Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 7, 2:27 am, James Arthur <bogusabd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 6, 7:21 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Joerg wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Joerg > wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Obviously, any model can become unrealistic. That doesn't mean that
you can't get good information out of models, merely that you have to
be careful. The IPCC is being pretty careful.
Careful? As in the case of the hockeystick curve?
The hockey-stick data wasn't a model, but rather the ineptly-filtered
presentation of raw data. Mann certainly screwed up, because he didn't
understand exactly how his filtering procedure worked. Even there, the
peer-reviewing process finally worked and his curves were eventually
discredited.
Wasn't that the guy who supposedly didn't want to release raw data? So
far for an organization being "careful".
And the person who discovered the mistake is the AGW-despised Steve
McIntyre
(who was a peer reviewer for them at the time). Refused the raw data, he
'reverse engineered' somehow the figures and found the flaw.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
This shows how much political hardball seems to be played in that
"scientific" world. Pretty sad, actually:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=224
The last paragraph is shocking:
"One of the first places that we would recommend such procedures is the
temperature data set used by the IPCC. Other researchers have tried
without success to get access to the supporting data. One of them shared
with us the response he received from the principal author of the
dataset: “We have 25 years invested in this work. Why should we let you
look at it, when your only objective is to find fault with it?”"
The 2nd-to-last paragraph is stunning as well. Such sloth. The work
shows it.
100% agreed. And yet WE pay for all this. The data should be public.
As a British taxpayer, you didn't pay for any of it. From Mann's CV
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/cv/cv.html
it looks as if he did most of the work as a Ph.D. student at Yale
which probably means that the U.S. taxpayers didn't fund much of it
either - Yale is well-endowed.
http://www.yale.edu/investments/Yale_Endowment_07.pdf
The general rule of Ph.D. funding is that the student gets about half
the income that they'd get in a commercial job, so Mann's personal
investment in the data he collected is not inconsiderable.
So your claim is basically the intellectual property version of the
communist claim that all property belong to the state. I hope that you
have turned over any patents you may own.
Those are good points. (Don't be too quick to assume Yale hasn't
gotten public money for this though, or that Mann hasn't been
working on it at Penn State, where he's currently employed.)

However, Mann can't have secrecy and scientific
acceptance at the same time; these are incompatible.

Mann not wanting to reveal his raw data probably has more to do with
practicalities than secrecy.


ROFL!


You can't assert trade secret status on something you've published.

Quite a lot of publications are very careful not include the
patentable details (which are trade secrets until they are patented).


Quite a lot of politicians are very careful not to include details that could turn into a smoking gun.


Nor does the aforementioned exempt Mann from scientific review.

No one was suggesting that it did. However, your idea of scientific
review seems to comes closer to what most scientists would regard as
some kind of inquisition.


So, to verify someone's scientific conclusions is now an inquisition? Oh man ...


Not to mention the hubris of holding one's proprietary interest above
that of the entire planet.

That's Exxon-Mobil's position. Mann's reservations are trivial in
comparision.

If you want to publish, you must reveal.

If only that were true.


It is true. Else they won't take you serious. Just as I don't take a lot of the AGW papers serious anymore. The vast majority of folks with or without academic education in this area doesn't either.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
.

Relevant Pages