5 ms·

I'm sorry, isn't the elephant in the room the admission that the HadCRUT data was shown to be corrupted/inaccurate? And that a few lines of Perl automated the

I'm sorry, isn't the elephant in the room the admission that the HadCRUT data was shown to be corrupted/inaccurate? And that a few lines of Perl automated the error checking to such an extent that the errors just popped up? How exactly am I to have confidence in the rest of the numbers?

Tichy 17y ago
Have a link about the inaccuracy of HadCRUT data? Or are you referring to the small problem mentioned in the article? As it was fixable, I would assume it is not a problem anymore - it shows the scientific process worked for once.
- patrickgzill 17y ago
  Characterizing it as a small problem, and "fixable" seems to minimize the very obvious fact that a few lines of Perl caught problems that should have been caught well before the data was released.
  - shaddi 17y ago
    First, it's easy to tease out a previously unseen characteristic of a data set if you tickle it in the right way. Second, you may be underestimating the power of "a few lines of Perl." :)
  - Tichy 17y ago
    The data is public, so anybody could have double checked it and found that error. Somebody now did. This is how it should work - it is the only way it can work. Errors can always happen, but scientists are supposed to double check. If the error was deliberate, it would have made no sense to publish the data in such a way that the error could be caught easily.
- azgolfer 17y ago
  Here is the most recent sign that that data is 'cooked'. On Tuesday, the Moscow based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data... Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for unknown reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations, according to the IEA. http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/12/was_russian_climate_data_tampe.html http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/12/was_russian_cl...
  - Tichy 17y ago
    Believe what you want to believe. Since you are jumping to conclusions, I don't think discussion would make sense. The fact remains that the data set has been published openly. If it is cooked, everybody is free to point it out. I hope the IEA has published the missing data from the Russian territory? Then it should be a simple matter of another Perl script to complete the data. Problem solved. If you have a link to the missing data, please provide it. However, I don't think such a data set should just be used as a proof for anything. The perl script in the article her was an interesting play, but I don't think the person who wrote it is a climate researcher. He is just some guy visualizing some data that was floating around. The interpretation is another matter.

Tichy 17y ago

Have a link about the inaccuracy of HadCRUT data? Or are you referring to the small problem mentioned in the article? As it was fixable, I would assume it is not a problem anymore - it shows the scientific process worked for once.

patrickgzill 17y ago
Characterizing it as a small problem, and "fixable" seems to minimize the very obvious fact that a few lines of Perl caught problems that should have been caught well before the data was released.
- shaddi 17y ago
  First, it's easy to tease out a previously unseen characteristic of a data set if you tickle it in the right way. Second, you may be underestimating the power of "a few lines of Perl." :)
- Tichy 17y ago
  The data is public, so anybody could have double checked it and found that error. Somebody now did. This is how it should work - it is the only way it can work. Errors can always happen, but scientists are supposed to double check. If the error was deliberate, it would have made no sense to publish the data in such a way that the error could be caught easily.
azgolfer 17y ago
Here is the most recent sign that that data is 'cooked'. On Tuesday, the Moscow based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data... Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for unknown reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations, according to the IEA. http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/12/was_russian_climate_data_tampe.html http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/12/was_russian_cl...
- Tichy 17y ago
  Believe what you want to believe. Since you are jumping to conclusions, I don't think discussion would make sense. The fact remains that the data set has been published openly. If it is cooked, everybody is free to point it out. I hope the IEA has published the missing data from the Russian territory? Then it should be a simple matter of another Perl script to complete the data. Problem solved. If you have a link to the missing data, please provide it. However, I don't think such a data set should just be used as a proof for anything. The perl script in the article her was an interesting play, but I don't think the person who wrote it is a climate researcher. He is just some guy visualizing some data that was floating around. The interpretation is another matter.