This chap is looking at comments within computer code. I'd guess he doesn't understand the code, because he certainly doesn't understand the mindset of the guys who write it. Geeks have fun inserting crazy comments, and during testing and debugging they will insert error trap messages and later forget to remove them, to the shock of some innocent future user. Some examples here and here and here.
The speaker also doesn't know any mathematics - he thinks there is something sinister when a proggy says that a sum of squares has come out negative. A square is always positive, so a sum of squares must also always be positive - a negative sum of squares is a mathematical impossibility so there is an obvious bug in the code - that is what is being reported.
And there is no sceintific basis for historical temperatures based on tree-ring growth? Bullshit. Google it and you'll hit literally thousands of scientific papers.
The latter half of his talk is just a string of the usual unsupported assertions. Altogether a rather unsavoury character.
I wouldn't know the mindset of geeks Vronsky - haven't a clue.
Somewhere else I read that tree-ring growth must be supported by other data. I suspect all statements must be supported by other data but the problem with CRU seems to be they refused to be transparent and share their knowledge with the science world. They picked those who held the same beliefs as themselves.
I was always told if your evidence isn't good enough to convince your opposition then review your evidence.
SUBROSA - Please contact me if you have any ideas, stories or complaints: subrosa.blonde AT yahoo.co.uk Replace AT with the @ symbol. My profile can be viewed here.
Posts
2 comments:
This chap is looking at comments within computer code. I'd guess he doesn't understand the code, because he certainly doesn't understand the mindset of the guys who write it. Geeks have fun inserting crazy comments, and during testing and debugging they will insert error trap messages and later forget to remove them, to the shock of some innocent future user. Some examples here and here and here.
The speaker also doesn't know any mathematics - he thinks there is something sinister when a proggy says that a sum of squares has come out negative. A square is always positive, so a sum of squares must also always be positive - a negative sum of squares is a mathematical impossibility so there is an obvious bug in the code - that is what is being reported.
And there is no sceintific basis for historical temperatures based on tree-ring growth? Bullshit. Google it and you'll hit literally thousands of scientific papers.
The latter half of his talk is just a string of the usual unsupported assertions. Altogether a rather unsavoury character.
I wouldn't know the mindset of geeks Vronsky - haven't a clue.
Somewhere else I read that tree-ring growth must be supported by other data.
I suspect all statements must be supported by other data but the problem with CRU seems to be they refused to be transparent and share their knowledge with the science world. They picked those who held the same beliefs as themselves.
I was always told if your evidence isn't good enough to convince your opposition then review your evidence.
Post a Comment