Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:K9Ink.17400$uE5.10597@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

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.

Let's also not forget that data revelations is what the "Materials and
Methods" section in a sceintific paper is supposed to provide - it has to
precisely describe what is done, under what conditions, and using what
materials.

http://aerg.canberra.edu.au/pub/aerg/edupaper.htm
http://biology.luther.edu/paper.htm

Those websites clearly describe the accepted format for scientific
papers. This format is the accepted one precisely becasue it does reveal
how expereiments/studies are done, what data are collected, what
background information was used to evaluate the data, how conclusions
were reached, and what those conculsions are. If a paper deviates from
this format, it is *rejected*, pure and simple - it might be acceptable
to the local newspaper, but not taken seriously by anyone in the
scientific community.


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.


If the sceintific papers describing global temperature studies are not in
the correct format, please provide a number of links to these papers so
that people can evaluate this situation for themselvs, trather than
having to take your description on faith. I tried to google this, but
came up with a lot of references to blogs, and to many descriptions of or
comments about what's supposedly in verious papers, but as of yet, no
success in finding actual journal-published papers archived online -
still looking, tho.

If no such links exist, then at least the preliminary conclusion has to
be that your claim of "no data is provided" could be inaccurate.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... acceptance at the same time; ... If conclusions are doubtful normal peer review _has to_ involve raw data. ... If the sceintific papers describing global temperature studies are not in the correct format, please provide a number of links to these papers so that people can evaluate this situation for themselvs, trather than having to take your description on faith. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... acceptance at the same time; ... scientific review seems to comes closer to what most scientists ... Else it's not a valuable review. ... If the sceintific papers describing global temperature studies are ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Why should Qumran archaeology or Dr. Thiering be a dead letter on sci.arch?
    ... citations are there in other papers? ... Citation is the only measure of acceptance. ... No citations means no acceptance, ... If you want to discuss how that character became a figurehead, a hood ornament for the unrelated Christian religion that would be interesting. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Why should Qumran archaeology or Dr. Thiering be a dead letter on sci.arch?
    ... Acceptance of an idea is based upon other papers citing her publications and ... citations are there in other papers? ... Citation is the only measure of acceptance. ... No citations means no acceptance, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... And you HAVE a clue? ... his raw data is shit, so will be the resulting paper. ... The literature review in my own Ph.D. thesis ... covers a couple of papers that I wrote off in exactly this way. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)