Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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.
Just because others say they've evaluated it doesn't mean they have, or doesn't mean they understand the context either.
|
Doesn't mean they haven't or they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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.
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.
|
Where is the other 5%? Or do you merely claim 95% is available? Maybe it's only 80%? There is NO history of the data used to generate one of the most widely used temperature sets. We just "accept the claim" that 95% is readily available. And the data has been manipulated to the point where a programmer who cares doesn't even know where it's at anymore. Of course, his name isn't on your list of people to trust, so you don't accept this. Nor do you care to discuss - it's simply dismissed.
And the "scientists" only mean what is published in the journals, but their shady practices as illuminated through the emails don't count.
Why is the Met Office embarking on a three year initiative to replicate the questionable practices only in a scientifically honest way? Don't they know the data is on the internet, so no biggie?
And no need to get testy about it. I assumed you were a climate scientist, because of all the factual statements you were making and the air of dismissal around anything contrary. And I said you either didn't comprehend it OR didn't have the patience to go through it. It was not an insult and, in fact, was accurate for option B.