Comments on: Harry readme and global warming climate change
REBOL Technologies

Comments on: Harry readme and global warming climate change

Carl Sassenrath, CTO
REBOL Technologies
2-Dec-2009 0:23 GMT

Article #0444
Main page || Index || Prior Article [0443] || Next Article [0445] || 52 Comments || Send feedback

Well, if you think your programming life is difficult, here's something that might cheer you up, or maybe not...

Google for the "harry_readme.txt" file.

As you may have heard this is a diary/log file by a programmer who was responsible for analyzing temperature and other weather related records for global warming climate change research at one particular university. It included a hundred years of data collected at tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe. How's that for an interesting database!

Man, isn't that the perfect description of the torturous programming project far too many of us have experienced before?!

Oh... did I ever mention that back in the 80's, I used to analyze scientific research data for universities and foundations? And, some of it was even atmospheric data, imagine that. It's usually a disorganized, imperfect, poorly managed domain of underfunded projects powered by poorly paid student programmers hammering on bits just to find some basic significance in the data to which they've been entrusted to help solve some important worldly problem.

For programmers, project loyalty runs deep.

Skimming quickly through Harry's readme file brings back so many familiar database statistical analysis nightmares... still so vivid I can clearly picture the research lab, even the smell of it. The database doesn't work, so the researcher asks you to "make it work". Some glitch fried sections of the data, so you patch them. The plot shows it's all just random data, so you filter. An important script was lost, so you reverse engineer it from the published results. Ah... the life of being a research analyst/programmer. Systemantics supreme.

I kind of feel sorry for this guy Harry. But, frankly, he did a great job documenting his data journey, so kudos to him.

I can't wait to see the movie.

52 Comments

Comments:

Steven White
3-Dec-2009 8:24:18
Sometimes I like to solve problems by trying to factor out things that are not relevant, in order to make the issue simpler.

In the case of global warming, in some areas, like Minnesota and Alaska, you can tell it's happening by just going outside. There is less snow, less rain, less cold, happening regularly enough so it's obviously a pattern. (And there's data to back it up.)

As to whether it is caused by people, the benefits of acting as if it were are great. Less coal burning reduces soot which is a health hazard. Fewer people driving personal automobiles reduces congestion which makes travel easier. More local power generation with wind and solar saves fuel, makes the whole power generation system sturdier, and creates jobs. Etc. etc.

As for programming, just this morning we have a situation where at a newly-installed printer, all reports are coming out of the manual feed tray and no one can figure out how to make them come from the regular paper tray. Three people are beating their heads on it. We love all the fancy things we can do, but they come with complexity, and we are paying a price for it.

Oldes
6-Dec-2009 15:23:43
Do you believe it's real? Writing almost 200kB of comments in one simple .txt file without any dates... it's does not look like something what most people would normally do.

Sorry, I don't know much about this story, but using stolen data by hacking to someones network does not look like something what I could seriously believe in.

Oldes
6-Dec-2009 15:27:59
Anyway... if someone is really using code like this one:
call system ('wc -l ' // LoadFile // ' > trashme-loadcts.txt')		! get number of lines
open  (3,file='trashme-loadcts.txt',status="old",access="sequential",form="formatted",action="read")
read  (3,"(i8)"), NLine
close (3)
call system ('rm trashme-loadcts.txt')

than he should give REBOL a try:)

Kaj
7-Dec-2009 9:00:17
The university confirmed it is real.
Luca
9-Dec-2009 1:15:47
Such is the situation in the whole IT industry; a mess! Unless finally Rebol will one day "clean it up".

Nick
9-Dec-2009 3:39:52
My business and my life have been running on REBOL for years. No mess here :)
Oceanguide
9-Dec-2009 11:13:22
Here is a very good summary explanation of the climate data, the processing of the data, and the various proxy bias techniques used to adjust and rework the measurement datasets over the years: Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline.
Greg Schofield
10-Dec-2009 3:00:20
Oceanguide if this was all that climate change was based on the guy might have half a point (if that). My interest is in archaeology -- remember Utzi, the Bronze Age frozen corpse found in the Alps? His body was in a pocket over which ice moved (he had barely moved) he was exposed to the air for the first time in 6,000 years.
Kaj
10-Dec-2009 6:15:50
Archeology also says that from 1000 to 1400 it was much warmer in Europe than now, and 3000 years ago it was much warmer, etc.
Oceanguide
10-Dec-2009 6:55:44
That's the point of the article. The data originally showed those warm/cool cycles, but as more "data processing" was done, those obvious variations vanished. So, what and who do we believe? It can make you skeptical.
Greg Schofield
10-Dec-2009 14:51:37
Kaj the European warm period was just that -- a European phenomenon.

Oceanguide the article showed at best problems with a particular methodology. The historical sciences are not the same as the "hard" sciences in either method nor in the nature of the proof (it is by definition never reproducible, or open to simple experimental proofs or disproofs).

No-one denies we are going through a warm phase, the debate about its acceleration is debatable. The degree to which human activity contributes is also debatable. The debate will only be over after the event (that is in the nature of the historical science, history is the final conclusion and nothing else).

So the only question for us is what is the wise thing to do -- certainly not doing what we have been doing just to keep some vested interests in profit -- tat is really dumb and we have been doing that for too long already.

Using REBOL in the historical sciences would remove clutter, clutter which gets in the way of posing different questions (which is how historical sciences work by throwing incomplete and incoherent facts into different perspectives until they cohere sensibly --look at Darwin's work and inspiration for instance).

Carl's point in this was software clarity, I suppose as an anthropological researcher always dealing with incomplete, contradictory and incoherent evidence, and always wanting different ways to compare data, clarity in design and implementation is essential (data-basing does not work with multi-faceted "hairy" data -- what you tag it as is what you get as tags).

My problem with the article, and I have no expertise in the area and do not doubt his figures, is that proving that a historical method can be pushed to provide different results is no discovery -- that is how they work, in other words it is sophisticated idiocy.

The truth of the methodology lies in how well it works to through light upon and make sensible things outside the original data set, which in turn should throw up even more questions and produce more and different data that paints the picture more precisely (and on it goes -- historical science forms rising spirals of complexity held together by sensible connections).

Now if anyone can think of general software approaches that allow to capture hairy data (that is relatively small data points think with caveats and other hairs -- ie preserving complexity of contextual factiods)and allow this to be freely and rationally associated that would be generally handy.

John Niclasen
11-Dec-2009 4:47:13
What science is about: "Don't believe, what I say. Check for yourself."
Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference

He's going after them:

Climategate update: Report filed with UK Information Commissioner

Greg Schofield
11-Dec-2009 6:18:56
John Niclasen, I don't want to mess up Carl's blog on this, while I do not have the knowledge to question Lord Monckston's own data or the specifics he uses -- his overall methodology is to use isolated, context-free, examples that he then associates with extreme accusations (racketeering?) without making any sort of connection between the two. This is normally called popularism, people can make up their own minds.

However, I do call your attention to what I brought up about historical data and the problems of handling it digitally.

John Niclasen
11-Dec-2009 16:35:59
"No-one denies we are going through a warm phase"

Is it ok to question the validity of that? If you look over millions of years, we're in a cold period now. My point is, there should always be room for questions! How is CO2 levels measured? (Don't ask, read the article instead and make up your own mind.)

Greenhouse Gas Observatories Downwind from Erupting Volcanoes

Greg Schofield
11-Dec-2009 17:41:32
I would think sea level measurements as a reservoir of heat would be a simple measurement and as far as I know it shows a 2mm rise per annum for most of last century. But I may be a bit biased: I live in a country (Australia) that has been in drought for decades -- where we have had the hottest bushfires ever recorded, and where a hole in the Ozone has been healed up mainly because we stopped using chemicals that destroyed it (ie where human activity demonstrably produced a severe atmospheric disturbance).

Scepticism has to be based on reason otherwise it is just plain ignorance.

But this thread is about REBOL and not climate change, so again consider how "hairy" historical data can be used reliably -- I am think rich XML markup, coupled with locational data within it, that can somehow be gathered-up, related to other things without contaminating the sources or locking in methods.

Kaj
11-Dec-2009 21:59:55
I think Carl wanted us to talk about the climate unveilings. :-) Here are plenty of data points for you:

http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2008/november/plimer/player.html

Kaj
11-Dec-2009 22:09:51
This is also from your home country:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

(I'm not allowed to post another hot link.)

Greg Schofield
11-Dec-2009 23:07:10
Kaj as I keep saying I am no expert in this area, but isolated data analysis is meaningless unless the context of argument is known. The few fundamental things I do know about is raising sea levels over the past century and I take this as an indicator that we are indeed in a warming phase.

Not being knowledgeable to the degree of knowing if or to what degree human activity contributes, I do not pretend to know, I would have to see some high quality argument as to why cutting down forests, and spewing out exhaust gases has had no effect, or for that matter would dare bet on my children's head that such activity has only negligible effect.

In areas similar to climatology I have a little knowledge(Historical DNA and linguistics, correcting C14 dating, sequence dating etc.,) I am therefore aware of the many assumptions involved in evaluating primary data -- so flushing up graphs of what was previously accepted, or some other model etc., is meaningless and is just food for the gullible.

I am not in favour of carbon trading, taxing or any other indirect measure -- I believe companies should be directly and unambiguously forced to clean up their act, that public investments be made in non-polluting energy technologies etc.,.

This is of course a political view which requires no scientific backing -- so I would like some of these convenient sceptics and defenders of corporate interests, to just give me a single clear argument for why defecating in our own nest is a good idea.

That is the real question by the way, not how right or wrong one group of climatologists is on this or that question. As I said before in the historical science the final proof only exists after the fact, when it is already too late to do anything about it.

What we are now doing makes no sense -- that is the real issue.

CS-0444
11-Dec-2009 23:15:02
Just the keep the politics foremost Ian Plimer belongs to an extreme right-wing think tank, supported directly by large corporates (ie the biggest polluters).

Lord Monckton is another extreme right winger (in the UK). I don't know much about his affiliations, but the Tories are a dirty breed.

Greg Schofield
11-Dec-2009 23:26:35
Sorry posted a number above when I meant to put my name.

Kaj looked at the second quote, same thing -- just an accumulation of isolated data sets. It is not the data that matters but the theory behind its use, what is being done theoretically, what questions are being asked of the data -- how carefully has the data itself been assessed.

Then when that is known some sense of the data itself can be made (ie the very reverse approach to those using isolated data sets instead of closely argued logic).

John Niclasen
12-Dec-2009 1:35
G.S., don't take my word for it. Don't take Ian Plimer or Lord Monckton's word for it.

And please, don't stop thinking!

Check it out yourself. There is plenty of litterature, and we live in a time, where it's easy to get all different kinds of opinions on the internet.

Kaj
12-Dec-2009 8:32:35
I have to say I don't care much about left or right. They just happened to be the sides of the parliament room in France a few centuries ago that the factions were seated on.

I care more about the planet, because we have to live on it a while longer.

Greg Schofield
13-Dec-2009 4:40:52
Right or left, good or bad, some measure in politics as well as life is needed. Being moderately evil and just a bit good is no envious position for anyone to aspire.

We are in a warming phase, how much or how little this is the result of human agency, which model of climate, what theory is supported or denied, that is something that can only be understood by a close and dedicated study of the subject -- and most important a counter thesis.

Now I cannot judge the data, the details of theory, judgement and scientific concepts, I and any other person can judge a thesis. To whit, that the counter case so far exists as series of negative postulates and a simple de facto thesis that questions whether we are even in a warming phase.

If we are in a warming phase (and from what little I do know I do not think there is any reasonable question about that), then given our current occupation and activities as a species are we acting wisely? The counter thesis suggests we are -- and on that it is a basically an absurd assertion.

Have the global warming theorists git it right? Not necessarily, but at least their thesis demands that we stop sitting on our hands and start acting responsibly -- this is after all our planet, our resources and all the can be inherited by our children and all their progeny to the end of time -- Why make such a mess and then wallow in it?

No science question is purely a question of science alone (I suggest Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" makes that point rather well).

So if the climate sceptics are pulling out all the draws and tipping the contents higgily piggerly all over the place as they seem to be doing at the moment, there is also method in their madness and good reason to be sceptical of them that make isolated points and present no coherent counter theory within the subject itself (historical-climatology).

Kaj
13-Dec-2009 7:06:36
I don't think casting issues in terms of good and evil is a good strategy towards our survival.

John and I have presented a lot of evidence. Why is it that you keep dismissing it?

We are living on borrowed time, on the verge of the next ice age in a prolonged intermediary:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

So yes, we are living in a warm period, and the planet can return to its normal deep freeze duty cycle at any moment. This prolonged warm intermediary is the very reason that we have been able to form what we call a civilisation.

I can see an alien observer chuckling at finding out that we have decided that the right course of action is to try to cool the planet down, and decide that we deserve our extinction.

Carl Sassenrath
13-Dec-2009 12:30:37
Ah... well, glad to see there's no shyness of discussion about my original note on programming and database processing. We're all rebels here.

Quite interesting... like watching a dam burst or a balloon pop. The pin makes its point, the pressure does the rest.

And, a friend on Facebook just linked this well-worded conclusion: A Memo To The Global Warming Cult: "Your status as 'scientists' is on probation."

Greg Schofield
13-Dec-2009 17:55:45
So no one has any disquiet over the fact that most of the material used to discredit global warming theories use material that indicates localised cooling when we are in fact in a warming phase?

That is drawing a distinction between global warming theories (which include theories about human contributions) and established historical-climatology that showed a warming phase and has done so well before any of the more recent theories of global warming?

Carl, here in the Pacific region we have inhabited islands that already drowning, I do not believe that rising sea levels (whether natural or induced) suggests anything other than a warming phase, on top of an already established results of former warming phases. Nor is than any doubt about sea level rising (about 2 mm per year last I heard).

Therefore how much credence then can be given to arguments that picture stable normalcy based on isolated readings of data as counter arguments, when in fact no matter how many such isolates may exist they cannot be the complete picture which is one of progressive warming (the degree of change being the only debate)?

So regardless of whether these scientists are in fact on probation, have exaggerated and distorted evidence to support their claims of the degree, even if they have destroyed evidence and are as bad as they have been painted – so what! It is just one group who are by no means the only group that have the generally the same opinions based on their own methodologies, there is a huge diversity, with people coming to similar positions across the world. Consensus of course does not make anything true.

So what do we have what is actually all the fuss about in terms of whether there is a phase of climate warming or not? Strangely no disagreement at all, that is the sceptics (who are not complete nutters) agree that we are in a warming phase – it is a question of degree, how steep the curve actually is and the implications this has in terms of human contribution to the effect – which is where all sensible people knew the question was to begin with.

It is a storm in a tea-cup being whipped up for short term political benefits, that should be obvious by the political nature of those running with it at the moment. As I do not have any investment in any particular theory set, I really don't mind if the current consensus is disproved, but I have a great obejection to "book-burning" hysteria.

Kaj my analogy was invoked because you did not agree with the traditional spectrum applied to politics. Insofar as political decisions have good and bad effects on different groups of people, the applying of any spectrum depends entirely on the interests of which group is used as a measure of the piolitical process -- for me it is certianly never business interests.

Kaj
13-Dec-2009 18:09:07
I see you didn't get the memo.
Ashley
13-Dec-2009 20:44:22
Global freezing, War on Drugs, .com, Y2K, War on Terror, Global warming, GFC, Climate change ... nothing new here, move along folks.
Henrik
14-Dec-2009 0:13:14
Ashley, exactly.

We like to debate (on various levels of intelligence), but the outcome is likely not to move anything anywhere. It's just a big circus of talk and graphs. With all the google searches and wasted manhours, it's probably going to cause the release of much more CO2 than it otherwise would. :-)

In the end, we'll adapt to whatever comes. We've done that before and on a far less technological scale.

Or maybe we'll fail because of technology? Are we too complex and inflexible to adapt now?

John Niclasen
14-Dec-2009 2:51:44
"here in the Pacific region we have inhabited islands that already drowning"

Could it be, that the seafloor is sinking and not the sealevel, that is rising? The ringformed coral reefs in the Pacific is the leftover from volcanic islands, that have sunk back into the ocean. See also Slide 54 in this presentation: A load of hot air

Greg Schofield
14-Dec-2009 5:55:23
John, the sea levels are rising on average by about 2mm per year, land masses do sometimes sink and others rise. Venice is sinking for instance, Eastern Greece is rising. But nothing can explain how the sea level in the middle of the Pacific Ocean drops by 3.9 inches and the rest of the sea level around it rises as slide 54 purports to show. So I cannot make sense of this at all – it seems to be measuring large scale surface deformations of ocean bodies.
Greg Schofield
14-Dec-2009 6:33:56
I have spoken about "hairy" historical data; while I would trust few contributors here on climates, science and politics -- I do trust their expertise for knotty computational problems – and hairy data is a very knotty problem.

What is hairy data – it is not clean or complete and is largely contextual. It cannot be reduced to numbers and to get clear truths out of it requires multiple manipulations, cross-checking and back-referencing – it also requires constant and ongoing documentation.

I work at analysing anthropological and historical information, recorded oral and visual material, genealogies, religious beliefs, linguistic and archaeological evidence. Critiques and counter-critiques of theories, observations and social descriptions. Mapping locations and features, transcribing expert opinions and those of informants. My work is in assessing claims by aboriginal groups for their Native Title rights as defined by Australian law. It is perhaps the best job I have ever been paid to do.

Given the diverse nature of the material, its hairy interconnections fuzzy definitions, and narrative nature there is little surprise that computers play a very small role in all of this – computers like numbers, anything else and they fall down rather badly.

With XML I can potentially preserve the structural and linguistic context of the material (this has important analytical purpose). But there is nothing about that really lets me freely associate, disassociate, aggregate and tear apart the data while preserving its original state.

I have used a number of so called software solutions – they are all interface bound (usually relying on some visual analogy), none seem anywhere flexible enough for the hard work. I think it needs a dialect, that is an abstract manipulation language which is a spine for whatever else is piled ontop.

So anyone with any idea please consider the problem (it is no easy one to solve). On one hand I need to be able to arbitrarily associate things, on another a need a way of organising these systemically, gathering up threads into bunches, tear these apart, reassemble them, go backwards and forwards, from original source to commentary etc., adding in notes etc., Obviously objects hold a key for free navigation and association basically I am foxed even on where to begin.

I know what doesn’t work and why, but what could work is too vague to describe but definite enough not to be dismissed.

xRatio
14-Dec-2009 12:45:01
The world-wide WORST ideologies:

Socialism

Feminism

ISLAM

ISLAM swimming in socialism and feminism is the WORST ideology at all.

xRatio (aka Ratio)

Ashley
14-Dec-2009 20:10:46
Ah, I think you're confusing ideology with theology ... and Islamic feminists are not that common.

Anyway, calling climate change believers SOCIALISTS isn't very evocative. A couple of good labels (to counter the denier and heretic labels) I've come across are:

  • Warm mongers
  • Warmists
  • Alarmists
  • Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside)
Oldes
15-Dec-2009 2:02:29
To xRatio: the worst is not socialism, feminism nor islam. The worst is extremism. Extremism of all forms. Especially extrem-stupidism which you can find in all ideologies, religions and or other human acts. But the fact, that there are stupid people believing in something, does not means, that the thing itself must be completely bad. But it's out of topic here!
Kaj
15-Dec-2009 6:57:45
As I said, if there are any alien observers, they must be chuckling, or flabbergasted, or both, that we are casting the future of the planet in terms of polarising politics.
Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch
15-Dec-2009 10:52:56
(at) Greg Schofield: I now work with a company which can help you with your unstructured data.

Its a completely different data model, and can readily import XML, but once imported you can multi-model your data in any way or context you like and then make comparisons directly within the database and in fact store the results as a new data-set.

there is no dimensional limit to the way you can express your data. There are no tables or columns, but these can be simulated if you want.

But then you could represent them as associated aggregated sets, hierarchies, or any model you need, and have all of this representation simultaneously.

If you want to get in touch with me, you can reach me on altme, or get my mail address from the rebol mailing list, if you are subscribed to it.

Greg Schofield
15-Dec-2009 14:07:27
Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch,

I will get in touch with you soon -- but unfortunately I work for government and they will not buy software of any kind, in fact I waste time writing simple macros (people would laugh at how primitive things are) - we are forced to live in MS hell because of so-called "security" concerns.

What you have said sounds like music to my ears, I think I am an expert on approaches that do not work, what you mention sounds just what is needed.

nikales
15-Dec-2009 22:17:11
xRatio, I guess it is not possible to define "theo". By the way, is it possible to clearly define "socialism", "feminism" or "Islam"? I don't know but it seems to me it is in the human nature to try hard to convince others using some incomplete data :)

Ashley
16-Dec-2009 4:09:11
xRatio is right on one level as Theo is "relating to God or deities" whilst ology is "a branch of knowledge" ... so yes, theology and ideology are both branches of knowledge, but saying that "the study of the nature of God and religious belief" IS "a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy" is a bit of a stretch.
Ashley
16-Dec-2009 4:22:03
I came across a brilliant idea for a global climate tax the other day that would satisfy both warmists and sceptics.

First, agree what the annual average global temperature should be. Then, at the end of each year work out what it actually was. For each degree above or below every nation must contribute 1% of their GDP to climate rectification.

In this manner everyone has a vested interest in keeping variation from the mean as low as possible, and if the alarmists are right and temperatures do start sky rocketing up then more money flows into rectification. If the sceptics are right and nothing changes then no-one pays anything. See, we can all have our cake and eat it too.

Greg Schofield
16-Dec-2009 17:19:05
xRatio May I suggest some real philosophy Kant and Hegel, instead of the half-baked and early thinkers.

The only coherent and consistent definition of Ideology is that of Marx (like it or lump it; everything on the subject is derivative from him).

There is a distinction between general ideology and systematic ideologies that needs to be taken into account (i.e. you don't escape ideology simply because it has no systemic form).

Plus ideologies cause diddly-squat, rather they are invoked to give meaning other motives and causes which may be contrary to what is believed or simply too complex and hidden away to be properly understood by the participants.

But I do agree with you in general that sloppy thinking gets nobody very far.

P.S. it is also wrong to make religions out to be ideologies, insofar as; the religious experience is universal, the holy works analogies, and the theologies wholly rational. Islam, by the way, is a fine religion and has a much better record than Christianity as a practiced belief.

However, it is correct to state that religious culture can be used to create political ideologies, obviously there is usually very little religion in any of these.

Ironically, thinking rationally is also to abandon unthinking simplicities. Thinking rationally is also thinking self-critically.

nikales
16-Dec-2009 23:51:55
Ideologies are btw clearly defined as ILLOGICAL, INCONSISTENT "thinking"

xRatio., I can agree on that. Do we even know what is "logical" or "consistent"? Can we even differentiate the good from the wrong? Everything is based on assumption isn't it? Do you think "rational" and "logical" thinking cannot lead to murderous policies? Like you said, Ideologies are illogical and inconsistent but aren't they also the offspring of something that had the appearance of logical and consistent thinking?

sswell
17-Dec-2009 8:43:54
I liked the global warming debate better.
Nick
20-Dec-2009 2:37:52
I'm surprised Carl posts any new blog entries when he sees discussion like this...
xRatio
20-Dec-2009 16:03:17
(at) Oldes 19-Dec-2009 4:20:50

Are you a psychopath?

Visit John Ray or any other non-socialist psychologist in the world to explore yourself. ;-) xRatio

W^L+
22-Dec-2009 1:58:13
I think the relevant fact is that "Harry" wrote a program to "adjust" recent temps higher and older temps lower. That says that the actual warming wasn't enough to motivate changes so it was necessary to expand it.

Before we get all condemnatory, I'm sure we can each remember situations where the desired figures (sales, costs, market share, head count) were lacking and someone higher up asked us to "bend" things to make them hit the target. I hope that Harry isn't getting singed by the heat, which properly belongs to the managers of the organizational unit.

Makes you think, doesn't it? What would you do in a similar situation?

xRatio
22-Dec-2009 16:09:57
(at) ALL, read

John Hospers, "Libertarianism".

John Hospers, "Libertarianism"

John Hospers, "Libertarianism"

John Hospers, "Libertarianism"

xRatio

Shadwolf
27-Dec-2009 17:41:33
Oh my God ! we found another Paul !!

Ok i'm bad, at least Paul betwing 2 "I make love to my crucifix" phrase is able to speak a little about rebol...

Xratio this is not the place for you to post. Ask paul he can give you alot of forums address to speak with people that would be interrested in your opinions...

Global warming statistics leads to an "I hate Islam Jesus is my lord" debat ??? Oh really? Just by curiosity what was the intellectual path that leads you from this to that ?

I though ... honnestly that post about operating a large number of data and doing heavy statistics would lead to a sad joke like: "That's not with the slow math in Rebol3 that we will know at what rate this planet is comming to an end" well at least that would have had some ralation with the topic of the post...

XRatio at least for chrismas i know what kind of present to do to you ... None cause you are a bad bad bad guy!

Henrik
31-Jan-2010 0:53:05
I'm not going to report abuse, but is it possible to keep religion attacks out of Carl's very public and google indexed blog? Thanks.

(He probably shouldn't have written this post or keep a separate blog for these kinds of posts).

Carl Sassenrath
9-Apr-2010 14:46:15
Sorry guys... the abuse mechanism was not working and things got a little carried away here. I've added an additional note to the bottom of the page.
buddyontobuddy
4-Jul-2012 9:00:50
I am have been studying this topic for a long time. You have provided great information in you post and some things I have not seen in other content I have read by others. article link

Post a Comment:

You can post a comment here. Keep it on-topic.

Name:

Blog id:

CS-0444


Comment:


 Note: HTML tags allowed for: b i u li ol ul font p br pre tt blockquote
 
 

This is a technical blog related to the above topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, irrelevant links, advertisements, spams, personal attacks, politics, religion, etc.

Updated 21-Oct-2017   -   Copyright Carl Sassenrath   -   WWW.REBOL.COM   -   Edit   -   Blogger Source Code