View Story | 89 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I appreciate the quick response. It seems to me in all fairness if the code you refer to has been provided, his results previously, independently replicated the world over, and many predictions confirmed, that that objection is no longer significant, yes?
Read UTI, your free thought forum
by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:59:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
as an observation as to the reason for some of his criticism. I said he brought some of that on himself by holding back the code that produces his results. But yes that seems to have been resolved.
As for "independently replicated", I don't see how that would have been possible prior to his publishing his code in September, as far as GISS surface temp analysis goes, at least.
I suspect there will be minor quibbles about fudge factors for certain sites (that critics will blow out of proportion!). But still, he could have deflected a lot of criticism by being open much earlier.
I'll look into it further and post some links to what I find.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx
by Skeptical Bastard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:18:45 AM PDT
some information on him:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/...
http://info-pollution.com/...
http://www.marshall.org/...
by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:32:55 AM PDT
still being debated..
That sourcewatch entry is pretty slim.. here's the wikipedia entry on him..
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Still..you can't deny Hansen revised his warming stats last summer after McIntyre's analysis showed errors. So, while he's not part of the climate "community", whatever that may be, he seems to know his statitics and has an eye for anomalous data.
I, for one, am glad someone is taking a hard look at the numbers. That's what science is about.
by Skeptical Bastard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 89 comments