Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
My point is it is irrelevant.
|
It's not irrelevant, credibility is important, people are always willing to lie and deceive, or just plain get it wrong to try and support their view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
According to leading AGW scientists, it is made extremely difficult for journals to publish anti-AGW articles without getting black-balled. But maybe that's only the East Anglia folks that do that.
|
According to which AGW scientists? Black-balled by whom? Black-balled from what? What evidence that "East Anglia folks" have done this? Again be specific. If there's this group of scientists that are trying to get anti-AGW papers published, it would require a global conspiracy among tens of thousands of scientists to do so, of which there is zero evidence.
You do realize that what is said in a private email about what one would like to do is vastly different than what one actually does right? Venting frustrations is different than taking actions. One of the two journals that they expressed a desire to block (not from being published mind you, but from a report) actually was included in the report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
|
Thanks for the links, but I don't see how either of those address the specific claim that the HADCRUT3 dataset is corrupt.
The first one takes the raw data and creates some graphs which the author says disagrees with the IPCC report.. well of course if you start with a different set of numbers you are going to come up with a different graph. This isn't evidence the HADCRUT3 dataset is corrupt, this is the author disagreeing with the adjustments made to the raw data. It would be more compelling if the author first demonstrated an understanding of how the raw data was adjusted and why, and then why he disagreed with those adjustments. The way it is written the logic is backwards, he takes the raw data, does something (which I don't know is even valid, I'm not a statistician), sees cooling, then concludes that the report is wrong. "I do something different and I get the answer I want therefore you are wrong" is not a good argument.
The second one is similar, it takes issue with a specific instance of how the data was adjusted. The author admits to not knowing why an adjustment was made in the way it was so decides that's evidence of corruption; finding something and then fitting it to the desired conclusion, exactly what the author is accusing others of. This would also be more compelling if the author went out and found out why the data was adjusted the way it was and showed why that adjustment was incorrect.
I had thought we were talking about "climategate", specifically how these emails demonstrate that the HADCRUT3 data set is corrupt based on the stolen emails, that's what I was asking for evidence of.. the links you posted are completely unrelated to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Claiming that scientists are the only sentient being capable of comprehending this subject is disingenuous.
|
Of course it would be, fortunately I didn't do that. You or I can understand how to build a bridge, but I don't think either of us should be trusted to actually build one. Things are complicated with lots of details that an armchair scientist (or even a scientist from a different discipline) can miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
There are intelligent people out there without letters behind their names that can make sense out of it, too.
|
Making sense of something is vastly different than being able to speak authoritatively about something, or being able to know and apply all the knowledge and subtleties and nuances of a discipline. I bet if you spoke with most scientists about disciplines other than their own, they will freely admit that, because they know how complicated their own field is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
And publishing in a journal doesn't gold-clad a paper based on crap data. It just makes it widely distributed.
|
No, being published in a journal is more than distribution. And even passing peer review is only the first step. Once published then you have to see who references your paper and why and how. What other papers are written to support it? What other papers are written to refute it? If the data in the paper is crap, another scientist (or even the same scientist!) will write a paper to show that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
I think I've been fairly calm. Can you please point out the "hand waving?" Do you mean like this: "No, that's what people like Glenn Beck want to make people think."?
|
You misunderstand me, handwaving isn't about being emotional or losing calm. Handwaving refers to making a point without supporting it, or supporting it only vaguely.
Something like this "The CRU scientists are corrupt because the stolen emails have shown their corruption, so the data set is corrupt." is handwaving, because there's no actual support to the claim.
Which is why I asked for specifics, specifics usually help cut through handwaving.