Thread: Climategate!

Originally Posted by sparq

Welcome BJ2! Would it offend you if I told you to kindly get to the point of the topic instead of wasting your razor sharp sarcastic generalisms on us?

OT PS: How is your research on Hasan doing? Have you found any solid facts yet?

While yes, Mr. Sparq, I have been hard at work.
Here's a bit of inconvenient truth just for you...

Climate Change: Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out - ABC News

Have a great day! Really.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

While yes, Mr. Sparq, I have been hard at work.
Here's a bit of inconvenient truth just for you...

Climate Change: Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out - ABC News

Have a great day! Really.

just more junk science with absolute no truth involved.. "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING"

Originally Posted by 59caddy

just more junk science with absolute no truth involved.. "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING"

Exactly what I'm trying to say. It's all a big hoax! The scientists are in cahoots with Al Gore and the military industrial complex. Only an idiot isn't aware of the global conspiracy on behalf of scientists hell-bent on increasing taxes and eliminating jobs. They may claim be be scientists. But they're not.

Don't worry.
Be happy...

RealClearPolitics - The Climate Change Hoax


hmmm...what say you?????

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

While yes, Mr. Sparq, I have been hard at work.
Here's a bit of inconvenient truth just for you...

Climate Change: Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out - ABC News

Have a great day! Really.

I am sorry to be in an opposition again, but that is off topic, too. This topic is about suspicion of ethically questionable practices of some scientists involved in climate research who allegedly use non-scientific methods to propel forward their science and agenda. It has nothing to do with the actual state of our climate.

I hope I have it politically correct.

Originally Posted by sparq

I am sorry to be in an opposition again, but that is off topic, too. This topic is about suspicion of ethically questionable practices of some scientists involved in climate research who allegedly use non-scientific methods to propel forward their science and agenda. It has nothing to do with the actual state of our climate.

I hope I have it politically correct.

Have a great holiday. Seriously.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Have a great holiday. Seriously.

Thank you Billy. Have a nice holiday, too.

I wonder why hackers targeted this one research group?

In all honesty, there are always a lot of emails sent when doing collaborative research, and some of what is said between colleagues in an email is very context-specific - the full import of what is typed can only really be fully appreciated between the academics in question. What might look like a damning statement in an email might just be a continuation of a telephone conversation from weeks earlier - tip of a very mundane iceberg, as it were.

That is not to say there is not a lot of data manipulation that goes on, and it goes on in all research. I have seen it happen in everything from social and criminological research to environmental and medical research, and everything beyond and between. It is one of my chief concerns in any context actually, as a statistician. It is driven by the nature of the research profession: the need to procure continuing funding, the need to publish, the need to find "significant" results, and in some cases the genuine belief by some researchers that their hypotheses are correct but that the data is just not showing it to its "best advantage". Researchers are human after all, by and large.

This particular issue has sparked debate amongst statisticians across the world over the past week - my inbox is full of emails from various stats lists from the UK, Australia, US, and Europe. It is interesting reading, actually. It appears my colleagues can be just as emotional on this issue as anyone else, and I find that a disturbing trait in my profession (although I completely understand it on a human level).

In any event, one "data point" does not a population make. Inferring the entire population of climate change research is tainted based on this one instance (even if true) is ridiculous in the extreme. It might cast doubt, sure, but trying to say more than that is really just using the same logic the climate change sceptics find so frustrating in the climate change adherents.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

In any event, one "data point" does not a population make. Inferring the entire population of climate change research is tainted based of this one instance (even if true) is ridiculous in the extreme. It might cast doubt, sure, but trying to say more than that is really just using the same logic the climate change sceptics find so frustrating in the climate change adherents.

James.

Thank you James. Unfortunately, the impacts of that particular research goes well beyond narrow scientific circles as it is so tightly interwoven with politics and miscellaneous groups agendas; with non-trivial impacts on our lives. I cannot accept it as a good anecdote, the implications go too far and wide.

Originally Posted by sparq

Unfortunately, the impacts of that particular research goes well beyond narrow scientific circles as it is so tightly interwoven with politics and miscellaneous groups agendas; with non-trivial impacts on our lives. I cannot accept it as a good anecdote, the implications go too far and wide.

It appears you are intimately familiar with this particular research, would you care to offer your objective refute of those unsubstantiated claims they have made, for the enlightenment of the rest of us?
You surely have analyzed the data yourself with rock-solid methods and would be able to convince us once and for all about this. Then we can finally put this topic to rest and return back to the best type of TP.