A really interesting write-up on weather the climate change predictions are real. We have repeated the notion so many times that they have become facts without anybody questioning what data we really have to substantiate — that is until now and some really interesting “truth” come to light as how data bias and selective objectivity have played a role in the “facts” we know. For the full sorry see here; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/ http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 The red graph is the “official facts” showing a temperature increase since the mid 1800 — but as it turns out it is based on 12 tree core samples handpicked from a larger dataset available. The black graph is the data produced from including more data which from specifications should be just a good as the handpicked 12 samples. http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged_recent_3series.gif The real issue is the “honesty” of researchers and how they can be trusted when they are funded based on what sensational news they can produce. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/briffa_yamal_mailbag/ The links are worth reading — and if nothing else it is probably clear now that more research is needed, so awarding more work and funding to those who failed to produce complete facts in the first place. I assume that this is not a hoax of some kind, however I would have assume this to be somewhat newsworthy to a larger extend that what have been evident so far (obscure blogs, nothing mainstream) — well maybe CNN will pick it up in a few years and present it as “news”.
http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-stocks-still-arent-cheap-2009-7 sensible concept of P/E10 especially in these days….
This looks remarkable similar to the where-on-earth way of doing stuff, just with the evolution of distributed consistent hashing and use of hadoop to build the data structures http://bit.ly/12J4S8