Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Doesn't mean they haven't or they don't.
|
Which is why I ask for specifics so I can evaluate it myself. Talking heads and news folk (especially those trying to confirm an ideology rather than finding scientific truth) rarely have the ability to evaluate it. Anyone who knows anything about science knows how bad journalists are at reporting anything to do with science.
Look at how many "journalists" think "hide the decline" refers to global temperatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Where is the other 5%?
|
I've already told you where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Or do you merely claim 95% is available?
|
No, I linked to it, and the CRU people confirmed that that's how much has been available for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
We just "accept the claim" that 95% is readily available.
|
Well sure everyone could be lying, but if you want to get into the realm of crazy global conspiracy start some other thread.
It'd be easy enough for someone to confirm or deny too.. get the set of data claimed to be the 95%. Start gathering data from the original meteorological station sources and compare the two. If someone thinks that the are lying about 95% being available (meaning they think they are lying about their source data and used made up data to begin with), this would be how they would find it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
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.
|
I haven't dismissed it, I've asked for specifics about this repeatedly. Which programmer? Where does the programmer say this? How do you expect me to discuss or evaluate this claim without any information? I ask you for details, you ignore that request and then accuse me of things? That hardly seems reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
And the "scientists" only mean what is published in the journals, but their shady practices as illuminated through the emails don't count.
|
Which shady practices? Again be specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
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?
|
You know this kind of thing makes any kind of reasonable discussion difficult. It hasn't been demonstrated that the science behind HADCRUT3 is dishonest.
Anyway, first, if you want to know why the Met Office is doing what they are doing, ask them, I'm sure I don't know. Public pressure? Second, what you say make no sense since the Met Office says they re-doing the analysis of the data. Which doesn't have anything to do with the data being available or not ya.. you're mixing up analysing raw data with having that raw data.. the Met Office couldn't analyse the data if they didn't have it now could they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
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.
|
You never assumed I was a climate scientist, to say that in the way you are is just inflammatory and useless to the conversation. If you don't want any real content to the discussion then please just say so, no need to employ silly comments like that.
I haven't dismissed anything, I'm trying to engage in a discussion, and that requires information and support from both sides. Or does disagreeing with you or providing an reasonable explanation for something that doesn't support the "corruption" idea qualify as dismissing to you?
You said I don't understand it or don't have the patience to evaluate it, but you haven't provided what I'm supposed to understand or have the patience to evaluate! So I'll ask one more time, which comments in which code?