wait, Mort has been posting porn and nobody told me?

Objectionable... haha. What does he do when I'm not around?

More like what do we all NOT do when you're not around?

like baby splatting! that always gets my noggin whirlin!

Yeah, considering the discussion immediately following Jon C's comment, that was some pretty bad timing to be defending my intellectual rigour. I still appreciate it though!

http://m-francis.livejournal.com/125120.html

I found the animated gif graph towards the bottom interesting.

Not really. Those graphs alone don't really tell you anything interesting. You need to know the methodology, what exactly they measure, how they measure it, how the apparatus may respond in different circumstances, all stuff that will be in a peer-reviewed paper or a published report.

This is an example where scientific language is different from everyday language, and where a misunderstanding (or in this case, a deliberate misrepresentation) of that difference can be construed to mean something it doesn't. In scientific terms, a 'correction' does not mean the scientist manually fiddles data points to falsify results (though that sort of thing does happen occasionally, and while the peer-review process is sometimes not very good at detecting outright fraud, it's usually detected by other people pretty quickly).

A 'correction' just means to compensate for other factors to accurately reflect reality. These corrections themselves can be incredibly complex equations, dependent on the geometry of the apparatus, and this is why 'THE RAW DATA' that deniers often demand is not as valuable on its own. This correction might be as simple as just the calibration of the equipment. The data directly from the experiment doesn't contain the information about the calibration or normalisation, that comes from the apparatus, and that's where the correction comes from.

Also, certain experiments are only valid over certain time frames, outside of which the data is either meaningless or skewed in some unusual way. For example, for an experiment I ran a few weeks ago, the raw data looks like this:

This makes it look like nothing whatsoever is happening before 200nm, then it reaches some crazy plateau and stays there for some reason, before dropping rapidly and then reaching another plateau beyond 500nm and nothing happens after that.
However, I know that this particular apparatus simply doesn't work very well below 270nm (the bulb isn't powerful enough) and does a variety of crazy stuff purely because of the equipment. From this graph, you could conclude:

• I have discovered some radical new nanoparticle with a completely absurd absorption spectrum

or

• The data from this machine is only valid within a certain range of wavelengths and I need to get rid of the useless data and correct for systematic errors in the machine.

As much as I'd like the former to be true, I know it isn't. The error in the machine can be tested and quantified, and that's exactly what we did. Fortunately, my experiment is pretty simple and I just need to crop the axes and correct for baseline and my corrected data looks like this

Which is much more useful, but looks completely different to the 'raw data'. From this, I can calculate diameter size, but this method overestimates particle diameter which I can correct for using XRD data. So my simple experiment has two levels of correction, and suppression of data.

Data from climate research is far more complicated than my stuff, which is why the 'corrected' graph has such a different shape from the 'raw data', and collected data outside of the range where it is valid - which is why the data before 1900 is removed. Much like my methodology isn't valid below 270nm, this methodology isn't valid before 1900.

The 'trick' that was discussed in one of the leaked e-mails refers to combining data from two different methodologies, data from tree rings and data from ice cores. Some sort of biological process means that data from tree rings after a certain point takes on some systematic error, which can be corrected for using the mathematical 'trick' they were discussing.

The scientific illiteracy of the media and the unwillingness to consider mundane explanations over exciting international conspiracies results in nonsense. Whether it's ufology, area 51, climate denial, creationism, moon landing, contrails, or even the great sprinkler rainbow conspiracy it's all rooted in exactly the same crap.

A lot of individuals wish to see events through the prism of individual actions (in this case, scientists fabricating data), rather than complex physical phenomena. Curiously, they construct fantasies that are often more complex than the actual science they dismiss.

I stopped reading after I realized you told me that I didn't in fact find that link interesting. (That would be after your first two words.)

Translation: "**** you, I'll believe what I want."

No, Translation: don't directly contradict what you cannot possibly know. (And I didn't say I believed anything at all, other than the fact that I found the link interesting -- "interesting" doesn't have a positive or negative connotation, despite what you [may?] believe.)

You might want to reconsider not reading Mort-Hog's post, because I looked at the link you posted and he's pretty much right.

Ok, I suppose I misspoke. I'm simply stating that a flash animation comparing raw data to data corrected for external factors is not meaningful, and I go into some detail why that is so.

You're perfectly free to be interested in meaningless things, however.

He didn't mean to contradict that you found it interesting. He meant to contradict that it *was* interesting.

You all are still assuming that just because I found it interesting, that somehow means I agree with it (although how you "agree" with an animation is a subject for another post, I suppose).

Mort-Hog, I went back and read your post. I still disagree with you, however. The animated gif is still interesting because it's interesting how much data was discarded, how the numbers were fudged, and what the other people there thought about it. It's interesting because it brings up questions like, why was the data discarded? What was wrong with it? How many people were involved in the discussion? Was the discarded data disclosed in any final reports? Isn't it important to discuss the the data you presumably have but discarded for some reason?

All these things are interesting to me. And for what it's worth, I'm generally a skeptic -- I am skeptical both about global warming in the first place and about whether these data discrepancies are meaningful. However, regardless of this whole global warming debate, I believe we should clean up our messes always, regardless of whether anyone can prove that the mess is dangerous to humans -- it's just the right thing to do.

Imagine you're still in high school physics class. You have a force meter and a scale.

The scale is one of those really expensive digital types, that can record data accurately to 10 decimal points.
The force meter is something you built at home, using a spring and a toilet paper tube. You've calibrated it with five kilogram weight increments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Your experiment is to find the coefficient of friction. You have several pieces of brick, each weighing a different amount: 0.0025 kg, 0.125002 kg, 1.10004 kg, and so on.

After your experiment, you end up with an average coefficient of 0.144442.

Except you don't, because your test apparatus is only accurate to 1 digit. Unless you're happy being wrong, the best you can claim is a coefficient of 0.1. You're "discarding" 31% of your data... but it doesn't matter, because that data is wrong.

Yes, this is high school ****. Anybody with a high school diploma should know better than to find this utter lack of content "interesting."

You cannot make this claim unless you understand the methodology used to obtain the data or the results. You do not understand the methodology used to obtain the data or the results. Therefore, you cannot make this claim.

The only thing I find interesting here is the recurring pattern in modern society, driven by the internet and wealthy Australian supervillains like the good folks at Fox News.

Climate change and evolution: the only people who believe a debate even exists are average and uneducated, with absolutely no real knowledge on the subject whatsoever. Meanwhile, among professionals and researchers in the field, there is a near-consensus.

Rational explanation: The smart people are right and the stupid people are wrong.

Stupid explanation from inbreds: The dumb, syphilitic subhumans are right and the smart people are lying to us for various poorly-articulated reasons.

You seem to be arguing with me for something you imagined I said.

OH no Darth Dan the so-called "Spambot" is sneaking around again in this thread, and has viewed the delicateness of this matter. I noticed there is a degree of this.....:rant::argh::mad:

I think I'll just go back to my project.:D

The issue of the 'numbers being fudged' is precisely what I disproved in that reply. Discarding data is not unique to climate research, it's a fundamental part of any data analysis of real world experiments.

You probably did exactly this in any high school science experiment. Swing a pendulum, vary length, plot the period of oscillation squared against length and you should get a straight line. Except you probably didn't. Most of your data points probably formed a nice straight line (unless you broke your pendulum), and you got some data points that were way off the line. You probably circled this data point, labelled it erroneous, and discussed why you think it was wrong (maybe your stopwatch was wrong, maybe the angle was beyond the small angle approximation, maybe something else). You then discarded it, and moved on to discuss the physics this experiment demonstrates.

Real science is pretty much the same thing, except we have slightly more elegant methods to identify erroneous data and to quantify error. Just like in your high school science experiments, not all data is indicative of reality. But if you collect enough data, you can discard the erroneous data and still get results that prove something about reality.

I do exactly this. Every day. And I certainly get useful nanoparticles, as I use them to do stuff (make pretty colours, mostly). Discarding data is part of the mundane reality of day-to-day science. It's pretty tedious, pretty boring, pretty time-consuming, but it's just part of what we do. It works, simple as that.

As for whether this stuff makes the published article, probably not. Because of space limitations in most journals, the absolute minutiae of every feature of every apparatus probably won't make the final edit. The laborious detail of justifying every error bar on every single data point would span hundreds of pages, and while scientists probably would quite like to publish it all the reality is that faculties can't afford that. That laborious detail certainly exists, and if someone else discovers something to the contrary then it will be discussed and resolved.

I'm very pleased that you display such interest in the mundane, trivial realities of what scientists do in their day-to-day lives. Few people have such sincere interest in such boring things, and most scientists will be very happy to talk to you (at length) about what they do and how they do it.

Unfortunately, there are many people that seek to exploit your unadulterated open-mindedness that draw ridiculous (and libellous) conclusions based on a political agenda, and use the misrepresentation of science to draw meaning from data they don't understand.

This is not scepticism.

I very much oppose the use of the word 'climate sceptic' to describe those that deny anthropogenic climate change. Science is the epitome of scepticism, and scientists are professional sceptics. Climate change denial has nothing to do with scepticism, and everything to do with politics. They begin with the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is false, and then seek to discover evidence that vaguely appears to support that.

I do, however, agree with you that we should 'clean up our mess' from a moral perspective. Humanity is affecting the world we live in, not just by climate change but by urban sprawl and resource depletion all caused by human population rise. This affects (almost) every living thing on the planet, and I agree that the moral impetus is upon us to prevent this. The moral argument alone, however, ignores the time scale over which this will happen and that not only do we need to clean up our mess, we need to do it soon. Very soon.

Edit: Note, I was writing this reply before I read Jon C's. I apologise if I repeat the same points. I started with the 'high school science' principle as well, but Jon C's example is better.

For three years I worked writing software to manage and analyze dna sequencing data. I am more than comfortable throwing out junk data. However, what is interesting is the algorithms we use to determine whether the data is junk. What is interesting is that using a kb basecaller leads to different bases in your dna strings than using phred. Why? What's the threshold? Should the scientists using our software, and thus the various basecallers, have access to that information or should they just believe us?

In our case, not only did we record the settings we used to generate the base calls, we provided methods for re-calling bases with different methods if you weren't happy. We made it clear that we were discarding the junk data, we publish the thresholds right there in the software so the scientists could see it, and we let them decide.

Yes, to answer your question, even though people throw away junk data all the time, it is in fact interesting to me. Even though it may be routine to you. Also, when you're dealing with data and writing reports that have far-reaching consequences you better damn well document wtf you did and make that documentation available with the final report. Not just one or two dumbed down articles in "Nature" magazine.

Also, I said I was skeptical of everything. I never said I was a "climate sceptic" nor did I "deny anthroprogenic climate change." In fact, all I did was post a link and note that I found the bottom animated gif interesting. Seriously, people, how can you read so much into something so simple?

wow. i will assume you are being overly abrasive to make a point, but wow.

I'm fully behind Jon`C on this one

datagate

Okay, I just actually looked at the GIF Brian is talking about.

I don't see how it's interesting at all.

Just so I understand what we're all arguing about. A hotter Earth leads to a bunch of dead species, a miserable time for the lot of us, and no conceivable way of stopping it in the next fifty years until when we run out of oil?

It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it or maybe what you're not saying. I think it's great that you're skeptical but by not explaining yourself in the beginning & making statements like "I found this interesting" simply forces people to draw the conclusion that you're in agreement or at least see the graph as worth considering. I'm often guilty of making short posts because of a lack of time but in a thread such as this, where the content is more serious than usual, you'll end up spending more time explaining yourself later if you don't do so in the beginning. You don't want to appear to be moving the goal post each time that someone responds to your messages & you certainly don't want to say that something is interesting & put yourself in to the "show me the transitional fossils!" club.

Okay sure. I found it interesting because it showed a broad overview of which data was discarded and which data modified from its raw state. It was interesting because it led to questions such as I mentioned in one of my previous posts. Plotting real data against "corrected" data showed some real gaps in our collective "knowledge" -- for example, that they don't have any usable data prior to 1900 (at least according to whoever created the graph). I would like to see the pre-1900 data, just out of curiosity, but none of the things about that post I found "interesting" has any bearing on my feelings about "global warming" or "climate change" whatsoever. "Interesting" has no negative or positive connotation so it's amusing that people go nuts just because someone else finds something interesting. You know what else is interesting? My 3-yr old son and I were at the zoo and an elephant was taking a dump. We both found it interesting.

I'm not sure whether anyone will find my views about global warming interesting, but since you asked, here they are:

1. I think AlGore is a moron.

2. I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not qualified to make an opinion, mostly because I don't have access to all their raw data, instruments, resources, etc. However, if I were a climate scientist, and I was warning everyone about this impending disaster, I would damn well have a documented explanation for every instance of data manipulation (and to quiet the people who read connotations into every word I say I will again point out that "manipulation" doesn't have a negative or positive connotation, it simply means the raw data was not used, some other value was used for some reason).

3. The whole "green" movement is moronic because all that happened is that the large polluting corporations rebranded their existing products (maybe changed a few ingredients) and now expect us to believe that our glass cleaner is somehow "green."

4. I don't care whether global warming exists and I never have because it doesn't change the fact that I think we should stop polluting and start cleaning up our messes NOW. Even if it has a big impact on business. Even though it WILL have a big impact on business.

5. It's not just climate change, but all the other things we are doing to the environment that piss me off as well -- deforestation, bending "nature" to our will for our comfort (for example, here in WA before they build a house or neighborhood, they clear-cut the entire plot before they start so they can make money off the lumber, but they never replant, so we are left with neighborhoods that look just like the ones in Las Vegas), leaky cars that drip oil onto the road that makes it into our waterways at the next rain, the dozens of streams around here polluted by leaky septic systems and other run off such that literally every one has a sign "THIS STREAM IS POLLUTED," super-fund sites that never get finished, other sites that should be super-fund sites (for example, when I was in the AF we were forced to move into new dorms which were built on top of a mustard gas dump that was leaking), hell, even "light pollution" pisses me off because my son can only see half the stars I could see when I was a kid.

We shouldn't need some global crisis to scare everyone to action. We, as a country, as a world, should be making a constant, concerted effort to clean everything that humanity has ruined with pollution, even previous generations, even when the problems seem overwhelming.

It's sort of like wandering into a holocaust denial thread and linking to a page about discrepancies in death toll data and declaring simply that you find it "interesting." It may be interesting, but to avoid giving the wrong impression you really need to qualify your interest.

Which he just did.

I don't know enough chemistry to even begin to discuss that topic. All I wonder about is, what ice age are you referring to? The little ice age of the middle ages? Aren't we overdue for an ice age already - and isn't the same thing that triggered the little ice age (A drop in the sun's energy output) expected to happen again very soon?

Brian-gate.

Brian, just shut up. It's obvious you're an extremist. Anyone with a high school diploma can see it.

You're going to be the next Wookie06.

In other words, you're going to get tired of coming into threads open minded, expressing an opinion which doesn't exclude the validity of the group with views opposed to the Massassi Elite (odd that YOU, of all people, are not a member of that group, I'm just saying) and you'll start to get bitter and cynical. It will all spiral downhill from there.

See you on the other side, brother.

You come into threads so open-minded you need to block Mort-Hog.

Dude. I'm with you all the way -- although after so many years of doing this, it's really easy to not take it seriously. Thanks for the support, though

Well, that was extremely recently. I didn't even block him when he supported 9/11 attacks or, rather, only opposed them due to the obviousness that they would inspire a military response from the US. Mort actually tends to agree with some of my sentiment towards how the warmers sell their snake oil.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that I don't take it serious. It's actually pretty funny to see how I used to post compared to now. God, I was so emo.

Someone on the internet is wrong!!!!

Odd how the only people who achieve this level of enlightenment are the people who are habitually wrong.

You know, it wouldn't bother me if those same people weren't also wrong in real life. Where it actually sort of matters if the climate is changing or not.

There is no Massassi Elite. You keep talking about it and it doesn't exist. You're completely irrational, and every argument boils down to you saying, "Haha, I just don't agree with the Massassi Elite, the man is gettin' me down!"

You don't actually argue. You just kind of throw **** like a retarded monkey.