|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/3/2012 12:29:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Thank you, Firm, for advancing some serious material to outline the deniers' claims. Your argument seems to rely heavily on the claims that the data is not publicly available, that it cannot be reviewed independently and also on the activities of one individual, Stephen McIntyre (of the ClimateAudit blog).
I'm relying on the fact that rather than having the data and exact methodology easily and publicly available for ease of confirmation and review, the primary entities and individuals responsible for making claims about global temperature rise have been obstructionist instead of accommodating, and opaque instead of transparent.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
We should also bear in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect methodology. All methodologies can be criticised for some reason or other. Humans don't do perfection and scientists are not exceptions to this rule.
Exactly. Which is why all data and all assumptions as used for the claimant should be easily and completely available upon request (hell, before request), so that the scientific method can be used to point out weaknesses, missed strengths and questionable or missed assumptions. That is the scientific method. A "methodology" is always open to question and re-evaluation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
No data: not science.
The claim that the data is "unavailable" appears contradicted by the following:
"The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
[....]
They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data." (my emphasis)
Please provide a link to the words you quoted above.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
This advice was given to a complainant associated with the ClimateAudit blog and appears on the page you linked. The wiki page on the CRU contains further information on why the FOI requests were rejected (see also below re Mr McIntyre)
From the wiki page you quote:
The CRU collates data from many sources around the world. Its director, Phil Jones, told the science journal Nature in 2009 that he was working to make the data publicly available with the agreement of its owners but this was expected to take some months, and objections were anticipated from national meteorological services that made money from selling the data. It was not free to share that data without the permission of its owners because of confidentiality agreements, including with institutions in Spain, Germany, Bahrain and Norway, that restricted the data to academic use. In some cases the agreements were made orally, and some of the written agreements had been lost during a move.
I find this counter to your first unsourced quote. I also have several problems with how such "obstacles" as claimed by the UEA above could not be easily overcome for further "academic use" such as the scientific method of evaluation of claims.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
No ability to review the process: not science.
from wiki:
"In 2011, a new analysis of temperature data by an independent group, many of whom had stated publicly that they thought is was possible that the CRU had manipulated data, concluded that "these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[28] The Muir Russell report, however, stated, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[29][30] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations." (my emphasis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit
It appears that the data and research methods have been thoroughly and independently reviewed, and no serious flaws exposed, nor any findings rescinded.
If the exact data set used by the UEA is not available, how could "through and independent" evaluations have been done? Did they release it to just these organizations? If so, why them and not others?
If they didn't release the exact data sets to them, then how do the "through and independent" organizations obtain the data?
If the data isn't available - and some is even missing - how could the UEA have released it to them?
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The major source of the complaints, Steven McIntyre is not a disinterested observer. McIntyre fails to mention a 30 year career in minerals exploration on his blog. Nor does he mention his current position as Chairman of the Board of minerals explorer Trelawney Mining and Exploration Inc of Toronto, Ontario. Nor does he mention an ongoing minerals consultancy he is involved in. All these things add up to a direct financial and professional interest in the matters under discussion. McIntyre read Philosophy Politics and Economics (PPE) at Oxford as a post-grad student (1969-71) so he cannot be unaware of his obligation to disclose his interests - which causes legitimate questions to be raised about his honesty and integrity. Wiki reports that someone at the UEA CRU described him as a "bozo" and it's clear that he was regarded there as a nuisance and a crank. I find it difficult to accept Mr McIntyre as either completely honest or as having recognised qualifications or standing in the discipline of climate change.
The only criticism advanced that receives even the mildest confirmation is that the UEA people were not as forthcoming as they might have been. This is hardly sufficient reason to put into question the scientific consensus on AGW. Left completely mentioned are the much larger and infinitely more important questions of why this consensus has emerged if indeed it is some kind of conspiracy, the alleged motivations of the conspirators and the mountains of other evidence confirming AGW.
The scientific method should be about the data, not about attacking those who ask questions. Shouldn't it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
So thanks for your contribution but as things stand, I find it unpersuasive.
Likewise.
Firm
|
|
|
|
