Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:47:41 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:
Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.
While I agree the article makes the situation sound poor, I can't help
but to wonder how accurate it really is. There is obviously a bias
discernible in the style of writing.
Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?
It is completely normal in science
to not make raw data widely or publicly available, but to release it to
researchers selectively, usually with non-disclosure agreements in
place. This article does say that the data is released to some
researchers; it doesn't make clear how many or few, or how difficult it
is for researchers with good credentials to get access.
This ignores the political aspect of the material. If a government is
going to create legislation based on a scientific study, should the
governed not enjoy an opportunity to review the study, in full, source
data and all, *especially* if the governed paid for the study?
If the IPCC is relying on analyses from the CRU, and the CRU doesn't
publicly release source data, then on what basis should we trust their
findings and recommendations?
So without better information, I'd reserve judgment on Mr Jones.
Granted, his statement could have been made off the cuff while he was
in a bad mood and not thinking clearly.
--
Dave