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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (825803)	12/26/2014 12:16:11 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By D.Austin Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578048

Sabine’s excuse for using modeled data over real data? – ‘earlier data is not of “sufficient quality.” Anthony Watts / 7 hours ago December 25, 2014 WUWT reader Peter Gadiel writes: After reading of the critique of Sabine’s exclusion of the historical data on ocean acidification I emailed him. I thought his response might be of interest to you at WUWT. He says the earlier data is not of “sufficient quality.” My question to him: As a taxpayer who is helping to pay your salary I’d like to know why you are refusing to include all the data on ocean acidification that is available. Sabine’s response: Chris Sabine – NOAA Federal 12:31 AM (11 hours ago) As a public servant that must stick to the rigor of the scientific method and only present data that is of sufficient quality to address the question, I am obliged to report the best evaluation of ocean chemistry changes available. This is what you pay me to do and I am working very hard to give you the best value for your tax dollar every day. I hope you are having a good holiday season. The question that immediately comes to mind is: Who determined that the directly measured ocean pH data was not of “sufficient quality” and if it wasn’t, why then did NOAA make the data available on their website as part of other ocean data in their World Ocean Database without a caveat? [ Now the NOAA will make it disappear soon. ] My search on NOAA’s NODC database for ocean pH data showed plenty of data and no caveats on use: So was Sabine’s decision arbitrary and without basis in fact? Inquiring minds want to know. .............. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/25/sabines-excuse-for-using-modeled-data-over-real-data-earlier-data-is-not-of-sufficient-quality/ Doubting Rich says: December 26, 2014 at 2:02 am The data cannot possibly be of sufficient quality: they do not fit the model! Remember, in post-normal science if the real-world data do not fit the expectations of the model then they are wrong. If there is disagreement between model and reality then reality should not be taken as representative. [ Exactly what disgraceful cheater Michael Mann did. ] roaldjlarsen says: December 26, 2014 at 2:40 am Everybody knows NOAA is adjusting everything to fit the fraud, which you also are paying for. nicholas tesdorf says: December 26, 2014 at 2:42 am Using model outputs as data saves a lot of time and uncertainty and you get the answer that you want every time. The results are also a lot more robust and pass peer review. Also if you have to make ‘adjustments’ to the data, you can just tweak the model and run it again.