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: Land Shark who wrote (57391)	8/26/2014 8:09:08 PM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86350

These guys believe that raw signals are the most correct and that any legit signal processing is "fraud". Yes it is funny. A large number of research Universities around the world actually have copies of the "original" raw data. The University of Washington is one of them because they have a large department in Atmospheric Sciences. :)

To: Land Shark who wrote (57391)	8/27/2014 11:10:10 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 86350

The fruitarians are lazy Posted by William M. Connolley on August 26, 2014 No no don’t go away, there’s actually some science in this post, courtesy of the increasingly-heavyweight Nick Stokes. Or, perhaps more fairly, whatever science there is comes from NS. But there’s a lot of snark too, as I hope you’d expect. That comes from me. The title isn’t quite right; I could have tried anopsologists but I bet you wouldn’t have recognised that – I wouldn’t have, until I looked it up. But let me attempt to come to the point. Over at JoNova is yet another of those tedious posts where they complain that a weather station has been “adjusted” to show warming, and that one should only ever eat raw data because only raw data is good for you. If you find raw “skepticism” too raw, you could try the WUWT echo chamber which, errm, just echoes JoNova. In this case the station in question is Amberly, and if you care about what’s actually gone on then you should of course read Nick Stokes and if that isn’t enough you could read part 2. Nick also has a convenient post showing the affects of adjustment on trends, which is reasonably convenient for pushing at people who claim (without bothering to check, obviously) that adjustments always push the trends upwards. Or this one. JoNova has a “home crowd” who can be relied on to say the right things, much like some of the WUWT regulars. Here’s one saying the artificial concept of homogenisation (which literally means removing all difference), is an act of unthinking vandalism which is probably typical enough; I don’t think I’ll bother quote any more. What’s unfortunately-not-at-all-surprising in this case is that they’re all mouthing off without having bothered to do even the most basic of checks. Is there good metadata for this station, to rule out a move or other change that might justify an adjustment? No. Is that the Bureau Of Meteorology’s fault? Not really; the station was run by the RAAF when the “move” occurred. That doesn’t stop some of the commentators there actually literally accusing the BoM of criminal behaviour. Trivia: Evan Jones makes a cameo appearance, saying “ I hate and despise homogenization with an ice-cold passion” which is jolly fun, but he doesn’t tell us why. But it sounds like he’s a fruitarian. Refs* If you’re actually interested in the details of homogenisation, then VV is a good place to go. This one might be a good start. scienceblogs.com