Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14840)	12/8/2009 1:10:10 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86355

The fraud there is obvious. And there are a lot more examples of it coming out. NZ adjusted vs unadjusted temps showing "Mann"-made warming: c3headlines.typepad.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14840)	12/8/2009 1:15:11 PM
From: russet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

That's exactly what the Catholic church said to the people so many times about data adjustment. "You don't understand as you are ignorant". I like the French solution,...time to get out the guillotine:-)

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14840)	12/8/2009 3:44:32 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

we went back to the source of the data and found that the several work groups of people who were entering the data had received bad work instructions and were entering the data incorrectly. Other work groups were entering it correctly. So the data was mostly correct, except for the anomalies we were seeing. So we isolated those anomalies and removed them from our trend charts. So, to use your analogy, removing accurately collected and entered data you didn't like would be good science. I am not seeing it. I have read enough research papers to know that the original unadulterated data must be kept and preferably reported on. The process of manipulation of it should be reported on if the researcher wants to manipulate it.