This is huge - if you can't trust the data, you can't trust the results. The science is settled? Orlly?In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, the research arm of the National Research Council, released a study expressing concern about the accuracy of the data used in the debate over climate change. They said there are,“Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records,” that “place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.”
3 comments:
Yep, when they DELETE raw data that doesn't agree with their model, I have 'issues' with that...
I agree with Old NFO on that point. We had people over the years in the development lab that I worked in that deleted results that didn't agree with what they wanted them to be. The ones that got caught were fired. It's all a matter of integrity.
I also wonder how often their instruments are calibrated. If ever. Most industries are bound by ISO 9000 standards where every piece of measuring equipment must be calibrated by an outside certified agency. Testing protocols are also certified to assure accuracy in methodology. I guess that there is nothing like that in the academic world..........
It amazes me that they can claim to collect data from thousands of locations , "correct" for an unknown number of varables. Then boil it all done to a single number they claim is the "Golbal average temperature. (Assuming that there is such a thing) and then insist that the number is accurate to 2 decimal points.
The more complex the math, the faster you need to count your change.
Post a Comment