Re: Climate Scientist Steps Down


"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:clark-FFD050.08103207122009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4b1cef84$0$5358$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Moderate" <sparky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <wclark2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wclark2-B41A75.07003507122009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4b1cea81$0$5328$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Moderate" <sparky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <wclark2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wclark2-A0A21D.22242306122009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <MPG.2585ec944577fef989859@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
BAR <screw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <wclark2-7E220E.16104606122009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
state.edu>, wclark2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

In article <4b1c1510$0$17351$882e0bbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
assimilate@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On 6-Dec-2009, BAR <screw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Don't worry if it doesn't make sense. It doesn't have to!

If these wingnuts knew the first thing about science (which
they
manifestly do not) they would know it is based on
probability
in
the
light of data and evidence, and not on the absolute
certainty
that
blind, ignorant, prejudice provides. That is how
corporations
and
the
loony right sandbag proper debate and progress on important
issues.

Does proper debate mean shunning, preventing from publication
and
shutting out from the debate other scientists who hold views
contrary to
yours?

does it also mean hiding or destroying raw data that would
allow
other
scientists to replicate their results or not?

Destroying and hiding raw data? Which information was that? All
the
referenced publications that Mann and co. criticized were
included
in
the IPCC Report. Strange way to "hide" or "delete" data.

Billy you are a tool. If you can't replicate Mann and co's results
because Mann and co have destroyed the original data that Mann and
co
used to produce the publicaitons that Mann and co produced, then
Mann
and co's publications are useless.

They have not "destroyed the data". You are clearly the tool here.

So you have a source that refutes the source Bill-o posted?

Of course not.

No need; his claim is unfounded, it is up to him to produce the
"evidence". Nice attempt to deflect yet again, though.

He just posted the evidence. You did not read the link.

Talk about looking foolish.

He posted a statement, not evidence. The raw data in question is less
than 5% of the UEA CRU's total, and was all stored in an alternative
form anyway. NOAA still has the original raw data, so you can go and
retrieve it, as I am sure you and Bert will want to carry out your own
statistical analysis of it.

If NOAA is anything like NASA you will have to sue to get it.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Climate Scientist Steps Down
    ... Destroying and hiding raw data? ... referenced publications that Mann and co. criticized were included ... If you can't replicate Mann and co's results ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Climate Scientist Steps Down
    ... Destroying and hiding raw data? ... referenced publications that Mann and co. criticized were ... If you can't replicate Mann and co's results ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Climate Scientist Steps Down
    ... Destroying and hiding raw data? ... referenced publications that Mann and co. criticized were included ... If you can't replicate Mann and co's results ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Climate Scientist Steps Down
    ... Destroying and hiding raw data? ... referenced publications that Mann and co. criticized were ... If you can't replicate Mann and co's results ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Climate Scientist Steps Down
    ... Destroying and hiding raw data? ... If you can't replicate Mann and co's results ... and co's publications are useless. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)