Comment

Skeptical Science Debunks the Deniers

252
Walter L. Newton11/30/2009 4:59:57 pm PST

re: #228 SixDegrees

Not good.

The questions that need to be asked here, which the author of your link raises as well, are:

- Is the CRU able to reproduce it’s own past results?

- Is enough information and data available for anyone to reproduce CRU’s results?

They are reasonable, fundamental questions that stand at the very core of scientific inquiry. And no, it isn’t “attacking the scientists” to raise such questions. In fact, it’s a necessary step to proving them correct.

It would be much, much easier, and there would be much, much less controversy, if in answer to the question “Where is your original data?” the answer had been “Right here. Feel free to download it.” As I’ve stated before - to howls of derision - preservation of original data is standard in scientific research, for a number of reasons. Under some circumstances, it is a hard requirement; in other cases, it is just common sense. It’s one of the simplest measures available to guard against accusations of fraud, screw ups and sloppiness in research protocols, and it’s surprising, to say the least, to hear that it hasn’t been followed in this case.

No, I agree with you, as I read further down in that long article, it appears that there are connections now missing. I don’t think anyone could reconstruct the original data. It’s a matter of have records without having all the relational references for those records.

I’m not even going into anti-pro AGW or any of that. But there appears that there may have been some very unscientific and unethical problems in regards to some of these scientist. For me, the verdict is out, and the case is not closed.

We don’t have the full story yet.