[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

[Carl Wagner]

How hard is it to tar up your programs and data files and put them on a 
web site?
You put in a disclaimer that there is no support.  If someone asks for 
support say no.
Possibly include a readme to give the person a chance to reproduce the 
results.

As far as I know Mann has not released his programs.  Has NASA?
If Mann has put them out, where can I download the data and program to 
reproduce the hockey stick?
Are the under revision control?  How about NASA?


Carl.




Bear Giles wrote:
> You have to be skeptical about 'skepticism', if that makes sense.  Ask 
> a question once and it's reasonable to expect an answer.  Ask the same 
> question for the third time even after two separate in-depth reviews 
> have cleared the researcher?  That's harassment, pure and simple.  
> That's why Hawaii has passed a law specifically to deal with all of 
> the tea baggers wanting copies of Obama's "real" birth certificate - 
> there were so many requests that it kept them from doing real work.
>
> Same thing with access to data.  Work should be transparent but it can 
> be turned into a weapon.  E.g., would the person be satisified with 
> anything short of high-resolution tiff images of the tree cores, 
> available via a thick data pipe within hours of them being collected?
>
> Some of the other points are even worse.  How many people have been 
> 'discredited' by the facts and their own ability to learn something.  
> E.g., ask any compsci person if they've ever had to deal with somebody 
> furious at their inability to grasp that, yes, it is possible to 
> always compress arbitrary data.  (No it's not.  It's called the 
> pidgeonhole principle.  Look it up.)  It seems like a lot of people 
> have decided that listening to Rush for a few weeks is comparable, no 
> better than, spending years of study at graduate school.
>
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Carl Wagner 
> <carl.wagner at verbalworld.com <mailto:carl.wagner at verbalworld.com>> wrote:
>
>     Maxwell Spangler wrote:
>     > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 09:11 -0600, Carl Wagner wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >> So in essence, I don't trust the raw data, and without that,
>     garbage
>     >> in->garbage out.
>     >> And I am concerned with anything that will cut my standard of
>     living in
>     >> half or worse. Remember Cap and Tax is just the start.
>     >> What if we spend 30 Trillion dollars and it turns out to be a
>     naturally
>     >> occurring event.  How do we get the money back?
>     >> Don't believe the above?  What would it take to get back to
>     1850 carbon
>     >> emissions levels?  Kill off 80% of the population?
>     >>
>     >
>     > Skepticism is healthy but organizing too much effort to fight
>     change for
>     > the sake of fighting change is not healthy.
>     >
>     > I won't debate your long list of ideas and suppositions because
>     of how
>     > unproductive it would be overall.  What matters is that we have
>     a common
>     > ground to discuss things overall such as pollution is bad (but a
>     > necessary by-product of our lives) and nature is good (but we will
>     > impact it as long as we live.)  I trust science instead of my
>     opinions
>     > or yours in order to guide us to recognizing problems and suggesting
>     > courses of action.
>     >
>     > What I truly appreciate about the scientific process is that its
>     only
>     > goal is truth.
>     >
>     Usually, or at least it should be.
>     > If the process is applied correctly, from nothing you will get an
>     > initial theory, then law about science.  Later, another
>     application of
>     > the scientific process will disprove that law and replace it with
>     > something more accurate.  Repeating this has given us a world of
>     nuclear
>     > power, solar powered mars rovers, ships as big as tall buildings
>     that
>     > float more resources than some small towns and planes that fly
>     at the
>     > speed of sound.  It is layers upon layers of work searching for
>     truth
>     > that has provided this.
>     >
>     I love science and the products it produces.  I just have issues where
>     science is corrupted by politics/personalties.
>     What I have seen in the last year reaffirms my belief that AGW is
>     science corrupted by politics/personalities.
>     The truth, one way or the other, will come out in the end.
>
>     But I missed the part of the chapter on the scientific method where it
>     is acceptable to:
>        fight fredom of information requests
>        discredit people of different opinions
>        fudge data
>        hide everything you can, that was paid for by tax payers
>        etc.
>     > You can live a life of skepticism but you must be willing to
>     ultimately
>     > be open to accepting scientific fact.  Also, you must be willing to
>     > accept that human beings are flawed and make mistakes: along the
>     way of
>     > learning truths about science we may make mistakes and go in the
>     wrong
>     > direction.  You can't dismiss science because along the way some
>     > scientific beliefs have been proven wrong.  It's the process you
>     must
>     > respect and support.
>     >
>     I am more than willing to accept scientific fact.  I just don't
>     believe
>     that AGW has been proven to be a fact, yet.
>     To be a fact it must be testable to determine it's truth.  Gravity can
>     be dis-proven when an apple ceases to fall.
>     I have never see an experiment where that is the case so it
>     remains a fact.
>
>     How do you test AGW?  Everything is caused by it:  Droughts, floods,
>     extreme cold, extreme warmth, tornadoes, hurricanes, lack of
>     tornadoes,
>     lack of hurricanes.
>     > BTW, for all this talk about science, I believe it has to be
>     balanced
>     > with more spiritual interests as well.  Science will give us nuclear
>     > bombs but it won't tell us when it is right or wrong to use
>     them.  For
>     > that we need religion, philosophy, etc.  That's a big part of the
>     > environmental debate as well, but as most of your list dealt with
>     > skepticism over what others say are facts, I thought I'd write
>     about my
>     > trust in science to help us with our path forward.
>     >
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
>     Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>     Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org
>     <http://irc.hackingsociety.org> port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety