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: Brumar89 who wrote (880212)	8/14/2015 12:52:29 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By POKERSAM Respond to of 1587617

Good comments on the piece by Duke Professor Brown: pochas says: August 14, 2015 at 6:44 am These folks just love to correct things in the wrong direction. UHI is not removed, it is increased! Sea surface temperatures are corrected to conform with the most convenient but least reliable measurements. Reminds me of the man behind the curtain frantically pulling levers to generate a ferocious but utterly false image designed only to terrify the children. wsbriggs says: August 14, 2015 at 7:31 am The reasons that the 1000s of scientists are party to the fraud is called $$$$$. Just because you want $$$$ for research, doesn’t mean you’re a thief, it means you do what’s necessary to get to the trough. When getting to the trough means writing that the world is ending, that’s what you write. The threat of not receiving funding, tenure, recognition is enough to ensure their silence. Demonstrably they are changing the data. The disparity between the satellite data and the surface data demonstrates that clearly. Assange or Snowden? Ah, there is WUWT, without which we would still be thinking that NOAA’s measurements were all top quality instead of the siting nightmare they generally are. Without which the Climategate papers would have remained hidden on a few cognoscenti sites, without which the work that exposed Mann’s extremely inept hockeystick would have languished. Reply Mike Smith says: August 14, 2015 at 7:44 am People are human. When the data don’t support the hypothesis, one might actively look for things that could justify adjusting the data in the right direction. That’s more convenient that discarding the hypothesis. But one doesn’t look (as aggressively) for things that might make the data look “worse”. This is bias. It gets worse. When a large group of folks, committed to a cause, are driving the process, a powerful groupthink sets in and they all reinforce each other and ultimately amplify the effect. Less than sound science is “forgiven” and justified because the groups motives are “oh so noble”. These people are not, in general, acting out of stupidity or malicious intent. They actually believe they “saving the world” and the groupthink reinforces that on a daily basis. BTW, great paper from Prof. Brown. Reply kokoda says: August 14, 2015 at 8:22 am Mike S. Belief by scientists. I’ll go with Rod’s statement “Oh, and there aren’t 1,000’s of scientists involved in the scam. A few dozen well-placed ones would suffice.” In addition, it is the governments of the western developed countries that are encouraging not only these few dozen, but the Uni’s and Science org’s via prostitution by the gov’t funding. Science or Fiction says: August 14, 2015 at 8:02 am Given the methodic harassment of those raising critical questions. How likely do you think it is that someone will risk their job, career or professional position and give voice to an argument against misconduct? Here´s a comment which seems to be from an insider: “Supposedly, NOAA has a policy protecting scientist from retaliation if they express their scientific opinions on weather-related matters. Never the less, we who don’t buy into the AGW hypothesis are reluctant to test this. Just look at how NOAA treated Bill Proenza for being an iconoclast. So we scurry along the halls whispering to each other, “The Emperor has no clothes.” ” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/15/thanks-partly-to-noaas-new-adjusted-dataset-tommorrow-theyll-claim-that-may-was-the-hottest-ever/#comment-1985842