Comments on: On Quality Control of Critical Data Sets http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:38:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html/comment-page-1#comment-3570 hunter Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:02:56 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html#comment-3570 <p>ErikTheRed,<br /> The pattern has been that as AGW prophecies fall apart, the AGW prophets ratchet up the fear.<br /> Expect a dramatic and concerted effort from the AGW academic-political-profiteer complex to 'seal the deal' before the rest of their fear mongering is found out.<br /> </p> ErikTheRed,
The pattern has been that as AGW prophecies fall apart, the AGW prophets ratchet up the fear.
Expect a dramatic and concerted effort from the AGW academic-political-profiteer complex to ‘seal the deal’ before the rest of their fear mongering is found out.

]]> By: ErikTheRed http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html/comment-page-1#comment-3569 ErikTheRed Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:40:06 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html#comment-3569 <p>This story has hit Drudge via a snarky (at Hansen, et al) article in The Telegraph. It's also now making the rounds in the blogs.</p> This story has hit Drudge via a snarky (at Hansen, et al) article in The Telegraph. It’s also now making the rounds in the blogs.

]]> By: cfdman http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html/comment-page-1#comment-3568 cfdman Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:23:41 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html#comment-3568 <p>Have patience,</p> <p>The CAGW community is wrong, they know it and are becoming quite defensive. We in the skeptic community should see this as the victory it truly is. The more they hide and the more they double talk, the less credibility they have. Stopping this bloated money train will take years.</p> <p>Just remember that physics is on our side, the earth is cooling just as it should due to obvious inputs and natural cycles (solar, PDO, etc). The longer they predict silly temperature rises and those increases fail to appear, the more rediculous they look and sound.</p> <p>This site is really quite awesome in bringing out the worst in the CAGW crowd. They show up and end up looking like argumentative ass clowns.</p> <p>I am totally optimistic this garbage will be gone in ten years, then we can move on to the next unjustified panic to create carreers and sell stories. Can anyone say "giant, earth killing meteor" or maybe "alien invasion"?</p> Have patience,

The CAGW community is wrong, they know it and are becoming quite defensive. We in the skeptic community should see this as the victory it truly is. The more they hide and the more they double talk, the less credibility they have. Stopping this bloated money train will take years.

Just remember that physics is on our side, the earth is cooling just as it should due to obvious inputs and natural cycles (solar, PDO, etc). The longer they predict silly temperature rises and those increases fail to appear, the more rediculous they look and sound.

This site is really quite awesome in bringing out the worst in the CAGW crowd. They show up and end up looking like argumentative ass clowns.

I am totally optimistic this garbage will be gone in ten years, then we can move on to the next unjustified panic to create carreers and sell stories. Can anyone say “giant, earth killing meteor” or maybe “alien invasion”?

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html/comment-page-1#comment-3567 hunter Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:23:10 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html#comment-3567 <p>Secretive, arrogant, self-referential, defensive, authoritarian, all describes the AGW industry of today.<br /> I will bet you that every stat and model used is full of these characteristics.<br /> This so reeks of people who have designed models to prove their assertions that I am astonished.<br /> I thought as AGW fell apart we would see good will, but wrong.<br /> Instead we see disorganization being used to hide lying. <br /> These promoters and charlatans dare to demean and damage those skeptics who stand up and questoin them? </p> Secretive, arrogant, self-referential, defensive, authoritarian, all describes the AGW industry of today.
I will bet you that every stat and model used is full of these characteristics.
This so reeks of people who have designed models to prove their assertions that I am astonished.
I thought as AGW fell apart we would see good will, but wrong.
Instead we see disorganization being used to hide lying.
These promoters and charlatans dare to demean and damage those skeptics who stand up and questoin them?

]]> By: stan http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html/comment-page-1#comment-3566 stan Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:19:55 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/11/on-quality-control-of-critical-data-sets.html#comment-3566 <p>I am still waiting for the credibility of the AGW case to be seriously damaged by the behavior of the alarmist scientists. Why does Gavin have any credibility? If they won't share their code, why should we believe they do quality science? When they stonewall on their obligations to share comments per IPCC, why don't we ignore their views on science? Who would trust the science performed by people who claim the dog ate their homework?</p> <p>If the alarmist scientists were trustworthy, they would have responded to the surface station volunteer findings by immediately demanding that the problem be fixed. If they were trustworthy people, they would have rejected Mann when it became clear he'd played fast and loose. If they were trustworthy people, they would insist on transparency and data sharing.</p> <p>Bottom line -- these aren't trustworthy people with a commitment to honest science. Just look at their behavior. So why do they have any credibility?!</p> I am still waiting for the credibility of the AGW case to be seriously damaged by the behavior of the alarmist scientists. Why does Gavin have any credibility? If they won’t share their code, why should we believe they do quality science? When they stonewall on their obligations to share comments per IPCC, why don’t we ignore their views on science? Who would trust the science performed by people who claim the dog ate their homework?

If the alarmist scientists were trustworthy, they would have responded to the surface station volunteer findings by immediately demanding that the problem be fixed. If they were trustworthy people, they would have rejected Mann when it became clear he’d played fast and loose. If they were trustworthy people, they would insist on transparency and data sharing.

Bottom line — these aren’t trustworthy people with a commitment to honest science. Just look at their behavior. So why do they have any credibility?!

]]>