Re: OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J. Lodder)
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:17:43 +0100
Maria Conlon <conlonmaria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For Murray and others:
Here's an article from The Times Online --
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
or
http://tinyurl.com/yzvyoxh
-- about some lost data from Climate Change scientists.
The article begins=== SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which
their predictions of global warming are based.
Common practice, in science.
In many cases such corrections are even applied automatically.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations
said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The reduced data are still there.
The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss
following requests for the data under Freedom of Information
legislation.
Surprising that you can get raw data under this kind of act at all.
In some countries they are exempt.
As they should be, imho.
Raw data come with caveats, need corretions,
some of it may even need to be thrown away.
These are judgements that only the original experimenter
can be trusted with.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then
adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected.
The revised figures were kept, but the originals - stored on paper and
magnetic tape - were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new
building.===end excerpt.
Look at wat those swindlers at CERN are going to do.
They will let a computer select their raw data,
and keep only a tiny fraction of it.
(which will still fill a data warehouse)
And no doubt the original raw detector data
on basis of which Fermilab announced athe top quark
will nt be available either.
More generally, scientist are looking for the truth,
as best as they can. Generally they trust each other,
not to falsify data, and to handle data correctly.
They are not trying to prove something
under adversarial conditions, like in a lawsuit.
Forcing them to do so
would result in a great waste of resources,
and hamper progress greatly.
Best,
Jan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
- From: Richard Chambers
- Re: OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
- References:
- OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
- From: Maria Conlon
- OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
- Prev by Date: If he bring his action
- Next by Date: Re: The New York Times
- Previous by thread: Re: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
- Next by thread: Re: OT: More (or now, less?) about Climate Change
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
