Well well, there are smart courts

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

In my work.. I first need to Define a Problem, Then Measure it before suggesting changes. It seems to me that we have Defined the problem but then some of the politicians are trying to enforce changes before the Analysis has been completed.

Do you apply the same principle to your EP's when you skydive?

Sometimes time IS of the essence and an imperfect analysis has to suffice.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Sometimes time IS of the essence and an imperfect analysis has to suffice.

Hmmm. Isn't that what the Bush Admin said about invading Iraq?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Sometimes time IS of the essence and an imperfect analysis has to suffice.

Hmmm. Isn't that what the Bush Admin said about invading Iraq?

That is what they said, but they actually HAD the analysis and they ignored the parts they did not like.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. So politics means ignoring parts you don't like to go full steam ahead.

Yep. This fits right in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>In this case were has the bench legislated?

The courts have imposed a legal requirement on schools. That's legislating.

Again, that's fine. Just don't flip-flop again when the next judge rules that a special on the science behind climate change must carry a disclaimer that "this documentary is funded by climate change deniers." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

>And I do understand that you references to me and the "flip flop" PA's . . .

RushMC, 2005: "A close look at this whole issue is about one thing. Judges! Judges are legislating from the bench."

Ah you see it as legislation. I dont know how. You support the shit the ACLU does with church and state. That is legislating. The court simply said here that liberals cant force their non proven non science bull shit down my kids throats while calling it science. Too bad for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

No, it looks like the court is going to say that the action violates the law that requires balance in provided politically slanted educational materials without appropriate balancing.

Nothing more...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

No, it looks like the court is going to say that the action violates the law that requires balance in provided politically slanted educational materials without appropriate balancing.

Nothing more...

True

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Ah you see it as legislation. I dont know how.

Same way you see judges deciding issues of women's rights "legislating from the bench." Simple guide:

A judge does something you do not like. Your replies:

"judges are legislating from the bench."
"activist minded judges impose what they think to be correct"
"example of an activsit court userping power"

A judge does something you like. Your reply:

"there are smart courts" that
"know the indoctrination needs to be stopped"

So ask yourself how you claim exactly the same thing when the roles are reversed - and you will have your answer.

> The court simply said here that liberals cant force their non proven
>non science bull shit down my kids throats while calling it science.

When did you move to England?

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

... that know the indoctrination needs to be stopped.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

The courts dictating what schools teach?!?! I can easily understand that you would call that smart.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[billvon 3,120]

>The courts dictating what schools teach?

Of course. When the political issue imposed on the curriculum is along the lines of "evolution is fake" "global warming isn't true" "we never went to the moon" "Iraq caused 9/11" then it's smart courts who enforce the law.

When courts allow schools to teach teens about birth control, or about the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria, it's "activist judges" who are "legislating from the bench."

(Take a democratic activist and reverse the above; same thing.)

Gotta have the right spin.

[shropshire 0]

Yes, actually I think I do...
Define : whoops I have a problem
Measure : So, how high am I?
Analyse: Do I have time to sort it?


Sometimes projects really do have a very short life-cycle

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

... that know the indoctrination needs to be stopped.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

The courts dictating what schools teach?!?! I can easily understand that you would call that smart.

No, it is telling the alarmists they cant spead thier bull shit un opposed.

But billvon and you can spin it any way that is fun for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes time IS of the essence and an imperfect analysis has to suffice.

Hmmm. Isn't that what the Bush Admin said about invading Iraq?

That is what they said, but they actually HAD the analysis and they ignored the parts they did not like.

Isn't that what Hansen did with the data he used to produce the infamous hockey stick.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,120]

>Isn't that what Hansen did with the data he used to produce the infamous
>hockey stick.

Considering that every subsequent analysis has had the same basic shape with the same deflection at the end - nope!

[speedy 0]

Here another Hocky Stick for you.
Just use the bits that suit your agenda.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Isn't that what Hansen did with the data he used to produce the infamous
>hockey stick.

Considering that every subsequent analysis has had the same basic shape with the same deflection at the end - nope!

McIntire and McKittrick put 'red noise' into Mann's calculations and got a hockey stick. Mann's calculations, in fact, MINED for 'hockey stick' data and gave them incredibly more weight than non 'hockey stick' data (up to 390 times more weight, per some analyses).

Add that to the double inclusion of the Gaspe' peninsula data, and...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>McIntire and McKittrick put 'red noise' into Mann's calculations and got a
>hockey stick.

Yep. And I could come up with some "white noise" analysis that shows that smoking causes cancer. Does that mean that smoking does NOT cause cancer?

The "hockey stick" has been replicated a good dozen times by researchers using several different methods of climate estimation. NOAA surveyed the various analyses and came to this conclusion:

"Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time."

>Mann's calculations, in fact, MINED for 'hockey stick' data and gave
>them incredibly more weight than non 'hockey stick' data . . .

No they didn't. McIntyre and McKitrick's accusations have been found to be without merit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No they didn't. McIntyre and McKitrick's accusations have been found to be without merit.

By whom? Nature and the National Science Foundation? Maybe the Open Science Foundation?

More info on the 'hockey stick' data mining: (info from http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

In a conventional
PC calculation in a high-level language, the mean of
each series is subtracted from each column prior to the rest of
the algorithm. Instead of doing this, Mann’s Fortran program
had only subtracted the 1902-1980 mean from each column.

The seemingly small change has major consequences for
the end result and explains most of the difference between the
graph of McIntyre and McKitrick and the hockey stick for the
15th century. McIntyre:“The effect is that tree ring series with a
hockey stick shape no longer have a mean of zero and end up
dominating the first principal component (PC1); in effect,
Mann’s program mines for series with a hockey stick shape. In
the crucial period of 1400-1450, in the critical PC1 of the
North American network, the top-weighted Sheep Mountain
series, with a hockey stick shape gets over 390 times the weight
of the least weighted series, which does not have a hockey stick
shape.”

The premise above was confirmed by Dr Mia Hubert of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, who specializes in robust statistics.

“Tree rings with a hockeystick shape dominate the PCA with this method.”
McIntyre and McKitrick decided to perform another
check. Using computer simulations of so-called ‘red noise’, they
generated networks of artificial tree ring data over the period of
1400-1980. Red noise is commonly used in climatology and
oceanography, because, like many natural processes, it has a constant
mean as well as (randomly distributed) pseudo-trends that
reverse and cancel out over time.
McIntyre:“In each simulation, there are some red noise
series that happen to go up in the 20th century, some that go
down and basically everything in between. If we used Mann’s
method on red noise,we consistently obtained hockey sticks
with an inflection at the start of the 20th century.We have repeated
the simulation thousands of times and in 99% of the cases,
the result of the PCA was a hockey stick.

The conclusion is that Mann’s climate reconstruction
methodology would have yielded a hockey stick graph, from any
tree ring data set entered into the model as long as there is sufficient
red noise.
The two Canadians are no longer just one voice crying
in the wilderness. On October 22, 2004 in Science,Dr.Zorita
and his colleague Dr.Hans von Storch, a specialist in climate
statistics at the same institute, published a critique of a completely
different aspect of the 1998 hockey stick article .After studying
McIntyre’s finding at our request,Von Storch agrees that
“simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre
and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely
valid on this particular point.”

There was yet another important
discovery to follow McIntyre:“When we compared
data as used by Mann with original archived data,we found
one and only one example where the early values of a series
had been extrapolated – a cedar tree ring series from the Gaspé
peninsula in Canada.The extrapolation, from 1404 back to
1400, had the effect of allowing this series to be included in the
critical early 15th century calculations.When we did calculations
both including and excluding the series,we found that
the difference was considerable. In some cases, the temperature
was as much as 0.2 degrees Celsius lower using the modified
Gaspé series as compared with the archived version.
”More strangely, the series appears twice in Mann’s data
set, as an individual proxy, and in the North American network.
But it is only extrapolated in the first case, where its influence
is very strong.” McIntyre and McKitrick went back to the
source of the Gaspé series and then to the archived data at the
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology.“We found that although
the Gaspé series begins in 1404, up until 1421, it is based
on only one tree. Dendrochronologists (tree ring researchers)
generally do not use data based on one or two trees.The
original authors only used this series from 1600 onwards in
their own temperature reconstructions.This series should never
have been used in the 15th century, let alone counted twice and
extrapolated.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>By whom?

Rutherford, in the American Meteorological Society journal "Journal of Climate"

Raymond S. Bradley, climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Philip D. Jones, a climatologist at the University of East Angli.

Let me know if you'd like some more.

>Nature and the National Science Foundation?

Nope. Indeed, McIntyre and McKitrick's paper was rejected by Nature because of its many errors. Not suprising; mineral traders and economists often do not have the background to write solid scientific research.

>Instead of doing this, Mann’s Fortran program
>had only subtracted the 1902-1980 mean from each column.

That is correct; that's what Mann's error was. When you re-analyze the data per the mechanism McIntyre and McKitrick suggest, you get a new series (see attachment.) Red is "new" (MM) data, blue is "old" (Mann) data.

Funny how such graphs are never seen on denier sites, because it makes their objections look absurd.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes time IS of the essence and an imperfect analysis has to suffice.

Hmmm. Isn't that what the Bush Admin said about invading Iraq?

That is what they said, but they actually HAD the analysis and they ignored the parts they did not like.

Bullshit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

>> Because of it's many errors.<<

Many errors? How so, when they used Mann's own program and only disallowed the extra weighting on the PC1 series and the Gaspe' peninsula data (as I understand the chain of events, anyway).

>>Mineral traders and economists often do not have the background to write solid scientific research.<<

But evidently, non-statisticians can write climate projection programs and be lauded... so long as their data fits the expectations.

>>Funny how such graphs are never seen on denier sites, because it makes their objections look absurd.<<

Funny how true believers seem to think that showing how a dataset (and subsequent projections) are faulted and should be re-examined is equivalent to saying that nothing is happening in regards to GW.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>How so, when they used Mann's own program and only disallowed
>the extra weighting on the PC1 series and the Gaspe' peninsula data (as
>I understand the chain of events, anyway).

When they did that, they got the data series I posted above.

Most likely reasons for rejection were:

-M+M's 'correction' of the data to show the result THEY wanted was achieved by censoring the proxy data in Mann's original data set.

-Their work failed basic statistical verification analysis. Again, this is not surprising based on their backgrounds.

>But evidently, non-statisticians can write climate projection programs and be lauded.

If it passes peer review of their methods, it doesn't matter who does the work. It should come as no surprise that mathematicians, geophysicists, climatologists etc tend to have a better background to set up such research, and have better luck getting it validated and published.

I know, it's not politically correct to think that an egghead university researcher is any 'better' at such analysis than an economics grad student, but often such things really do matter.

[mnealtx 0]

And the statisticians that showed Mann's projection gave undue weight to the series mentioned?

Oh, that's right... they're not part of the consensus, so their analysis must be wrong!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

> And the statisticians that showed Mann's projection gave undue weight
>to the series mentioned?

I'll tell you what. Throw out Mann's work completely. (Heck, he did actually make an error in his data set inclusion, so you've got some justification.)

So what do you do now? You look at all the other analyses - which all show the same thing. Slow warming/cooling trends over the past few thousand years, followed by a historically rapid rise in temperature in the end of the 20th century.

>they're not part of the consensus, so their analysis must be wrong!

OK Rush!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> And the statisticians that showed Mann's projection gave undue weight
>to the series mentioned?

I'll tell you what. Throw out Mann's work completely. (Heck, he did actually make an error in his data set inclusion, so you've got some justification.)

So what do you do now? You look at all the other analyses - which all show the same thing. Slow warming/cooling trends over the past few thousand years, followed by a historically rapid rise in temperature in the end of the 20th century.

>they're not part of the consensus, so their analysis must be wrong!

OK Rush!

Ok, now that we have the sarcasm out of the way.... M&M's work *was* (as I understand) shown to be accurate within the data sets and projections used - they didn't say that the entire hockey stick was false, only that they saw errors in Mann's work and that it should be revisited.

Other studies (again to my understanding) have shown a closer correlation to solar activity and temperature (increased solar activity leading increased temperature, as we are seeing now) than to CO2 and temperature (CO2 lagging temperature, historically).

Am I saying that CO2 is NOT the cause of the current warming? Absolutely not. Am I saying that it's more likely that solar activity is the main driver of the current warming trend, with CO2 levels contributing? Yes, I believe that to be the case.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706