Comments on: IntCal04 – RadioCarbon

By: mining stock

mining stock — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:19:43 +0000

Great post, I can’t believe it was the top search term after 4 years. Very cool, thx

By: John Hunter

John Hunter — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:03:22 +0000

Steve (#45), Greg F (#39): When I re-read and decyphered Greg’s posting #39, I realised that I probably missed what is presumably a complete withdrawal of his claim about what was one of his “pet peeves with the way data is handled in climate science”. (It never actually helps to repeat an incorrect statement without quotations marks in the middle of a response, while muddying the waters by arguing over whether three or four out of the five original sentences were incorrect!).

So it appears that we are agreed that there was nothing wrong with the way the IntCal04 data was filtered.

It would now be nice if Steve went through and deleted all Greg’s unsubstantiated claims about my previous “errors”.

By: John Hunter

John Hunter — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:32:48 +0000

Steve (#45): I WAS trying to stick to the issue in hand. I simply wanted Greg to withdraw his claim (howler?) that suggested that there was something wrong in the way the IntCal04 smoothing was carried out. It would also be nice if this site refrained from propagating unsubstantiated claims of errors by other people. You were quite free to censor these claims by Greg but you apparently chose not to.

Steve: No that’s not what you were doing. I commented to both of you to stop incipient flaming.

By: Greg F

Greg F — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:38:57 +0000

Greg F (#42 and #43): Sorry, I thought I made myself clear “¢’¬? I asked you to point out one mistake I made “¢’¬? not a URL containing a protracted discussion.

Gee Johnny … I didn’t know you were a lawyer too! Of course your mistake is front and center in that discussion. And so is your arrogance for that matter.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:38:02 +0000

John H. and Greg. F, please stick to the issue at hand rather than trolling through past errors and supposed errors. I am refraining from my own editorializing on the issue of Hunter errors.

By: John Hunter

John Hunter — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:23:37 +0000

Greg F (#42 and #43): Sorry, I thought I made myself clear — I asked you to point out one mistake I made — not a URL containing a protracted discussion.

And perhaps you could now also withdraw your claim that “At each transition point the filters real response will double in frequency. The frequency response of the filter at the end of the data (5 year period) will be 4 times higher then it was at the beginning(20 year period).”

By: Greg F

Greg F — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:52:44 +0000

So, Greg, please point out one that I have made (other than the infamous "global/local" typo wich I admitted to long ago!).

Your ignorance and failure to admit to it here.

By: John Hunter

John Hunter — Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:46:55 +0000

Greg F (#39): Unfortunately, you seem rather muddled over the filtering problem. Of course your “mistake was assuming the filter kernel length remained constant” — in the case which this thread addresses, the kernel length IS constant (it is either 1000 or 2000 years), so the filter response DOES NOT change when the sampling interval changes. So you continue to make the same mistake by saying:

“At each transition point the filters real response will double in frequency. The frequency response of the filter at the end of the data (5 year period) will be 4 times higher then it was at the beginning(20 year period).”

– that statement is WRONG.

You finish with: “I have no problem admitting my mistakes, you should try it sometime John.”

Another irritant of the contrarians is to sign off with a completely unsupported claim that the other person has been making mistakes. So, Greg, please point out one that I have made (other than the infamous “global/local” typo wich I admitted to long ago!).

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:43:24 +0000

TCO, sure, but a bit facile, no ? Maybe one difference is that with a mining prospectus (even a Canadian one) that turns out to be a bit suspect, you have a legal channel (or channels maybe) to seek redress, and to gain access to the data that was, say, omitted. It may be too late or no longer of use, but you do have some “rights”. With MBH, there is missing information that is perhaps critical to the acceptance of the reconstruction, but how can one get hold of it if M, B, & H refuse to provide it ? If not for Rep Barton, I suspect nothing else would ever have been released. Even now, with several “smoking guns” the mainstream is trying very hard to ignore the evidence, hoping one suspects that Steve will just lose interest and go away.

Or using your concept of a divestiture document, again if you wish to proceed, you have enforceable means of obtaining information, and an ability to apply sanctions should you not get it or if false or misleading information is provided. No analogy is perfect, but I for one certainly see the validity of Steve’s comparison.

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:31:06 +0000

Fred, yes, yes, yes. Where did you think I didn’t. I’m not THAT dumb. I was just making an additional comment of amusement. It’s like, I don’t know, someone talking about the importance of the rule of Law in anglo countries and referring to OJ Simpson.

Steve: (1) What I said before. My comment was more based on the general dodgy reputation of Canadian mining stocks and the connotation. It was just a little tease. You pumper-dumper. (still kidding!) (2) I think about a corporate divestiture document to private parties when I use the word prospectus. Which of course has legal ramifications if you lie, but is certainly a bit of a sales document and lacks the detail of due diligence done by the acquiring party. I mean it is a very different document than say “the team room”. And it has caveats about numbers being approximate and such. I think you have public offering in your mind, no? (and we are both right).