CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:12 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Sometimes we have a progression of several data sets before we get to a final data set and you know what? We make all of that data PUBLIC so the public can easily verify it for themselves.


Source? I'm not in the health field, but my understanding is that, at least in Canada, you can't make people's health information public.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:15 am
 


Thanos wrote:
Quote:
Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller


Has to operate under two different names? Says it all about this "research" right there. Seriously, these deniers must be operating on their own demented initiative right now because I can't see even the worst CEO's in the fossil fuel business wanting their companies connected in any way, even secretly, with funding this kind of shoddy nonsense.

He should have just reversed the temperature vs time data on both axes so that they went in reverse. It would have succeeded in making the graph appear to go downwards just as easily and succeeded just as easily in convincing most amateurs that he was on to something. It's not like the vast majority of people who see the most simplistic graphs in front of their eyes really bother to pay attention to most of the words and numbers on them. And this is why we're all totally fucked, because things even as events are starting to cascade in both frequency and intensity all around us we're still stuck in a flat-earther's trap of bickering over whether or not something is even happening. :|


Goddard is a lightweight. Even most of the skeptics don't have time for him.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27545
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:29 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
The funny thing is that the so-called skeptics used to always point to the satellite data (because, for a while, it didn't show the same kind of temperature increases as the surface temperature measurements). Yet the satellite data is the most manipulated of any form of temperature measurements. It's highly complex involving changing orbits, factoring in channel failures, intercalibration between satellites, etc.



I find their silly games they play with the Arctic Ocean satellite data that clearly shows a continuous trend of ice-melt to be particularly laughable. They say it's not reliable because there hasn't been enough years of satellite data compiled to make a true assessment. Yet at the same time the oil companies, especially the Russian ones, are gearing up like mad to be ready on the spot for deployment of their drilling rigs for the time when the winter ice no longer reaches it's historical yearly advance to the shorelines. Do they really think these companies controlled by the uber-wealthy wouldn't make these kinds of investments in exploration and equipment if they were assured that in due time they would no longer have to regard year-round ocean ice as a threat to their operations? Or that the insurance companies would not hesitate in giving them insurance coverage if the ice threat was no longer that much of a risk?

Money talks, bullshit walks. And right now, from the oil companies to the insurance providers, the money is clearly walking towards the profits they clearly believe climate change is going to open up for them. If the activities of the sort of people who do not fuck around with their investment capital aren't enough to convince almost everyone that the historical climate patterns of the planet are abruptly changing then nothing will.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63497
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:36 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Sometimes we have a progression of several data sets before we get to a final data set and you know what? We make all of that data PUBLIC so the public can easily verify it for themselves.


Source? I'm not in the health field, but my understanding is that, at least in Canada, you can't make people's health information public.


You'd be surprised about that.

While the final data does not include any Personal Health Information (PHI) or any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) the initial data sets necessarily include that information to substantiate the final data.

And while you're right that we don't make the PHI or PII public you (meaning you, personally) can register as a researcher, sign a confidentiality agreement, and then access those initial patient data sets to validate the final de-identified data sets.

In short, all of the data is accessible to the public and right now, today, we have thirty-seven such researchers present to access and use this data.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:09 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
While the final data does not include any Personal Health Information (PHI) or any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) the initial data sets necessarily include that information to substantiate the final data.

And while you're right that we don't make the PHI or PII public you (meaning you, personally) can register as a researcher, sign a confidentiality agreement, and then access those initial patient data sets to validate the final de-identified data sets.

In short, all of the data is accessible to the public and right now, today, we have thirty-seven such researchers present to access and use this data.


So, I, as an interested party--not a researcher--could access those patient data sets by signing a confidentiality agreement?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23115
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:11 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Thanos wrote:
Quote:
Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller


Has to operate under two different names? Says it all about this "research" right there. Seriously, these deniers must be operating on their own demented initiative right now because I can't see even the worst CEO's in the fossil fuel business wanting their companies connected in any way, even secretly, with funding this kind of shoddy nonsense.

He should have just reversed the temperature vs time data on both axes so that they went in reverse. It would have succeeded in making the graph appear to go downwards just as easily and succeeded just as easily in convincing most amateurs that he was on to something. It's not like the vast majority of people who see the most simplistic graphs in front of their eyes really bother to pay attention to most of the words and numbers on them. And this is why we're all totally fucked, because things even as events are starting to cascade in both frequency and intensity all around us we're still stuck in a flat-earther's trap of bickering over whether or not something is even happening. :|


Goddard is a lightweight. Even most of the skeptics don't have time for him.


That has support and I've heard others say similar or worse about pseudonamed Tamino who wrote the blog post critiquing him.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23115
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:16 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
The funny thing is that the so-called skeptics used to always point to the satellite data (because, for a while, it didn't show the same kind of temperature increases as the surface temperature measurements). Yet the satellite data is the most manipulated of any form of temperature measurements. It's highly complex involving changing orbits, factoring in channel failures, intercalibration between satellites, etc.


Satellite data is manipulated but to say it's the "most" manipulated would either require ignorance or a deceptive hope of ignorance in others.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10694
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:22 am
 


Once data has been manipulated it ceases to be data.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23115
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:24 am
 


PluggyRug wrote:
Once data has been manipulated it ceases to be data.


So there is no such thing as temperature data then.

By that definition, I mean.

Interesting... Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10694
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:27 am
 


No. Or should I say, none that has relevance.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63497
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:30 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
While the final data does not include any Personal Health Information (PHI) or any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) the initial data sets necessarily include that information to substantiate the final data.

And while you're right that we don't make the PHI or PII public you (meaning you, personally) can register as a researcher, sign a confidentiality agreement, and then access those initial patient data sets to validate the final de-identified data sets.

In short, all of the data is accessible to the public and right now, today, we have thirty-seven such researchers present to access and use this data.


So, I, as an interested party--not a researcher--could access those patient data sets by signing a confidentiality agreement?


Absolutely. We've had Canadians here before. But note that you can only access the initial data in person on an isolated network that has no ties to the internet. And if you bring a USB storage device with you then you'll get to have a lengthy chat with the California Highway Patrol.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23115
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:34 am
 


PluggyRug wrote:
No. Or should I say, none that has relevance.


It does seem kind of silly, based on what we have now, to get religious in our faith that we can actually take the world's temperature within a tenth of degree.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:06 pm
 


PluggyRug wrote:
Once data has been manipulated it ceases to be data.


I don't think so. BY that rule converting Fahrenheit to Celsius wouldn't work.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:10 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
While the final data does not include any Personal Health Information (PHI) or any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) the initial data sets necessarily include that information to substantiate the final data.

And while you're right that we don't make the PHI or PII public you (meaning you, personally) can register as a researcher, sign a confidentiality agreement, and then access those initial patient data sets to validate the final de-identified data sets.

In short, all of the data is accessible to the public and right now, today, we have thirty-seven such researchers present to access and use this data.


So, I, as an interested party--not a researcher--could access those patient data sets by signing a confidentiality agreement?


Absolutely. We've had Canadians here before. But note that you can only access the initial data in person on an isolated network that has no ties to the internet. And if you bring a USB storage device with you then you'll get to have a lengthy chat with the California Highway Patrol.


That's not the case in BC unfortunately. Regular shmoes can access certain aggregate data, but raw data is off limits unless, more or less, you are sanctioned by academia or government.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10694
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:11 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
PluggyRug wrote:
Once data has been manipulated it ceases to be data.


I don't think so. BY that rule converting Fahrenheit to Celsius wouldn't work.


No, that's math. This is similar to {Cx1.8}+32=F written as (Cx1.8)+64)=F


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.