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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (875447)	7/26/2015 5:55:33 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 d[-_-]b Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584584

>> the data extracted from 400,000 year old samples and translated to temperature did. FYI, the "hockey stick" involved no 400,000 year old samples, it being comprised primarily of 112 sets of tree ring data (much of which was compromised) dating back to around 1400. Those sets were reduced using PCA, however, because of an improper centering of the observations shown in MM03 it was discovered that using an input of red noise with any one of its series producing a hockey stick it would always produce a hockey stick. Do you understand that when they do scientists will work to understand the anomalies and make the corrections if warranted..... reputable scientists are very quick to check the veracity of another's data that shows a surprising result. I understand that Michael Mann and those connected with him routinely refused to make available their data sets as well as their FORTRAN source code when requested by others trying to verify their claims. This is NOT ONLY Mann's papers, but those of associates like Bradley, Hughes, Briffa and others, who have stood in the way replication because they could not tolerate the criticism. Unfortunately, the so-called peer review process has been shredded by these people, effectively blocking from publication those papers which challenge the dogma in important journals like Nature and Science. In some cases the comments have been totally justified yet rejected by these journals. >> If you want to show how smart you are see if you can find out why data sets differ when they shouldn't.....you may be qualified to show it with financial statements but you're not qualified in the physical sciences to get a vote If you want to argue the point argue the point. I'm not going to get into who knows what or personal assaults of that nature. Datasets are always different. If you want to discuss the quality of particular datasets I'm pleased to do so. You may want to begin with the interesting fact that every one of the highly weighted (PC1) datasets in MBH98 was from the same author and tell me whether that bothers you at all.