I will freely admit that, despite being a fairly clever person, a lot of the climate change science leaves me cold, and I don't have anywhere near the time or inclination to pour over the data myself. So summaries such as this (especially ones where the writer actually admits to favouring one side) is helpful. Additionally, in this case, it's interesting to see the same critic playbook is being deployed everywhere from Creationism to Anti-Vaccination.
But if you'll forgive a minor edit...
In short; when talking about anything, the internet has the habit of creating an awful lot of heat, but very little light.
Nigel Lawson made a reasonable comparison yesterday.
He noted that there have been 48 separate complaints against the Metropolitan Police regarding the misuse of anti-terrorist legislation but, other than some issues with communications, every report into these complaints has found that the Met have no case to answer.
All enquiries were closed and carried out by appointees of the Metropolitan Police.
Nigel Lawson made a reasonable comparison yesterday.
He did? I suppose there's a first time for everything; though I don't think that this is it.
So far, the skeptic camps appear to be taking two general approaches in their response to Muir Russell:
Firstly: to shoot the messenger - which is to say that Muir Russell (and the Oxburgh report in April and the Science & Technology Select Committee report in March and the parallel UPenn investigation) were all partial, biased, untrustworthy, short-sighted or a combination of the previous.
I find the practise of asking for habeus corpus lacking in theoretical science; especially in areas where the researchers refuse to reveal their data at all.
While we're on the latin tags, better to ask cui bono?
I find the practise of asking for habeus corpus lacking in theoretical science; especially in areas where the researchers refuse to reveal their data at all.
'however Climatye Change has become an article of religious faith and bad science is being used to support it, along with obstruction of those who wish to actually enquire and actual destruction of data upon which the models (which the editorial speaks of in glowing terms) were built.
It is therefore impossible to reconstruct these models or to run these simulations. We cannot say "Yes, I have run identical data sets here and your answers were correct within margins of error".'
One of the things that Muir Russell did as part of their investigation was just such a reconstruction.
To quote sections 6.4.13-14:
'13. To carry out the analysis we obtained raw primary instrumental temperature station data. This can be obtained either directly from the appropriate National Meteorological Office (NMO) or by consulting the World Weather
( ... )
Comments 7
But if you'll forgive a minor edit...
In short; when talking about anything, the internet has the habit of creating an awful lot of heat, but very little light.
Reply
He noted that there have been 48 separate complaints against the Metropolitan Police regarding the misuse of anti-terrorist legislation but, other than some issues with communications, every report into these complaints has found that the Met have no case to answer.
All enquiries were closed and carried out by appointees of the Metropolitan Police.
Reply
He did? I suppose there's a first time for everything; though I don't think that this is it.
So far, the skeptic camps appear to be taking two general approaches in their response to Muir Russell:
Firstly: to shoot the messenger - which is to say that Muir Russell (and the Oxburgh report in April and the Science & Technology Select Committee report in March and the parallel UPenn investigation) were all partial, biased, untrustworthy, short-sighted or a combination of the previous.
Thus McIntyre's initial response, ditto Anthony Watts, ditto Benny Peiser's announcement that the GWPF were going to set up their own inquiry into the three previous inquiries.
The second is to talk down the science and talk up the FoI censure; to take what could be taken out of the report as potential ammunition.
(I'm not going to give specific links; a quick trawl around the usual places will turn up enough of this.)
He noted that there have been 48 separate complaints against the Metropolitan ( ... )
Reply
While we're on the latin tags, better to ask cui bono?
Reply
If I can quote your words of last December:
'however Climatye Change has become an article of religious faith and bad science is being used to support it, along with obstruction of those who wish to actually enquire and actual destruction of data upon which the models (which the editorial speaks of in glowing terms) were built.
It is therefore impossible to reconstruct these models or to run these simulations. We cannot say "Yes, I have run identical data sets here and your answers were correct within margins of error".'
One of the things that Muir Russell did as part of their investigation was just such a reconstruction.
To quote sections 6.4.13-14:
'13. To carry out the analysis we obtained raw primary instrumental temperature station data. This can be obtained either directly from the appropriate National Meteorological Office (NMO) or by consulting the World Weather ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment