Sentences with phrase «of dubious data»

The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide «evidence» that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples» opinions instead of science to «prove» their case.

Not exact matches

Somewhat dubious, I searched for the data, which reveals the pro-lifer was right on the facts but offering an unsupported interpretation: The study showed that the maternal mortality rate declined after abortion was prohibited in 1989, but that it had already been declining for more than a decade, probably as a result of rising levels of women's education.

«It's dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis,» says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London.

To this day, Temodar's label — the single most important way the FDA communicates the risks and benefits of medication — still displays data from the dubious Cetero study.

When we started, it was just a simple hypothesis based on a correlation, and correlations are, of course, something that could be quite dubious, and they could go away if you get better data.

Online join one pissed 8 best (place for) lonely people (among on) dubious data like fetal weight estimates if your provider insists that list of weird dating sites character must have ultrasound to estimate fetal size 10 most popular dating (sites takes world).

New data from the Urban Institute look at the question: Is the nation's largest private school choice program fueling the growth of academically dubious schools?

Holder, using dubious data, argues that the exit of black children from failing schools would «impede the desegregation process» in Louisiana.

There were a lot of other potential adjustments I contemplated (see my reply to Rick Mason below, also), like wealth or location, but didn't have the necessary data to support any modelling — and I'm dubious they'd really make much difference at 90 + yrs of age.

While crowd - sourced information can sometimes be dubious (we recognize the nature of sites like wikipedia), strong efforts are made to verify data confidence with multiple crowd - based websites before anything is included in this list.

The aim of my post is: with poor resolution data (temporal noise due to multi-year oscillations, geographical noise from local ocean level increases / decreases etc.) any claim of a clear signal is dubious.

Indeed, Feynman made some of his best discoveries by challenging experimental data which proved to be dubious (so - called «Feynman points»).

And if we use RSS TLT data instead of the dubious TLT output from UAH, a similar calculation yields +0.205 K / decade.

Rabbeting on about climate scientists should do this and they should not put up with data of dubious quality is completely missing the point that they are not in charge of the data.

Though many cite dubious characters like former Weather Channel founder John Coleman, and «Lord Monckton», as proof that there «is no global warming», such individuals are hardly a credible source of data.

The top of it is cut off (it spikes to nearly +23 °C) but that doesn't trouble me much because the extreme highs may be dubious (data from just a couple of sites).

[IOW a lot of very dubious old data with much of the more reliable new Argo - based data either «excluded» or «corrected»).

They all have their short - comings but linking back to other physical data like this can be a good way of spotting sampling issues or dubious «bias corrections».

That data does not agree with the tree proxies, and it gives the concept of AGW dubious support if any.

The margin of error on the data is at least 0.1 degrees above or below, meaning that even the dubious GISS «warmest on record» data showed the «warmest on record» by such a tiny margin as to be literally statistically and scientifically irrelevant.

If you read what Girma says, then you ought to realize that the skeptical view of CAGW is based on observed data, NOT «dubious» assumptions.

Though as I understand it he has conceded some of his data selection was dubious, particularly his reliance in Bristlecone pine data.

-LSB-...] this graph from «Hanno» is just another variation of Mann's discredited Hockey Stick based on questionable mathematics, outright errors such as data inversions, and dubious or excluded proxies that may not reflect -LSB-...]

-LSB-...] «Hanno» is just another variation of Mann's discredited Hockey Stick based on questionable mathematics, outright errors such as data inversions, and dubious or excluded proxies that may not reflect -LSB-...]

The criminal aspect is not only the failure of the alarmsits to observe these basic facts bu the Hockeystick fraud giving hundreds of times the weighting to faulty Bristlecone pine proxy data as to other sets in order to give a desired result, the blatant tampering of Data to warm the past with extremely dubious reasons, the NZ NWA scandal where they demonstrably altered data to fit the alarmist agenda, the Darwin Australia tampering, the crude attempt to prove a «hotspot» by making the base temperature representation red and thus appear hot in a now debunked graph etc Then there's the Nazi / Stalin / Lenin / Maoesque attempts to silence debdata as to other sets in order to give a desired result, the blatant tampering of Data to warm the past with extremely dubious reasons, the NZ NWA scandal where they demonstrably altered data to fit the alarmist agenda, the Darwin Australia tampering, the crude attempt to prove a «hotspot» by making the base temperature representation red and thus appear hot in a now debunked graph etc Then there's the Nazi / Stalin / Lenin / Maoesque attempts to silence debData to warm the past with extremely dubious reasons, the NZ NWA scandal where they demonstrably altered data to fit the alarmist agenda, the Darwin Australia tampering, the crude attempt to prove a «hotspot» by making the base temperature representation red and thus appear hot in a now debunked graph etc Then there's the Nazi / Stalin / Lenin / Maoesque attempts to silence debdata to fit the alarmist agenda, the Darwin Australia tampering, the crude attempt to prove a «hotspot» by making the base temperature representation red and thus appear hot in a now debunked graph etc Then there's the Nazi / Stalin / Lenin / Maoesque attempts to silence debate.

The «hiding the decline» refers neither to Little Ice Age (as the Spiked Online version says) nor the recent pause in the upward trend of temperatures, but rather the pasting of current temperature data onto some rather dubious proxy data to continue the hockey stick pattern through the 20th century.

The problem of dubious polynomial behavior at and outside the data boundaries seems to be fairly well known, but it lacks a name the one can feed into a search engine to find analyses of the problem.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods — not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics» work.

No snark here, but which graph would you cite that has a degree of authority, i.e one not manufactured on wood for trees using dubious end points and data.

But we are talking about climate models and dubious error - filled data and great amounts of self - dealing and rent seeking by the AGW community.

In another discipline, a person uses dubious data, he games the system and self - audits in order to hide that for a number of years.

There is no observed data, yet somehow on the basis of this highly dubious science, we are supposed to believe that it is essential to stop producing so much CO2.

I feel that in order to see distinct - although irregular - climate cycles it is useful to go as far back as possible and to home in on individual data sets that can be qualified, as opposed to relying on a single global temperature which is a composite record of very dubious provenance.

Instead, I have watched in dismay as the leadership of the WMO in the Seventies and its subsequent offspring, the IPCC, engage in mismanagement of data collection and dubious manipulations of the raw and analyzed data for the past 40 years.

Perhaps because of the amount of time people have spent trying to tease a climate signal from low resolution meteorological data, or the large body of work resting on this dubious foundation has confused some into thinking that Anthony Watts needs to calculate a climate signal using alternate methods.

We are still in the neolithic age regarding our understanding of the climate, not helped by routinely accepting all sorts of proxies and dubious reconstructions based on data that routinely raises both eyebrows.

Picking data by correlations is dubious at best, supposed teleconnections are bizarre, and the divergence problem would effectively rule the whole approach out in any normal branch of science.

The idea that we have reliable records from that country from that date to the present is bizarre enough in itself, but because there is another station (in another country) within 500 km (of equally dubious provenance) it seems it can be stretched back to 1875, then because there is a qualifying station within 2000 km that data can be stretched back to 1850.

It seems to me that this dataset exhibits the same attributes as the SST data set that I wrote an article about, whereby the provenance of the original data can be as dubious or unlikely as is possible, but researchers seem prepared to disregard its accuracy in order to analyse and parse it and then make profound pronouncements.

We performed a series of tests to identify dubious data and merge identical data coming from multiple archives.

Which is not to say that I always agree with the interpretation of data or that often extremely scant and dubious data is given far more credence than it should.

Global warming is a question that many are saying is a catasrophe for the planet, that will determine the spending of trillions of dollars around the globe and yet Michael is worried about giving data to someone with a dubious argument?

How can you expect to be taken seriously in your crusade for open access to data, when the credibility of the arguments and the advocates you associate yourself with is so dubious?

I would be highly dubious of the data from many stations especially those outside the core countries.

NOAA even puts the IG's efforts at par with the efforts of others with dubious distinctions: «The findings in the Inspector General's investigation are similar to the conclusions reached in a number of other independent investigations into climate data stewardship and research that were conducted by the UK House of Commons, Penn State University, the InterAcademy Council, and the National Research Council, after the release of the stolen emails All of the reports exonerated climate scientists from allegations of wrong - doing.»

Furthermore, by downgrading HP in its ratings after the finds of this report, Greenpeace has demonstrated that it meant what it said previously about penalizing companies if they found that real market data did not match corporate claims (even though penalizing on the basis of one model of one product line bought in one market is a bit dubious).

Skeptics dismissed them all, pointing to dubious technical features and the failure of models to match some kinds of data.

My opinion is that the quality of such ship derived data is dubious.

The portrayal of the most likely history is legitimate, but in the context of Jones's manipulation of the original data, which is nowhere referred to, the portrayal of the consistency is certainly very dubious.

Your concept of balance is still a poor assumption based on a narrow interpretation of observations, which, in turn, are based on another set of equally dubious interpretations of speculative reconstructions of data.