Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
|
It's not my job to fact check for every journalist in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Obviously, you won't accept any "claims."
|
No one should accept claims. Support the claims and I would accept them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Basically, I need to trust that most of the source data is available on the internet based on your statement (as the raw data from HADCRUT3 is toast, there is no way to prove your claim)
|
I provided a link to where you can download it yourself. The CRU confirms that it's available and it has been for years. You keep saying the raw data is toast, but it isn't, I provided a link to most of it and the reason for why the rest isn't available from the University.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
but the comments in the source code providing the homogenization of the climate temperature data is too vague (written by an actual UEA developer based on the incoherence of the previous and current source code being relied on to provide these infallible datasets.) Just because you don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate doesn't diminish the efforts of others to do so.
|
Just because others say they've evaluated it doesn't mean they have, or doesn't mean they understand the context either.
And it's been demonstrated that AGW deniers have already misrepresented and misunderstood the content and context of the stolen emails, so it's reasonable to be skeptical of this claim too.
"but the comments in the source code". Which comments exactly? I'm a programmer by trade, so don't start making backhanded insults about "don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate". I'll be completely honest about what I don't understand and what I don't want to take the time to discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
You do realize, by your own definition, that you are "handwaving" at every one of my posts.
|
When I said 95% of the data was available, I provided a link to the data. That's not handwaving. OTOH I'm not the one making claims about the data set. I'm asking for specifics and I'm not getting any. If you want additional support for something I've said please ask for it and I will give it.