Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Ob2ok.16475$cW3.11512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Kris Krieger wrote:
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


Quote: "Show your materials and methods section to a colleague. Ask if
they would have difficulty in repeating your study." That would be the
right thing to do but one must also be willing to show all that to
reviewers. Luckily, in the US we have FOIA :-)


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 the AGW world that seems not always to be so.


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.


One of many examples:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=638

I certainly do not believe a scientist like McIntyre would make any
accusations like this if their weren't true.

Quote "As I mentioned previously, I requested the identity of the
sites in the blend as part of the IPCC review process and was refused
and even threatened with expulsion as a reviewer if I made any further
attempts to obtain the data from Hegerl et al. At the time, I was told
that such considerations were the province of the journal and that it
was not the job of an IPCC reviewer to carry out any additional due
diligence on data."

I think that shows what's going on.

Also very disturbing:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=53

If you still don't believe it you can ask Steve McIntyre directly:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=778


.

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; ... Mann not wanting to reveal his raw data probably has more to do ... review seems to comes closer to what most scientists would regard ... If the sceintific papers describing global temperature studies are not in ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • VISION-LIST digest 25.1 - [2/2]
    ... authors of accepted papers at the workshops. ... After the acceptance of a workshop proposal the organizershould: ... We will provide an online paper submission and review ... the conference registration covers everything). ...
    (comp.ai.vision)
  • Re: Scientnfic Repression in the 21th Century-The Next Galileo Galilei ??????
    ... > The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the ... > incomprehension of eminent scientists. ... > papers authored by credentialed physicists, i.e., those who ... > consistently had papers approved for publication in peer refereed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT Intelligent Design and is this really way way off topic
    ... >>>intertia in the science establishment IMO. ... > many Scientists from treating Theists like idiot children. ... Scientific journals have minimum standards for publication. ... hand I expect that ID papers typically do not meet those standards. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
Loading