Prev: Alan Alda is part of an innovative US project to help scientists communicate
Next: splitting water using sunlight
From: Mike Jr on 7 Mar 2010 06:08
On Mar 6, 4:59 am, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Mike Jr" <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ce29e309-9213-4104-b634-ef6f91b1da99(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >No, SMHI did not withhold data, Dr. Jones is misstating the original
> >letter.
>
> but the sweeds say that might be their fault...
>
> >"We understand now that our  response to your request forwarded by
> > UK MetOffice 30 November 2009  may have been misinterpreted,
> > maybe due to the fact that the formulations may have been a bit harsh."
>
> At the very least the letters show Jones went to the trouble of asking if
> the data could be released. eg he didn't just throw the FOI request in the
> bin.

One more point.

What the FOIA requests wanted were the raw data that Jones used so
that his results could be independently replicated. Jones clearly
didn't need permission to release the raw SMHI data as it was freely
available. But Jones had a responsibility to say exactly what that
raw data that he used was. Jones could have answered the FOIA
requests by saying "Go to SMHI and ask for the following raw
datasets ...".

Replication standard
- Gary King, Harvard, 1995
http://gking.harvard.edu/projects/repl.shtml
- "The replication standard holds that sufficient information exists
with which to understand, evaluate, and build upon a prior work if a
third party can replicate the results without any additional
information from the author."
- The only way to understand and evaluate an empirical analysis fully
is to know the exact process by which the data were generated
- Replication dataset include all information necessary to replicate
empirical results

As a scientist, Jones knows the importance of independent
replication. Instead Jones chose to stone wall the FOIA requests
"because you are trying to find something wrong". Well no duh. That
is what the scientific process IS.

Something cannot claim to be scientific truth until it is
independently replicated scientific truth.

--Mike Jr.
From: isw on 7 Mar 2010 23:30
In article
<8edb4c31-cc32-4447-8503-32907b139a0f(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> As a scientist, Jones knows the importance of independent
> replication. Instead Jones chose to stone wall the FOIA requests
> "because you are trying to find something wrong". Well no duh. That
> is what the scientific process IS

No; it's trying to find out what's *right*.

Isaac
From: Mike Jr on 8 Mar 2010 04:14
On Mar 7, 11:30 pm, isw <i...(a)witzend.com> wrote:
> In article
> <8edb4c31-cc32-4447-8503-32907b139...(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
>  Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > As a scientist, Jones knows the importance of independent
> > replication.  Instead Jones chose to stone wall the FOIA requests
> > "because you are trying to find something wrong".  Well no duh.  That
> > is what the scientific process IS
>
*> No; it's trying to find out what's *right*.
>
> Isaac

.... by independently replicating the results. Until the results can
be independently replicated it is not scientific truth.

That is my point.

--Mike Jr.
From: isw on 8 Mar 2010 23:52
In article
<527020fc-2446-4d66-80b7-b8ac2ef0de58(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 11:30�pm, isw <i...(a)witzend.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8edb4c31-cc32-4447-8503-32907b139...(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As a scientist, Jones knows the importance of independent
> > > replication. �Instead Jones chose to stone wall the FOIA requests
> > > "because you are trying to find something wrong". �Well no duh. �That
> > > is what the scientific process IS
> >
> *> No; it's trying to find out what's *right*.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> ... by independently replicating the results. Until the results can
> be independently replicated it is not scientific truth.
>
> That is my point.

And to do that *properly*, you don't start with data the other party's
had their hands on. For one, if you already don't trust them, why would
you ever trust any data they've had an opportunity to "massage"?

You start with your own independently gathered data, just as the other
party did. Then go from there and see whether your results agree or not.
THEN PUBLISH; don't go for it on a blog.

Isaac
From: Mike Jr on 9 Mar 2010 06:56
On Mar 8, 11:52 pm, isw <i...(a)witzend.com> wrote:
> In article
> <527020fc-2446-4d66-80b7-b8ac2ef0d...(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>  Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 11:30 pm, isw <i...(a)witzend.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <8edb4c31-cc32-4447-8503-32907b139...(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > As a scientist, Jones knows the importance of independent
> > > > replication.  Instead Jones chose to stone wall the FOIA requests
> > > > "because you are trying to find something wrong".  Well no duh.  That
> > > > is what the scientific process IS
>
> > *> No; it's trying to find out what's *right*.
>
> > > Isaac
>
> > ... by independently replicating the results.  Until the results can
> > be independently replicated it is not scientific truth.
>
> > That is my point.
>
> And to do that *properly*, you don't start with data the other party's
> had their hands on. For one, if you already don't trust them, why would
> you ever trust any data they've had an opportunity to "massage"?
>
> You start with your own independently gathered data, just as the other
> party did. Then go from there and see whether your results agree or not.
> THEN PUBLISH; don't go for it on a blog.
>
> Isaac

Rubbish.

Start with your own Swedish temperature records for the last 100
years? No. Jones has a responsibility to identify the subset that he
used or he can always claim "wrong rock". "You need to use a rock.
Which rock? You know, a rock rock. How about this rock? No, wrong
rock."

"The only way to understand and evaluate an empirical analysis fully
is to know the exact process by which the data were generated."

Jones adjusted the Swedish temperature data. To understand his
empirical analysis you need to see what he started with (right rock)
and the adjustments that he made to both show that those adjustments
indeed produce the results claimed and to ascertain if there is
physical warrant for those adjustments.

This is science. You remember science. Like the 9th grade biology
that I am sure you took.

--Mike Jr.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Alan Alda is part of an innovative US project to help scientists communicate
Next: splitting water using sunlight