Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[BlackCat]

Holy crap, you are so wrong it's hilarious. Get to know some scientists and find out what they do in detail compared to what they publish.

Well that really makes me more confident in scientific results

Now, if I, who have to document and can reproduce things, has doubts about how science works, wonder how other will see this.

[KrazyHorse]

You have NO IDEA how creative and productive we are relative to the nonsense monkey work you do.

[BlackCat]

I honestly don't know what questions you're trying to ask me here, but the reason "shoddy" was in quotes is because I don't actually believe the models are shoddy. I believe that the programming may be shoddy, in that it doesn't meet commercial standards and such, but that doesn't mean that it does not accurately interpret the data.

"shoddy" has several meanings. One thing is not adding a -Wall when compiling. Most of the warnings are crap, but some may cause false results without faults. What I think is the real "shoddy" thing is the lack of documentation. It doesn't matter if a program is written for at single run - it alters data in some way and needs doc. You don't need to write a man page, but a comment in the program is the least.

I'm not sure it's useful to generalize the specific instance of CRU avoiding FOIA requests to the whole climate science community being evasive or something like that.

No, but one of the mayor public financed players could be expected to do such.

You can claim that certain skeptics aren't actually scientists. And in many cases, that's completely accurate. Non-scientists shouldn't be allowed access to data, because there's nothing useful they're going to be able to do with it.

That is pure BS. Who desicdes who are "appropiate" scientists that can be allowed to see these data ? Who cares that there are lots of people with acces to data they don't understand as long as people that can understand it have acces ?

[BlackCat]

You have NO IDEA how creative and productive we are relative to the nonsense monkey work you do.

Well, noones life depend on my work, so it's mainly a question of not clearing up any mess I do. You, on the other hand seems to be willing to "modify" your data so it fits your "research"

[KrazyHorse]

I apply modifications which I've assured myself don't SUBSTANTIALLY impact the results I get. When the manipulations I do SUBSTANTIALLY affect the results then I explain them in more detail. If I were to EXACTLY describe everything I do my papers would be 60 pages in length instead of 6 pages. And nobody would read them because they would be completely boring.

[BlackCat]

Dude, I don't tell people everything they need to know to reproduce my **** exactly. Nor will the CERN people give out their raw data. Nor does any other experiment give out its raw data.

Can't figure out wether it's because you are sober or some othe disease, but you are pretty dense this night. I don't really care where you you put up your data as long as they can be reproduced by similar experiments. That's your business, but when you are a public research site that collect unique data, then your ass is free for everyone to enter.

[Darius871]

Dude, I don't tell people everything they need to know to reproduce my **** exactly. Nor will the CERN people give out their raw data. Nor does any other experiment give out its raw data.

Since when did anyone dispute that, or even give a **** whether, this is the standard practice in the scientific community? The question was whether it should be in a narrow field that has far more vast public policy implications than others. Why not explain why setting up full online access to raw data and including a URL to it in a footnote to a paper, without more, would be impracticable?

Obviously data from the 1970s, 1980s, and much of the 1990s would be on the wrong media, but what excuse is there for anything in the last decade, which could easily fit in a closet full of multi-terabyte hard drives, or perhaps even a distributed system of donor computers?

FFS, the LHC's expected to produce less petabytes in a year than Google processes in a day, and yet both manage to amass the computing power to meet their needs. Storage of and access to climate data for peer review could be handled exactly the same way. All this really boils down to is how much is budgeted to it.

[BlackCat]

I apply modifications which I've assured myself don't SUBSTANTIALLY impact the results I get. When the manipulations I do SUBSTANTIALLY affect the results then I explain them in more detail. If I were to EXACTLY describe everything I do my papers would be 60 pages in length instead of 6 pages. And nobody would read them because they would be completely boring.

You modify your data, but don't explain why/how ?

Oh, but it was only small adjustments that couldn't affect the end result

[KrazyHorse]

Can't figure out wether it's because you are sober or some othe disease, but you are pretty dense this night. I don't really care where you you put up your data as long as they can be reproduced by similar experiments. That's your business, but when you are a public research site that collect unique data, then your ass is free for everyone to enter.

Similar experiments? I don't do experiments, you ********. What version of software people use will affect their exact results. And I don't describe my methodologies in sufficient detail that anybody could reproduce them exactly. And neither does anybody else. The question is whether the difference is SUBSTANTIAL or not relative to some other reasonable method. If the differences are substantial then you explain what you did. If not, then **** it.

[KrazyHorse]

Since when did anyone dispute that, or even give a **** whether, this is the standard practice in the scientific community? The question was whether it should be in a narrow field that has far more vast public policy implications than others. Why not explain why setting up full online access to raw data and including a URL to it in a footnote to a paper, without more, would be impracticable?

Obviously data from the 1970s, 1980s, and much of the 1990s would be on the wrong formats, but what excuse is there for anything in the last decade, which could easily fit in a closet full of multi-terabyte hard drives, or perhaps even a distributed system of donor computers?

FFS, the LHC's expected to produce less petabytes in a year than Google processes in a day, and yet both manage to amass the computing power to meet their needs. Storage for peer review could be handled exactly the same way. All this really boils down to is how much is budgeted to it.

Errrrrr.....no.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The LHC would fill up every hard drive in the world in 3 months if raw data were stored. Not to mention the fact that LIGHTSPEED LIMITATIONS combined with current throughput capacities means that even this is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Thanks for playing son, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

[KrazyHorse]

You modify your data, but don't explain why/how ?

Oh, but it was only small adjustments that couldn't affect the end result

OMFG.

This isn't a ****ing courtroom. I don't have to convince beyond a reasonable doubt. I have to demonstrate to people who AREN'T pathologically determined to decide I'm wrong that what I've done is reasonable.



You guys should try doing science for a while with the attitude you've demonstrated. Your supervisor would have a VERY long talk with you about how unproductive and pedestrian you were being.

[Darius871]

DP

[BlackCat]

Similar experiments? I don't do experiments, you ********. What version of software people use will affect their exact results. And I don't describe my methodologies in sufficient detail that anybody could reproduce them exactly. And neither does anybody else. The question is whether the difference is SUBSTANTIAL or not relative to some other reasonable method. If the differences are substantial then you explain what you did. If not, then **** it.

Oh, you don't explain how you get your results, but you still think that they should be accepted ?

[Darius871]

Errrrrr.....no.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The LHC would fill up every hard drive in the world in 3 months if raw data were stored. Not to mention the fact that LIGHTSPEED LIMITATIONS combined with current throughput capacities means that even this is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Thanks for playing son, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

What then makes up the 15 petabytes that the LHC's distributed grid will accommodate annually, if not raw data to be analyzed?

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Computing-en.html

I also have yet to see you base your conclusions on how many terabytes the CRU actually holds/held. You can't argue that it's impossible without that simple fact.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think that CRU data would be impossible to report. If you want the raw data then I suggest you PAY SOMEBODY to do it.

Climate scientists don't do it because it's a giant waste as far as they're concerned.