61–70 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would help but the cost of storage for 11 TB and the up time to download would be extremely expensive. I haven't seen an option that works for less than around $200 to rent and setup.
$200 isn't all that much, if it lets you get results while you're still alive. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond During the Climategate fiasco, Raymond's ability to read other peoples' source code (or at least his honesty about it) was called into question when he was caught quote-mining analysis software written by the CRU researchers, presenting a commented-out section of source code used for analyzing counterfactuals as evidence of deliberate data manipulation. When confronted wit…
"When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest" citation needed
http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropria...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%... - Editor in Chief of the Lancet talking about about upwards of half of biomed studies are faked or over-estimated
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anybody managed to download the whole set so far .
NASA has it already. Do they not want to be in the business of interpreting climate data? Or is it too soon even for them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that means: looking through the software to find something, anything , that could be used to make the researchers look bad.
It looks like the origin of the use of the term "quote mining" is an article [1] on ScienceBlogs. I think your interpretation of the term is in agreement with it, in this case. [1] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/01/quote-mining-code...
If the earth is 509 million square kilometers and the granularity of the data is 25sq km this means we have about 20.3m data points. It implies then on average each point is 540mb. The dataset seems to be broken down by year rather than location though, a UX issue I'd say...
What am I missing?
Let's see if these fare any better than the projections used by the IPCC ... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297 "The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." Kudos to them for publishing these, though. If they are rotten, it ought to be easy to tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His global warming conspiracy theories are as crackpot as his racist criminology theories. "In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color. " -Eric S Raymond, http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=129…
I'm not sure how discussing statistics is racist, particularly when later in the article he says: "And that is actually a valuable hint about how to get beyond racism. A black man with an IQ of 85 and a white man with an IQ of 85 are about equally likely to have the character traits of poor impulse control and violent behavior associated with criminality — and both are far more likely to have them than a white or bla…
And it is racist to be credulous of statistics that support one's racist point of view. Statistics come from actual data, so shortcomings in the data collection can produce shortcomings in the statistics.
For example the testing that goes into IQ is not without controversy. And crime statistics are directly dependent on the policing and prosecution of crime--they don't reflect the objective reality of crime, they reflect the outcomes of an imperfect system that detects and punishes crime.
There is ample and growing evidence that many such systems are significantly biased by racism. See: the recent Justice Department investigations of municipal police deparments like Ferguson, Cleveland, etc. So judging the criminality of a particular "race" by aggregate police statistics is not likely to be objective.
Finally, the concept of race itself is socially constructed, and therefore not objective. If a person has a white mother and a black father, are they black or white? What if one grandparent is Asian? Ultimately the attribution of race is a human social decision--a person self-identifies with a particular race, and/or others define their race based on how they look. Neither is scientifically objective the way that height or eye color is.
Let's see if these fare any better than the projections used by the IPCC ... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297 "The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." Kudos to them for publishing these, though. If they are rotten, it ought to be easy to tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see some mention of the fact that blacks are incarcerated at MUCH higher rates for committing the same crimes as whites, which he never addresses (and he ignores it when people bring it up), yet that totally undermines his statistical argument. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-rushing/the-reasons-why-...
Those statistics are somewhat flawed. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m... .