re: #21 Aceofwhat?

Yeah, but that’s scientists for you. Having worked both as a lab rat and as an operations manager in the ‘corporate world’ has been interesting. All of the scientists that i worked were academically honest, driven individuals…but messy and a little scatterbrained…like me. More importantly, they were in charge of their own lab.

That’s the important part, because only in a more rigid corporate setting did I see a greater rigor imposed on the development of a solution, because you aren’t in charge of your own lab. every single detail is open for criticism, including how you go about your work.

All that aside, I think it defies rational thinking to believe that scientists all over the world are colluding to the degree necessary to cover up data, misrepresent equations, etc. My faith is in the sheer number of smart people who are arriving at a similar conclusion…i have some questions, too, but they’re mostly about what we do next.

And I never implied that “scientists all over the world are colluding to the degree necessary to cover up data, misrepresent equations, etc.” did it?

I have worked, as a programmer, as a IT professional, in a research situation, with over 700 scientist, and I know how sloppy they can be in regards to data processing procedures.

And the try to build their own data collection and analyzing applications, they code themselves into a corner, and suddenly we have an “orphaned” application that became my baby.

So, like I say, this whole “hacking” incident did introducing me to something that I think is going on at CRU, sloppiness, the same sort of sloppiness that I have seen year after year, before, with scientist I have worked with.

It doesn’t make the science invalid, but in the case of the CRU at UEA, it appears that their cage has been rattled and they have some cleaning up to do, so future science done there is nice and neat.