|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/3/2012 7:05:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
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.
There are always gaps between scientific practice and the perfect scientific method. In standard scientific practice, minor methodological flaws are not sufficient to damn otherwise sound findings, as you appear to be arguing they ought.
If the exact data, the reason for it's inclusion, and the reason for the exclusion of other data is not defined and clearly enumerated, then the methodology is suspect. Whether you wish to parse it as "major" or "minor" is insignificant, because without having free and full access to all the data, and the complete methodology, there is no way to determine the validity of the conclusions.
Period.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
FirmHand
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.
I did provide a source - in the very next sentence, which you even quoted. ("This advice was given to a complainant associated with the ClimateAudit blog and appears on the page you linked.") The words were written by the UEA FOI Officer in response to one of the FOI requests.
You provided no link or cite that is usable to allow someone to find and read the original source of your material.
1. This link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php, you obviously haven't even looked at, as it's a redirect link, and the current link is: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/ .
2. The second link you gave (and then gave again later) is to the Wikipedia page on the CRU, which does not contain the words you quoted.
So, please, provide the original link to the source of your claims.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
Firmhand
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.
Frankly, I find your point here tendentious. I find nothing remarkable here.
The tendentious point of view that I am espousing is proper science. Not partisan political science.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Your next point is to insist that there are problems with the CRU work. Despite that work being subjected to 6 different inquiries, no serious criticisms were levelled at the work, no evidence of scientific fraud or misconduct was found and no findings were rescinded. If you want to convince me, you're going to have tell me in precise detail why those 6 inquiries were incompetent. Asking a few questions doesn't do that.
I'm saying that the CRU acknowledges that they have not released the data (nor the exact methodology) to anyone, so how could "through and independent" evaluations have occurred?
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
The scientific method should be about the data, not about attacking those who ask questions. Shouldn't it?
It is perfectly legitimate to point out the Mr McIntyre is an interested party. Especially when Mr McIntyre chooses not to disclose his interests. It casts doubt on his bona fides, doubts which the people at the CRU seem to share and which in part accounts for their lack of co-operation with him.
I can say the exact same thing about many, if not most of the major proponents of AGW. At which point you will say it doesn't matter.
What are the facts? Not opinions, beliefs, or "consensus". What are the facts, and what was the exact method?
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It appears that the difference in our positions boils down to how much weight we attach to minor methodological errors, specifically a reticence to share the data with Mr McIntyre (for reasons I can understand perfectly). Ultimately, that's a value judgement. I simply see no reason to question the findings based on these minor flaws. Neither did 6 official inquiries. Nor do the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the area. You apparently do.
If you wish to overthrow, or merely cast doubt upon a scientific consensus in any area, you're going to need a lot more evidence and a far more comprehensive and compelling critique than you have presented here. Even then it will be a difficult task. FWIW, I speak from experience.
You are assuming that they are "minor flaws", and you are supporting results of studies which can not be based on the facts.
"Consensus" isn't science. Consensus is politics.
At one point, I believed that the reality of increased world temps was a "fact", until I attempted to research the data and methodology, and discovered that both are "secret" and close-held by a small group of individuals who have made and staked their professional reputations, and appear to have political and philosophical motivations to their conclusions.
At that point, there is no other rational scientific conclusion to make other than "we don't know". Which is my current position.
But I do know that many people have seized upon the concept of AGW in order to advance their own political and economic agendas, just as many who fight it are fighting it for their own political and economic agendas.
But, without facts and methodologies backed up and hammered into gold by open discussion and defense by everyone, then there is little or no science to back up the conclusion that AGW is true, or accurate as currently espoused.
Firm
|
|
|
|
