[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

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.

I didn't say to download and figure it out, I just gave the link to where the data is available because you said it had been deleted. That's substantially different than saying a comment in a code exists and says something specific and then link to the huge text file.

Originally Posted by zuluking

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?

I have looked at the content of some of the emails and source code, but a very small percentage of it. I'm not the one making claims about what they say, I'm letting the investigation run its course before drawing conclusions.

Here you say they seem to be lying, they deserve substantiation for that. I can say you are lying but of course you're going to want me to give some evidence for that, right? They should be granted the same.

"Climategate" so far seem to be a media frenzy with little substance. The only emails I've seen presented in the media have been the same three over and over and over where it's been shown they've been vastly misinterpreted.

What I am trying to get from you or anyone else is actual specifics about what lies have been told, what data has actually been lost, or what code actually shows corruption of data.

If I say "you lied to me", the FIRST question out of your mouth will be "What did I say?" or "When did I lie.". You will want specifics. That's all I'm asking for.

Originally Posted by zuluking

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.

The Met Office said they're going to redo the analysis on their own, not verify that the data publicly available is actually the data that the CRU used, so it's still two different thing.

Additional confirmations make better science of course.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Well, I can't make you read the links I've posted. You not reading them does not mean I'm ignoring your requests.

I've read all the links you've posted, except for the huge text file. I'm not going to take days to read and understand all of that looking for some specific comment or code, I'm not the one making the claim.

Originally Posted by zuluking

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.

Funny thing about "smell tests" is they're easily biased by the person doing the smelling. That's why courts use evidence instead of smell tests.

But I've already said in this thread that I do support an investigation, and one has already been announced. People are people and make mistakes, but to jump in the middle of email conversations without any context (and without any understanding of the bigger picture of things) is foolish IMO.

Not complying with a FOI request, for example, might look bad, but if you find out that a hundred vexatious FOI requests were submitted designed to basically waste their time, it looks different then. Not saying that's exactly what happened or that it's right to refuse the 101st (that's what an investigation is for), but just saying context is important.

EDIT: BTW this link is more interesting because it actually covers some different emails than the ones the media keep jumping on. Though the author of those emails seems to be satisfied with the outcome of those exchanges, and reading the emails without the greater context does seem to lend itself to misinterpretation. I'll look at that link further, this is more along the lines of what I've been asking for.

Originally Posted by zuluking

If you read the link I gave you, you'd know.

I don't think it actually says why. It says that public confidence is shattered, which supports my speculation of public pressure, but it doesn't go so far as to say "they are reanalysing because of public pressure" or "they are reanalysing because they believe the CRU data corrupt".

Originally Posted by zuluking

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?

You don't have to have intermediate data-sets to be able to compare a finished product with one you've done yourself using the same processes. And the processes they used would have been documented in the relevant papers. If those processes aren't in the papers then I would agree yes there was some gaps in what should have been done, but such papers generally would not have been accepted.

I'm not willing to go out into all these papers that have been gone over by thousands of scientists; I accept that science works and is self correcting (because it's proven to be so in the past). At some point I stop digging and wait for the results of the investigation.

I'm not saying in any of my posts that there was no problem, all I've ever been after is support for the claims being made.

Originally Posted by zuluking

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.

And you appreciate why I'm not going to sift through it all to find a few lines of code or comments?

Originally Posted by zuluking

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?

Sure, but I don't think I've been upset and I won't stop asking for support for things.