< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Climate science data shennanigans


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Climate science data shennanigans

Recently I've been following Steve McIntyre's blog. He's the guy questioning the statistical methodology and input data used in the work of the Mann et al. group of climate modellers which formed part of the basis for the International Panel on Climate Change findings that anthropogenic (human caused) global warming is occurring. (long sentence - whew).

McIntyre has long had problems gaining access to the raw data used by such climate modellers over the past two decades. As it turns out neither the climate 'science' field nor its largest journals insist on public archiving of raw data, so it's next to impossible for another independent researcher to replicate a given climate model without gaining the explicit consent of the initial modeller. You can imagine what problems this might cause if the independent researcher is skeptical of the model and modeller in question.

Here's a case McIntyre recently documented of a climate modeller refusing access to raw input data, gathered using taxpayer funding over a period of 25 years:
..in Feb. 2005, Hughes again emailed Jones requesting the data. On Feb. 21, 2005, Jones replied:

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed to pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data - which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

Don't forget to read Steve's Top Fifteen Reasons for Withholding Data or Code.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 10/17/2005 01:16:00 PM


Blogger Gooner said...

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it".

That's exactly why it should be passed on! Duh.

The IPCC is discredited by this very statement.

10/17/2005 01:38:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

The exact relationship between the researcher in question and the IPCC isn't clear.

What's disturbing is how these researchers are ignoring a fundamental tenet of science - providing others with the information necessary to check and replicate an experiment.

10/17/2005 01:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, AL, well said. Dave Mann here (but can't get my head around the login etc, sorry). The very basis of the scientific method is that experiments (or, in this case, the observation of data) should be both open for evaluation and repeatable: that's what makes it 'science' as opposed to hocus-pocus and superstition.
I think there must be UN megabucks just floating around for anybody who wants to pick it off the tree by inventing more scares of a pseudo-scientific nature to generate fear.
Its time we grew up as a species and had a realistic look at just what is going on here.
Why don't these 'climate change' fuckwits ask some very basic questions? Here is one... "Did those hairy mammoths cause the ice ages just by farting?" Jesus guys..
A very good rational appraisal of the question can be found at www.predictweather.com if anybody is interested.

10/17/2005 02:20:00 PM  
Anonymous andrei said...

Doesn't matter if global warming is real or not because we are all gonna die of
Bird flu

10/17/2005 08:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it really odd that you right winge types are so eager to believe that there is a not a scientific concensus on climate change, so eager to point out a range of scientific opinion,

yet you are so unwilling to accept that there is a range of scientific opinion on cannabis, so sure of the fact that cannabis must be bad.

10/19/2005 03:07:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anonymous, if you had a brain you might begin to comprehend that this 'right wing type' doesn't care much for your so called 'scientific consenus' on any issue. Too often one finds later it is 'scientific nonsensus.'

10/19/2005 06:09:00 AM  
Blogger Chefen said...

I am a scientist and do not "believe" the evidence as presented by a group of other scientists. I also know other scientists who think as I do. Whose consensus is right?
Science is not done by consensus.

10/19/2005 06:58:00 AM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

What I find really odd are people prefer to put themselves in the 'consensus' group when very good reasons exist to question the validity of that 'consensus' and, in fact, when science has nothing to do with how many people agree with you.

10/19/2005 09:30:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home