text:
14 May 2010
How the Science of Global Warming was Compromised
85 comments:
- Sean said...
The article is a good look at the politicization and comes to the conclusion that no one knows enough about the complexities of the climate to draw conclusions on climate change. I guess that means the science is not settled which in itself is a stunning realization from a prominent German magazine.
The next 10 years will be telling however. The world oceans, which can act like a large calorimeter, are now monitored closely by the Argo Bouy system. There are more satellites than ever before monitoring incident short wave radiative and reflectivity as well as long wave radiant emmisiviity. That system coupled with the fact that CO2 will increase substantially over the next decade (predicting warming) while the ocean oscillations and solar cycles are set up for cooling (if you believe contrarians), then we have set the stage for verifiable predictions in fairly short order. - Fri May 14, 01:43:00 PM MDT
- Harrywr2 said...
Half truths have half lives.
Professional's that engage in half truths know this. - Fri May 14, 02:07:00 PM MDT
- Stephen Pruett said...
Excellent article. It suggests plausible explanations for the current state of affairs and does not attempt to demonize or defend either group.
- Fri May 14, 02:14:00 PM MDT
- Kenspy said...
They whitewashed the most important point!
"But what appeared at first glance to be fraud ["hide the decline"] was actually merely a face-saving fudge: Tree-ring data indicates no global warming since the mid-20th century, and therefore contradicts the temperature measurements. The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
Clearly erroneous???
It's not like it's an outlier, virtually ALL dendro reconstructions diverge significantly in the latter half of the 20th century. Which brings to mind the incredibly pertinent question of whether this is even a reliable proxy for temperature.
Secondly, what they did was plain and simple fraud. You can't just lop on temperature to a proxy graph and then say "look the proxy matches the temperature." Obviously the temperature will match the temperature! How can you label it as anything other than fraud?
I stopped reading the article at that point; don't care to see what is in the McIntyre section. Shoddy journalism. - Fri May 14, 02:15:00 PM MDT
- Raven said...
#4 - I felt exactly the same way. At this point in time I think that anyone who defends or rationalizes the "hide the decline" is either uninformed, incompetent or dishonest.
- Fri May 14, 02:26:00 PM MDT
- Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Der Spiegel has "hide the decline" just about right, sorry. - Fri May 14, 02:28:00 PM MDT
- charlesahart said...
You don't think the divergence problem (i.e. hide the decline) cast serious doubt on the value of tree rings as temperature proxies? Please explain. - Fri May 14, 02:42:00 PM MDT
- Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Simple, Der Spiegel says:
"But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge: Tree-ring data indicates no global warming since the mid-20th century, and therefore contradicts the temperature measurements. The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
Face-saving fudge, not fraud. Fair and accurate. - Fri May 14, 02:59:00 PM MDT
- Sean said...
I disagree on the face saving fudge. People keep concentrating on the rising portion of the hockey stick but the fraud was flattening out the Middle ages warm period and the little ice age. If the paleo record had not been truncated the way it was, the impact of "warming unprecendented in a 1000 years" would have been lost. The fact that Mann and Briffa argued the point for so long indicated the graph was used to maximize political impact. The divergence, if left in place, would have given a better indication of the accuracy of paleo record.
- Fri May 14, 03:15:00 PM MDT
- Jonathan said...
Hiding the data that proves your method doesn't work, while continuing to use the method you now know doesn't work, is fraud not fudge.
- Fri May 14, 03:50:00 PM MDT
- Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
"fraud not fudge"
This judgment depends if you'd like to engage in a debate about semantics or a debate about research misconduct. - Fri May 14, 03:54:00 PM MDT
- Kenspy said...
Roger been reading your site since its inception (and in its previous incarnation) and have yet to see you mount such a strong defense of this particular issue. Can you elaborate either here or in a new post (or link me to your defense)?
Suffice it to say I could not possibly disagree more. And I'd add that its a symptom of a greater problem with those handling the reconstructions, as once you recognize what happened here, things like the Yamal kerfuffle, Mann's choice of proxies, and Mann's statistical methodologies become more clear (it's the "tidier story" that is the true goal, not the presenting of all data, warts & all). And I'd further remind readers that every IPCC reconstructions dating back to the 'MWP' contain dendro reconstructions. Every single one. Not to imply that it's some conspiracy, just driving home the importance of this datum. If we're going to figure out if the 1990s were warmer than [1290 or 1390 or whatever subset of years], we must have reliable proxies. - Fri May 14, 04:11:00 PM MDT
- Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Thanks for your comment. If you have a case for fraud, please make it. You have a case for "fudge".
Fudge is not fraud. But if you think otherwise, just make the case, thanks! - Fri May 14, 04:14:00 PM MDT
- Jonathan said...
Roger, if they were hiding "erroneous" data then this would indeed be fudge. But the data is not "erroneous" (that is, incorrectly measured, or contaminated by known and understood error processes); it is anomalous (that is, inconsistent with the theory, in this case to the extent of effectively disproving it). Not openly stating the existence of data which disproves the method you are using IS scientific fraud, plain and simple.
What would you think of a drug company that omitted to report in its submission to the FDA late deaths among patients who had initially responded well to treatment, and then excused itself on the grounds that these deaths were mentioned elsewhere? - Fri May 14, 04:15:00 PM MDT
- Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Yes, I hear exactly what you are saying. But the reality is that the methodology is contested (see, e.g., Sarewitz's "excess of objectivity") and the implications of the divergence are subject to multiple interpretations.
The best case that you have is thus _fudge_ and fraud is just not part of the equation. It just is not.
The FDA analogy that you invoke involves none of the ambiguities or uncertainties that I have cited. Der Spiegel got it right. - Fri May 14, 04:22:00 PM MDT
- Raven said...
#8 - Roger
IMO hiding uncertainty _is_ research misconduct.
More importantly, "hide the decline" also involved pasting the temperature data on the end and smoothing the result to make it look like a continuous data series. This step clearly turns a "fudge" into a "deliberate deception".
If they had simply truncated it you would have a better case. - Fri May 14, 04:35:00 PM MDT
- Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
"IMO hiding uncertainty _is_ research misconduct"
I hear what you are saying, however, in the world of academia, this is just not the case. If it were, most work across most field would be guilty of such charges ;-) - Fri May 14, 04:40:00 PM MDT
- Reid of America said...
Roger says "I hear what you are saying, however, in the world of academia, this is just not the case."
In the real world, as opposed to the world of academia, hiding the decline is fraud. In academia Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay (Enron) would still have tenured jobs. - Fri May 14, 05:10:00 PM MDT
- Craig 1st said...
A "fudge" is a conscious choice to mislead from the truth AND the real science. Calling it less than fraud is mere splitting hairs on a bald head. This wasn't just a "whoops!" It was intentional.
- Fri May 14, 06:27:00 PM MDT
- Sharon F. said...
I would like to understand the basic principles here. At the most primitive level, it sounds like today we have temp measurements and tree rings. If they do not match well (such that they have to be adjusted), how do we know that tree rings represent the past well?
Sorry if my question is too simplistic. - Fri May 14, 07:01:00 PM MDT
- Raven said...
#17 - Roger
Perhaps what is necessary is a caveat with any discussion of the 'hide the decline'. Something like:
Exercises such as 'hiding the decline' are a common practice amoung scientists working in academica so it does not rise to the level of academic misconduct. However, such pratices are generally considered to be gross malpractice by scientists and engineers working in any industry where public safety and/or legal liability is a concern.
The fact that climate scientists see no need to live up to the scientific/ethical standards of scientists/engineers working in industry is something must be considered before introducing radical policy changes based on the work of these scientists. - Fri May 14, 07:36:00 PM MDT
- charlesahart said...
Hiding data that contradicts your theory is clearly bad science if not fraud (depending on intent). Why don't you discuss this with physics profs there on the faculty with you. This is the same as claiming AGW is causing increased storm damage based on selective data presentation.
I am amazed that you are taking this position given what happened to you regarding your own publications and the IPCC. The two situations seems very similar if not identical. - Fri May 14, 08:32:00 PM MDT
- charlesahart said...
I would like to ad....
"Simple, Der Spiegel says:
"But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge: Tree-ring data indicates no global warming since the mid-20th century, and therefore contradicts the temperature measurements. The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
******"The clearly erroneous tree data"******
If the tree data is erroneous then it can't be used as a temperature proxy period! Can you imagine Newton doing his gravity experiment with a ball on an inclined plane and deciding to throw out data near the end of the plane because it didn't adhere to the theory? If the theory can't predict the position of the ball at every point on the plane as a function of time then the theory is not a valid theory.
Seems like high school science to me. What am I missing? - Fri May 14, 08:45:00 PM MDT
- markbahner said...
"Clearly erroneous???"
Yes, clearly erroneous. Land and ocean measurements, balloon measurements, satellite measurements, and indirect indicators (e.g. early spring thaws, later fall frosts) all indicate that the earth has warmed since the middle of the 20th century. - Fri May 14, 09:27:00 PM MDT
- Jeff said...
Consider the following situation. You write an article. I don't like the last part of your article because it doesn't have the impact that I had hoped it would have. So I write my own last part to the article, replace your last part by my last part, but pretend that it's all still the same article written by you. Now, to my amazement and disappointment, you don't consider this fraud (but innocently call it a fudge). I suggest you find yourself a dictionary, and look up the word fraud since you obviously don't know its meaning.
- Fri May 14, 09:35:00 PM MDT
- Patrick said...
What is the difference between fudge and fraud?
- Fri May 14, 09:45:00 PM MDT
- Dadster said...
You can eat Fudge
- Sat May 15, 02:27:00 AM MDT
- itisi69 said...
Der Spiegel conveniently forgot to mention the Wegman Report when describing the Mann/McIntyre hokeystick dispute. Just mentioned that Mann disputed McIntyres paper. Also it deviously linked, at least in the beginning, skeptic science with Big Oil. Not entirely unbiased I would say, but to be expected after so many years of AGW indoctrination.
- Sat May 15, 04:35:00 AM MDT
- Kieran said...
#20 Sharon
I think you have briefly captured the point at the heart of the discussion. The "not matching well" has been named the Divergence Problem.
Moreover, if ground is ceded on the Divergence Problem, the AGW side can no longer argue that current warming is unprecedented. They don't have a solution to the Divergence Problem, so they tried to conceal it with the "Nature trick", and don't want to discuss it now. - Sat May 15, 04:55:00 AM MDT
- Simon said...
"Yes, clearly erroneous. Land and ocean measurements, balloon measurements, satellite measurements, and indirect indicators (e.g. early spring thaws, later fall frosts) all indicate that the earth has warmed since the middle of the 20th century."
Data is data. This data is not erroneous, it is data. It is not erroneous because it contradicts observed temperature, it is divergent data. The divergence is not erroneous, it is anomalous.
Deleting, removing or somehow concealing anomalous segments of data - specifically, as in this case, purposefully; intentionally - is malfeasance. Grafting replacement data in place of data which is anomalous is malfeasance. This case of "hiding the decline", in all its manifestations, is scientific malfeasance.
Wafting this behaviour away as a "fudge", and distinct from a "fraud", is an appalling act of posturing and a scientist that would condone it is deserving of VERY close scrutiny.
I am shocked, Roger. What miserable standards of scientific conduct can you possibly subscribe to, if you deem this manipulation and concealment excusable behaviour in scientific research!? - Sat May 15, 05:09:00 AM MDT
- Jonathan said...
Roger, I find your attitude towards this extremely hard to understand. You are clearly aware of precisely what was done and of its significance, but you shy away from the obvious conclusion. The only way I can make sense of this (you're clearly not stupid, and you don't seem to be wicked) is to suppose that you are using "fraud" in some highly technical sense, which requires quite extraordinary levels of malfeasance. Perhaps this is a UK/US thing? Or a physics/social science thing? Or maybe you're just a kinder nicer person than I am?
You speak of "multiple interpretations" of the divergence problem. Well everything potentially has multiple interpretations, but for the divergence problem these fall into two broad categories: (1) that these trees are not good thermometers, and the apparent early correlation is spurious; (2) that these trees were good thermometers until about 1960 but then suddenly stopped being so. The first explanation is a scientific one, built on the principle of uniformitarianism which underlies all observational science. The second one is just special pleading.
Special pleading almost never has a place in science, and when you are doing it you must make crystal clear up front that that is what you are doing so that other people can be suitably skeptical about your results. Hiding the decline is pretending that you used a uniformitarian interpretation when in fact your whole argument is built on special pleading.
This deliberate attempt to deceive is fraud. It may or may not be "research misconduct", which is a highly technical matter and varies from place to place; that doesn't really interest me. But it is fraud and entirely unacceptable, at least in my field. - Sat May 15, 05:39:00 AM MDT
- Stan said...
I just read the first few paragraphs and there were so many facts wrong that I didn't bother with the rest.
- Sat May 15, 05:51:00 AM MDT
- David said...
In science, a fudge is a fraud which can't be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations.
- Sat May 15, 05:52:00 AM MDT
- Allen said...
Clearly you should apologize to the IPCC for your recent criticism as by your metric it was merely another case of fudge and therefore acceptable. - Sat May 15, 05:59:00 AM MDT
- John M said...
As the above discussion above shows, I think Roger is using an official academic or legalistic interpretation of the word "fraud".
If the hockey stickitions take comfort in this, so be it.
But you know, "fudge" isn't far from the mark either.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/fudge - Sat May 15, 06:41:00 AM MDT
- Frontiers of Faith and Science said...
IRT hide the decline, sorry but the tree ring data was useless unless they hid the decline.
So either the claims made based upon tree rings are accurate or they are not.
Which is it? - Sat May 15, 06:46:00 AM MDT
- Banjoman0 said...
I too am a little curious about the hair-splitting around definitions. Is "fudge" simply a less dishonest presentation of the data, and "fraud" much more dishonest? Do we believe there was less intent to deceive, so we use the word "fudge?" Roger points out that the methodology is subject to debate in the literature and therefore is not fraud. I think that the Climategate e-mails indicate that the authors understood that tree-ring temperature decline would lead to a debate, and "hide-the-decline" was conceived deliberately to avoid that debate, but apparently this is not academic misconduct. I suppose that it is partly because the word "fraud" has significant legal connotations, in addition to its common negative implications, and academics are loathe to use the word because it almost mandates misconduct.
That said, I think Roger's comment 21 provides a neat summation of the issue, and perhaps one that deserves its own comment thread. The fact that academics hold themselves to a different standard for this kind of thing and then insist that their findings be the basis for "massive government action now now now!" should receive broader discussion. It is one of my disenchantments from my (very) brief exposure to academia. - Sat May 15, 06:51:00 AM MDT
- judith said...
Some quotes from the wikipedia article on scientific misconduct:
"fabrication – the publication of deliberately false or misleading research, often subdivided into:
• Obfuscation – the omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.
• Fabrication – the actual making up of research data and (the intent of) publishing them, sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".[4]
• Falsification – manipulation of research data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result.[5]
• bare assertions – making entirely unsubstantiated claims"
"A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, failure to publish, or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. Such cases may not be strictly definable as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of results is not present. However, in such cases the intent may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher. Examples include the failure to publish studies if they demonstrate the harm of a new drug, or truthfully publishing the benefits of a treatment while omitting harmful side-effects.
This is distinguishable from other concepts such as bad science, junk science or pseudoscience where the criticism centres on the methodology or underlying assumptions. It may be possible in some cases to use statistical methods to show that the datasets offered in relation to a given field are incomplete. However this may simply reflect the existence of real-world restrictions on researchers without justifying more sinister conclusions."
My reading of the situation is that the original journal articles on this topic might be labeled as "bad science," in the sense that the decline was clearly discussed. The real issue is with the IPCC, since the text taken at face value, is arguably guilty of obfuscation, fabrication, bare assertions. The way they technically get around the charge of obfuscation and fabrication is reference to the published papers. However, the IPCC third assessment report in terms of their statements and confidence levels surrounding the paleo records borders on bare assertions.
So criteria for formal scientific misconduct in research is not met in the published papers (a "bad science" verdict for sure), but a case could possibly be made for the IPCC third assessment report. Industry standards are higher than basic academic research standards, since academic research is exploring topics that are far more speculative and with novel methods. When academic research becomes policy relevant in the case of climate research, industry type standards for accountability and due diligence should arguably be applied to assessment reports such as the IPCC.
This is my take anyways.
Judith Curry - Sat May 15, 07:24:00 AM MDT
- AMac said...
Whether or not the AGW Consensus' handling of the Divergence Problem is "fraud" or not, it reveals very serious flaws in the thinking and behavior of these scientists.
A divergence from the normal practices of science.
The contrast with the standards for analyzing and disclosing clinical trial data (comment #14) is apt.
This thread dovetails with a discussion at Lucia's Blackboard about the divergent interpretations of the Photoshopped polar bear picture.
While scientifically literate, I don't know enough to evaluate most of the claims of the AGW Consensus (e.g. IPCC AR4). I have seen enough bad behavior on the part of the principals to arrive at the opinion that their strongly-stated conclusions are Not Trustworthy. - Sat May 15, 07:30:00 AM MDT
- Sharon F. said...
This could be a "divergence" among social practices of different science communities. One thing I think is interesting about the Der Spiegel piece is that the discussions we often have here- among members of different scientific disciplines attempting to understand climate science and raising questions- does not show up at all. We are invisible people in the "scientist" vs. "oil company" debate.
So the way my discipline would probably handle the divergence is to 1) identify it, 2) provide a host of hypotheses for why that might be the case, 3) discuss evidence for and against the alternative hypotheses. We would have Divergence Symposia specifically to discuss it and might even start the Journal of Divergence.
It seems to me that some folks in the climate science community may not like as much to wallow in discussion, but may want to rush to policy conclusions. I wonder if that is really true, and if so, why might that be. - Sat May 15, 07:38:00 AM MDT
- Sharon F. said...
Also, as a tree biologist, I must say I have to take issue with "The clearly erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called "trick" with the temperature graphs."
Tree data IMHO by itself is not "erroneous." It was either collected improperly, lacked QA/QC or it is "correct" tree data. Trees get to grow the way they want to, when they want to, why they want to. How trees grew (if the data is collected, handled, stored and analyzed properly) is a fact.
We have here a tangle of facts (observations), models (which are quantified assumptions about unknown facts) and estimates. The facts of tree growth are never "erroneous" in my view, and should be privileged over other information that is not directly factual. Otherwise, science is not ultimately empirical. - Sat May 15, 07:49:00 AM MDT
- Allen said...
Will you apologize to the IPCC for your recent comments regarding the fudging of your findings or am I barking up the wrong tree ring.
- Sat May 15, 07:50:00 AM MDT
- eric144 said...
Academics are the masters of euphemism. 'Face saving fudge' competes with 'terminological inexactitude' and 'economical with the actuality',
British politicians are famous for their use of other phrases for 'liar' because its use is against parliamentary rules. Academics seem to have a code of honour which forbids the use of the word 'fraud' unless it has been proved in court. Hide the decline was a very deliberate fraud. It doesn't compete with Bernie Madoff, but it is still fraud.
fudge = deliberate deception = fraud (lite)
I notice the article is based on the biggest lie of all. "On the other a powerful lobby of industrial associations", the one that has liberals who are * 10 semesters short of a BA fuming with rage.
As I have said before, I now suspect that these tribalists are more likely to be environmentally inclined 'scientists' than dumb liberals (although probably both).
The most revealing email for me was Mick Kelly agreeing to limit his academic freedom in order to promote carbon trading for the Shell Oil company, principal sponsors of the Guardian environment pages for about a year.
"Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a 'strategic partnership' with the TC, broadly equivalent to a 'flagship alliance' in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc. "
* Newly created euphemism for stoopid which would equally apply to the dood who wrote the article. - Sat May 15, 07:58:00 AM MDT
- Ed said...
Professor Pielke,
I am surprised and disappointed at your stance.
Misleading the public (the employers of Mann Jones etc. et al) is wrong whatever the reason.
If there is money involved (eg research grants, salaries, book writing) then I call it fraud.
Please keep up the (generally) good work.
Ed Moran. - Sat May 15, 08:17:00 AM MDT
- steve said...
I've obviously been troubled by academic failure to disclose adverse results, ever since Mann's non-disclosure of adverse verification r2 results. This sort of non-disclosure would be very problematic in a business prospectus, an area where I had experience.
Nevertheless, I'm also aware that academics don't generally feel that academic misconduct policies require such disclosure or that the various incidents constitute academic misconduct, (let alone fraud). People need to recognize this before getting too worked about these incidents. If a case were brought, there were would be lines of academics forming up to say that such non-disclosure was accepted practice within academia.
However, in my opinion, climate scientists remain on the horns of a dilemma. Disclosure of adverse results is an essential component of full, true and plain disclosure regimes. If climate scientists (or academics in general) do not regard themselves as being governed by such an obligation, the obvious recourse of the public will be to place credence in their pronouncements.
While climate scientists spend a lot of energy blaming others for this situation, the problem surely arises not from the critics, from their own acquiescence in this sort of behavior.
Steve McIntyre - Sat May 15, 08:26:00 AM MDT
- Malcolm said...
#26 Patrick, "What is the differnce between and a fudge and a fraud?"
According to my dictionary a
Fudge -> Trick
Fraud -> Trick
So a trick is somewhere between a fudge and a fraud. but this is supposed to be science.
To reprise the original, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
This represents collusion by two or more persons to commit a wrongful act.
Scientific fraud is used to describe intentional misrepresentation of the methods, procedures, or results of scientific research.
What we have eventually is collusion by two or more persons to intentionally misrepresent results of scientific research.
That is more fraud than fudge. - Sat May 15, 08:47:00 AM MDT
- Skip said...
Roger, say I'm a manager at a family of mutual funds. I send you a prospectus that contains prominently a spaghetti graph of the performance of the funds, but for a couple of the funds I chop off the end of the graph and splice in the S&P 500 instead, with a small note elsewhere in tiny type that some funds recently have diverged from tracking the market. Is that fraud or fudge?
If fraud, please explain how that would be different than 'Mike's Nature Trick'. If it's an acceptable fudge, well, I suspect there are going to be a whole lot of brokers that want to talk to you. - Sat May 15, 09:03:00 AM MDT
- eric144 said...
There is a discussion about this thread here
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/15/everybody-does-it.html - Sat May 15, 09:03:00 AM MDT
- Niels said...
I agree with Jonathan who put it very well. And I think Roger will agree that "The trick to hide the decline" is both intentional and a serious deception.
Der Spiegel writes: "But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge"
I'm curious how Der Spiegel perceived the trick at a first glance?
How does the appearance at first glance differ from the reality of the matter?
How did Der Spiegel get from fraud to fudge when they studied the incident? What did they believe about the circumstances of the matter at the first glance that turned out not to be the case? I think the incident was very straight forward and I think Jon Stewart got it almost right:
"See, I tell you it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique [...] in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline." - Sat May 15, 09:21:00 AM MDT
- dgg said...
As usual Raven (at 17) manages to say something insightful and succinct.
RP - I cant believe you dont think this is fraud (general meaning not criminal one). It is dishonest and was intended to deceive, therefore fraud/deception.
And I am fairly sure that is how most people would see it. - Sat May 15, 09:44:00 AM MDT
- jgdes said...
By and large a fair article. Clearly some concessions were made to make it publishable. I admit to not understanding why industry is not allowed to challenge science it thinks is overly pessimistic - especially when it is blindingly obvious that it is. Wigley was right to be concerned about opinions masquerading as facts. Alas he and Briffa got caught up in the groupthink.
That fudge/fraud semantic difference seems to divide. Arguing about specific words is a speciality in climate talk. But perhaps we can agree on the fact that it was just plain bad science. If the data didn't fit the only part where we might expect a matching overlap - somewhat essential in proxy studies - then it is of no use whatsoever as a proxy. This cheating may or may not be common practise among scientists (which I highly doubt) but that doesn't make it acceptable. But worse this is science that policy depends on so it needs a much higher standard.
So far the IPCC promotes studies with no real peer review, no data available for replication and authored by people with unremitting bias: No surprise there because they were allowed to select only their own work and ignored contrary studies and all reviewer comments. - Sat May 15, 10:44:00 AM MDT
- Jeff said...
"what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge"
To some, it appeared to be fraud, at first glance. But where does this "was" come from? To some, it still appears to be fraud (see above), and until actual intent is decided, it may very well have been fraud. The modifier "merely" is inappropriate. The "guilty" said that's what they did, but that hardly constitutes writing it off as a mere piffle. Indeed, what the article got wrong was presenting the fraud vs fudge issue as settled. - Sat May 15, 12:40:00 PM MDT
- Bradley J. Fikes said...
More importantly, "hide the decline" also involved pasting the temperature data on the end and smoothing the result to make it look like a continuous data series. This step clearly turns a "fudge" into a "deliberate deception".
As a reporter, it looks that way to me. If I were to write a story and run a chart like that, I'd explain to my readers how the chart was made. That is just standard practice to help readers interpret the chart. If I altered a data series to compensate for a major anomaly, I'd say so right in the story. Problem solved.
My other option would be to drop the troublesome data series entirely.
I'd hope that scientific ethics are at least as high as journalistic ethics -- in theory if not in practice. You're not supposed to alter or present the data in a way that arbitrarily favors your premise. That's misleading the reader.
Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science applies here.
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."
Now, Mann and his ilk say the full data were given in the scientific literature, which his peers know how to find. But when a scary chart is presented to the media and politicians who aren't necessarily familiar with the literature, I think you're ethically obliged to explain what was done to make the chart.
Otherwise, the media and politicians are just being fed cargo cult science. - Sat May 15, 12:54:00 PM MDT
- Jeff said...
The difference between "fudge" and "fraud" is similar to the difference between a petty crime and grand larceny. Both involve breaking the law, but differ in the scale of the crime. When a first year student alters his observed measurements in a chemistry lab (to make them closer to what they theoretically should be), it is considered a fudge since no money is involved, and the results of the experiment are irrelevant (since the instructor only cares that the student performed the experiment, not about the data observed by the student). When it was discovered that Enron executives had fudged the company's financial statements, the executives were charged with fraud and eventually imprisoned. It was a fudge, but it involved a great deal of money, and the fudged data was very important.
Consider the matter in question. Briffa had data that were (according to him) valid proxies for temperatures over a long period of time. If they were, in fact, valid proxies, then the information was very important, and would very likely lead to the expenditure of a huge amount of money. Since we have no real temperature records for most of the time period covered by the proxies, we (and the Team) have no way of knowing whether most of the proxies are actually accurate or not. However, for the recent time period, we do have real temperature records, and thus the Team knew that the proxies that were supposed to indicate recent temperatures were not just inaccurate, they were totally wrong. If the proxies for recent temperatures were totally wrong, then there would be absolutely no reason to believe that the proxies for all the older temperatures were totally right, or even mostly right. The historical temperature record as written by the Team would have no credibility. As we all know, the Team avoided this embarrassing problem by the "face saving fudge" of replacing the obviously faulty proxy temperatures with the real temperatures. In spite of the fact that the financial stakes here are even higher here than they were in the Enron case, and the historical temperature record is of great importance in determining the significance of possible AGW, Roger apparently doesn't think that this fudge should be considered fraud.
To indicate how irrational this view is, consider the following scenario. Suppose I operate a weather forecasting service that sells ten day forecasts to the media (as Joe Bastardi and the U.K. Met do). Say that Roger owns a TV or radio station that is interested in using my services. Roger naturally wants to be certain that my weather forecasts are accurate before spending the company's money on my service. As a sample of my work, I am to send Roger a ten day forecast for Denver that is already two days old. However, the forecasts for those first two days (that have already passed) were sunny with temperatures of 60° F, and the actual weather was heavy snow with temperatures of 30° F. I correctly reason that when Roger sees this, he'll have no confidence in my weather forecasting skills. So I perform a "face saving fudge" of retroactively replacing the obviously incorrect forecasts for the first two days with the actual weather data for those two days (just as the Team replaced the obviously incorrect proxy data with the actual temperature data). Roger, seeing how accurate my "forecasts" were for the first two days, is impressed, and purchases my services. Shortly thereafter, he learns about my splicing the real weather data onto my forecast. Does he pass it off as merely a face saving fudge, or does he go to the authorities, and ask that I be charged with fraud? - Sat May 15, 01:01:00 PM MDT
- dagfinn said...
I think this problem is deeper than has been realized. For example: Scientists quantify uncertainty. The IPCC does this all over the place. It has all sorts of categories and gradations of uncertainty. This may seem to be an admirable attempt to be open about uncertainty. But does it work? The problem is that when you quantify uncertainty, you ignore uncertainty about uncertainty and the possibility that the uncertainty might not be quantifiable.
Even beyond that, it's a fundamental paradox of communication: two core values of communication--clarity and honesty--are in conflict when communicating uncertainty. Hiding uncertainty makes the gist of the message clearer. So the effort to be clear may make you dishonest.
Any simplification hides details. Does that mean that all simplification is dishonest? Clearly not.
I don't want to defend "hide the decline". But is there really clear-cut a way to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable cases of hiding uncertainty? I don't know, I'm still groping for the answer. - Sat May 15, 01:24:00 PM MDT
- Matt said...
I think that prior to Climategate, I might have given the benefit of the doubt regarding fudge vs fraud. At this point however, I can't see a reason to do so.
At least under what I'd consider 'normal language' definitions of the two words. Perhaps there are some nuances in academic circles, but this subject has gone way beyond specialists arguing with each other in obscure journals.
What if the study wasn't about trees but, say, cold fusion? - Sat May 15, 02:48:00 PM MDT
- Nicolas Nierenberg said...
The research article on which the graph was based clearly discussed the issue of the divergence problem. There is absolutely no case for fraud, or really anything else given that this was laid out. One could disagree with the conclusions since it is obviously an important and to this day unexplained issue.
The graph is on shakier ground, but since the article is referenced the term fudge seems much more appropriate. Someone who wanted to understand the science wouldn't have had to look far. - Sat May 15, 03:31:00 PM MDT
- Doug said...
If there is no such thing as clear results then why are we basing trillion dollar policies on it.
Also what Spiegel does not highlight is that the alarmist case is one of computer model projections which as time goes on stand in stark contrast to reality - Sat May 15, 04:58:00 PM MDT
- Stephen Pruett said...
Perhaps I can help clarify. Scientific misconduct definitions usually include the big three: plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. Doing any of these on purpose is scientific misconduct. Honest mistakes don't count. I think it would safe to refer to such misconduct as fraud. Notice that this definition does not include more subtle manipulations such as selecting some data sets for presentation but not presenting other data sets.
Hiding the decline was not good scientific practice, and I would argue that in most fields of research it would seriously deviate from accepted standards in research, and could be called scientific misconduct on that basis. However, it does not include precisely fit into widely used definitions of misconduct or fraud.
What is shocking is that most climate scientists have vigorously defended hiding the decline and seem completely unconcerned about the divergence problem and what it does to confidence in the tree ring proxy data. I really can't understand that. Maybe Roger can help us understand why the tree ring data are still being defended and used. - Sat May 15, 05:20:00 PM MDT
- Hector said...
When the movement of Mars against the fixed stars did not match the Ptolemaic principles, Ptolemaic astronomers just added an epicycle or eccentric, and voila, the problem disappeared! Scientists do it all the time, perhaps, but it is bad science. What is worse, Ptolemaics apparently keep adding more and more epicycles to fudge the orbit of Mars, even after Copernican or more recent astronomy is already around and provides a more solid explanation for the strange behaviour of Mars.
- Sat May 15, 05:29:00 PM MDT
- jgdes said...
Whatever, we're being asked to trust these guys because they are supposed to be honest experts. They are clearly neither, but worse, they long ago decided to be salesmen instead of scientists. The more people defend this shoddy hockey-stick malpractice and pretend that it is normal scientific behaviour, the more they undermine real scientists. The only decline I worry about is the general decline in honesty. And the silence of the complicit paleo community is deafening.
I seriously doubt climategate affected policy though. Nobody likes to admit being duped so most pretend they weren't and besides there are lots of cushy jobs at stake here. Whether it affected public opinion is probably moot too since the public don't want taxes whether they believe in AGW or not. And if any politicians have even so much as skimmed the IPCC documents I'd be very surprised.
So it was all for nothing. If these carbon cuts were easy to do then there would be no issue or controversy. As it is, we'll decarbonize when it becomes possible and not before. Meantime both sides will continue pretending to care about the plight of the worlds poor, who apparently are screwed under every possible scenario but who are not going to be given any money to get unscrewed.
I wonder if the ardent climateers realize they've been played like a fiddle by the nuclear lobby. - Sat May 15, 05:38:00 PM MDT
- Doc Syntax said...
Stephen Pruett #59
While I can agree with almost all of your post, I still can not justify the splicing of two datasets and NOT see it as fabrication.
Even on a presentational format, this would be referred as a "semi-analytic model". Parameters were set to give the "presentation" validity. While I find these "semi-analytic models" as useful tools, they do represent data in a "fabricated" mode. - Sat May 15, 05:52:00 PM MDT
- alex said...
Given all the "fudges" associated with climate science (the "trick," all the IPCC-gates, etc.), perhaps we should rename climate science to fudge science. I suppose the use of upside down proxies is also just a funny little fudge that is OK with academics, despite the fact that it would get a mining promoter thrown in jail. I guess it's OK in some branches of Der Spiegal's and Roger's new concept of "academic science" to deliberately cherry-pick your tree ring series so that they show what you want them to show. And it just follows that it's OK for all your friends to use the same few series, knowing that that is just another great "trick" to manufacture a hockeystick. It's also OK to manufacture data and call it "infilling" or "extrapolation." Just another funny little fudge. Main-line scientific journals ignore their rules on posting data and methods, I guess, just because this is such an important issue.
After all, with tenure and academic freedom, there are no real standards, anymore. Everything is relative, everyone is a victim, and far-left liberals are the only folks with brains.
Roger, you are wrong, IMHO. I'm gonna go puke. - Sat May 15, 06:29:00 PM MDT
- jae said...
Dammit, comment #63, is from me. My grand-daughter, Alex, needs to stop commandeering my Google account :)
- Sat May 15, 07:12:00 PM MDT
- jae said...
I just can't leave this illogical, immoral bullshit alone. It scares me. Dishonesty has somehow now been accepted in our culture. Listen to Obama lie every day. Listen to Roger and Der Spiegel say that a terrible dishonest "fudge" is OK in science, because it happens all the time in "academic science," (or something like that). I guess science doesn't have to strive for truth, anymore?? Academic science is absolved from the rigors of the scientific method? It's OK to "fudge?" WHAT THE F--K is wrong with this planet???
Listen to the clamoring unbelievable nonsense in the media about climate change causing hangnails, early slug death, obesity, and everything else. Nothing but nonsense believed by nobody but retards, but still not countered by the "climate scientists!" What a disgusting world this has become!
BTW, Judy-on-the-fence is not helping much. - Sat May 15, 08:31:00 PM MDT
- jae said...
Bottom line: I want to see where "fudge" fits in with the scientific method.
- Sat May 15, 08:37:00 PM MDT
- davidc said...
If the purpose of the fudge is to save face, the easier course is not to publish. It's publishing that creates the need to save face.
Not publishing data that undermines something you have said previously is common in the academic areas that I know. - Sat May 15, 09:07:00 PM MDT
- par5 said...
Hi Roger,
If you believe this to be an acceptable academic fudge (and not academic fraud), then perhaps you could give us an example- have you ever done this before? If so, can you explain how you got away with it? - Sat May 15, 11:09:00 PM MDT
- klee12 said...
Suppose you had a tabloid know for its sensational breaking news publish the graphs in question. I would call that fudging the data. Now suppose you had a reputable newspaper known for the accuracy of its articles publishing the graphs in question. I would be more inclined to call it fraud. Now is the IPCC like the tabloid or like a reputable newspaper? It claims to be the latter but I think it is more like the tabloid.
It doesn't matter whether one commits fraud or fudging. What matters is how your actions affect your reputation for accuracy.
It saddens me that some in academia seem to place so low a value on a reputation for honesty and accuracy.
klee12 - Sun May 16, 12:07:00 AM MDT
- Malcolm said...
Lets not forget the alarmists' politics required, no demanded 'unprecedented' warming. The hockey stick gave the alarmists exactly that. That is why every climate scientist is happy with the 'fudge' arguement.
It allows them to sleep better at nights.
It allows them to stand up and defend the science in face of critics.
It allows them to continue to peddle such nonsense to their students.
However history is cruel. It took over 50 years to expose the fraud that was Piltdown Man, because scientists and various societies continued to believe. It did a lot of harm.
As Winston Churchill famously said, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Skeptics have scored a major victory over the hockey stick because climate science has been made to defend the indefensible - bad science. To concentrate political and scientific resources over a word such as fudge rather than deal with the reality of fraud is a sign of weakness. Either the hockey stick science is a fraud or it is not, it cannot be left as a fudge. - Sun May 16, 01:55:00 AM MDT
- Chuck said...
#59 Stephen Pruett,
What you say may well be true, but it is not going to clarify anything.
Every word is special pleading that academics, note academics, not scientists, but particularly climate science academicsare this special and exalted group who make their own rules and are not bound by the same rules and conventions as the rest of us.
I think that the majority of the comments here might convey to you how well that is being received? - Sun May 16, 03:04:00 AM MDT
- tim.peters said...
Fudging, not fraud? Sorry, but if this sort of thing is happening World-wide, then it's fraud.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology - Sun May 16, 03:04:00 AM MDT
- dgg said...
Ok, I get it - it's just a bad science trick, not a criminal act, maybe not even 'scientific misconduct'.
Fine. But add that to all the other tricks (bad statistics, UHI, sea ice, hurricanes, sea level etc etc) and it does feel like we have been at the sharp end of a fraud.
A little repentance might do a lot more for Climate Science than nuanced excuses. - Sun May 16, 03:56:00 AM MDT
- PaulM said...
The Spiegel article is completly wrong to describe the trick to hide the decline as
"An Innocent Phrase Seized by Republicans",
and Roger Pielke is completely wrong to say they 'have it just about right' #6 #8.
It was not 'seized on by republicans', it was noted by honest scientists who saw the deception that was going on.
The statement about 'clearly erroneous tree data' is just ridiculous and shows that the writers have no understanding of science.
The data is not erroneous. What is erroneous is the false assumption of the 'climate scientists' that tree rings are a good way of measuring temperature, and this is what they were trying to hide.
I see many people above have said this, but it cen't be said too many times.
Roger, you have lost a lot of credibility by attempting to defend this drivel. - Sun May 16, 04:02:00 AM MDT
- dagfinn said...
I started out sympathizing with the idea that "hide the decline" type of presentation would not be condoned in "real life" as opposed to science. But the more I think about it, the more I believe that the parallels are unfair and inappropriate. In "real life" you are typically in a well-defined context with hard and fast rules of what you are allowed to do. For example, financial statements (see #54 Jeff) belong to this domain.
Presenting scientific results is a completely different game. The degree of novelty is vastly higher, and the typical research paper involves lots of uncertainties. Discussing all those uncertainties is not realistic when summarizing the results. Therefore, you have no choice but to "hide" some of them. If there were some established rules that governed which uncertainties must be discussed, and those rules had been broken, that would be an indication of bad faith and possibly fraud. But apparently, there are no such rules.
Giving the decline-hiders the benefit of the doubt and trying to put myself in their shoes, it comes out like this: They had a result (hockey stick, unprecedented warming) they wanted to present. They honestly believed it was correct. To make this result understandable to their audience, they created the infamous diagram to *illustrate* it (in other words not to persuade readers into believing it). Hiding the decline was a trick to make it easier for the reader to get the point. In other words, the trick was intended to ease communication, not to mislead people into thinking it was more solid than it was.
You may call that description naive, but I don't think you can disprove it. - Sun May 16, 04:15:00 AM MDT
- cassandra said...
I am working in the field of biophysics. Some fudging in science might be acceptable but the fudge done by Jones is clearly fraudulent as Jones had the intention to hide something that could undermine the desired outcome (trees as thermometers)
- Sun May 16, 05:20:00 AM MDT
- Frontiers of Faith and Science said...
The problem with what you claim is that it makes my case completely:
That catastrophic AGW is not a science based theory but a social mania.
The promoters, in this case Jones, Mann, Briffa, *know* we are facing a climate catastrophe caused by CO2, and pesky little counter evidence like the trees not being accurate is ignored in favor of making sure their larger 'truth' is seen.
As to your granting these people the benefit of the doubt, why? They do no such thing to those who dare question them, and it is obvious after 20 years of their crying climate wolf that they are wrong. We are not experiencing what they predicted. - Sun May 16, 08:35:00 AM MDT
- eric144 said...
This is the link tim.peters posted.
Crisis in New Zealand climatology
by Barry Brill
May 15, 2010
The warming that wasn't
The official archivist of New Zealand's climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the "NIWA Seven-station Series" or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C. The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA's doctoring of that data is indefensible.
The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.
For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA's printed brochures and its website.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology - Sun May 16, 09:01:00 AM MDT
- jgdes said...
The cru emails prove that only Mann was utterly certain the hockey stick was correct while very strong doubts were expressed by several others. Yet the "censored" files on his own ftp site (found by McI) strongly suggest that he knew the truth too.
Let's be clear too that the 20th century temperatures used as the calibration for the stick studies were produced by the same sly team and the adjustments to the raw data are still as yet unknown and hence certainly not properly peer reviewed. The possibility remains that the downward trending proxies were not anomalous at all.
Indeed the very few proxies to have been brought up to date in the most influential areas (Siberian larches, US bristlecones) show no hockey stick and hence underline the known fact that the original hockey-stick stands didn't even represent local temperatures nevermind global temperatures. In short, the science seems to be dominated by unfounded and unjustified assumptions. It needs to go back to basics.
Some may say this isn't important to the overall picture but the reality may still be that the warming now is much the same as the warming in the 30's and 40's. And if anyone thinks that absurd, then be aware that the only reasonably trustworthy data (Arctic, US48, European long-term instruments, US max-min data) show exactly that pattern and that NOAA seem to add 0.25K onto the warming trend before cru even gets the data. There may still be a century long trend but it would perforce be mostly natural. That result would make the solar correlation even better.
Lastly it can't be stressed enough that the hockey-stick graphs from this old-boys network were always the outliers. Before that everyone in the paleo community (even the IPCC report) believed in a global medieval warm period and little ice age and nobody thought tree-ring data could seriously be used for a global reconstruction. The whole thing was a trick - a sales brochure gimmick to force policy. - Sun May 16, 09:27:00 AM MDT
- dagfinn said...
I'm not trying to argue in favor of the hockey stick. As far as I know the issue, you are correct about all that. And perhaps you could make a case from the emails that they were seriously in doubt about it and hid that doubt.
However, the reason this example is important is just that it's in the IPCC report. RealClimate has published stuff on the hockey stick that I find even more suspicious. For instance, the hockey stick parade here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/.
They have graphs that appear to be convincing examples of the hockey stick, but several of them go only ~500 years back. Since the MWP was ~1000 years ago, the fact that these look like hockey sticks would not really surprise anyone and proves nothing. So what's the point of publishing them? Being who they are, they cannot plead ignorance. I find no good explanation except to deliberately try to give a misleading impression. I wouldn't use the word "fraud", though. "Propaganda" will do as far as I'm concerned. - Sun May 16, 12:44:00 PM MDT
- Stephen Pruett said...
Please note that I indicated the graph would be regarded as significantly deviating from standards of practice and could be considered misconduct. However, in the context of the paper, which discusses the divergence problem and does not hide it, misconduct would be difficult to establish in this case. You may be right that the public does not like academia's views of misconduct, but I suggest to you that the cost of real misconduct in academia to the academic is enormously greater than the cost of similar transgressions outside academia. I think the public would be pleased with the level of accountability in academic research.
Please understand, I think climate science has huge problems due to group think and selective data presentation and assessment. I just don't believe that this particular case is clear misconduct. If divergence had not been mentioned at all, I think misconduct would be a valid charge. - Sun May 16, 01:16:00 PM MDT
- j said...
An honest scientist (or journalist reporting the science) would have indicated the substitution of the thermometer record with a clear graphic (different colour, broken line). That the graph was published with the "trick" rendered graphically invisible strongly suggests an intention to deceive.
A number of commentors have pointed out that the tree ring data was not erroneous; it simply did not fit the CO2 induced temperature rise narrative. And there was no obvious way to explain why tree rings should be temp proxies before 1960 when they clearly were not post 1960.
That, in turn, created a real problem for people like Mann, Bifra and, to a degree, Jones because they were heavily invested in tree ring driven reconstructions of past climate.
So, did these climate scientists have a motive to practice a bit of deception? I think there is ample evidence as to motive.
At the same time, because of the state of climate science and the involvement of the climate scientists in the drafting and review of the various IPCC reports, there was also an institutional willingness to be deceived. The IPCC needed a story which was tidy and clear enough that they could tell their political masters, with 90% confidence, that GW was real, unprecedented, a threat and caused by CO2.
As the great Edward Tufte once put it, information can be graphically represented for maximum "inter-ocular shock value". The tree ring driven hockey stick graph slapped policy makers between the eyes and, to this day, has defined the narrative even though it has been discredited.
The real "trick" here was to allow nothing to impinge upon or qualify or render less certain the AGW narrative. Coming clean about the "divergence problem" would have confused policy makers with the facts. That was apparently unacceptable so the intentional substitution of one record with another without proper and ongoing disclosure occurred.
This was not a tiny adjustment to fudge a couple of missing years with approximated values; this was a calculated attempt to conceal an essential problem with the science and thereby deceive policy makers and the public.
If this is not fraud it is tough to see what is. - Sun May 16, 01:19:00 PM MDT
- klee12 said...
dagfinn wrote <>
I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to accept that. But then I'll view with suspician the accuracy of their future pronouncements, just as I would an tabloid dedicated to sensational news. Leave aside the question of ethics, scientific misbehavior, and all that other stuff. What are the consequences of "hiding the decline" for their credibility? For me, and I think for many other (but not all) scientists the consequences lost credibility.
klee12 - Sun May 16, 04:43:00 PM MDT
- klee12 said...
Ooops ... the first sentence in my previous post seemed have disappeared. The first sentence should read
dagfinn (75) wrote
In other words, the trick was intended to ease communication, not to mislead people into thinking it was more solid than it was.
klee12 - Sun May 16, 09:46:00 PM MDT
- klee12 said...
Ooops the first paragraph of my previous comment seemed to have disappeared more or less it should read
Dagfinn (75) wrote
n other words, the trick was intended to ease communication, not to mislead people into thinking it was more solid than it was.
klee12 - Sun May 16, 09:48:00 PM MDT


text:
505 Regular Fit Jeans
Style #005050260
Get it there in time: Free OVERNIGHT Shipping on orders of $175+. Ends at 9PM ET on 12/23/13. More Details
Product Description
Our most popular zip-fly, regular-fit jean is beloved for its comfortable style. A modern regular fit, it sits low on your waist and is comfortably straight through the seat, thigh and leg.
- Regular fit
- Sits at waist
- Straight leg
- Zip fly
- 100% Cotton - Imported
Fit & Sizing
- Regular Fit

subset: commoncrawl


text:
August 30, 2012
Brad Sturdy OrangeandBlueNews.com
Brad Sturdy breaks it all down, as a very important visit looms for new Illini basketball coach John Groce. ...More... To continue reading this article you must be a member. Sign Up Now for a FREE Trial
Already a member? Click here to sign in


text:
This item is temporarily out of stock. However, we can notify you as soon as this product becomes available.
Thank you
We have received your request and you will be notified as soon as this product becomes available.
Description: Inkadinkado Mini Clear Stamps cling to clear acrylic stamping blocks that let you SEE exactly where you are placing the image on your project, no more guessing! Inkadinkado Mini Clear Stamps can be used with both dye-based and pigment-based inks. Mini Clear Stamps Timeless Phrases includes rectangle banners with ornate borders that contain captions "Unforgettable", "Timeless" and "Moments In Time". Approximately 2 1/4 inch wide. 3 pc.
See more Inkadinkado Clear Stamps.
Review this product and Enter to Win a $100 shopping spree!
More information about buying in bulk


text:
The information on this page is a summary of the formal Student Grievance Procedure.
Please click here for more information about the process.
Please click here for a form and related instructions to be used in the filing of a complaint.
The Student Grievance Procedure is available to any New York University student who seeks to resolve any grievance involving an alleged violation directly affecting that student, by any member of the University community while acting in an official capacity (e.g. faculty member, administrator, staff member), of any of the written policies of the University or the school in which the student is enrolled.


text:
Regional CSR network: facilitating network and partnership building
UNIDO recently started the planning phase for the creation of a Regional CSR Network in Central, South and Eastern Europe (CEE and SEE).
This initiative was for the first time recommended at the UNIDO Regional Forum on CSR for Small and Medium Businesses in CEE, held on 9-10 March 2006 in Croatia. The network will aim at sustained and continuous improvement of the environmental and social conditions in SMEs operating in the Region's industrial sectors, thereby enhancing their competitiveness and market access.
It envisages to assist local SMEs in the participating countries to conduct business in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. These companies will benefit from CSR through operational cost savings, partnership opportunities, better alignment with emerging consumer concerns, enhanced productivity and quality, and improved relationships with stakeholders. This in turn will increase their competitiveness in the marketplace. The network will also serve as a platform to foster the exchange of experiences and information on best practices and will play an important role in promoting partnership building between public and private institutions.
It is foreseen that following core services will be offered through the network:
- Awareness raising
- Research
- Technical assistance and in-plant assessments
- Training and diffused regional capacity building
- Information dissemination
- Promotion of cross-sectoral partnership building
- CSR policy advice
Through its linkages with UNIDO, its National Cleaner Production Centres, national standardization bodies, and the UN Global Compact, the regional network will be able to offer latest technical and managerial know-how on upcoming international trends. Strong ties with research institutions as well as universities in the region will support the process of CSR capacity building. In addition, a pool of experts will undergo special training to support the work of the network.


text:
Ice skating, snowman building contests, sledding. Is it any wonder that winter is a great time to be a kid?
A hybrid tabletop variation that serves up the fun of two classic games.
Pooches get to enjoy the ride as kids pull them across the snow in sleds.
Let out your inner artist with this snow-sculpting activity.
This relay race challenges players to assemble their snowman before the competition.
Here's a quick activity that will show your child how well suited penguins, seals, and other animals are to cope with the cold.
This game's goal is to assemble a whole pie out of paper pizza slices — and to learn about fractions in the process.
Create instant fun — and strengthen math skills — with this coin game.
To entertain your holiday guests, create showstopping presentations with this quick-change version of charades.
Accuracy is the name of the game in this snowball-throwing challenge.
Snap funny shots as kids ham it up behind a headless snowman.
Lose your marbles in this simple game of chance.
Get kids moving -- and practicing basic math processes -- with this versatile ball-toss game.


text:
Home Spring Schedule
- Full Angels Spring Training schedule »
- All game dates, times and opponents are subject to change. Times listed are local to Tempe, AZ. (MST).
- All prices are subject to change due to market conditions.
Ballpark Information
Tempe Diablo Stadium
- 2200 West Alameda Drive
- Tempe, AZ 85282
- 480-350-5205
- Read more about
Tempe Diablo Stadium »
Ticket Information
We are turning up the Arizona heat with exciting Spring Training baseball. The Angels are back for more exciting Cactus League action at Tempe Diablo Stadium!
Spring Training Single Game Tickets are on sale now!
The Season Seat Holder presale begins Tuesday, November 26 at 10 a.m. PT/11 a.m. MST.
The Angels Insider presale begins Wednesday, November 27 at 10 a.m. PT/11 a.m. MST. Sign up now »
Home Plate MVP | $50 | ||
Field MVP* | $40 | ||
Field Box* | $25 | ||
Grandstand | $20 | ||
Lawn Seating (unreserved) | $15 | ||
Upper Pavilion (All Inclusive Ticket Package**) |
$58 | ||
All prices are subject to change due to market conditions. **All-Inclusive Non-Reserved Seating Package (includes food and non-alcoholic beverages) |
Take Broadway Street exit off I-10 (coming from either direction); travel west on Broadway to 48th Street; turn left; Tempe Diablo Stadium is 1/2 mile on the left. Enter ballpark by turning left on Alameda.


text:
Check out this great article on Inc.com about Kiva, which includes good insight into how the organization gained traction early on, as well as some of their upcoming plans. For the uninitiated, "[Kiva is] a non-profit organization with a mission to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty. Leveraging the internet and a worldwide network of microfinance institutions, Kiva lets individuals lend as little as $25 to help create opportunity around the world."
You can read more about or support Kiva here.


text:
Waiting for Harry presents "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"
First of four Harry Potter movies to be shown
When |
Jun 08, 2007
from 02:00 PM to 04:30 PM |
Where | Hoffman Community Room |
Contact Name | Shirley Vonderhaar |
Contact Phone | 563-875-8912 |
Attendees |
Everyone is welcome |
Add event to calendar |
vCal iCal |
The new Harry Potter movie ("Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix") is scheduled to be released at movie theaters July 13, and the new (and final?) book "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" will be released on July 21. Tying in with the anticipation, the library will show the four movies on Friday afternoons in June and end with a party in July. Popcorn and beverages will be provided by the Friends of the Library. The first Harry Potter movie, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" will be shown in the Hoffman Community room.
Click here to view a printable poster about this event.


text:
Publications gratuites d'AHEC
Veuillez choisir parmi nos publications gratuites à télécharger ou à commander
Sustainable American Hardwoods: A guide to species
A guide to the properties, characteristics, and applications of American hardwood species.
The Illustrated Guide to American Hardwood Lumber Grades
An explanation of the NHLA grading system, the national standard for the US hardwood lumber industry.
Sustainable American Hardwoods: A guide to grading lumber
Bob Sabistina, Consultant to AHEC for Lumber Grading, talks an audience of lumber salesman through the NHLA Grading Rules, covering measurement, grades, defects and species.
Structural Design in American Hardwoods
Full test results uncover the characteristic values for structural design of white oak, red oak, ash and tulipwood.
The Timber Wave
Challenging the perceptions of American red oak, AL_A's 'Timber Wave' took over the entrance to London's Victoria and Albert Museum for the London Design Festival.
Hardwood References: Volume 1
A series of case studies to show American hardwoods being specified in modern, and often award winning contexts.
Hardwood References: Volume 2
A series of case studies to show American hardwoods being specified in modern, and often award winning contexts.
Infinity Bench by Martino Gamper
A short film on the Infinity Bench by Martino Gamper which celebrates colour, texture and shape through the use of different hardwood species. With the support of the American Hardwood Export Council, Gamper designed a highly functional outdoor bench...
Leftovers Chair and Phyllida
RCA first year students Lauren Davies, David Horan and Nicholas Gardner talk about their projects and where the initial idea and design came from. This short film takes a closer look at the making of the Leftovers Chair by Lauren and Phyllida by David...
Out of the Woods: Adventures of 12 Hardwood Chairs
Introducing AHEC's collaboration with product design students at the Royal College of Art in London, this short film gives an overview of the project and an insight to the manufacturing at Benchmark Furniture.


text:
Tag Archives: GoWJ
Fri, May 10, 2013 | 16:47 BST
Gears of War: Judgment gets new, free DLC next week
Gears of War: Judgment's next free-DLC pack, like Execution mode and the Haven and Capitol maps before it, will be sponsored by Maxim.
Fri, Apr 19, 2013 | 16:17 BST
Gears of War: Judgment – Call to Arms Map Pack with new multiplayer mode out next week
The second Gears of War: Judgment map pack, Call to Arms, will be released next week for VIP Season Pass holders, and comes with three new maps along with the Master at Arms multiplayer mode.
Sat, Mar 02, 2013 | 20:03 GMT
Gears of War: Judgment writers discuss the game, UK event videoed
Gears of War: Judgment is the subject of the latest Creator's Project video from Kill Screen, and it features the game's writers Rob Auten and Tom Bissell discussing how complicated it can be to write for videogames. The duo also talks about working with the game's level designers and how they made the Cog army spring to life." It's below, alongside a video featuring a look at the Gears of War: Judgment Day event which took place in the UK. Gears of War: Judgment releases on March 19. Thanks, woe.
Wed, Feb 27, 2013 | 19:04 GMT
Gears of War: Judgment's Season Pass will run you $20
A Season Pass for Gears of War: Judgment has been confirmed, and it will be made available at launch for 1600 MS Points, saving you 20% as opposed to buying the DLC separately as it becomes available. Epics plans for DLC include six maps, nine unlockables and two modes, and if you pick up the pass you'll also net a double XP boost, early maps access along with weapons and armor skins. Gears of War: Judgment releases on March 19, and Microsoft is hosting a world premiere event featuring Aftermath and Survival modes. Thanks,D'toid.
Sat, Feb 02, 2013 | 15:26 GMT
Gears of War: Judgment achievements appear online
Achievements for Gears of War: Judgment have shown up online, and if you want to get a jump on what to expect, head on over to Exophase. As usual, beware of potential spoilers should you decide to click. Upon release, the latest in the shooter franchise, co-developed by People Can Fly, contains new multiplayer modes, the maps Gondola, Island and Library, and the new game mode, Extraction. The game is out March 19 on Xbox 360. Thanks, MikeB.
Tue, Jan 22, 2013 | 17:07 GMT
Gears of War: Judgment comes with code for original title, pre-order incentives announced
Tue, Jan 22, 2013 | 14:46 GMT
Gears of War: Judgment campaign video released
Gears of War Judgment has a new video available below, showing off the campaign mode. Watch it below. Gears of War: Judgment arrives on Xbox 360 March 19.
Sat, Jul 14, 2012 | 14:26 BST
Gears of War: Judgment video shows Overrun in action
A tutorial video for Overrun, a competitive mode in Gears of War: Judgment, has been released by Epic. It's posted below courtesy of Gamespot. Also posted below, alongside four new screenshots, is the Island footage from the game shown during Comic Con. Gears of War: Judgment is out in March 2013 on Xbox 360.


text:
Drip! Drip! Drip! A little Tacori gemstone shower! Hematite over Olive Quartz over smokey Quartz. These earrings are literally dripping in luxury and elegance. The crescent engraved .925 silver embraces the remarkable gems for a breathtaking piece.
Precious MetalsAvailable in Sterling Silver with 18K Yellow Gold Accents.
Gemstones Pictured in Olive Quartz, Smokey Quartz, Hematite. Also available in Amethyst, Sky Blue Topaz, London Blue Topaz, Clear Quartz over Neolite Turquoise Approximate carats as pictured: 11.04ct
0.78"w X 2.5"l


text:
"Nothing is permanent in this wicked world - not even our troubles."
Add Category or Author
America's favorite father figure and one of the most well known comedians and entertainers in the world, Bill Cosby got his big break in 1965 with I Spy. He was one of the original cast members of The Electric Company and was deeply dedicated to education, creating Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, combining cartoons with important lessons. Cosby starred in numerous movies, including Mother, Jugs & Speed and California Suite. It was The Cosby Show, however, that forever ensured Cosby's place in television history. Originally rejected by ABC, it was an instant hit on NBC, becoming one of t…
Over 2,000,000 quotes and growing!
Famous Quotes organized by author or category for your pleasure and convenience. We now have over two million famous quotes and Movie Quotes, which is, by far, the largest collection of Famous Quotes on the Web. We have also selectively chosen a large collection of Inspirational Quotes, Quotes about Life, Motivational Quotes, Friendship Quotes, Graduation Quotesand and Funny Quotes to help motivate and brighten your day. Many of our more popular author webpages include: Marilyn Monroe Quotes, Bob Marley Quotes, Albert Einstein Quotes, Abraham Lincoln Quotes & Winston Churchill Quotes. We hope you enjoy your time with us! Please contact us if you have any suggestions for improving our site. Now over 750,000 Movie Quotes & TV Quotes.Copyright © 2002-2013 Great Quotes.com


text:
Try searching for articles that are concerned with total quality management and perioperative care. You will find nearly 200 articles. Next, try limiting the articles to only infants. The total? 0. Include children and there are 12. Dr. Anna M. Varughese, Department of Anesthesia, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center,(…)
30-day mortality when propofol vs etomidate is used for induction
For the critically ill patient, some anesthesiologists might give "a little" propofol whilst others might give more anesthesia and use etomidate instead. Those that prefer propofol note that etomidate suppresses adrenocortical function, which might affect outcome postoperatively. Dr. Ryu Komatsu, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and coauthors used their institution's Perioperative Health Documentation System(…)
Death or neurologic injury after tonsillectomy
Tonsillectomy is one of the most common ambulatory operations performed in children. A frequent reason for performing tonsillectomy is to relieve airway obstruction in children with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and obesity. Is the procedure safe? Dr. Charles J. Coté, MD, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, The MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston, MA and(…)
Is remifentanil an alternative to epidural analgesia for women in labor?
Remifentanil is a powerful opioid analgesic with a very short duration of action. The rapid onset of opioid drug effect is associated with a risk of both apnea and hypoxemia. Dr. Carolyn F. Weiniger, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, and her coauthors sought to determine whether(…)
Malignant hyperthermia in Canada: an experience over 20 years
Despite the current focus on determining the precise genetic mutations responsible for malignant hyperthermia, there is still a lot that can be learned by conventional epidemiologic analysis. Dr. Sheila Riazi, Malignant Hyperthermia Investigation Unit, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues describe nationwide epidemiology on malignant hyperthermia in Canada over a(…)
Hippocampal synaptic plasticity changes are seen in adult rats after sevoflurane exposure as a neonate
Animal studies are convincing: when newborn animals are exposed to anesthesia, neuroapoptosis, or neural cell death, develops. Cell death is associated with learning disabilities. Hippocampal synaptic plasticity is known to affect learning and memory. Dr. Rui Kato, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan, and colleagues sought(…)


text:
Navarre High School's football Raiders finished the most successful regular season in team history with a 34-24 win against arch-rival Gulf Breeze on Friday, but it wasn't easy.
The Dolphins (3-7) scored first, led Navarre 17-7 with less than five minutes left in the first half and went to intermission leading 17-13. A 27-yard halfback pass from workhorse Mitchell Dekozan to Taylor Busbee and the ensuing extra point pulled Gulf Breeze to within three points, 27-24, with almost four minutes left to play. First 452 pictures: Click HERE.
But the Raiders answered with a seven-play, 67-yard scoring drive highlighted by an 11-yard completion from Navarre quarterback Colton Kane to Will Posey on fourth-and-five at the Dolphins' 36-yard line. Running back Dewayne Carter scored on a 21-yard toughdown run two plays later. Raider defensive back Nolan LeMaitre intercepted Gulf Breeze signal caller Michael Mann's pass with 25 seconds left and Navarre ran out the clock on the hard-fought win.
Navarre (9-1) finished its regular season with six straight wins, won all five home games, beat Santa Rosa County rival Pace for the first time ever, won its third straight Beach Bowl Cup -- presented by Publix and the Gulf Breeze News to the winner of the Dophins-Raiders game since 2008 -- and won its fourth straight against the Dolphins. The win also gave the 2010 Raiders the indisputable school-record for wins in a season. Navarre outscored eight of its 10 opponents on the field and the Florida High School Athletics Association earlier this week ordered previously unbeaten Pensacola Catholic to forfeit four games, including its 42-21 thrashing of Navarre, because it played an ineligible player. The Raiders' previous record for wins in a season was seven, in both 2006 and 2007.
The Raiders, which finished second to Pine Forest in Class 4A District 1, will play at District 2-4A winner Niceville in the first round of the playoffs next week. The trip marks Navarre's third foray into postseason play. The Raiders won a district championship in 2006 and were runners up the following season, but lost to Pace in the first round each year.
For more about Friday's game and the 2010 Raiders, see the Nov. 18 edition of Navarre Press.


text:
Category: Kim Kardashian baby names
Kardashian (and Other K) Baby Knames
I may be the only American never to have seen an episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians, and I aim to keep it that way. My fascination with the reality TV family is totally name-based: The K-named klan has made the oddly-spelled Khloe one of the fastest rising girls' names of recent years and inspired a legion of new-fangled K names.
Now, in the latest Kardashian-related baby name news, sister Kim and her fiancé Kris say they're "reserving" several K names in advance of their upcoming nuptials and theoretical pregnancy. How many K names K & K get to cordon (kordon?) off is not (knot?: sorry, it's irresistible) known, but we at Knameberry have some suggestions.
While Kate may be the name of the year, the new Duchess of Cambridge seems to be going in the opposite direction from the Kardashians and reverting to her original C name, Catherine. Come to think of it, she may be doing this to distance herself from the Kardashians.
We have the feeling that Kate and other classic K names – Karen, Kenneth, Kevin, Kirsten – probably aren't Kim and Kris's thing anyway. We see them going for one of the super popular new K names, here in order of how fast they're rising.
Recent Posts
Some of our most recent blog posts
All posts from the Nameberry blog sorted by date
Popular Posts
Some of our most popular blog posts
All posts from the Nameberry blog sorted by category
- Baby Name News
- Baby Names
- Baby Names Popularity
- Berry Juice
- Boy Names
- Celebrity Names
- Classic Baby Names
- Cool Baby Names
- Family Names
- Gallery
- Girl Names
- Guest Bloggers
- Historic Names
- International Baby Names
- Meanings of Baby Names
- Middle, Last and Nicknames
- Name Image
- Names from the Arts & Pop Culture
- Nature, Place and Word Names
- Pregnancy & Baby
- Questions of the Week
- Sibling and Multiple Names
- Spellings, Sounds and Initials
- Trends and Predictions
- Unisex Baby Names
- Unusual Baby Names


text:
By Sharmine Narwani
The Middle East is treading water these days. Two years of rhetoric about ousting dictators, revolution, freedom, honor, dignity and democracy – without result – has people on edge, their disillusionment now demanding an outlet.
There are no outlets though. Sensing the fast-growing disenchantment with undelivered promises, even the "bright new leaders" are tightening the reins and demanding compliance.
These new heads of state simply can't deliver the goods for one main reason: They are just as caught up in global and regional power contests as were their predecessors. Nothing has changed with these uprisings – nothing.
Except now the stakes are higher than before. A recession-bound west, the fast-rising BRICS and their respective regional allies are locked in a competition to consolidate power and influence in this important region before it finds its bearings.
The relatively new influencers on the Arab scene like Qatar and Turkey have recognized this as a unique opportunity to slip into region-wide leadership roles. For the entrenched old hands – Washington, Riyadh, Paris, London – a race is on to prevent the region from shrugging off their decades-long dominance and embracing the anti-imperialism of the Resistance Axis.
The result has been an onslaught of interventions. Every tool in the arsenal has come out to play. Money, espionage, propaganda, weapons, assassination and that old colonial trick: divide-and-rule.
The main game is still the old battle of the blocs, Iran versus the United States, with everyone else filing in line behind their team. There have been a few surprises thrown into the mix: the newcomers like Turkey and Qatar have moved over to the US side; the BRICS, however, have lent their considerable clout to team Iran. Iraq has moved behind the latter formation and Hamas still doesn't know where to stand so it straddles the two.
This is not a game for the faint-hearted, and it permeates every major social, economic and political decision in the region today. Want a new electrical plant outside Cairo, Beirut or Kirkuk? Good luck choosing a national supplier who doesn't offend. IMF loan? Allowing over-flights or passage for ships? Inking a trade deal? Formulating a new constitution? Scheduling a football match?
Mideast states are now paralyzed and polarized over such things, and governance has come to a standstill. But in this paralysis lies a dangerous volatility: a backlash in the brewing, a pressure cooker about to blow. (more…)


text:
Hot Tools Professional Spring Curling Iron
KarenCaliforniaHairBlackNormal HairThick or Coarse HairGreat Curler With Practice (but Not That Much Practice)I have medium to thick hair that styles really easily. This curler heats up and curls very quickly. For most styling tools, I have to use the highest heat setting, but this one I only need to go halfway which means this sucker can get pretty damn hot. In combination with Chi Silk Infusion, this curler gave me shiny, bouncy curls that relaxes only a little over time without the use of any spray or gel.
The curler is really well built. The material of the handle makes it easy to hold onto and the cord swivel does indeed prevent the cord from coiling while in use. The only issue I had was my hair slipping out. It could be that because the spring isn't as tight as other irons I've used, but I eventually figured out that certain parts of my hair will stay as long as I get the right orientation with the iron. Some parts of my hair would stay in place only when I was doing an inward curl and other parts curled only during an outward curl. It was a little annoying to take the time to figure this out, but the curls were well worth it.posted Jul 10, 2010Link to this post -
NatashaUse A Smaller Barrel Size For Perfect WavesI love this curling iron. I know a lot of girls here have ordered this and want big, sexy curls and are disappointed when the curl doesn't hold. Here are a few tips:
1) make sure you have it on a high setting, but not too high. If you have it on the absolute hottest setting, it can have a negative effect.
2) don't buy the biggest barrel size because you want big curls. Think about it: when you curl your hair, after awhile, the curl falls out. Therefore, the bigger the initial curl, the faster the fall. What you need to do is order a SMALL barrel (i have the 3/4 size for my bra strap length hair.) Then, when your curl falls out, it falls out into a bigger curl.
3) use the "wraparound" method. Instead of curling it into cute little shirley temple curls, take a section of hair, about 1 inch (the more hair you take, the less it will curl/hold) and wrap it around the entire barrel. hold for a few seconds, then let it go. Repeat on entire head, finish with a light misting of hairspray.
I hope this helps. This is hands down the best curling iron i've used, and i highly recommend it and Folica to everyone.posted Jun 25, 2010Link to this post -
NinaBest Curling Iron I Have Used Yet!Shipping was unbelievably fast! and the product is amazing! I have thick and long straight hair and I always love to curl it but it would always take at least half an hour + a crap load of aerosol hairspray. My friend told me about hot tools and how she paid over $100 for her's but she loved it (and she is not the type to curl her hair all the time either) so I googled and found folica and the price was out of this world, processed and shipped within 3 days! and I tried out the next day and I could not be anymore happy with this curling iron! I curl my hair almost everyday now! No hairspray and it lasts all day, and only 20 mins! I highly reccommend this curling iron to anyone! Especially asian people (I am asian) I know having super straight hair is so hard to curl but this would be the best "hot tool" for you! Enjoy! I know I am!posted Jun 23, 2010Link to this post
StephanieHairShort HairHusband Loves His CurlsMy husband and i both use curling irons daily on our hair which is about 5 in long. Jeff is always complaning about how lonf it takes his to curl his hair and that his curls don't stay in al long as he would like. We bought the hot tools 1/2 inch and 3/4 in curling irons for both of us. Jeff uses the 1/2 and can do his hair in about half the time because his curling iron is hotter than his old one and he has the maot awesome head of curls that last all day. I use the 3/4 and also save time and have curls for days. Jeff would have to recurl his hair if we go out at night and now he curls in the morning and his curls look great for our nights out. He is now so happy with this iron and his pretty curls which also keeps me from listening to him complain about his curls. Great iron for males and femalesposted Jun 22, 2010Link to this post
JenniferHairFine or Thin HairFabulous!I picked this product because of the high rating here! My hair is SUPER straight and SUPER fine. It's never held a curl unless it was done professionally, but this curler has done it better than any other curler I've bought, and I've tried a ton! If I ever need another product, I'll go to Hot Tools!posted Jun 14, 2010Link to this post
RetaNot ImpressedI've used other curling irons before and none of them made my hair smell as much as this one did. Your hair will smell like its been burnt and the smell stays for days, after you wash your hair. It curled very nicely at first, but by the time I was done with my hair, the curls were falling apart and made my hair super frizzy. I do not recommend it simply because it damages your hair.posted May 31, 2010Link to this post
JillyHairMedium HairYou Want Taylor Swft Curls? Get The 3/4I LOVEE my 3/4 its like beyond amazing. curls last all day. doesnt kill my hair. Takes about 30-40 min and i have my hair a little bit above my chest. I DO own the 1 3/4 which is great to for those not to over done curls. but this is a MUST have product. People always adore my hair curled nowposted May 3, 2010Link to this post
BettyThe Price Is Amazing!I havent tried out the curling iron yet but I only paid 4 days ago and I have received the products! GREAT SHIPPING! Also in Vancouver the same curling iron in store costed at least $65 (the 3 stores I've looked at) and this is only $23.95 GREAT DEAL! Thanks Folica for giving this great deal. XOXOposted Apr 29, 2010Link to this post
BeckySmells BadI agree with some people that say it makes your hair smell bad. It made my hair smell terrible just like burnt hair i also own a hot tools helene of troy straightener and it does the same thing, it makes my hair smell extremely burnt.I have had no other problems with any other straigtner or curling iron making my hair smell burnt either, so it has to be the curling iron/straightner. Other than the smell though it held the curl pretty well but i wouldnt say that its an "amazing" Product.posted Apr 26, 2010Link to this post
FranHairThick or Coarse HairLong HairDisappointingI have long layered thick hair that already has a lot of body. I bought the 2" hoping for soft, big curls and it did not curl my hair at all. In fact, it made my hair totally straight! I was really shocked because my hair holds curl really well but this curling iron had the opposite effect on my hair than it is supposed to. Perhaps a smaller barrel would work better?posted Apr 19, 2010Link to this post
Write Your Own Review
Have you tried this product? Help out by sharing what worked (or didn't)!
Write a Review-
New Price: $6.99
Hot Tools Pink Titanium Curling Iron
Hot Tools Pink Titanium Curling Iron has pulse technology so it gets hot...and stays hot!
New Price: $44.00 - $50.00 -
Caruso ProTraveler 14 Molecular Steam Hairsetter
Compact design. The ultimate set to create today's polished hair styles with non damaging - steam conditions your hair as it curls.
Old Price: $34.95New Price: $29.99


text:
I tried disabling Cinemotion which doesn't do anything. I can't find Motion enhancer anywhere.
Also I can't enable "sync to display" in XBMC as this reduces everything to a crawl when playing videos.
Senior Member Posts: 176 Joined: Oct 2004 Reputation: 1 |
2010-09-06 09:15
Post: #11
find quote |
Lister of Smeg
Senior Member Posts: 110 Joined: Mar 2010 Reputation: 0 Location: England |
2010-09-06 13:17
Post: #12
Just to join in this conversation,
I have been using the most up-to-date nightly builds since the Camelot release. The builds within the last few months have been fine regarding a/v sync and the adjust refresh setting. However, the Beta1 build seems to have brought back some of the issues i used to have back when native dxva2 support was added. Now when i use DXVA2 & adjust refresh i get about a 200ms delay also. HTPC specs: Samsung 40" ES8000 3DTV, Win8 Pro 64bit, Intel Core i3 530, ATI HD5450, Antec Minuet HTPC Case, 6GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 1333, Gigabyte GA-H55M-USB3 |
find quote |
Donor Posts: 75 Joined: Nov 2008 Reputation: 0 |
2010-09-21 11:57
Post: #13
I've been living with a 200ms offset on my Sony LCD since setting up a Karmic/Camelot HTPC earlier this year (currently on Dharma beta2).
Once the offset is set, it runs perfectly for all 24p content. I've been watching a bit of 50hz content recently and have gotten use to switching between 0 and 200ms audio offset, but thought I'd poke around the forums this evening to see if I could find a more permanent solution. Turning off Cinema Drive and Motionflow in the Features menu of my LCD seems to have fixed the audio problem for 24p content. I guess I'll have to weigh up whether sacrificing these video features will make up for no more audio hassles. Is there anyway of saving specific playback settings for different refresh rates? E.g. Default for all 24p content, that than just default for all videos. I know calibration settings are resolution and refresh rate specific, but are there any advanced settings to tie audio offset to these? |
find quote |
Fan Posts: 329 Joined: Nov 2009 Reputation: 0 Location: Germany |
2010-09-21 20:23
Post: #14
Using a Sony Z5800 LCD and a Nvidia GTX260.
With these settings i have synced playback in all modes. Using XBMCSetup-Rev33573-dx with ffdshow and haali. Nvidia Settings. Made Custom Resolution 1920x1080 with these Frequencies:23,24,50,59,60 - 32Bit. In XBMC Options: Video-Playback:Adjust Display Refresh Rate to Match Video,Sync Playback to Display,AV-Sync Method=Video Clock(Drop,Dupe Audio) System-Video Output:Display Mode=Windowed(otherwise wont work),Vertical Blanc Sync=Disabled Connection from PC to Reciever ist via Optical. Maybe its usefull for someone,for me these are the only settings where i get synced playback in All Modes. Edit:Motionflow in Sony Settings is disabled
(This post was last modified: 2010-09-21 20:28 by Malexx.)
find quote |
Fan Posts: 407 Joined: Jan 2009 Reputation: 7 Location: Germany |
2010-09-24 12:16
Post: #15
i have the same problem with my new samsung LED TV.
find quote |
Senior Member Posts: 150 Joined: Jan 2010 Reputation: 0 |
2010-09-24 13:30
Post: #16
LastMile Wrote:I've been living with a 200ms offset on my Sony LCD since setting up a Karmic/Camelot HTPC earlier this year (currently on Dharma beta2). I can confirm the same issues. Since most of my content is 24p, I've set a delay for all videos. This works well, until I hit a 25fps, or 29.97 fps file. I wound up setting up a command on my remote so I can manually adjust these while I'm watching. It would be nice to be able to adjust the delay based on the fps of the video when using the match refresh rate feature. |
find quote |
Lister of Smeg
Senior Member Posts: 110 Joined: Mar 2010 Reputation: 0 Location: England |
2010-10-04 13:15
Post: #17
Has anyone fixed this issue or know why it occurs.
To confirm, i have disabled all my TVs post processing (100hz) etc but this issue still exists. Any ideas anyone? HTPC specs: Samsung 40" ES8000 3DTV, Win8 Pro 64bit, Intel Core i3 530, ATI HD5450, Antec Minuet HTPC Case, 6GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 1333, Gigabyte GA-H55M-USB3 |
find quote |
Senior Member Posts: 249 Joined: Jan 2009 Reputation: 0 |
2010-10-04 13:31
Post: #18
Issue exists on my panasonic pz800 as well with all the features liked cinemotion turned off (not that they were ever turned on). Is there a trac ticket with some info so we know if the devs are looking at it or not.
find quote |
Donor Posts: 132 Joined: Sep 2009 Reputation: 0 |
2010-10-04 14:26
Post: #19
I had such problems like this before. But not at all now. All I had to do is use turn on Sync Playback to Display with A/V Sync method of Video clock (Drop/Dupe Audio).
Without this option on my audio would run away all the time and my TV is a Kuro (collectors edition ) |
find quote |
Senior Member Posts: 249 Joined: Jan 2009 Reputation: 0 |
2010-10-04 22:20
Post: #20
Should i have to turn on Sync Playback to Display for a 23.976 file playing on my tv after it flicks to 24Hz?
If so thats fine and I can. I do realise that it trys to speed up the audio by 0.01%, but doesn't always get it right for such a small amount. I thought really that 23.976 was 24p anyway so it should all match up. |
find quote |