re: #254 sod

It’s been since the climategate emails came out that I read any of them and I didn’t read all of them at that time either, but, one thing I remember being kind of surprised about was the seeming almost complete lack of control over data integrity.

They were basically just emailing zip files back and forth to each other was what I remember. No central repository. No software enforced versioning system. No checksums. No software source control.

I think if Mann went to a court of law to prove AGW it’d be thrown out due to improper handling of the evidence - ie. the data.

Please note I’m only commenting on the apparent lack of rudimentary controls that programmers and others use to ensure and verify data integrity, not on anything else.

ON what do you possibly base this? The source data was checked an rechecked by the entire scientific community. The National Academy has vindicated it as kosher. That is a much higher standard of proof than exists in any court of law. So is looking out the window in Texas. Care to explain the droughts for the last decade?

As to the so called fake controversy ginned up by climategate there was absolutely nothing - repeat nothing that showed any sort of misbehaviour on the part of the scientists.

Also for the record, if the ginned up false charges made by the right wing by taking quotes out of context is what you are using to doubt Mann then it should be pointed out that Mann is at Penn State - not East Anglia where the climategate mails came from. It doesn’t affect him one bit.

You are something of a fool.