Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:dBhpk.4365$zv7.3450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Kris Krieger wrote:
bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote in
news:4abf5a30-3e87-43ed-8f21-8c76dad1226f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:

On Aug 13, 1:19 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[snip]
<snip>

Don't encourage McIntyre - he needs to be persuaded to find
something constructive to do.
Ah, the usual. When arguments and evidence fails the person gets
attacked
.

The evidence hasn't failed. McIntyre found a serious defect in
Mann's data-filtering procedure, which meant Mann's hockey stick
curve should have had more and bigger noise spikes down the handle,
even though the shape remained much the same.

Here are my questions.

(1) Why does the entire anti-GW argument always comme down to two
people, Mann and McIntyre? I don't know Mann btu I did look at
McIntyre's website, and it's just that - a website. I read teh link
to his criticism of something written by ?Hegerle?, but that wasn't a
"paper", it was in teh *letters* section of Nature. That makes it a
very differnt animal - I personally found the article deficient, but
that's what it was - an article. Not a full-blown paper. I don't
recall that articles are reviewed, at least nowhere near as
rigorously as are papers, and any sceintific professional knows that.
So what's the big deal?


Letters and the like in magazines by scientists are to be taken as
seriously as papers. After all, the scientist has put his/her name
right above or under it. AGW and anti-AGW argumentation includes many
other scientists, plus whole institutes.

My point was that I don't wknow that articels/letters are reviewed as
rigorously, or are supposed to live up to the same format standards, as
are actualy papers. My impression is no, but I'd have to ask my friend
who does R&D (and has published a number of papers over the past 20 or so
years, and also co-suthored several biotech patents).



(2) When did this fellow Mann make his "hockey stick"? If it was
some years back, well, of course new data would have ceom pout, an
dof course pele whould have looked at his data and discovered any
problems with its interpretation - that is how sceince works.
SOmeone does a study, other peopl eread it, then go do their own
studies, and then come back and confirm what can be confirmed, and
correct that which cannot. So what's the big deal?


The big deal is: A scientist _and_ an organization must officially
acknowledge "Yes, I/we are wrong on that issue". Anything less is IMHO
not honest. Yeah, it'll result in a few black eyes and bruised egos
but that is still better for an organization than being pointed at
along the lines of "Here, see, that's just one example where they are
dead wrong". Of course the latter will make it much easier for their
adversaries to discredit them in the eyes of body public (a.k.a.
voters).

Well, all I can say is that, from what I've read of their viewpoint, they
acknowledged that some errors or oversights did exist, but didn't affect
the overall curve.



Sorry but, as someone who formerly worked in a research lab
(biochemistry), and who is in close contact with people doing ongoing
R&D science, it seems to me that this stuff shouldn't even be an
issue, and only is an issue because of pique.


It is an issue because:

a. The old curve is still being used as a doomsday justification by
influential people.

b. Some politicians base their decisions on that. Decisions that can
(and I am afraid will) cost you and I in terms of tax Dollars, big
time. I am firmly opposed to that and will do whatever is legally in
my might to counter. For example by explaining stuff to others.

Again, I haven't personally seen enough that makes me think the
conclusions ahve been disproven. All that means is simply, and
precisely, what it says, nothing between the lines.

((Some poeple do have a doomsday mindset, that is quite true -
simultaneously, others are like the grasshopper in the Aesop's Fable. My
main concern is that things balance out and a sensible middle-road
strategy is adopted which will combine conservation, new technologies,
inventive/creative thinking, changes in our sociocultural values, et
cetera, so as to lead to both a wiser useage of resources (with an
emphasis on renewables), and a reduction in pollutants.))


At the same time, re: taxes, I've been a voter since 1978, which means
I've heard a heck of a lot of partisan claptrap that raised spectres of
the impending horrors of this or that projected tax scheme. The thing
is that, really, if I'm not paying for Obama's alternative-energy
research, I'll be paying for McCain's schemes - in either event, the past
several years have FUBARed the national debt so much that there is no way
anyone can promise "no new taxes" or "no tax increases". So, dire
predictions of "higher taxes" will most likely be fulfilled to at least
some degree *no matter who wins*. Yes, it sucks, but all I can do as an
individual is try to make the best of the situation (and engage in
political action as I can). <shrug>

And contrary to what Bill may believe, not releasing data can only
mean three things:

a. Too much was asked for. Then the right thing to do is to tell the
requester. Not answering at all is usually seen as rude or suspicious,
or both.

That'd be polite, but the researchers I've known throughout the years
probably don't have tiem or resources, given the papaerwork they need to
deal with in addition to thigns that are directly related to doing
research. If it's another researcher in the field submitting the
request, that's one thing - just blowing people off is like shooting
oneself in the foot, given how sceintific networking works. But if the
request is from John Q. Public, it's unlikely that someone will invest
the time in replying, never mind actually sending the data. Personally,
given what I've seen and the popele I've known, I would never impose upon
a researcher with a request for their raw data.


b. It isn't available in an organized file format where it could be
sent off with a few mouse clicks.

Which was a specific point I was trying to make, and received a reeply
about "little expereiments" and an assertion (assumption) "this data has
to be ucomputerized to analyze it"...

That could be an indicator that the
work done with such data may not be, ahem, based on much organization
either.

unlikely. Unless I've just known a lot of really superior people...


c. They don't want the requester to see that data. That would be
highly suspicious.

For example, some of the data I requested was merely the same stuff as
on web pages, just that I wanted the Excel data instead of a way too
small graph. Since the graph came from data it ought not to be hard to
just fire that off to a requester. Or even go a step further, put it
on the web site. Not too much to ask for, isn't it? If I can't back up
my research with such data I'd probably hang up my job and brew beer
or something.


Well, I could go on some more about what I've seen, and poeple I've
known, in the R&D world, at least as it relates to chemistry, biochem,
and biotechnology. But I suspect that would be to no avail. At teh same
time, I've never been associated with any climatoligists or
climatological research, so maybe that sector is vastly different.

Personally, as someone who is not a colleague in a given field, I
wouldn't impose upon a researcher with requests for raw data, becasue of
their time constraints, number and variety of records and data formats,
individual methods of dealing with and analysing data, concerns about
potential idea-theft, and so on. But, that's jsut me.




.