Quote:
Originally Posted by GaiJin
Read much? He is , for the most part a semi retired mining executive. He has made a lot of enemies in the statistical analysis world, mainly by just asking to see the data, and see the work to back up claims. For a lack of better of term, he has owned some of the big name climate researchers in their own field by just finding mistakes in their data, and in some cases the manipulation of the data. You can go back and read his posts prior to climategate, in which he was right about data set errors and influencing.
If you just want to make up your mind over glossy headlines in the media instead of immersing yourself in the data, thats up to you. Admittedly it's dry and hard to follow. That guy puts up all his data sets, all his work, for all to see and pick at. Something even the publically funded researches refuse to do even though they are claiming their work is for the greater good.
|
Honestly, I'm no scientist or data cruncher. Don't care. The whole point of my post is that you are presenting a false equivalency: actual scientists who can evaluate such things give no credence to such bunk, so neither will I. There is no debate on the science and "data sets", and you seem to be trying to make us believe there is by pointing at a former energy security trader's blog that has been discredited by people trained in such things.