re: #798 SixDegrees

It isn’t really accurate to call this a vindication. The problem is that CRU no longer has the actual data they used to arrive at their published conclusions, and it appears that it is impossible to reproduce that dataset exactly due to poor bookkeeping and archiving procedures. In addition, some of the sources of original data used were proprietary, making their release problematic even if all the other problems were resolved. What MET is undertaking is the production of a global dataset with a detailed history and process standing behind it, all of which is freely available to anyone for the asking.

It should also be able to serve as the basis for a statistical analysis of CRU’s previous results, and put well established bounds on the likelihood that they contain errors. Such an analysis, however, is beyond the scope of MET’s work.

Data is vindicated by having other groups replicate the results, not by inquiries into a particular group.

The CRU has been vindicated by the only standard that matters, the scientific one.

That you would argue that somehow this standard does not apply, or is not relevant, and that you keep doggedly refusing to see that fact, only shows that you have no concept of how science works, or even what it is at the most basic level.