re: #6 Gang of One

I say that it is interesting because it has made me think more about the possibility that I may have been wrong about all this.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, just in case anyone needs me to clarify my position again. In regards to pro/con AGW, I don’t understand the science enough to firmly stand in either camp. On a high level, there seems to be warming going on, but that’s as far as I could explain it to myself.

In regards to the hacked emails and documents from CRU at UEA, it’s not a beginning, middle and end narrative. Bit’s and pieces of this and that does not make a iron clad case.

But what this whole incident has done, similar to what you say, it has opened up myself to looking further into this. What I feel I have learned is that these scientist did not apply “best procedure” in regards to their information technology processes. Legacy data was not destroyed, but it was possibly not saved, according to their own admission. Coding techniques for building the software that was used to analyze the data was sloppy, and the coding, while probably workable, lends itself to errors if not kept a fine eye on.

It looks to me like there could be some straightening up that needs to be done at CRU, concerning data analyzing and information technology procedure and processes.

Does this change the over all AGW model, as presented by these scientist, I don’t think so. What may be necessary is that faith and trust be cultured again between CRU and the rest of the public. It certainly couldn’t hurt.