Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
National Review Online, via Ace of Spades, with a tip of the hat to I Think Therefore I Err.
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
:
Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist…wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Ay-yup…and then it, uh, gets weird.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
I can’t remember if it was here I read this or somewhere else, but someone pointed out that the entire point of scientific research, is to find something wrong with claims and prior data as one searches for the truth. Indeed, my 12th grade physics textbook made a big point out of defining the term “scientific claim” as, “A claim for which a test exists which could prove it wrong.”
The statement from Hughes is the most disgusting, agenda-driven piece of garbage I’ve read from a “scientist” in years. Kind of tells you all you need to know about the people who promote MMGW.
- cylarz | 09/29/2009 @ 12:28Real scientists call that “peer review”.
See, you publish your paper, and your paper has to say where you got your data, how you treated it, justify your reasoning in manipulating it, and if there’s no public source for it, yeah, publish it with the paper.
That was back when science was more about science than funding.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has been the goose that laid the golden egg to scientists who are about funding, and they protect it as such. Sadly, this means that most of the peers don’t really review. So it was rather embarrasing for this chap to be asked to reproduce his results. Because he had grown to expect not to be questioned on this subject.
Back in the day, that paper would’ve been laughed out of the room, and the scientist discredited until he could prove his research process had developed rigor in scientific method.
- philmon | 09/29/2009 @ 20:53