Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[BlackCat]

This is true.

Yep, but there were also physiscists that thought that firing an atom bomb would ignite the atmosphere.

[KrazyHorse]

No, there were physicists who raised the possibility, which was based on almost complete LACK of knowledge of fusion processes at the time.

[BlackCat]

Oh, you mean like those physiscists that think the CERN experiment will turn the earth into a black hole

[KrazyHorse]

[BlackCat]

Well, just to be sure - I think that they are nutcases too

[KrazyHorse]

I hope you're kidding. There are not many physicists who think that. Most of the people who claim that are those with little or no expertise in the subject.

[BlackCat]

I hope you're kidding. There are not many physicists who think that. Most of the people who claim that are those with little or no expertise in the subject.

have I said anything else ?

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, you mean like those physiscists that think the CERN experiment will turn the earth into a black hole

Emphasis mine

[Lorizael]

So you would accept cold fusion as a fact if it was published but data/method wasn't ?

I may be wrong, but isn't a part of the scientific method that other can/cannot reproduce the results ? That's of course no problem if it can be done trough setting up some lab equipment, drilling a new "vostok" hole or build an accelerator a la CERN, but what if it's based on unique data such as historical measurements ? How do you reproduce them ?

CRU actually have a problem about their science when they deny others acces to their data since they are unique.

About the conspiracy scheme, well, the most realistic is probably money, ego and "scientific fame" (Piltdown Man).

But the basic conclusions reached by researchers at CRU have been reproduced. Over and over again. That's kind of why scientists believe there is a consensus with regards to climate change. Skeptics want access to the data because they absolutely cannot believe that this is the case, but the scientific method demands more from skepticism than dogmatic disbelief.

[BlackCat]

Yes, but essentially all science is based on "shoddy" models and "massaged" data. The models are shoddy because scientists only need their code to do the one task they ask it to do, and the data is massaged because the raw data you collect in one place doesn't always match the raw data you collect in another place.

Just a minor question assuming you don't use computers - do you need to provide a description of how you manipulate data and why ? I think that you would have to do such before the invention of computers.

Can you please explain why such isn't any longer nessecary after the invention/use of computers ?

Further, how can use of "shoddy" models be considered scientific ? Well, you claim that it's because it's done by a computer, but would you accept such if it was done by hand ?

Data "massage" do make sense, but viewed scientific, wouldn't that demand that you have a precise description of when and why you do it ? If for nothing else, to remind why you did it ?

Honestly, what you have described sounds more like data manipulation than science.

I'm a bit dissapointed that KH apparently agres with you on this, but maybe I have a wrong perception of the scientific method.

[KrazyHorse]

The basic methods they use to calibrate the data have been explained. That's what they mean when they refer to "Mike's Nature trick"....

[KrazyHorse]

I think that any data manipulation you do should be described in sufficient detail that somebody else would be able to substantially (if not exactly) reproduce the result. As far as I can see, that principle has been followed by the climate scientists.

[BlackCat]

But the basic conclusions reached by researchers at CRU have been reproduced. Over and over again. That's kind of why scientists believe there is a consensus with regards to climate change.

No, that is not the case. It's true that it has been reproduced, but only by some that can be expected to find the same. The data hasn't been available for scientists that doubt the primary results wich is against the scientific method.

Skeptics want access to the data because they absolutely cannot believe that this is the case, but the scientific method demands more from skepticism than dogmatic disbelief.

Who really cares why they want acces ? That is totally irellevant - either your data and model can hold against atttack or it can't. You can't claim that the "skeptist" have a wrong opinion or are "paid by oil" - either your research are sound and can take the beating or the theory are wrong.

What you really are talking about is that opponents can't be allowed acces because that will disturb the political process.

[BlackCat]

I think that any data manipulation you do should be described in sufficient detail that somebody else would be able to substantially (if not exactly) reproduce the result. As far as I can see, that principle has been followed by the climate scientists.

I suggest that you go back to #50 in this thread. I know that you wasn't happy about reading it due to size, but it kinda speaks against your claim.

I admit that I have no proof of it's credibility, but the size and it's details demands a pretty hard job.

[KrazyHorse]

Can you summarize it, BC?

EDIT: in other words, what's the key part that I have to read in order to demonstrate that the climate people are doing stuff which isn't adequately described in their papers?