AWG More date manipulation !

[kallend 1,679]

lawrocket

[Reply]Removing that error is not 'manipulating' the data. That is the point I am trying to underscore.

Removing the error is manipulating the data.

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

Removing the error is a CORRECTION.

I think right now the larger question is, is it even an error that needs correcting?

From what I understand about climate scientists, this is a valid question. When we answer that question, the rest will become apparent.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,471]

>I think right now the larger question is, is it even an error that needs correcting?
If you want accurate data, yes. If your goal is political, and the error that is discovered helps your political goals, then no.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>I think right now the larger question is, is it even an error that needs correcting?

If you want accurate data, yes. If your goal is political, and the error that is discovered helps your political goals, then no.

If I'm reading this correctly, the error in question is cooler than expected temperature readings from a geo-location.

Are you suggesting that mother nature made a weather mistake that needs to be ignored?

My point was that scientists still don't know all the factors that affect the weather. According to global warming alarmist the sky has fallen 3 times now. They don't know if the data is important or not, therefore, it cannot be ignored.

But I understand why they do it It makes it look like the sky is falling and gosh darn it, they need money now to figure out why.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,471]

> Except to the extent that if you have a 36 inch yardstick and you measure
>something at 35 and 3/64 inches, I don't know why you'd think that the actual
>value is something different. It's accurate. It's precise.

Because you might have a 35 3/4 inch yardstick. That "accurate, precise" wooden yardstick you had in your family for generations might just have shrunk a bit.

What happens then? Let's say you've been using it to measure water levels, and it looks to you like they haven't been changing at all over the years. You can do one of several things:

1) Ignore the error and figure "it's close enough."

2) Go back and multiply your latest readings by (36/35.75) to make them more accurate.

3) Throw out all the data and say "well, it's just too hard; no one knows what the water levels are doing now."

When the data is important you'll generally choose option 2.

>But I've helped build a house using the graduations on a measuring tape and on
>a yard length level. I hope I don't have to go back and adjust it. That'll be a
>royal pain. Bah, it was my former mother-in-law's place.

Considerations like that are a strong emotional reason to choose option 1.) But often, scientists do not have the option to work with inaccurate data. (And I'd suspect you would crucify them if they did.)

[DanG 1]

Quote

I am a certified lean six sigma black belt
I know a bit about data

The fact that you don't understand that ALL measuring devices have built in error, and ALL measuring techniques have built in error, belies that statement.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

You are trying very hard to make error correction sound like a devious plot. It isn't.

That's right. Which is EXACTLy what is meant when I wrote this:

Quote

I don't think there is some grand fraudulent conspiracy. I've come over on this as I've read more about it. There are good reasons for manipulating the data, such as the removal of the cooling bias that electronic instrumentation provided

Indeed. When I write that I don't think there is some grand fraudulent conspiracy you can just make your own adjustments and write about how I'm trying hard to make it sound like a devious plot.

Seriously. What the? Are you just trying to argue?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

BTW
I am a certified lean six sigma black belt
I know a bit about data

But if your spelling is at best a sigma level 2 and at worst somewhere south of sigma level 1 why should that be evidence that you're any better at managing data?

(And, lets be honest, Six Sigma can't be quantifiably shown to improve anything but the practitioner's capacity for self promotion anyway)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

I am a certified lean six sigma black belt
I know a bit about data

The fact that you don't understand that ALL measuring devices have built in error, and ALL measuring techniques have built in error, belies that statement.

Ok
Lets look at your claim here

First
You seem to support the fact that data error correction was used to lower temps earlier in the century while nearer term data was corrected to increase temps
Hmm
convenient don't you think

Also, we know that so called climate scientists said in their own emails that they had to "hide the decline"

and

I am the one who brought up a measuring system analysis so I have shown I do understand that one must look at all data collection systems so a person can have confidence in the data to start with

So what exactly is belied?

Or are you just flipping shit cause you can....

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

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

***

Quote

I am a certified lean six sigma black belt
I know a bit about data

The fact that you don't understand that ALL measuring devices have built in error, and ALL measuring techniques have built in error, belies that statement.

Ok
Lets look at your claim here

First
You seem to support the fact that data error correction was used to lower temps earlier in the century while nearer term data was corrected to increase temps
Hmm
convenient don't you think

Also, we know that so called climate scientists said in their own emails that they had to "hide the decline"

and

I am the one who brought up a measuring system analysis so I have shown I do understand that one must look at all data collection systems so a person can have confidence in the data to start with

So what exactly is belied?

Or are you just flipping shit cause you can....

Its funny how the data fits and it is accepted, but when the data doesn't fit, it is adjusted, then when it is WAY off, it is discarded.

hmm

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

Its funny how the data fits and it is accepted, but when the data doesn't fit, it is adjusted, then when it is WAY off, it is discarded.

Can you give us some examples of this phenomenon, or are you just parroting the denier talking points?

- Dan G

[RonD1120 58]

I heard this on the radio the other day. Low and behold I see this today.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

Is this just inconvenient?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rushmc 18]

RonD1120

I heard this on the radio the other day. Low and behold I see this today.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

Is this just inconvenient?

ANY warmist replies you get will attack you, or the article, the source or go off on some other misdirecting post

They stick to the CO2 in increasing and so is the temp line. Of course, temps are not increasing anywhere near the dire predictions

But facts do not matter anymore
This is politics

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