Newmark’s Door provides a bakers dozen of links that examine and analyze the hacked CRU papers.
Also, no surpise to find an article titled NCAR: Researchers’ leaked e-mails don’t undermine climate science in the Boulder Daily Camera.
Controversial e-mails written by well-respected Boulder climate scientists that were posted online last week do not cast doubt on the researchers’ peer-reviewed papers on global warming, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
In a fairly balanced article, the Daily Camera neglects to mention e-mails that point towards the corruption of the peer review process.
Which brings me back Newmark’s Door and this quotation in his posting where a statistician is analyzing the original (and now debunked) hockey stick graph…
A noted statistician, after reviewing the hockey stick paper and ensuing controversy, stated: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.” (p. 10)
Of course, it was only a few weeks a go that Clay Evans editorialized about global warming in the Daily Camera. Now when the statisticians agree with the global warming side, their evidence is apparently damning…
First, the cooling myth: The Associated Press administered a blind test to four independent statisticians, using global temperature data but not disclosing what the numbers represented. Asked to look for trends, the stat guys were unanimous: “The experts found no true temperature declines over time,” despite the fact that 1998 was a record temperature year.
The key question that inquiring minds would like answered, especially now, is the validity/integrity of the data set. Who can blame them when the computer code contains numerous comments about adjusting the data? For example…
Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?…
The global warming activists and especially the CRU defenders probably wish this problem will go away. There’s a lot more explaining to do and I’ll predict that hanging all your defense on the “peer reviewed publishing makes it right” argument is a losing one.
I repeat my call for an Open Source model for all future global warming investigation.
