On further reflection, I oughtn't to make such a vague statement about a complex and sensitive matter. My view is that he is largely a victim (even if some of his internal communication was... incautious -- Hartham's Hugging Robots
That said, Phil Jones is an idiot. How can anyone defend not keeping the raw data on which you base much of your science? Jones claims that some of the raw data can be reconstructed using various blah blah blah. Fine. That's still kinda dodgy, but okay. But some of it he says they replaced the raw data with adjusted data for various reasons. That's completely unacceptable. Not using adjusted data. That is commonplace. But not keeping, anywhere, the original raw data? -- Justinian
Raw deal? Sure. Great scientist? No. -- Justinian
If we have “lost” any data it is the following:
1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series in the region.
2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that didn’t need adjusting.
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming -- and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <1>100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).
« Older B-Rhymes | Picture Book Report Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments