4 ms·
For those who mentioned there are many good reasons for the data to be adjusted: - the fact that data is adjusted predominantly toward a worming trend and the
by radu_floricica 17y ago
For those who mentioned there are many good reasons for the data to be adjusted:
- the fact that data is adjusted predominantly toward a worming trend and the fact that we do not have an official reason for this is suspicious
- we need "the other guy's version" to make an informed opinion
- you cannot talk about good science without some degree of openness. No matter what the data shows you need all of it to be verifiable and reproducible, otherwise something is very wrong.
- Tichy 17y agoIt doesn't seem possible to get an informed opinion on this subject anymore. Reading "another guy's version" does not really make for better information. Note that publishing a plethora of contradictory information is tried and proven political strategy (FUD).
- radu_floricica 17y agoWe as laymen can't really trust a source, any source. But we can still reasonably trust a process. If we hear that a part is not "showing the math", the process is flawed. Why do we trust physicians or mathematicians? Why don't psychologists or historians have the same disputes? It's not the difficulty or fuzziness of the subject that's the difference, it's the process: openness and reproducibility.
- Tichy 17y agoI think it is also that not a lot of people get worked up about mathematics. With the climate thing, a lot of money and lifestyle issues are at stake. I don't even trust complaints about "not showing the maths". With creationists it is the same, they always claim that the science of evolution is shoddy, but it isn't true. They pick some obscure details nobody cares about, but if you don't know much about evolution theory, you might be fooled. With the climate debate likewise I might not be able to tell which calculations are relevant and which aren't.