On 7/4/2012 10:47 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/4/12 10:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/4/2012 10:16 AM, Han wrote:

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Only as much as those, a la Peter Glieck, in the infamous FakeGate
scandal perpetrated by the "alarmist" (and for which he both admitted
and apologized).

There's a tit for every tat, Han.


How many scandals, lies, hockey sticks, caught-with-their-pants-down,
agenda driven, and in general, proven to be swindler "scientists" is it
going to take for people to quit trusting these chicken little grant
chasers?

What is interesting (and I'm not saying it is wrong or somehow devious
from a statistical standpoint) is that much of the historical data that
is being used for determining warming trends was "adjusted" during a
switchover from using a "Traditional Climate Division Data Set" to a
"Gridded Divisional Data Set".

The TCDD was based on actual, averaged reported temperatures collected
on a statewide basis by the USDA since records were kept.

The GrDD was instituted to supposedly address "inconsistencies" in the
actual reported temperatures.

(Hmmmm ... as if mercury can't be relied upon to be consistent with its
physical properties?)

The upshot is that most of the temperatures in the GrDD data set,
currently used in trending models, are cooler than the actual reported
temperatures from 1895 to present.

An example is the TCDD dataset for 1934 in Arizona (an average of the
actual reported temperatures in that state, in that year) shows to be 52.0F.

The "adjusted" GrDD for that same period in Arizona uses 48.9F ... 3.1F
_cooler_.

While the latter may well be a legitimate and acceptable statistical
methodology for some purposes, it does kind of remind one of the "feels
like" temperature reported daily by the media, instead of what the
thermometer actually says.

It further leaves the unsettling feeling invoked by that old saw, "liars
figure, and figures lie".

Color me skeptical, but I somehow have an inherent mistrust of figures
that have been "adjusted", then used a basis for statistical purposes.

I'm not interested in arguing this factual switch in statistical
methodology, nor am I going to do the homework for anyone by posting
links ... if you're dead set on informing yourself, the best way is to
so is to do your own research and come to your own independent conclusions.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop