• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial here

Lord of Planar said:
Would you find it odd, that out of the hundreds of sets, that they cherry picked?

One of the easier to find set of samples are the sediment cores they used off the equatorial coast of Africa. One time I looked those sets up, and found there were several dozens of locations cores were taken from. Funny how the cores that showed warming were excluded form the study.
Click to expand...

What, because some blogger told you so?
 
Deuce said:
What, because some blogger told you so?
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I actually look into such things. Some time back, I looked at the actual datasets.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Unlike you, I actually look into such things. Some time back, I looked at the actual datasets.
Click to expand...

How does one discover datasets that aren't reported if all they have access to are published studies?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Although, realistically, I already know your claim is bull****, so consider that a rhetorical question.
 
Threegoofs said:
How does one discover datasets that aren't reported if all they have access to are published studies?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Although, realistically, I already know your claim is bull****, so consider that a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

It is the preferred (and usual) practice that datasets for published work are to be archived and available.
 
Jack Hays said:
Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
How does one discover datasets that aren't reported if all they have access to are published studies?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Although, realistically, I already know your claim is bull****, so consider that a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
It is the preferred (and usual) practice that datasets for published work are to be archived and available.
Click to expand...

LOL...

I guess he doesn't realize that these studies link where their data comes from. If one then looks at the data site, they can see all the data that was ignored.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

I guess he doesn't realize that these studies link where their data comes from. If one then looks at the data site, they can see all the data that was ignored.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the studies are linking to data that they didn't use.


Totally makes sense. :roll
 
Threegoofs said:
So you're saying the studies are linking to data that they didn't use.


Totally makes sense. :roll
Click to expand...

Have you never, ever, read anything? Selectivity within datasets (which are archived and available in toto) is the topic of this discussion.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you're saying the studies are linking to data that they didn't use.


Totally makes sense. :roll
Click to expand...

From the link in #157:


Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo

Jan 29, 2016 – 1:28 PM
One of the longest standing Climate Audit issues with paleoclimate reconstructions is ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of data, of which ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of sites/data in “regional [treering] chronologies” is one important family. This was the issue in the original Yamal controversy, in response to which Briffa stated that they “would never select or manipulate […]

. . . Unlike Briffa, D’Arrigo has candidly admitted to the selection of data to arrive at a preconceived result. At the 2006 NAS panel workshop, Rosanne D’Arrigo famouslytold the surprised panelists that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie. Again in 2009 (though not noticed at the time), D’Arrigo et al 2009 stated that they could “partially circumvent” the divergence problem by only using data that went up:
The divergence problem can be partially circumvented by utilizing tree-ring data for dendroclimatic reconstructions from sites where divergence is either absent or minimal. (Wilson et al., 2007; Buntgen et al., in press; Youngblut and Luckman, in press).
Portfolio managers would have like to have a similar option in constructing portfolios: if, after the fact, you pick stocks that went up, it would be trivially easy to “circumvent” market downturns. That paleoclimatologists seem so obtuse to this simple observation is a major puzzlement. . . .

By Steve McIntyre| Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged coppermine, d'arrigo, hornby, jacoby, thelon |Comments (105)
 
Jack Hays said:
Have you never, ever, read anything? Selectivity within datasets (which are archived and available in toto) is the topic of this discussion.
Click to expand...

So you think paleoclimate researchers should use all data available, no matter how accurate, precise, or relevant it is.

Or are you saying they are part of a conspiracy to manipulate the results of their studies that only intrepid bloggers with mining company finance experience can uncover?
 
Threegoofs said:
So you think paleoclimate researchers should use all data available, no matter how accurate, precise, or relevant it is.

Or are you saying they are part of a conspiracy to manipulate the results of their studies that only intrepid bloggers with mining company finance experience can uncover?
Click to expand...

You're the one who seems ignorant of how datasets are used, selected and archived. LoP has cornered you there. Please review (at least) the link in #183. No intrepid blogger needed to uncover D'Arrigo's manipulations; she bragged about them. If you display uncharacteristic curiosity you'll find the problem of similar ex post decisions is a regular topic at ClimateAudit.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're the one who seems ignorant of how datasets are used, selected and archived. LoP has cornered you there. Please review (at least) the link in #183. No intrepid blogger needed to uncover D'Arrigo's manipulations; she bragged about them. If you display uncharacteristic curiosity you'll find the problem of similar ex post decisions is a regular topic at ClimateAudit.
Click to expand...

Cornered. Hilarious.

I believe you need to read the post (Jesus- the guy missed 'most of the presentation' he was reporting on!).

Putting bad data into studies doesn't make studies better, unless your goal is to have a bad study.
 
Threegoofs said:
Cornered. Hilarious.

I believe you need to read the post (Jesus- the guy missed 'most of the presentation' he was reporting on!).

Putting bad data into studies doesn't make studies better, unless your goal is to have a bad study.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "bad" data or "good" data. It's a matter of consistent standards for data. You're out of your depth.

Don't forget, you're the one who did not know how data is linked to published research.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
It's not a matter of "bad" data or "good" data. It's a matter of consistent standards for data. You're out of your depth.

Don't forget, you're the one who did not know how data is linked to published research.
Click to expand...

I believe anyone not publishing this data is out of their depth.

And your sources are only publishing on blogs. And are qualified primarily as mining executives.
 
Threegoofs said:
I believe anyone not publishing this data is out of their depth.

And your sources are only publishing on blogs. And are qualified primarily as mining executives.
Click to expand...

Now you're just running and hiding. You've been exposed in this thread as uninformed. Better luck next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom