To: widdle_wabbit; Marie
Lots of concern about stuff flying around....sure sign of skulduggery....
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Marie; All
| There's all kinds of good tidbits in these emails.
Lots of talk about “forcing” the data, i.e., selecting time scale and other data, and then "smoothing" the data-points to hide anomalies, so that the graphs and other compilations suits their agenda.
Using Google Desktop and the word indexing features therein provides researchers of this data to isolate searches better by looking for their primary email host (”uea.ac.uk”) and other any other key words.
For example, this is from the file 1153254016.txt:
>>> But I
>>> think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional
>>> scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to
>>> achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13
>>> probably also hold in 6.14.
>>> However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat,
>>> specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude
>>> of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency
>>> solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period
>>> removes the interpretation that we don’t even know the forcing today.
>>> So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different
>>> presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these
>>> competing demands.
>>> One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat’s
>>> implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically
>>> dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of
>>> wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then
>>> presumably the same holds for 6.13.
posted on 11/20/2009 10:24:08 PM PST
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson