Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System?
Eric Gisin
Note how the alarmists cannot respond to this important issue, other than with insane rants and
conspiracies.
December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall meeting of the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in a special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate
system. If you don't already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether anthropogenic global
warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most uncertain of all.
In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as many scientists as possible the
futility of previous attempts to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can
measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized climate
models.
WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
To review, the main feedback issue is this: In response to the small direct warming effect of more
CO2 in the atmosphere, will clouds change in ways that amplify the warming (e.g. a cloud reduction
letting more sunlight in, which would be a positive feedback), or decrease the warming (e.g. a
cloud increase causing less sunlight to be absorbed by the Earth, which would be a negative
feedback)?
In the former case, we could be heading for a global warming catastrophe. In the latter case,
manmade global warming might be barely measurable (and previous warming would be mostly the result
of some natural cause). All climate models tracked by the IPCC now have positive cloud feedbacks,
by varying amounts, which partly explains why the IPCC expects anthropogenic global warming to be
so strong.
Obviously, we need to know what feedbacks operate in the climate system.
ESTIMATING FEEDBACKS: AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM
I am now quite convinced that most, if not all, previous estimates of feedback from our satellite
observations of natural climate variability are in error. Furthermore, this error is usually in the
direction of positive feedback, which will then give the illusion of a 'sensitive' climate system.
More on that later.
The goal seems simple enough: to measure cloud feedbacks, we need to determine how much clouds
change in response to a temperature change. But most researchers do not realize that this is not
possible without accounting for causation in the opposite direction, i.e., the extent to which
temperature changes are a response to cloud changes.
As I will demonstrate in my AGU talk on December 16, for all practical purposes it is not possible
(at least not yet) to measure cloud feedbacks because the two directions of causation are
intermingled in nature. As a result, it is not possible with current methods to measure feedbacks
in response to a radiative forcing event such as a change in cloud cover, or even a major volcanic
eruption, such as that from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.
The reason is that the size of the radiative forcing of a temperature change overwhelms the size of
the radiative feedback upon that temperature change, and our satellite measurements can not tell
the difference. There are only two special situations where it can be done: (1) the theoretical
case of an instantaneously imposed, and then constant amount of radiative forcing.which never
happens in the real world; and (2) the real world case where temperature changes are caused
non-radiatively. While I will not go into the evidence here, satellite observations suggest that
cloud feedbacks in the latter case are strongly negative.
Now, if you have an accurate estimate of the radiative forcing of temperature change, accurate
estimates of radiative feedback can be made. But we do not have good estimates of this forcing
during natural climate variations. Only in climate model simulations where a known amount of
radiative forcing is imposed upon the model can this be done. (In another method, if you try to
estimate feedback by measuring how fast the ocean responds, you also run into problems because your
answer depends upon how fast and how deep in the ocean you assume the temperature change will
extend.)
EXAMPLE 1: FEEDBACKS FROM THE CHANGE IN SEASONS
Once one realizes that clouds causing a temperature change (forcing) corrupts our estimates of
temperature causing a cloud change (feedback), it becomes apparent that many of the previous
attempts to estimate feedback will not work.
For instance, many researchers think that you can estimate feedbacks from the seasonal cycle in
average solar illumination of the Earth and the resulting temperature response. There is about a 7%
peak-to-peak variation in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth during the year, with a
maximum occurring in March and September, and the minimum in June. So, one would think we could
measure by how much this change in solar heating causes a change in temperature.
The trouble is that global circulation patterns also change dramatically with the seasons, mostly
due to the large difference in land masses between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Since
cloud formation is affected by a variety of circulation induced effects (fronts, temperature
inversions, etc.), the cloud cover and thus the natural shading of the Earth by clouds also changes
with the seasons, through these seasonal circulation changes.
These non-temperature effects on cloud cover will confound the estimation of feedbacks, because
their magnitude is considerably larger than the magnitude of the feedbacks. If the Earth was 100%
covered by ocean that had a constant depth everywhere, then it might be possible to estimate
feedbacks in this way.but not in the real world.
EXAMPLE 2: FEEDBACKS FROM EL NINO & LA NINA
Researchers have also made feedback estimates from the anomalously warm conditions that exist
during El Nino, and the cool conditions during La Nina. But this runs into a similar problem as
estimating feedbacks from the change in seasons: there are substantial variations in global
circulation patterns between El Nino and La Nina, especially in the tropics. These circulation
changes can induce cloud changes - wholly apart from temperature-induced changes - and there is no
known way to separate the circulation-induced cloud changes (forcing) from the feedback-induced
changes.
THE ERRORS WHICH RESULT FROM PREVIOUS FEEDBACK ESTIMATES
So, how do these problems impact our estimates of feedback? Except under certain circumstances,
they will always cause a bias toward positive feedback. The reason is that radiative forcing and
radiative feedback always work in opposition to each other. (Here I am speaking of the net feedback
parameter, which also contains the increase in loss of infrared radiation by the Earth in direct
response to warming).
Since our satellites measure the two effects combined, if you assume only feedback is being
measured when both feedback and forcing are occurring, then you will underestimate the feedback
parameter, which is a bias in the direction of positive feedback.
THE IMPACT ON CLIMATE MODEL VALIDATION
I can predict that the climate modelers will claim that we really do not need to know the direction
of causation.we can just measure the temperature/cloud relationships in nature, and then adjust the
models until they produce the same temperature/cloud relationships.
While this might sound reasonable, it turns out that the radiative signature of forcing is much
larger than that of feedback. As a result, one can get pretty good agreement between models and
observations even when the model feedbacks are greatly in error. Another way of saying this is that
you can get good agreement between the model behavior and observations whether the cloud feedbacks
are positive OR negative. This is another fact I will be demonstrating on December 16.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
My first task is to convince both observationalists and modelers that much of what they previously
believed about atmospheric feedbacks operating in the real world can be tossed out the window.
Obviously, this will be no small task when so many climate experts assume that nothing important
could have been overlooked after 20 years and billions of dollars of climate research.
But even if I can get a number of mainstream climate scientists to understand that we still do not
know whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative, it is not obvious how to fix the problem. As
I suggested a couple of blog postings ago, maybe we should quit trying to test whether a climate
model that produces 3 deg. C of warming in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide is "true", and
instead test to see if we can falsify a climate model which only produces 0.5 deg. C of warming. As
someone recently pointed out in an email to me, a climate model IS a hypothesis, and in science a
hypothesis can only be falsified - not proved true.
From what I have seen from my analysis of output from 18 of the IPCC's climate models, I'll bet
that we can not falsify such a model with our current observations of the climate system. I suspect
that the climate modeling groups have only publicized models that produce the amount of warming
they believe "looks about right", or "looks reasonable". Through group-think (or maybe the
political leanings of, and pressure from, the IPCC leadership?), they might well have tossed out
any model experiments which produced very little warming.
In any event, I believe that the scientific community's confidence that climate change is now
mostly human-caused is seriously misplaced. It is time for an independent review of climate
modeling, with experts from other physical (and even engineering) disciplines where computer models
are widely used. The importance of the issue demands nothing less.
Furthermore, the computer codes for the climate models now being used by the IPCC should be made
available to other researchers for independent testing and experimentation. The Data Quality Act
for U.S.-supported models already requires this, but this law is being largely ignored.
As a (simple) modeler and computer programmer myself, I know that the modeling groups will protest
that the models are far too complex and finely tuned to let amateurs play with them. But that's
part of the problem. If the models are that complex and fragile, should we be basing multi-trillion
dollar policy decisions on them?
Marvin the Martian
> Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the science
> behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot respond to this
> important issue, other than with insane rants and conspiracies.
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-predictions-be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
>
The problem with positive feedback is that it means that climate is
unstable. If there were positive feedback to temperature increases, then
our climate would have risen in temperature to a new equilibrium point
ages ago, when it was warmer.
All the papers I've seen on positive feedback put their blinders on and
don't look at past warming/cooling trends.
7
> Positive cloud feedback is the key to Climate Alarmism, but the science
> behind it is questionable. Note how the alarmists cannot respond to this
> important issue, other than with insane rants and conspiracies.
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/can-global-warming-predictions-be-
tested-with-observations-of-the-real-climate-system/
>
> December 6, 2009, 08:19:36 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
>
> In a little over a week I will be giving an invited paper at the Fall
> meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in a
> special session devoted to feedbacks in the climate system. If you don't
> already know, feedbacks are what will determine whether anthropogenic
> global warming is strong or weak, with cloud feedbacks being the most
> uncertain of all.
>
> In the 12 minutes I have for my presentation, I hope to convince as many
> scientists as possible the futility of previous attempts to estimate cloud
> feedbacks in the climate system. And unless we can measure cloud feedbacks
> in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized climate
> models.
>
> WHAT ARE FEEDBACKS?
Systems with feedback have characteristic time constants,
oscillations and dampening characteristics all of which are self
evident and measurable. Except if you are an AGW holowarming nut
and fruitcake. You'll just have to make up some more numbers
and bully more publications to get it past peer review.
Climate science needs more transparency.
Thats easy:
1. Put all your emails on public ftp servers.
2. Put all the raw climate data in public ftp servers so that it can be peer
reviewed.
3. Disengage from managing public perceptions of climate and stick to
science.
5c. Stop loosing numbers and making up numbers.
6. I can count, so I'm never going to trust climate science ever again or
their numbers. All climate papers will be viewed with skepticism until its
backed up by dozens of other reports produced independently by independent
teams that are not in contact with each other.
69. Obey the law and service ALL FOI requests.
hhc...@yahoo.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science has done precistly that, and to the frustration of the global
warming enthiuasts, no evidence has been found to support their
conjectures. The oceans appear to be warming, so...
Harry C.
isw
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
I don't have any problem at all with *honest* peer review. What I do
have a BIG problem with is making the data available to people who are
certainly NOT "peers" (in the sense of having little or no scientific
training in any field, let alone a specialization in anything relating
to climatology), who furthermore have a real anti-warming agenda, and
who will, either willfully or ignorantly, misinterpret the data to suit
their purposes, and spread the resulting disinformation far and wide.
How do you propose to prevent that?
Isaac
TUKA
I don't propose to prevent it at all. Nor does the public who is fully
behind the various freedom of information acts.
You pay for it? Keep it secret all you want. You use my money for it?
You don't get to say in who gets the information.
Those of you who have the arrogance to think you still do? Screw you,
and may you go into disgrace as Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and company
have done.
--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
Bill Ward
Excellent question. First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a
person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.
Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the issues
and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping the
language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested high
school physics graduate.
The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
hypothesis is clearly falsified.
IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible people
with scare tactics.
Marvin the Martian
You don't. Your argument for secrecy and keeping things hidden fails, for
BECAUSE of the CRU hack has PROVEN that some people will pretend to be
scientist so that they can scam lots of money using fear tactics.
That there are frauds pretending to be scientist dates back to the days
of the alchemist who would promise the rich a way to turn lead into gold,
for a little funding.
The only way to do science is to be open. These frauds at he CRU were not
at all open, to the point of illegally destroying data in the face of a
Freedom of Information act request.
The goal of science is to find a theory that predicts. That is best done
with openness.
Besides, the only function of peer review is to find the best papers that
are ready for publication into paper journals. Only people not schooled
in science use "peer review" to tell them what to think of a paper.
jmfbahciv
fanatics can't massage those bits.
This problem is similar to companies who developed OSes as a business.
If you shipped the sources, others would steal and use them without
paying. If you didn't ship the sources, you had to have very large
staff fixing the bugs and dealing with the customers who were running
the software.
Nobody has been able to figure out a reasonable method of bit
distribution which solves both problems.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Yup.
> First, I'd write a clear, coherent, complete
> description and explanation of the exact mechanism by which CO2 is
> thought to increase surface temperatures. I'd aim it at the level of a
> person who's had high school physics, but has forgotten much of it. I'd
> make the best, most honest case I could, showing and explaining the
> evidence both supporting and against the hypothesis.
>
> Then I'd publish the first draft and invite review by anyone who feels
> qualified to comment. The second draft would honestly answer the issues
> and misunderstandings raised in those comments, again keeping the
> language and concepts accessible and convincing to any interested high
> school physics graduate.
>
> The process would iterate until a sufficiently understandable,
> unambiguous case could be made for AGW to convince most people, or the
> hypothesis is clearly falsified.
>
> IOW, cut the condescending, supercilious crap and have an honest, open
> debate. Focus on learning how the climate system actually works rather
> than trying to advance a political agenda by frightening gullible people
> with scare tactics.
>
And the scientist is no longer doing his/her science. To make data
available requires a maintenance staff before it's written to the
public disk.
/BAH
Bill Ward
Don't you think it might be a good idea to do some data QC before it's
written to disks distributed to anyone? I'd think that's part of the
scientist's job. Why should the public see anything different from the
same disks the research is based on? The more eyes looking, the earlier
discrepancies can be resolved. Science is supposed to be an open
process, not a quasi-religious ceremony.
It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.
hda
The last 15 years or so I have experienced in production and
elsewhere too the reduction of inhouse Q-design, -control
and -inspection and shifting the burden onto the receiving
end/customer. It looks a conscious strategy under the
disguise of costsreduction. Next the inhouse maintenance job
will be neglected. As I understood BAH is pointing to
neglect in preparation and maintenance before export.
Jerry Okamura
greenhouses gases are accumulating in the atmosphere. So, the proof of the
pudding is to determine if the theory is correct, i.e. are greenhouses gases
accumulating in the atmosphere? The way to do that is to measure the area
in the atmostphere that the gases are suppose to be accumulating in.
"Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net> wrote in message
news:hfh7o9$so9$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
I M @ good guy
wrote:
ISW must be joking, "honest peer review"
only if the Jones' like what the reviewer passes.
The meteorologists who spent a lifetime
documenting the local weather are the ones
who the likes of the cru crowd should apologize
to, mixing tree rings in with station data is
the biggest crock of BS anybody ever tried
to pass off as science.
isw
Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing could
convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse others", then
what?
Isaac
isw
Those who confuse "local weather" with "global climate" are never going
to understand. Tree ring data is another source of data, probably at
least as accurate as your average meteorologist, and over a far longer
time span too -- *if you know how to interpret it*.
Isaac
Rav1ng rabbit
That's typical Bill Ward talk, lying and cheating about AGW with a
authoritative thin foiled hat.
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
I M @ good guy
Fine, show it, but don't mix it in with the
plots of other data sources.
Convince me that CO2 can cause warmer
temperatures, but don't be surprised to learn
that I want warmer temperatures locally.
Bill Ward
Ignore them, and answer the concerns of people like Lindzen, Spencer,
McIntyre, and all the other highly qualified experts in the field. Those
are exactly the people Mann, et al were trying to stonewall, not the
uneducated. It's about politics, not science.
Bill Ward
And that's Q, who has nothing to contribute but his pitiful attempts to
annoy.
jmfbahciv
What discrepancies? We're talking about science data, not a doc
that can be proof-read.
>
> It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
> engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.
>
ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw
data.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
I wasn't talking about neglect. I was talking about how much
work (as in man-years) is required to prepare a writeup which
can be understood by a non-expert. Even maintaining the server
takes a lot of babysitting and somebody has to be hired to do
all that. It will not be the scientist whose job is to do the
science.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> Way to convoluted to me. It is really simple. The theory says that
> greenhouses gases are accumulating in the atmosphere. So, the proof of
> the pudding is to determine if the theory is correct, i.e. are
> greenhouses gases accumulating in the atmosphere? The way to do that is
> to measure the area in the atmostphere that the gases are suppose to be
> accumulating in.
>
Nitpick. Not theory; hypothesis. AFAICT (and I'm not a scientist
so read the following with a big grain of NaCl), all of this mess
has not gotten to the theory step of the Scientific Method.
/BAH
Bill Ward
If that's the case, why not just post it? Why try to hide it?
>> It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
>> engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.
>>
>>
> ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw data.
Organize it into files suitable for archiving and searching, then check
for typos and transcription errors. That should be one of the
deliverables in the data collection contract.
Marvin the Martian
> Before you go to all that trouble, just ask them what it would take to
> convince them that global warming was real. When they say "nothing could
> convince me and I don't mind lying and cheating to confuse others", then
> what?
>
> Isaac
You have an active fantasy life, but a bit delusional.
You betcha that IF global warming was man made and IF the warming had
really bad results, we "denialist" would want to know about it. No one
wants to be cooked. On the other hand, we don't want to be starved to
death and frozen to death because of a stupid Marxist scam, either. WE
have to get this science right. To prove your case, you only have to show
three things; We caused the CO2, the CO2 caused the warming, and the
warming has worse effects than the cure.
To show that we caused the CO2 increase, you have to show how adding 5 Gt
carbon per year to a 40,000 Gt Carbon system can change the equilibrium
between atmosphere and ocean by 30% or more in just a hundred years (500
GtC tops, added to the WHOLE system!) Given that excess carbon dioxide
precipitates out of the ocean into carbonate rock, and chemistry has
conclusively proven that the only way to cause that 30% shift to favor
the atmosphere is to raise temperatures of the sea water, you have a LOT
of explaining to do. What's more, that story about sequestered carbon
being all fossil fuel is a stupid story and defies well known chemistry;
you betcha that carbonate rock and deep sea CO2 is sequestered as well,
and that explains the isotope ratios. And the oxygen isotope ratios are
explained by exchange with sea water.
The second thing you have to show is that the CO2 causes the warming. So
far, all you have is a "correlation proves causation" fallacy. The
problem is, there is a stronger correlation with solar cycle and climate
change than there is with CO2, and there is NO WAY I'm going to confuse
cause and effect between solar cycle and atmospheric CO2. All your
"models" to do this failed to predict the last 10 years, so you don't
even have a hypothesis anymore I can test. And the other problem is, CO2
lags thew climate change, so it must be an effect instead of a cause.
Now, Svensmark came along and explained how solar cycle affects climate.
You can't explain how CO2 affects climate, not more than a trivial
amount. Then Svensmark proved this effect at CERN. Then Svensmark came
out with a hypothesis that PREDICTED. You don't have anything that
predicts, and all your hypothesis have been rejected. You not only don't
have a theory, you don't have a scientific hypothesis to test. What the
fuck are you still doing here posing as a scientist?!
The last thing you have to do is show how this warming is going to be
really bad; bad enough to gut the US economy and kill off a lot of people
to stop it. Since history shows the Medieval warm period to be one of
health and prosperity, you have a lot of 'splaing to do.
jmfbahciv
What are you talking about now? I've been trying to discuss the
problems with the suggestion that any science data be put on
a public server with documentation describing it so a non-scientist
would understand the data. Frankly, I think this (documenting it)
is impossible but there are amazing writers in the science biz.
>
>>> It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
>>> engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.
>>>
>>>
>> ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw data.
>
> Organize it into files suitable for archiving and searching, then check
> for typos and transcription errors.
WTF are you talking about? There can't be typos in raw data, let alone
transcription errors. Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English
ASCII.
> That should be one of the
> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>
You don't know what you're talking about.
I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
/BAH
Bill Ward
I'm talking about making the data available online to whoever wants to
review it, not keeping it from those who might disagree with the
conclusions the IPCC is promoting. There are no "wrong people" who
shouldn't have access to the data, and there's no need to be sure they
"understand" it in the "correct" way. That's not up to you, me, or
anyone else to decide. It's public property.
>>>> It seems a shame for Steve McIntyre to have to do the QC by reverse
>>>> engineering secret analytical processes after the fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ARe you talking about raw data? I don't see how you can QC raw data.
>>
>> Organize it into files suitable for archiving and searching, then check
>> for typos and transcription errors.
>
> WTF are you talking about? There can't be typos in raw data, let alone
> transcription errors.
I'm talking about unadjusted digital versions of the "raw data", not the
original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper originals to
avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and other automated
methods could be used to flag suspected errors for human intervention. I
am specifically excluding any "corrections" based on opinion or
assumptions such as UHI, etc.
> Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.
And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
would be useless.
>> That should be one of the
>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>
> You don't know what you're talking about.
And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are now.
jmfbahciv
No, you are not. See below.
> not the
> original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
> wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper originals to
> avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and other automated
> methods could be used to flag suspected errors for human intervention. I
> am specifically excluding any "corrections" based on opinion or
> assumptions such as UHI, etc.
All of this requires code that massages the real data. So you aren't
talking about raw data here either.
>
>> Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.
>
> And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
> metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
> would be useless.
Then the data has to be massaged by code which has to be written,
tested, debugged, and load tested. This takes manpower, money,
time, and maintenance. By your definition, the bits put on a
public server will not be data but a report of the data.
>
>>> That should be one of the
>>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>>
>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about
moving bits and presenting them to non-expert readers.
I know a lot about this kind of thing because I did that
kind of work for 25 years.
>
>> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
>
> Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
> care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
> enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are now.
>
Contract law is different in each and every country. Which taxpayers
do you think paid for the gathering of that data? Who pays for
the data the maritime business provides?
/BAH
I M @ good guy
BS, the data was mostly taken by weather stations
with no further market for it than the newspapers and
radio and TV stations.
Didn't Jones make it clear, the data won't
be released, period, it is not nice to argue with
superior persons.
Bill Ward
You know what I'm talking about, and I don't? That's quite a gift.
>> not the
>> original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
>> wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper originals
>> to avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and other
>> automated methods could be used to flag suspected errors for human
>> intervention. I am specifically excluding any "corrections" based on
>> opinion or assumptions such as UHI, etc.
>
> All of this requires code that massages the real data. So you aren't
> talking about raw data here either.
It doesn't "require" code, it requires a consistent, transparent,
algorithm, whether done by machine or not.
>>> Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.
>>
>> And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
>> metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
>> would be useless.
>
> Then the data has to be massaged by code which has to be written,
> tested, debugged, and load tested. This takes manpower, money, time,
> and maintenance. By your definition, the bits put on a public server
> will not be data but a report of the data.
I think that's your definition. I said,"I'm talking about unadjusted
digital versions of the 'raw data'", and you took issue with it.
By your definition they'd be useless:
And now for the scores: 7 to 3; 2 to 1; and 21 to 7.
There's your "raw data", but it's not all that useful.
If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging", fine,
but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>>>> That should be one of the
>>>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>>>
>>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
>
> Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about moving bits and
> presenting them to non-expert readers. I know a lot about this kind of
> thing because I did that kind of work for 25 years.
It's you that's worried about "non-expert" readers, not me. I just want
it accessible in a usable form. You don't need to sugar coat it.
>>> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
>> Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
>> care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
>> enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are now.
> Contract law is different in each and every country.
So? There are still enforceable contracts. How would you do
international business without them?
> Which taxpayers do you think paid for the gathering of that data? Who
> pays for the data the maritime business provides?
Don't know, don't care. Are you saying the IPCC is not tax-funded?
Where did our $50B go, then? I think grants are generally in the form of
contracts.
jmfbahciv
Yes. I know what you're not talking about. It's clear you have no
idea what processes are involved w.r.t. putting readable bits on
a computer system.
>
>>> not the
>>> original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
>>> wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper originals
>>> to avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and other
>>> automated methods could be used to flag suspected errors for human
>>> intervention. I am specifically excluding any "corrections" based on
>>> opinion or assumptions such as UHI, etc.
>> All of this requires code that massages the real data. So you aren't
>> talking about raw data here either.
>
> It doesn't "require" code, it requires a consistent, transparent,
> algorithm, whether done by machine or not.
Which requires code if you're putting in into bits and storing
the results on a system which can be accessed by the rest of the
world's computers.
>
>>>> Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.
>>> And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
>>> metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
>>> would be useless.
>> Then the data has to be massaged by code which has to be written,
>> tested, debugged, and load tested. This takes manpower, money, time,
>> and maintenance. By your definition, the bits put on a public server
>> will not be data but a report of the data.
>
> I think that's your definition. I said,"I'm talking about unadjusted
> digital versions of the 'raw data'", and you took issue with it.
No, didn't talk about that. You want prettied up and reformatted so
anybody can read it and understand what it is. That takes code and
massages the raw data.
>
> By your definition they'd be useless:
>
> And now for the scores: 7 to 3; 2 to 1; and 21 to 7.
>
> There's your "raw data", but it's not all that useful.
That is not raw data. You've typed it in and its format
is ASCII.
>
> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging", fine,
> but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code
to use it as input (which is what scientists do).
>
>>>>> That should be one of the
>>>>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>>>>
>>>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>>> And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
>> Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about moving bits and
>> presenting them to non-expert readers. I know a lot about this kind of
>> thing because I did that kind of work for 25 years.
>
> It's you that's worried about "non-expert" readers, not me. I just want
> it accessible in a usable form. You don't need to sugar coat it.
Your kind of usable form requires the raw data to be massaged before
storing it on a public forum.
>
>>>> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
>
>>> Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
>>> care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
>>> enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are now.
>
>> Contract law is different in each and every country.
>
> So? There are still enforceable contracts. How would you do
> international business without them?
You sign a contract for each country or entity in which you want
to do business.
>
>> Which taxpayers do you think paid for the gathering of that data? Who
>> pays for the data the maritime business provides?
>
> Don't know, don't care. Are you saying the IPCC is not tax-funded?
>
> Where did our $50B go, then? I think grants are generally in the form of
> contracts.
>
You don't even know how things get done.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:01:19 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
<snip>
>
> BS, the data was mostly taken by weather stations
> with no further market for it than the newspapers and
> radio and TV stations.
Then it's not data "owned" by taxpayers.
>
> Didn't Jones make it clear, the data won't
> be released, period, it is not nice to argue with
> superior persons.
>
I've been trying to talk about the problems with making
any kinds of data available for anybody to look at. This
is not a trivial task.
/BAH
I M @ good guy
I think at least some of those who requested
the data have a good idea of the format the data
is in.
GISS provides a graph plus makes available
text files of daily or monthly average temperatures,
I have not tried to find out how that data was
obtained or how it was manipulated.
But if the posted files claimed to be from
the cru computers I get the impression they
didn't have a competent IT professional or
programmer in the organization.
Bill Ward
Was that a typo, or you actually agreeing with me now?
> It's clear you have no idea what processes are involved w.r.t. putting
> readable bits on a computer system.
You might be surprised.
>>>> not the
>>>> original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
>>>> wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper
>>>> originals to avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and
>>>> other automated methods could be used to flag suspected errors for
>>>> human intervention. I am specifically excluding any "corrections"
>>>> based on opinion or assumptions such as UHI, etc.
>>> All of this requires code that massages the real data. So you aren't
>>> talking about raw data here either.
>>
>> It doesn't "require" code, it requires a consistent, transparent,
>> algorithm, whether done by machine or not.
>
> Which requires code if you're putting in into bits and storing the
> results on a system which can be accessed by the rest of the world's
> computers.
It's easier that way. But the most important thing is to avoid
corrupting the data.
>>>>> Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.
>>>> And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
>>>> metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
>>>> would be useless.
>>> Then the data has to be massaged by code which has to be written,
>>> tested, debugged, and load tested. This takes manpower, money, time,
>>> and maintenance. By your definition, the bits put on a public server
>>> will not be data but a report of the data.
>>
>> I think that's your definition. I said,"I'm talking about unadjusted
>> digital versions of the 'raw data'", and you took issue with it.
>
> No, didn't talk about that. You want prettied up and reformatted so
> anybody can read it and understand what it is. That takes code and
> massages the raw data.
"Adjusting", or "massaging" is different from "reformatting".
>
>
>> By your definition they'd be useless:
>>
>> And now for the scores: 7 to 3; 2 to 1; and 21 to 7.
>>
>> There's your "raw data", but it's not all that useful.
>
> That is not raw data. You've typed it in and its format is ASCII.
You seem to be straining at gnats here. When does the mercury position
become "raw data" to you? When does it stop being "raw data"?
>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging", fine,
>> but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>
> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code to use
> it as input (which is what scientists do).
And many others who might be seriously interested.
>>>>>> That should be one of the
>>>>>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>>>> And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
>>> Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about moving bits
>>> and presenting them to non-expert readers. I know a lot about this
>>> kind of thing because I did that kind of work for 25 years.
>>
>> It's you that's worried about "non-expert" readers, not me. I just
>> want it accessible in a usable form. You don't need to sugar coat it.
>
> Your kind of usable form requires the raw data to be massaged before
> storing it on a public forum.
I guess that depends on your definition of "massaging". As long as it
doesn't corrupt the data, I don't care what you call it, but the simpler,
the better.
>>>>> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
>>
>>>> Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
>>>> care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
>>>> enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are
>>>> now.
>>
>>> Contract law is different in each and every country.
>>
>> So? There are still enforceable contracts. How would you do
>> international business without them?
>
> You sign a contract for each country or entity in which you want to do
> business.
Exactly. Why were you trying to make an issue of such an obvious point?
>>> Which taxpayers do you think paid for the gathering of that data? Who
>>> pays for the data the maritime business provides?
>>
>> Don't know, don't care. Are you saying the IPCC is not tax-funded?
>>
>> Where did our $50B go, then? I think grants are generally in the form
>> of contracts.
>>
>>
> You don't even know how things get done.
Again, you might be surprised.
jmfbahciv
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:06:36 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:01:19 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> BS, the data was mostly taken by weather stations
>>> with no further market for it than the newspapers and
>>> radio and TV stations.
>> Then it's not data "owned" by taxpayers.
>>
>>> Didn't Jones make it clear, the data won't
>>> be released, period, it is not nice to argue with
>>> superior persons.
>>>
>> I've been trying to talk about the problems with making
>> any kinds of data available for anybody to look at. This
>> is not a trivial task.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> I think at least some of those who requested
> the data have a good idea of the format the data
> is in.
Data can be in any format the gatherer wants it to be.
We're not talking about other scientists reading that data.
We've been talking about non-scientists getting access
to data with descriptions so that a one-year-old can understand
what the data means.
>
> GISS provides a graph plus makes available
> text files of daily or monthly average temperatures,
> I have not tried to find out how that data was
> obtained or how it was manipulated.
Maybe you should try; then you wouldn't state some of things
you have written.
>
> But if the posted files claimed to be from
> the cru computers I get the impression they
> didn't have a competent IT professional or
> programmer in the organization.
You still don't know what you're talking about. Data is not
code and code, usually, is not data.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Not really.
>
>>>>> not the
>>>>> original paper forms. I'm assuming there will be keyboarding errors,
>>>>> wrong dates, etc, which should be checked against the paper
>>>>> originals to avoid propagating unambiguous errors. Range checks and
>>>>> other automated methods could be used to flag suspected errors for
>>>>> human intervention. I am specifically excluding any "corrections"
>>>>> based on opinion or assumptions such as UHI, etc.
>>>> All of this requires code that massages the real data. So you aren't
>>>> talking about raw data here either.
>>> It doesn't "require" code, it requires a consistent, transparent,
>>> algorithm, whether done by machine or not.
>> Which requires code if you're putting in into bits and storing the
>> results on a system which can be accessed by the rest of the world's
>> computers.
>
> It's easier that way. But the most important thing is to avoid
> corrupting the data.
There are lots of ways it can be corrupted. A lot them don't even
require a human being.
>
>>>>>> Raw data is numbers not nice wordage in English ASCII.
>>>>> And I'm talking about adding the labels, dates, locations and other
>>>>> metadata required to make it usable. By your definition, "raw data"
>>>>> would be useless.
>
>>>> Then the data has to be massaged by code which has to be written,
>>>> tested, debugged, and load tested. This takes manpower, money, time,
>>>> and maintenance. By your definition, the bits put on a public server
>>>> will not be data but a report of the data.
>>> I think that's your definition. I said,"I'm talking about unadjusted
>>> digital versions of the 'raw data'", and you took issue with it.
>> No, didn't talk about that. You want prettied up and reformatted so
>> anybody can read it and understand what it is. That takes code and
>> massages the raw data.
>
> "Adjusting", or "massaging" is different from "reformatting".
All reformatting is massaging. If you are not doing a bit-for-
bit copy, you are massaging the file.
>>
>>> By your definition they'd be useless:
>>>
>>> And now for the scores: 7 to 3; 2 to 1; and 21 to 7.
>>>
>>> There's your "raw data", but it's not all that useful.
>> That is not raw data. You've typed it in and its format is ASCII.
>
> You seem to be straining at gnats here. When does the mercury position
> become "raw data" to you? When does it stop being "raw data"?
Raw data is the original collection of facts. Prettying numbers
up to be displayed on a TTY screen or hardcopy paper requires
massaging if those bits are stored on computer gear.
>
>>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging", fine,
>>> but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code to use
>> it as input (which is what scientists do).
>
> And many others who might be seriously interested.
This thread has been talking about non-scientists having access to
any data which was collected; further constraints were declared
that the data had to be prettied up and completely described so
that anybody could access the data and know what it meant. One
of you made a further requirement that the scientist do all that
work. Ptui.
>
>>>>>>> That should be one of the
>>>>>>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
>>>>> And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
>
>>>> Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about moving bits
>>>> and presenting them to non-expert readers. I know a lot about this
>>>> kind of thing because I did that kind of work for 25 years.
>>> It's you that's worried about "non-expert" readers, not me. I just
>>> want it accessible in a usable form. You don't need to sugar coat it.
>> Your kind of usable form requires the raw data to be massaged before
>> storing it on a public forum.
>
> I guess that depends on your definition of "massaging". As long as it
> doesn't corrupt the data, I don't care what you call it, but the simpler,
> the better.
You can't tell if the data's been corrupted if it's been reformatted.
You have to have QA specialist checking.
>
>>>>>> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
>>>
>>>>> Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really don't
>>>>> care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better be an
>>>>> enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where we are
>>>>> now.
>>>
>>>> Contract law is different in each and every country.
>>> So? There are still enforceable contracts. How would you do
>>> international business without them?
>> You sign a contract for each country or entity in which you want to do
>> business.
>
> Exactly. Why were you trying to make an issue of such an obvious point?
You're the one who started to talk about contracts.
>
>>>> Which taxpayers do you think paid for the gathering of that data? Who
>>>> pays for the data the maritime business provides?
>>> Don't know, don't care. Are you saying the IPCC is not tax-funded?
>>>
>>> Where did our $50B go, then? I think grants are generally in the form
>>> of contracts.
>>>
>>>
>> You don't even know how things get done.
>
> Again, you might be surprised.
Not at all. You have no idea how much work is involved.
/BAH
Bill Ward
You use strange definitions, but OK.
>
>
>>>> By your definition they'd be useless:
>>>>
>>>> And now for the scores: 7 to 3; 2 to 1; and 21 to 7.
>>>>
>>>> There's your "raw data", but it's not all that useful.
>>> That is not raw data. You've typed it in and its format is ASCII.
>>
>> You seem to be straining at gnats here. When does the mercury position
>> become "raw data" to you? When does it stop being "raw data"?
>
> Raw data is the original collection of facts. Prettying numbers up to
> be displayed on a TTY screen or hardcopy paper requires massaging if
> those bits are stored on computer gear.
I didn't see an answer to my question there. At what point does the
value representing the position of the Hg meniscus become "raw data"?
"[O]riginal collection of facts" is a bit ambiguous. Is it when the
observer reads it, when he initially writes it down on a form, when he
keys it into a computer memory, when he saves it to permanent media, when
a herdcopy is printed...? If you're going to make up definitions, you
at least need to be specific and consistent.
I define "raw data" as any copy of the original reading that carries
exactly the same information as the original reading, no matter what
format it's in. If any information has changed, it's no longer raw
data. If the information is the same, but the data has been reformatted,
labeled, columnized, "prettied up", sorted, or any other information
preserving transformation, it's still raw data, since the information is
unchanged.
Do you see any problem with that?
>>>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging",
>>>> fine, but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>>> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code to
>>> use it as input (which is what scientists do).
>>
>> And many others who might be seriously interested.
>
> This thread has been talking about non-scientists having access to any
> data which was collected; further constraints were declared that the
> data had to be prettied up and completely described so that anybody
> could access the data and know what it meant.
That would be what you were talking about, not me. All I insisted was
that the data be usable, which I think you are calling "prettied up".
That should be a requirement for any data used to support a paper. If
the data is not in usable form, how could the research be done? It looks
like that may be one of the current problems with "climate science". The
data they were using was/is not in usable form, but they didn't let that
stop them.
> One of you made a further
> requirement that the scientist do all that work. Ptui.
No, that's for grad students. ;-) But somebody has to do it, or the
research is based on invalid assumptions.
>>>>>>>> That should be one of the
>>>>>>>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>>>>> And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
>>
>>>>> Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about moving bits
>>>>> and presenting them to non-expert readers. I know a lot about this
>>>>> kind of thing because I did that kind of work for 25 years.
>>>> It's you that's worried about "non-expert" readers, not me. I just
>>>> want it accessible in a usable form. You don't need to sugar coat
>>>> it.
>>> Your kind of usable form requires the raw data to be massaged before
>>> storing it on a public forum.
>>
>> I guess that depends on your definition of "massaging". As long as it
>> doesn't corrupt the data, I don't care what you call it, but the
>> simpler, the better.
>
> You can't tell if the data's been corrupted if it's been reformatted.
> You have to have QA specialist checking.
Shouldn't that be a routine procedure? Or do you expect to use invalid
data to get valid results?
>>>>>>> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
>>>>
>>>>>> Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really
>>>>>> don't care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better
>>>>>> be an enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where
>>>>>> we are now.
>>>>
>>>>> Contract law is different in each and every country.
>>>> So? There are still enforceable contracts. How would you do
>>>> international business without them?
>>> You sign a contract for each country or entity in which you want to do
>>> business.
>>
>> Exactly. Why were you trying to make an issue of such an obvious
>> point?
>
> You're the one who started to talk about contracts.
>
>>>>> Which taxpayers do you think paid for the gathering of that data?
>>>>> Who pays for the data the maritime business provides?
>>>> Don't know, don't care. Are you saying the IPCC is not tax-funded?
>>>>
>>>> Where did our $50B go, then? I think grants are generally in the
>>>> form of contracts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You don't even know how things get done.
>> Again, you might be surprised.
> Not at all. You have no idea how much work is involved.
We paid for a lot of work that now appears useless. I'd rather pay for
careful work done in an open, transparent manner. It's cheaper than
having to redo it.
TUKA
Yes, because of one thing. The verification that it is unchanged. Which
is why any science class trains you to enter the data directly into whatever
will be the retention mechanism. In olden days, that was a log book. Today,
that is typically some sort of digital form.
If there is no transcription, even digital, then I have no problem with
it. But if it is flowed into another form, there is some potential for
error. Which is why you don't destroy the raw data.
--
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
society. -- Mark Twain
Bill Ward
And why I stipulated information preserving transformations only. Of
course it has to be checked. It's been a long time, but I can remember
independent key entering of data by two persons to flag errors.
I hope you realize I'm not condoning discarding original data, I just
want usable backups to be available of the raw data used in published
papers.
Financial transactions seem to work pretty much OK, and that's only
money, not irreplaceable physical data.
TUKA
OK, I misunderstood what you were saying. I am sorry I raised the
point, it is obvious you had thought of it.
Do you have any analysis -- or is such analysis possible -- of the state
of the East Anglia data? Has any information been made available that you
know of, or has anyone done an exposition?
--
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it,
can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the
universe to do. -- Galileo
I M @ good guy
You put way too much into what scientists
do and how little a non-professional can do and
understands.
Nothing has to be done to the data, just
make it available according to the law, and let
the recipients worry about the format.
It isn't just the data that is subject to the
FOIA, it is the whole ball of wax that public
money paid for, professional work is supposed
to be notated, even within the text of papers,
hiding anything is either hiding something,
or some kind of perversion about importance.
Bill Ward
No problem.
> Do you have any analysis -- or is such analysis possible -- of the state
> of the East Anglia data? Has any information been made available that
> you know of, or has anyone done an exposition?
Just Steve and the Climateaudit gang. He seems to be taking it slow and
careful, as he should.
TUKA
Oh yes, of course. I wasn't thinking of data analysis, more like metadata
analysis. Like a description of what data is actually there, what has been
destroyed, what the prognosis is, etc.
--
I am a great believer in luck, and I find that the harder I work
the more luck I have. -- Thomas Jefferson
jmfbahciv
>
>>>>>> Which taxpayers do you think paid for the gathering of that data? Who
>>>>>> pays for the data the maritime business provides?
>>>>> Don't know, don't care. Are you saying the IPCC is not tax-funded?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did our $50B go, then? I think grants are generally in the form
>>>>> of contracts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You don't even know how things get done.
>>> Again, you might be surprised.
>>
>> Not at all. You have no idea how much work is involved.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> You put way too much into what scientists
> do and how little a non-professional can do and
> understands.
>
> Nothing has to be done to the data, just
> make it available according to the law, and let
> the recipients worry about the format.
That isn't what somebody insisted be done. I've been talking
about the suggestion that the data be prettied up and
documented with an explanation of the conclusions so that
a two-year-old can understand it. That last one is impossible
when the lab project is still in hypothesis-mode.
>
> It isn't just the data that is subject to the
> FOIA, it is the whole ball of wax that public
> money paid for, professional work is supposed
> to be notated, even within the text of papers,
> hiding anything is either hiding something,
> or some kind of perversion about importance.
The hiding is not the problem. The problem is politicians
using this as a basis for passing laws, tweaking economies,
stopping trade, and destroying nations and infrastructures.
another problem is a public who would rather believe in
conspiracies, unicorns, and outrageous fictions than
expend a tad of mental energy thinking.
If you want to solve this "cheating" problem, then solve
those two.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:53:43 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:03:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:01:19 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>
<snip clean my tty screen>
>>>>> I think that's your definition. I said,"I'm talking about unadjusted
>>>>> digital versions of the 'raw data'", and you took issue with it.
>
>>>> No, didn't talk about that. You want prettied up and reformatted so
>>>> anybody can read it and understand what it is. That takes code and
>>>> massages the raw data.
>>> "Adjusting", or "massaging" is different from "reformatting".
>> All reformatting is massaging. If you are not doing a bit-for- bit
>> copy, you are massaging the file.
>
> You use strange definitions, but OK.
It was a term used my biz which was hard/software development.
>>
>>>>> By your definition they'd be useless:
>>>>>
>>>>> And now for the scores: 7 to 3; 2 to 1; and 21 to 7.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's your "raw data", but it's not all that useful.
>>>> That is not raw data. You've typed it in and its format is ASCII.
>>> You seem to be straining at gnats here. When does the mercury position
>>> become "raw data" to you? When does it stop being "raw data"?
>> Raw data is the original collection of facts. Prettying numbers up to
>> be displayed on a TTY screen or hardcopy paper requires massaging if
>> those bits are stored on computer gear.
>
> I didn't see an answer to my question there. At what point does the
> value representing the position of the Hg meniscus become "raw data"?
When it is recorded the first time.
>
> "[O]riginal collection of facts" is a bit ambiguous. Is it when the
> observer reads it, when he initially writes it down on a form, when he
> keys it into a computer memory, when he saves it to permanent media, when
> a herdcopy is printed...? If you're going to make up definitions, you
> at least need to be specific and consistent.
RAw data depends on when, where and how the fact is collected. It is
as varied as the subjects. Data can be recorded with pen and paper
in a bound notebook. It can be collected with an analog device.
It can be collected with a digital device. It can be things in boxes,
scribbles on paper, holes in cards, bits on magnetic tape, bits on
disks, DECtapes, cassettes, CDs, or pictures. (I'm missing some..
oh, ticks on stone or in the sand).
>
> I define "raw data" as any copy of the original reading that carries
> exactly the same information as the original reading, no matter what
> format it's in.
I would not. A binary datum, 111100111, is not the same as the
number, 747, displayed in ASCII format on your TTY screen.
> If any information has changed, it's no longer raw
> data. If the information is the same, but the data has been reformatted,
> labeled, columnized, "prettied up", sorted, or any other information
> preserving transformation, it's still raw data,
We never called that raw data.
>since the information is
> unchanged.
>
The data has been processed through some code which changed the format
it is stored in. It is no longer raw; raw implied no changed have been
made. Any reformatting requires changes. If any of the reformatting
code over time has any bug, (say one that sets a bit which isn't
detected), the outcome of analyses decades later would be affected.
> Do you see any problem with that?
Oh, yes. :-) Numbers are an especial problem. think of data
storages that varied from 8 bits/word to 72/word over three
decades. And now things are measured in "bytes" which vary
with the phase of the sun and the setting of the moon.
>
>>>>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging",
>>>>> fine, but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>
>>>> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code to
>>>> use it as input (which is what scientists do).
>>> And many others who might be seriously interested.
>> This thread has been talking about non-scientists having access to any
>> data which was collected; further constraints were declared that the
>> data had to be prettied up and completely described so that anybody
>> could access the data and know what it meant.
>
> That would be what you were talking about, not me. All I insisted was
> that the data be usable, which I think you are calling "prettied up".
I think it was Eric who wanted stuff made public in an attempt to
prevent what happened with this global warming fiasco the politicians
have been milking for oodles of money.
>
> That should be a requirement for any data used to support a paper. If
> the data is not in usable form, how could the research be done? It looks
> like that may be one of the current problems with "climate science". The
> data they were using was/is not in usable form, but they didn't let that
> stop them.
I don't know what happened in the Anglica place. A lot of backtracing
of the data and political discussions and their timelines has to be
done. It is probably impossible because the UN is involved.
>
>> One of you made a further
>> requirement that the scientist do all that work. Ptui.
>
> No, that's for grad students. ;-) But somebody has to do it, or the
> research is based on invalid assumptions.
<grin> But we're talking about data that is not garnered by your grad
student over the last year. Verification of that kind of data is
managable...most of the time ;-).
>
>>>>>>>>> That should be one of the
>>>>>>>>> deliverables in the data collection contract.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>>>>>>> And you're assuming facts not in evidence.
>>>>>> Actually, I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about moving bits
>>>>>> and presenting them to non-expert readers. I know a lot about this
>>>>>> kind of thing because I did that kind of work for 25 years.
>
>>>>> It's you that's worried about "non-expert" readers, not me. I just
>>>>> want it accessible in a usable form. You don't need to sugar coat
>>>>> it.
>
>>>> Your kind of usable form requires the raw data to be massaged before
>>>> storing it on a public forum.
>>> I guess that depends on your definition of "massaging". As long as it
>>> doesn't corrupt the data, I don't care what you call it, but the
>>> simpler, the better.
>> You can't tell if the data's been corrupted if it's been reformatted.
>> You have to have QA specialist checking.
>
[this is a thread drift alert]
> Shouldn't that be a routine procedure?
By whom? If the data you're using was collected by Leonardo, QA is
a tad problematic.
> Or do you expect to use invalid
> data to get valid results?
>
Think of the log tables which were produced and printed. If there is
one typo, and somebody used that number, to record a data set.
Now get in your time machine and come back to today. The data set
may be used a input for a lot of analyses today.
Now answer your question. My answer would be yes; at some point
you have to use what is available.
These are aspects of bit recordings I've been trying to solve
for decades. All of my work was involved with shipping code
to customers. All of this discussion reminds me of the work
I did. There are CATCH-22s, deadly embraces, and impossibilities
which is caused by working with data which is invisible to human
eye.
>>>>>>>> I'm definitely not talking about a contract.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then who's paying for it? If it's not taxpayers, then I really
>>>>>>> don't care how it's done. If it is from taxes, then there better
>>>>>>> be an enforceable contract in place, or we'll be right back where
>>>>>>> we are now.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Contract law is different in each and every country.
>
>>>>> So? There are still enforceable contracts. How would you do
>>>>> international business without them?
>
>>>> You sign a contract for each country or entity in which you want to do
>>>> business.
>>> Exactly. Why were you trying to make an issue of such an obvious
>>> point?
>> You're the one who started to talk about contracts.
>>
>>>>>> Which taxpayers do you think paid for the gathering of that data?
>>>>>> Who pays for the data the maritime business provides?
>
>>>>> Don't know, don't care. Are you saying the IPCC is not tax-funded?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did our $50B go, then? I think grants are generally in the
>>>>> form of contracts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You don't even know how things get done.
>
>>> Again, you might be surprised.
>
>> Not at all. You have no idea how much work is involved.
>
> We paid for a lot of work that now appears useless.
It is useless because everybody seems to have depended on one, and
only one, entity for their sources. That is a bloody procedural
problem in the science biz. There aren't independent sources nor
studies being used by the politicians nor the UN nor, science
conclusions. With the advent of the thingie called the WWW,
the myths become the facts at light speed.
> I'd rather pay for
> careful work done in an open, transparent manner. It's cheaper than
> having to redo it.
But that open, transparent manner is expensive, difficult, and
impossible (unless you develop a time machine) in some cases.
Storing data is not a trivial whether it's public or private.
Take a look at all the problems the open source biz has for
computer code. That's an "open, transparent manner" is
not a trivial endeavour.
/BAH
Bill Ward
But carries the same, unadjusted information.
>> If any information has changed, it's no longer raw data. If the
>> information is the same, but the data has been reformatted, labeled,
>> columnized, "prettied up", sorted, or any other information preserving
>> transformation, it's still raw data,
>
> We never called that raw data.
OK, what do you want to call it? I'm easy.
>
>>since the information is
>> unchanged.
>>
>>
> The data has been processed through some code which changed the format
> it is stored in. It is no longer raw; raw implied no changed have been
> made. Any reformatting requires changes. If any of the reformatting
> code over time has any bug, (say one that sets a bit which isn't
> detected), the outcome of analyses decades later would be affected.
I agree if the information is changed the data is no longer raw data. I
would call it corrupted data. What do you want to call media that carry
exactly the same information as the raw data but in a different format?
I would call it copies of the raw data, but you seem to prefer some other
unspecified term.
>
>> Do you see any problem with that?
>
> Oh, yes. :-) Numbers are an especial problem. think of data storages
> that varied from 8 bits/word to 72/word over three decades. And now
> things are measured in "bytes" which vary with the phase of the sun and
> the setting of the moon.
You seem to be focusing on the problems in ensuring the data is
transcribed properly into digital form. I'm not disagreeing with that,
I'm just saying no matter who uses the data, it must be transcribed into
a usable format. If researchers are cutting corners on data integrity,
posting it on line would be one way to stop that. If they are doing it
right, then there should be no problems in making it available on line.
>>>>>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging",
>>>>>> fine, but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>>>>> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code to
>>>>> use it as input (which is what scientists do).
>>>> And many others who might be seriously interested.
>>> This thread has been talking about non-scientists having access to any
>>> data which was collected; further constraints were declared that the
>>> data had to be prettied up and completely described so that anybody
>>> could access the data and know what it meant.
>>
>> That would be what you were talking about, not me. All I insisted was
>> that the data be usable, which I think you are calling "prettied up".
>
> I think it was Eric who wanted stuff made public in an attempt to
> prevent what happened with this global warming fiasco the politicians
> have been milking for oodles of money.
Who wouldn't?
Why would you use a log table to record data? Logs would be used for
some sort of transformation, not raw data, and, unless you have an old
Pentium, not really an issue today.
> Now get
> in your time machine and come back to today. The data set may be used a
> input for a lot of analyses today. Now answer your question. My answer
> would be yes; at some point you have to use what is available.
Then it would appear as an instrumental error, either as an outlier, or
buried in the noise.
> These are aspects of bit recordings I've been trying to solve for
> decades. All of my work was involved with shipping code to customers.
> All of this discussion reminds me of the work I did. There are
> CATCH-22s, deadly embraces, and impossibilities which is caused by
> working with data which is invisible to human eye.
It sounds like you may be too close to be objective.
Exactly. Researchers might be a little more careful if they know someone
else is watching. In fact, I'd say the way they treated Steve M is
proof positive they would.
> > I'd rather pay for
>> careful work done in an open, transparent manner. It's cheaper than
>> having to redo it.
>
>
> But that open, transparent manner is expensive, difficult, and
> impossible (unless you develop a time machine) in some cases. Storing
> data is not a trivial whether it's public or private.
>
> Take a look at all the problems the open source biz has for computer
> code. That's an "open, transparent manner" is not a trivial
> endeavour.
I didn't say it would be easy, just necessary, if we're going to get any
valid results from the clown brigade.
I M @ good guy
I don't know what you mean by cheating, because
I can't believe that a professional would benefit from it.
Just following the law and complying with
FOIA requests should be enough.
jmfbahciv
But the transformed bits are not the raw data. If there's been any
kind of error during the transforming or the second set of bits
gets hit with a cosmic ray, you can always go back to the raw data.
That's why raw data is kept raw. It's a sanity check.
>
>>> If any information has changed, it's no longer raw data. If the
>>> information is the same, but the data has been reformatted, labeled,
>>> columnized, "prettied up", sorted, or any other information preserving
>>> transformation, it's still raw data,
>> We never called that raw data.
>
> OK, what do you want to call it? I'm easy.
Converted. copied. The set of data which has not been touched
to provide a sanity check in case the set you are working with
has an error.
>>> since the information is
>>> unchanged.
>>>
>>>
>> The data has been processed through some code which changed the format
>> it is stored in. It is no longer raw; raw implied no changed have been
>> made. Any reformatting requires changes. If any of the reformatting
>> code over time has any bug, (say one that sets a bit which isn't
>> detected), the outcome of analyses decades later would be affected.
>
> I agree if the information is changed the data is no longer raw data. I
> would call it corrupted data. What do you want to call media that carry
> exactly the same information as the raw data but in a different format?
Reformatted. That implies the raw data has been massaged into a
different format. This massaging happens all the time depending
on the the usage and computer gear being used.
>
> I would call it copies of the raw data, but you seem to prefer some other
> unspecified term.
That's a much better phrase than insisting it's the raw data.
>
>>> Do you see any problem with that?
>> Oh, yes. :-) Numbers are an especial problem. think of data storages
>> that varied from 8 bits/word to 72/word over three decades. And now
>> things are measured in "bytes" which vary with the phase of the sun and
>> the setting of the moon.
>
> You seem to be focusing on the problems in ensuring the data is
> transcribed properly into digital form.
Yup. The suggestion was to make the raw data available to the public.
There are problems with that and also takes a lot of manpower.
> I'm not disagreeing with that,
> I'm just saying no matter who uses the data, it must be transcribed into
> a usable format.
Then it is not the raw data. The suggestion was to provide the raw
data. That means that the original collection of bits has to be
copied bit for bit with no modification. A lot of copy operations
insert 0 zero bits for alignment.
>If researchers are cutting corners on data integrity,
> posting it on line would be one way to stop that. If they are doing it
> right, then there should be no problems in making it available on line.
>
And I've been trying to tell you that it takes lots of time, money,
and babysitting to make that available. If you pass a rule that
all data has to be made public, resources, which would have normally
been used for the real research, will have to be used for babysitting
those bits. The real, science work will not get done.
>>>>>>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging",
>>>>>>> fine, but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>
>>>>>> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code to
>>>>>> use it as input (which is what scientists do).
>
>>>>> And many others who might be seriously interested.
>
>>>> This thread has been talking about non-scientists having access to any
>>>> data which was collected; further constraints were declared that the
>>>> data had to be prettied up and completely described so that anybody
>>>> could access the data and know what it meant.
>>> That would be what you were talking about, not me. All I insisted was
>>> that the data be usable, which I think you are calling "prettied up".
>> I think it was Eric who wanted stuff made public in an attempt to
>> prevent what happened with this global warming fiasco the politicians
>> have been milking for oodles of money.
>
> Who wouldn't?
Sigh! Have I been wasting my time? Strawman.
<snip>
You are wasting my time. This is a very serious matter and requires
a lot of thinking, discussion, and consideration. Your thinking
style is extremely short-term.
>
>> Now get
>> in your time machine and come back to today. The data set may be used a
>> input for a lot of analyses today. Now answer your question. My answer
>> would be yes; at some point you have to use what is available.
>
> Then it would appear as an instrumental error, either as an outlier, or
> buried in the noise.
>
>> These are aspects of bit recordings I've been trying to solve for
>> decades. All of my work was involved with shipping code to customers.
>> All of this discussion reminds me of the work I did. There are
>> CATCH-22s, deadly embraces, and impossibilities which is caused by
>> working with data which is invisible to human eye.
>
> It sounds like you may be too close to be objective.
I have no idea what you mean. I know a lot about bit integrity
and shipping it. I also know how much work is required.
Huh?
>
>> > I'd rather pay for
>>> careful work done in an open, transparent manner. It's cheaper than
>>> having to redo it.
>>
>> But that open, transparent manner is expensive, difficult, and
>> impossible (unless you develop a time machine) in some cases. Storing
>> data is not a trivial whether it's public or private.
>>
>> Take a look at all the problems the open source biz has for computer
>> code. That's an "open, transparent manner" is not a trivial
>> endeavour.
>
> I didn't say it would be easy, just necessary, if we're going to get any
> valid results from the clown brigade.
It isn't necessary. You're just trying to fix a symptom which will
not fix the real problem but hide the real problem and prevent
work from getting done.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Whose law?
This global warming thing, as defined by Al Gore, was a
world-wide scam. So which laws are you talking about?
The UN laws. Those designed to increase corruption,
not deal with real problems and their solutions which
will benefit normal populations.
/BAH
Bill Ward
OK. I would call that the original version of the raw data, but it's
just semantics.
>>>> since the information is
>>>> unchanged.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The data has been processed through some code which changed the format
>>> it is stored in. It is no longer raw; raw implied no changed have
>>> been made. Any reformatting requires changes. If any of the
>>> reformatting code over time has any bug, (say one that sets a bit
>>> which isn't detected), the outcome of analyses decades later would be
>>> affected.
>>
>> I agree if the information is changed the data is no longer raw data.
>> I would call it corrupted data. What do you want to call media that
>> carry exactly the same information as the raw data but in a different
>> format?
>
> Reformatted. That implies the raw data has been massaged into a
> different format. This massaging happens all the time depending on the
> the usage and computer gear being used.
OK. Then post the reformatted, verified raw data, whatever you want to
call it, as long as it's usable and carries the same information as the
original raw data.
>> I would call it copies of the raw data, but you seem to prefer some
>> other unspecified term.
>
> That's a much better phrase than insisting it's the raw data.
>
>
>>>> Do you see any problem with that?
>>> Oh, yes. :-) Numbers are an especial problem. think of data
>>> storages that varied from 8 bits/word to 72/word over three decades.
>>> And now things are measured in "bytes" which vary with the phase of
>>> the sun and the setting of the moon.
>>
>> You seem to be focusing on the problems in ensuring the data is
>> transcribed properly into digital form.
>
> Yup. The suggestion was to make the raw data available to the public.
> There are problems with that and also takes a lot of manpower.
>
>> I'm not disagreeing with that,
>> I'm just saying no matter who uses the data, it must be transcribed
>> into a usable format.
>
> Then it is not the raw data. The suggestion was to provide the raw
> data. That means that the original collection of bits has to be copied
> bit for bit with no modification. A lot of copy operations insert 0
> zero bits for alignment.
I think the disagreement is simply semantic. You aren't considering
"copies of the raw data", "raw data". I do, as long as the copy is not
corrupt. I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while
you insist it's the only "raw data".
>>If researchers are cutting corners on data integrity,
>> posting it on line would be one way to stop that. If they are doing it
>> right, then there should be no problems in making it available on line.
>>
>>
> And I've been trying to tell you that it takes lots of time, money, and
> babysitting to make that available. If you pass a rule that all data
> has to be made public, resources, which would have normally been used
> for the real research, will have to be used for babysitting those bits.
> The real, science work will not get done.
Well, it wasn't posted, it was hidden, and now a lot of climate "science"
looks bogus. Perhaps reformatting, verifying and posting copies of the
raw data is a necessary part of the "real science". Think of it as
insurance.
>>>>>>>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging",
>>>>>>>> fine, but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code
>>>>>>> to use it as input (which is what scientists do).
>>
>>>>>> And many others who might be seriously interested.
>>
>>>>> This thread has been talking about non-scientists having access to
>>>>> any data which was collected; further constraints were declared that
>>>>> the data had to be prettied up and completely described so that
>>>>> anybody could access the data and know what it meant.
>>>> That would be what you were talking about, not me. All I insisted
>>>> was that the data be usable, which I think you are calling "prettied
>>>> up".
>>> I think it was Eric who wanted stuff made public in an attempt to
>>> prevent what happened with this global warming fiasco the politicians
>>> have been milking for oodles of money.
>>
>> Who wouldn't?
>
> Sigh! Have I been wasting my time? Strawman.
Surely you're not happy with the picture the leaked emails reveal?
Then you should also know how important reliable data and programs are.
Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for crappy work. That's far more expensive
than doing it right.
Sorry. I was referring to Stephen McIntyre of Climateaudit.org, who has
been trying to keep the Jones, Mann, Briffa et al gang honest for a
decade or so. I assumed you'd be familiar with him and his debunking of
the Hockey Stick icon. The leaked emails provide give insight into the
attitudes involved in trying to hide the data and algorithms from him.
If you're really not familiar with the issue, I'd recommend checking out
climateaudit.org. It might help you to understand the need to make
copies of raw data available online.
>>> > I'd rather pay for
>>>> careful work done in an open, transparent manner. It's cheaper than
>>>> having to redo it.
>>>
>>> But that open, transparent manner is expensive, difficult, and
>>> impossible (unless you develop a time machine) in some cases. Storing
>>> data is not a trivial whether it's public or private.
>>>
>>> Take a look at all the problems the open source biz has for computer
>>> code. That's an "open, transparent manner" is not a trivial
>>> endeavour.
>>
>> I didn't say it would be easy, just necessary, if we're going to get
>> any valid results from the clown brigade.
>
> It isn't necessary. You're just trying to fix a symptom which will not
> fix the real problem but hide the real problem and prevent work from
> getting done.
Review the leaked emails and climateaudit.org and see if you still think
so.
jmfbahciv
No, it's not.
> You aren't considering
> "copies of the raw data", "raw data". I do, as long as the copy is not
> corrupt.
How do you know that? You can't unless the person who copied it
did an BINCOM or something to verify that no bits were changed and
no fills were inserted.
> I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while
> you insist it's the only "raw data".
People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
have to be done to clarify the meaning.
You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed
to central processing unit.
>
>>> If researchers are cutting corners on data integrity,
>>> posting it on line would be one way to stop that. If they are doing it
>>> right, then there should be no problems in making it available on line.
>>>
>>>
>> And I've been trying to tell you that it takes lots of time, money, and
>> babysitting to make that available. If you pass a rule that all data
>> has to be made public, resources, which would have normally been used
>> for the real research, will have to be used for babysitting those bits.
>> The real, science work will not get done.
>
> Well, it wasn't posted, it was hidden, and now a lot of climate "science"
> looks bogus. Perhaps reformatting, verifying and posting copies of the
> raw data is a necessary part of the "real science". Think of it as
> insurance.
But there existed other scientists who did not agree and said so. That
one place not providing their data when requested is not the problem.
Fixing them and their anal retention will not fix the real problem.
>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to call the verification and formatting "massaging",
>>>>>>>>> fine, but if it's not done, the data is unusable.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. It's unusable to most people except those who run code
>>>>>>>> to use it as input (which is what scientists do).
>>>>>>> And many others who might be seriously interested.
>>>>>> This thread has been talking about non-scientists having access to
>>>>>> any data which was collected; further constraints were declared that
>>>>>> the data had to be prettied up and completely described so that
>>>>>> anybody could access the data and know what it meant.
>
>>>>> That would be what you were talking about, not me. All I insisted
>>>>> was that the data be usable, which I think you are calling "prettied
>>>>> up".
>
>>>> I think it was Eric who wanted stuff made public in an attempt to
>>>> prevent what happened with this global warming fiasco the politicians
>>>> have been milking for oodles of money.
>>> Who wouldn't?
>> Sigh! Have I been wasting my time? Strawman.
>
> Surely you're not happy with the picture the leaked emails reveal?
I didn't need to wait for those emails to hit the net. I've been
suspicious for years. When the phrase "majority of scientists"
or "scientists believe" is used to promote a political agenda,
I smell a big rat. that's been happening since (what?) the mid-90s.
Supporting the assertion with weather facts was another red flag.
When the J.Q. Public begins to make jokes about the weather
with comments about Global Warming, I become extremely skeptical
about the hypothesis.
Yes, I do know.
> Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for crappy work.
How are your taxes paying for East Anglica?
> That's far more expensive
> than doing it right.
Define "right". So far, you've insisted that the public be the
sanity check. That won't work when with any science endeavor.
In fact, it will stop all science because the "rules" will
eventually state that no science work can be done unless the
public approves. That puts the decisions right back into
Congress and other legislative bodies. The only countries
who will be doing science are the communist-based countries
because they don't give a shit about public opinion at the
detail level.
That is one place and one small group of people. Are you implying that
all groups in the world are similar?
>
> If you're really not familiar with the issue, I'd recommend checking out
> climateaudit.org. It might help you to understand the need to make
> copies of raw data available online.
I don't need to do that; I am able to think.
>
>>>> > I'd rather pay for
>>>>> careful work done in an open, transparent manner. It's cheaper than
>>>>> having to redo it.
>>>> But that open, transparent manner is expensive, difficult, and
>>>> impossible (unless you develop a time machine) in some cases. Storing
>>>> data is not a trivial whether it's public or private.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at all the problems the open source biz has for computer
>>>> code. That's an "open, transparent manner" is not a trivial
>>>> endeavour.
>>> I didn't say it would be easy, just necessary, if we're going to get
>>> any valid results from the clown brigade.
>> It isn't necessary. You're just trying to fix a symptom which will not
>> fix the real problem but hide the real problem and prevent work from
>> getting done.
>
> Review the leaked emails and climateaudit.org and see if you still think
> so.
Which "leaded" emails. You're assuming conspiracies all over. Why so
seem to be suddenly surprised that their hypothesis about global warming
may not be valid?
/BAH
Bill Ward
"Read after write" verification has been around quite a while. My system
does it automatically. Doesn't yours?
>> I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you insist
>> it's the only "raw data".
>
> People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
> The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
> have to be done to clarify the meaning.
>
> You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
> the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed to
> central processing unit.
As I said, it's just semantics.
>>>> If researchers are cutting corners on data integrity, posting it on
>>>> line would be one way to stop that. If they are doing it right, then
>>>> there should be no problems in making it available on line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And I've been trying to tell you that it takes lots of time, money,
>>> and babysitting to make that available. If you pass a rule that all
>>> data has to be made public, resources, which would have normally been
>>> used for the real research, will have to be used for babysitting those
>>> bits. The real, science work will not get done.
>>
>> Well, it wasn't posted, it was hidden, and now a lot of climate
>> "science" looks bogus. Perhaps reformatting, verifying and posting
>> copies of the raw data is a necessary part of the "real science".
>> Think of it as insurance.
>
> But there existed other scientists who did not agree and said so. That
> one place not providing their data when requested is not the problem.
> Fixing them and their anal retention will not fix the real problem.
What do you think is the "real problem", then? Can it be solved without
changing human nature?
>>>> Who wouldn't?
Grants from the US government.
>> That's far more expensive
>> than doing it right.
>
> Define "right". So far, you've insisted that the public be the sanity
> check. That won't work when with any science endeavor. In fact, it will
> stop all science because the "rules" will eventually state that no
> science work can be done unless the public approves.
You know, I try to be just as cynical as I can, but I think you have me
beat there.
> That puts the
> decisions right back into Congress and other legislative bodies. The
> only countries who will be doing science are the communist-based
> countries because they don't give a shit about public opinion at the
> detail level.
Dictatorships are always more efficient in the short run. Long term,
freedom wins.
In the climate area, yes. The IPCC is the dictator, and the US has been
following along, paying the bills. No serious discussion has been
allowed.
>
>> If you're really not familiar with the issue, I'd recommend checking
>> out climateaudit.org. It might help you to understand the need to make
>> copies of raw data available online.
>
> I don't need to do that; I am able to think.
Climateaudit will give you something to think about. It doesn't try to
substitute for your own thoughts.
>>>>> > I'd rather pay for
>>>>>> careful work done in an open, transparent manner. It's cheaper
>>>>>> than having to redo it.
>>>>> But that open, transparent manner is expensive, difficult, and
>>>>> impossible (unless you develop a time machine) in some cases.
>>>>> Storing data is not a trivial whether it's public or private.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at all the problems the open source biz has for computer
>>>>> code. That's an "open, transparent manner" is not a trivial
>>>>> endeavour.
>>>> I didn't say it would be easy, just necessary, if we're going to get
>>>> any valid results from the clown brigade.
>>> It isn't necessary. You're just trying to fix a symptom which will
>>> not fix the real problem but hide the real problem and prevent work
>>> from getting done.
>>
>> Review the leaked emails and climateaudit.org and see if you still
>> think so.
>
> Which "leaded" emails. You're assuming conspiracies all over. Why so
> seem to be suddenly surprised that their hypothesis about global warming
> may not be valid?
Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery we've
all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.
jmfbahciv
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:38 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:22:09 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:57:19 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:53:43 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:03:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>>> I'm not disagreeing with that,
>>>>> I'm just saying no matter who uses the data, it must be transcribed
>>>>> into a usable format.
>>>> Then it is not the raw data. The suggestion was to provide the raw
>>>> data. That means that the original collection of bits has to be
>>>> copied bit for bit with no modification. A lot of copy operations
>>>> insert 0 zero bits for alignment.
>>> I think the disagreement is simply semantic.
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>> You aren't considering
>>> "copies of the raw data", "raw data". I do, as long as the copy is not
>>> corrupt.
>> How do you know that? You can't unless the person who copied it did an
>> BINCOM or something to verify that no bits were changed and no fills
>> were inserted.
>
> "Read after write" verification has been around quite a while. My system
> does it automatically. Doesn't yours?
Does yours include the nulls when comparing one file to the other or
skip them? I'm stating that you have to be careful. If you're
moving a binary data file from a 16-bit to 72-bit machine, you'll
have problems. You'll have a lot more problems if you're moving
a binary data file from a 72-bit to 16-bit machine. You'll have
even more problems if some of the collection was done using
single-word floating point format and later collections was done using
double-word floating point format. Mixed mode data collections means
that the raw data had better not be something that had been modified
and this included null fills.
>
>>> I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you insist
>>> it's the only "raw data".
>> People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
>> The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
>> have to be done to clarify the meaning.
>>
>> You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
>> the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed to
>> central processing unit.
>
> As I said, it's just semantics.
It is not just semantics. The terms we use in the computer biz implies
strict specifications. If they didn't, nothing was have gotten done.
The same thing happens in math and science when you say the word
derivative.
>
>>>>> If researchers are cutting corners on data integrity, posting it on
>>>>> line would be one way to stop that. If they are doing it right, then
>>>>> there should be no problems in making it available on line.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And I've been trying to tell you that it takes lots of time, money,
>>>> and babysitting to make that available. If you pass a rule that all
>>>> data has to be made public, resources, which would have normally been
>>>> used for the real research, will have to be used for babysitting those
>>>> bits. The real, science work will not get done.
>>> Well, it wasn't posted, it was hidden, and now a lot of climate
>>> "science" looks bogus. Perhaps reformatting, verifying and posting
>>> copies of the raw data is a necessary part of the "real science".
>>> Think of it as insurance.
>> But there existed other scientists who did not agree and said so. That
>> one place not providing their data when requested is not the problem.
>> Fixing them and their anal retention will not fix the real problem.
>
> What do you think is the "real problem", then? Can it be solved without
> changing human nature?
Political corruption that is out of control. It can be solved but
the side effects are unappetizing.
<snip>
>>> Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for crappy work.
>> How are your taxes paying for East Anglica?
>
> Grants from the US government.
Huh?
>
>>> That's far more expensive
>>> than doing it right.
>> Define "right". So far, you've insisted that the public be the sanity
>> check. That won't work when with any science endeavor. In fact, it will
>> stop all science because the "rules" will eventually state that no
>> science work can be done unless the public approves.
>
> You know, I try to be just as cynical as I can, but I think you have me
> beat there.
I'm not being cynical. I'm stating what happens when this kind of fit
hits the shan.
>
>> That puts the
>> decisions right back into Congress and other legislative bodies. The
>> only countries who will be doing science are the communist-based
>> countries because they don't give a shit about public opinion at the
>> detail level.
>
> Dictatorships are always more efficient in the short run. Long term,
> freedom wins.
No, it doesn't. Unchecked freedom produces anarchies and destruction
of civilizations.
<snip>
>>> Sorry. I was referring to Stephen McIntyre of Climateaudit.org, who
>>> has been trying to keep the Jones, Mann, Briffa et al gang honest for a
>>> decade or so. I assumed you'd be familiar with him and his debunking
>>> of the Hockey Stick icon. The leaked emails provide give insight into
>>> the attitudes involved in trying to hide the data and algorithms from
>>> him.
>> That is one place and one small group of people. Are you implying that
>> all groups in the world are similar?
>
> In the climate area, yes. The IPCC is the dictator, and the US has been
> following along, paying the bills. No serious discussion has been
> allowed.
I haven't noticed that the articles I've read in _Science News_ were
all vetted by those people. How did the US pay those bills? Who
did they write the check to?
>>
>>> If you're really not familiar with the issue, I'd recommend checking
>>> out climateaudit.org. It might help you to understand the need to make
>>> copies of raw data available online.
>> I don't need to do that; I am able to think.
>
> Climateaudit will give you something to think about. It doesn't try to
> substitute for your own thoughts.
Are you really suggesting that I not use analytical thinking and allow
somebody to do that work for me? Your attitude is part of the problem.
>> Which "leaded" emails. You're assuming conspiracies all over. Why so
>> seem to be suddenly surprised that their hypothesis about global warming
>> may not be valid?
>
> Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery we've
> all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.
>
I thought I've read here that they weren't leaked. Are you trying to
make a conspiracy out of the mess? That just makes more messes
and doesn't deal with the original.
/BAH
Martin Brown
In the old days raw binary floating point was a nightmare to transport
since almost every manufacturer had a slightly different machine
representation before IEEE standardisation. I recall the pain and
suffering deciding what to do about certain states that could occur in
the original raw data and could not be safely represented on the
destination machine (ie loading the fp data would cause a denorm error).
They were very small numbers so we settled reluctantly on zero.
>>>> Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for crappy work.
>>> How are your taxes paying for East Anglica?
>>
>> Grants from the US government.
>
> Huh?
International research funding means it is quite possible that CRU had
the odd US researcher there working on an NSF grant or part funded by
them. Same as UK researchers may visit US facilities to make
observations or conduct experiments. CRU is an internationally renowned
research centre (BTW it is in East Anglia).
A lot of CRU data is online at CISL at UCAR too. eg
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds579.0/
Many of the FOE enquiries are done for the sole purpose of harassing the
researchers and preventing them from doing their jobs. The same thing
happens to local councils and other institutions though more usually by
organised green campaigners in the UK.
>>>> That's far more expensive
>>>> than doing it right.
>>> Define "right". So far, you've insisted that the public be the sanity
>>> check. That won't work when with any science endeavor. In fact, it will
>>> stop all science because the "rules" will eventually state that no
>>> science work can be done unless the public approves.
>>
>> You know, I try to be just as cynical as I can, but I think you have
>> me beat there.
>
> I'm not being cynical. I'm stating what happens when this kind of fit
> hits the shan.
There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the general
public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have been allowed
to muddy the water for far too long without being properly challenged.
Scientists are not used to having to deal with public relations and
media spin so CRU and the University of East Anglia didn't make a good
fist of handling the initial enquiries about their data breach. The
first defence of the researchers was actually made by a researcher (not
a climate scientist at CRU) who did an eloquent job on BBC Radio 4 PM
against the express instructions of the University authorities who were
still hoping it would blow over.
The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I didn't
think he was all that good in the interview and communicationg science
research to the public is a serious problem. People simply do not trust
scientists now and several guests made completely dishonest claims about
AGW based on what they have read online. These went unchallenged since
the scientists were not present for the audience discussion.
The Newsnight piece is online at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
Unsure if you can watch it online outside of the UK.
>>> That puts the
>>> decisions right back into Congress and other legislative bodies. The
>>> only countries who will be doing science are the communist-based
>>> countries because they don't give a shit about public opinion at the
>>> detail level.
>>
>> Dictatorships are always more efficient in the short run. Long term,
>> freedom wins.
>
> No, it doesn't. Unchecked freedom produces anarchies and destruction
> of civilizations.
> <snip>
Benign dictatorships are the most efficient, but unfortunately they do
not stay that way for long. Democracy is the least bad alternative
although it helps if you have at least three political parties. The US
style bipolar disorder in politics makes it impossible to avoid a
situation where if the Democrats are for something the Republicans are
automatically against it and vice-versa. A recipe for deadlock.
>
>>>> Sorry. I was referring to Stephen McIntyre of Climateaudit.org, who
>>>> has been trying to keep the Jones, Mann, Briffa et al gang honest for a
>>>> decade or so. I assumed you'd be familiar with him and his debunking
>>>> of the Hockey Stick icon. The leaked emails provide give insight into
>>>> the attitudes involved in trying to hide the data and algorithms from
>>>> him.
>>> That is one place and one small group of people. Are you implying that
>>> all groups in the world are similar?
>>
>> In the climate area, yes. The IPCC is the dictator, and the US has
>> been following along, paying the bills. No serious discussion has
>> been allowed.
>
> I haven't noticed that the articles I've read in _Science News_ were
> all vetted by those people. How did the US pay those bills? Who
> did they write the check to?
The IPCC collates the science and distils it into a summary form where
policy makers can understand it without having to read all the primary
literature. It is actually a well balanced piece of work and highlights
the uncertainties and areas still needing more research as well as the
conclusions that can be drawn from the existing data. Online at:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Have a look and see what you think. There are references into the
primary literature if you want to take it further.
>
>>>
>>>> If you're really not familiar with the issue, I'd recommend checking
>>>> out climateaudit.org. It might help you to understand the need to make
>>>> copies of raw data available online.
>>> I don't need to do that; I am able to think.
>>
>> Climateaudit will give you something to think about. It doesn't try
>> to substitute for your own thoughts.
>
> Are you really suggesting that I not use analytical thinking and allow
> somebody to do that work for me? Your attitude is part of the problem.
He starts from the result his politics insists must be right and then
looks for cherry picked data to support that position. Climateaudit is
one of those sites that provides the unthinking denialist with ammunition.
>
>>> Which "leaded" emails. You're assuming conspiracies all over. Why so
>>> seem to be suddenly surprised that their hypothesis about global warming
>>> may not be valid?
>>
>> Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery
>> we've all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.
>>
>
> I thought I've read here that they weren't leaked. Are you trying to
> make a conspiracy out of the mess? That just makes more messes
> and doesn't deal with the original.
They were hacked and by the sounds of it by a very professional team.
Unclear as yet whether it was a national security service or a loner
looking for UFOs (like the unfortunate McKinnon who is being extradited
to the USA as a terrorist for hacking secure DOD computers with
UID=guest/pw=guest etc.). I am inclined to think it is the DOD sysadmins
deserving the jail terms.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bill Ward
Perhaps that explains the popularity of text files.
>>>> I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you
>>>> insist it's the only "raw data".
>>> People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
>>> The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
>>> have to be done to clarify the meaning.
>>>
>>> You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
>>> the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed
>>> to central processing unit.
>>
>> As I said, it's just semantics.
>
> It is not just semantics. The terms we use in the computer biz implies
> strict specifications. If they didn't, nothing was have gotten done.
> The same thing happens in math and science when you say the word
> derivative.
Not to mention finance. It's still semantics, just context sensitive.
>>>>>> If researchers are cutting corners on data integrity, posting it on
>>>>>> line would be one way to stop that. If they are doing it right,
>>>>>> then there should be no problems in making it available on line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> And I've been trying to tell you that it takes lots of time, money,
>>>>> and babysitting to make that available. If you pass a rule that all
>>>>> data has to be made public, resources, which would have normally
>>>>> been used for the real research, will have to be used for
>>>>> babysitting those bits. The real, science work will not get done.
>>>> Well, it wasn't posted, it was hidden, and now a lot of climate
>>>> "science" looks bogus. Perhaps reformatting, verifying and posting
>>>> copies of the raw data is a necessary part of the "real science".
>>>> Think of it as insurance.
>>> But there existed other scientists who did not agree and said so.
>>> That one place not providing their data when requested is not the
>>> problem. Fixing them and their anal retention will not fix the real
>>> problem.
>>
>> What do you think is the "real problem", then? Can it be solved
>> without changing human nature?
>
> Political corruption that is out of control. It can be solved but the
> side effects are unappetizing.
It's been five thousand years and counting, yet we still have the same
problems. I suspect human nature has something to do with it. The
operating system has to fit the processors using it. We may be making
progress, but slowly.
> <snip>
>
>>>> Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for crappy work.
>>> How are your taxes paying for East Anglica?
>>
>> Grants from the US government.
>
> Huh?
Yup, check the unexpected data dump from CRU for more information.
>
>>>> That's far more expensive
>>>> than doing it right.
>>> Define "right". So far, you've insisted that the public be the sanity
>>> check. That won't work when with any science endeavor. In fact, it
>>> will stop all science because the "rules" will eventually state that
>>> no science work can be done unless the public approves.
>>
>> You know, I try to be just as cynical as I can, but I think you have me
>> beat there.
>
> I'm not being cynical. I'm stating what happens when this kind of fit
> hits the shan.
>
>
>>> That puts the
>>> decisions right back into Congress and other legislative bodies. The
>>> only countries who will be doing science are the communist-based
>>> countries because they don't give a shit about public opinion at the
>>> detail level.
>>
>> Dictatorships are always more efficient in the short run. Long term,
>> freedom wins.
>
> No, it doesn't. Unchecked freedom produces anarchies and destruction of
> civilizations.
And who exactly is qualified to"check freedom"? Right now it seems "We
the People" is the best answer.
> <snip>
>
>>>> Sorry. I was referring to Stephen McIntyre of Climateaudit.org, who
>>>> has been trying to keep the Jones, Mann, Briffa et al gang honest for
>>>> a decade or so. I assumed you'd be familiar with him and his
>>>> debunking of the Hockey Stick icon. The leaked emails provide give
>>>> insight into the attitudes involved in trying to hide the data and
>>>> algorithms from him.
>>> That is one place and one small group of people. Are you implying
>>> that all groups in the world are similar?
>>
>> In the climate area, yes. The IPCC is the dictator, and the US has
>> been following along, paying the bills. No serious discussion has been
>> allowed.
>
> I haven't noticed that the articles I've read in _Science News_ were all
> vetted by those people. How did the US pay those bills?
They printed money, as usual.
> Who did they write the check to?
Presumably the UEA, but I'm not really sure. It might have through the
UN and IPCC.
>>>> If you're really not familiar with the issue, I'd recommend checking
>>>> out climateaudit.org. It might help you to understand the need to
>>>> make copies of raw data available online.
>>> I don't need to do that; I am able to think.
>>
>> Climateaudit will give you something to think about. It doesn't try to
>> substitute for your own thoughts.
>
> Are you really suggesting that I not use analytical thinking and allow
> somebody to do that work for me?
Not really. I'm suggesting you're going off half-cocked, without enough
background on the AGW issue. ClimateAudit or WUWT would provide some
context for you to think about. Read RealClimate also, just for grins,
keeping in mind the emails show it was part of the scam.
Analytical thinking is only as good as the data to which you apply it.
> Your attitude is part of the problem.
Yeah, everyone is always telling me that. You can see how effective that
is. ;-)
>>> Which "leaded" emails. You're assuming conspiracies all over. Why so
>>> seem to be suddenly surprised that their hypothesis about global
>>> warming may not be valid?
>>
>> Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery
>> we've all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.
> I thought I've read here that they weren't leaked.
Don't believe everything you read here.
> Are you trying to make a conspiracy out of the mess?
No, that would be the emails that were unexpectedly released. I'm just
pointing it out.
> That just makes more messes and doesn't deal with the original.
Ignoring a scandal seldom makes it better. It just encourages the
scammers.
I M @ good guy
Your opinion is bizarre, there is no comparison
between military security and climate information.
Will all climate scientists please resign and
get a job doing something useful.
jmfbahciv
In those kinds of cases, the raw data had to be not-modified at all.
A lot of networking software would zero-fill. OSes, which were
RMS-based, could wreak havoc with any file that was copied from,
to or through it. I'm extremely concerned that quite a few people
here think that any old set of data can be thrown onto a server
with no human caring over time, and the file(s) would represent
accurate raw data.
>
>>>>> Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for crappy work.
>>>> How are your taxes paying for East Anglica?
>>>
>>> Grants from the US government.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> International research funding means it is quite possible that CRU had
> the odd US researcher there working on an NSF grant or part funded by
> them.
But the US taxpayer did not provide all of the funding, which is
what [whathisname] wanted to imply.
> Same as UK researchers may visit US facilities to make
> observations or conduct experiments. CRU is an internationally renowned
> research centre (BTW it is in East Anglia).
>
Thanks for the spelling correction. I appreciate it :-)
> A lot of CRU data is online at CISL at UCAR too. eg
> http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds579.0/
>
> Many of the FOE enquiries are done for the sole purpose of harassing the
> researchers and preventing them from doing their jobs. The same thing
> happens to local councils and other institutions though more usually by
> organised green campaigners in the UK.
So why don't the conspiracy nuts start foaming at the mouth about these
people whose goal is to prevent all useful work being done? That's one
of the ironies I don't understand in the real world.
>
>>>>> That's far more expensive
>>>>> than doing it right.
>>>> Define "right". So far, you've insisted that the public be the sanity
>>>> check. That won't work when with any science endeavor. In fact, it
>>>> will
>>>> stop all science because the "rules" will eventually state that no
>>>> science work can be done unless the public approves.
>>>
>>> You know, I try to be just as cynical as I can, but I think you have
>>> me beat there.
>>
>> I'm not being cynical. I'm stating what happens when this kind of fit
>> hits the shan.
>
> There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the general
> public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have been allowed
> to muddy the water for far too long without being properly challenged.
It wouldn't matter iff scam artists such as Al Gore didn't get into the
mix. Using a presidential party platform is one of the tactics to make
big huge messes.
>
> Scientists are not used to having to deal with public relations and
> media spin so CRU and the University of East Anglia didn't make a good
> fist of handling the initial enquiries about their data breach. The
> first defence of the researchers was actually made by a researcher (not
> a climate scientist at CRU) who did an eloquent job on BBC Radio 4 PM
> against the express instructions of the University authorities who were
> still hoping it would blow over.
>
> The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
> Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
> sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I didn't
> think he was all that good in the interview and communicationg science
> research to the public is a serious problem. People simply do not trust
> scientists now
But the general public trusts the politicians. That makes no sense
to me.
> and several guests made completely dishonest claims about
> AGW based on what they have read online. These went unchallenged since
> the scientists were not present for the audience discussion.
>
Which makes me smell the bias scent of the BBC.
> The Newsnight piece is online at:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
>
> Unsure if you can watch it online outside of the UK.
>
>>>> That puts the
>>>> decisions right back into Congress and other legislative bodies. The
>>>> only countries who will be doing science are the communist-based
>>>> countries because they don't give a shit about public opinion at the
>>>> detail level.
>>>
>>> Dictatorships are always more efficient in the short run. Long term,
>>> freedom wins.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Unchecked freedom produces anarchies and destruction
>> of civilizations.
>> <snip>
>
> Benign dictatorships are the most efficient, but unfortunately they do
> not stay that way for long.
That's because humans are put in charge :-). The meanest sociopath
acquires the power within 2 decades of work.
>Democracy is the least bad alternative
Democracy is not 100% freedom; it is a mixture of freedom and equality.
The one rein checks the other.
> although it helps if you have at least three political parties. The US
> style bipolar disorder in politics makes it impossible to avoid a
> situation where if the Democrats are for something the Republicans are
> automatically against it and vice-versa. A recipe for deadlock.
Which is a feature.
>>
>>>>> Sorry. I was referring to Stephen McIntyre of Climateaudit.org, who
>>>>> has been trying to keep the Jones, Mann, Briffa et al gang honest
>>>>> for a
>>>>> decade or so. I assumed you'd be familiar with him and his debunking
>>>>> of the Hockey Stick icon. The leaked emails provide give insight into
>>>>> the attitudes involved in trying to hide the data and algorithms from
>>>>> him.
>>>> That is one place and one small group of people. Are you implying that
>>>> all groups in the world are similar?
>>>
>>> In the climate area, yes. The IPCC is the dictator, and the US has
>>> been following along, paying the bills. No serious discussion has
>>> been allowed.
>>
>> I haven't noticed that the articles I've read in _Science News_ were
>> all vetted by those people. How did the US pay those bills? Who
>> did they write the check to?
>
> The IPCC collates the science and distills it into a summary form where
> policy makers can understand it without having to read all the primary
> literature. It is actually a well balanced piece of work and highlights
> the uncertainties and areas still needing more research as well as the
> conclusions that can be drawn from the existing data. Online at:
>
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
>
> Have a look and see what you think. There are references into the
> primary literature if you want to take it further.
So the demand made within this thread was smoke. I'll try to get
to the library and take a look at it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you're really not familiar with the issue, I'd recommend checking
>>>>> out climateaudit.org. It might help you to understand the need to
>>>>> make
>>>>> copies of raw data available online.
>>>> I don't need to do that; I am able to think.
>>>
>>> Climateaudit will give you something to think about. It doesn't try
>>> to substitute for your own thoughts.
>>
>> Are you really suggesting that I not use analytical thinking and allow
>> somebody to do that work for me? Your attitude is part of the problem.
>
> He starts from the result his politics insists must be right and then
> looks for cherry picked data to support that position. Climateaudit is
> one of those sites that provides the unthinking denialist with ammunition.
>>
>>>> Which "leaded" emails. You're assuming conspiracies all over. Why so
>>>> seem to be suddenly surprised that their hypothesis about global
>>>> warming
>>>> may not be valid?
>>>
>>> Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery
>>> we've all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.
>>>
>>
>> I thought I've read here that they weren't leaked. Are you trying to
>> make a conspiracy out of the mess? That just makes more messes
>> and doesn't deal with the original.
>
> They were hacked and by the sounds of it by a very professional team.
New hard/software was also getting released within the same time frame.
> Unclear as yet whether it was a national security service or a loner
> looking for UFOs (like the unfortunate McKinnon who is being extradited
> to the USA as a terrorist for hacking secure DOD computers with
> UID=guest/pw=guest etc.). I am inclined to think it is the DOD sysadmins
> deserving the jail terms.
I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
anymore.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Which cannot be used as data. Period.
>
>>>>> I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you
>>>>> insist it's the only "raw data".
>>>> People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
>>>> The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
>>>> have to be done to clarify the meaning.
>>>>
>>>> You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
>>>> the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed
>>>> to central processing unit.
>>> As I said, it's just semantics.
>> It is not just semantics. The terms we use in the computer biz implies
>> strict specifications. If they didn't, nothing was have gotten done.
>> The same thing happens in math and science when you say the word
>> derivative.
>
> Not to mention finance. It's still semantics, just context sensitive.
>
You're nuts. I'm giving up trying to talk about this with you. The
subject deserves serious, careful thought.
<snip...very reluctantly>
/BAH
I M @ good guy
>I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
>extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
>goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
>anymore.
>
>/BAH
About when did they stop using paper
punch tape for programs?
As far as the data goes, there are so many
missing entries filled in by 999.9 and stations
only operating a few years, the results are less
than acceptable.
Security would not be a problem if critical
data was kept on computers not connected to
the net, with 2 terrabyte hard drives available
for less than $200, a $500 computer can hold
all the data for the whole world, another for
email, and another for payroll, etc.
It is about time some better hardware
was offered that allows a manual switch to
shut off any incoming packets that are not
requested, another $500 computer could
be used as a quarantine machine, but in
almost everything the experts try to make
one device do everything.
Measurements should be included with
the adjusted/corrected/modified/updated/
trick values, computers now have hundreds
of times the capability used as if the climate
experts never used a computer before.
I wish all the AGW frantics good luck
with a warmer 2010, warmer is better all
year except in hot spells.
I M @ good guy
And you are a computer guru?
A text file in DOS format can have each data
byte on a new line, the line feed/carriage returns
only take 2 bytes and there is no guessing like
with unix text files.
>>>>>> I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you
>>>>>> insist it's the only "raw data".
>>>>> People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
>>>>> The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
>>>>> have to be done to clarify the meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
>>>>> the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed
>>>>> to central processing unit.
>>>> As I said, it's just semantics.
>>> It is not just semantics. The terms we use in the computer biz implies
>>> strict specifications. If they didn't, nothing was have gotten done.
>>> The same thing happens in math and science when you say the word
>>> derivative.
>>
>> Not to mention finance. It's still semantics, just context sensitive.
>
>You're nuts. I'm giving up trying to talk about this with you. The
>subject deserves serious, careful thought.
>
><snip...very reluctantly>
>
>/BAH
There are dozens of ways to do any one
task, I have so much trouble with other people's
software I am convinced it is made difficult on
purpose, nobody could be as dumb as some of
the software makes the author look.
I thought I would like graphical linux and
bought about six different versions, but none
looked like completed operating systems and
the third party software was so bad I gave up
and I run with a mobile rack and any operating
system that fits the task best.
jmfbahciv
>
>
>> I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
>> extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
>> goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
>> anymore.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> About when did they stop using paper
> punch tape for programs?
I suspect there are still systems using them out there.
>
> As far as the data goes, there are so many
> missing entries filled in by 999.9 and stations
> only operating a few years, the results are less
> than acceptable.
>
> Security would not be a problem if critical
> data was kept on computers not connected to
> the net, with 2 terrabyte hard drives available
> for less than $200, a $500 computer can hold
> all the data for the whole world, another for
> email, and another for payroll, etc.
You are completely missing the security aspects when
humans are involved. Raw data can get lost easily if
it's not accessed often. It's even easier to lose
code sources if they're not used more often.
>
> It is about time some better hardware
> was offered that allows a manual switch to
> shut off any incoming packets that are not
> requested, another $500 computer could
> be used as a quarantine machine, but in
> almost everything the experts try to make
> one device do everything.
That kind of security has existed for a long time. It's called
a phone plug.
<snip>
/BAH
jmfbahciv
No. The JMF in my user name was the real guru.
>
> A text file in DOS format can have each data
> byte on a new line, the line feed/carriage returns
> only take 2 bytes and there is no guessing like
> with unix text files.
Text is not data, unless you are generating the index of a book.
>
>
>>>>>>> I call the original raw data, "the original raw data", while you
>>>>>>> insist it's the only "raw data".
>>>>>> People are lazy and don't say "original raw data"; they say raw data.
>>>>>> The term has an implied meaning so that 5 hours of discussion doesn't
>>>>>> have to be done to clarify the meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sound like one of our bloody editors who insisted, until I raised
>>>>>> the roof, that all occurences of CPU in our documentation be changed
>>>>>> to central processing unit.
>>>>> As I said, it's just semantics.
>>>> It is not just semantics. The terms we use in the computer biz implies
>>>> strict specifications. If they didn't, nothing was have gotten done.
>>>> The same thing happens in math and science when you say the word
>>>> derivative.
>>> Not to mention finance. It's still semantics, just context sensitive.
>>
>> You're nuts. I'm giving up trying to talk about this with you. The
>> subject deserves serious, careful thought.
>>
>> <snip...very reluctantly>
>>
>> /BAH
>
> There are dozens of ways to do any one
> task,
Actually, more; there one way/human being.
Everyone has a different pattern of working. :-)
>I have so much trouble with other people's
> software I am convinced it is made difficult on
> purpose, nobody could be as dumb as some of
> the software makes the author look.
this is topic which has taken hundreds of thousands
of manmonths to design. It would take forever to
produce one, and only one.
>
> I thought I would like graphical linux and
> bought about six different versions, but none
> looked like completed operating systems and
> the third party software was so bad I gave up
> and I run with a mobile rack and any operating
> system that fits the task best.
That's what you're supposed to do. There is no
such thing as "one OS fits all". The best you
can do is start out with a general purpose OS
which leaves most of the user usage as an exercise
for the user.
We made several OSes which did this.
/BAH
Marvin the Martian
I have data on a USB drive that started out on a 5 1/2" floppies. You can
still download SPICE versions that used to be on tape archives.
This silly canard that if it was once on paper tape or punch cards it
could never be moved to another medium is so stupid that only an utter
idiot would try to pass it off.
Look, the CRU folks and their co-conspirators SAID they would delete it
if there was a Freedom of Information act attempt to get it, there were
FOI attempts to get it, and it's now deleted.
Okay, so lets stop with this idiot talk about how it was on paper tape.
IT's just a stupid lie. It isn't even supposed to be believed, its only
has to be a good enough lie to keep the conspirators out of prison.
Marvin the Martian
> Well, the leaked emails seem to provide evidence for the chicanery we've
> all suspected. Some of it looks illegal, perhaps felonious.
Exactly. I thought maybe these "climate scientists" were just stupid. You
know how it is; the "A+" guys go into theoretical physics and particle
physics. The "B" guys go on to build bombs. The B- guys who barely made
it through grad school at Po-dunk U. go on to become "Climate Scientist".
But they're not just stupid. They're liars. They're frauds.
There are two big problems in physics.
1) The lack of ethics in society in general.
2) Funding.
These two worked together to produce not just non-science, but complete
and utter FRAUD.
Our society is simply not as honest as it used to be. See, "The Cheating
Culture" by David Callahan for many examples of how our ethics and
honesty has declined in our culture.
The second problem is how science is funded.
Research that finds a threat or promises a big payoff get funded, even if
they are complete and utter crap. I've seen a bad theory and cherry
picked results get funded year after year, each time with the results
"needs more research". Not just climate change, which is the biggest scam
of all.
What do you think is going to happen? That some "researcher" is going to
say "opps! I made a math error in my theory" or "I cherry picked the
results, really nothing going on here different from conventional
physics"? Hell no! They're not going to make themselves unemployed by
being honest. They LIE. What's really scary is how some of them even
begin to believe their own BS.
jmfbahciv
> What a bunch of childish bull.
>
> I have data on a USB drive that started out on a 5 1/2" floppies.
Impossible. Floppies don't receive data magically.
> You can
> still download SPICE versions that used to be on tape archives.
>
> This silly canard that if it was once on paper tape or punch cards it
> could never be moved to another medium is so stupid that only an utter
> idiot would try to pass it off.
>
Where are you getting this idea (that it can't be moved). All that
I'm stating is that transforming from one form to another makes the
copy not the raw data. The raw data is usually saved intact as a
sanity check.
> Look, the CRU folks and their co-conspirators SAID they would delete it
> if there was a Freedom of Information act attempt to get it, there were
> FOI attempts to get it, and it's now deleted.
>
> Okay, so lets stop with this idiot talk about how it was on paper tape.
> IT's just a stupid lie. It isn't even supposed to be believed, its only
> has to be a good enough lie to keep the conspirators out of prison.
You aren't even seeing the trees for the forest. :-).
/BAH
jmfbahciv
/BAH
Martin Brown
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:14:19 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
>>> extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
>>> goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> About when did they stop using paper punch tape for programs?
>
> I suspect there are still systems using them out there.
Although they tend to be rare dedicated machines with exotic external
hardware controlling old telescopes, satellite downlinks or something
like that. Maybe even the odd aging nuclear power station. Most will
have had something grafted on to allow faster transfer by now.
Some Marconi Myriads were still in use in the mid 80's and I knew at
least one that output its measurement results on paper tape then. The
tape was then fed into the mainframe for final processing.
>> As far as the data goes, there are so many
>> missing entries filled in by 999.9 and stations
>> only operating a few years, the results are less
>> than acceptable.
>>
>> Security would not be a problem if critical
>> data was kept on computers not connected to
>> the net, with 2 terrabyte hard drives available
>> for less than $200, a $500 computer can hold
>> all the data for the whole world, another for
>> email, and another for payroll, etc.
>
> You are completely missing the security aspects when
> humans are involved. Raw data can get lost easily if
> it's not accessed often. It's even easier to lose
> code sources if they're not used more often.
An astonishing amount of old data on mag tape (admittedly most of it
will never be missed) has expired due to print through as data volumes
have grown. It is even worse for digital text archives there are plenty
of wordprocessor disks for the likes of the early Olivetti kit that are
now virtually impossible to read. Their machines were Zilog based and
good in their day but lets say they did not survive much after the IBM
PC. You can have them read but it costs $$$.
>> It is about time some better hardware
>> was offered that allows a manual switch to
>> shut off any incoming packets that are not
>> requested, another $500 computer could
>> be used as a quarantine machine, but in
>> almost everything the experts try to make
>> one device do everything.
>
> That kind of security has existed for a long time. It's called
> a phone plug.
The only truly secure computers are those which are physically
disconnected from the outside world and with strict controls on who
enters and what leaves the room. Thumbnail drives and even smaller SD
media means that multiple GB can leak away if security is careless.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Marvin the Martian
Now you're being silly. Using that illogic, the "raw data" is the mercury
in the thermometers at a thousand weather stations and it only existed at
the time it was taken. Everything else, including the paper logs where it
was written down, is not "raw data".
Sorry, I thought you were serious.
The CRU destroyed the data, as in "the numbers don't exist anymore". They
don't exist on punch tape, on disk, on DVDrom, nor a RAID array or USB
drive.
Now, child, go play your pissy little semantic game somewhere else.
Marvin the Martian
It was a conspiracy of crooks.
It was a bunch of third world dictatorships that wanted to scam the
United States out of trillions of dollars. They were lead by the People's
Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China, who bribed Al Gore to
be their spokesman. We KNOW they did this because Al Gore was caught with
their $100,000 bribe.
The IPCC was created by the UN general assembly, which is controlled by
third world nations, specifically for the purpose of funding research
that supported the scam. They panted to the whores who would pose as
"scientist" who would give any result desired for the right funding.
And the non-scientist pandered to the wackos who hate America and that
hate humanity. These wackos have the irrational belief that humans (other
than themselves, of course) are dirty polluting beasts that have to be
killed off by the billions in order to make the world fit for humans.
jmfbahciv
Oh, brother. I am being serious. You, apparently, have no idea how
this kind of work is done nor the problems involved.
/BAH
Martin Brown
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the
>> general public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have
>> been allowed to muddy the water for far too long without being
>> properly challenged.
>
> It wouldn't matter iff scam artists such as Al Gore didn't get into the
> mix. Using a presidential party platform is one of the tactics to make
> big huge messes.
I am no fan of Al Gore or his Hollywood film.
He is very much of the "do as I say not as I do" school of politics.
>> The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
>> Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
>> sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I didn't
>> think he was all that good in the interview and communicationg science
>> research to the public is a serious problem. People simply do not
>> trust scientists now
>
> But the general public trusts the politicians. That makes no sense
> to me.
Not in the UK they don't. The only people more reviled than politicians
at the moment are merchant w^dbankers who are all taking home their 7
figure bonuses for not having quite totally destroyed the worlds
economy. Killing 1 in 10 would more accurately match the UK public mood
(true of both bankers and national politicians).
>
>> and several guests made completely dishonest claims about AGW based on
>> what they have read online. These went unchallenged since the
>> scientists were not present for the audience discussion.
>
> Which makes me smell the bias scent of the BBC.
Newsnight is generally pretty good in terms of investigating. They have
one or two really excellent interviewers who will not stand any
nonsense. Famously once putting the same question to a former home
secretary 9 times demanding an answer (and so ending his career). It
wasn't quite as hostile as it looked a technical fault meant that the
front man had to stall for time. He did it by asking the same question
and as the interviewee became more annoyed it worked brilliantly.
>> The Newsnight piece is online at:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
>>
>> Unsure if you can watch it online outside of the UK.
It isn't very long. Take a look and see what you think.
>> Democracy is the least bad alternative
>
> Democracy is not 100% freedom; it is a mixture of freedom and equality.
> The one rein checks the other.
>
>> although it helps if you have at least three political parties. The US
>> style bipolar disorder in politics makes it impossible to avoid a
>> situation where if the Democrats are for something the Republicans are
>> automatically against it and vice-versa. A recipe for deadlock.
>
> Which is a feature.
Although not a benefit. If you have a broadly credible third party in
waiting that can hold some of the middle ground and tell the truth (a
bit like Jeremy cricket for Pinnocchio). Then there tends to be less of
a wild "them" and "us" oscillation. Instead the US has two different
colours of Pinnocchios one Red and one Blue both with very long noses.
>> The IPCC collates the science and distills it into a summary form
>> where policy makers can understand it without having to read all the
>> primary literature. It is actually a well balanced piece of work and
>> highlights the uncertainties and areas still needing more research as
>> well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the existing data.
>> Online at:
>>
>> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
>>
>> Have a look and see what you think. There are references into the
>> primary literature if you want to take it further.
>
> So the demand made within this thread was smoke. I'll try to get
> to the library and take a look at it.
You can download most of it for free online.
>> They were hacked and by the sounds of it by a very professional team.
>
> New hard/software was also getting released within the same time frame.
>
>> Unclear as yet whether it was a national security service or a loner
>> looking for UFOs (like the unfortunate McKinnon who is being
>> extradited to the USA as a terrorist for hacking secure DOD computers
>> with UID=guest/pw=guest etc.). I am inclined to think it is the DOD
>> sysadmins deserving the jail terms.
>
> I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
> extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
> goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
> anymore.
>
> /BAH
Doesn't matter how secure the OS is if you leave well known default
passwords set on accounts that have full system supervisor privileges
and/or the ability to create new accounts with any settings you like.
It isn't rocket science to scan user account lists for weak passwords
these days. Defaults on one of the systems I used at university were
equal to the userid initially. An astonishing number of large value
account holders did not change this default. One day the system log
printer was found to be printing a list of all such accounts.
Regards,
Martin Brown
jmfbahciv
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Martin Brown wrote:
>
>>> There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the
>>> general public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have
>>> been allowed to muddy the water for far too long without being
>>> properly challenged.
>>
>> It wouldn't matter iff scam artists such as Al Gore didn't get into the
>> mix. Using a presidential party platform is one of the tactics to make
>> big huge messes.
>
> I am no fan of Al Gore or his Hollywood film.
> He is very much of the "do as I say not as I do" school of politics.
You've missed the whole point. This mess has been caused by
politicians using "science" as the proof for their political
platforms to further their hidden agendas. This tactic is
not unique to this problem but it is unique in that the
monies, economies, trade, and all other aspects of Western
civilization were affected on a world-wide level. I can't
think of any other scam that was allowed to go this
far without the bubble burst.
>
>>> The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
>>> Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
>>> sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I didn't
>>> think he was all that good in the interview and communicationg
>>> science research to the public is a serious problem. People simply do
>>> not trust scientists now
>>
>> But the general public trusts the politicians. That makes no sense
>> to me.
>
> Not in the UK they don't.
Yes, they do. Even the UK voters keep reelecting them. Parliament
puts the same old staff in power.
>The only people more reviled than politicians
> at the moment are merchant w^dbankers who are all taking home their 7
> figure bonuses for not having quite totally destroyed the worlds
> economy. Killing 1 in 10 would more accurately match the UK public mood
> (true of both bankers and national politicians).
Wonderful. That's not fixing the source of the mess.
>>
>>> and several guests made completely dishonest claims about AGW based
>>> on what they have read online. These went unchallenged since the
>>> scientists were not present for the audience discussion.
>>
>> Which makes me smell the bias scent of the BBC.
>
> Newsnight is generally pretty good in terms of investigating. They have
> one or two really excellent interviewers who will not stand any
> nonsense. Famously once putting the same question to a former home
> secretary 9 times demanding an answer (and so ending his career). It
> wasn't quite as hostile as it looked a technical fault meant that the
> front man had to stall for time. He did it by asking the same question
> and as the interviewee became more annoyed it worked brilliantly.
Sounds like a Katie Couric technique. Ask the dumbest questions
which nobody but the so-called intelligensia cares about.
>
>>> The Newsnight piece is online at:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
>>>
>>> Unsure if you can watch it online outside of the UK.
>
> It isn't very long. Take a look and see what you think.
I probably won't get to it.
>
>>> Democracy is the least bad alternative
>>
>> Democracy is not 100% freedom; it is a mixture of freedom and equality.
>> The one rein checks the other.
>>
>>> although it helps if you have at least three political parties. The
>>> US style bipolar disorder in politics makes it impossible to avoid a
>>> situation where if the Democrats are for something the Republicans
>>> are automatically against it and vice-versa. A recipe for deadlock.
>>
>> Which is a feature.
>
> Although not a benefit.
Sure it is. We (the US) could have used a deadlock this week.
>
If you have a broadly credible third party in
> waiting that can hold some of the middle ground and tell the truth (a
> bit like Jeremy cricket for Pinnocchio).
That's a big IF and doesn't exist.
>Then there tends to be less of
> a wild "them" and "us" oscillation. Instead the US has two different
> colours of Pinnocchios one Red and one Blue both with very long noses.
>
>>> The IPCC collates the science and distills it into a summary form
>>> where policy makers can understand it without having to read all the
>>> primary literature. It is actually a well balanced piece of work and
>>> highlights the uncertainties and areas still needing more research as
>>> well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the existing data.
>>> Online at:
>>>
>>> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
>>>
>>> Have a look and see what you think. There are references into the
>>> primary literature if you want to take it further.
>>
>> So the demand made within this thread was smoke. I'll try to get
>> to the library and take a look at it.
>
> You can download most of it for free online.
>
I have to go to the library to view it.
>>> They were hacked and by the sounds of it by a very professional team.
>>
>> New hard/software was also getting released within the same time frame.
>>
>>> Unclear as yet whether it was a national security service or a loner
>>> looking for UFOs (like the unfortunate McKinnon who is being
>>> extradited to the USA as a terrorist for hacking secure DOD computers
>>> with UID=guest/pw=guest etc.). I am inclined to think it is the DOD
>>> sysadmins deserving the jail terms.
>>
>> I've been working with systems since the late 60s. Security is
>> extremely difficult to maintain and the OS, which whose primary
>> goal was 100% security, isn't available as the primary OS
>> anymore.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Doesn't matter how secure the OS is if you leave well known default
> passwords set on accounts that have full system supervisor privileges
> and/or the ability to create new accounts with any settings you like.
Honey, part of the design of an OS, whose primary goal statement is
security, will not have that kind of access implemented at all.
>
> It isn't rocket science to scan user account lists for weak passwords
> these days. Defaults on one of the systems I used at university were
> equal to the userid initially. An astonishing number of large value
> account holders did not change this default. One day the system log
> printer was found to be printing a list of all such accounts.
That's been the case since the 60s. This is not a "new" security
issue :-).
/BAH
Martin Brown
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the
>>>> general public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have
>>>> been allowed to muddy the water for far too long without being
>>>> properly challenged.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't matter iff scam artists such as Al Gore didn't get into the
>>> mix. Using a presidential party platform is one of the tactics to make
>>> big huge messes.
>>
>> I am no fan of Al Gore or his Hollywood film.
>> He is very much of the "do as I say not as I do" school of politics.
>
> You've missed the whole point. This mess has been caused by
> politicians using "science" as the proof for their political
> platforms to further their hidden agendas. This tactic is
Hardly. In the UK there is nothing like the same extent of of wilful
ignorance of the science. It is the righttards of America and their
incredibly powerful lobby groups that have been active in suppressing
the science. In a country where a third of the population is seriously
obese and takes no excercise caring for the planet is never going to be
a priority. Sad but true.
But Exxon and its propaganda has had plenty of time to spread
disinformation without being adequately challenged.
> not unique to this problem but it is unique in that the
> monies, economies, trade, and all other aspects of Western
> civilization were affected on a world-wide level. I can't
> think of any other scam that was allowed to go this
> far without the bubble burst.
It isn't a scam. The science is real enough. What we *do* about it is
another matter altogether. Building nuclear power plants and increasing
vehicle fuel efficiency are pretty obvious first steps.
>>>> The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
>>>> Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
>>>> sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I didn't
>>>> think he was all that good in the interview and communicationg
>>>> science research to the public is a serious problem. People simply
>>>> do not trust scientists now
>>>
>>> But the general public trusts the politicians. That makes no sense
>>> to me.
>>
>> Not in the UK they don't.
>
> Yes, they do. Even the UK voters keep reelecting them. Parliament
> puts the same old staff in power.
Actually no. Only the fairly good ones get elected here. It isn't all
that well paid either. There have been several famous stalking horse
incidents where independents have targeted a dodgy MP up for re-election
with great effect. UK elections are much more finely balanced than in
America. There are nothing like as many rotten boroughs and a lot more
swing states.
>
>> The only people more reviled than politicians at the moment are
>> merchant w^dbankers who are all taking home their 7 figure bonuses for
>> not having quite totally destroyed the worlds economy. Killing 1 in 10
>> would more accurately match the UK public mood (true of both bankers
>> and national politicians).
>
> Wonderful. That's not fixing the source of the mess.
I was amused to find the Bank of England bailing out the cretins in 1848
in much the same way with roughly the equivalent stern open letter of
condemnation and lots of taxpayers cash. It was yet another clever paper
derivatives money trick that went pear shaped. They have been at it
forever. Vast unemployment occurred as manufacturers had nothing to pay
the wages with - it was the first outing of the anti-gold standard league.
>>>> and several guests made completely dishonest claims about AGW based
>>>> on what they have read online. These went unchallenged since the
>>>> scientists were not present for the audience discussion.
>>>
>>> Which makes me smell the bias scent of the BBC.
>>
>> Newsnight is generally pretty good in terms of investigating. They
>> have one or two really excellent interviewers who will not stand any
>> nonsense. Famously once putting the same question to a former home
>> secretary 9 times demanding an answer (and so ending his career). It
>> wasn't quite as hostile as it looked a technical fault meant that the
>> front man had to stall for time. He did it by asking the same question
>> and as the interviewee became more annoyed it worked brilliantly.
>
> Sounds like a Katie Couric technique. Ask the dumbest questions
> which nobody but the so-called intelligensia cares about.
It wasn't a particularly dumb question.
>>>> The Newsnight piece is online at:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
>>>>
>>>> Unsure if you can watch it online outside of the UK.
>>
>> It isn't very long. Take a look and see what you think.
>
> I probably won't get to it.
Don't tell me you are not on broadband?
>>>> Democracy is the least bad alternative
>>>
>>> Democracy is not 100% freedom; it is a mixture of freedom and equality.
>>> The one rein checks the other.
>>>
>>>> although it helps if you have at least three political parties. The
>>>> US style bipolar disorder in politics makes it impossible to avoid a
>>>> situation where if the Democrats are for something the Republicans
>>>> are automatically against it and vice-versa. A recipe for deadlock.
>>>
>>> Which is a feature.
>>
>> Although not a benefit.
>
> Sure it is. We (the US) could have used a deadlock this week.
No. You are terrified of change, but the US medical system is vastly
overpriced, corrupt and exists mainly to line the pockets of insurance
salesmen and senators via the various lobbyists. How come we never hear
about the guy they caught red handed and his list of "contacts".
> >
> If you have a broadly credible third party in
>> waiting that can hold some of the middle ground and tell the truth (a
>> bit like Jeremy cricket for Pinnocchio).
>
> That's a big IF and doesn't exist.
It does in the UK. They are called the "Liberal Democrats". Not a name I
would expect to go down well in the USA where "Liberal" is used as a
term of abuse.
>
>> Then there tends to be less of a wild "them" and "us" oscillation.
>> Instead the US has two different colours of Pinnocchios one Red and
>> one Blue both with very long noses.
>>
>>>> The IPCC collates the science and distills it into a summary form
>>>> where policy makers can understand it without having to read all the
>>>> primary literature. It is actually a well balanced piece of work and
>>>> highlights the uncertainties and areas still needing more research
>>>> as well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the existing data.
>>>> Online at:
>>>>
>>>> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
>>>>
>>>> Have a look and see what you think. There are references into the
>>>> primary literature if you want to take it further.
>>>
>>> So the demand made within this thread was smoke. I'll try to get
>>> to the library and take a look at it.
>>
>> You can download most of it for free online.
>
> I have to go to the library to view it.
Use the book then it is much easier to work with!
>> Doesn't matter how secure the OS is if you leave well known default
>> passwords set on accounts that have full system supervisor privileges
>> and/or the ability to create new accounts with any settings you like.
>
> Honey, part of the design of an OS, whose primary goal statement is
> security, will not have that kind of access implemented at all.
I don't recall any OS's in the 1980's that would stop you putting in a
weak password on any major mainframes. Our 3081 was at one time being
used to create accounts that were predictably of the form Pnnn pw=Pnnn.
They stopped that practice, but users continued to set incredibly weak
passwords that would fail to any basic dictionary attack.
>> It isn't rocket science to scan user account lists for weak passwords
>> these days. Defaults on one of the systems I used at university were
>> equal to the userid initially. An astonishing number of large value
>> account holders did not change this default. One day the system log
>> printer was found to be printing a list of all such accounts.
>
> That's been the case since the 60s. This is not a "new" security
> issue :-).
ISTR VAX and DEC-10 also had weak spots. VAX/VMS was stronger than IBMs
junk but by no means bullet proof eg.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1990-09.html
The point is that you should not be able to leave powerful privileged
supervisor state accounts with default or obviously weak passwords on a
military computer and particularly not on one connected to the internet!
Like I said originally the hacker may have broken the law but he isn't
the one that needs locking up!
Regards,
Martin Brown
jmfbahciv
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Martin Brown wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the
>>>>> general public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have
>>>>> been allowed to muddy the water for far too long without being
>>>>> properly challenged.
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't matter iff scam artists such as Al Gore didn't get into the
>>>> mix. Using a presidential party platform is one of the tactics to make
>>>> big huge messes.
>>>
>>> I am no fan of Al Gore or his Hollywood film.
>>> He is very much of the "do as I say not as I do" school of politics.
>>
>> You've missed the whole point. This mess has been caused by
>> politicians using "science" as the proof for their political
>> platforms to further their hidden agendas. This tactic is
>
> Hardly. In the UK there is nothing like the same extent of of wilful
> ignorance of the science.
Now why am I smelling a rat? ;-)
> It is the righttards of America and their
> incredibly powerful lobby groups that have been active in suppressing
> the science. In a country where a third of the population is seriously
> obese and takes no excercise caring for the planet is never going to be
> a priority. Sad but true.
>
> But Exxon and its propaganda has had plenty of time to spread
> disinformation without being adequately challenged.
So you're another conspiracy nut.
>
>> not unique to this problem but it is unique in that the
>> monies, economies, trade, and all other aspects of Western
>> civilization were affected on a world-wide level. I can't
>> think of any other scam that was allowed to go this
>> far without the bubble burst.
>
> It isn't a scam. The science is real enough.
No, it's not. That's the whole fucking point.
> What we *do* about it is
> another matter altogether. Building nuclear power plants and increasing
> vehicle fuel efficiency are pretty obvious first steps.
>
>>>>> The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
>>>>> Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
>>>>> sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I
>>>>> didn't think he was all that good in the interview and
>>>>> communicationg science research to the public is a serious problem.
>>>>> People simply do not trust scientists now
>>>>
>>>> But the general public trusts the politicians. That makes no sense
>>>> to me.
>>>
>>> Not in the UK they don't.
>>
>> Yes, they do. Even the UK voters keep reelecting them. Parliament
>> puts the same old staff in power.
>
> Actually no. Only the fairly good ones get elected here. It isn't all
> that well paid either. There have been several famous stalking horse
> incidents where independents have targeted a dodgy MP up for re-election
> with great effect. UK elections are much more finely balanced than in
> America. There are nothing like as many rotten boroughs and a lot more
> swing states.
<ahem> Your country is also quite small w.r.t. area. You also have
just as many rotten apples as anybody else.
> Don't tell me you are not on broadband?
Ok. I won't tell you. Since I had been using a 14400 baud modem,
I'm now luxuriating with a 44000 baud modem.
> No. You are terrified of change, but the US medical system is vastly
> overpriced,
Because of the lack of torte reform.
>corrupt and exists mainly to line the pockets of insurance
> salesmen and senators via the various lobbyists. How come we never hear
> about the guy they caught red handed and his list of "contacts".
You don't know how things work over here.
>> >
>> If you have a broadly credible third party in
>>> waiting that can hold some of the middle ground and tell the truth (a
>>> bit like Jeremy cricket for Pinnocchio).
>>
>> That's a big IF and doesn't exist.
>
> It does in the UK. They are called the "Liberal Democrats". Not a name I
> would expect to go down well in the USA where "Liberal" is used as a
> term of abuse.
England was still suffering the financial aftereffects of WWII as late
as the 80s. Your political system doesn't work that well either.
>
>>> Doesn't matter how secure the OS is if you leave well known default
>>> passwords set on accounts that have full system supervisor privileges
>>> and/or the ability to create new accounts with any settings you like.
>>
>> Honey, part of the design of an OS, whose primary goal statement is
>> security, will not have that kind of access implemented at all.
>
> I don't recall any OS's in the 1980's that would stop you putting in a
> weak password on any major mainframes. Our 3081 was at one time being
> used to create accounts that were predictably of the form Pnnn pw=Pnnn.
None of the 1980s operating systems, which you are familiar with,
had a primary goal of security.
>
> They stopped that practice, but users continued to set incredibly weak
> passwords that would fail to any basic dictionary attack.
Passwords are the least of the problem.
>
>>> It isn't rocket science to scan user account lists for weak passwords
>>> these days. Defaults on one of the systems I used at university were
>>> equal to the userid initially. An astonishing number of large value
>>> account holders did not change this default. One day the system log
>>> printer was found to be printing a list of all such accounts.
>>
>> That's been the case since the 60s. This is not a "new" security
>> issue :-).
>
> ISTR VAX and DEC-10 also had weak spots. VAX/VMS was stronger than IBMs
> junk but by no means bullet proof eg.
>
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1990-09.html
Nothing is bullet proof if any human is involved.
>
> The point is that you should not be able to leave powerful privileged
> supervisor state accounts with default or obviously weak passwords on a
> military computer and particularly not on one connected to the internet!
>
> Like I said originally the hacker may have broken the law but he isn't
> the one that needs locking up!
Apparently, there was no hacker.
/BAH
Michael Price
wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
> > Martin Brown wrote:
> >> jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>> Martin Brown wrote:
>
> >>>> There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the
> >>>> general public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have
> >>>> been allowed to muddy the water for far too long without being
> >>>> properly challenged.
>
> >>> It wouldn't matter iff scam artists such as Al Gore didn't get into the
> >>> mix. Using a presidential party platform is one of the tactics to make
> >>> big huge messes.
>
> >> I am no fan of Al Gore or his Hollywood film.
> >> He is very much of the "do as I say not as I do" school of politics.
>
> > You've missed the whole point. This mess has been caused by
> > politicians using "science" as the proof for their political
> > platforms to further their hidden agendas. This tactic is
>
> Hardly. In the UK there is nothing like the same extent of of wilful
> ignorance of the science. It is the righttards of America and their
> incredibly powerful lobby groups that have been active in suppressing
> the science.
Wow you're a bad liar. Unless of course you mean that the
incredibly
powerful lobby groups that support global warming myths. The US
media was full of global warming propaganda and the media always
questioned anyone who didn't fall in with the politically correct
"science".
> In a country where a third of the population is seriously
> obese and takes no excercise caring for the planet is never going to be
> a priority. Sad but true.
>
Non sequitur alert.
> But Exxon and its propaganda has had plenty of time to spread
> disinformation without being adequately challenged.
Except by every fucking TV show on the planet, liar.
>
> > not unique to this problem but it is unique in that the
> > monies, economies, trade, and all other aspects of Western
> > civilization were affected on a world-wide level. I can't
> > think of any other scam that was allowed to go this
> > far without the bubble burst.
>
> It isn't a scam. The science is real enough.
Then why do the proponents have to get people fired for questioning
them? Why do they have to put people on their reports as authors
who disagree with them and don't want to be so listed?
> What we *do* about it is
> another matter altogether. Building nuclear power plants and increasing
> vehicle fuel efficiency are pretty obvious first steps.
>
> >>>> The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
> >>>> Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
> >>>> sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I didn't
> >>>> think he was all that good in the interview and communicationg
> >>>> science research to the public is a serious problem. People simply
> >>>> do not trust scientists now
>
> >>> But the general public trusts the politicians. That makes no sense
> >>> to me.
>
> >> Not in the UK they don't.
>
> > Yes, they do. Even the UK voters keep reelecting them. Parliament
> > puts the same old staff in power.
>
> Actually no. Only the fairly good ones get elected here.
Hey moron, Tony Blair got REelected.
> It isn't all that well paid either. There have been several famous stalking
> horse incidents where independents have targeted a dodgy MP up for
> re-election with great effect. UK elections are much more finely balanced
> than in America. There are nothing like as many rotten boroughs and a
> lot more swing states.
>
> >> The only people more reviled than politicians at the moment are
> >> merchant w^dbankers who are all taking home their 7 figure bonuses for
> >> not having quite totally destroyed the worlds economy. Killing 1 in 10
> >> would more accurately match the UK public mood (true of both bankers
> >> and national politicians).
>
> > Wonderful. That's not fixing the source of the mess.
>
> I was amused to find the Bank of England bailing out the cretins in 1848
> in much the same way with roughly the equivalent stern open letter of
> condemnation and lots of taxpayers cash. It was yet another clever paper
> derivatives money trick that went pear shaped. They have been at it
> forever. Vast unemployment occurred as manufacturers had nothing to pay
> the wages with - it was the first outing of the anti-gold standard league.
>
Yeah because going off the gold standard works so well.
Obamacare is composed entirely of ideas that have been tried and
failed, more deadlock would have prevented this abortion being passed.
The system is vastly overpriced and corrupt, but that's because the US
public wants free stuff and doesn't even want the government to pay
for it. Thus it ended up with a National Socialist medical system
that
serves only lobbyists. Of course Obama is a National Socialist
president
that serves only lobbyists.
>
> > If you have a broadly credible third party in
> >> waiting that can hold some of the middle ground and tell the truth (a
> >> bit like Jeremy cricket for Pinnocchio).
>
> > That's a big IF and doesn't exist.
>
> It does in the UK. They are called the "Liberal Democrats". Not a name I
> would expect to go down well in the USA where "Liberal" is used as a
> term of abuse.
>
And rightly.
>
> >> Then there tends to be less of a wild "them" and "us" oscillation.
> >> Instead the US has two different colours of Pinnocchios one Red and
> >> one Blue both with very long noses.
>
> >>>> The IPCC collates the science and distills it into a summary form
> >>>> where policy makers can understand it without having to read all the
> >>>> primary literature.
Not all of what it "collates" is actually in the original sources,
and the
authors of said sources get a bit mad about that.
> >>>> It is actually a well balanced piece of work and
> >>>> highlights the uncertainties and areas still needing more research
> >>>> as well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the existing data.
> >>>> Online at:
Not even close to true. The IPCC report was always biased towards
AGW and distorted the views of the people listed as "authors".
Marvin the Martian
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> You've missed the whole point. This mess has been caused by
>> politicians using "science" as the proof for their political platforms
>> to further their hidden agendas. This tactic is
>
> Hardly. In the UK there is nothing like the same extent of of wilful
> ignorance of the science. It is the righttards of America and their
> incredibly powerful lobby groups that have been active in suppressing
> the science. In a country where a third of the population is seriously
> obese and takes no excercise caring for the planet is never going to be
> a priority. Sad but true.
Newton is spinning in his grave in shame. I can't believe that someone
can argue that the CRU e-mails doesn't show a terrible scientific
scandal, because many Americans are fat. The rest of his "argument" is
childish gibberish, as if anything could be a bigger non-sequitor than
the fat implies no scientific scandal crap.
I M @ good guy
Some Americans _are_ fat, and I hate fat, but
the supermarkets are so full of food, and it is so
low priced, when you can buy 50 pounds of
potatoes for one hours work, can't eat just one.
Martin Brown
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> There has been a failure to communicate the real science to the
>>>> general public though. The Exxon funded denialist think tanks have
>>>> been allowed to muddy the water for far too long without being
>>>> properly challenged.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't matter iff scam artists such as Al Gore didn't get into the
>>> mix. Using a presidential party platform is one of the tactics to make
>>> big huge messes.
>>
>> I am no fan of Al Gore or his Hollywood film.
>> He is very much of the "do as I say not as I do" school of politics.
>
> You've missed the whole point. This mess has been caused by
> politicians using "science" as the proof for their political
> platforms to further their hidden agendas. This tactic is
Hardly. In the UK there is nothing like the same extent of of wilful
ignorance of the science. It is the righttards of America and their
incredibly powerful lobby groups that have been active in suppressing
the science. In a country where a third of the population is seriously
obese and takes no excercise caring for the planet is never going to be
a priority. Sad but true.
But Exxon and its propaganda has had plenty of time to spread
disinformation without being adequately challenged.
> not unique to this problem but it is unique in that the
> monies, economies, trade, and all other aspects of Western
> civilization were affected on a world-wide level. I can't
> think of any other scam that was allowed to go this
> far without the bubble burst.
It isn't a scam. The science is real enough. What we *do* about it is
another matter altogether. Building nuclear power plants and increasing
vehicle fuel efficiency are pretty obvious first steps.
>>>> The former UK Chief Science Advisor David King last night on BBC
>>>> Newsnight said that the hack against CRU was an extraordinary
>>>> sophisticated piece of work typical of a government agency. I didn't
>>>> think he was all that good in the interview and communicationg
>>>> science research to the public is a serious problem. People simply
>>>> do not trust scientists now
>>>
>>> But the general public trusts the politicians. That makes no sense
>>> to me.
>>
>> Not in the UK they don't.
>
> Yes, they do. Even the UK voters keep reelecting them. Parliament
> puts the same old staff in power.
Actually no. Only the fairly good ones get elected here. It isn't all
that well paid either. There have been several famous stalking horse
incidents where independents have targeted a dodgy MP up for re-election
with great effect. UK elections are much more finely balanced than in
America. There are nothing like as many rotten boroughs and a lot more
swing states.
>
>> The only people more reviled than politicians at the moment are
>> merchant w^dbankers who are all taking home their 7 figure bonuses for
>> not having quite totally destroyed the worlds economy. Killing 1 in 10
>> would more accurately match the UK public mood (true of both bankers
>> and national politicians).
>
> Wonderful. That's not fixing the source of the mess.
I was amused to find the Bank of England bailing out the cretins in 1848
in much the same way with roughly the equivalent stern open letter of
condemnation and lots of taxpayers cash. It was yet another clever paper
derivatives money trick that went pear shaped. They have been at it
forever. Vast unemployment occurred as manufacturers had nothing to pay
the wages with - it was the first outing of the anti-gold standard league.
>>>> and several guests made completely dishonest claims about AGW based
>>>> on what they have read online. These went unchallenged since the
>>>> scientists were not present for the audience discussion.
>>>
>>> Which makes me smell the bias scent of the BBC.
>>
>> Newsnight is generally pretty good in terms of investigating. They
>> have one or two really excellent interviewers who will not stand any
>> nonsense. Famously once putting the same question to a former home
>> secretary 9 times demanding an answer (and so ending his career). It
>> wasn't quite as hostile as it looked a technical fault meant that the
>> front man had to stall for time. He did it by asking the same question
>> and as the interviewee became more annoyed it worked brilliantly.
>
> Sounds like a Katie Couric technique. Ask the dumbest questions
> which nobody but the so-called intelligensia cares about.
It wasn't a particularly dumb question.
>>>> The Newsnight piece is online at:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
>>>>
>>>> Unsure if you can watch it online outside of the UK.
>>
>> It isn't very long. Take a look and see what you think.
>
> I probably won't get to it.
Don't tell me you are not on broadband?
>>>> Democracy is the least bad alternative
>>>
>>> Democracy is not 100% freedom; it is a mixture of freedom and equality.
>>> The one rein checks the other.
>>>
>>>> although it helps if you have at least three political parties. The
>>>> US style bipolar disorder in politics makes it impossible to avoid a
>>>> situation where if the Democrats are for something the Republicans
>>>> are automatically against it and vice-versa. A recipe for deadlock.
>>>
>>> Which is a feature.
>>
>> Although not a benefit.
>
> Sure it is. We (the US) could have used a deadlock this week.
No. You are terrified of change, but the US medical system is vastly
overpriced, corrupt and exists mainly to line the pockets of insurance
salesmen and senators via the various lobbyists. How come we never hear
about the guy they caught red handed and his list of "contacts".
> >
> If you have a broadly credible third party in
>> waiting that can hold some of the middle ground and tell the truth (a
>> bit like Jeremy cricket for Pinnocchio).
>
> That's a big IF and doesn't exist.
It does in the UK. They are called the "Liberal Democrats". Not a name I
would expect to go down well in the USA where "Liberal" is used as a
term of abuse.
>
>> Then there tends to be less of a wild "them" and "us" oscillation.
>> Instead the US has two different colours of Pinnocchios one Red and
>> one Blue both with very long noses.
>>
>>>> The IPCC collates the science and distills it into a summary form
>>>> where policy makers can understand it without having to read all the
>>>> primary literature. It is actually a well balanced piece of work and
>>>> highlights the uncertainties and areas still needing more research
>>>> as well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the existing data.
>>>> Online at:
>>>>
>>>> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
>>>>
>>>> Have a look and see what you think. There are references into the
>>>> primary literature if you want to take it further.
>>>
>>> So the demand made within this thread was smoke. I'll try to get
>>> to the library and take a look at it.
>>
>> You can download most of it for free online.
>
> I have to go to the library to view it.
Use the book then it is much easier to work with!
>> Doesn't matter how secure the OS is if you leave well known default
>> passwords set on accounts that have full system supervisor privileges
>> and/or the ability to create new accounts with any settings you like.
>
> Honey, part of the design of an OS, whose primary goal statement is
> security, will not have that kind of access implemented at all.
I don't recall any OS's in the 1980's that would stop you putting in a
weak password on any major mainframes. Our 3081 was at one time being
used to create accounts that were predictably of the form Pnnn pw=Pnnn.
They stopped that practice, but users continued to set incredibly weak
passwords that would fail to any basic dictionary attack.
>> It isn't rocket science to scan user account lists for weak passwords
>> these days. Defaults on one of the systems I used at university were
>> equal to the userid initially. An astonishing number of large value
>> account holders did not change this default. One day the system log
>> printer was found to be printing a list of all such accounts.
>
> That's been the case since the 60s. This is not a "new" security
> issue :-).
ISTR VAX and DEC-10 also had weak spots. VAX/VMS was stronger than IBMs
I M @ good guy
I agree, isn't there a bailiwick close by
where you can turn yourself in? :-)
But there won't be many liberal democrats
in the US congress a year from now.
At least the president made the right
decision when he saw the deep snow in D.C.,
a week or so in Hawaii and the white AGW mess
will all be melted.