Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

In article <K9Ink.17400$uE5.10597@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joerg wrote:
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.

It appears to me that if a scientific paper has its conclusions and
published arrival at such conclusions having peer review finding a need
specifically to question the raw data as opposed to methods mentioned in
the paper, then in those few cases someone may ask for the raw data.

However, it appears to me that a more common practice is for someone
else to duplicate the experiment/study. If Paper A and Paper B are
on conductions of duplicative studies/experiments and show and support
opposing conclusions, and the studies/experiments are into something
important enough, then the study/experiment gets redone with more published
papers.
At that point, usually there becomes a body of weight showing what was
true and what was erroneous. It appears to me that a distant second-place
probable outcome is disagreement continuing but showing high correlation
with expected biases. When disagreement continues without high
correlation of expected bias, then people start questioning the raw data,
and more-still the methods of generating the raw data. By that point, the
scientific papers typically state to considerable extent methodology of
generating the raw data - such as thermometers of Brand XXX model YYY
located ZZZ meters above the ground, and if such thermometer is in an
enclosure, then the paper may even show or cite the specific enclosure.

When papers disagree while delving deeply into methodologies of
generating the raw data, scientists look for their mistakes. They usually
find them and admit them if they are not being paid to not do so. Even if
erring scientists avoid admitting their errors, major errors in anything
important have a high rate of being exposed.

If the raw data is not published independently of a study that makes use
of such data, then it cannot be proven that the raw data used in that
study is honest. And most of us know how well it works out to call
someone a liar, unless they say some real doozie like claiming that
people typically gain weight while consuming only 1,000 calories/day
if the calories are mostly in the form of carbohydrates.

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.

I surely remember Exxon buying ad space in Time Magazine to show
"evidence" of lack of AGW. Such as an atmospheric temperature
determination as a function of time that I suspected based on what I could
see in that ad to be "middle troposphere" temperature. That one was
expected by many to not warm nearly as much as the surface and lower
troposphere would. The middle troposphere has indeed not warmed nearly as
much as the lower troposphere and surface did.

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work. ... Roy Spencer and John Christy. ... Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering ... However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
    ... -- about some lost data from Climate Change scientists. ... Surprising that you can get raw data under this kind of act at all. ... Although I agree with the essence of what you have written, your CERN ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
    ... -- about some lost data from Climate Change scientists. ... Surprising that you can get raw data under this kind of act at all. ... but the originals - stored on paper and ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Climategate?
    ... Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files ... "Consensus" at the IPCC is meaningless at the scientific level; particularly when there is great dissent in the scientific community as a whole. ... Peer review is, likewise, meaningless when performed within a limited sphere of like-minded peers. ... I can't recall when or where I first read/heard that data was cherry-picked, and that access to raw data was refused. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they ... discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data. ... Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries ... and so ready to claim that the Hadley Centre scientists are ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Quantcast