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: Brumar89 who wrote (74781)	2/9/2017 10:50:23 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Even more on the David Rose bombshell article: How NOAA Software Spins the AGW Game Guest Blogger / 2 days ago February 7, 2017 Guest essay by Rud Istvan The disclosures by Dr. Bates concerning Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ NOAA NCEI paper have created quite the climate kerfuffle, with Rep. Smith even renewing his NOAA email subpoena demands. Yet the Karl paper actually is fairly innocuous by comparison to other NOAA shenanigans. It barely removed the pause, and still shows the CMIP5 models running hot by comparison. Its importance was mainly political talking point pause-busting in the run up to Paris. Here is an example of something more egregious but less noticed. It is excerpted from much longer essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. It is not global, concerning only the continental United States (CONUS). But it is eye opening and irrefutable. NOAA’s USHCN stations are used to create the US portion of GHCN. They are also used to create state-by-state temperature histories accessible on the NOAA website. A 2011 paper [1] announced that NOAA would be transitioning to updated and improved CONUS software around the end of 2013. The program used until the upgrade was called Drd964x. The upgrade was launched from late 2013 into 2014 in two tranches. Late in 2013 came the new graphical interfaces, which are an improvement. Then about February 2014 came the new data output, which includes revised station selection, homogenization, and gridding. The new version is called nClimDiv. Here are three states. First is Maine, with the before/after data both shown in the new graphical format. Second is Michigan, showing the graphical difference from old to new software. And finally, California. In each state, zero or very slight warming was converted to pronounced warming. One natural question might be whether upgraded homogenization (among other things ‘removing’ urban heat island (UHI) effects) is responsible? No from first principles, because the NOAA/NASA UHI policy is to warm the past so that current temperatures correspond to current thermometers (illustrated using NASA GISS Tokyo in the much longer book essay). This might be appropriate in California, whose population more than doubled from 1960 to 2010 (138%) with current density ~91 people/km2. Maine represents a similar ocean/mountain state, but is much more rural. Maine’s population grew by only a third (34%) from 1960 to 2010, and its current population density is just 16.5 people/km2. Maine should not have the same need for, or degree of, homogenization adjustment. Without the newest version of the US portion of GHCN, Maine would have no warming; its ‘AGW’ was manufactured by nClimDiv. It is possible albeit tiresome to analyze all 48 CONUS states concerning the transition from Drd964x to nClimDiv. NOAA gave 40 out of 48 states ‘new’ AGW. The Drd964x decadal CONUS warming rate from 1895 to 2012 was 0.088F/decade. The new nClimDiv rate from 1895 to 2014 is 0.135F/decade, almost double. Definitely anthropogenic, but perhaps not actual warming. [1] Fennimore et. al., Transitioning…, NOAA/NEDIS/NCDC (2011) available at ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/GrDD-Transition.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/07/even-more-on-the-david-rose-bombshell-article-how-noaa-software-spins-the-agw-game/

To: Brumar89 who wrote (74781)	2/9/2017 11:00:11 AM
From: Eric	Respond to of 86356

Wikipedia Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’ Wikipedia Foundation office in San Francisco, US. Photograph: Eric Risberg/AP Jasper Jackson @JaspJackson Wednesday 8 February 2017 20.31 GMT Last modified on Thursday 9 February 2017 07.22 GMT Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”. The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. Wikipedia – an unplanned miracle Clay Shirky Read more theguardian.com The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: “Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’. London offices of the Mail titles. The Wikimedia Foundation urged Wikipedia editors to use media outlets ‘with caution’. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty “This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a ‘reliable source’ on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general – with common sense and caution.” The proposal was made by an editor known as Hillbillyholiday early in January, and fellow editors had weighed in with arguments for and against the ban over the past month. Those who opposed the move said the Daily Mail was sometimes reliable, that historically its record may have been better, and that there were other publications that were also unreliable. This blog is about to die, but I will still hold newspapers to account Read more theguardian.com Some of those who opposed the ban also pointed to inaccurate stories in other respected publications, and suggested the proposed ban was driven by a dislike of the publication. Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.” The move is likely to stop short of prohibiting linking to the Daily Mail, as there will be instances, such as when a Wikipedia entry is about the newspaper or one of its writers, when the editors believe a link is necessary. Instead a system for flagging any uses of the newspaper as a source will be introduced, asking editors not to use it and find alternatives. The editors have also asked for volunteers to review about 12,000 links to the Daily Mail already on Wikipedia and replace them with alternative sources wherever possible. Ukip MEP David Coburn banned from Wikipedia indefinitely Read more theguardian.com The decision by Wikipedia comes amid widespread debate over the rise of fake news, which has widened to include concerns about misleading information in traditional publications. A recent BuzzFeed analysis claimed that there was “little appetite” for completely fabricated “fake news” in the UK because the country already had a highly partisan press. Wikipedia was set up in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and has become one of the most popular websites in the world. It allows anyone to make edits, sometimes leading to instances of false entries and vandalism of pages, but is policed by thousands of people who regular weed out deliberate and accidental errors. The site’s rules on reliable sources state: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published, sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered ... If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.” Representatives for the Daily Mail had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. theguardian.com