re: #394 windsagio

Not a big fan of absolutism, so let me turn it around. Do you think PR/Politics (or trying to appease the deniers) had nothing to do with it?

Of course they have something to do with just about everything. But a lot of the chatter up thread is that this is the ONLY reason the MET is doing it and it serves no scientific purpose.

What part of these proposals do you think is bad for the science?

From the Fox News article:

“verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data”

“methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;”

“a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,”

“comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;”
“robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities.”

And I do deal with absolutes in some cases. You absolutely cannot discuss this topic about the MET review proposal if you haven’t read the proposal. Did you read the proposal.