Phil, you are inferring here that the reasons for the disagreements over the data is to hide false conclusions. That is assuming guilt. You should know that isn't always the case. It is perfectly logical that data was not hidden from the public or manipulated, but rather that there was disagreements on the data itself.
You have said that there was a refusal to hand over data for review. Where's the evidence for this? Who was asking for the data? Exxon?
You can call it tricks if you like, but if the IOCC was trying to eliminate the effects of urbanization on local temperature, then to me, it seems that they were trying to eliminate bias from the findings since urbanization results in artificially created higher temperatures, as anyone who's in NYC during the summer can attest.
As I stated before, I was not accusing the WSJ of making up facts, but that opinion pieces should be treated as opinion pieces. While an opinion piece does not mean it is devoid of facts, it does not mean that it substantiates a "news" article from a tabloid, and conflating the two does not make sense.
Willy,
A few posts ago you dismissed Snowman's cite to a Daily Mail article claiming that Phil Jones was making all sorts of remarks that were contrary to some of the underlying aspects of global warming.
You were totally dismissive, calling the Mail a "tabloid," and comparing to to World Weekly News with its photos of Bush and P'lod, the alien. (Yes, I have been following P'lod for years. He was also seen in a photo with Hillary and numerous others.)
Anyway, you said something to the effect that you would take is seriously if it had been in a real newspaper of some reputation. (That is my paraphrasing from memory, not intended as a quote."
Well, although I didn't compare the articles word for word, here is a similar article from the Wall Street Journal referencing the same thing as they had in the Mail.
I know this is an opinion piece, but that does not negate the underlying facts asserted, unless you are claiming that the Journal is fabricating those facts.
Happy reading. Or ist the journal just a rag on the level of the WWN?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069551130098386.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
I understand that reasonable people can disagree about complex matters of national importance. But when it comes to science, I leave that to scientists. The reason being is that people who are not scientists do not have the necessary education to understand the complexities of the data, and what it represents.
As best as I can figure, the entire Climategate issue is just revealing what happens in scientific discovery every day. Scientists disagree about conclusions. That's not a scandal, that's the norm.
What is rare is for a sector of industry to use their vast cash reserves to disseminate propaganda that such disagreements constitutes a scandal just to protect their bottom line. On it's face, that's a conflict of interest, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Furthermore, using news articles from legitimate sources, and in this case an opinion piece, hardly substantiates Snow's tabloid piece. In the same way that NASA discovering that there's water on Mars does not substantiate that space aliens backed George Bush.
Unless you find a legitimate news source that is backing the specific claims made by Snow's tabloid piece, then it's nothing more than conflation. And even if you did find one, I would think that a reasonable person should seriously take a look at the sources for that article before reaching any conclusion.
-- Modified on 2/18/2010 7:51:36 AM
You said, "[s]cientists disagree about conclusions. That's not a scandal, that's the norm."
Yes. They do disagree. That is why global warming failed science. What is a scientific scandal is for people to deny that there can be different conclusions because "the debate is over."
Gore was saying there are no different conclusions. People said if you don't agree with the concluson of global warming you are the same as a Holocaust denier.
Also, the Climategate debate is not about what happens in science every day. The CRU refused to hand over data for review. That is not normal for science. Indeed, that is the opposite of science. Sience says, "Here are my conclusions, and here is my data to support it. Try and rip it apart, sucker."
CRU refused to hand over data. that is more like Catholosism of the 1400's, which said, "Here is our conclusion, but you can't see the source because only priests are smart enough to understand it."
Likewise, normal science does not do "tricks" with numbers without explaining what those "tricks" are. For example, there is some dispute as to the exact odds of finding a particular sample of DNA in more than one person. Because there is some debate as to the exact likelihood, when DNA is used in court, the modify the number to make it more conservative. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER, when they do that they say openly, "Normally we would say that the odds are X, but because there are unknown factors we have been conservative, so for the purposes you can use Y."
But this is open and everyone reviewing the numbers knows what happened.
Phil Jones & Co. said, "Well our numbers are iffy, but we will do this trick to make it match and not tell anyone."
No, my deeply religous friend, this is not what science does every day. The explain the "trick," say what the original data was, and let it be evaluated.
Finally, science does not lose data and tell people, "don'w worry. It was right. Trust the result."
Finally, I would say that reports in the Wall Street Journal citing reports from BBC are as legit as you can get, even if they are in an "opinion piece." "Opinion pieces" still cite facts which are subject to debate. To just attack it because of its form is the weakest form of attack there is.
Phil, you are inferring here that the reasons for the disagreements over the data is to hide false conclusions. That is assuming guilt. You should know that isn't always the case. It is perfectly logical that data was not hidden from the public or manipulated, but rather that there was disagreements on the data itself.
You have said that there was a refusal to hand over data for review. Where's the evidence for this? Who was asking for the data? Exxon?
You can call it tricks if you like, but if the IOCC was trying to eliminate the effects of urbanization on local temperature, then to me, it seems that they were trying to eliminate bias from the findings since urbanization results in artificially created higher temperatures, as anyone who's in NYC during the summer can attest.
As I stated before, I was not accusing the WSJ of making up facts, but that opinion pieces should be treated as opinion pieces. While an opinion piece does not mean it is devoid of facts, it does not mean that it substantiates a "news" article from a tabloid, and conflating the two does not make sense.
I didn't label it tricks. Phil Jones suggested using tricks. It wasn't my word.
As for refusing to hand over info, google CRU and Freedom of information. That was where the whole thing started. They refused to hand over info. It wasn't to Exxon, although that would not be a defense.
Even if Exxon wanted the data to see if it was accurate, science hands over that data and defends it against what Evil Exxon says.
If it was right, and Exxon wanted to see it, the scientific approach is not, "No. It a big secret." rather, the scientific approach is, "Yo, sucker. Here it is. Let's have at it and damned be him who first cries hold, enough."
Also, I am not "inferring here that the reasons for the disagreements over the data is to hide false conclusions."
The entire global warming community has bitterly attacked anyone who denies THE CONCLUSIONS. If some questioned whether the conclusion was correct, they were attacked as deniers, akin to holocaust deniers. They said there was only one conclusion and that it was settled and the debate was over.
When you say different conclusions are possible, you are disputing the mantra.
-- Modified on 2/18/2010 12:15:09 PM