Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

Kris Krieger wrote:
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).


It's a matter of ethics. In the same way I design my circuits for clients with the same amount of diligence, regardless of whether this will have to pass agency muster or not. If a scientist published letters or what IEEE calls "rapid communications" it better be good or the reputation will have a rather serious dent. And rightfully so.

[...]

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.


Ok, I have a different opinion. If you publish you must answer requests, no matter what. I have never, ever failed to reply to someone after I published and yes, sometimes there were a lot of requests and questions and it was work.


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...


In my cases it was stuff where fancy graphs had been created from and were published. If that was based on such non-computerized data that would raise a serious warning flag.


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.


I am an inquiring mind. If I think something could be wrong or if nobody around me understands it either I do ask. Always have, always will.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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