re: #381 Walter L. Newton

Everyone talks about peer-reviewed science, well guess what, any large company that would peer-review CRU’s programming and data base construction techniques would give it THUMBS DOWN.

As would I. I’m a programmer by trade. Thumbs down.

I think what I’m trying to explain is… CRU and Hadcrut3 have an arguably murky and questionable history now. I disagree, personally, but a good debate comes from giving ground to either side in order to move the conversation forward. Here, I am willing to write off both CRU and Hadcrut3 as irreparably compromised. You don’t need to spend any more paragraphs explaining why.

What I’m pointing out is that even with both of these out of the picture, CRU’s models aren’t the only model, Hadcrut3 is not the only data, and CRU’s data interpolation techniques aren’t the only widely-used technique.

And yet somehow, everyone has independently come to the same conclusion.

You seem like a smart guy, (and I hope you’re willing to assume the same about me), so you have to understand why from a sheer probability perspective, given the number of independent variables, I am more inclined to believe this means the underlying supposition is correct. Occam’s Razor.

Clearly, we disagree here. You appear to believe (and correct me if I’m wrong), that all of the research on AGW is tainted because of the problems with CRU and Hadcrut3. Either directly, because of pollution of the end product, or indirectly due to shared errors in data processing techniques, or mistakes in the original data itself.

And I respectfully just can’t come with you on that. I’m sorry.