She always picks up stuff from the junkyard.
She wears rubber bands as bracelets and a chain as a necklace. She even wears tissue boxes two different colours as shoes and even her goggles are broken. Oh, and she has hair. He wears a Barret, a blue and white striped oh shirt, skinny jeans, flats and goggles and constantly holds a baguette in one arm and a glass of wine in the other.
He has a moustache and always smokes a cigar which the other moles hate since it makes the tunnels smell bad. Oh, and he has a creepy nose. Lee is just creepy.
But everyone else says no. Tuulana We like to write. The warmest year in that series is and of the ten warmest years 5 are in the 18th century and 5 in the 20th. Proprietary data integrated into scientific results used globally to set trillions of dollars worth of public policy? Are you serious?
All this secrecy smacks much like the Medieval Catholic Church at the time when Tyndale translated the scriptures into English so the mob could work out for themselves what the Church heirarchy were on about. It is far too early, however, to speculate on just what an analysis will reveal.
Watch Out! You shouldn't build your house just anywhere. Someone, or something, might already be living there. As a rule, moles are fairly easy going and put. Actual moles of the apocalypse pdf ebooks. Find moles of the apocalypse immediately.
It may not reveal what a lot of us are hoping for…. Jones has done a fine piece of work?
Let him do the work and let the chips fall where they may. There is also a lot of food for thought on ethics and responsibility here. Lord knows what I would have done in his shoes. On the topic of the OSA, my understanding is that unlike US law, the UK allows prosecution of people who come to possess and distribute such information, regardless of whether they agreed to keep it secret.
In the US a leaker could be prosecuted, which the whole point of the Valerie Plame investigation, regardless of the results, but the reporters were immune from prosecution for passing it on. My understanding is that such is not the case in the UK. Through their efforts it might get transformed into science. And jones should thank them. IMO, already far too much information has been given about the source of this data. Do not underestimate the resources of governments to track internet communications. All identifying files or records should be securely and strongly encrypted or thoroughly destroyed — the latter being a non-trivial exercise.
The argument in favor of confidentiality to protect commercial or some other interests if there were clear evidence of such agreements and interests. Some of the data was provided to Jones under some sort of confidentiality agreement—but no one knows which data, because records were not kept.
Does that sound like an important interest that is being protected by Jones or anyone else? Not to me—if it was important, he would know to whom he made such a promise as a condition of getting the data. Can someone point to the language in the FOI denials that leads people to believe that the the Ministry of Defense is claiming that the data is a state secret?
All I see them saying is that they are trying to protect confidential agreements and commercial interests that Phil Jones claim exist. The official secrets act was changed in It now only applies to intelligence, defence, international diplomacy, serious crime, and equivalent material obtained from other nations under high level information sharing agreements.
Stuff like that. Not the weather. I never seen no data. Or anything else. Plenty of nice fat well-fed worms. I think there is something strange about this whole affair. Now if I wanted to leak something I would have copied the data to a CD or preferably an USB stick, put this into an envelope addressed to SM, and dropped the envelope in a letterbox.
A little slower but essentially untraceable. Sometimes extra measures like epoxy filling USB ports are taken. Sometimes that creates problems plugging keyboards and mice in. The reluctance to officially publish the data requested here smacks to me of commercial interests rather than security. Once all the carbon regulations kick in fully, organisations like the UEA probably expected to spin off commercial ventures to sell product and services to the victims.
Thanks for the snippet of Lund data. Examining this carefully reveals that the data appear to fall into four regimes which are from to the end of , to the end of , thence to mid and finally to the end of the data end This classification provided the following statistics Percent Std error Class in Class of total of mean. Sorry about the formatting. How does one ensure that spaces are present in the published version when required? Within each regime there are no significant trends and each closely conforms to a simple linear model.
The table shows that Regime 3 has a level about 1. Would the citizenry have noticed this? I doubt it. This would normally be regarded as fairly convincing evidence that there were differences amongst the regimes. When scientists, however well-meaning, withhold data on issues that have major socio-economic implications, they are adopting a political stance.
That is very clear. When a scientist makes elusive data available to those who may have a different approach to processing, he is following the honest scientific method.
We have been treated like mushrooms for far too long in the climate debate. I thoroughly enjoy what Mr. McIntyre does here, am pleased he has this data, think the excuses offered by the Met and CRU are probably bogus, so was delighted to help out with the mass FOI, and so on. One is appropriate to experimental inquiry and the other to observational inquiry.
In experimental inquiry, experimenter Alan has satisfied replicability requirements NOT by sharing his data with you, but rather by telling you enough about his methods so that you can do his experiment yourself. As I said above, some experimental fields have social norms that strongly encourage sharing data experimental economics and I think that is best, but others do not have a strong norm about that experimental psychology. If observational scientist Bob rounded up data from eleventy-zillion governments, and he tells you which governments and enough about what you need to ask for in order for you to do it yourself, then there is a sense in which Bob has satisfied the data-collection end of being open enough for you to replicate what he did.
But he was certainly open enough for you to recreate it yourself. And true, many journals would demand that Bob deposit his data publicly as a condition for publication. But not all granting authorities and journals would do that. My understanding of the real crux of the issue with the CRU data is that this particular kind of openness is absent—no one really knows what Dr. Jones has done in going from the raw data to the gridded data.
I like Mr. But the critical thing is having alleged procedures in hand. Not getting the data is a pain in the butt, but not being told what Bob or Jones did with it is the really important sin, I think. And, Mr. None of this is meant to excuse these particular people for not sharing this particular data.
I agree with what many of you say, that given the social costs of type I and type II error here, society simply cannot afford secrecy here. But it is good to be clear about the strictly scientific general norms here, as opposed to the situation-specific matters. What I wrote above is just a stab at thinking about this and I would be interested what others think. No more prancing-toady Al Gore Rythms for him. If this information was indeed sensitive, it would already have been published in the New York Times.
And that exposure for releasing the data will not professionally endanger him, although he still wishes to remain anonymous. I would also like to make note on a personal observation. Is it not a fact that the dollars that paid for said data, in fact, come from public sources taxes, etc.. Should not this be the same case? I also fail to see where this would have any harm, whatsoever, to the continued exchange of this data.
Did accepting this information from the mole, suddenly open some broad competition for the gathering and distribution of such data? I think not, as there clearly are A.