Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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.
|
You gave me a link to a crapload of data. You tell me to go download it and figure it out. I'm not a climate scientist.
I gave you a link to the CRU developer's code and comments. You dismiss it as too long (billion lines of text) to be bothered with. Heck, you're even a programmer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
No, I linked to it, and the CRU people confirmed that that's how much has been available for years.
Well sure everyone could be lying, but if you want to get into the realm of crazy global conspiracy start some other thread.
|
I'm beginning to think you haven't really looked at the content of the emails or source code. The CRU seem to be lying and they're plugged in with many, many other scientists around the globe. Plus the key players in this little situation are key contributors to each IPCC report. This is global and people are...well...loose with the truth (perhaps downright lying - yet to be proven.) What do you think "climategate" means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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.
|
That "someone" is the Met Office which expects to take three years to address. Easy peasy! Until they've performed this activity shouldn't we all just take a pill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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.
|
Well, I can't make you read the links I've posted. You not reading them does not mean I'm ignoring your requests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Which shady practices? Again be specific.
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.
|
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...on_the_deceit/
It doesn't really pass the smell test. That's my opinion and many others. Doesn't mean it is true yet, but it should be looked into. Considering it is one of the key pillars of AGW science, an investigation should be mandatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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?
|
If you read the link I gave you, you'd know. And you're playing in semantics here. Since CRU has eradicated the raw data, we are left to accept the claim that all their raw data really exists elsewhere. Fine. Accepted. Now someone has to reengineer the steps taken over the last decade (or more) to understand how CRU got the conclusions they did. Since they purge datasets, you can't even test against the stages of work performed over the last decade. Is this proper "science?" Doesn't proper science include the ability to replicate the process?
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
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.
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?
|
True, that was inflammatory. I apologize. I was frustrated that you don't actually read any content I provide. I sent you the link to the dang code a couple pages back.
Why don't we attempt to reengage a sense of humor (or, at least, levity) in this debate before we all stomp off to our rooms and sulk?