Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 9, 7:20 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@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:

<snip>

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.

That's why they don't get published until they've been patented


Mann wanted to patent his stuff ...?


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 ...

That the logical fallay of the excluded middle. Normal peer-review
doesn't involve going through somebody's raw dara.


If conclusions are doubtful normal peer review _has to_ involve raw data. Else it's not a valuable review.


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 seriously.

Don't be silly. The level of revelation that MCIntyre was after was
very unusual. Most people in science who are taken seriously have
never revealed their raw data and would be incredulous if anybody
asked for it.


Then I would not take them seriously anymore. Which happened in this case.

In my world of medical technology it very common to make the underlying data accessible. In fact, many agencies require that. Things are handled in a much more professional manner than they seem to in the AGW world.


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.

Which reflects the success of Exxon-Mobil's campaign to muddy the
water.


You don't seem to understand that educated folks are able to see through all that. Also, they'd have to watch tons of TV to catch such an ad (if there was one). Which most of them don't.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Accuracy vs. Relevance
    ... > data-processing protocol should be made available beforehand and the ... > raw data should ideally be posted on the net in real time, ... human scientists. ... is that the original team (in this case the GP-B team) gets ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... Mann not wanting to reveal his raw data probably has more to do with ... If conclusions are doubtful normal peer review _has to_ involve raw ... scientists look for their mistakes. ... see in that ad to be "middle troposphere" temperature. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... The IPCC is being pretty careful. ... Mann certainly screwed up, because he didn't ... Wasn't that the guy who supposedly didn't want to release raw data? ... review seems to comes closer to what most scientists would regard as ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Huygens embargo--12 months
    ... Thierry wrote: ... The raw data, however, ... As usual from ESA... ... >>order to allow the ESA scientists time to analyze the data without ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Huygens embargo--12 months
    ... > release the raw data, and allow someone else the chance to discover ... I hope that science will not become a commercial affair... ... >> order to allow the ESA scientists time to analyze the data without ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)