all the classical bad things working against him. Overweight, asthmatic, high blood pressure, overworked…
The CDC has some information posted that I find to be irresponsible and granted they were aiming it at a less educated group, but medical and scientific organizations need to stop talking down to people – people can and do ask questions and rise to the occasion when they need to figure something out. Dumbing shit down just dilutes the message and conveys nothing useful.
When soap and water are not available, alcohol-based disposable hand wipes or gel sanitizers may be used.* You can find them in most supermarkets and drugstores. If using gel, rub your hands until the gel is dry. The gel doesn’t need water to work; the alcohol in it kills the germs on your hands. - CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/qa.htm)
You are left thinking “Hey, all right, alcohol is good!” and then you read on to where it says “the alcohol in it kills the germs on your hands”.
What? H1N1 is not a germ. It is a virus. So by making that last sentence read the way it does, it puts in doubt whether these folks know what they are talking about.
Yes, influenza viruses do have a lipid coat on them which is susceptible to alcohol. Some viruses don’t walk around with a lipid coat stolen from the host cell (when they disperse via budding). Great. But is the H1N1 something that I can count on to not be atypical? Should I trust what I’m reading when someone interchangeably uses “germ” and “virus”?
Scientific Blogging has two good links, the first of which makes mention of Benzalkonium Chloride (sometimes referred to as BC or BAC) and is a quaternary ammonium compound. It will kill the viruses.
Stop for a second… no hand sanitizer is a good substitute for washing your hands.
Good info on hand sanitizers:
Interesting info on influenza:
Lastly a link with a data/promotional sheet on a BC product. Aimed at MRSA originally.
http://www.mrsa-solutions.com/pdfs/H1N1%20-%20COMMENTS%20AND%20PREVENTION.pdf
Linkies no worky!
BTW, I got your present off in the mail this weekend so keep an eye out for it!
Thanks Enas! Links no worky, huh? I’ll take a looky tonight.
Homogenised data, if that doesn’t make you go WTF? Nothing will. It’s also the first time I’ve ever heard of value added data. These fools call themselves scientists. If I ever used those kinds of terms at a symposium I’d be laughed off the stage, hell any self-respecting scientist would never use those terms.
I’m not only finding their work suspect, I’m beginning to think their whole education and CV might be up for review too.
Hey Allen, good to hear from you!
Doesn’t that just chap yer nads?
Using different fits and finding legitimate reasons to say that a data *set* might not be good is ok. Wholesale transformation and displaying the results as the raw product? Complete and utter bullshit.
If another group can’t set up the same experiment or put the raw data through their simulations then there’s no point in calling it science.
What is REALLY annoying here is that if they pre-homogenize the data like this, there is no way you can see what assumptions they made, and believe me, the starting assumptions in your model mean all the difference in the world.
LK, glad you got over the flu.
Hey, I’ve done a piecewise fit to a data reduction system, show me a smooth curve in a complex system, and someone is using Fudgefactor.cpp. I called my subroutine Tabularfit.cpp so I wouldn’t try to BS myself, and explained it extensively in my journal articles.
That’s the amazing thing to me, the question on the raw data. I give out my raw data, when asked. I do understand that you might not just give it out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along. But, if it’s a reasonable request why the hell not?
How’s the pooch? I got my wolf/dog pup back in July. Jeebus, 6 months old and 60 pounds with room to grow.
It wasn’t me that had the flu (except for last July) – it was a poor sonofabitch friend/co-worker of mine. He’s still coughing so hard, he separated three ribs from cartilage in the hospital.
Yeah, you wouldn’t give out data to just any old idiot but if they were published scientists you’d share it out of general principle. If your approach has merit it will stick to the wall like cooked spaghetti.
Zoe-pup is good. She is a timid thing and if you are not careful when you forcefully tell her to stay she’ll let go with the bladder, but I’m slowly getting her over that. I need to post a pic for an update.