Science Under Attack [VIDEOS]

To Genealogy Master:

The content of your post indicates that you are using relatively old information; talking points formulated from over a year ago, it seems. I surmise that you have done little follow-up to these criticisms. If you had, you would’ve discovered that no less than three independent investigations of the CRU (and its data analyses) have occurred. All have exonerated the final scientific conclusions of their work, with some criticism/recommendations for improved data sharing, transparency of methodologies used, public communication, etc.

AS to your claim that “no legitimate criticism occurred in the review”, this untrue. But what are you calling “legitimate” here — only criticism that refutes their claims, or that you agree with? Most such “peer review” occurs BEFORE the paper(s) are ever published. Following this, letters to the editor, criticizing a paper, may be published in the journal/magazine.

Additionally, professional societies and scientific organizations and academies also review, debate, and critique controversial findings/data results.

All of these things have occurred. This approach is legitimate for every other research center, or its published findings, why is it insufficient for CRU’s?

Science has no shortage of critical debate happening at any given moment…the problem is that most of this debate occurs away from the eyes of the public — a public that is only moderately, scientifically educated (at best) and which is often unaware of what is involved in establishing a scientific consensus.

Regarding “temperature data sets” — just how were they “tainted” exactly? I challenge you to produce (heretofore un-vetted) evidence (and explication) of this alleged tainting.

I believe that part of this “tainted temperature data” rumor was the result of flawed satellite date from one of the older NOAH satellites (NOAH 15, 16, 17). Satellites age and breakdown (their temperature sensors go hay-wire) just like people. The data feeds from these older, malfunctioning satellites were mistakenly kept on-line and used by a few erroneous academic studies — but never used in NASA/NOAH climate models, as both agencies were aware of the flawed sensor and simply stopped using the data.

These older ones have been taken off-line and replaced with a fully functioning satellite. The new temperature sensors are now functioning properly.

It is possible that some of this bad satellite data may have been mixed in with the DRU’s research/data analysis (I can not verify this)…but, if so, this bad data would show up as a statistical anomaly, and would normally be mathematically trivialized/discounted.

Despite this, the “flawed temp, data” meme keeps going, and going…thanks to well-meaning (I presume) but badly mistaken skeptics.