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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (889467)	9/22/2015 12:45:22 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1575596

The problem is the adjustments are just off the wall at times. For example, there was a series of tree ring data than Mann and others have used that is missing 25 years, making the series essentially useless for certain purposes. Because that series made his "model" look better, he just averaged the other years and plugged in those averages for the missing 25 years. You cannot do that in real statistics. You can't just make up data. When the Pearson statistic showed no correlation, they threw it out. And made up a new statistic and said, "This one works better." Well, yes it did. Because it was designed to work better (where better is defined as higher correlation). If the data isn't there, it isn't there. And you don't hide it -- particularly when it was paid for by taxpayers -- from people who want to try to replicate your result. In one instance, a reviewer asked the "peer reviewed" journal for the author's source code used for reconstructing the temperatures. He was told, "We don't know if you can have that. NO ONE EVER ASKED FOR IT BEFORE." That's peer-review? There may be warming, I don't doubt that. After all, it is warming or cooling almost all the time. But you couldn't really tell it from the work these "climate scientists" are doing.