CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 32390
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:24 am
 


An example of how cherry picking data can make it seem like Science, when it isn't. These techniques are used a lot to try to change people's opinions based on false data, and I'm seeing it often in the media lately. Forewarned is forearmed!

Quote:
USA Temperature: can I sucker you?

Suppose I wanted to convince people that temperature in the USA wasn’t going up, it was going down. What would I show? Let’s try yearly average temperature in the conterminous U.S., also known as the “lower 48 states” (I’ll just call it “USA”):

Image

Well that won’t do. It shows that temperature has been rising, not falling. By the way, I’ve included two trend estimates. The blue straight line is a linear trend estimate and it’s going up. The red curvy line is a nonlinear trend estimate, it has gone up and down and up, and is now rising fast. Scary fast. That definitely won’t do.

But wait! The temperature shown is the mean temperature, which is the average of the high and low temperatures. What if I tried just low temperatures?


. . . .

There’s a graph going around the internet from Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller, claiming to show that temperature in the U.S. has been declining, using only high temperatures, using only summertime temperatures, using only data since 1918, based on a simple average without taking into account new stations coming online or old stations retiring or area-weighting or any of that “expert” stuff:

Image

Imagine that.



https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08 ... ucker-you/


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 927
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:35 am
 


Quote:
Imagine that.
Indeed. Imagination required.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63586
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:35 am
 


Wow, so the unadjusted raw data shows something other than the adjusted data?

It should. :idea:

Naturally, the author explained the adjustments he made for each individual weather station including where he normalized increases at weather stations that were once in rural areas but have now become part of urban heat islands?

He should. :idea:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 32390
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:40 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Wow, so the unadjusted raw data shows something other than the adjusted data?

It should. :idea:


No. Cherry picking data shows what you want it to show. :idea:

BartSimpson wrote:
Naturally, the author explained the adjustments he made for each individual weather station including where he normalized increases at weather stations that were once in rural areas but have now become part of urban heat islands?

He should. :idea:


I don't know how many times I've explained statistics to you, and why data must be adjusted. Just look that up if you feel the need to read it for the first time.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63586
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:55 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
I don't know how many times I've explained statistics to you, and why data must be adjusted. Just look that up if you feel the need to read it for the first time.


I help to validate data on healthcare trends for ~40 million people. We include outliers and anomalies in all of our initial data and then we have to explain in detail why we exclude any particular patient record from the final data.

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.

The fucking klimate kunts make their 'adjustments' in secret and then have to be endlessly sued in court before they release the raw, unadjusted data that they are 1) required to release BY LAW and 2) so the public can readily replicate their adjustment protocols.

Why do they do this? Because they cook the fucking books, that's why.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-re ... te-records

Quote:
Feb 5, 2017 Press Release
WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.): “I applaud Dr. Bates’s efforts in uncovering the truth of this data manipulation, and I commend Chairman Smith and the Science Committee for conducting rigorous oversight on behalf of the American people. Transparent and faithful execution of the scientific process, especially where taxpayer dollars are involved, is crucial to ensure that our policies are based on sound science and not on politically predetermined outcomes.”

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): “I commend Dr. Bates for bringing to light the corrupt practices used by his former colleagues and hope this serves as a deterrence to anyone thinking of manipulating science to serve their own political agenda. I applaud Chairman Smith and the Science Committee's efforts to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the American people have the best information possible.”



Background

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

For a complete timeline of the Science Committee’s oversight of NOAA’s 2015 climate change study, click here.

115th Congress


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27547
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:04 am
 


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. :|


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1293
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:16 am
 


I don't want climate change to happen but unfortunately most reputable scientists tell me that the evidence points that way. I will derive no joy from them being correct.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 32390
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:33 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
I don't know how many times I've explained statistics to you, and why data must be adjusted. Just look that up if you feel the need to read it for the first time.


I help to validate data on healthcare trends for ~40 million people. We include outliers and anomalies in all of our initial data and then we have to explain in detail why we exclude any particular patient record from the final data.

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.

The fucking klimate kunts make their 'adjustments' in secret and then have to be endlessly sued in court before they release the raw, unadjusted data that they are 1) required to release BY LAW and 2) so the public can readily replicate their adjustment protocols.

Why do they do this? Because they cook the fucking books, that's why.


No, they didn't. And the NOAA publishes all their data, publicly. I have shown you this before.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01 ... bjections/

I wish I knew why you continue to be a victim of denier propaganda. [huh] You seem to be a pretty reasonable and well informed person otherwise.

BartSimpson wrote:
https://science.house.gov/news/press-re ... te-records

Quote:
Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)


See, you could have stopped right there. Lamar Smith is a well known denier, and has taken donations from many of the corporations who also deny science. His campaign to discredit science was also thoroughly discredited as well.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of- ... cle=CAREER

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/ ... omplicated

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63586
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:36 am
 


If NOAA has nothing to hde then why go to such lengths to hide it?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23396
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:38 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.


Does it?

Did you notice who his critic is? It's Tamino.

I forget what his real name is. He tries really hard to keep it secret. I remember that.

If we're going by personalities Tamino and Goddard are both interesting characters. They're both small fish in the global warming debate but both of them are wildly unpopular with the other side among those who are into it.

Both sides of the debate go nuts with their critique of the other when either makes a claim. Zip hates Goddard. All the commenters at 'Watts Up With That' immediately foam at the mouth like Pavlov's dogs when Tamino makes a claim.

Personally I don't trust either of them but they can be entertaining.

As to these two nit-picking at one of the other's assertions - not surprising. It's what they do.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 32390
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:41 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
If NOAA has nothing to hde then why go to such lengths to hide it?


They were denying the request for internal email chains that were none of the public's concern. The same thing that led to the conspiracy of the University of East Anglia and the selective quoting of hacked emails that continues to this day.

A judge agreed with the NOAA, that internal emails are none of Smith's concern.

Isn't it a McArthyism that if you have nothing to hide . . . ? :idea:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63586
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:53 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
If NOAA has nothing to hde then why go to such lengths to hide it?


They were denying the request for internal email chains that were none of the public's concern. The same thing that led to the conspiracy of the University of East Anglia and the selective quoting of hacked emails that continues to this day.

A judge agreed with the NOAA, that internal emails are none of Smith's concern.

Isn't it a McArthyism that if you have nothing to hide . . . ? :idea:


The UAE emails demonstrated that the Met Office had something to hide.

And asking for emails from a government email system is not any form of McCarthyism.

If you don't want the government to see it then just use your phone. Send a text. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23396
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:56 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
the conspiracy of the University of East Anglia and the selective quoting of hacked emails that continues to this day.


Here's how I remember that one:

Didn't it concern the raw data Philp Jones refused to give up?

And it was a different excuse for why every month, it seemed. I remember the last excuse. Jones was saying other countries had agreements with whoever it was that held the data and they would object if it was released. But that was never confirmed as far as I remember. I remember people calling BS on it.

Then ClimateGate happened. You don't need selective quotes. WUWT keeps a book on it and the emails themselves are indexed somewhere.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

I never got as deep into it as some did, but as I recall there was one section where Jones had somebody working to try to prepare the requested data for release but the data had been so badly rewritten over the years and manipulated into different algorithms of forgotten computer languages or something that the guy finally gave up. The insinuation as I understood it was that the actual reason Jones didn't release the data was because he couldn't. Nobody could figure out what the original actually was.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23456
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:07 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
If NOAA has nothing to hde then why go to such lengths to hide it?


They were denying the request for internal email chains that were none of the public's concern. The same thing that led to the conspiracy of the University of East Anglia and the selective quoting of hacked emails that continues to this day.

A judge agreed with the NOAA, that internal emails are none of Smith's concern.

Isn't it a McArthyism that if you have nothing to hide . . . ? :idea:


The UAE emails demonstrated that the Met Office had something to hide.

And asking for emails from a government email system is not any form of McCarthyism.

If you don't want the government to see it then just use your phone. Send a text. :wink:

Texts can be grabbed by ISP, and handed over.

Use encrypted communication. I wish more of my friends and family used signal.


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


DrCaleb wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Wow, so the unadjusted raw data shows something other than the adjusted data?

It should. :idea:


No. Cherry picking data shows what you want it to show. :idea:

BartSimpson wrote:
Naturally, the author explained the adjustments he made for each individual weather station including where he normalized increases at weather stations that were once in rural areas but have now become part of urban heat islands?

He should. :idea:


I don't know how many times I've explained statistics to you, and why data must be adjusted. Just look that up if you feel the need to read it for the first time.


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.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  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.